Advertisement

Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes

  • Irene Pluchinotta
  • Akin O. Kazakçi
  • Raffaele Giordano
  • Alexis Tsoukiàs
Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Literature about public decision making experiences, including stakeholders’ engagement, offers best practices but also reports of unsuccessful case studies. Meaningful participation activities require direct integration of stakeholders into all the phases of the public decision process to unleash innovation. Often, policy making incorporates participation late in the process, after the problem definition has occurred, alternatives have been defined, without considering stakeholders’ knowledge and problem understanding. The early stage of policy alternatives design is essential to the development of policy. Our research presents an extensive literature review with respect to policy design and design theory in order to show that the formal process of generation of alternatives has been little investigated. There is a demand for methodologies aiming at supporting policy makers and relevant stakeholders during policy design. In this regard, this paper introduces (and explores) the operational role of design theory in the policy making process for the generation of policy alternatives. Design thinking, as a way to inform a collective problem definition leading to innovation, highlights the value of early stakeholders’ engagement. The aim of this paper is to understand, from an operational point of view, what “design” means in a policy making context, developing an innovative approach for assisting the formalization of policy design. The paper uses the results of a pilot case study to illustrate the application of the Concepts–Knowledge (C-K) theory framework to support the innovative design of policy alternatives for the groundwater protection policy of the Apulia Region (southern Italy).

Keywords

Decision analysis Policy design Participatory process Policy analytics Policy co-production Design theory 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The research activity described in this work have been financially supported by the INNDOPP (Innovative Design of Public Policies) Project, funded by PSL Research University. It has been developed in cooperation with the National Research Council-Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA) of Bari (Italy) and the Centre de Gestion Scientifique of the Ecole des Mines ParisTech, Paris (France). We would like to thank the institutional and non-institutional stakeholders that provided their knowledge and expertise at the base of this work. Moreover, a great thanks goes to the Capitanata Irrigation Consortium (Consorzio di Bonifica di Capitanata) and to Dr. Luigi Nardella for their general support, engagement and availability during the work sessions.

References

  1. Ackermann F, Eden C (2011) Strategic management of stakeholders: theory and practice. Long Range Plan 44(3):179–196.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001 Google Scholar
  2. Ackermann F, Heinzerling L (2004) Priceless: on knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. The New Press, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7499.1091 Google Scholar
  3. Adla A, Zarate P, Soubie J (2011) A proposal of toolkit for GDSS facilitators. Group Decis Negot 20(1):57–77.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-010-9204-8 Google Scholar
  4. Agogué M, Kazakçi AO (2014) 10 Years of C–K theory: a survey on the academic and industrial impacts of a design theory. Anthol Theor Models Des.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1_11 Google Scholar
  5. Agogué M, Hooge S, Arnoux F, Brown I (2014) An introduction to innovative design. Elements and applications of C–K theory. TRANSVALOR, ParisGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Alexander ER (1982) Design in the decision-making process. Policy Sci 14:279–292Google Scholar
  8. Alford J (2009) Engaging public sector clients: from service delivery to co-production. Palgrave MacMillan, HoundmillsGoogle Scholar
  9. Alshuwaikhat HM, Nkwenti DI (2002) Visualizing decision making: perspectives on collaborative and participative approach to sustainable urban planning and management. Environ Plan 29(4):513–531.  https://doi.org/10.1068/b12818 Google Scholar
  10. Ananda J, Herath G (2003) Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach. Ecol Econ 45(1):75–90Google Scholar
  11. Archer LB (1965) Systematic method for designers. The Design Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Archer LB (1970) An overview of the structure of the design process. In: Moore G (ed) Emerging methods in environmental design and planning. MIT, Cambridge, pp 285–307Google Scholar
  13. Bardach E (1977) The implementation game. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  14. Bayazit N (2004) Investigating design: a review of forty years of design research. Des Issues 20(1):16–29Google Scholar
  15. Bayley C, French S (2008) Designing a participatory process for stakeholder involvement in a societal decision. Group Decis Negot 17(3):195–210.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9076-8 Google Scholar
  16. Beierle TC (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22(4):739–749.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00065 Google Scholar
