Problem solving: a systematic approach to designing solutions to social problems.

Tekst of the presentation on inspection reform in jordan on 1st of june 2014 and London 9th september 2014

Ir. Rob van dorp (Msc)

Inspectorate of transport and Environment

Robert.van.dorp@ilent.nl

+31704563273

(Original Dutch version: http://www.inspectieloket.nl/Images/VT_interventie_digiboek_2013-1028_def%20(2)_tcm296-346908.pdf)

Part one: The problem solving method and defining problems

Inspectorates are there to improve compliance. This can be done by defining a inspection program, risk analysis, inspections sanctions, naming and shaming and other tools. And if this works you should not change your way of working.

But every inspectorate has it’s specific compliance problems, where performing your regular inspections does not work. In that case another approach should be considered.

Malcolm Sparrow in his book the regulatory craft makes a distinction between regular inspections and problem solving. He proposes a simple set of steps to solve these compliance problems.

According to sparrow these specific problems needs a specific solution. So what steps does Sparrow propose?.

1 Nominate a potential problem

2 Define the problem precisely

3 Determine how to measureimpact

4 Develop Interventions

5 Implement the plan

6 Close project

Six steps of the regulatory Craft

The first step is to nominate the potential problems or problem areas. These problem areas should be external, nor solved by simply more inspections and cause social harm. The second step is to define this problem precisely, the third step is designing a measurement system which measures the impact of your solutions, the fourth step would be to develop interventions, the fith step to implement the best solution and finally to stop the project.

These steps look simple enough, but actually are not. Problem solving, according to Sparrow, is relentlessly difficult. Unfortunately Sparrow only defines the steps, but does not explain clearly how to perform these steps.

To start on problem solving you will need some guidance on how to define your problems precisely, how to analyze these problems and how to develop interventions.

The model I will present to you today will give you this guidance.

Problems

To start working on problems you , of course, need the problems you want to tackle. Your regulatory office should have a system which generates or nominates these problems. This could be as simple as an office box where staff can nominate the problems or a complex risk analysis process.

Unfortunately, in most cases where a system is in place it will generate vague or non specific problems like “drug smuggling”, “dangerous work places” or “water pollution”.

These are certainly problems but not specific enough to tackle. Problems should be made smaller and manageable. So further analyses of the problem is necessary. Sparrow calls this process “slicing and dicing”.

There are several methods for slicing and dicing a problem. One is by analyzing data. For example accident data as the next example shows. Here the problem of “railway deaths” is sliced and diced into specific categories. Deaths caused by “zigzagging” bicycles, Deaths caused by crossing a railroad prematurely when a second train arrives, deaths caused by mistakes due to bad visibility of

the railroad crossing lights due to a low sun, etc. these are all specific problems and might require different solutions.

(example only)

Other more qualitative tools for analyzing problems are Prisma analysis, historical analysis, process analysis, etc.

So how do you know if your problem is specific enough to start working on it. Practice shows that a useable problem definition should include 4 major elements:

Actor Action Harm Limitations

A problem will only exist because a person, group of persons, a company or group of companies or organizations do something which causes harm. These are the actors of the problem. A problem will be specific if you can identify this (group of) person (s) or companie(s). This should be a comparable relatively homogeneous group whose motives and behavior is more or less the same. If the group is not homogeneous then make a distinction between these groups.

The problem will only manifest itself if the actors take action or specifically not act if they should. Examples of actions can be dumping waste, falsifying registrations, driving too long, etc. Not taking action when they should: not stopping for a traffic light, not cleaning the waste water, etc. the action the actor takes (and which leads to harm) should be clearly identified.

A problem is only a problem if it causes (social) harm. This can be direct damage (deaths, wounds, sick people, unhappy people, pollution) or indirect harm like increasing risk or the chance of harm. The harm should be clearly identified. This is important for a problem and has a large influence on the solution. If your problem is bicycles crossing dangerous railroad crossings when a red light is on, what is the harm: dead bicycle riders or the delay and disruption of the rail system. If you say both, you have two problems!

