Using argumentation to guide uncertainty management

Deciding to invest in an innovation often presents large uncertainties that confront traditional modelling and uncertainty quantification techniques. Requirements and consequences of an innovation are typically only partially known, such that uncertainties in modelling are unavoidably prominent, and when quantified, risk paralysing decision making. We describe a case study which approaches decision support from an argumentation perspective to instead give prominence to available information rather than uncertainty, and to provide a framework for reflecting on minimal information needs. Argumentation strategies used include tailoring planned outcomes to available resources, focusing on potential for viability rather than proof, moving to a scale that encourages engagement with the decision, explicitly assigning burden of proof, including multiple scenarios to handle alternative futures, focusing on incremental transition rather than end-states, focusing on initial next steps rather than long term commitments, being explicit about alternative options, using a systematic framework to strengthen rigor of coverage, providing documentation at multiple levels of detail to cater to varying information needs, and soliciting feedback on drafts to identify critical gaps in arguments. This approach succeeded in scoping and obtaining buy-in for further projects while still at a conceptual modelling stage, without needing to progress to a full integrated model or its systematic uncertainty exploration.