Six (or So) Things You Can Do with a Bad Model

by James S. Hodges

Download Free Electronic Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.9 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Many models used in policy or systems analysis either cannot be validated in any fully adequate sense, such as by comparing them with actual data, or could adequately be validated but have not been. For example, in the area of combat analysis, the central models are arguably almost entirely unvalidated and most will never be susceptible to adequate validation. Nevertheless, such models are often used and can be used fruitfully, even though we have no theory for how to use them or how to interpret and place value on the results they produce. This paper takes a step toward providing such a theory by focusing on the logic that should govern the use of inadequately validated models and the costs and benefits of using them. To this end, it identifies and evaluates six legitimate uses to which such models can be put.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation note series. The note was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1979 to 1993 that reported other outputs of sponsored research for general distribution.

This research in the public interest was supported by RAND, using discretionary funds made possible by the generosity of RAND's donors, the fees earned on client-funded research, and independent research and development (IR&D) funds provided by the Department of Defense.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.