IDS.410J | Spring 2013 | Graduate

Modeling and Assessment for Policy

Projects

Class Case Studies

Over the course of the semester, you will, as part of a small group, research and present one case study of modeling and assessment for policy to the rest of the class. These are noted in the Calendar as Class Case Study 1–6.

At the beginning of the semester, you will let us know your top three choices and we will assign you to a group. The six case study topics are:

  1. NASA’s Model Standard
  2. Economic Modeling
  3. Oil Spill
  4. Clean Air
  5. Sports Statistics
  6. Cancer Screening

General instructions, as well as a one-page briefing with initial topic references will be provided by the instructors four weeks prior to your presentation date. One week before your presentation, your group will circulate a short briefing paper to the class on the case (maximum 5 pages single-spaced) as well as any additional background readings you suggest for preparation. On the day of your presentation, please prepare 20–30 minutes of presentation and discussion questions for the class. As part of developing this case, each group will meet with the teaching staff to discuss both substantive case study lessons and presentation plans. Your briefing paper and class presentation will be worth 15% of your final grade; your group will also be asked to comment on another’s presentation (5%).

Case Study Memo

Your 5-page memo, and class presentation, should address the following questions:

  • What is the goal of the technically-focused policy analysis? Put another way, what decision needs to be made?
  • Who is or was the decision-maker?
  • What technical information is or was available to inform this decision? Was a particular model or statistical approach used?
  • Who conducted the technical analysis and how?
  • How was the technical information viewed by the decision-makers?
  • What policy decision was made, and what were its implications?
  • What general lessons can you draw from this case about the use of technical information in policy?

In your memo, you should provide your classmates with enough background information to understand the basics of the issue, the technical analysis, and the decision-making process. You should also include your analysis and main insights drawn from the case.

At the conclusion of your memo, please include:

  • A list of suggested further readings (3–5). Note which you will expect your classmates to have read, and which are supplementary. All will be posted on the course website. Use your judgment about the length of the readings.
  • 3-5 questions for class discussion.

Class Case Study Reviewers

The reviewer group will have 15 minutes to lead class discussion in response to the case study group’s presentation. In order to do this effectively, the reviewer group should coordinate beforehand, discuss the case materials, and prepare 2–3 slides to identify the issues they would like to raise with the class.

Potential areas of further discussion that the review group might consider are:

  • Critiques of the case group’s conclusions or lessons from the case.
  • Aspects of the case that the group may have overlooked, or not focused specifically on, that the review group thinks are relevant and / or interesting.
  • Relationship of the case to other cases or class discussions: general lessons, comparing or contrasting to other cases.

The teams have provided their case study memo and reading list as examples of student work for your reference.

INSTRUCTIONS TEAM MEMOS READINGS
NASA’s Model Standard (PDF)

The Columbia Incident and NASA’s Standard for Modeling and Simulation (PDF)

(Courtesy of Hisham Bedri, Erin Leidy, Daniela Miao, Jason Ryan, and Yi Xue. Used with permission.)

Green, Lawrence L., Steve R. Blattnig, et al. “An Uncertainty Structure Matrix for Models and Simulations.” (PDF) American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (2008).

Smith, Marcia S. [“NASA’s Space Shuttle Columbia: Synopsis of the Report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.” (PDF)](http://history.nasa.gov/columbia/Troxell/Columbia Web Site/Documents/Congress/CRS Summary of CAIB Report.pdf) CRS Report for Congress (2003).

Steele, Martin J. “The NASA Standard for Models and Simulations.” Proceedings of the 2007 Summer Computer Simulation Conference (2007).

Hale, Wayne. All blog entries posted in “After Ten Years.” Wayne Hale’s Blog.

Economic Modeling (PDF)

The Subprime Mortgage Crisis and Macroeconomic Models (PDF)

(Courtesy of Franco Chingcuanco, Jareth Holt, and Neha Mehta. Used with permission.)

Krugman, Paul. “How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?The New York Times. September 2, 2009.

Chari, Varadarajan V., and Patrick J. Kehoe. “Modern Macroeconomics in Practice: How Theory is Shaping Policy.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 20, no. 4 (2006): 3–28.

Woodford, Michael. “Convergence in Macroeconomics: Elements of the New Synthesis.” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 1, no. 1 (2009): 267–79.

