First paradigm colloquium: Pluralism and interactive approaches of planning

Innes, J.E. and D.E. Booher (1999)Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage: toward a theory of collaborative planning.

Introduction In daily life we all play different roles in interacting games. These players join around the table, in the community and on the internet. They all must accomplish a certain goal, through overcoming all kinds of challenges with help of various objects which they can use for new purposes.

The games are cooperative rather than competitive with also trying to help others to achieve their goal. There is no end at these games and there are no winners or losers. There are usually few rules, but players can change them. Games are stimulating and mind expanding, playing itself is the reward. Players are typically young people living in the postmodern context. For them role playing is learning through simulation.

People all over the world are experimenting with consensus building to deal with complex, controversial public issues, changing contexts and uncertain futures in an institutionally and politically fragmented society.

Consensus Building

The focus of this article is on processes in which individuals representing differing interests engage in long-term, face-to-face discussions, seeking agreement on strategy, plans, policies or actions. Mostly these processes are self-organizing, but also other actors can start them. The amount of actors participating can also differ.Consensus building owes a substantial debt to the practice and literature of negotiation and mediation where all actors are equal and can express their thoughts.

Gruber (1994) and Innes (1994) conclude that consensus building produces shared social, intellectual and political capital, and that these intangible products: personal and professional relations, joint learning, agreement on data bases, and political influence, may well be its most important products.

Role Playing and Bricolage as Useful Concepts

There is a lot of literature on consensus building which describes possible processes and it offers a rich array of case studies which are very useful. On the other hand it gives few insights in the actual dynamic of the discussions or of how discussions influenced players attitudes.

In many of their most productive moments, participants in consensus building engage not only in playing out scenarios, but also in a kind of collective, speculative tinkering or bricolage. They play with heterogeneous concepts, strategies and actions and try to combining them until they create a new scenario that they collectively believe will work. This is called bricolage and is a type of reasoning and collective creativity fundamentally different from the more familiar types, argumentation and trade-offs. Bricolage produces, rather than a solution to a known problem, a new way of framing the situation and of developing unanticipated combinations of actions that are qualitatively different from the options on the table at the beginning.

The main purpose of consensus building and role-playing games is learning, innovation and change which can empower individuals.

Innes and Booher suggest that role playing and bricolage can provide the means, for members of a single organization or for multiple stakeholders in a community or resource.

They then discuss the book of Senge: The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization (1990). Senge lists five disciplines necessary to learning in an organization: 1. personal mastery (or a kind of individual empowerment), 1. mental models (the ability to get past assumptions and engage in double loop learning), 1. the capacity to create a collectively shared vision, 1. team learning, and 1. systems thinking.

Senge emphasized that team learning, which in many respects resembles consensus building, requires real dialogue. He distinguishes two types of discourse, dialogue and discussion. 1. discussion is something like ping pong: an idea is batted back and forth, analysed and criticized, and each participant seeks to win by having her or his point of view accepted. 1. dialogue, on the other hand, is about finding and developing a pool of shared meaning. Its purpose is to go beyond any one individuals understanding to insights that could not be achieved individually.

Bohm (1987) defines the three basic conditions necessary for dialogue:1. participants must hold off their assumptions; 1. participants must regard one another as colleagues; 1. There must be a facilitator.

Dialogue can lead to what Schon and Rein (1994) call frame reflection. Dialogue that is grounded in practice, at least in part, helps participants to avoid being trapped in their own thought and failing to see assumptions and possibilities.Foster (1996) explains that deliberative rituals, brainstorming sessions or search conferences are safe places for participants to explore new roles and identities along with new norms and agreements. In many ways, then, planning through consensus building is not just communication, but learning.Don Michael (1973) called for learning to plan and planning to learn, arguing that because we must live with uncertainty and error and yet prepare for the future, we must learn to respond to feedback and to change.

