Integration of Problem Structuring Methods

2018

Historically, project management has relied on modelling decision problems mathematically and computing the ‘best’ solution. But there do emerge several obstinate, even prohibitive, difficulties for these sorts of models. How to deal with the intractability of real-world uncertainties, of kinds that defy the probabilistic reductions of mathematical ‘decision models’? How to address (fully legitimate) forms of ethical reasoning that go beyond the simple scalar trade-offs that lie at the core of decision models? When consequences are difficult to characterize in any one robust way, how rational is it to insist on doing so anyway? What about the ambiguities and irreconcilabilities in the divergent values and interests around the management of projects in a complex and turbulent world, difficulties that make it misleading to produce any single, notionally definitive picture? And how to balance the often-invisible effects of power – operating as much within the management of large and complex projects as outside? (Andy Stirling & Coburn, 2017)

2018

Evidence demonstrate that the effectiveness of flood risk management measures depends on human decisions, actions and interactions. Action choices are not neutral, but commensurate with the perspectives and frames held by the actors making the decisions. The problem is that when these frames do not overlap or are incompatible, they potentially lead to a situation of conflict, hampering the effectiveness of risk management measures. In this work, we argue that making the decision actors aware of the existence of ambiguous problem framings and of the impacts of ambiguity on the measures’ effectiveness is the key to deal with conflicts in risk management. To this aim, a multi-step methodology based on the integration between Problem Structuring Methods (PSM)and Ambiguity Analysis has been developed and experimentally tested in the Glinščica river basin (Slovenia). PSM, and specifically Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) were used to elicit individual risk perception and to structure the dec...

European Journal of Operational Research, 2017

This paper reports on a Community Operational Research (Community OR) project consisting of ten applications of a problem structuring method (PSM) with the Local Government Authorities of Cyprus. The PSM, Structured Democratic Dialogue Process (SDDP), is a systemic methodology that sits somewhere between Soft OR and traditional OR methods. It uses natural language constructs to support stakeholders explore similarity and influence relations between their distinct observations, and directed graphs to illustrate and communicate the consensus results. Matrix operations that take place behind the scenes make it possible for people from all walks of life to deal with complex societal problems without needing to master systems science. The application of the SDDP methodology in the case of the Local Government Authorities of Cyprus created the trust and the momentum necessary to achieve large-scale consensus and facilitate envisioned societal reforms. SDDP may have value for Community OR more broadly because of its emphasis on meaningful stakeholder and community participation.

European Journal of Operational Research, 2013

Operational researchers and social scientists often make significant claims for the value of systemic problem structuring and other participative methods. However, when they present evidence to support these claims, it is usually based on single case studies of inter vention. There have been very few attempts at evaluating across methods and across interventions undertaken by different people. This is because, in any local intervention, contextual factors, the skills of the researcher and the purposes being pursued by stakeholders affect the perceived success or failure of a method. The use of standard criteria for comparing methods is therefore made problematic by the need to consider what is unique in each intervention. So, is it possible to develop a single evaluation approach that can support both locally meaningful evaluations and longer-term comparisons between methods? This paper outlines a methodological framework for the evaluation of systemic problem structuring methods that seeks to do just this.

European Journal of Operational Research, 2014

When we use a PSM what is it we are actually doing? An answer to this question would enable the PSM community to considerably enlarge the available source of case studies by the inclusion of examples of non-codified PSM use. We start from Checkland's own proposal for a "constitutive definition" of SSM, which originated from trying to answer the question of knowing when a claim of SSM use was legitimate. By extending this idea to a generic constitutive definition for all PSMs leads us to propose a selfconsistent labelling schema for observed phenomena arising from PSMs in action. This consists of a set of testable propositions, which, through observation of putative PSM use, can be used to assess validity of claims of PSM use. Such evidential support for the propositions as may be found in putative PSM use can then make it back into a broader axiomatic formulation of PSMs through the use of a set-theoretic approach, which enables our method to scale to large data sets. The theoretical underpinning to our work is in causal realism and middle range theory. We illustrate our approach through the analysis of three case studies drawn from engineering organisations, a rich source of possible non-codified PSM use. The combination of a method for judging cases of non-codified PSM use, sound theoretical underpinning, and scalability to large data sets, we believe leads to a demystification of PSMs and should encourage their wider use.

2005

This paper addresses structuring of multicriteria decision aid models. Structuring provides the actors involved in a decision context with a common language for debating and arguing about their preferences and facilitates the identification of decision opportunities and the construction of new alternatives. Structuring is decomposed into (1) problem-definition, (2) modelstructuring and (3) impact assessment and analysis. The concept of policy unit is used to generalise the concept of decision actor and to introduce group, individual and mixed structuring frameworks. The notion of concern is central to structuring activities and is extensively discussed. Descriptors are then defined and classified in terms of natural, proxy and constructed descriptors. Several methods that can be used to select or construct descriptors are presented. The paper also provides extensive examples of good practice and operational tips for the structuring phase.

The Politicality of Problem Structuring, IPPA, IWPPA3, Budapest, June, 2022

Starting from insights in problem structuring by Hoppe (2011) and Turnbull & Hoppe (2018), this paper addresses the workshop proposers’ questions 2 (different actors and power relations in problem structuring) and 3 (impacts on solution strategies). For the workshop, its intention is to facilitate a reflexive and comparative discussion on cross-paper issues. The first section sets out the basic principles and concepts of problem structuring theory. Problem-structuring impacts on policy action by way of two intertwined, entangled and mutually dependent sub-processes: (1) in probing or puzzling, problem-structuring moves between higher and lower problematicity; and (2) in instigation or powering, problem-structuring reduces or enlarges the political distance between actors. From a depoliticized or epistemized vantage point, problem structuring is about probing or puzzling for a shared perception and appreciation of reality. From a political vantage point, problem structuring is about instigation and powering for sufficient political cooperation or support (not necessarily: agreement) to decide on one course for collective action. Section two briefly explores how these basic insights work out in problem-structuring in the different functions of the policy process (Dunn, 2018), resp. agenda-setting, policy formulation, policy adoption, implementation and evaluation. Also, attention will focus on which (types of) actors or policy workers are involved, in political or depoliticized ways, in the different functions of problem structuring (problem sensing/gestation, problem exploration/categorization, problem diagnosis/ decomposition, problem definition/political choice). A normative concluding section is devoted to the crucial role of modes of problem-structuring for sustainable governance and democratic and right-of-law based politics.

2019

The paper initially elucidates the so-called 'problems-first' planning approach, whereby planners are supposed to start any activity based on a precise definition of the problems that need to be solved. As a result, they become more relevant actors to both citizens and politicians, all of whom are considered important parties in solving complex problems. Following a brief introduction, the 'key seven', i. e. the seven key aspects of problem-oriented planning, are described. Briefly, these are the various elements of a planning task that, when altered, have a disproportionate effect on the range of possible solutions and thus thoroughly affect the outcome of a planning situation. These include: (1) defining the 'socially constructed' problems to be worked on, (2) modifying the (usually provisional) definition of the problem by shifting it back and forth, (3) testing the empirical adequacy of the assumed relationship at the base of how a problem is defined, (4)...

European Journal of Operational Research, 2012

ABSTRACT The Drivers, Pressures, State, Impact and Response or DPSIR framework has been with us for over a decade now and it is widely used as a means to assess and measure and, eventually provide a guide to managing the environment. With its repertoire of diagnostic and analytical components the DPSIR can be argued to be a Problem Structuring Method or PSM. Criticisms of the framework abound but it has a resilience which is noteworthy. Some argue that DPSIR, by its nature, is a narrowly formulated, engineering device, incompatible with the multiple perspectives which human interaction in global ecology requires. Is there a value in DPSIR being more flexible in expression and experience of users? In this article it is shown how the DPSIR framework was applied within a multi-methodology approach called Imagine in a number of coastal management projects around the Mediterranean and in other contexts. The article argues that DPSIR, whilst admittedly limited in its scope and approach can, if applied in a participatory and systemic multi-methodology, combine with other tools and help to create outcomes of value to local populations.