Oil Spill (PDF)

Policy Brief: Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (PDF)

(Courtesy of Chidube Ezeozue, Stephen Maouyo, Julia Moline, Ralph Turlington, and Ekene Umeike. Used with permission.)

McNutt, Marcia K., Steven Chu, et al. “Applications of Science and Engineering to Quantify and Control the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, no. 50 (2012): 20222–8.

National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. “The Amount and Fate of the Oil. Staff Working Paper No. 3.” (PDF) Originally Released October 6, 2010. Updated January 11, 2011. (Document in the public domain.)

Guardian research. “BP Oil Spill Timeline,” The Guardian, 22 July, 2010.

National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, Final Report, Chapter 5: “Response and Containment”. (PDF - 3.8MB) 11 January 2011. (Document in the public domain.)

Clean Air (PDF)

Setting of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone (PDF)

(Courtesy of Abdulla AlMisnad, Justin Ketterer, and Nina Schuchman. Used with permission.)

Fact Sheet: Final Revisions To The National Ambient Air Quality Standards For Ozone. (PDF) Accessed February 19, 2014. (Document is by the Environmental Protection Agency, and is in the public domain.)

McClellan, Roger O., Mark W. Frampton, et al. “Critical Considerations in Evaluating Scientific Evidence of Health Effects of Ambient Ozone: A Conference Report.” Inhalation Toxicology 21, no. S2 (2009): 1–36.

Walsh, Bryan. “EPA’s New Ozone Limit: Not Enough?Time Magazine, March 13, 2008.

Smog v. Jobs: Is Obama Admin Endangering U.S. Environment, Public Health with Retreat on Smog Standards?Democracy Now. September 7, 2011.

OAQPS Staff. “Review of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: Policy Assessment of Scientific and Technical Information.” (PDF - 8.61MB) Accessed February 19, 2014. (Document is by the Environmental Protection Agency, and is in the public domain.)

Sports Statistics (PDF)

The Application and Impact of Numerical Models for Decision-Making in Sports (PDF)

(Courtesy of Jordan James Foley, Roi Guinto, Nocola Ricci, and Marcus Wu Shihong. Used with permission.)

XOtericate. “Basic Football Part 1.” August 15, 2010. YouTube video, 10:52. Optional introduction to football video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwDx3wDvSbE

Johnson, Robert. “An Introduction to Football Modelling at Smartodds Oxford SIAM Conference 2011.” (PDF) (2011).

Oliver, Dean. “Guide to the Total Quarterback Rating.” ESPN. August 4, 2011.

Stuart, Chase. “Analyzing ESPN’s Total Quarterback Rating.” The Fifth Down: The New York Times N. F. L. Blog. November 22, 2011.

Wild New Twists in Big Ben Investigation.” FOX Sports on MSN. April 16, 2010.

McCallum, Jack. “The Hangover: Roethlisberger.” Sports Illustrated. May 10, 2010.

Cancer Screening (PDF)

Breast Cancer Screening: A Case Study in Using Models to Inform Preventive Approaches (PDF)

(Courtesy of Julie McNamara, and Jennifer Rood, and two anonymous MIT students. Used with permission.)

US Preventive Services Task Force. “Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.” Annals of Internal Medicine 151, no. 10 (2009): 716.

Mandelblatt, Jeanne S., Kathleen A. Cronin, et al. “Effects of Mammography Screening Under Different Screening Schedules: Model Estimates of Potential Benefits and Harms.” Annals of Internal Medicine 151, no. 10 (2009): 738–47.

Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations for Women at Average Risk.” Susan G. Komen®, accessed February 20, 2014. Pay particular attention to the Figure 3.1, which compares different recommendations, but the other information is useful, too.

Gottlieb, Scott. “Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee.” The Wall Street Journal. February 16, 2012.

Boyles, Salynn. “New Mammogram Screening Guidelines FAQ.” WebMD, accessed February 20, 2014.

Breast Cancer Screening (PDQ®)” PubMed Health. Last updated December 3, 2013.

H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute. “New Frontiers in Breast Cancer Screening.” Science Daily. April 5, 2013.

Maillart, Lisa M., Julie Simmons Ivy, et al. “Assessing Dynamic Breast Cancer Screening Policies.” Operations Research 56, no. 6 (2008): 1411–27.