\documentclass[twocolumn,letterpaper,sort]{article}
\pagestyle{myheadings} \usepackage{natbib}
\usepackage{../mcfnsSep2012}
%\usepackage[OpenPeerReview]{McfnsDraftcopy}
\usepackage{amsmath,bm,amssymb} \usepackage{graphicx,epstopdf,textcomp} \usepackage{setspace,lineno}
\usepackage{color}
%\usepackage[breaklinks,pdfstartview={FitH -32768},pdfborder={0 0 0},bookmarksopen,bookmarksnumbered]{hyperref} %\usepackage{bibtexlogo}
\usepackage{url}\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}\usepackage{hyperref}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{ogonek}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\hypersetup{urlbordercolor=0 0 0,pdfborder=0 0 1 [3 2]}
\widowpenalty=10000 \clubpenalty=10000
%controling the figure floats:
\setcounter{topnumber}{2}
\setcounter{bottomnumber}{2}
\setcounter{totalnumber}{4}
\renewcommand{\topfraction}{0.85}
\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{0.85}
\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0.1}
\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.85}
\setlength{\parskip}{.2cm plus3mm minus2mm}
% Define MCFNS variables:
% Moved to mcfns.sty like the \issueyear \publish	 {Feb.~00} 		%Still not sure if Issue Manuscript publication date
\setcounter {page} {89} \def\issueno {2}
\def\editors	 {{Editor:~\href{mailto:pbettinger@warnell.uga.edu}{Pete Bettinger}}}
\def\submit 	{Oct.~10,~2010} %Submission date can be different than the issue year \issueyear
\def\accept 	{Sep.~19,~2014} %should be Accepted & Published year of the Current_Issue \issueyear
\def\lasterrata	 {Oct.~2,~2014} %Last Errata date can be different than the Issue-Year \issueyear
\def\citename	 {Rosset} 		%"Author"
\def\citeemail	 {christian.rosset@bfh.ch} 	%Use: {\href{mailto://\citeemail} {FirstName \citename}}
\def\citeetal	 { et al.\ } % {} %or {} %for a single author; or et al.\
\inputencoding{latin1}
\author{
     {\href{mailto:\citeemail}{Christian~\citename}}$^1$, %Change only 1st name of 1st author
		{\href{mailto:jph.s@bluewin.ch} {Jean-Philippe Sch\"utz}}$^2$,
		{\href{mailto:mark.guenter@bfh.ch} {Mark Günter}}$^1$,
		{\href{mailto:clotilde.gollut@bfh.ch} {Clotilde Gollut}}$^{1}$
}
\affiliation {
%---------------
\large\scshape {
} \\
%---------------
%
% the lines above are for multi-line multiple authors - braking \author causes problems
%
%---------------
$^1$\small\it{\href{https://www.hafl.bfh.ch/en/home.html}{Bern University of Applied Sciences, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences HAFL, Switzerland.}} \\
$^2$\small\it{{ETH-Zürich, Brüggliäcker 37, 8050 Zürich, Switzerland.}}
}
\def\yourtitle
 {{
WIS.2 -- a sustainable forest management decision support system
}} %need double {{for \\ e.g.: {{Title \\ Subtitle}}
\def\yourkwords
{
Decision support system, sustainable forest management, silvicultural planning, strategic planning, tactical planning, forest entrepreneurial strategy, multi-purpose forestry, close-to-nature silviculture.
}
\def\yourabstract
{
WIS.2 is a DSS for monitoring and implementing the goal-oriented and
sustainable management of forest ecosystems, especially with regard to the
integral management of significant spatial and temporal scales in forest
ecosystems. WIS.2 considers multiple ecosystem goods and services in
silvicultural management and the implementation of silvicultural
interventions, which are in accordance with the Swiss silvicultural
tradition. WIS.2 takes a top-down approach, starting with the
entrepreneurial strategy, and ending at short and mid-term interventions at
stand level. WIS.2 structures the overall decision process across multiple
scales and provides decision support for each decision to be taken by
organizing and connecting available data and models.

WIS.2 is based on MS Access and ArcGIS View and is composed of different
applications, each handling a main aspect of the management of forest
ecosystems. The tool is used at the level of higher education in forest
management in Switzerland. WIS.2, initially developed during 2001-2005
within the framework of a PhD thesis at the ETH in Zurich (Rosset
2005a), has been successively improved through practical use in more than 10
case studies in five Swiss Cantons. The main challenge is now to advance
from a prototype to an easily available consolidated IT product.
} %----------------------------------------------------------------------
% \usepackage[english,russian,polish]{babel}
% THE REST SHOULD BE AUTHOMATIC Go To the first Section
\title {\Large\bf\uppercase\yourtitle}
\begin{document} \markright {\hfil {{{\href {mailto://\citeemail}
{\citename}\citeetal}}~(\issueyear)/\mcfnshead}}
\twocolumn[
\begin{@twocolumnfalse}
\hypersetup {pdftitle= {\mcfnshead},pdfauthor= {\citename~(\issueyear)},pdfsubject= {\yourtitle},pdfkeywords= {\yourkwords}}
\maketitle
\hrule\begin{abstract} \yourabstract\\\\ {\bf Keywords:} \yourkwords
%\\\\ {{\bf S\l {} owa kluczowe:} Polskie slowa kluczowe.}
\end{abstract} \hrule\vspace{.3truein}
\end{@twocolumnfalse}
]
%
%$^{1, 3, 4}$Bern University of Applied Sciences, School of Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences HAFL, Division of Forest Sciences, L\"{a}nggasse 85, 3052 Zollikofen, Switzerland
%$^{2}$former ETH-Zurich, Br\"{u}ggli\"{a}cker 37, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland
%
\section{Intorduction}
\label{sec:introduction}
In the 1990s, a new two-level forest planning concept was introduced in
Switzerland; one level dedicated to forest authorities with the main purpose
to ensure public needs like sustainable wood supply, nature conservation,
protection (against e.g., rock fall, avalanches,{\ldots}) and recreation;
the other level dedicated to forest owners and forest managers, which is
meant to ensure the success of forest management, especially from an
economical point of view. The main planning instruments are the Forest
Development Plan (FDP) at the authority level and the Forest Management Plan
(FMP) at the owner level. Public needs fixed in the FDP are implemented at
the owners' level by means of agreements, contracts or authorization for
harvesting. The FDP is only binding for the authorities, not for the owners.
The FMP gained a new role with the emphasis on entrepreneurial strategy
instead of being focused mainly on the silvicultural planning. The
entrepreneurial strategy defines the goods and services likely to ensure the
success of the forest enterprise (Bachmann \textit{et al}. 2002, Bachmann 2005).

From this new perspective, the silvicultural planning of an extended forest
area is a challenging task that spans between the mid to long-term oriented
forest entrepreneurial strategy, the short-term harvesting planning, and the
long-term necessity to ensure sustainable forest development. As such,
silvicultural planning is an important instrument within the framework of
FMP for connecting and integrating the relevant temporal and spatial scales
of forest management, particularly with regard to consolidating the
entrepreneurial strategy with the planned intervention at stand level (i.e.,
making the strategy effective), without forgetting to assess the long-term
consequences of the decisions taken for the whole forest area (i.e., making
forest management sustainable). It should also be flexible enough to easily
adapt to unforeseen and sudden changes like storms, as well as to new strategic
orientation.

In other words, silvicultural planning aims at shaping the entire forest
mosaic in a flexible way by organizing and coordinating interventions at the
stand level (the basic unit of the mosaic). Since clear-cut is forbidden by
law in Switzerland (Art. 22 LFo; RS 921.0) and close-to-nature silviculture
is compulsory (Art. 20 LFo; RS 921.0), stand mosaics tend to be fine-grained
with its smallest units smaller than 1ha. The planed intervention at stand
level should be detailed enough to implement the strategy efficiently, and
at the same time leave enough leeway for harvesting planning, which is
subject to market fluctuations and harvesting capacities. The planned
intervention also needs to be adapted to the specificities of the local
situation and to be in-line with a liberal and pragmatic view of
silviculture in Switzerland (see Sch\"utz 1999).

Decision Support Systems (DSS) represent a useful concept to develop
computer-based tools to support forest managers in implementing the depicted
silvicultural planning. DSSs help organize and structure the overall
decision process over the multiple scales of silvicultural planning, as well
as provide the support for each decision to take by organizing and
connecting available data, models and methods. Wierzbicki \textit{et al. }(2000) define a
DSS as ``a computerised system that supports its users in a rational
organization and conduct of a decision process (or its selected phases) and,
besides a database, also contains a pertinent knowledge representation in
the form of models of decision situations as well as appropriate algorithms
for using these models''. Alter (2004) expresses some scepticism about new
developments in DSSs, which just consist of the implementation of new
technological capabilities (``technical artifact''). As long as the
technical capabilities are not incorporated into work systems, they have
little or no impact. In other words, ``Decision support is not about tools
per se, but rather, about making better decisions within work systems in
organizations'' (Alter 2004).

WIS.2, a prototype DSS, was developed to implement a pragmatic approach to
silvicultural planning in Switzerland. WIS.2 is a DSS for monitoring and
implementing the goal-oriented, sustainable management of forest ecosystems.
It functions in a top-down manner, starting with the entrepreneurial
strategy and ending with short and mid-term interventions at the stand
level. Concretely, WIS.2 helps forest managers keep the big picture of an
extended forest area in mind, not only of the current situation, but also of
past developments and future trends. It provides support to take decisions
on fundamental aspects of the forest mosaic like the overall tree species
composition, the target tree dimensions and their related rotation period,
the extent of the regeneration of the demographic structure (age structure,
development stages), as well as particular stand structures. It supports its
user to elaborate guidelines to implement the overall targets down to the
single stands, like tree species promotion according to the prevailing site
conditions, as well as tending and thinning intervention milestones
according to the development stages of the stands. Based on these decisions,
an intervention map and the prescribed yield are computed, which are the
prerequisites for the annual harvesting planning. The development of WIS.2
was basically decision-driven, while taking into account the forest data
likely to be easily available by practitioners. Accordingly, the main input
data to WIS.2 are stand maps and site conditions maps based on
phytosociolgical units. Both are available in many Cantons in Switzerland
(e.g., Zurich, Aargau, Basel and Fribourg).

The depicted approach (top-down, decision-driven, pragmatic) to DSS about
silvicultural planning is new in Switzerland (see Heinimann \textit{et al}. 2014) and does
not seem to have any equivalent in Central Europe (see e.g., Vacik \textit{et al}. 2014,
Felbermeier 2014, Portoghesi 2014, Bonèina \textit{et al}. 2014).

WIS.2 was developed within the framework of a PhD thesis at the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology Zurich (ETHZ) (Rosset 2005a), and has since then been successively developed in
an iterative manner using inputs gained from practical experience.

This article presents the methodology used to develop WIS.2, the planning
system underlying WIS.2, the WIS.2 prototype, as well as the WIS.2 project
and the next steps to take.