The last element is limitations. These are all kinds of boundaries which reduce the scope of the problem. This can be geographical (only in Jordan), time (holiday season, winter, summer), specific technical, biological or chemical items (specific models of trucks) etc.

For example waste water:

A typical problem could be dumping a new type of chemical (action) by industry (actor) next to the Zarqa river (limitation) causing pollution of the river so it can’t be used as a fresh water supply (harm).

Or

The increasing of wastewater loads (action) by industry (action) because of increased demand of their products (limitation) in the Zarqa river area (limitation) causing a overload of existing waste water cleaning plants (harm).

Part two: Designing solutions: 3 approaches

Once you have your specific problems, you should create solutions for the specific problem (or set of problems) which has priority. Be aware that each problem has to be handled separately to be really effective.

Sparrow, in the regulatory craft, states that the problems first have to be closely analyzed before creating creative solutions. In fact the analyzing and creating solutions are a closely linked iterative process. There are many ways to tackle this process, but three effective approaches can be identified. The trick is to generate solutions by using these approaches, but do not select the soluition to be implemented yet. This should be done in the next step.

Adding Filters to the process

The first approach to design an effective solution is to analyze the process which leads to harm, analyse which filters are in place to avoid the harm and then to analyze where filters can be added (filters like technical solutions, inspections, regulation) to reduce the chance of harm.

This filters can be added to avoid the action which leads to harm altogether (for example fire proof metrial to avoid fire) or can be added after the event to reduce the harm to an acceptable level (for example smoke alerts to detect a smoldering fire so it can be put out before it escalates into a full fire)

Usefull analyzing tools that can be used in this process are the bowtie model or prisma analyses

or reason’s swiss cheese model

Or the TQM model in case of companies

Changing behavior of the people taking part in the process.

The second approach targets the people in the process which leads to harm. In this case by using behavioral insights from science, this interventions are designed to change this behavior.

This design takes into account that people normally act irrationally as well as rationally, people tend to perform better with a limited set of choices, tend to choose the well known and obvious instead of uncertainty, tend to act on the small short term profit instead of the higher long term profit, act positively on social proof, authority, commitment, sympathies, etc.

Also people can be influenced on designing an effective physical surrounding. (poka yoki principle)

Changing the social process

The final approach is to change the social process,. In this case the social process should be further analyzed. To do this you could use the “system theory” of J. in’t Veld.

Every process can be drawn as an input output.

Things or people enter the process and are transformed into something else. To do this tools, information and other things are used in the process, which are required for the process, but are not transformed.

A simple example:

To bake bread (the action) flower, salt and water (input) are transformed into bread (output). For this you will need an oven (tool) and recipe (information)

This description of a process can be used to describe the social process which leads to harm.

The central process is the action which leads to harm. You already know this action because it’s defined in your problem definition!

So what is actually transformed?

You can look at this process from a perspective of the actor who performs the action and causes harm. This actor is transformed from someone who has a reason to perform the action (someone with needs) into someone who has gained benefit from his action (someone who fulfilled his needs):

So during the analysis who will have to analyse which needs the actor had. Which are his motives to perform the action, does he want profit (in case of fraud), time (driving too fast), relaxation (creating loud noise) etc.

So what is needed?

To fulfill these needs, the actor also uses tools and information. Another item he will probably need is support in his surrounding to perform his action. Support means people who approve or stimulate his actions. These can be family, group pressure, stock holders, personnel, etc.

So you will have to carefully analyze which tools, information and support is needed for the action.

You can also look at this process from a perspective of the society.

In this case a happy society without harm is transformed by the action in a society with harm. You will have to analyze what is the harm (which you probably already know, because of the problem definition) and why society does not or will not accept this harm.

From society’s perspective you will also have to analyze which tools, information and support is given from society to stimulate the desired behavior.

So putting it all together you should analyze and describe the total process::

So what now?

