Problems are defined here as a mismatch between the perceived ‘current state’ of a situation and the perceived ‘desired state’ for that situation (Jayaratna, 1994). The context in which problems are solved may be
viewed from a narrow disciplinary context through to an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary context, and consequently the questions raised about the elements of the situation to be taken into consideration can vary accordingly.
Since the 1970s in natural resource research and environmental management there has been a trend towards increased emphasis on a wider context that includes social-environmental interaction. In order to take account of these changes it is necessary to view the problem-solving process in a different way and to examine the implications that arise from this new approach. A generic framework that can be used to understand the area of problem solving and to evaluate the appropriateness of particular methods is the Normative Information Model-based Analysis and Design (NIMSAD) framework (Jayaratna, 1994). This framework uses nomenclature conven- tions consistent with soft systems methodology (Checkland, 1984) and includes a particular way of thinking about and describing the world. The real world is taken to consist of both the ‘thinking world’ and the ‘action world’ of the intended problem solver. The ‘thinking world’ is the method- ology user’s conceptualisation about the intended actions and the ‘action world’ is the situation in which methodologies are used for bringing about transformations.
The framework consists of the evaluation of three elements, namely the ‘problem situation’ (the methodological context), the intended problem solver (the methodological user), the problem-solving process (methodology) (Figure 5.1) (Jayaratna, 1994).
The framework has three aims:
1. to serve as a way of understanding the area of problem solving, in general;
2. to help evaluate methodologies, their structure, steps, form and nature; and 3. to help to draw conclusions.
It is a systemic framework because the process of problem formulation uses the epistemological notion of ‘systems’. The problem formulation phase activ- ities involve the critical examination of the rationale for the ‘current’ and
‘desired’ states, formulation of problem statements and hence the identifi- cation of relevant notional system(s) which if put into effect in the action world will result in transformation of the system. In soft systems there are three conceptual worlds: ‘the real world’, ‘the thinking world’ and ‘the action world’.
It is important to discriminate between the use of the term ‘systems analysis’
and ‘systemic analysis’. The notion of breaking down to understand (for example, separating something into its constituent parts) originates from the normal scientific method. Because the method is to break things down into
Evaluation
Intended problem-solver ‘Problem situation’
Methodological user
Methodology context
Methodology
Problem-solving process
1. Understanding the ‘situation of concern’
Stages
2. Solution design
3. Design implementation 1. Problem formulation Phases 1. The ‘problem
situation’
Elements
2. Performing the diagnosis (where are we now?) 3. Defining the prognosis outline (where do we want to be and why?) 4. Defining problems 5. Deriving notional systems 6. Performing
conceptual/logical design 7. Performing physical design
8. Implementing the design 2. The problem
solver 3. The problem- solving process
Fig. 5.1. The essential elements of the systemic evaluation framework.Source:
redrawn from Jayaratna (1994)
parts the term ‘system’ is largely ignored; rather the focus is on the scientific meaning of the term ‘analysis’. The properties that are unique to the level of the ‘whole’ are defined as its emergent properties. Thus systems analysis as it is currently defined could be left to mean the study of an existing system in the ontological sense, while systemic analysis could be considered as a process of
Table 5.1.Systemic analysis vs. systemic design
Criteria Systemic analysis Systemic design
Role Problem formulation
using systems notions
Solution design using systems notions
Function To identify relevant
notional system(s) to the desired state
To identify relevant elements of the notional system(s) Primary concern To define the context
relevance of systems
To define the relevance content of systems Addresses questions What? and Why? How? and Whom?
Measures of performance Contribution of notional system’s performance to the desired state
Contribution of the integrated elements to the notional system’s performance Primary skills required Critical thinking Creative thinking Source:Jayaratna (1994)
critical enquiry into situations with the use of the notion of ‘systems’. Because of this confused understanding of the activity of problem formulation, this stage of evaluation has remained outside the domain of many methodologies of normal science.
Systemic analysis is essentially the process of deriving notional systems and understanding their relevance to the situation in which ‘problems’ are perceived. Systemic design is the process of deriving models (using the notion of ‘systems’) that are expected to bring about the behaviour of the notional systems (see Table 5.1).
5.2.1 Element 1: problem situation (methodological context) This section discusses the first of the elements of the framework, namely the
‘problem situation’. It is generally recognised that natural resources have at least three broad factors that influence the characterisation or formulation of the problem. These three factors are the social, economic and environmental dimensions. These, however, may be expanded and at least seven sets of factors or drivers have been recognised: ecological, social, economic, tech- nical, legal, institutional and political (Cumming, 2000; Bellamyet al., 2001).
Each has its own set of values, goals and criteria on which to judge the outcomes.
5.2.2 Element 2: intended problem solver (methodological user) This section focuses on the role of the intended problem solver. In normal science this component of the framework would not be considered as impor- tant because the assumptions in normal science are that the problem is external to the problem solver and that the right answer may be achieved by any problem solver. However, numerous factors are influenced by the intended problem solver either implicitly or explicitly. They may be selected on gut feelings, hunches and assumptions, or at other times the selection is prompted by the explicit concepts, models and methodologies that are employed (Jayaratna, 1994). In a systems approach to natural resource management, Bellamy et al. (2001) identified this point, as discussed above, but did not incorporate it explicitly in the framework. Thus however powerful, useful and effective a methodology may be, the success of effective and efficient methodology depends, among other things, on the personal characteristics or the mental construct of the intended problem solver (Jayaratna, 1994). The mental construct is illustrated in Figure 5.2.
1. Perceptual process 2. Values/ethics 3. Motives and prejudices 4. Reasoning ability 5. Experiences
6. Skills and knowledge sets 7. Structuring process (including methodologies) 8. Roles
9. Models and frameworks
8 3
4
5 6
7 1
2
The intended problem solver
Models and frameworks
Fig. 5.2. The mental construct of the intended problem solver.Source:
Jayaratna (1994)
The mental construct is composed of nine elements: the perceptual process, values/ethics, motives and prejudices, reasoning ability, experiences, skills and knowledge sets, structuring process (including methodologies), roles and models and frameworks.
5.2.3 Element 3: the problem-solving process (methodology) If a methodology is to be considered as a way of problem solving, it needs to show that it can help to perform three phases, which are problem formulation, solution design and design implementation. These three phases have been expanded to form eight detailed stages, which are applicable to any problem- solving process (Figure 5.1).
In summary, in any problem-solving context there are three essential elements, namely, the problem situation, the problem solver, and the problem- solving process on which the evaluation is based to assess the performance on any methodology. I propose that applying this framework, within the post-normal science paradigm, will provide a new understanding and concep- tualisation of natural resource management problems. These three elements are interrelated and essentially provide the underlying assumptions about how things are and also a commitment to how they will be in the future. There is also an emotional investment in these underlying assumptions because they define one’s world and oneself, they define one’s paradigm (Meadows, 1991).
Proposing that there are alternative ways of defining a problem will challenge how many people think about natural resources and how we currently manage them. We require these new methods to help us to think differently about
‘messy’ problems in natural resource management, to have the opportunity for their improvement.