Diagnosing Policy Problem Situations

  • Wil A. H. Thissen
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 179)


As argued in Chap. 2, policy processes are multi-faceted and may display a wide variety of characteristics. Consequently, policy analysis in a multi-actor context needs to be contingent, multi-faceted, and pluriform. The concluding section of Chap. 2 articulated a wide array of requirements for good policy analysis. Chapter 3 outlined a conceptualization of the variety of different activities and associated purposes policy analysts may engage in. Which of these are most appropriate and which less so depends on the characteristics of the situation and on the ambitions of the client and of the analyst. Both chapters set the scene for the question: Given a specific policy situation, what requirements and type(s) of policy analytic activities are essential for achieving the purposes of client and analyst? In other words, how can an analyst make a reasoned design of his/her interventions? This will be the subject of Chap. 5.


Policy Option Problem Situation Fundamental Objective Freight Transport Policy Arena 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ackoff RL (1974) Redesigning the future: a systems approach to societal problems. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Bots PWG, van Twist MJW, van Duin JHR (2000) Automatic pattern detection in stakeholder networks. In: Nunamaker JF, Sprague RH (eds) Proceedings HICSS-33. IEEE Press, Los Alamitos. See also for examples
  3. Bryson JM (2004) What to do when stakeholders matter. Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Manag Rev 6(1):21–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of social theory. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. de Bruijn JA, Porter AL (2004) The education of a technology policy analyst to process management. Technol Anal Strategic Management 16(2):261–274Google Scholar
  6. Douglas M, Wildavsky A (1982) Risk and culture: an essay on the selection of technical and environmental dangers. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunn W (1994) Public policy analysis: an introduction, 2nd edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  8. Eden C (1989) Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA). In: Rosenhead J (ed) Rational analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  9. Enserink B, Hermans L, Kwakkel J, Thissen W, Koppenjan J, Bots P (2010) Policy analysis of multi-actor systems. Lemma, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  10. Gregory R, Keeney RL (1994) Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Manage Sci 40(8):1035–1048CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hermans LM (2005) Actor analysis for water resources management. Putting the promise into practice. Eburon Publishers, DelftGoogle Scholar
  12. Hermans L, Thissen W (2009) Actor analysis methods and their use for public policy analysts. Eur J Oper Res 196(2):808–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hillestad R, Walker WE, Carrillo M, Bolten JG, Twaalfhoven PGJ, van de Riet O (1996) FORWARD–Freight options for road, water, and rail for the Dutch: final report, MR-736-EAC/VW, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Hisschemöller M, Hoppe R (1995) Coping with intractable controversies: the case for problem structuring in policy design and analysis. Knowl Policy Int J Knowl Transfer Utilization 8(4):40–60Google Scholar
  15. Hofstede G (1984) Culture’s consequences. Sage Publications, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  16. Hofstede GH, Hofstede GJ, Minkov M (2010) Cultures and organisations: software for the mind. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking a path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Keeney RL, Gregory RS (2005) Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper Res 53:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lawrence DP (2007) Impact significance determination—designing an approach. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27(8):730–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Marca D, McGowan C (1988) SADT: structured analysis and design technique. McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Mayer I (1997) Debating technologies. A methodological contribution to the design and evaluation of participatory policy analysis. Tilburg University Press, TilburgGoogle Scholar
  22. McKeown B, Thomas D (1988) Q-methodology. Series: quantitative applications in the social sciences, Number 07-066. SAGE Publications, Newbury Park, CAGoogle Scholar
  23. Michalko M (2001) Cracking creativity: the secrets of creative genius. Ten Speed Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  24. Miser H, Quade E (eds) (1985) Handbook of systems analysis: overview of use, procedures, applications, and practice. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitroff I (1983) Stakeholders of the organzational mind. Toward a new view of organizational policy making. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  26. Quade ES (1989) Analysis for public decisions, 3rd edn. Elsevier Science Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. RAND Europe (1997) A policy analysis of civil aviation infrastructure options in the Netherlands, DRU-1512-VW/VROM/EZ. The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CAGoogle Scholar
  28. Rommetvedt H (2006) The multiple logics of decision-making. Eur Polit Sci 5:193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sabatier PA (1988) An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci 21(2):129–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sabatier P, Jenkins-Smith HC (1993) Policy change and learning: an advocacy coalition approach. Westview Press, BoulderGoogle Scholar
  31. Sage AP, Armstrong JE Jr (2000) Introduction to systems engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Timmermans JS (2004) Purposive interaction in multi-actor decision making. Eburon Publishers, DelftGoogle Scholar
  33. Toulmin SE (1958) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  34. van der Heijden K (1996) Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  35. van der Lei T, Enserink B, Thissen W, Bekebrede G (2011) How to use a systems diagram to analyse and structure complex problems for policy issue papers. J Oper Res Soc 62(7):1391–1402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. van Eeten MJG (2001) Recasting intractable policy issues: the wider implications of the Netherlands civil aviation controversy. J Policy Anal Manag 20(3):391–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walker WE (1988) Chapter 6: Generating and screening alternatives. In Miser HJ, Quade ES (eds) Handbook of systems analysis: craft issues and procedural choices. North-Holland, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Walker WE (2000) Policy analysis: a systematic approach to supporting policymaking in the public sector. J Multicriteria Decis Anal 9(1–3):11–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weible CM, Sabatier PA (2006) A guide to the advocacy coalition framework. In: Fisher F, Miller G, Sidney M (eds) Handbook of public policy analysis. Theory politics and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wildavsky A (1979) Speaking truth to power: the art and craft of policy analysis. Little Brown and Company, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Technology, Policy and ManagementDelft University of TechnologyDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations