- [Voiceover] This video introduces a new approach
developed by the MITRE Corporation
to improve governance of public institutions.
It is called the MITRE PCAPS,
The Platform for Computational Analysis of Public Systems.
While applicable to a broad range of public sector reforums,
for this presentation, we'll focus our appoach
on judicial reforums and mapping,
using data pertaining to the national court system
of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan.
Through this example, we demonstrate
how computational methods can produce
greater confidence in decision making
regarding judicial maps and infrastructure.
There are several reasons why judicial mapping
can be a particularly hard problem.
First, a new map must satisfy the varied functional
and societal criteria introduced
by many different stakeholders.
One can see the inevitable tradeoffs that policymakers
face when trying to satisfy all of these criteria
with limited resources.
It becomes a challenge for policymakers
to qualify a given map as both optimal
and consistant with stakeholder priorities.
Second, these criteria draw upon a diverse set of factors,
adding further criteria and factors to satisfy
a broader set of stakeholders increasingly complicates
the development of a new judicial map.
Third, the judiciary is part of a complex social system,
making it difficult to anticipate
how the public's perceptions and use of the courts
will change as reforms are enacted over time.
MITRE has created a novel technical approach
for developing judicial maps,
by combining methods and techniques
from the social sciences with those from computer science.
With this approach, one can be confident
in the quality of the analytics,
confident in the use of large and diverse data
that supports decision making,
and confident in the transparency
of the underlying processes
for creating and evaluating judicial maps.
There are four stages of our innovative approach.
Measurement, in which we assess the current
judicial map to find opportunity for change.
Formulation, in which we produce a wider range of choice
for evaluation.
Rationalization, in which we enable greater understanding of
and transparency for potential decisions.
And implementation, in which we provide
for the standard expectations for high quality
policymaking and effective implementation.
Measurement: it is always a challenge to relate
stakeholder criteria to real world circumstances.
To bridge this gap, we first determine relevant indicators
of judicial system performance and value,
in both court operations and the broader society.
With these indicators, we can then identify the factors
and corresponding data needed to conceptualize
the system for assessment.
To establish a baseline for a mapping,
we'll seek diverse data relevant to the judicial system,
such as geospatial and geopolitical data,
population settlements with demographic
and sociocultural details,
transportation and telecommunication networks,
and commercial, economic and professional data.
We'll also seek information about court facilities,
including details of staffing and other key resources,
case loads and historical performance data.
We even look for sentiment data about the current
opinions of the population.
Then we use advanced techniques to analyze this data,
acquired from government, public,
private and social sources.
If we're concerned about the data availability or quality,
we'll use techniques to synthesize data,
or select acceptable proxy data.
Formulation: with support from domain experts
and social scientists, we use this diverse data
to construct an operational model that encompasses
the conditions, resources, demand and performance
of the system for judicial mapping.
The MITRE PCAPS can evaluate maps against
a broader set of criteria.
In this example, we search through
all possible judicial maps to find those
that are most optimal, meaning they deliver maximum value
within a given set of factors.
We also want to find those that are most robust,
meaning they perform well in spite of uncertainties
in future conditions, decisions,
and possible societal responses to change.
And we want to find those that are most popular,
the degree to which all stakeholders
feel their criteria have been satisfied.
To evaluate all the possible judicial maps,
even at a rate of one per second,
would take literally forever.
However, we can accelerate this process significantly,
to rapidly discover the frontier of judical maps
that could be considered among the best
from several points of view.
Rationalization: even with the steps we've already taken,
there are numerous best maps in the frontier,
each satisfying our criteria to differing degrees.
So we use further techniques to narrow them down
to a small set of maps, sufficiently divergent
and representative of choice for policymakers to evaluate.
We provide policymakers and reformers
with an immersive, interactive, and intuitive experience
for evaluating judicial maps,
so they may explore the relationships between
criteria, resourse allocation, and outcomes.
This flexibility makes it easier for them to create
the most acceptable map for their stakeholders.
Implementation: once policymakers have selected
their judicial map,
we can determine a sequence of implementation actions
that deliver value, control costs, and reduce risks
earlier in reform efforts.
Through sensitivity analysis, we can evaluate
the effects of uncertainty and select
the most critical aspects of system performance
to instument for monitoring.
These monitoring points become the early predictors
of systemic progress or failure.
With predictive analytics, we can develop benchmarks,
so that court administrators and stakeholders
can assess reforms throughout their implementation.
By sustaining data collection, policymakers can apply
this capability in perpetuity,
repeating this analytic cycle by continually assessing
the judicial map according to shifting priorities.
In conclusion, we believe in this innovative approach
for improving governance of public institutions.
It provides for greater coherence, flexibility,
balance, and rationale in decision making,
and can be tailored to the features and needs
of many nations.