Case Examples

In 1994 Innes et al made a study of 13 cases of consensus building. In the end, many processes resulted in packages of actions to which all or most players agreed; yet it was often unclear how particular packages came into being. Observation of the actual discussion was necessary to understand what led to a change.In 1995 Innes and Gruber began to conduct systematic long-term observations of the crucial meetings in several consensus building processes. Some of these cases will be part of this article.The examples in this article are drawn, first, from an ongoing consensus building effort in metropolitan transportation planning, but also from an observation of the Sacramento Water Forum. In addition, Innes has been observing the California Governance Consensus Project (CGCP); Booher has been cochair of the Project since its inception in 1994.

Tradeoffs and Argumentation versus Bricolage

To make sense of how a group of participants went beyond the phase to come up with innovations and agree on packages of actions, the authors found the idea of bricolage more insightful than traditional notions of negotiation, scientific reasoning, or moral argumentation. Bricolage, as elaborated by Levi-Strauss (1966), is in sharp contrast to the rational, instrumental model of seeking means to reach a given end because on the one hand, the ends are not clearly known at the start, and on the other, the reasoning process does not use logical conclusions, but is more of a creative design process. The idea of bricolage has a kinship with Cohen, March, and Olsens (1988) concept of the policy garbage can where unused or partially used policy ideas pile up until someone reaches in to find one or two that might be useful. But according to Forester (1996) the garbage can model falls short because it misses the interactive exploration that is characteristic for bricolage.The bricoleur does not have a clear end in sight, but rather a vaguely defined project or sketch of an idea. The project itself will take shape and its characteristics will be determined by what is available and how it can be assembled. The decision about when the product is satisfactory is intuitive.

Role Playing

Whatever else consensus building may be, it is definitely role playing. Participants come to the table to represent stakeholders with different interests. But they can also play many different roles during the role playing, the one who is actually against their stakeholders view, or the one who is in his or her spare time for instance a bicyclist. All the players also have roles, simultaneously, in other games.Consensus building is also like many role-playing games in another way: the only formal rules are simple ground rules.Like role-playing games, consensus building begins with something like a storytelling phase that lays out the setting, the drama, and the characteristics of the players. Community leaders or a project organizer may begin by describing the situation, explaining why they set up the project; experts may be invited to outline their understandings of the problems and provide statistical information on the issues; and the players give their own views of the issues. All this sets the stage for the next phase, which is, typically, to develop a set of tasks that can lead to constructive ideas and actions. At this point no one knows how things will evolve, and the group tries to find tasks that will trigger peoples thinking and generate a productive dialogue.

The Dialogue: Storytelling, Drama and Bricolage

The dialogue starts with some stories of participants what would happen in his or her community if a particular proposal were implemented. The many specifics in such discussions neither fit neatly together nor neatly differ. In not fitting obviously into any scheme, they are like the bricoleurs heterogeneous materials. Once participants accepted that what they were doing was playing with ideas and simulating through their discussion the possible distributary of a proposed policy, rather than advocating it or arguing against it, they were more comfortable.Drama is important in consensus building, particularly, the evidence suggests, to move and change the players. The drama is in some sense a ritual, but like a ritual it has an impact. Emotions run high in creative consensus processes, not through direct conflict, but through participants stories and anecdotes, even though those are hypothetical ones about what would happen if. . . . Both humour and conviviality also are important elements of such a creative collaborative process. Through humour, players can relate to others with whom they disagree and offer criticism gently and respectfully.The informal, unstructured interaction among individuals that builds personal connections and comfort is crucial to consensus building. There is a reason that lobbyists (requesters) and politicians do much of their work at receptions and lunches.Groups are usually reluctant to agree fragmentary to ideas and proposals. Although the new package of ideas and proposals might create another reality and a new set of relationships, making existing positions irrelevant, until that whole package is on the table, such a potential remains hypothetical.The Advantages of Role Playing

Many so-called consensus building processes are not like the ones described here. They are flat and dull, with-out drama, without bricolage, and without spontaneous, collaborative discussion. These miss the most important powers of consensus buildingthe power to move the players and embed their learning deeply, as well as the power to develop players innovative, outside-the-box thinkingthinking that requires a sense of play. Enjoyment is crucial, if only to assure that participants come regularly to sessions.Role playing advocated here is far more dynamic and less controlled than conventional simulation. Because these simulations include real life actors, the exercises themselves and the learning associated with them are part of the product.

As this imagery of the collaborative role-playing game becomes accepted, it will accomplish a number of other things. To begin with:1. it will be easier to move people beyond the mode of competitive and beggar-thy-neighbour (making yourself better and others worse) positions and have to work together;1. participants also will come to accept that in these games without frontiers there will be no end point, that dealing with complex, controversial issues must be continuous.1. Finally, reflecting on consensus building through scenario building and bricolage prompts changes in our thinking about comprehensive planning.

The Intellectual and Cultural Context

The authors argue that these developments in consensus building converge with trends in science and culture. Turkle (1995): uncertain moments in daily life leads people to search for collaborative ways to understand and respond.Several sets of ideas emerging in other fields, particularly in science, computers, and management, parallel our observations about consensus building and can offer insights into what happens there. Work with artificial intelligence and on the functioning of the human brain provides a powerful alternative metaphor for how collective knowledge is created. For example, thousands of tiny computer processors connected together as parallel systems handled problems that were impossible for serial computers. They can do so in great part because they learn faster and develop complex responses based on feedback, rather than attempting to analyse all possibilities (Kelly, 1994). Innes and Booher state that consensus building is a form of collective intelligence, which works as researchers now think the brain does, through distributed intelligence and the networks that link it together. The knowledge of participants stays with them, even when they are outside the consensus building and becomes a sort of shared knowledge.Complexity theory can also be seen as a part of collaborative planning. This theory states that components of a network never come in a static order, but also never devolve into chaos. Components are characterized by self-organization displaying spontaneity, adaptiveness, decentralization, and constant motion. Many consensus building processes also have these characteristics.

Some management theorists argue that consensus building has the same dynamic as business organizations. Organizational structures that use this adaptive system adopt four strategies, each with similarities to consensus building in planning.

1. They collaborate, forming alliances even with competitors for some vital functions, though continuing to compete in other areas. 1. They use adaptive strategies to rapidly assimilate knowledge and develop new approaches. 1. They distribute their activities so there is no single location for all aspects of the business. 1. They decentralize as the lowest level players, those in contact with the customers, are given a significant part in shaping the strategy.

Conclusion

One of the keys to developing a theory of collaborative planning, and elaborating the paradigm for communicative planning will be to give a central place to role-play simulation as a method of interaction and bricolage as a mode of collective reasoning. To further develop theory for collaborative planning, theorists will have to work out additional literature. 1. Ideas drawn from both work on artificial intelligence and brain research are useful for understanding the potential of distributed or group intelligence.1. Theories and experience with flexible industrial organization can help us understand how networks and linkages in the private sector promote adaptability, innovation, and responsiveness. 1. Complexity theory can suggest an alternative way to see the dynamics of the social and political world of planningone that is more realistic than the mechanistic and oversimplified models social scientists have relied on. Ideas should be developed, for example, about the ethics and institutions best suited to collaborative planning (Innes 1995). Ultimately games without frontiers will not only allow war without tears, but even help us to look beyond customary constraints to new possibilities; they will help to turn the possible into the real.

Ch. Lindblom, (1979) Still Muddling, Not Yet Through

Muddling through, = incrementalism, and is often seen as the usual method of policy making, because revolution, drastic changes and big steps are impossible.

Seen as a political pattern, incrementalism is changing step by step or a series of small changes (evolutionary). But the overall thought is; we can do better!

Critics: Turn away from incrementalism by taking bigger steps or a more complete analysis of alternatives (more scientific). Proponents: Practice incrementalism more competently and dont turn away from it!

The choice for better policy making is: more science & ambition or new and improved incrementalism.

Lindblom gives 3 meanings of incrementalism as policy analysis:

1. Simple incremental analysis; limited to consideration of alternative policies which are only incrementally different from the status quo (current situation).

2. Disjointed incrementalism; the analysis of mutually supporting sets of simplifying & focusing stratagems (strategies/plans) of which simple incrementalism is one. Others he mentions are, the limitation to familiar alternatives, intertwining policy goals & empirical aspects, analytical preoccupation (vooringenomenheid) with remedies instead of positive goals to be sought, sequence of trail & error, exploring only some possible consequences of an alternative and fragmentation of analytical work to many participants in policy making (I guess this is where partisan mutual adjustment kicks in?)

3. Strategic analysis; limited to any calculated or thoughtfully chosen set of stratagems to simplify complex problems to short-cut the conventionally comprehensive scientific analysis (synopsis, need to be comprehensive / complete).

Why pursue one of these instead of the conventional scientific analysis which he calls synoptic.

Case for strategic analysis: the informed and thoughtful choice of methods of problem simplification. The norm or ideal is simple. No one can complete the analysis of a complex problem. The best we can do is partially analysis or bounded rationality. Completeness / synopsis is never approached, so striving to achieve impossible synopsis is unproductive. It doesnt help an analyst to choose manageable tasks and the aspiration to develop improved strategies does. This points to something to be done, studied and learned, something that can be approximated. The older conventional way, problem solving pretending synopsis and knowing you cant approximate this, leads to worse patterns of analysis and decisions than those who carry out a strategic analysis.

Case for disjointed incrementalism: sort of strategic analysis practiced with skill.It sets analysts on a productive course of analysis, away from attempts of completeness which leads to bad decisions. A practical objection to disjointed incrementalism is that one can find better kinds of strategic analysis. There are better norms / ideals of analysis available, but the alternative of synopsis isnt one of them. All analysis are incomplete, so all fail to grasp whats the good policy. Attempts to synopsis are therefore also incomplete.The choice between synopsis & disjointed incrementalism (or all strategic analysis) is between ill-considered accidental incompleteness or a deliberated (weloverwogen) designed incompleteness. We need analytical strategies to make the most of our limited abilities to understand the whole.

Case of simple incrementalism: part of more complex strategies. Its an aspect of analysis which is useful depending on circumstances and the stratagems of which it is part.

Then Lindblom makes a sidestep into politics;An objection is that incremental analysis suits incremental politics nicely. Example is when there is a choice between alternatives A, B and C, only those alternatives will be analysed.

He states that incremental politics is not necessarily slow-moving. Fast moving sequence of small changes can more easily accomplish a drastic alteration than an infrequent major change. Small steps are more easily accepted than one big step at once.

Further he says that many see incremental steps as trapped in the incapability of effectively coping with big problems. But this is not the fault of incrementalism, but of the political structures like veto-power. This makes even incremental steps difficult.

Another thing he goes into is the ideological conservatism in politics. No open mind that the prevailing ideology (American Way) can slow down coping with these bigger problems. This is not a consequence of incrementalism, but leads to it!

What he tries to make clear is that big attempts to change will fail because of above reasons and thats why we (in the US) move incrementally in politics. It is the best chance to make changes. This is probably the way of less resistance, because small steps are taken and the whole picture is not clear to most.

Then he argues that it is obvious that authoritarian governments can more often more easily move with bigger steps than democratic governments, because small steps dont upset democracy, while big steps do. But this is dependent on how rigid participants in democracy are attached to their interests and values. Big steps are more easily in communities that are less indoctrinated and more open to alternatives.

Then he goes back to simple incrementalism again; does it encourages incremental politics?It is an analytical habit to think small & conservatively, but the causality works both ways. Its a sort of vicious circle, which could be corrected by the supplementation of incremental analysis by broad ranging or utopian thinking about directions or possible features. These are not directed specific to the problems and raise the level of how we think about policy. Can bring new insights in the process. They make us aware and tell us what we know, but didnt know we knew. And what we are now able to make useful.The next topic he addresses is Partisan Mutual Adjustment & pluralism:

Critics failed to catch the distinction between political incrementalism & partisan mutual adjustment.

Partisan mutual adjustment = fragmented / decentralized decision making in which the various participants mutually affect each other.

A nation could practice political incrementalism without partisan mutual adjustment or could practice partisan mutual adjustment for no incremental policy making. Both are closely linked and have the effect of reducing analytical tasks.

Often seen as pluralism. First it is objected that not all interests are represented in this process, but the question is; are they in centralized authorities? It is nave to think that central authority can be an improvement because the inequalities of partisan mutual adjustment are so great. A strong central authority is seen as instrument for protecting inherited inequalities.

Other objection is that it is fraudulent. It leads to policies set by a ruling class. - ordinary questions that will come on the political agenda, partisan mutual adjustment is active.- grand issues; partisan mutual adjustment is weak or not present. These issues are governed by homogeneity in opinion and often left of the political agenda.

Politics and analysis:

Confusing incrementalism with partisan mutual adjustment has incorrectly associated incremental analysis with irrationality of politics and synoptic form of analysis with the analysis he addresses. 2 mistakes are made:

1. Incrementalism is a form of analysis, it is not politics! Partisan mutual adjustment is politics. The coordination of participation is done by political interactions and not by a centrally directed analysed coordination (a strategy).

2. In politics (also partisan mutual adjustment) the use of persuasion is common to influence each other. There is a need to analyse how to influence or persuade the opponent to get them as a proponent, and not what is the best policy! Is this adequate information for policy formation? This can be useful and partisan analysis is analytical productive in politics by making policy making more intelligent, because you get to know more about opponents.

Conclusion:

It is obvious that complex problems cant be completely analysed and we therefore need strategies to analyse problems and this incompleteness more skilful. Fragmentation of policy making and consequent political interaction among many participants are methods of restriction power, BUT also of raising the level of information and rationality on decisions. Policy analysis should be a social process and not just focusing on what is in the analysts mind. (Partisan mutual adjustment as a concept of intelligence). Social interaction can handle problems sometimes better than analysis can. Understanding of social problems is therefore not always necessary. Partisan mutual adjustment can be seen as mechanism for social rationality rather than as curbing central authority.

Klijn, E. H. & J.Koppenjan (2000)Public management and policy Networks: Foundations of a Network Approach to Governance

IntroductionThere are two perspectives on governance: the first perspective reduces state and distinguishes between government and governance, and the second perspective takes into account interdependencies of public, private and semi-private actors. This last one is the focus of the article.

What is the criticism on network approach, and what is the response of the authors?1. No theoretical basis (no theory)Largest point of critique. But, there actually is a framework: Network approach assumes that a cooperation between a large numbers of actors is necessary, because they need each others resources (Scharpf and others). This cooperation needs game management to happen. There are two types of this network management: 1) process management (improving interaction between actors) and 2) network constitution (making changes in the network. Requires institutional change and takes time). The network manager is an independent mediator in the process.

1. No power to explain success or failure (too descriptive)Rules improve or limit certain behaviour, and therefore makes decision making easier. Rules are social constructions and are a sign of trust. They prevent unfair behaviour. Within these rules, certain things are required at 1) interaction level and network level2) for collective action, for example: actors to judge each others dependencies and possibilities, costs and risks are limited and actors need to belong to the same network.

1. Neglect of role of power (nobody has power)Having certain resources gives certain power. Also, resources are distributed unevenly, which makes some actors stronger than others. Actors with less power can only participate if they have veto power and are included in the process.

1. Hard to evaluate (no norms)Actors do not have the same perception of the goal. Also goals change. Therefore, finding the right evaluation criterion is difficult. A win-win situation is seen as a criterion for success. Ex post judgment (afterwards) is better for this than formulating ex ante (before) objective analysis.

1. Neglect of role government (saying that government is just another organisation)Governments have unique resources (eg. budget, access mass media, and democratic legitimization). They also have limitations (eg. Showing exemplary behaviour, need for social acceptance). Because they represent the public good, and network games are open and fair, they must seek to organize network games.

Role of government: Governments have four options concerning network games. The first one is not to join, in which case they impose ideas on other actors. Secondly, work together with other actors. This is legitimate and standard. Thirdly, take up the role as process manager. Fourthly, take role as network builder, which is perfect according to authors.

ConclusionsThe policy network approach has developed a relatively elaborate, empirically grounded and recognizable theoretical framework (pp 154). But, in practice this is not yet accepted. According to the authors, this should become part of standard operating procedures. They want to do this in three ways: 1) by further developing, testing and evaluating these processes in practice, 2) by stating the institutional conditions for implementation (what are the barriers?) and 3) what are the consequences of applying a network theory?

Agranoff, R. and M. McGuire (2001)Big Questions in Public network management Research

The article wishes to answer seven metaquestions to address:1. Nature of network management tasks1. Group process in collaboration1. Flexibility of networks1. Self-responsibility and public agency accountability1. Cohesive factor of networks1. Power and its effect on group problem resolution1. Results of network management

Definition of Networks1. Multi-organizational arrangements for solving problems that cannot be achieved, or achieved easily, by single organizations.1. Public management networks are led or managed by government representatives

Seven met questions

1. What are the critical functional equivalents to traditional management processes in network management?

0. Activation0. Identifying participants0. All interests should be included0. Stabilize, nurture, integrate the network structure0. Bringing together resources needed to address issue0. When problems,4. Deactivation, rearranging network can also be necessary0. Framing1. Subtle but necessary task1. Establishing and influencing operating rules of network1. Influencing prevailing values and norms1. Altering perceptions of actors1. Can be achieved by4. Introducing new ideas4. Creating/celebrating a shared purpose or vision0. Mobilizing2. Mobilizing organizations and coalitions2. Forging agreement on role and scope2. Ensuring internal support and cooperation2. Difference between activation, is that more reliant on human relations component (motivating, inspiring, inducing commitment)0. Synthesizing3. Enhancing conditions for favorable, productive interaction3. removing blockages3. game management3. promoting information exchange3. developing new rules and procedures for interaction

1. Are the approached to groupware very different from those derived from the applied behaviourial science approaches that emanate from human relations research?

1. Groupware: definition0. Interagency task group development for reaching joint solutions (as opposed to classic hierarchical coordinate and control strategies)0. Decisions are deliberate, creative and group based

1. Distinctive from behavioural sciences in at least two ways:1. Network management: 0. empowerment based on information rather than authority0. existing organizational structures are dependent variables (i.e. changeable)

1. Fundamental components of groupware2. Social capital (i.e. social cohesion, trust, ability to work together)2. Shared learning (during the process itself)2. Negotiation (collaboration is a matter of exhortation, explication, persuasion, give and take)

1. Example of groupware: Iowa, Rural Policy Academy3. Task force of governmental and non-govt leaders created a plan for rural development3. Different groups were formed about mutually derived goals3. Over time, each work group found that individual and organizational positions receded in favour of new group understandings

1. How do networks provide flexibility beyond rapid adaptation of procedural accommodation?

2. Flexibility0. one of the biggest advantages of a network0. networks make use of adaptive efficiency1. the need to adapt and respond to changes (i.e. in economic structure) often motivation to join networks2. example given of urban regimes 1. Agranoff refers to them as shadow government that gave circumvented cumbersome city hall bureaucratic procedures, overcome public procurement rules, leveraged private capital with public dollars, and ingnored political criticism0. Also concedes public accountability problems with this

1. In what ways do networks emply mutual self-responsibility, and does this subsitute for the loss of public agency accountability?

The question relates to the difficulty of establishing accountability in public management networks

3. Accountability relationships in multiorganizational networks0. Very difficult to establish who is principal and who are the agent0. No clear authority to steer the activities1. Therefore, everyone is somewhat responsible1. All participants appear to be accountable, but none is absolutely accountable3. Steps to make networks more accountable1. Collaborative processes should be supplemental not exclusive of normal decision making processes1. Decisions should be reviewed by independent sources1. Should try to achieve agreed-upon performance measures3. Ex post evaluation can measure how accountable a particular network has been to its stated goals

1. What is the cohesion factor in networks that is equivalent to the legal-rational authority in organizations?

4. Scholars usually state legal authority vested in hierarchy keeps people operating in a bureaucratic structure4. However, networks are not based on legal authority1. Networks are structures of interdependence4. Important factors in network cohesion2. Trust0. Linked to mutual obligation and expectation2. Common purpose1. Based on shared beliefs2. Mutual dependence2. Usually based on resource exchange2. Resource availability2. 2. Catalytic actors5. Principles of soft guidance5. Elicits the trust, common goals, etc.. 2. Managerial ability

1. How does the often neglected or misunderstood role of organizational power in network management come into play?

5. Power concerns should be at core of network management0. Power either prevents of facilitates action0. Power can be used in enabling way1. Or not, i.e. exclude certain actors or views,0. Power to vs. Power over2. Power to being the willing collaboration of parties in a network to pool resources to get something done2. Power over involves controlling groups to do what the higher level wants them to (i.e. normal hierarchical power structure)5. Important types of power 1. during problem setting phase0. Power to organize0. Power to mobilize1. Power to strategize1. Control of information1. Power exercise influence or authorize action

5. Power issue should be researched more2. How much mutual dependency is there?2. How can power be engaged successfully?2. What are negative effects of unequal power?

1. Do public management networks produce results that otherwise would not have occurred? (i.e. as opposed to a single/ hierarchy organizations)

6. World increasing complexity necessitates network management0. Power is dispersed, information age0. People link across functions, organization and geographic boundaries0. Problems increasingly complex6. Agranoff argues that network decision not more efficient but more effective1. Those involved not just steerers but become stakeholders1. Multiple people suggest many alternatives for consideration1. Outcome is more rational

Agranoff ends with a conclusion saying we need more research on networks (he had also raised many further research questions at the end of each of the sections). He especially thinks the issues of power in networks, and to look at what networks actually produce (i.e. is it better) are important.

Teisman (2000)

Public organizations are monopolist of nature and tend not to maximize their efficiency the way private organizations do. Therefore, in order to generate public goods in a way that has more cost-benefits, strategic governance capacity is needed. Strategic planning is seen as a way to achieve this goal. In network societies, there are many options to go with, and the quality of these available options defines the governance capacity here.In a case in The Netherlands, there was a strategic plan drafted (Structure scheme for traffic and transport). This plan was mainly used if it supported the position of a particular actors relatively weak position to other more dominant officials. In the implementation of the plan, 200 projects came to be implemented, of which only a 100 were mentioned in the plan. This means the strategic plan only slightly influenced implementation. The initial goals of the plan (less car use and more public transport) were not only deviated from, but also reversed.

Strategic plans can even distract public organizations from working efficiently. The future is unforeseen, so governance activities should prepare these public organizations for it.Specialization is needed in order to compete with low prices, but also makes organizations vulnerable to change. The process of ongoing innovation must be geared towards the three concurrent developments in the network society.1. Dynamics due to global interaction patterns.2. Rising expectations and ambitions leading to complex goals and aims.3. Structural fragmentation leading to network structures in which nobody is in charge.

Strategic management is a bit like strategic planning, as it also focuses on the environment in which an organization has to act. This approach, however does not use current conditions as points of departure. It rather defines aims and opportunities and relies on a continuous flow of information about the environment and avoids the use of planning cycles. Smith distinguishes eight features of strategic management:

Effective strategy formulation can be bottom-up and top-down. Strategy development is also very much about building commitment between members of an organization and members of a joint venture. In this, interactive skills are adequate if they contribute to or reflect on:Alexander makes three distinctions with regard to scientific frames of references:1. Normative (what should be) and descriptive (what is) theoretical notions.2. Individual deliberation and choice.3. Decision making as an isolated (one simple problem) or a complicated activity (create a framework for the future).

What is the relationship between problems and solutions in network societies?Problems and solutions should be arranged in a parallel way, rather than in series. Solving one problem can create several other problems. Problems should be intertwined in a complex problem flow, that constantly redefines itself. This way you dont only come up with solutions that worked in the past but create solutions for the future.The Relation between quick processes and the quality of results:Instead of trying to find a quick solution for one problem, policy makers should look to combine several problems. Make a related set of development processes and benchmark these. Projects need time to mature.Citizens as sources of creativity or troublesome opponents:Where citizens used to be viewed as troublesome opponents, because that was the only role that policy left for them, they are viewed as sources of creativity in the interactive approach.The relationship between cooperation (Interaction) and competition (problem solving):If you let people compete with their ideas, it is not possible to combine the positives out of both ideas. Therefore, there should be a R&D groups who could, combined, make up good and effective ideas.Model for strategic management: