Of course, DSSs are of little or no value unless someone benefits from their use. For this reason, several authors have focused on the transfer of decision support technology in various institutional settings, ranging from individual engineering consulting firms to national water management authorities.
Jamieson [1991] discussed the development of a DSS for the Thames Water Utility. Before implementing the DSS, the utility's planning and analysis was characterized by fragmentary and duplicated effort, data inconsistencies, difficulty in consolidating information, and ``general despair.'' A modular, GIS-based approach was taken to provide more efficiency, effectiveness, and consistency of operational decisions. Modularity was seen to be important in mitigating risks in the project, which stemmed from rapidly changing technology, organizational uncertainty, and potential budget cuts. Walker [1991] evaluated the reasons for successful implementation of DSSs in another water management company in the United Kingdom. These reasons included close interaction of the system developers and users, user-friendliness, and cost-effective implementation of the systems. Müller and Hahn [1991] examined how DSS could facilitate the water management process in Germany. The existing legal, administrative, and institutional decision-making structure was reviewed. Due to the decentralized structure, and different interpretations of water laws by the respective authorities, the most important role of DSSs was seen to be better access to information. By linking databases and providing visual results, DSSs could encourage more coordination and consensus planning.
Dijkman and Klomp [1991] identified several trends in DSS technology transfer and offered recommendations for ensuring effective DSS use. A major trend identified was that more and more decision makers want to use the systems themselves, therefore requiring the use of more simplified models. Recommendations included the following: simplified models should be validated, if possible, by more sophisticated models; proper training of users is needed to prevent the misuse of models; and user-friendliness should be of secondary importance because it may encourage DSS use without proper understanding of the underlying analyses. Howard [1991], in evaluating the development of DSSs in engineering consulting firms, warned of the danger of focusing on computers rather than water resources management. Without the proper use and evaluation of the systems, sophisticated DSSs could become an end in themselves rather than a means to improved water management.
In discussing how to get decision makers to use DSSs, Ford [1991] presented the following reasons for the success of systems analysis applications at the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC): (1) the staff listens to users, (2) a formal program has been established to train users, (3) telephone consultation and documentation are available to support users on a more long-term basis, and (4) HEC has implemented technology that minimizes the risk of analysis failure. Feldman [1992] presented an analogy between HEC's approach and a local hardware store's approach to do-it-yourself home repair---the hardware store makes a genuine effort to understand the homeowner's problem, then offers tools, supplies, and advice to solve the problem. He also stressed the importance of involving the managers and operators at every stage of development and evaluation. In the end, however, successful implementation requires that a DSS demonstrate one or more of the following: (1) it provides additional information useful for decision making; (2) it reduces the time, money, or computer resources required for plan formulation and evaluation; or (3) it increases project benefits by identifying solutions which might not be otherwise identified.