\section{Methodological Framework}
WIS.2 was modelled through a systems engineering approach (see Daenzer and
Huber 2002) according to the methodology of Sch\"{o}nsleben (2001) and
Specker (2001). This methodology describes the development of integral
information systems, especially with regard to supporting the value-adding
process of an enterprise. Based on this important process for the success of
an enterprise, the necessary supporting functions and objects are organized
and structured, and the implementation tasks defined. These tasks are
allocated to organizational units in the enterprise, which have the
necessary competencies and resources. Specker (2001) developed a technique
named after these four perspectives called PrOFA, which means
\textbf{Pr}ocess (focus on system dynamics, especially on the way system
activities should be performed), \textbf{O}bject (focus on system elements
necessary to support system activities), \textbf{F}unction (focus on system
functionalities, especially on the outputs expected from system activities)
and task (focus on the organization of system activities). Specker (2001)
also adds a fifth perspective about IT-techniques (i.e., hardware and
software solutions to support system activities). The PrOFA technique
organizes modelling methods according to these perspectives, considered
alone or in combination in order to model the system successively and to
handle its complexity step-by-step with increasing formalism. In order to
obtain an overview, the methods are organized in a matrix according to the
perspectives which represent the main focus of the modelling. The developer
team can then select the modelling methods suitable and fitting to the
problem to solve. The modelling methods should be as simple as possible in
order for the targeted users to be able to understand the results and take
an active part in the development. The methods should also be understandable
for IT specialists, who will develop the IT solution on a given IT platform
(e.g., see Sch\"{o}nsleben 2001).

The PrOFA technique was used and adapted in WIS.2. The added value supported
by WIS.2 is made out of the decisions taken by the user in order to have a
clear reference to manage forest ecosystems in a sustainable way. WIS.2 is
designed to guide the users in the overall decision process and provide them
with decision resources to support decision making. Each decision to make
corresponds to a task that the user should accomplish and for which the user
should have access to the necessary resources in terms of decision support
(information and knowledge). A task is structured according to the decision
model of Simon (1980), who divides the decision process into four phases:
the decision to take (problem to solve) corresponds to the intelligence
phase, the decision options to the concept phase, the decision taken to the
selection phase and the documentation of the decision taken (consolidation)
to the review phase. The notion of task implies that the user is responsible
for the decision taken. As a prerequisite, the user of WIS.2 should have the
necessary professional competencies. Furthermore, the decision support
provided should enhance creativity to explore unconventional and innovative
solutions (see e.g., Wierzbicki \textit{et al}. 2000). The complex overall decision process in
silvicultural management is divided into tasks and sub-tasks in a recursive,
top-down manner with clear interconnections. Basically, the questions to be answered regard what decisions are to be taken and their interdependencies, in which order these decisions should be taken, what sort of support is needed for each of the decisions, and how the resources necessary to provide the overall decision support should be organized.

\begin{figure}[tbh]%\vspace{-.4in}
%\includegraphics[trim=left bottom right top, clip]{file}
\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=30 10 30 90,clip, width=.5\textwidth]{image_1.eps}}\vspace{-.1in}
\caption{Modelling steps and modelling aspects of WIS.2 according
to the prevailing (primary/secondary) modelling perspectives (process,
task/function, object and technique.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}

Figure 1 depicts the modelling steps applied for the development of WIS.2.
Based on Specker (2001), these steps are organized in a matrix according to
the main focus (primary, secondary) the PrOFA-perspectives have for the
modelling respectively. The modelling process can be divided in three
phases: in the first phase (Steps 1-3), the overall decision process is
designed and organized as a tasks system based on the single decisions the
user should take (decision system). In the second phase (Steps 4-5), the
support required by the decision making process is formalized in an
object-oriented system (support system), and in the third phase (Steps 6-9)
the whole system is integrated in the IT-solution (decision support system).

The process perspective is mainly for organizing the task system and the
order to provide decision support for a given task. The object perspective
is mainly for organizing the resources of the decision support in a coherent
object-oriented system that includes the system functionalities (i.e.,
methods assigned to object classes).

Step 1 is designed to give an overview of the system, to delimit it and to
highlight interfaces with other systems. Steps 2 and 3 concern determining
the single decisions the user has to take by the silvicultural planning and
building up the overall decision process as a coherent tasks system. Steps 4
and 5 focus on identifying which supporting resources (information,
knowledge) each decision requires and organize them in an object-oriented
system. Steps 6 to 9 are dedicated to implementing the system in an IT
solution.

\begin{figure*}[htb!]%\vspace{-.1in}
\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=5 0 0 30,clip, width=\textwidth]{image_2.eps}}%\vspace{-.1in}
\caption{Methods used for modelling the overall decision process and the decision
support (Step 2-5 of Fig. 1; adapted from Rosset 2005b). In the data
flow diagram of Step 2, the tasks are depicted as ellipses and the
rectangles symbolize decisions, either former decisions that have an
influence on the performance of a task or decisions resulting from the
respective task. In the data flow diagram of Step 3, the tasks are organized
according to their hierarchical level and the order to accomplish them
(top-down, left to right). In the flow chart of Step 4, parallelograms
correspond to decision support resources (E) necessary for performing the
task at hand; the rectangles represent the making of a decision (D) by the
user. The rectangles in the UML class diagram (bottom left, Step 5) each
represent an object class.}
\label{fig2}\vspace{.12in}
\end{figure*}

Figure 2 illustrates the methods used for the modelling of Steps 2 to 5
(modelling of the overall decision system and the decision support). The
complexity is handled step-by-step with increasing formalism.

