Some Basic Considerations on the Design and the Interpretation of Indicators. . .
11
already in this step by modelling these relations individually and accurately
according to the original intention and objective of the indicator.
Step 4: risk measure
The next step in the workflow is the determination of a scale for the expected
risk in consequence of a certain indicator value. Now, the value of the indicator has
to be valued not only according to its own value-range but according to the risk,
the indicator value implies for the system. It is of importance to introduce this as a
properly separated step in the workflow because it contains a new level of valuating
and thus demands for an explicit design decision, too.
Step 5: risk threshold
Normally, the last step transforms the risk-value to a classified scale and thus
gives a simplified status of the system. Often this classification is combined with
setting one or more thresholds for appropriate reactions if the threshold is crossed.
Here we finally find for example the traffic light symbology as one possible
occurrence at the end of the indicator design workflow.
4 The Structure of Complex Indicators with Sub-Indicators
and Weightings
In consequence of Sect. 2 “functionality” and Sect. 3 “design-workflow”, the
general structure of an indicator can be depicted as in Fig. 4. At the bottom, the
system (or model) with all its quantities available serves as a source for the indicator
apparatus. In addition to the explanation so far, not only a modular, but also a
hierarchical structure to build an aggregated indicator is allowed. Thus, in general,
a modular hierarchical indicator design combines the originally measured values of
the system to the combined and interpreted final indicator value on top. The guiding
visualization for an indicator value is the picture with the indicator as the top of an
iceberg representing the complete structure not seen under sea-level respective in
the “black-box” with the complex system under observation in it.
However, what users really get with an indicator is a complex model for
interpreting system state. Therefore, users have to know even the invisible parts
of the iceberg and have to handle indicator design in complete analogy to model
design and model construction as explained in the following section.
5 Complex Indicators as a Distinguished Valuation Model
Following the argumentation of the preceding subsections, indicators in modelling
and simulation are much more complex than simple indicators for inaccessible sys-
11
already in this step by modelling these relations individually and accurately
according to the original intention and objective of the indicator.
Step 4: risk measure
The next step in the workflow is the determination of a scale for the expected
risk in consequence of a certain indicator value. Now, the value of the indicator has
to be valued not only according to its own value-range but according to the risk,
the indicator value implies for the system. It is of importance to introduce this as a
properly separated step in the workflow because it contains a new level of valuating
and thus demands for an explicit design decision, too.
Step 5: risk threshold
Normally, the last step transforms the risk-value to a classified scale and thus
gives a simplified status of the system. Often this classification is combined with
setting one or more thresholds for appropriate reactions if the threshold is crossed.
Here we finally find for example the traffic light symbology as one possible
occurrence at the end of the indicator design workflow.
4 The Structure of Complex Indicators with Sub-Indicators
and Weightings
In consequence of Sect. 2 “functionality” and Sect. 3 “design-workflow”, the
general structure of an indicator can be depicted as in Fig. 4. At the bottom, the
system (or model) with all its quantities available serves as a source for the indicator
apparatus. In addition to the explanation so far, not only a modular, but also a
hierarchical structure to build an aggregated indicator is allowed. Thus, in general,
a modular hierarchical indicator design combines the originally measured values of
the system to the combined and interpreted final indicator value on top. The guiding
visualization for an indicator value is the picture with the indicator as the top of an
iceberg representing the complete structure not seen under sea-level respective in
the “black-box” with the complex system under observation in it.
However, what users really get with an indicator is a complex model for
interpreting system state. Therefore, users have to know even the invisible parts
of the iceberg and have to handle indicator design in complete analogy to model
design and model construction as explained in the following section.
5 Complex Indicators as a Distinguished Valuation Model
Following the argumentation of the preceding subsections, indicators in modelling
and simulation are much more complex than simple indicators for inaccessible sys-