roblem structuring methods

12
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2007) 58, 576--587 2007 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved. 0160-5682/07 $30.00 www.palgrave-journals.com/jors Problem structuring methods: theorizing the benefits of deconstructing sustainable development projects S Bell 1and S Morse 2 1 Open University, Milton Keynes, UK; and 2 University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, UK Problem structuring methods or PSMs are widely applied across a range of variable but generally small-scale organizational contexts. However, it has been argued that they are seen and experienced less often in areas of wide ranging and highly complex human activity—specifically those relating to sustainability, environment, democracy and conflict (or SEDC). In an attempt to plan, track and influence human activity in SEDC contexts, the authors in this paper make the theoretical case for a PSM, derived from various existing approaches. They show how it could make a contribution in a specific practical context—within sustainable coastal development projects around the Mediterranean which have utilized systemic and prospective sustainability analysis or, as it is now known, Imagine. The latter is itself a PSM but one which is ‘bounded’ within the limits of the project to help deliver the required ‘deliverables’ set out in the project blueprint. The authors argue that sustainable development projects would benefit from a deconstruction of process by those engaged in the project and suggest one approach that could be taken—a breakout from a project-bounded PSM to an analysis that embraces the project itself. The paper begins with an introduction to the sustainable development context and literature and then goes on to illustrate the issues by grounding the debate within a set of projects facilitated by Blue Plan for Mediterranean coastal zones. The paper goes on to show how the analytical framework could be applied and what insights might be generated. Journal of the Operational Research Society (2007) 58, 576 – 587. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602311 Published online 15 November 2006 Keywords: problem structuring methods; sustainable development; projects; Blue Plan Introduction This paper is concerned with some critical reflections on the use of a problem structuring method (PSM) within a particularly challenging context—namely the implementa- tion of sustainable development projects. PSMs have been used, applauded and criticized for many years. In their seminal compendium, Rosenhead and Mingers (2001), de- fined the genre as: ‘methods for structuring issues, prob- lems and decision situations, rather than solvingthem(Rosenhead and Mingers, page xiii), and provided a forum where the main methods could be compared and contrasted while being promoted by their various advocates. Rosen- head and Mingers (2001) presented the PSM icons of the genre and aligned them in a sympathetic and comparable conceptual framework—allowing an important opportunity to compare, contrast and judge. The first chapter of their book sets the scene on the history of the development of PSMs which are seen to have arisen from a paradigm shift in the way in which the world is seen and the conspic- uous failure of the traditional, conventional quantitative methods of modernism to cope with complexity and mess. Correspondence: S Bell, Pi, Green Lane, Wicklewood, Norfolk, NR18 9ET, UK. E-mail: [email protected] This chapter brings to life what are often experienced as arid fluctuations in intellectual life, and puts flesh on the bones by aligning organizations and personalities with change and flux. The chapter sets the scene for the necessary (if not sufficient) reason for PSMs which were non-quantifiable, participatory and shared between problem solvers (for fur- ther elaboration of this point, see Taket and White, 2000; Chambers, 2002). Rosenhead and Mingers (2001) provide reviews of thinking and practice making use of a range of methods and method- ologies, specifically: strategic options development analysis, soft systems methodology, strategic choice approach, robust- ness analysis and drama theory. All these PSMs can be argued to have as their aspiration the liberating of problem solving from conventional and silo mentalities. They also share many features, and are indeed well established in the literature and indeed among PSM practitioners. However, we argue that Rosenhead and Mingers (2001) book is indicative of problems with PSMs, both in terms of their formalization and the con- text of much of their application (for example, the manner in which most PSMs are delivered . . . the formal workshop). Yet PSMs in a general sense can have much to offer, especially within the challenging context of sustainable development. Our thesis is that PSMs can be valuable but at the same time are often constrained within the boundaries of that all too

Upload: hadibies

Post on 18-Jul-2016

39 views

Category:

Documents


4 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Roblem Structuring Methods

Journal of the Operational Research Society (2007) 58, 576 --587 2007 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved. 0160-5682/07 $30.00

www.palgrave-journals.com/jors

Problem structuring methods: theorizing the benefitsof deconstructing sustainable development projectsS Bell1∗ and S Morse21Open University, Milton Keynes, UK; and 2University of Reading, Reading, Berkshire, UK

Problem structuring methods or PSMs are widely applied across a range of variable but generally small-scaleorganizational contexts. However, it has been argued that they are seen and experienced less often in areas ofwide ranging and highly complex human activity—specifically those relating to sustainability, environment,democracy and conflict (or SEDC). In an attempt to plan, track and influence human activity in SEDC contexts,the authors in this paper make the theoretical case for a PSM, derived from various existing approaches. Theyshow how it could make a contribution in a specific practical context—within sustainable coastal developmentprojects around the Mediterranean which have utilized systemic and prospective sustainability analysis or,as it is now known, Imagine. The latter is itself a PSM but one which is ‘bounded’ within the limits ofthe project to help deliver the required ‘deliverables’ set out in the project blueprint. The authors argue thatsustainable development projects would benefit from a deconstruction of process by those engaged in theproject and suggest one approach that could be taken—a breakout from a project-bounded PSM to an analysisthat embraces the project itself. The paper begins with an introduction to the sustainable development contextand literature and then goes on to illustrate the issues by grounding the debate within a set of projects facilitatedby Blue Plan for Mediterranean coastal zones. The paper goes on to show how the analytical framework couldbe applied and what insights might be generated.Journal of the Operational Research Society (2007) 58, 576–587. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602311Published online 15 November 2006

Keywords: problem structuring methods; sustainable development; projects; Blue Plan

Introduction

This paper is concerned with some critical reflections onthe use of a problem structuring method (PSM) within aparticularly challenging context—namely the implementa-tion of sustainable development projects. PSMs have beenused, applauded and criticized for many years. In theirseminal compendium, Rosenhead and Mingers (2001), de-fined the genre as: ‘methods for structuring issues, prob-lems and decision situations, rather than ‘solving’ them’(Rosenhead and Mingers, page xiii), and provided a forumwhere the main methods could be compared and contrastedwhile being promoted by their various advocates. Rosen-head and Mingers (2001) presented the PSM icons of thegenre and aligned them in a sympathetic and comparableconceptual framework—allowing an important opportunityto compare, contrast and judge. The first chapter of theirbook sets the scene on the history of the development ofPSMs which are seen to have arisen from a paradigm shiftin the way in which the world is seen and the conspic-uous failure of the traditional, conventional quantitativemethods of modernism to cope with complexity and mess.

