Handling Societal Complexity

The book, Handling Societal Complexity: A Study of the Theory of the Methodology of Societal Complexity and the COMPRAM Methodology with Examples of Applications on Global Safety, by Dorien J. DeTombe is a handbook for studying and applying the Theory of the Methodology of Societal Complexity. The book describes the theoretical development of the field of the Methodology of Societal Complexity and provides the foundation for the application of the Compram methodology, a methodology for policymaking on handling complex societal problems. The book is based on the doctoral dissertation, Defining Complex Interdisciplinary Societal Problems. A Theoretical Study for Constructing a Cooperative Problem Analyzing Method: The Method COMPRAM, by Dorien J. DeTombe in 1994 (DeTombe 1994) and on subsequent publications on the subject of handling societal complexity by the same author published in the period of 1992–2014 in various scientific journals and books. The use of the Compram methodology is illustrated by theoretical examples of how the methodology can be applied to real life complex societal problems on the subject of “global safety.”

In this chapter, Complex societal problems, some aspects of complex societal problems and some aspects of (human) problem handling in general are discussed. The emphasis in this chapter is more on the problem and the methodology of problem handling, than on the problem solver. In Cognitive Psychology the central attention of problem-solving research is often on the problem solver. The analysis of the problem handling process will be mainly treated from the viewpoint of cognitive psychology as far as this is relevant for building the Theory of the Methodology of Societal Complexity. The chapter starts with questioning “what is a problem,” describing different kinds of problems, and questioning “what is problem handling.” This is followed by a discussion of when is something a problem, for whom it is a problem, who should handle the problem, a discussion of interventions, and finally, when is a problem solved. Some aspects of problem solving research that are important for this debate will also be discussed. We prefer to use the words “problem handling” instead of “problem solving.” Only in case the literature itself uses the words “problem solving,” we copy this term in order to facilitate comparison in the literature. In a brief historical review, the work of a selection of researchers on the subject of problem solving in the field of cognitive psychology will be discussed. Selected are those researchers whose ideas had a major influence on the work of other researchers in the field. In this review the research of Selz (1922), who used the think-aloud method to discover how human beings think, and of De Groot (1965) on problem solving in the chess game, and some of the ideas of Newell and Simon (1972) will be discussed. Newell and Simon’s ideas have influenced many researchers. Their ideas have a central place in the theory of problem solving in Cognitive Psychology and in Artificial Intelligence, restricted to the Anglo-American literature. The discussion closes with research on undefined problems: the research of Crombag (Crombag et al. 1977; Crombag 1984) on how judges and physicians handle problems and the research of Wierda (1991) about developing interdisciplinary information systems. Based on these discussions the first research expectation can be answered. The first expectation, expectation a is:

the character of complex societal problems is an important reason for the difficulty of handling these problems.

The research questions derived from this expectation are:

In Chap. 3 the definition of a general problem is given and different kinds of problems and the concept of problem handling are described. This is followed by a discussion of when is something a problem, for whom it is a problem, a discussion of interventions, who should handle the problem and when a problem is solved. In a brief historical review, the work of a selection of researchers on problem solving in the field of cognitive psychology is discussed. We discussed the differences between the problems investigated by cognitive psychology and complex societal problems. Chapter 3 ended with a definition of complex societal problems.

In this chapter, Human Problem Handling, some similarities between the problems investigated by cognitive psychology and complex societal problems will be discussed. We discuss the process of human problem handling, and we will answer the remaining parts of the research question a3 of expectation a:

what are the similarities relevant for handling complex societal problems between the problems that are studied in the field of Cognitive Psychology and problems in the field of the theory of the methodology of societal complexity (expectation a)?

This chapter begins with a description of the two sub-cycles of the problem handling process in which there are several problem handling phases. The phases of the problem handling process will be described in detail in order to emphasize certain similarities between the problems dealt with by cognitive psychology and complex societal problems. Then there is a discussion on the use of scenarios based on system dynamics models.