To avoid the social harm you will have to change this social process. Looking at this model there are 7 strategies to change this social process:

Strategy 1: creating awareness to the actor of the harm his action creates to society

Strategy 2: negatively compensate the profit (fulfilled needs) of the actor

Strategy 3: Filling the unfulfilled needs of the actor in another way

Strategy 4: taking away the tools, information or support needed for the action

Strategy 5: Compensating the harm to society

Strategy 6: Changing the context of the action

Strategy 7: Adding tools, information or support to stimulate desired behavior.

You should explore these possibilities and create a list of possible solutions. Do not select a solution yet, but also do not throw an solution away. Even an idea that is not feasible might lead to a new idea.

I will explain every strategy in detail:

Strategy 1: creating awareness to the actor of the harm his action creates to society

It might be that the actor who performs the undesirable action is not aware of the harm he causes to society. He might be inclined to change his behavior once he knows the harm he causes. So in this case you will create opportunities to tell him the harm he causes. For example an awareness campaign or telling him during inspections. Of course he has to be open to change his behavior. He might be already aware of the harm, but simply does not care.

Strategy 2: negatively compensate the profit (fulfilled needs) of the actor

The second strategy negatively compensates the fulfilled need of the actor. This is the classic way sanctions work. Undesirable behavior will lead to fines. But there are other ways to compensate the fulfilled need. You can hold someone for some time, publish his name and shame him, extra inspections, etc. In this way you will hope to influence the cost – benefit balance the actor makes before performing his action. However for this solution to be effective, the actor has to act rationally.

Strategy 3: Filling the unfulfilled needs of the actor in another way

The third strategy acts on the unfilled need of the actor. He has a reason or motive to perform his actions. He could be bored, poor unemployed or any other reason. The mechanism of this approach is, if you take away this reason he might not perform his actions. You could start an employment program, build a youth facility against boredom to avoid vandalism, etc.

Strategy 4: taking away the tools, information or support needed for the action

This strategy acts on the tools, information or support the actor needs to perform his action. If you take these away he simply cannot perform his actions anymore. For example a burglar needs information whether or not you are at home. By leaving yor lights on you will withhold this information. Pay special attention to the support the actor has. Will he still perform his actions if his family, colleagues, personnel, the neighborhood disapproves. So influencing the opinion of the

support group, or introducing peer pressure, might be a powerful tool to stop the undesirable action.

Strategy 5: Compensating the harm to society

Sometimes it is very difficult to stop the harmful action. This can be because you don’t have the authority to do so or are not able to track the offender or tracking the offender is very expensive. This could also be because the harmful action is needed for society or situations with conflicting interests (pollution as a result of economic prosperity)

In this strategy you will allow the harmfull action but you take action to mitigate the harmfull result of that action. Removing graffiti the next day is an example, another is placing filters on smokestacks. Ideally the actor is involved in defining and creating these solutions if possible.

Strategy 6: Changing the context of the action

This strategy changes the context of the action. Basically it tries to influence the public’s opinion regarding harm. The result of the action is no longer regarded as harm but as the desirable situation.

This might be seen a strange way to approach things but sometimes it is possible. You could consider graffiti as harmfull, but also as an art form. Noise disturbance by youth could be regarded as a disturbance, you could also say this a lively neighborhood, ideally suited for parents with kids in their early puberty.

Strategy 7: Adding tools, information or support to stimulate desired behavior.

The final strategy is to add tools , information or support for the desired action on top of those already available. The mechanism is to facilitate desired behavior so it will be easir “to do the right thing”.

For example the Dutch tax office already fills in all the data for the electronic tax income. You only have to check these instead of filling them in yourself.

A chain of processes

Up till now the harmful action is considered as a standalone action. However it probably is part of a chain of processes an actions leading to the final harm. Poppy is produced and harvested on plantations, worked into drugs, smuggled, sold and finally used, for example. The tools used for the harmful action are produced somewhere and could be taken off the market (lasering airplanes for example)

So it is important not only to analyze the process leading to the harm but also the neighboring processes. A disruption anywhere in the chain could finally lead to the reduction of the final harm.