∗Correspondence: S Bell, Pi, Green Lane, Wicklewood, Norfolk, NR189ET, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

This chapter brings to life what are often experienced as aridfluctuations in intellectual life, and puts flesh on the bonesby aligning organizations and personalities with change andflux. The chapter sets the scene for the necessary (if notsufficient) reason for PSMs which were non-quantifiable,participatory and shared between problem solvers (for fur-ther elaboration of this point, see Taket and White, 2000;Chambers, 2002).

Rosenhead and Mingers (2001) provide reviews of thinkingand practice making use of a range of methods and method-ologies, specifically: strategic options development analysis,soft systems methodology, strategic choice approach, robust-ness analysis and drama theory. All these PSMs can be arguedto have as their aspiration the liberating of problem solvingfrom conventional and silo mentalities. They also share manyfeatures, and are indeed well established in the literature andindeed among PSM practitioners. However, we argue thatRosenhead and Mingers (2001) book is indicative of problemswith PSMs, both in terms of their formalization and the con-text of much of their application (for example, the manner inwhich most PSMs are delivered . . . the formal workshop). YetPSMs in a general sense can have much to offer, especiallywithin the challenging context of sustainable development.Our thesis is that PSMs can be valuable but at the same timeare often constrained within the boundaries of that all too

Page 2: Roblem Structuring Methods

S Bell and S Morse—Problem structuring methods 577

typical vehicle of practice—the project which tend to focuson time and budget bound, pre-project identified ‘outputs’considered of value to those drafting the project proposal.In this paper, we will return to this point—relating it toour own experiences, most specifically, contexts where keyissues for the 21st century are being experienced—contextswhere ‘messy’ issues of sustainable development, envi-ronmental change, democratizing agencies and conflict(SEDC) (For further details on SEDC see Bell (2005)) areexperienced.

The paper will begin with a brief review of the contestedterrain of sustainable development and set out why it is so‘messy’, particularly when implemented through resourceand time-bound projects. We will illustrate the problems andpotential context within which the analytical framework couldbe applied, using a case study of the Mediterranean CoastalArea Management Projects facilitated by Blue Plan. We ac-cept that while the example is a specific one we would suggestthat it all too clearly sets out the problems that PSMs face insuch contexts and perhaps helps to explain the uniformity re-ferred to earlier. We will follow this with a proposal for intro-ducing an element of ‘questioning’ within the project processas an element of problem solving. In effect, the paper seeks toset out the theoretical basis for an analytical framework thatcan be applied to sustainable development projects. The paperwill end with a discussion of the application of our analyticalframework and the difficulties it would face in practice.

PSMs in sustainable development

The term ‘sustainable’ (=sustainability) is applied to a hostof human activities and structures to imply that they can con-tinue into the future without detriment to either people ortheir environment. It has been used as an adjective for activ-ities such as agriculture, water supply, resource managementand development, as well as the institutions charged withsupporting them. We often forget that it is the activities (egdevelopment) which are the important elements (and gener-ally well defined) and the adjective ‘sustainable’ is added toensure that the activities will continue into the future withoutany detriment. As a result, there is some plasticity as to themeaning of ‘sustainable’ (Mitcham, 1995). How far into thefuture are we talking about, and what exactly does detrimentmean and to whom does it apply? Unsurprisingly, the evolu-tion of sustainability has been long and complex, with richintersections to economics and politics (Kidd, 1992; Moffat,2004; Castro, 2004; Robinson, 2004).

While many disagreements exist as to what sustainabledevelopment means in practice, there is no doubt as to itspopularity. Maybe these two are not unrelated—after allsome plasticity in meaning can only help encourage popular-ity. Typically sustainable development is promoted throughthe use of time and resource-bounded projects. Yet at thesame time sustainable development can be thought of asthe classic representation of a ‘mess’ to which PSM can be

applied. It covers a range of inter-related and interactingissues and is highly contentious in meaning. Indeed, in recentpublications we put forward a PSM for gaining understandingof human/environmental issues of significant, experiencedcomplexity, and for analysing progress through a sustain-able development project (Bell and Morse, 2003, 2005). Theunderlying rationale for this was to try and move awayfrom the current position where virtually all of a projects‘value’ is seen primarily by the funders to reside with thedeliverables—the tangible outputs. We argued instead fora greater emphasis on learning and participation within theproject as a valuable output in itself. This is very much intune with what we perceive to be a dichotomy within thesustainable development literature (Bell and Morse, 2003):

• Sustainability as an ‘end point’. An emphasis on an ‘endpoint’ deemed to represent some notion of an ‘improve-ment’ in sustainability or at least setting the ground for suchan improvement. For example, reducing traffic or reducingpollution to some notional target (reference condition).

• Sustainability through ‘learning’. Emphasis not on an endpoint per se (indeed is there ever an end point with sus-tainable development?) but upon our evolution and change(learning). Here the deliverables are less tangible in theshorter term (eg better awareness of the problems and,hopefully, an increased desire to ‘do something’ about it),but still tangible in the longer term.

These dichotomous worldviews share what can be calledthe ‘soul’ of sustainable development—helping to makeall of our lives better without sacrificing the lot of futuregenerations—but have quite different ramifications. The firstfits more tightly into our current vogue for targets, modern-ization and value for money. After all someone has to spendresources (cash, time) to try to arrive at that end point. InWestern democracies, there may well be political costs in thepromotion of policies that the population may not be entirelyin tune with. The natural desire, having ‘spent’ the resource,is to have something to show for it, for example, the reducedtraffic or pollution. Where resources are tight (and wheneverare they not?), this demand becomes ever more intensified.