A data flow diagram (see e.g., Sch\"{o}nsleben 2001) was used to determine
the decisions to take and their corresponding task, as well as to highlight
decision interdependencies (single decisions to take, Step 2). For
consolidating the results from Step 2, the tasks were organized in a
coherent, hierarchical system to obtain an overview and a structured
workflow to accomplish the tasks (overall decision tasks system, Step 3). The
accomplishment of a task at a given hierarchical level presupposes the
accomplishment of all subtasks and the consolidation of the whole. An
adapted flowchart helped organize the decision support for each task, as
well as the order of provision of these support (decision support resources,
Step 4). Finally, the decision resources (data, models, methods) necessary
for the overall decision support, as well as for the decisions themselves
were organized in an Unified Modeling Language (UML) class diagram as an
object-oriented system (objects for the decision support resources, Step 5).

The software selected to develop the IT-prototype was
Microsoft{\textregistered} Access and ESRI ArcGIS{\textregistered} View.
These two applications were chosen because of their complementarity,
widespread use, relatively low costs, full integration into the Windows
system, the possibility of extending their capabilities by using Visual
Basic for Application (VBA), an easy-to-use programming language, and the
ease with which user interfaces can be created.

Step 6 of Figure 1 is the organization of the prototype in a modular system.
It comprises different applications each representing a main task (based on
the results from Step 3). Forest data are stored separately from the
applications, and a clear distinction is made between data about the state
of the forest and the interventions carried out in the forest and management
data (variations, decisions).

Step 7 entails ensuring the working interfaces with other IT solutions; Step
8 involves implementing the object-oriented diagram (Step 5) in Access and
ArcGIS View in the form of databases, program codes like functions,
procedures and module classes; Step 9 refers to implementing the user
interfaces in each application according to the result from Step 4, which
provides the articulation of the user interfaces.

Considering the complexity and modularity of the system, the spiral model
(Boehm 1988) was chosen to successively develop the WIS.2 prototype. This
model reflects the underlying concept that each cycle involves a progression
that addresses the same sequence of steps, for each portion of the product
and for each of its levels of elaboration, from the overall concept of
operation document down to the coding of each individual program (Boehm
1988). Developing WIS.2 in this manner not only gave the advantage of
learning from experience gained during the development of one application
for the elaboration of the next, it also provided potential users with
concrete application in the early stages of the project.

\section{Planning System}
The entrepreneurial strategy of a forest area is the starting point of the
silvicultural planning process in WIS.2 (top-down-process). In order to be
able to react flexibly to changes while leaving as much room as possible for
operational leeway, a slim planning process was developed and implemented in
WIS.2, focusing on a relatively small number of decisions with far-reaching
implications. The users of WIS.2 can proceed with the planning at two
levels: the basic level and the extended level. The basic level is about
fundamental aspects of a forest area like trees species composition, tree
dimensions and the renewal of the demographic structure. The extended level
focuses on the composition of the stands mosaic
and the structure of the stands themselves. This level complements the first
level with the possibility to specify particular stand structures and to
allocate them to specific locations.

The \textbf{basic planning level} comprises five main decisions, three of
them as overall objectives and the last two for consolidation at stand
level. Firstly, the planner has to define (a) the targeted tree species
composition on the long term, (b) the targeted tree dimensions and rotation
periods necessary to reach these dimensions, and (c) the overall
regeneration policy (i.e., extent of forest regeneration per decade
respectively the renewal of the demographic structure). Then, (d) guidelines
for tree species promotion at stand level have to be defined according to
the existing phytosociological units (i.e., an area with more or less
homogenous site conditions). Finally, (e) a tending and thinning concept is
elaborated for each tree species by determining milestones within stand
lifespan. These milestones are set in order to determine when to intervene
and how to efficiently reach the production targets (e.g., tree dimensions,
quality, and stability). From these decisions, the yield and an intervention
map for a time horizon of 10 years is derived from growth functions, and
represents the interface to the annual harvesting planning. Furthermore, to
better coordinate the regeneration activities, spatial and temporal
constraints can be highlighted to avoid e.g. steep edges (wind damage,
emergence of epicormic branches that decrease the quality of wood) and
damage in the new tree generation, because of wood transportation within the
stands (see Rosset and Sch\"utz 2003).

\begin{figure*}[tb!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90, trim=50 0 50 0,clip, width=.9\textwidth]{Fig3Oct2.eps}}
\caption{Overall decision tasks system (adapted from Rosset 2005b). The tasks
(ellipses) are organized according to (a) their hierarchical level and (b)
the order to accomplish them (top-down, left to right).}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure*}

\begin{figure*}[tbh!]%\vspace{-.2in}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{image_4.eps}}
\caption{Examples of the WIS.2 user interfaces.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure*}

The\textbf{ extended planning level} concerns requirement profiles, which
are used as the basis for the refinement of the stand mosaic. Forest
products and forest services can be described with WIS.2 in the form of
silvicultural requirement profiles with regard to stands (what
characteristics to influence), and site and forest road system conditions
(location priorities). The requirement profiles are used to assess forest
areas fitting to the profiles, and serve on one hand to evaluate the
potential of a forest product or service in the given area; and on the other
hand to define the location to provide them if backed up with the strategy.
Profiles can be then compared to highlight complementarities (possibility to
provide more than one product / service on the same area) or
incompatibilities (see Rosset \textit{et al}. 2009a). The requirement
profiles enable the explicit connection of the silvicultural planning to the
entrepreneurial strategy and enable highlighting the managerial constraints
consequent to the implementation of a forest product/service.

The forest area can be subdivided in major planning units each dedicated to
a particular silvicultural system. Currently, only the irregular shelterwood
cutting system has been implemented in the prototype, which is characterized
in Switzerland by a renewal of trees in discrete generations through
progressive group felling and a liberal felling policy (Sch\"utz\textbf{
}1999).

Figure 3 illustrates an overview of the two-level silvicultural planning
system and their respective tasks (overall decision tasks system as a result
of the 3$^{rd}$ modelling step, see Fig. 2).

Each task of the 2$^{nd}$ hierarchical level of Figure 3 corresponds to an
application in WIS.2, which are described in the next chapter.

\begin{figure*}[htb!]%\vspace{-.1in}
\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=0 20 0 35,clip, width=\textwidth]{image_5.eps}}%\vspace{-.1in}
\caption{WIS.2's main inputs, outputs and processes of basic silvicultural planning
(adapted from Rosset~et~al.~2009b).}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure*}

\section{Prototype}
WIS.2 has a modular structure and comprises several applications that each
focus on a main task in silvicultural management. These specific
applications are found in the field of (a) data management, (b) analysis of
forest areas in the preliminary stage of devising an enterprise strategy and
(c) the silvicultural planning of the implementation of this strategy.
Analogue to the decision making process, each application is structured in
several user interfaces in which the user can move freely (see Fig. 4).
Important information for making the decision is prompted, as well as the
possibility to test several variations. The interfaces also provide the
possibility to comment on the planning process in a systematic way and to
print the silvicultural plan in a step-by-step manner.
The handling of the tool is simple, giving the user the opportunity to
concentrate on making decisions. All available functionalities are directly
accessible on the interfaces, and the standardized layout makes the
prototype easy for the user to quickly get accustomed to the system.

\begin{figure*}[htb!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[trim=90 100 80 90,clip, width=\textwidth]{image_6.eps}}%\vspace{-.1in}
\caption{Example of a decision sheet. The pie chart represents the targeted tree
species composition to promote over the whole regeneration areas to come.
The bar chart illustrates the difference between the targeted tree species
composition (y = 0 {\%}) and the factual species composition of the forest
area issue of the three last 10-years regeneration periods. The yellow bars
(0-9 J; ``J'' is short for ``Jahre'' in German, i.e., ``years'') represent
the forest area, that have been regenerated during the ten last years; the
light green bars (10-19 J), the product of the penultimate regeneration
period; and the dark green bars (20-29 J) the product of the antepenultimate
regeneration period. This decision sheet corresponds to the process ``Ref.
tree species composition in the regeneration'' in Figure~5.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure*}

WIS.2 relies on inputs provided by practitioners, which include data on
stands, phytosociological units (spatial unit with more or less homogenous
site conditions), topography and forest road infrastructure (see
Rosset and Sch\"utz 2003, Rosset \textit{et al}.
2009b for more information). The main outputs of the planning process are
the decision sheets, which are in essence simplified reports of the
silvicultural plan that give concrete instructions on how to implement the
enterprise strategy at stand level. Figure 5 illustrates these main inputs and
outputs as well as the planning process in the case of the basic
silvicultural planning. The processes encompass the five decisions to take
presented in the previous section, as well as their consequences. The user
has the opportunity to not only comment on the decision taken, but also
explicitly on the consequences of these decisions. There is at least one
decision sheet for each process illustrated in Figure 5.

The decision sheets serve as a cockpit for the manager to monitor and steer
the development of the forest ecosystem. They provide information (such as
graphs, tables or maps) about the decisions made and their consequences,
place them in comparison to the current state of the forest area, depict the
developments over the past years/decades, show the mid- to long-term trends,
and state the necessity of action in the form of maps. The information
provided in the decision sheet is automatically updated through the
actualization of the input data. This dynamic information allows the manager
to continuously monitor the development of the forest area, to compare it to
the objectives and, if necessary, to introduce some corrective measures at
an early stage. The decision sheets have a uniform structure: the position
of the decision sheet in the planning is highlighted on the left, reasons to
perform this planning stage are mentioned in the lower left corner and the
field below the graphs is dedicated to comments. Figure 6 gives an example of
a decision sheet (see Rosset \textit{et al}. 2009b for further examples).

On the decision sheet shown in Figure 6, we can see that the regeneration of
the 10 last years corresponds more or less to the targeted composition. In
this case, the manager has decided to pursue in future the regeneration
philosophy applied in the last 10 years, which was a big change at that time
(strong decrease of the proportion of \textit{Picea abies} `Fi' in favour of \textit{Fagus sylvatica} `Bu').