  17. Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Bemelmans-Videc M, Vedung E (1998) Conclusion: policy instrument types, packages, choices and evaluation. In: Bemelmans-Videc M, Rist RC, Vedung E (eds) Carrots, sticks and sermons: policy instruments and their evaluation. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 249–273Google Scholar
  19. Bobrow D (2006) Policy design: ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In: Peters BG, Pierre J (eds) Handbook of public policy. Sage, London, pp 75–96Google Scholar
  20. Bobrow D, Dryzek JS (1987) Policy analysis by design. University of Pittsburgh Press, PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  21. Bressers H, Klok P (1988) Fundamentals for a theory of policy instruments. Int J Soc Econ 15(3/4):22–41Google Scholar
  22. Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harvard Bus Rev 84(6):15–24Google Scholar
  23. Brown T (2009) Change by design: how design thinking transforms organisation and inspires innovation. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Brugha R, Varvasovsky Z (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan 15:239–246Google Scholar
  25. Buchanan R (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. Des Issues 8(2):5–21Google Scholar
  26. Celino A, Concilio G (2011) Explorative nature of negotiation in participatory decision making for sustainability. Group Decis Negot 20(2):255–270.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-010-9197-3 Google Scholar
  27. Checkland P (2000) Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Syst Res Behav Sci 17:S11–S58Google Scholar
  28. Colorni A, Tsoukiàs A (2018) What is a decision problem? designing alternatives. In: Matsatsinis N, Grigoroudis E (eds) Preference disaggregation in multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90599-0_1 Google Scholar
  29. Creighton JL (2005) The public participation handbook. Jossey-Bass, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Daniell KA, Mazri C, Tsoukiàs A (2010) Real world decision-aiding: a case of participatory water management. In: Insua DR, French S (eds) e-Democracy: a group decision and negotiation perspective, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–150Google Scholar
  31. De Marchi G, Lucertini G, Tsoukiàs A (2016) From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics. Ann Oper Res 236(1):15–38.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1578-6 Google Scholar
  32. Del Rıo P, Carrillo-Hermosilla J, Konnola T (2010) Policy strategies to promote eco-innovation. J Ind Ecol 14(4):541–557Google Scholar
  33. Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem solution. Des Stud 22(5):425–437Google Scholar
  34. Eden C, Ackermann F (2004) Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):615–630.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00061-4 Google Scholar
  35. Eden C, Ackermann F (2013) Problem structuring: on the nature of, and reaching agreement about, goals. EURO J Decis Process 1(1):7–28Google Scholar
  36. Elmore RF (1987) Instruments and strategy in public policy. Policy Stud Rev 7(1):174–186Google Scholar
  37. Elmquist M, Segrestin B (2009) Sustainable development through innovative design: lessons from the KCP method experimented with an automotive firm. Int J Autom Technol Manag 9(2):229–244Google Scholar
  38. Ferretti V, Pluchinotta I, Tsoukiàs A (2019) Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes. Eur J Oper Res 273:353–363Google Scholar
  39. Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts and the environment: the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, DurhamGoogle Scholar
  40. Fischer F, Miller G, Sidney MS (2007) Handbook of public policy: theory, politics, and methods. Sage, London.  https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608054 Google Scholar
  41. Forester J (1999) The deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Freeman RE (2010) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. French S, Bayley C (2011) Public participation: comparing approaches. J Risk Res 14(2):37–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.515316 Google Scholar
  44. French S, Insua DR, Ruggeri F (2007) E-participation and decision analysis. Decis Anal 4:1–16Google Scholar
  45. Friend J, Hickling A (1987) Planning under pressure. The strategic choice approach. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Friend J, Power J, Yewlett C (1974) Public planning: the inter-corporate dimension. Tavistock, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Giordano R, D’Agostino D, Apollonio C, Lamaddalena N, Vurro M (2013) Bayesian belief network to support conflict analysis for groundwater protection: the case of the Apulia Region. J Environ Manag 115:136–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.011 Google Scholar
  48. Giordano R, D’Agostino D, Apollonio C, Scardigno A, Pagano A, Portoghese I, Lamaddalena N, Piccinni AF, Vurro M (2015) Evaluating acceptability of groundwater protection measures under different agricultural policies. Agric Water Manag 147:54–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.07.023 Google Scholar
  49. Giordano R, Brugnach M, Pluchinotta I (2017a) Ambiguity in problem framing as a barrier to collective actions: some hints from groundwater protection policy in the Apulia Region. Group Decis Negot 26(5):911–932.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9519-1 Google Scholar