However, while sustainability as an ‘end point’ clearlyhas attractions for those responsible for allocating resourcesand monitoring what has been delivered there is a problem.Given that sustainability is in a sense a ‘mess’ which is con-stantly moving (societies values, after all, change constantlyand what might be acceptable 50 years ago may not be now)then people have questioned whether such normative stancesrepresented by ‘blue print’ projects have any real value. Evenif such projects ‘deliver’ what the blueprint states that theyshould (ie the project was successful), do the deliverables im-prove matters from the point of view of those intended tobenefit? While some aspects of sustainability are ‘science’at least in the positivist sense that the environment wouldundoubtedly benefit (eg a reduction in pollution) others are

Page 3: Roblem Structuring Methods

578 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 58, No. 5

open to varied interpretation. For example, a reduction in caruse (a pressure on the environment as cars generate pollu-tion) may not necessarily appeal to car owners and thus canbe crystalized in the statement—‘please reduce cars on theroad but not mine!’

The dangers of a mismatch between what a project attemptsto achieve and the priorities of those meant to benefit are par-ticularly acute when the projects are planned with little, if any,participation from the latter. There are interesting parallelshere with the ‘postist’ (post-development, post-structuralist)movement in general which questions whether western per-spectives on development—including those underlying mostPSMs—are just another form of neo-colonial rule (Blaikie,2000; Castro, 2004). Why should what the West says is ‘de-velopment’ (and critically how it is developed, implementedand measured) apply elsewhere? Is not sustainable develop-ment just a technological fix (or mirage?) which fails to treatmore serious underlying issues (Robinson, 2004)? If PSMswere originally developed, in part at least, to liberate think-ing from entrenched, quantitative, restricted rigor mentis—orrigidity of thinking—it would seem that the problem has notgone away, rather it would appear that rigor mentis is not re-moved by applying a ‘softer’ approach, even soft approachescan be applied in inflexible and non-reflective manners. Asour approaches change so the problem takes on more subtleforms for problem solvers.

Of course, the developers of PSMs are not blind to therigours of the context for much sustainable development.Taket and White (2000), in debating the value of PSMs in col-laborative work identify the need to manage diversity, resolveconflict and promote collaboration—concerns in sympathywith our own SEDC issues. Chambers in his various pub-lications (Chambers, 1997, 2002), has placed emphasis onthe participatory craft skills of the PSM practitioner as haveother PSM practitioners (see, eg Davies, 1989; Lewis, 1992;Atkinson, 1997; Callo and Packham, 1997; Gold, 2001;Holwell, 2001; Waltner-Toews et al., 2004; Simon, 2005) andthose using approaches prevalent in development contextsbut possibly less easy to interpret as PSMs per se (Coleman,1987; Gasper, 1997, 2000), emphasizing the need to ask,facilitate and empower.

All of these elaborations on PSM practice have contributedto a focus within some elements of the ‘Practitioner Sustain-ability’ community to emphasize learning over more narrowcriteria of project delivery. Sustainability through learninghas the attraction of circularity—we all continue to learn and(hopefully) change our behaviour in line with what is deemedto be sustainable development. As societies’ values continu-ally change then this feeds though into learning. This is notto say that learning is ignored in development project plan-ning. Projects can, of course, include a PSM with an educa-tional dimension and indicators such as number of workshopsheld, attendance at workshops and evaluation reports of work-shops (where participants rank or score the performance offacilitators) are all acceptable. But such projects tend to be

quite mechanical and linear in the sense that funds are allo-cated at the start, PSMs and attendant consultants and otherpersonnel are employed and the project is evaluated at theend of a set time period to see whether the outputs have beendelivered. Flexibility to change the outputs may be very lim-ited or even non-existent and this is evident in much of the‘harder’ approaches to problem solving within projects, forexample, the exponents of the tools and techniques containedwithin the Prince 2 methodology. There are many exampleshere but especially Bentley (2005) and Harris (2005).

Learning in this context may not be just a one-way processof teachers with ‘valued knowledge’ telling learners what isbest, but a process of self-driven discovery and exchange ofinsights concerning emergent properties among equals. Thelatter even embraces a post-modernesque deconstruction ofwhat sustainability means and how best to achieve it. How-ever, as writers such as Blaikie (2000) have pointed out, oneof the problems with the postist literature is that it fails toaddress real and pressing problems. After all if people are dy-ing through AIDS, contaminated water or in abject povertybecause the rains have failed then something needs to bedone. An apparently endless participatory deconstruction asto what is meant by ‘contamination’, poverty or sustainabil-ity may be valuable for theorists writing papers but would itbring much needed change in what is effectively an urgentsituation? Fundamental imbalances in power may exist whichmitigate against well-meaning desire for change.

The obvious question to ask at this point is whether thereis scope for introducing a stronger learning dimension toprojects. This would (in theory) combine a healthy decon-struction and reflection with resources to bring about change.Both authors have much experience with projects, sustainabledevelopment or otherwise, and the dominance of sustain-ability as an end point to be achieved through projects withtangible outputs has not abated. Indeed, with the increasingpopularity of planning frameworks (such as the logicalframework 1 ) as devices, it can be argued that the momentumhas increased rather than diminished. Given this backgroundwe decided to see whether it was possible to develop an an-alytical framework for projects so that those involved couldunderstand why the project was taking a particular path.The analytical framework aims to facilitate a reflective de-construction of sustainability, and hence learning, within adefined space of power. After all the project does have re-sources to bring about change and while there are inevitablyinequalities of power within the project it nonetheless canbe reasonably assumed that participants will continue to beengaged. Reflection during projects is not a new concept(it is well reported across the literature, eg, Stowell et al.,1990; Bell, 1992; Mingers, 1995; Ulrich, 1996; Armson,1997; Flood et al., 1997; Gasper, 1997; Espejo and Stewart,1998). However, traditionally such reflection equates to

1These are tools which can be applied in either a quantitative or qualitativemanner to scope, plan, analyse, monitor and evaluate projects of all kinds.

Page 4: Roblem Structuring Methods

S Bell and S Morse—Problem structuring methods 579

‘monitoring’ and is more concerned with whether the projectis on target in terms of delivering intended outputs. By wayof contrast our assumption was that a greater emphasis onlearning within the project would enable a questioning ofproject activities (and even goals) while the project wasongoing rather than waiting till its completion. Also, thelearning becomes a valued output in itself rather than justbeing seen as a stepping stone.