The problem handling phases that are identified by other researchers will be discussed, followed by a discussion of rationality in problem handling, and the knowledge and data needed for handling complex societal problems. The discussion in this chapter ends with some remarks about problem handling techniques.

In this chapter, Group Decision Support Systems, we discuss the research expectation b:

the computer can be a useful tool in assisting the human being in the process of problem handling of complex societal problems, but it cannot completely replace the skills of the human being here.

In Chap. 3 we discussed the nature of a problem, defined the concept of a complex societal problem, and discussed the differences between problem handling and problem solving. We reflected on the problem-solving literature of Cognitive Psychology, the work of Newell and Simon (1972), and the concept of “handling space.” In Chap. 4 we focused on the possibilities and the limitations of human problem handling. We discussed the problem handling cycle and the problem handling phases. We discussed rational problem handling techniques and different kinds of knowledge. We concluded that handling complex societal problems is not easy. One of the reasons for this is the special nature of the problems and their imbedding in a changing environment. Realizing that handling complex societal problems is difficult, and confronted with the societal urge to guide these problems, there is a need to support the problem handling process with an efficient and transparent methodology and with adequate tools. In this chapter, we focus on tools to support the problem handling process of complex societal problems.

There are many tools that support the process of problem handling. Choosing the appropriate tool for problem handling depends on the type of problem, the domain(s), the person(s), the complexity of the problem, the time available to reflect on the problem, and the moment in the problem handling process (see Chaps. 3 and 4). There is a lot of variation in tools available. There are simple tools like paper and pencils, whiteboards, flip-overs, and electronic tools like data recorders, videos, and telephones as well as computer tools. There are tools for individual support and tools for group support. In this chapter we focus on computer tools that support the group problem handling process of complex societal problems.

In looking for computer tools to support the problem handling process of complex societal problems, one must make a distinction between those computer tools that have been designed according to the Artificial Intelligence paradigm and those tools that operate using conventional computer programming.

In the dissertation (DeTombe 1994) we concluded that Artificial Intelligence cannot provide the algorithms that can handle complex societal problems. Now 20 years later, there are still no computer programs that are capable of replacing the human being in handling complex societal problems (see for this discussion) (DeTombe 1994, Chap. 4). Therefore, we will focus on computer programs that assist the human being in handling complex societal problems. These programs, based on conventional programming techniques, are not intended to solve the problem as a whole, but to assist the human being in its problem handling task. Here the computer has been very successful in assisting the human being in handling problems such as selecting a specific name from a large database, “remembering” all kinds of data, controlling machines, assisting text writing, and data mining.

The focus of the discussion in this chapter will be on computer tools that have been developed to assist the human being on some moments in the problem handling process. We give a historical view from the start of the field of computer science till about the early 1990s, beginning of the twentieth century (as concerning the use of the computer in the field of Methodology of Societal Complexity, no principal changes developed since the publication of the articles (DeTombe 1994; 1995g) this discussion of the 1990s is still relevant for the nowadays discussion in this area). This focus could lead to an investigation of a whole range of computer programs, from word processors, modeling tools, and databases to management information systems. But this would be far beyond the scope of the current work and not relevant for our discussion. Because handling complex societal problems is a cooperative activity (see Chap. 7), the focus will be on programs that support group problem handling process with an emphasis on group decision support systems.

This leads to discuss the research questions of the nature of decision support systems, particularly those used by groups of decision makers, and how they might be used to assist human beings involved in the handling of complex problems as described in the research question of expectation b:

in what way can the computer assist the human being in handling complex societal problems?

In answering this research question, we focus specially on the use of system dynamic modeling for creating the conceptual model of a complex societal problem. In this we continue the discussion about system dynamic modeling of Chap. 3.

Other research questions of expectation b are the research sub-questions:

b1 what are (group) decision support systems?

b2 in what way can (group) decision support systems assist the human being in the process of handling complex societal problems?