Part 3: Selecting an intervention.

Ethics

Once you have used all the three approaches for designing solutions you have a long list of possible solution. So how to make an optimal choice from this list.

You can make your choice taking into account 3 ethical perspective (Becker):

The first perspective is utility.

For each solution a cost benefit analysis will be performed. The cost of the solution will be compared to the reduction in social harm.

Of course the more complex your solution, the greater the cost but also the greater the benefit. You choose the intervention which has the greatest difference between costs and benefits. However doing this you create an acceptable risk which is not covered by your solution. This risk may be acceptable from a cost benefit perspective, but might not be acceptable form the public’s perspective.

The second perspective is duty. If your minister or government already publicly committed itself to a certain solution, it might be best to do your duty and implement this solution. The public is more likely to accept a solution based on earlier commitment then a solution purely based on cost benefit.

The third perspective is virtue. Are we doing the right things? The things that are expected of us. Are we implementing solutions that are not too harsh on persons affected by the solution? If you select a solution you should ask yourself these questions:

Does your solution feels right for the person who was the victim, the one who endured the harm? Is this solution responsive to his interest?

Does your solution unnecessary restrict the company or person who is affected by the solution? After all not all solutions directly target the actor who caused the harm.

Does your solution place a unacceptable burden on the one who has to execute the solution?

Applying these criteria will lead to a number of solutions being rejected, but still a number of solutions will still be viable.

Prioritizing of solutions

Once a final list of solutions is available could you rank these on the effectiveness and create a priority for choosing your intervention.

Professor Wymer in his article on the effectiveness of social marketing proposes a model for priority. In social marketing he distinguishes factors from the environment which inhibit the desired social change, and individual factors. He states to be effective you should fist handle the environmental factors which inhibit the desired social behavior before changing the individual behavior.

In his opinion there are 4 factors which should be handled in the appropriate priority:

1st Privation (environment): Those factors which are not present but should be if you want the desired behavior to take place. For instance or example, if the program’s objective is to reduce infant mortality, mothers should have proper sanitation?

2nd Pathogenic (Environment): Those factors which are present but inhibit the right behavior, for instance companies marketing candy, while you wan to stop obese children.

3rd Ignorance (individual): If a individual is ignorant of the right behavior he will not be motivated to do the right behavior.

4th Motivation: once all factors are there individuals could be motivated to d the right thing.

Of course you should first ask yourself if the problem really is a problem and if the government should handle this.

Taking the model, the priority of solutions could be:

1. Solutions which change the context of the action2. Solutions which add missing tools, information or support to stimulate desired behavior3. Solutions which remove tools, information or support which inhibit desired behavior4. Solutions which create awareness to the actor of the harm his action creates to society5. Solutions which motivate the right behavior by filling the unfulfilled needs of the actor in

another way6. Solutions which motivate the right behavior by negatively compensating the profit (fulfilled

needs) of the wrong behavior

And finally if everything else fails you can leave the problem alone and choose the;

7. Solutions which compensate the harm to society

References

Analyse van organisatieproblemen

J. In ‘t veld

ISBN 90 207 2281 6, 1992 Stenfert Kroese uitgevers

Bestuurlijke ethiek

Marcel Becker

(ISBN 978 90 232 4364 9, van Gorkum)

De Interventie

Rob van Dorp, Jan Schipper

ISBN 978 94 6228 204 9, Inspectieraad

Developing more effective social marketing strategies

Walter Wymer Journal of Social Marketing Vol. 1 No. 1, 2011

Faculty of Management, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Canada

What is Total Quality Control? the Japanese Way

Karoru Ishikawa

(ISBN-10: 0139524339 Publisher: Prentice Hall; 1St Edition edition (December 1988))

The regulatory Craft

Malcolm Sparrow

(ISBN 0-8157-8065-6, 2000) Brookin institution press