Blue Plan projects in the Mediterranean

A grounded example of the issues outlined in the previousparagraph can be found in the Mediterranean Action Plan(MAP) and the series of Mediterranean Coastal Area Man-agement Programmes (CAMPs) undertaken by a range ofagencies and organizations. The Blue Plan regional activitycentre is located on the French Riviera in Sophia-Antipolis,near Nice, and works with local agencies to plan sustain-able development projects in the Mediterranean (see the web-site www.planbleu.org/indexa.htm for more details). There arefour projects which are especially relevant for discussion inthis paper:

1. Malta2. Lebanon3. Algeria4. Slovenia

These were undertaken over a five-year period from 2000to 2005. Each of these projects employed a PSM methodo-logy for deriving sustainability indicators (SIs) (as one projectdeliverable) originally called systemic and prospective sus-tainability analysis (SPSA; Bell and Morse, 2003) but laterreferred to as ‘Imagine’ (Bell and Coudert, 2005). The Maltaproject was the first Blue Plan project the authors were in-volved in, and in many ways was a test-bed of ‘Imagine’. Theproject comprised eight sub-projects—five thematic and threecross-cutting. The five thematic areas were:

(i) Sustainable coastal management,(ii) Marine conservation areas,(iii) Integrated water resource management,(iv) Erosion/desertification control management,(v) Tourism: impacts on health.

The three cross-cutting sub-projects were seen as being sup-port projects to the five thematic sub-projects:

(i) Data management,(ii) Participatory programme,(iii) Imagine.

The CAMP projects in Lebanon, Algeria and Slovenia variedfrom the Maltese project in terms of the thematic teams (insome of the projects other areas were of greater concern) anddimension (the Slovenia project covered a 47 km coastline; in

Malta, the area of the project comprised just the northwest ofthe island, whereas in Algeria, the project area was 200 kmof coast), but the main themes of the project draft remainedthe same.

‘Imagine’ is summarized in Figure 1 and the theory is fullydescribed elsewhere (Checkland, 1994; Bell and Morse, 1999,2003; Bell and Coudert, 2005). For the purposes of this paper,the approach can be broadly divided into three stages:

(1) workshops with the thematic teams,(2) wider stakeholder workshops for local people,(3) an analysis of policy options and setting out the frame-

work for future development and use of indicators.

The PSM is applied ideally over five participatory workshops.The workshop processes described here were undertaken withlocal intermediaries where local agencies are encouraged todraw in stakeholders in the project process. Over the fiveworkshops the stakeholder representation is intended to re-main constant, although attendance remains voluntary andin practice new stakeholders tend to emerge as the processevolves.

The outcomes of the first stage of ‘Imagine’ are rich pic-tures of the participants’ perspective of the current situation,root definitions or visions for the way forward, conceptual oractivity models of how to get there. In the Maltese case, logi-cal frameworks for the setting of indicators emerged from thisprocess. In terms of the overall ‘Imagine’ process, the logi-cal framework can be made to emerge from the soft systemsreview and can then provide for the development of a formalproject. A concern of many agencies relating to the use of softsystems is that the work is not easily reportable or demonstra-ble to auditing authorities. Similarly, in the experience of theauthors there is often a worry in teams that the work whichthey have undertaken in soft systems will be seen as beingnon-rigorous or unprofessional because of its use of diagramsand unfamiliar terms. The logical framework can be used asa means to express the soft work in a more structured andformal manner, and hence provide a useful bridge betweenconventional and less conventional project structures.

A significant aspect of the ‘Imagine’ approach is centredon meetings with the stakeholder community. The main pur-pose of the stakeholder meetings was to discuss the workof the teams so far achieved, explain the nature of the pro-cess and seek ideas and questions from the wider stake-holder group and specify indicators and reference conditions(what values of the indicators are needed for sustainability).Stakeholders included representatives of key industries liketourism and fisheries, concern groups like the Gaia Founda-tion and official bodies such as local councils. The selectionof stakeholder groups is largely left to the discretion of thein-country Imagine team. In all circumstances such selectionis problematic. How representative is the sample? How manyconstituencies of interest are represented? Have some con-stituencies been excluded or overlooked? Such questions are

Page 5: Roblem Structuring Methods

580 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 58, No. 5

s

Figure 1 Steps in the ‘Imagine’ approach.

valid, hard to check and a cause for concern for all participa-tion projects.

Each of the thematic teams present their indicators and ex-plain why and how they had been selected. Often the naturalinstincts of teams in the context of stakeholder groups is tobe defensive and even protective of the work undertaken andto deflect criticism as being either poorly conceived or mali-ciously devised. The understanding of the principles of activelistening and the adoption of focus group methods were themeans adopted to attempt to avoid these negatives. The over-all impact of the presentations was to provoke a wide rangingconversation concerning the future of Malta and the need forsustainability planning.

‘Imagine’ also focuses on using the SIs collected to makedifferent assumptions of evolution in the future, given vari-ous policy decisions, as to future scenarios. In the originalapproach, this issue of futurity and scenario investigation wasincluded but no specific methodology was required. In thecase of the Malta project, this was modified, making use ofthe ‘prospective’ approach as previously applied by Blue Plan(Godet et al., 1999; Godet, 2000a, b, 2001). At this time,the wider stakeholder views were again assessed. This was aworrying time for the teams, pushing them into various lev-els of conjecture, and yet, paradoxically, this can be a timeof insight and reward. Teams were also asked to think abouthow they might engage the public more actively in the useof indicators. At this point, the thematic teams began to con-sider a marketing strategy. This also involved active and pur-poseful reflection on what has been achieved and what hasbeen problematic. Following this, it can be of great value toconsider the meaning of SIs and the possible scenarios forthe future.

From the above description, it can be seen that ‘Imagine’ isa PSM which itself draws from a number of existing PSMs:

1. Soft system methodology (Checkland, 1981; Checklandand Scholes, 1990; Checkland and Holwell, 1998).

2. Scenario planning (Matzdorf and Ramage, 1999, 2000),3. Prospective (Godet et al., 1999; Godet, 2000a, b).

The use of these three methods in particular arose fromprevious experience the authors have had with them, andsome degree of corresponding confidence in the effectiveness(eg Bell, 1996, 1998, 1999)—and also built on the work ofBlue Plan and that organizations prior experience of scenariomaking. However, Imagine is not limited to ideas and pro-cesses taken from these three approaches, it also includesa number of tools and techniques including active listening(Gordon, 1970), risk analysis (Hughes and Cotterell, 1999)and focus groups (Berg, 1998; Fern, 2001).

Imagine had an overarching and inclusive role within theCAMP and to some extent had operational relations with allthe other sub-projects. Imagine is a PSM devised to assistcommunities of stakeholders to structure, understand, mea-sure and promote sustainability in their context—chiefly byproviding them with SIs whereby agreed views of the cur-rent situation can be discussed and analysed, past conditionsthought about and ‘visions’ for possible, sustainable futurescompared. As with other PSMs, it does not attempt to ‘fix’problems, rather it helps communities to understand them.

The outcomes of the various CAMPs are recorded else-where (see the Blue Plan Website already cited) but generallyImagine was seen to have produced useful outcomes. These

Page 6: Roblem Structuring Methods

S Bell and S Morse—Problem structuring methods 581

included:

1. Encouraging ‘whole project’ activity—this refers to pro-viding the space and capacity for specialists to participateoutside their narrow area of expertise and involving themin thinking about the nature of the project as a whole.

2. Assisting in project participation by local people. In thewider stakeholder workshops, wide-ranging debates aboutthe meaning and costs of sustainable development tookplace.

3. Providing a forum for whole project thinking to occur.4. Assisting all project activists to question and review project

assumptions.

Imagine entails comparing and contrasting various visionsof sustainable and unsustainable futures. It provides thespace for the conversation. Issues of rationalizing entrenchedposition, contrasting perspective and negation over conflict-ing visions is hopefully managed in the space.

Imagine has been undertaken in Lebanon—in three mu-nicipalities to the south of Beirut, Algeria and Slovenia. Oneof the authors had direct involvement in the Lebanese andSlovenian work and consultative responsibilities in Algeria(for full details on the outputs of these projects, see theBlue Plan Website www.planbleu.org/indexa.htm). As has al-ready been stated, in each case there were critical differencesin the manner and format of Imagine. Similarly, each ex-pression of Imagine involved slightly different timescales forproject activities and different thematic teams to engage. Ineach case, the outputs first seen in Malta, of: encouragingwhole project thinking, participation, a forum for question-ing and questioning assumptions were sustained. However, ineach case critical issues also arose—these were articulated asquestions:

1. How can sustainable outcomes of projects like CAMP bemaintained?

2. How can project team and individual learning be supportedbeyond the project timeframe?

3. How can Imagine be continued beyond the project?4. In essence, how can the PSM applied here—to issues

touching on SEDC concerns, be sustained into the future?

It was to review and respond to these questions that the authorsdeveloped the analytical framework outlined in this paper. Thereflections of Tony Ellul, the Imagine coordinator in Maltaare particularly instructive:

‘The SPSA [the label for the first manifestation of Imagine]activity in Malta as part of the CAMP (Malta) project was an in-novative approach to address sustainability issues and certainlycreated great interest amongst those who participated at thevarious workshops, even though at times the number of partici-pants was not as expected. The approach brought a new dimen-sion into the discussion of sustainable development particularlysince it created a rapport amongst the various interest groupswith a view to arriving at an agreed understanding of what issustainable in the context being discussed. The approach also

gave an added dimension to Sustainability Indicators in thatthese were not an end in themselves, but a means to achievechange and to indicate likely scenarios if certain indicators per-sist or if such indicators were to change. It was a pity however,that following the finalisation of the CAMP (Malta) Projectthe interest in this approach waned, primarily because therewas no formal structure to take the project forward. However,the knowledge gained through this experience can certainlybe applied and, generally, like many other things, it is just aquestion of time.’

In effect, the concern was with the sustainability of thesustainable development project. While Imagine as a PSMhelped with an unpacking of SIs and indeed sustainability itwas applied within the time and resource constraints of theproject to help deliver the deliverables. It was thus a ‘bounded’PSM geared towards helping the project ‘deliver’ as envis-aged within the blue print set out by the project organization.Reflection on the part of those that took part in Imagine wastramlined towards outputs rather than a consideration of pro-cess and life beyond the project, and this insight spurred ourdesire to develop an analytical framework which would en-courage reflection on the process of the project—how it worksand how it can be sustainable—as well as on its deliverables.

However, one notable problem here is that while the fun-der of the project willingly embraced Imagine as a means toreflect on outcome would it also be willing to support reflec-tion on process that does not in itself seem to be a valueddeliverable? An analytical framework which allows partici-pants to reflect upon the process they are pursuing may seemto be of academic interest but what does it offer the prag-matic funder forever looking for value-for-money and impact?We suggest that our analytical framework applied alongsidebounded PSMs (not replacing them) would encourage dis-cussion and resulting learning at key steps in the project andhence make the project better—in fact more sustainable. Itwould also aid an identification of the sustainability of theproject outcomes by utilizing the expertise of those who maybe only too aware of the constraints that may exist. The frame-work is intended to create and stimulate a space for discussionbut does not necessarily create a space for negotiation be-tween those involved. In discussing elements of the DT PSM,Bennett et al, 2001 have argued that moving from space todiscussion, to agreement and shared vision, is no simple mat-ter. Negotiation in particular, goes hand-in-hand with an ac-ceptance that power is shared and that deconstruction of theproject experience is not a threat but a benefit.

Proposed framework

In seeking to develop an heuristic for learning from learningsituations, the authors made use of a derivative of the KolbLearning Cycle (Kolb, 1984). The Kolb cycle and variantsof it have been applied in various forms and for a variety ofpurposes—both in the inspiration for courses and in the re-search of members of the Systems Department of the Open

Page 7: Roblem Structuring Methods

582 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 58, No. 5

University (see, eg, Argyris, 1982, 1985; Kolb, 1984; Boud,1985; Open University, 1987, 2000, 2004; Bell, 1992; Belland Gibbon, 1994; Bell and Lane, 1996). The Kolb cyclebenefits from being a heuristic which can be seen to intu-itively accommodate a variety of methodologies, and to pro-vide a robust frame of reference for critical evaluation. Thisframework for evaluation is in some ways similar to that de-veloped by Friend et al (1998). Although our framework issimilar in that it seeks to highlight learning and to act as ameta-framework for understanding the multiple perspectivesemergent in project processes, our approach differs in that itfocuses on the learning cycle rather than the project structure;it is concerned with the views of all project actors withoutdemarcation as opposed to identifying certain groups of ac-tors and it is systemic in process rather than being entirelysystematic.

Using Kolb as a starting point for our framework, weassume that the sustainable development project, like allpurposive action, moves through four nodes: reflection, con-necting, modelling and doing. At each node, we suggesta three-dimensional conceptual space through which anyproject can pass. Our choice of three dimensions at eachnode as distinct from 4, 5 or more can certainly be ques-tioned (and we encourage and welcome such a debate) andis only meant here as a starting point. Three dimensions ateach node are also easier to represent in diagrammatic form.The four nodes are:

1. Reflection. Reflection is when the important aspects oflearning from previous action are assimilated and eitherstored for subsequent action or dismissed as irrelevant.

2. Connecting. Connecting means linking personal and teamreflection on experience to experiences from related areasand from others working in the same field.

3. Modelling. The third, modelling or experimenting aspectof the cycle relates to how the implementation of sustain-able development is gauged (modelled). Typically this isthrough the use of indicators (SIs).

4. Doing (acting). This node is concerned with the imple-mentation of sustainable development via the project.

These four nodes and the three continua within each of themare set out in Table 1a. In order to facilitate the analysis inmore practical terms, we have designed a simple question-naire (Table 1b) that sets out our 4 × 3 space in terms thatactors could use to quickly establish their points of passage.However, it is important to note here that Table 1b is a sim-plified questionnaire and only forms an entrance point into amethodology that requires further development and testing.Even for an individual actor their responses to these questionsare highly unlikely to be an unambiguous ‘yes’ or ‘no’ butmore likely to somewhere between the extremes. However,the key point is that we suggest that projects containing PSMsvary in the pathways they take through this multi-dimensional,conceptual space, and indeed a single project could

conceivably be perceived by its various actors in quite differ-ent ways. The project passes through one point in the spaceat each of the four nodes for a reason or set of reasons—notbecause of chance. Indeed, passage through one point atone node could pre-determine passage through a point at thesecond node—we assume this here therefore we must do thiswhen we get to that point. For example, we could argue herethat conventional sustainable development projects typicallymove through the following mapped space:

(1) Reflection: pragmatic, functional, reductionist. Pragmaticis represented by small step incremental change ratherthan a more ideal but substantial (quantum jump) change.For example, targets may be to set to reduce pollutiongradually over years rather than introduce substantialchange in months. The functional is seen in the focuson teams of applied ‘experts’ working to a project scriptrather than embracing multiple perspectives and diver-sity. Reductionist refers to the way in which elements ofsustainable development are often seen in relative isola-tion rather than deal with complex interactions betweenmany components.

(2) Connecting: anthropological, applied, control. Sustain-able development projects tend to take a weak sus-tainability perspective, with trade-offs between asustainability gain and an economic cost (anthropolog-ical). Sustainable development also tends to be an out-come of applied (rather than pure) science and an endeav-our to allow experts, managers, politicians and others tocontrol social processes rather than work in partnership.More recently, there has been a move towards the useof indicators as learning tools (the ‘reactive’ indicatorsof Moffatt, 2004), but for the most part they have beenseen in a proactive sense as aids to policy development.

(3) Modelling: explicit, exclusive, quantitative. The conven-tional form of most SIs relates to a minimalist dialoguewith stakeholders (exclusive = expert driven), seekingquantification and developing explicit indicators (definedand replicable methodology).

(4) Doing: single, command, purposive. Conventional wis-dom indicates that most projects are focused on singleoutcomes at any one point in space and time as speci-fied by the Project Blueprint. Projects also tend towardsinstruction and command as outcomes of learning asopposed to emergence and autonomy. Key concerns areusually with achievement, accountability and getting themost impact from the resources allocated. That is, theyare directive and purposive rather than self-organizingand purposeful.

These answers are highlighted by the shaded cells of Table1b. The spaces we set out are conceptual and passage througheach point is, in essence, a subjective experience rather thanbeing measurable in any absolute or positivist sense. Individu-als will no doubt be able to make a case as to why they feel the

Page 8: Roblem Structuring Methods

S Bell and S Morse—Problem structuring methods 583

Table 1 Simple questionnaire to help facilitate application of the analytical framework

Page 9: Roblem Structuring Methods

584 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 58, No. 5

Table 1 (continued).

Table 2 Two ‘mirror image’ types of sustainable development project: holistic and conventional. These stereotypes are based solelyon yes and no answers to the questions.

project has passed through (or likely to pass through), a pointdefined by single/command/purposive in the ‘doing’ node butthis case is difficult if not impossible to ‘prove’ in any objec-tive way. While extremes are easier to identify, in the middleof the range there is no doubt that one person’s view of lim-ited (single) focus could well be someone else’s embrace ofthe ‘diverse and challenging’. But is this multiplicity of per-spective a bad thing? We would argue not. Indeed, it formsthe basis for discussion and debate that leads to a deconstruc-tion of ‘why are we here?’ and ‘do we want to be here?’ Thatin turn will facilitate sharing of insights and learning, anda further advantage of our analytical model is that it allows

a classification of project perceptions and hence facilitate anextraction of commonalities and differences (Bell and Morse,2005). An example of two types of project—conventional andholistic (the opposite of conventional)—is shown in Table 2 .The framework we provide here has yet to tested extensivelyin the field. However, we have discussed the theory behindit with personnel from a few projects that form part of theCAMP. For the purposes of this paper, we will outline theCAMPs and make a theoretical case as to why we think ouranalytical tool would provide insights for those involved. Partof this case has been founded on albeit limited discussionswith some of those involved.

Page 10: Roblem Structuring Methods

S Bell and S Morse—Problem structuring methods 585

Discussion

The value of PSMs and their capacity to provide value in‘messy areas’ such as sustainable development, democratizeddecision making and conflict resolution (what we categorizeas SEDC) needs much more debate. Our overriding assump-tion is that the world is full of SEDC problems. Yet, despitea rich vein of focus on this domain—stunningly presented inthe literature in Ackoff’s original article (Ackoff, 1970) andthen closed in the cycle by Midgley and Ochoa-Arias (2004),PSMs are often absent in such contexts—tending rather to befocused by their practitioners on small group problem solv-ing (many exceptions do of course exist—eg, McIntyre-Mill,2003; Waltner-Toews et al., 2004) There is a clear need forPSMs in some form to be applied and valued in SEDC con-texts. However, despite the exceptions to the contrary, ourview is that much of the literature concerning PSMs indicatesthat they are overwhelmingly used in industrialized world, or-ganizational contexts, apparently lacking the support of deci-sion makers to be applied more widely. Maybe there is goodreason for this?

In this paper, we have shown how it is possible to cre-ate an analytical framework of process which goes beyond a‘bounded’ use of PSMs (eg Imagine) to help deliver projectdeliverables. The framework aims to facilitate an understand-ing (or at least debate) as to why things are happening withinthe project the way they are. Bounded PSMs geared towardshelping the project ‘deliver’ are, of course, still necessary asthey help project participants focus on specifics. The intentionis not to remove the need for such PSMs but to analyse thefunctioning of the whole project process—PSMs included—tounderstand why things are happening the way they are. Thisis also more than just monitoring and evaluation—themselvesbounded tasks focussed on project deliverables.

It should be noted that our framework, like that of Friendet al (1998) is put forward as a starting point for discussionrather than any pretence at a finished, tried and tested, endproduct. The obvious next step is for the proposed approachto be tested, if only within a limited ‘pilot study’ context.Testing in a ‘real life’ situation will allow the analytical toolto evolve. For example, our choice of the Kolb cycle as thebasis can be contested as can our continua and questionnaire.Application to a ‘real’ project will rapidly confirm, reject ormodify our assumptions.

The key point we are making in this paper is that withina sustainable development context such ongoing deconstruc-tion can only be beneficial as it facilitates discussion, analy-sis and hence almost inevitably—learning. Even if the projectfails to ‘deliver’ outputs that improve people’s lives in asustainable way at least those involved can learn from theexperience. Our work has shown that, when agencies likeBlue Plan have the confidence to experiment with PSMs likeImagine when PSMs are extended into the contradictions ofSEDC contexts—then, despite the acknowledged evidence ofpositive outcomes (eg participation, inclusion, sharing and

learning) the context of the project itself has the capacity tooverride the capacities of any PSM to apply systemic andconsistent approaches to change and learning. Yet this is cer-tainly not to say that our call for analysis during the projectwill necessarily make the outputs from that project morerelevant or effective. In that sense the environment of theproject has all the capacity to make a nonsense of the sensemaking which bounded PSMs such as Imagine attempt toachieve.

One outcome of the current discussion might be theretrenching of PSM practitioners from SEDC projects, leav-ing the challenge to alternative approaches. Yet, the experi-ence of practitioners and those involved in the application ofImagine within sustainable development projects was gen-erally hopeful. It is not the analytical approach which is atfault, rather—disappointing outcomes can be traced to thelimitations and constraints of the contemporary project mind-set itself. The intention of the PSM practitioner is pure. . . butmaybe this is not enough given that the practitioner oftenhas to operate within constraints laid down by the projectcontext. Rather, a radical re-think of the project process, asthe suitable vehicle for any systemic problem solving activ-ity, a process which we label as projectification, this itselfneeds questioning and radically renewing for the PSMS tobe applied successfully more widely. As a starting point,we would argue that project funders, planners and managersneed to welcome and embrace an in-going process of decon-struction during the project rather than see it as a threat or adistraction.

Acknowledgements—We would like to express our gratitude to Blue Planfor the opportunity to cooperate and develop the ideas expressed in thispaper. We also like to express particular thanks to Tony Ellul, Heba Hageand Farid Yaker, for contributing to this paper and to Elisabeth Coudertof Blue Plan, for her comments and insights.

References

Ackoff RL (1970). A black ghettos research on a university. OpnsRes 18: 761–771.

Argyris C (1982). Reasoning, Learning and Action. Jossey Bass: SanFrancisco.

Argyris C (1985). Making knowledge more relevant to practice: mapsfor action. In: Lawler E et al. (ed). Doing Research that is Usefulfor Theory and Practice. Jossey Bass: San Francisco, pp 79–106.

Armson R (1997). The invisible practitioner or the holisticpractitioner? The problem helper in the problem situation. In:Stowell A, Ison R and Armson R (eds). Systems for Sustainability:People, Organizations and Environments. Plenum: London, pp 103–108.

Atkinson C (1997). Soft information systems and technologiesmethodology, SISTeM: A case study on developing the electronicpatient record. Require Eng 2: 1–22.

Bell S (1992). Self-analysis and pre-analysis: Lessons in theapplication of systems analysis in developing countries. In: CyranekG and Bhatnagar SC (eds). Technology Transfer for Development:The Prospects and Limits of Information Technology. Tata McGrawHill: New Delhi, pp 151–164.

Page 11: Roblem Structuring Methods

586 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 58, No. 5

Bell S (1996). Learning with Information Systems: Learning Cyclesin Information Systems Development. Routledge: London.

Bell S (1998). Managing and learning with logical frameworks: thecase of an MIS project in China. Hum Syst Mngt 17: 15–28.

Bell S (1999). Vulnerability and the aware IS Practitioner: A reflectivediscourse on unfinished business. In: Clarke S (ed). HumanCentered Methods in Information Systems: Current Research andPractice. Idea Group Publishing: Hershey. pp 102–117.

Bell S (2005). Systemic practice: coming of age? Syst Pract Act Res18: 129–131.

Bell S and Coudert E (2005). A Practioner’s Guide to‘IMAGINE’:the Systemic and Prospective Sustainability Analysis—Guide d’Utilisation pour ‘IMAGINE’: l’Analyse de DurabiliteSystemique et Prospective. Sophia Antipolis, Blue Plan: France

Bell S and Gibbon D (1994). Farming systems and learningsystems: notes from the experience of the School of DevelopmentStudies, UEA, Norwich, Montpellier. Presented at the InternationalSymposium: Systems Orientated Research in Agriculture and RuralDevelopment.

Bell S and Lane A (1996). From teaching to learning:technological potential and sustainable, supported open learning.A paper prepared for the United Nations University/INTECHEuropean Community Workshop in Maastricht, ‘Europe and theGlobalised Information Society: Employment, Education and TradeImplications’. 17–19 October, Maastricht.

Bell S and Morse S (1999). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring theImmeasurable. Earthscan: London.

Bell S and Morse S (2003). Measuring Sustainability: Learning fromDoing. Earthscan: London.

