Frequently Asked Questions about the BENEFIT Tool

Welcome to the FAQ page for the US Arctic Observing Network (US AON) BENEFIT Tool. This section aims to answer common questions about what BENEFIT assessment is, how it works, and how it can help you.

For more information, you can reach out to our team.

Questions

1. What is the BENEFIT assessment methodology and tool?
2. What does "BENEFIT" stand for?
3. Why was the BENEFIT assessment developed?
4. How does the BENEFIT assessment process work?
5. Who was BENEFIT assessment designed for, and how can I use it?
6. Where can I access the BENEFIT Tool?
7. How reliable or trustworthy are the ratings in a BENEFIT assessment?
8. How are reanalysis datasets handled when they are used as intermediate products in the Benefit Tool?
9. What factors determine how specific or general objects (e.g., observing systems, intermediate products) are described in the Benefit Tool?
10. I want to create or edit an assessment, but I don't have edit abilities. What should I do?

Answers

Q1: What is the BENEFIT assessment methodology and tool?

BENEFIT assessment is a specialized method, supported by the BENEFIT tool, developed by the U.S. Arctic Observing Network (US AON). US AON is a sub-body of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) whose purpose is to improve observational and data sharing systems in the Arctic. BENEFIT assessment provides a systematic way to link observing system inputs, through intermediate products and applications, to the societal benefit areas they support. This is crucial because the Arctic is one of the most rapidly changing regions, and existing observations often fall short of the needs of Arctic communities, researchers, and policymakers.

Q2: What does "BENEFIT" stand for?

The name BENEFIT is an acronym that describes the main goals and features of this assessment process:

• Benefit Evaluation: This involves specifying desired outcomes through a benefit framework, which helps illuminate how the strengths and gaps in an observing system impact society.
• Network Exploration: Users can explore how the interconnected system of observations, data, products, and services works together to generate value.
• Find Gaps: Benefit Assessments include ratings of each input's relative impact and performance, identifying what gaps impede performance.
• Improve Together: By gaining a fuller understanding of how different observing and data systems contribute to real-world benefits, decision-makers at local, regional, and national levels can make more informed choices to sustain and improve critical observational systems, fostering collaborative improvement.

Q3: Why was the BENEFIT assessment developed?

The Arctic is one of the most rapidly changing regions on the planet, yet existing Arctic observations often fall short of the needs of Arctic communities, researchers, and policymakers. While current Arctic observations provide valuable information that supports community resilience, global models and forecasts, national security decisions, and economic prosperity, these observations are distributed across complex networks and are often constrained by a lack of long-term funding, infrastructure, capacity building, and coordination. No single agency or country can fulfill all the needs of this rapidly changing region. Therefore, US AON developed BENEFIT assessment to provide a comprehensive evidence base that systematically identifies gaps and opportunities for optimized investment in the Arctic observing system. This approach allows for strategic improvements to the Arctic observing system and supports broadly shared benefits.

Q4: How does the BENEFIT assessment process work?

The BENEFIT assessment process relies on expert elicitation, where groups of subject matter experts go through a structured process to identify specific strengths and gaps within an observing system and its contributions to society and scientific discovery. These experts often focus on thematically-driven, mission-critical efforts linked to key products (e.g., Arctic Report Card) or services (e.g., daily sea ice forecasts). The online BENEFIT tool then translates this expert input into powerful visualizations of the system's strengths and identifies opportunities for value generation.

Q5: What can I use BENEFIT assessment for, and who is it designed for?

US AON's Benefit Assessment methods aim to serve anyone interested in improving the Arctic research ecosystem, including observers, data managers, people creating applications to serve end-user needs, community members, and policymakers/funders.

For Application, Data Product, or Observation Managers/Research Scientists: It can help you visualize inputs to your work, share your process, demonstrate societal benefit, communicate and sustain funding, identify gaps, advocate for or implement improvements, and understand the downstream impacts of proposed changes.

For Arctic Community Members, including Local Leaders: It can help you give feedback on useful applications, ensure community needs drive future iterations, understand available applications, see where community-created observations are being used, and advocate for improvements in underlying systems.

For Program Managers or Policymakers: It can provide a broader view of systems and outputs, help identify gaps for funding, demonstrate how your program supports societal benefit, enable more informed investment decisions by understanding connectivity, and guide research policy to support underserved areas.

Q6: Where can I access the BENEFIT Tool?

The online Benefit Tool is currently available at www.usaon.org/apps/benefit-tool. It is available as a minimum viable product for early adopters to use and provide feedback, and it is an open-source project.

Q7: How reliable or trustworthy are the ratings in a BENEFIT assessment?

Ratings are given for a particular context by an individual or a small team of experts (called respondents). They are subjective but well-informed representations of reality. The ratings convey the input of the respondents, not US AON's assessment of a given product or system. They are highly contextual. For instance, an observing system that might provide useful information about long-term trends may have significant gaps when it comes to real-time monitoring or prediction.

Societal benefit ratings present a particular challenge because benefits are context-dependent and often not quantifiable. Like other Western science evaluation frameworks, the BENEFIT tool struggles to depict this nuance. US AON is moving towards cohort ratings for societal benefit, in line with recommendations coming out of the Arctic Observing Summit and the US AON Expert Committee on Methods. However, the current version of the tool includes evaluations with more limited assessments of societal benefits.

Individual evaluations can show the importance of critical capabilities -- be that the strength of a long-term observing system, the value of a robust communication system, the impact of data product improvements, or more -- or the impact of specific gaps. As more people use the Benefit Tool, the value of the evaluations grows. We will begin to see more systemic strengths and weaknesses in the Arctic observing system, and opportunities to invest in systems that will have wide-reaching impacts.

Q8: How are reanalysis datasets handled when they are used as intermediate products in the Benefit Tool?

When reanalysis datasets appear in the Benefit Tool as intermediate products, a specific decision has been made for clarity: we do not list the observing system or data product inputs that contribute to these reanalysis datasets.

Context: Reanalysis datasets draw from dozens of observing inputs and are commonly used in Arctic research. Describing all these individual inputs would be cumbersome, challenging, and would significantly overcrowd an individual diagram, making it difficult to read.

Consequences: This decision makes diagrams easier to read and create, but it means that diagrams will be missing explicit information about how reanalysis datasets are derived. US AON may conduct evaluations specific to a reanalysis dataset at a later stage, but for general use as an intermediate product, this level of detail is considered more distracting than helpful.

Q9: What factors determine how specific or general objects (e.g., observing systems, intermediate products) are described in the Benefit Tool?

The level of detail for objects in the Benefit Tool (e.g., generalizing "automated weather stations" versus listing each agency's stations) is a complex decision made on a case-by-case basis. The 'respondents' (the experts conducting the assessment) have the final decision-making ability, with US AON staff providing advice as needed.

The key factors considered in these decisions are:

• Telling the right story with an individual evaluation: For instance, if multiple automated weather stations all perform similarly for a specific goal, generalizing them might be sufficient. If their individual performance or funding sources are critical to the story, then more specificity is needed.
• Re-usability of objects: There is a significant benefit to using the same object (described consistently) in multiple evaluations. This often points towards describing objects in a very tangible and specific way to facilitate consistent reuse.
• Readability: Over-inclusion of too many objects can make a diagram unreadable, so a balance must be struck.

These nuanced decisions allow for adaptability to each scenario but may require more time and reflection from respondents and US AON staff. As a user, be aware that diagrams may require more nuance to interpret due to these context-dependent decisions.

Q10: I want to create or edit an assessment, but I don't have edit abilities. What should I do?

Please reach out to our team. Admins for the site can change your user type to allow you to edit an assessment. Please note that because the BENEFIT tool is available as a minimum viable product, completing an assessment still requires one-on-one support from US AON staff members. There may be a delay in approving and creating additional assessments or in adjusting your user type.