\begin{table*}[hbt]
\caption{Review of critical factors of success.}\vspace{3pt}
\begin{tabular}{|p{0.7in}|p{2.75in}|p{3in}|} \hline
\textbf{} & \textbf{Strength} & \textbf{Weakness} \\ \hline
\textbf{Planning} & Streamline planning with few well-documented decisions and far-reaching
implications\textbf{} & Acquiring an overview (decision, consequences and interdependencies)
is an important prerequisite that takes time and has to be done prior to using WIS.2,
otherwise there is a danger of getting lost in details \\ \hline
\textbf{Output} & Clear outputs for forest managers, ready for use on the field;
providing the basis to concretely evaluate the utility of the tool & \textbf{} \\ \hline
\textbf{Input} & Available
in many Swiss Cantons & Stand-level data not available in all Cantons and rarely
available outside of Switzerland  \\ \hline
\textbf{Growth models} & Simple growth models easy to interpret (for the development
of the main dbh) & Based solely on the Swiss yield tables (Badoux 1983) or on simple
growth models implemented in WIS.1 (only differentiated after the main tree species;
Good and Pistor 1992) \\ \hline
\textbf{User interface} & User-friendly GUI (Graphical User Interface), focussed on the decision to take, not
on the technique & GUI only available in German\textbf{} \\ \hline
\textbf{Software} & Not too costly, widely-used software packages & Sensitive to
the locally installed version of ArcGIS and MS Access. VBA is not to be supported
anymore \\ \hline
\textbf{Prototype} & Flexible development of the prototype\newline \textbf{} & Danger
of never having a consolidated version over all the applications (always in development)\textbf{ } \\ \hline
\textbf{Metho-dology} & Stakeholders
can take an active part in the development of the IT-solution from the beginning;
they have the opportunity to rethink the whole planning system and to better understand
it with increasing level of detail and formalism & Long, iterative and recursive
modelling process that has to be well-organized and for which enough time has to
be planned, otherwise frustrations might occur  \\ \hline
\textbf{Compe-tencies} & Author's competencies in silviculture, planning, information
science, as well as in research, practice and teaching. & Maintenance and development
still depend on one person \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab1}
\end{table*}

\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
It is premature to claim that WIS.2 is entirely successful, since it is in
essence still a prototype and is only used by a limited number of people.
Nevertheless, after the completion of the PhD, WIS.2 passed the first
important hurdle from research to practice after receiving resources from a
forest engineering firm to be further developed. In an early stage, three
forest enterprises also showed interest in using the tool, which was an
important phase for adapting WIS.2 for practical use and gaining experience
with new functionalities. The decision sheets are an example of such an
adaptation, and since then these sheets have been used in consultancy
services for other forest enterprises, significantly enlarging WIS.2's scope
of application.

Numerous WIS.2 contributions have been published in professional journals
and on specialized websites and WIS.2 has also been presented and applied in
several continuing education courses for practitioners (see
Rosset \textit{et al}. 2009b for an overview). These activities have been
going on since 2002 and have paved the way to arouse the interest of
practitioners on the one hand, and ensure a smooth transition after the
thesis on the other.

WIS.2 was already applied in teaching at the Swiss Federal Institute of
Technology Zurich (ETHZ) at the early stages of the PhD, ensuring that the
applications successively developed could regularly be tested in concrete
situations and appropriately adapted to the valuable feedback from students.
Particular attention has always been paid to the user-friendliness of the
application. The development of WIS.2 also profited from more than 15 years
of experience, experiments and results obtained at an annual 10-day
practical course on silvicultural planning held at the ETHZ.
Currently, it is still demonstrated at the ETHZ and since 2007 used at the School of
Agricultural, Forest and Food Sciences HAFL, which is part of Bern
University of Applied Sciences (i.e., at the level of higher education in
forest management in Switzerland). WIS.2 has already been used in several
Cantons in Switzerland (Zurich, Aargau, Fribourg, Vaud and St-Gallen) and
was also tested by students in different countries in the frameworks of
student bachelor and master theses (Belgium, Italy, Spain, Thailand).

The main factors contributing to the positive development of WIS.2 as a
prototype mainly come from almost a decade of experience, experiments,
feedback and results obtained during university courses and practical use
through engineering firms and forest enterprises. Since the beginning, WIS.2
was designed to be as simple as possible (i.e., just the right level of
detail), providing clear outputs to forest managers based on data acquirable
from practitioners. Further positive traits of the tool are the use of
Access and ArcGIS, which are not too costly and widely-used software
packages, making it easy to adapt the prototype when students or
practitioners propose amelioration or adaptation. While the bundling of
competencies (i.e., silviculture, forest planning, and information
technologies) can be an advantage, it also represents a danger due to the
sole dependency on one person (see Tab. 1).

It is now high time to build on all these rich experiences gained over the
past decade, to move a step forward and develop an easily available
consolidated product, build a team and professionalize support, maintenance
and further developments.

In order to verify that this new product can be well positioned on the Swiss
market, an extensive strategy development analysis was conducted (see Schmid
2009). In summary, the analysis revealed there is actually a strong
potential market for WIS.2 in Switzerland, especially considering the
political and legal environment in which the Cantons are in charge of forest
planning and responsible for ensuring sustainable forest development. Also,
the difficult financial situation is forcing forest enterprises to rethink
their strategie and increase their productivity. The main
limiting factor, however, might be the lack of suitable data in some Cantons
(e.g., stand maps). Enhanced growth models like SiWaWa should be integrated in the DSS (see Sch\"utz and Zingg 2007).

The main challenge will be to advance from a prototype based on ArcGIS View
and Access to a DSS based on a new IT-platform (a stand-alone application or
a web application), while building on the current strengths, but also
strengthening the current weaknesses.

\section*{Aknowledgement}
This paper was written as a contribution to the FORSYS Cost Action workshop on decision support systems for sustainable forest management, Lisbon, 19-21 April 2010.
We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments on the manuscript.


\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1}
\providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}}
\providecommand{\urlprefix}{URL }

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Alter, S. 2004. A work system view of DSS in its fourth decade. Decision
Support Systems 38(3): 319-327. \urlprefix\url{http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923603001210},
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.
%\href{http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167923603001210}{http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0 167923603001210},

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Bachmann, P., Ammann, S., Kunz, B., and Rupf, A. 2002. Modern forest
management planning 153 (5): 184-189
\urlprefix\url{http://www.szf-jfs.org/doi/pdf/10.3188/szf.2002.0184},%{http://www.szf-jfs.org/doi/pdf/ 10.3188/ szf.2002.0184} ,
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Bachmann, P. 2005. Forstliche Planung -- heute und morgen. Schweiz. Z.
Forstwes. 156(5): 137-141.
\urlprefix\url{http://www.szf-jfs.org/doi/pdf/10.3188/szf.2005.0137},  
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Badoux, E. 1983. Ertragstafeln. Tables de production.
L\"{a}rche/M\'{e}l\`{e}ze. 2. Aufl./2e \'{e}d. Birmensdorf,
Eidgen\"{o}ssische Anstalt f\"{u}r das forstliche Versuchswesen.
URL \href{http://www.wsl.ch/dienstleistungen/publikationen/pdf/500.pdf}
{\texttt{http://wsl.ch/dienstleistungen/publika tionen/pdf/500.pdf}},
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014. 

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Badoux, E. 1983. Ertragstafeln. Tables de production. Fichte/Epic\'{e}a. 3.
Aufl./3e \'{e}d. Birmensdorf, Eidgen\"{o}ssische Anstalt f\"{u}r das
forstliche Versuchswesen.
\urlprefix\url{http://www.wsl.ch/dienstleistungen/publikationen/pdf/501.pdf}, 
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Badoux, E. 1983. Ertragstafeln. Tables de production Buche/H\^{e}tre. 3.
Aufl./3e \'{e}d. Birmensdorf, Eidgen\"{o}ssische Anstalt f\"{u}r das
forstliche Versuchswesen.
\urlprefix\url{http://www.wsl.ch/dienstleistungen/publikationen/pdf/502.pdf},%{http://www.wsl.ch/dienstleistungen/publikationen/ pdf/502.pdf} ,
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Badoux, E. 1983. Ertragstafeln. Tables de production Tanne/Sapin. 2.
Aufl./2e \'{e}d. Birmensdorf, Eidgen\"{o}ssische Anstalt f\"{u}r das
forstliche Versuchswesen.
\urlprefix\url{http://www.wsl.ch/dienstleistungen/publikationen/pdf/503.pdf},
%{http://www.wsl.ch/dienstleistungen/publikationen/ pdf/503.pdf} ,
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Boehm, B. 1988. A Spiral Model of Software Development and Enhancement.
Computer 21(5): 61-72.
\urlprefix\url{http://csse.usc.edu/csse/TECHRPTS/1988/usccse8 8-500/usccse88-500.pdf}, 
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Bonèina, A., Ficko, A., Krè, J., Matija\v{s}i\'c, D., Pisek, R., Poljanec,
A., and Simonèiè, T. 2014. Computer-based tools for supporting forest
planning and management in Slovenia, in Computer-based tools for supporting
forest management. The experience and the expertise world-wide. Report of
Cost Action FP 0804 Forest Management Decision Support Systems (FORSYS),
Borges, J.G., Nordstr\"{o}m, E.M.,Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Hujala T., and
Trasobares, A. (Eds.), 320-340; Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet -
Institutionen for skoglig resurshallning, Umea
\urlprefix\url{http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11373/1/CR_FINAL_140618.pdf},%{http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11373/1/CR{\_}FINAL{\_}14061 8.pdf} ,
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Daenzer, W.F., and Huber, F. (eds.). 2002: Systems Engineering: Methodik und
Praxis, 11. durchgesehene Auflage. Verlag Industrielle Organisation. 618 p.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Felbermeier, B. 2014. Forest decision support tools in Germany, in
Computer-based tools for supporting forest management. The experience and
the expertise world-wide. Report of Cost Action FP 0804 Forest Management
Decision Support Systems (FORSYS), Borges, J.G., Nordstr\"{o}m,
E.M.,Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Hujala T., and Trasobares, A. (Eds.), 134-151;
Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet - Institutionen for skoglig resurshallning,
Umea \urlprefix\url{http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11373/1/CR_FINAL_140618.pdf},%{http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11373/1/CR{\_}FINAL{\_}14061 8.pdf} ,
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Good, E., Pistor, T. 1992: Waldbauliches Informationssystem WIS, Handbuch.
Professur f\"{u}r Waldbau, ETH Z\"{u}rich, Z\"{u}rich.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Heinimann, H. R., Rosset, C., Brang, P. and Trasobares, A. 2014. The design
and use of forest decision support systems in Switzerland, in Computer-based
tools for supporting forest management. The experience and the expertise
world-wide. Report of Cost Action FP 0804 Forest Management Decision Support
Systems (FORSYS), Borges, J.G., Nordstr\"{o}m, E.M.,Garcia-Gonzalo, J.,
Hujala T., and Trasobares, A. (Eds.), 420-440; Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet
- Institutionen for skoglig resurshallning, Umea
\urlprefix\url{http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11373/1/CR_FINAL_140618.pdf},%{http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11373/1/CR{\_}FINAL{\_}14061 8.pdf} ,
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Loi f\'{e}d\'{e}rale du 4 octobre 1991 sur les for\^{e}ts (LFo; RS 921.0).
\urlprefix\url{http://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19910255/201307010000/921.0.pdf},%{http://www.admin.ch/opc/fr/classified-compilation/19910255/201307010000/921.0.pdf} ,

last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Portoghesi, L., Torresan, C., De Meo, I., Floris, A., and Scrinzi, G. 2014.
Computer-based tools to support decisions in forest planning in Italy, in
Computer-based tools for supporting forest management. The experience and
the expertise world-wide. Report of Cost Action FP 0804 Forest Management
Decision Support Systems (FORSYS), Borges, J.G., Nordstr\"{o}m,
E.M.,Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Hujala T., and Trasobares, A. (Eds.), 227-250;
Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet - Institutionen for skoglig resurshallning,
Umea \urlprefix\url{http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11373/1/CR_FINAL_140618.pdf},%{http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11373/1/CR{\_}FINAL{\_}14061 8.pdf} ,
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\addtolength{\textheight}{-3.25truein}

