Intervention Methodology
Lecture one: Chapters 1, 2, 3 & 4 and articles Camillus and Franco
Chapter one: The nature of messy problems
Introduction
- Problem: a discrepancy between the perceived and desired situation or development
- Hard to study in isolation: someone confronted with a problem will take action, sometimes
making the situation for others worse
Messy problems:
- Interconnectedness between different aspects of the situation is one property of messy
problems that makes them particularly challenging to manage
- Messy problems also exhibit high levels of uncertainty
- Created through: social context with high complexity creating disagreements
Challenges of tackling messy problems
- To increase the chances of alleviating a messy situation, involving key stakeholders is
important
- Involving key stakeholders is in itself a challenge for several reasons:
1. Different stakeholders may have different perspectives that lead to partial and biased
interpretations of, and responses to, the situation
2. Stakeholders may have different goals and interests, which can result in conflict
- Stakeholders in a messy situation depend on one another to make progress,
but they also look for ways to advance their own agendas
3. Parties involved may have different power sources to deal with the situation
- Asymmetries in power may be based on differences in access to expertise,
information, decision making authority or resources
- When trying to change a messy situation: not only take into account systemic and uncertain
properties, but also who the stakeholders are in the situation
Two ways to maximize the chance of successfully tackling messy situations: individual or group
1. Individual approach: define a situation in such a way that a solution can be identified and
justified, least likely to lead to implementation and change that alleviates the problem
- Problem: individuals generally do not consider all information relevant to a problem
situation
- Also: individuals do not search for optimal solutions, but instead are satisfied
with solutions which are good enough results
- Solution: spend more effort on processing relevant information
Ways individuals make sense of complex situations (mental strategies):
1. Use of a frame: structured ways of thinking that simplify and guide our understanding of
reality.
- Frames force us to view the world in a particular perspective and they strongly
influence our perceptions of what we see or expect to see
2. The anchoring and adjustment heuristic: taking a prior situation and adjusting it with the
current situation, these are usually too low which makes predictions too close to the anchor
- Purpose heuristics: reduce the effort of processing information when solving
problems or making decisions (may lead to biases)
,How to know you are using the right frame:
1. Focus the information processing effort on becoming aware of the frame being used
2. Recognize any mismatch between frame and situation: if a frame is not appropriate for the
problem we are faced with, we need to become aware
3. Find or build a better frame (in case of mismatch): this involves switching to more
effortful processing of information, using System 2
2. Group approach: a diverse group of stakeholders, each one possessing relevant knowledge,
experience or decision making authority, is brought together to find a way forward
- A group is able to make progress which could have not been possible by any group
member working alone
- Benefit: differences in group members’ views about the problem become a valuable
asset, enabling them to develop a shared understanding of the problem before acting
- What group members aim to get out of the problem solving effort needs to be taken
into account
- Typically, group members may want the group to succeed but at the same
time do not lose sight of their personal or institutional interest
- For a problem solving group, deep processing of information needs to be supported by
behaviours that maintain group relations
- Group heuristics (bias): a problem that is everyone’s responsibility is no one’s
responsibility
The effect of emotions and stress on group decision making:
1. If emotions run high, stress will focus attention to the best learned routines, ignoring all other
aspects
2. Procrastination: postponing any action to change the situation
3. Buck passing: shifting responsibility to others in the organization
4. Bolstering: denying the relevance of any information that would show something is wrong
Chapter two: Intervening in messy problems
Success of decision making tactics (Nutt, 2002: 99)
- The individual approach based on a single person
taking decisions is best represented by the first two
rows (least successful)
- Fail because they do not manage the political
and social aspects of decision making
- Edict tactic: a directive, for instance a memorandum
that is circulated within the organization explaining a
new policy
- Procedural justice: when participation in decision
making is increased, and leaders show genuine
consideration of the input of stakeholder inputs, those
involved experience the process to be fair, have
greater commitment to the decision and develop trust among themselves and in the leader
, Intervention and methods
- Interventions: procedures to improve processes of any kind and help a group achieve its goals
- These represent opportunities for entering into an ongoing system of relationship, to
come between or among persons, groups or objects for the purpose of helping them
Four groups of methods which work towards a collective solution can be identified:
1. List based methods: elicit information using for instance brainstorming or Nominal Group
Technique
- Information is then grouped into categories and voting may be used to identify
preferences for problems or solutions
2. Systems based methods: assume that information that is elicited can best be brought together
in models (Mostly build on language)
- These models are build with stakeholders and experts and capture the analysis of the
problem up to that moment
3. Narrative based methods: elicit ideas and data in a number of ways and then integrate
information in narrative.