  50. Giordano R, Pagano A, Pluchinotta I, Olivo R, Hernandez SM, Lafuente ES (2017b) The complexity of the network of interactions in flood emergency management: the Lorca flash flood case. Environ Model Softw 95:180–195.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.026 Google Scholar
  51. Gregory R, Fischhoff B, McDaniels T (2005) Acceptable input: using decision analysis to guide public policy deliberations. Decis Anal 2:4–16Google Scholar
  52. Gunningham N, Grabosky P, Sinclair D (1998) Smart regulation: designing environmental policy. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  53. Hand LC (2012) Public policy design and assumptions about human behaviour. In: Western political science association’s annual conferenceGoogle Scholar
  54. Harrison S, Qureshi M (2000) Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multicriteria decision models. Nat Resour Forum 24(1):11–19Google Scholar
  55. Hatchuel A, Weil B (1999) Pour une théorie unifiée de la conception, Axiomatiques et processus collectifs. CGS Ecole des Mines, GIS cognition-CNRSGoogle Scholar
  56. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2002) C–K theory: notions and applications of a unified design theory. In: Proceedings of the Herbert Simon international conference on «design sciences», pp 1–22Google Scholar
  57. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2003) A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to CK theory. In: XIVth international conference on engineering design, Stockholm, Sweden, 19th–21st AugustGoogle Scholar
  58. Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) C–K design theory: an advanced formulation. Res Eng Des 19(4):181–192Google Scholar
  59. Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2004) C–K theory in practice: lessons from industrial applications. Des Conf 2004:245–258Google Scholar
  60. Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2008) Teaching innovative design reasoning: how could C–K theory help? In: Proceedings of 10th international conference on engineering and product design education pp 73–78Google Scholar
  61. Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B, Agogué M, Kazakçi AO, Hooge S (2015) Multiple forms of applications and impacts of a design theory-ten years of industrial applications of C-K theory. In: Lindemann ACU (ed) Impact of design research on industrial practice—tools, technology, and training, December. Springer, Munich, pp 189–209Google Scholar
  62. Hood C (1986) The tools of government. Chatham House, ChathamGoogle Scholar
  63. Hooge S, Béjean M, Arnoux F (2016) Organising for radical innovation: the benefits of the interplay between cognitive and organisational processes in Kcp workshops. Int J Innov Manag 20(4):1–33.  https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919616400041 Google Scholar
  64. Howlett M (2004) Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: instrument mixes, implementation styles and second generation theories of policy instrument choice. Policy Soc 23(2):1–17Google Scholar
  65. Howlett M (2011a) Designing public policies: principles and instruments. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Howlett M (2011b) Revisiting policy design: the rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design studies. In: General conference of the European consortium for political research (ECPR), pp 1–32Google Scholar
  67. Howlett M (2014) From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sci 47(3):187–207.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0 Google Scholar
  68. Howlett M, Lejano R (2013) Tales from the crypt: the rise and fall (and re-birth?) of policy design studies. Adm Soc 45(3):356–380Google Scholar
  69. Howlett M, Mukherjee I, Woo JJ (2015) From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: the new design orientation towards policy formulation research. Policy Polit 43(2):291–311Google Scholar
  70. Hysing E (2009) From government to governance? a comparison of environmental governing in Swedish forestry and transport. Governance 22:547–672Google Scholar
  71. Kazakçi AO, Tsoukiàs A (2005) Extending the C–K design theory: a theoretical background for personal design assistants. J Eng Des 16(4):399–411Google Scholar
  72. Keyes JM (1996) Power tools: the form and function of legal instruments for government action. Can J Adm Law Pract 10:133–174Google Scholar
  73. Kim WC, Mauborgne RA (1995) A procedural justice model of strategic decision-making: strategy content implications in the multinational. Organ Sci 6(1):44–61.  https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.44 Google Scholar
  74. Kim WC, Mauborgne RA (1998) Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strateg Manag J 19(4):323–338Google Scholar
  75. Lasswell H (1954) Key symbols, signs and icons. In: Bryson L, Finkelstein L, MacIver RM (eds) Symbols and values: an initial study. Harper & Bros, New York, pp 77–94Google Scholar
  76. Lasswell H (1956) The decision process: seven categories of functional analysis. Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, University of MarylandGoogle Scholar
  77. Lasswell H (1971) A pre-view of policy sciences. American Elsevier, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  78. Lavin J (2010) Participatory processes and instruments. In: Rios Insua D, French S (eds) E-participation. A group decision and negotiation perspective. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  79. Le Masson P, Weil B, Hatchuel A (2014) Théorie, méthodes et organisations de la conception. TRANSVALOR, ParisGoogle Scholar
  80. Levi-Faur D (2012) The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  81. Liedtka J, King A, Bennett K (2013) Solving problems with design thinking: ten stores of what works. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  82. Lienert J, Schnetzer F, Ingold K (2013) Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes. J Environ Manag 125:134–148.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.052 Google Scholar
  83. Linder SH, Peters BG (1984) From social theory to policy design. J Public Policy 4(3):237–259.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X0000221X Google Scholar
  84. Lowi T (1985) The state in politics: the relation between policy and administration. In: Noll R (ed) Regulatory policy and the social sciences. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 67–105Google Scholar
  85. Lynn LE, Gould SG (1980) Designing public policy: a casebook on the role of policy analysis. Goodyear Publishing Company, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  86. Majone G (1993) Pitfalls of analysis. In: Majone G, Quade E (eds) International series on applied system analysis. Wiley, New York, pp 7–22Google Scholar
  87. Martin R (2009) The design of businesses: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  88. Marttunen M, Mustajoki J, DufvaM Karjalainen T (2013) How to design and realize participation of stakeholders in MCDA processes? a framework for selecting an appropriate approach. EURO J Decis Process 3(1–2):187–214.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-013-0016-3 Google Scholar
  89. May PJ (1981) Hints for crafting alternative policies. Policy Anal 7(2):227–244Google Scholar
  90. May PJ (1991) Reconsidering policy design: policies and publics. J Public Policy 11(02):187.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X0000619X Google Scholar
  91. May PJ (2003) Policy design and implementation. In: Guy Peters B, Pierre J (eds) Handbook of public administration. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 223–233Google Scholar
  92. Mayntz R (1979) Public bureaucracies and policy implementation. Int Soc Sci J 31(4):633–645Google Scholar
  93. Mayntz R (1981) The changing conditions of effective public policy: a new challenge for. Policy Anal II(2):123–143Google Scholar
  94. Mazri C (2007) Apport méthodologique pour la structuration de processus de décision publique en contexte participatif. Le cas des risques industriels majeurs en France. Université Paris-Dauphine, ParisGoogle Scholar
  95. Mintrom M, Luetjens J (2016) Design thinking in policy making processes: opportunities and challenges. Aust J Public Adm 75(3):391–402.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12211 Google Scholar
  96. Moore MH (1995) Creating public value: strategic management in government. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  97. Nogueira F, Borges M, Wolf JH (2017) Collaborative decision-making in non-formal planning settings. Group Decis Negot 26(5):875–890.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9518-2 Google Scholar
  98. Norese M, Rolando D, Fregonara E (2015) Integration of problem structuring methods: a methodological proposal for complex regional decision-making processes. Int J Decis Support Syst Technol 7(2):58–83.  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDSST.2015040104 Google Scholar
  99. O’Toole L (2000) Research on policy implementation: assessment and prospects. J Public Adm Res Theor 10(2):263–288Google Scholar
  100. Oppl S (2017) Supporting the collaborative construction of a shared understanding about work with a guided conceptual modeling technique, vol 26. Springer, Dordrecht.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9485-7 Google Scholar
  101. Ostanello A, Tsoukiàs A (1993) An explicative model of ‘public’ interorganizational interactions. Eur J Oper Res 70:67–82Google Scholar
  102. Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  103. Ostrom E (2010) Governing a commons from a Citizen’s perspective. Heinrich-Boell Stiftung, Cologne, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  104. Pahl G, Beitz W (1984) Engineering design, a systematic approach. The Design Council, LondonGoogle Scholar
  105. Peters BG, Pierre J (1998) Governance without government? rethinking public administration. J Public Adm Res Theor 8(2):223–244Google Scholar
  106. Pidd M (2004) Complementarity in systems modelling. In: Pidd Michael (ed) Systems modelling: theory and practice theory and practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–20Google Scholar
  107. Pluchinotta I (2015) Multi-agent modelling for distributed intelligent decision in water management. Doctoral thesis Université Paris Dauphine, PSL Univ, France and Techinical University of Bari, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  108. Pluchinotta I, Pagano A, Giordano R, Tsoukiàs A (2018) A system dynamics model for supporting decision makers in irrigation water management. J Environ Manag 223:815–824.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.083 Google Scholar
  109. Pollock S, Rothkopf M, Barnett A (1994) Operational research and the public sector. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  110. Portoghese I, D’Agostino D, Giordano R, Scardigno A, Apollonio C, Vurro M (2013) An integrated modelling tool to evaluate the acceptability of irrigation constraint measures for groundwater protection. Environ Model Softw 46:90–103Google Scholar
  111. Reed M, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? a typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90(5):1933–1949.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001 Google Scholar
  112. Renn O (2006) Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy 23(1):34–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.005 Google Scholar
  113. Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169Google Scholar
  114. Rosenhead J (2006) Past, present and future of problem structuring methods. J Oper Res Soc 57(7):759–765.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602206 Google Scholar
  115. Rowe P (1998) Design thinking. MIT Pres, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  116. Rowe GT, Horlick-Jones JW, Pidgeon N (2005) Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate. Public Underst Sci 14:331–352Google Scholar
  117. Sabatier P (2007) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  118. Salamon L (1981) Rethinking public management: third party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy 29(3):255–275Google Scholar
  119. Santoro S, Pluchinotta I, Pagano A, Pengal P, Cokan B, Giordano R (2019) Assessing stakeholders’ risk perception to promote nature based solutions as flood protection strategies: the case of the Glinšˇcica river (Slovenia). Sci Total Environ 655:188–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.116 Google Scholar
  120. Schneider A, Ingram H (1997) Policy design for democracy. University of Kansas Press, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  121. Schon D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books (Reprinted 1995), New YorkGoogle Scholar
  122. Ullah AMMS, Rashid MM, Tamaki J (2012) On some unique features of C–K theory of design. CIRP J Manufact Sci Technol 5(1):55–66.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2011.09.001 Google Scholar
  123. Simon HA (1954) Some strategic considerations in the construction of social science models. In: Simon H (ed) Models of bounded rationality: behavioural economics and business organization. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  124. Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  125. Simon HA (1976) From substantive to procedural rationality. In: Latsis S (ed) Method and appraisal in economics. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  126. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill, Boston.  https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601336 Google Scholar
  127. Sterner T (2003) Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. Resource for the Future Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  128. Suh N (1990) Principles of design. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  129. Tavella E, Franco LA (2015) Dynamics of group knowledge production in facilitated modelling workshops: an exploratory study. Group Decis Negot 24(3):451–475.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9398-2 Google Scholar
  130. Tsoukiàs A (2007) On the concept of decision aiding process: An operational perspective. Ann Oper Res 154(1):3–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0187-z Google Scholar
  131. Tsoukiàs A, Montibeller G, Lucertini G, Belton V (2013) Policy analytics: an agenda for research and practice. EURO J Decis Process 1(1–2):115–134.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-013-0008-3 Google Scholar
  132. UNDP UNDP (2012) Multi-stakeholder decision-making a guidebook for establishing a multi-stakeholder decision-making process to support green. Low-Emission and Climate-Resilient Development StrategiesGoogle Scholar
  133. Utterback J, Abernathy W (1975) A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3(6):639–665Google Scholar
  134. Vennix JAM (1996) Group model-building: tackling messy problems. Syst Dyn Rev 15(4):379–401Google Scholar
  135. Webler T, Renn O (1995) A brief primer on participation: philosophy and practice. In: Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds) Fairness and competence in citizen participation evaluating models for environmental discourse. Springer, Berlin, pp 17–33Google Scholar
  136. Weimer D (1992) The craft of policy design: can it be more than art? Rev Policy Res 11(3–4):370–388.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1992.tb00479.x Google Scholar
  137. Wildavsky A (1979) Speaking truth to power: the art and craft of policy analysis. Little-Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  138. Wilensky R (1981) Meta-planning: representing and using knowledge about planning in problem solving and natural language understanding. Cogn Sci 5:197–233.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-1446-7.50044-3 Google Scholar
  139. Woodside K (1986) Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Can J Polit Sci 19(4):775–793.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900055141 Google Scholar
  140. Zarate P (2013) Tools for collaborative decision-making. Springer, London.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118574690 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Irene Pluchinotta
    • 1
  • Akin O. Kazakçi
    • 2
  • Raffaele Giordano
    • 3
  • Alexis Tsoukiàs
    • 1
  1. 1.LAMSADE-CNRSPSL Research University, Université Paris DauphineParisFrance
  2. 2.Centre de Gestion Scientifique, MINES ParisTechPSL Research UniversityParisFrance
  3. 3.Water Research InstituteNational Research CouncilBariItaly

Personalised recommendations