(Paper submitted at the 2006 Egos Colloquium, Bergen) Site development projects, and area based interventions are often the subject over which relations and conflicts among actors are shaped in urban areas (Le Galès). Interorganizational coordination becomes then an important task for the public actor in the context of a network society (Kickert, et al. 1997). In this case public functions of steering over urban and spatial changes, present new challenges for the management. Interorganizational coordination in particular is requesting (O’Toole et. al 1997, McGuire 2005) a dedicated effort for gathering resources and structuring decisions and consensus around given projects, and not around broad or sectoral objectives. In more than one case interorganizational coordination raises as ultimate request for public organizations the need to continuously reshape alliances and dependencies over projects. Then it is important to know the conditions which allow a public actor to decide in time where to be engaged or promptly disengage from. As a consequence the timing and staging of initiatives becomes decisive (Bryson 2004). However in many research fields this need has been misinterpreted as the mere need of new planning and monitoring techniques (Mintzberg 1994). Even if techniques play their role in public management education, little is known about what and how actually is done by local authorities in practice. Assuming this perspective, there is the need to consider when and how public actors are able to get currently involved in projects. Responsiveness in public organizations over their changing environments mostly pertains then on how new initiatives responding to new and emerging demands can find place in an organization, which is by definition being occupied in doing something else. In this respect, we are reversing one debated question. Instead of asking what are the likely new challenges for the public domain, we ask: which challenges are public actors currently able to face and handle? This question is mainly aimed at the operational field. A project is seen here as a stream of resources (of various nature) over time, which are somehow subjected to deliberate direction. This paper stresses the importance of how, when and why project structures are shaped and formed in public organizations; it aims at illustrating the fine grain detail of some project structures developed in a autonomous and original way by different local authorities in Italy. On this empirical basis, qualitative considerations about effectiveness in project structures held by public authorities are developed, and two operational problems are identified as interface and strategic coordination. Until now the Italian municipalities tend to focus their efforts in constructing special purpose task units in the field of urban planning and site development. Four types of task unit have been developed and represent the most frequent addition to the ordinary competencies within local authorities. Their respective areas of operations are: evaluation and negotiation in private real estate investments, development and social regeneration of overstressed neighbourhoods, the monitoring, briefing and coordination for European initiatives and programmes, strategic plans formulation (or territorial marketing). Other experiences in other sectoral policies are not infrequent (social policies), but they do not play an important role yet. At least seven patterns of project structures can be devised today from practical experiences of public management in complex large area based projects: an agency medium model (as in Turin), a manager mobilization model (in Venice), a staff mobilization model (in Naples), a multiple conferences stream model (like in Rome and Milan), a part time personnel involvement model (as in Milan and Verona), a trigger unit model (in Trento), a special political-administrative interface model (in Genoa). These structures and their distinctive processes are described and represented in detail. These patterns in their variety reflect the different organizational contexts upon which management in the public domain has to confront with, and they represent a critique to the myth of the matrix organization. In any case they do not provide solutions or distinctive advantages. A critical overview of these processes brings two conclusions. The variety of solutions involves some pitfalls in the public management. Complex projects can be successfully managed if they are kept as current issues in the public agendas. However the public realm is a very fragmented one. Each municipality and public organization is segmented and has its own internal dynamics which it is necessary to get used in. The knowledge of these types of organizational dynamics becomes crucial for public project management. Italian experiences allow us to recognize a set of internal factors to deal with. Secondly in complex projects local authorities have to face a problem of representativeness and responsiveness. In most cases a task unit has to negotiate, make decisions and carry the burden of the whole structure it represents. The activities of internal and external interface are strictly linked on how task units are able to solve internal conflicts and synthesize sectoral instances from their organization. References Bryson, J. (2004) What to do when stakeholders matter, Public Management Review Vol 6, Issue 1 Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn, E.-H., and Koppenjan, J.F.M (1997). Managing complex networks : strategies for the public sector. SAGE, London Le Galès, P. (2001) Urban Governance and Policy networks: on the urban political boundedness of policy networks. A french case study, Public Administration Vol 79 No. 1 McGuire, M. (2002) Managing Networks: Propositions on What Managers Do and Why They Do It, Public Administration Review, September/October 2002, Vol 62,No. 5 Mintzberg, H. (1994) The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Prentice Hall International, Hemel Hempstead O’TooleJr. L.J., Hanf K.I., Hupe P.L. Managing Implementation Processes in networks, in Kickert, W.J.M., Klijn, E.-H., and Koppenjan, J.F.M. (eds.) Managing complex networks : strategies for the public sector. SAGE. London