A Normative Methodology for the US Army Corps of Engineers Operational Research & Development Project Selection
Main Article Content
Research
Scalable Weighted Operational R&D Decision (SWORD) Tool, Decision Analysis, Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC), R&D, Playbook v1.0
Abstract
USACE is currently without a scalable, normative decision support tool that aids districts and major subordinate commands (MSC), in the prioritization of operational Civil Works research and development (R&D) initiatives. As part of the newly designed operational R&D budget build methodology in 2022, this research develops a process to fill this void. This research presents a novel design for a decision support tool, that’s results will aid in the decision maker’s analysis of project prioritization and increase the overall value of R&D initiatives in context of MSC portfolios. The Scalable Weighted Operational R&D Decision (SWORD) Tool will build upon the current objectives outlined by ERDC in their Operational Research & Development Playbook v1.0 to ensure alignment to the new ERDC operational R&D process. Moreover, the ERDC validated SWORD Tool supports commensurate adjustments, ensuring future project portfolios continue to reflect command priorities.
Article Sidebar
Article Details
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
The copyediting stage is intended to improve the flow, clarity, grammar, wording, and formatting of the article. It represents the last chance for the author to make any substantial changes to the text because the next stage is restricted to typos and formatting corrections. The file to be copyedited is in Word or .rtf format and therefore can easily be edited as a word processing document. The set of instructions displayed here proposes two approaches to copyediting. One is based on Microsoft Word's Track Changes feature and requires that the copy editor, editor, and author have access to this program. A second system, which is software independent, has been borrowed, with permission, from the Harvard Educational Review. The journal editor is in a position to modify these instructions, so suggestions can be made to improve the process for this journal.
References
Clemen, R. T., & Reilly, T. (2013). Making Hard Decisions with DecisionTools. Cengage Learning.
Dam, Rikke. Interaction Design Foundation (2022). 5 Stages in the Design Thinking Process. https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/5-stages-in-the-design-thinking-process
Hanrahan, Robert P. (1995). The IDEF Process Modeling Methodology. Software Technology Support Center.
http://www.sba.oakland.edu/faculty/mathieson/mis524/resources/readings/idef/idef.html
Pittman, D., Buchanan, P., & Quimby, D. (2021, March). The Power of ERDC: ERDC 2020–2030 Strategy. ERDC; Engineer Research and Development Center (U.S.). https://hdl.handle.net/11681/40382
Spellmon, Scott. (2022, November). Operational R&D Workshop.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (2022). Operational Research and Development Playbook (Version 1.0). 1-15.
How to Cite