Bell S and Morse S (2005). Delivering sustainability therapy insustainable development projects. J Environ Mngt 75: 37–51.

Bennett P et al (2001). Drama theory and confrontation analysis.In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis fora Problematic World Revisted: Problem Structuring Methodsfor Complexity, Uncertanity and Conflict. J Wiley and Sons:Chichester, UK, pp 225–248.

Bentley C (2005). Prince 2 Revealed: Including How to Use Prince2 for Smaller Projects. Butterworth-Heinemann: London.

Berg BL (1998).Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences.Allyn and Bacon: Boston.

Blaikie P (2000). Development post-, anti-, and populist: A criticalreview. Environ Plann 32: 1033–1050.

Boud D (1985). Reflection: Turning Experience Into Learning. KoganPage: London.

Callo V and Packham R (1997). Soft systems methodology: Itspotential for emancipatory development. Forum 2: Action Researchand Critical Systems Thinking, The Centre for Systems Studies,University of Hull, Hull, UK.

Castro CJ (2004). Sustainable development. Maintstream and criticalperspectives. Organ Environ 17: 195–225.

Chambers R (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last.Intermediate Technology Publications: London.

Chambers R (2002). Participatory Workshops: A Sourcebook of 21Sets of Ideas and Activities. Earthscan: London.

Checkland P (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley:Chichester.

Checkland P (1994). Systems theory and management thinking. AmerBehav Sci 38: 75–83.

Checkland P and Holwell S (1998). Information, Systems andInformation Systems: Making Sense of the Field. Wiley: Chichester.

Checkland PB and Scholes J (1990). Soft Systems Methodology inAction. Wiley: Chichester.

Coleman G (1987). Logical framework approach to the monitoring andevaluation of agricultural and rural development projects. ProjectAppraisal 2: 251–259.

Davies LJ (1989). Cultural aspects of intervention with soft systemsmethodology, MSc Thesis, University of Lancaster.

Espejo R and Stewart N (1998). Systemic reflections on environmentalsustainability. Syst Res 15: 1–14.

Fern EF (2001). Advanced Focus Group Research. Sage: ThousandOaks, USA.

Flood B et al (1997). Critical reflexivity: A multi-dimensionalconversation. Forum 2: Action Research and Critical SystemsThinking, Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull,UK.

Friend J et al (1998). Negotiated project engagements: learning fromexperience. Hum Relat 51: 1509–1542.

Gasper D (1997). Logical Frameworks—a Critical Look. DevelopmentStudies Association, University of East Anglia.

Gasper D (2000). Evaluating the ‘logical framework approach’:towards learning-orientated development evaluation. Public AdminDevelop 20: 17–28.

Godet M (2000a). The art of scenarios and strategic planning: toolsand pitfalls. Technol Forecast Social Change 65: 3–22.

Godet M (2000b). How to be rigorous with scenario planning.Foresight 2: 5–9.

Godet M (2001). Creating Futures: Scenario Planning as a StrategicManagement Tool, Economica: London, Paris.

Godet M et al (1999). Scenarios and Strategies: A Toolbox for Scen-ario Planning. Laboratory for Investigation in Prospective and Stra-tegy: Toolbox, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers: Paris.

Gold J (2001). Storying systems: Managing everyday flux using mode2 soft systems methodology. Syst Pract Act Res 14: 557–574.

Gordon T (1970). Parent Effectiveness Training. Plume Books, NewAmerican Library Inc.: New York.

Harris P (2005). Prince 2 Planning and Control Using MicrosoftProject. Eastwood Harris Pty Ltd: London.

Holwell S (2001). Soft systems methodology: other voices. Syst PractAct Res 13: 773–798.

Hughes B and Cotterell M (1999). Software Project Management.McGraw Hill: Maidenhead.

Kidd C (1992). The evolution of sustainability. J Agri Environ Ethics5: 1–26.

Kolb D (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source ofLearning and Development. Prentice-Hall: London.

Lewis PJ (1992). Rich picture building in the soft systemsmethodology. Eur J Inform Syst 1: 351–360.

Matzdorf F and Ramage M (1999). Out of the box—into the future.Organ People 6: 29–34.

Matzdorf F and Ramage M (2000). Planning for many futures.Scenarion Strategy Plann 2: 20–22.

McIntyre-Mill J (2003). Critical Systemic Praxis Design andGovernance for a Global Age. Kluwer Academic/PlenumPublishers: London.

Midgley G and Ochoa-Arias A (eds) (2004). Community OperationalResearch: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development,Contemporary Systems Thinking. Kluwer Academic/PlenumPublishers: London.

Mingers J (1995). Self-Producing Systems. Plenum: New York.Mitcham C (1995). The concept of systainable development: its origins

and ambivalence. Technol Soc 17: 311–326.Moffat I (2004). On measuring sustainable development indicators.

International Journal of Sustainable Development and WorldEcology 1: 97–109.

Open University (1987). T301—Complexity Management and Change:A Systems Approach. Open University Systems Group. The OpenUniversity Press: Milton Keynes.

Open University (2000). T306 Managing Complexity: A SystemsApproach. Open University: Milton Keynes.

Open University (2004). T851 the Information Systems Toolkit. OpenUniversity: Milton Keynes.

Page 12: Roblem Structuring Methods

S Bell and S Morse—Problem structuring methods 587

Robinson J (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the ideaof sustainable development. Ecological Econom 48: 369–384.

Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds) (2001). Rational Analysis for aProblematic World—Revisited. Wiley and Sons: Chichester.

Simon S (2005). Systemic evaluation methodology: The emergenceof social learning from environmental ICT prototypes. SystemicPract Act Res 17: 471–496.

Stowell FA et al (1990). Applications of SSM in information systemdesign: some reflections. J Appl Syst Anal 17: 63–69.

Taket A and White L (2000). Partnership and Participation: DecisionMaking in the Multi-agency Setting. Wiley: Chichester.

Ulrich W (1996). A Primer to Critical Systems Heuristics for ActionResearchers. The Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull:Hull, UK.

Waltner-Toews D et al (2004). Adaptive methodology for ecosystemsustainability and health (AMESH): An introduction. In: MidgleyG and Ochoa-Arias A (eds). Community Operational Research:OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development. KluwerAcademic/Plenum Publishing: New York, pp 317–381.

Received December 2004;accepted August 2006 after one revision