- Multiple scenario development: a scenario may be a story covering a day in the life
of a person ten years from now (based on language, may include pictures)
4. Decision based methods: elicit opinions and data and integrate information in models and
matrices
- Multicriteria decision analysis: confronts options and criteria
Chapter three: Intervention context
Messy situation
- In messy situations different aspects of the problem and different stakeholders compete for the
attention of the advisor
- We need some guidelines on how to come to an initial problem statement
- On this basis we can design a procedure for working with participants and
achieve the desired outcome
Important matters to consider in the intake of a project and the roles an advisor might take
The intake:
- In messy problems it is important to check initial impressions by talking to other people in the
organization
- The first phase of an intervention is making an inventory of problem symptoms so that
the advisor comes to an initial understanding of the scope of the problem
- This is the basis for the project proposal, the sponsor’s commitment of
resources and participants’ willingness to spend time on the project
The intake has four important goals:
1. Clarify the issue to be addressed in the project: can be difficult as everyone sees the issue
differently
- To solve: speak to more than one person
2. Manage client expectations: keep checking if these expectations are congruent
3. Agree on roles and responsibilities of both the consultant/analyst and the client(s)
4. Agree on a design and deliverables of the project: make this step and step 3 as detailed as
possible
Lecture one: Chapters 1, 2, 3 & 4 and articles Camillus and Franco
Chapter one: The nature of messy problems
Introduction
- Problem: a discrepancy between the perceived and desired situation or development
- Hard to study in isolation: someone confronted with a problem will take action, sometimes
making the situation for others worse
Messy problems:
- Interconnectedness between different aspects of the situation is one property of messy
problems that makes them particularly challenging to manage
- Messy problems also exhibit high levels of uncertainty
- Created through: social context with high complexity creating disagreements
Challenges of tackling messy problems
- To increase the chances of alleviating a messy situation, involving key stakeholders is
important
- Involving key stakeholders is in itself a challenge for several reasons:
1. Different stakeholders may have different perspectives that lead to partial and biased
interpretations of, and responses to, the situation
2. Stakeholders may have different goals and interests, which can result in conflict
- Stakeholders in a messy situation depend on one another to make progress,
but they also look for ways to advance their own agendas
3. Parties involved may have different power sources to deal with the situation
- Asymmetries in power may be based on differences in access to expertise,
information, decision making authority or resources
- When trying to change a messy situation: not only take into account systemic and uncertain
properties, but also who the stakeholders are in the situation
Two ways to maximize the chance of successfully tackling messy situations: individual or group
1. Individual approach: define a situation in such a way that a solution can be identified and
justified, least likely to lead to implementation and change that alleviates the problem
- Problem: individuals generally do not consider all information relevant to a problem
situation
- Also: individuals do not search for optimal solutions, but instead are satisfied
with solutions which are good enough results
- Solution: spend more effort on processing relevant information
Ways individuals make sense of complex situations (mental strategies):
1. Use of a frame: structured ways of thinking that simplify and guide our understanding of
reality.