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Rosset, C., and Sch\"utz, J.-P.. 2003. A DSS as a tool for implementation
and monitoring of multiple-purpose, near to nature silviculture. P. 462-470
in Decision support for multiple purpose forestry: A transdisciplinary
conference on the development and application of decision support tools for
forest management, April 23-25, 2003, Vienna Austria, Vacik. H., M.J. Lexer,
M.H. Rauscher, K.M. Reynolds, R.T. Brooks (eds.). CD-Proceedings. University
of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Rosset, C. 2005a. Syst\`{e}me de gestion sylvicole int\'{e}gr\'{e}e et
d'aide \`{a} la d\'{e}cision. PhD thesis, Eidgen\"{o}ssische Technische
Hochschule Z\"{u}rich, Z\"{u}rich, Switzerland. 175 p.
\urlprefix\url{http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:28103/eth-28103-02.pdf},
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Rosset, C. 2005b. Le WIS.2, un instrument informatique performant pour
une gestion efficiente et cibl\'{e}e des \'{e}cosyst\`{e}mes forestiers.
Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 156(12): 496-509.
\urlprefix\url{http://www.wsl.ch/fe/waldressourcen/dossiers/management/download/wis_2.pdf},
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Rosset, C. Kunz B., and Gfeller M. 2009a. GIS-Gest\"{u}tzte
multifunktionale Waldbewirtschaftungsplanung mit WIS.2. P. 574-579 in
Angewandte Geoinformatik 2009: Beitr\"{a}ge zum 21. AGIT-Symposium Salzburg,
J. Strobl, T. Blaschke, G. Griesebner (eds.). Wichmann.
\urlprefix\url{http://www.agit.at/php_files/myagit/papers/2009/7455.pdf},%{http://www.agit.at/php{\_}files/myagit/papers/2009/7 455.pdf} 
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

Rosset, C., Sch\"utz, J.-P., Ammann, S. St\"{u}ckelberger, J., and Kunz B.
2009b. Management von Wald\"{o}kosystemen mit WIS.2 -- Was tr\"{a}gt WIS.2
zur betrieblichen Planung bei? P. 387-414 in Management zukunftsf\"{a}hige
Waldnutzung: Grundlagen, Methoden und Instrumente, O. Thees, R. Lemm (eds.).
vdf Hochschulverlag.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Schmid, C. 2009. Grundstrategie f\"{u}r die Einf\"{u}hrung des forstlichen
Management WIS.2 in die Praxis. Unpublished work, Hochschule f\"{u}r
Technik, Z\"{u}rich, Switzerland.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Sch\"{o}nsleben, P. 2001. Integrales Informationsmanagement:
Informationssysteme f\"{u}r Gesch\"{a}ftsprozesse - Management,
Modellierung, Lebenszyklus und Technologie, 2., vollst\"{a}ndig
\"{u}berarbeitete und erweiterte Auflage. Springer. 593 p.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Sch\"utz, J.-P., and Zingg, A.. 2007. Zuwachsprognose nach der sozialen
Hierarchie im Entwicklungs- und Wuchsmodell SiWaWa. P. 180-187 in Deutscher
Verband Forstlicher Forschungsanstalten, Sektion Ertragskunde: Jahrestagung
vom 21.-23. 2007, J. Nagel (Ed.). Alsfeld-Eudorf.
\urlprefix\url{http://www.nw-fva.de/~nagel/SektionErtragskunde/band2007/Tag2007_16.pdf},
last accessed Sep.
18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Sch\"utz, J.-P. 1999. Near-Natural Silviculture: Past, Present and Future.
Schweiz. Z. Forstwes. 150(12): 478-483.
\urlprefix\url{http://www.szf-jfs.org/doi/abs/10.3188/szf.1999.0478},%{http://www.szf-jfs.org/doi/abs/10.3188/szf. 1999.0478} 
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Simon, H.A. 1980. Le nouveau management~: la d\'{e}cision par les
ordinateurs. Economica. 159 p.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Specker, A. 2001. Modellierung von Informationssystemen: Ein methodischer
Leitfaden zur Projektabwicklung. vdf Hochschulverlag. 372 p.

\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Vacik, H., Lexer, M., J., Scholz, J., Wolfslehner, B., K\"{o}ck, A., M., and
Granitzer, M. 2014. Design and use of computer-based tools supporting forest
planning and decision making in Austria, in Computer-based tools for
supporting forest management. The experience and the expertise world-wide.
Report of Cost Action FP 0804 Forest Management Decision Support Systems
(FORSYS), Borges, J.G., Nordstr\"{o}m, E.M.,Garcia-Gonzalo, J., Hujala T.,
and Trasobares, A. (Eds.), 16-32; Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet -
Institutionen for skoglig resurshallning, Umea
\urlprefix\url{http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11373/1/CR_FINAL_140618.pdf},%{http://pub.epsilon.slu.se/11373/1/CR{\_}FINAL{\_}14061 8.pdf} ,
last accessed Sep. 18, 2014.

\vspace{2pt}
\bibitem[a(2012)]{a}
Wierzbicki, A.P., Makowski, M., and Wessels, J. (eds.) 2000. Model-Based
Decision Support Methodology with Environmental Applications. Kluwer
Academic Publishers. 475 p.

\label{docend}
\end{thebibliography}

\end{document}