- Frames force us to view the world in a particular perspective and they strongly
influence our perceptions of what we see or expect to see
2. The anchoring and adjustment heuristic: taking a prior situation and adjusting it with the
current situation, these are usually too low which makes predictions too close to the anchor
- Purpose heuristics: reduce the effort of processing information when solving
problems or making decisions (may lead to biases)
,How to know you are using the right frame:
1. Focus the information processing effort on becoming aware of the frame being used
2. Recognize any mismatch between frame and situation: if a frame is not appropriate for the
problem we are faced with, we need to become aware
3. Find or build a better frame (in case of mismatch): this involves switching to more
effortful processing of information, using System 2
2. Group approach: a diverse group of stakeholders, each one possessing relevant knowledge,
experience or decision making authority, is brought together to find a way forward
- A group is able to make progress which could have not been possible by any group
member working alone
- Benefit: differences in group members’ views about the problem become a valuable
asset, enabling them to develop a shared understanding of the problem before acting
- What group members aim to get out of the problem solving effort needs to be taken
into account
- Typically, group members may want the group to succeed but at the same
time do not lose sight of their personal or institutional interest
- For a problem solving group, deep processing of information needs to be supported by
behaviours that maintain group relations
- Group heuristics (bias): a problem that is everyone’s responsibility is no one’s
responsibility
The effect of emotions and stress on group decision making:
1. If emotions run high, stress will focus attention to the best learned routines, ignoring all other
aspects
2. Procrastination: postponing any action to change the situation
3. Buck passing: shifting responsibility to others in the organization
4. Bolstering: denying the relevance of any information that would show something is wrong
Chapter two: Intervening in messy problems
Success of decision making tactics (Nutt, 2002: 99)
- The individual approach based on a single person
taking decisions is best represented by the first two
rows (least successful)
- Fail because they do not manage the political
and social aspects of decision making
- Edict tactic: a directive, for instance a memorandum
that is circulated within the organization explaining a
new policy
- Procedural justice: when participation in decision
making is increased, and leaders show genuine
consideration of the input of stakeholder inputs, those
involved experience the process to be fair, have
greater commitment to the decision and develop trust among themselves and in the leader
, Intervention and methods
- Interventions: procedures to improve processes of any kind and help a group achieve its goals
- These represent opportunities for entering into an ongoing system of relationship, to
come between or among persons, groups or objects for the purpose of helping them
Four groups of methods which work towards a collective solution can be identified:
1. List based methods: elicit information using for instance brainstorming or Nominal Group
Technique
- Information is then grouped into categories and voting may be used to identify
preferences for problems or solutions
2. Systems based methods: assume that information that is elicited can best be brought together
in models (Mostly build on language)
- These models are build with stakeholders and experts and capture the analysis of the
problem up to that moment
3. Narrative based methods: elicit ideas and data in a number of ways and then integrate
information in narrative.
- Multiple scenario development: a scenario may be a story covering a day in the life
of a person ten years from now (based on language, may include pictures)
4. Decision based methods: elicit opinions and data and integrate information in models and
matrices
- Multicriteria decision analysis: confronts options and criteria
Chapter three: Intervention context
Messy situation
- In messy situations different aspects of the problem and different stakeholders compete for the
attention of the advisor
- We need some guidelines on how to come to an initial problem statement
- On this basis we can design a procedure for working with participants and
achieve the desired outcome
Important matters to consider in the intake of a project and the roles an advisor might take
The intake:
- In messy problems it is important to check initial impressions by talking to other people in the
organization
- The first phase of an intervention is making an inventory of problem symptoms so that
the advisor comes to an initial understanding of the scope of the problem
- This is the basis for the project proposal, the sponsor’s commitment of
resources and participants’ willingness to spend time on the project
The intake has four important goals:
1. Clarify the issue to be addressed in the project: can be difficult as everyone sees the issue
differently
- To solve: speak to more than one person
2. Manage client expectations: keep checking if these expectations are congruent
3. Agree on roles and responsibilities of both the consultant/analyst and the client(s)
4. Agree on a design and deliverables of the project: make this step and step 3 as detailed as
possible