In Chaps. 3 and 4 we discussed problem handling in general. We indicated that for handling complex societal problems, knowledge of different disciplines is necessary. Therefore, complex societal problems should be handled cooperatively. By “handling a problem cooperatively” we mean handling a problem with a group of persons. The arrangement of the group depends on the problem. It can vary from a mono-disciplinary group consisting of people of the same level of expertise, to a multi-disciplinary group of different (high and low) levels of expertise, or a mixed group with content experts and organization experts managers. Another reason for handling complex societal problems cooperatively is that most complex societal problems have a great impact on society. In a democracy a group widens the basis for acceptance of interventions. As we have seen in Chap. 3 knowledge of problem handling is mostly derived from the way one person solves small domain-related problems. Handling these kinds of relatively simple problems differs, on some crucial points, from cooperative handling of complex societal problems. The results from research on handling small, domain-related problems can only be used to a certain extent in this field. In handling small domain-related problems, only domain-related problem solving techniques and domain-related methods of analysis are used. For handling complex societal problems, a special methodology is needed that takes into account the complexity, the interdisciplinarity, and the dynamic changes of the problem and its environment and that will support a cooperative way of problem handling.

As stated in Chap. 3, we assume that handling complex societal problems can be improved by improving the quality of the problem handling skills of people, which, in turn, can be improved by using a fruitful methodology combined with the suitable tools.

In this chapter we will discuss some aspects of a methodology for handling a complex societal problem. We focus especially on the support of the cooperative problem handling process and discuss some of the possibilities of computer tools to this process. This reflects expectation c:

for handling complex societal problems a methodology is needed that includes the basic concepts knowledge, power and emotion and supports cooperative problem handling

Which is operationalized to research question c (See Chap. 2):

what are the special aspects a methodology for supporting the process of handling complex societal problems should possess

We will begin by connecting the problem handling phases mentioned in Chap. 4 with examples of complex societal problems.

The Compram methodology, developed by DeTombe (© 1993.) a methodology for handling policy problems of complex societal problems, is based on the theory described in the Chaps. 3–6 of this book. The methodology gives no algorithm for the solution of a problem, only guidelines, suggestions, and heuristics on how to handle a complex societal problem in order to make policy on it. The methodology should be regarded as a framework in which steps for analyzing and handling are given. At each step one or more methods, models, and tools can be added. Basically the steps should be approached sequentially and should be traversed several times iteratively.

In the Chaps. 2–7 the Theory of the Methodology of Societal Complexity and parts of the Compram methodology are described. In the now following Chaps. 8–14 examples are given on how the Compram methodology can be applied on different complex societal problems. All the examples are experiments of thought and mainly refer to global safety. In each chapter special aspects of the Compram methodology are described and explained that are not addressed in the former theoretical chapters. The Chaps. 8–14 are based on former published articles of the author in the period of 1992–2014. Often parts of the articles are integrally copied; however, sometimes the text of these articles is adapted to fit into the argumentation of the chapters and the integration of recent knowledge. It might happen that some aspects of the Compram methodology have been already described in previous chapters. However, due to the continuation of the argumentation of the chapters we leave these parts included. The examples are selected on the relevance of the subject, the extended description of the Compram methodology, and in order to answer the fourth expectation, expectation d:

although complex societal problems differ a lot from each other the same kind of methodology can be applied to handle these kinds of problems.

The research question related to this expectation is research question d1:

can one general methodology for handling complex societal problems support the problem handling process of different complex societal problems (expectation d)?

In Chap. 8 we make a start with answering the research question d1. In the Chaps. 9, 10, 11, and 12 the research question d1 will be further addressed.

The special aspects of the Compram methodology described in Chap. 8 are the problem handling phases 1.1–1.6 of step one of the Compram methodology: the sessions with the experts. These sessions are described as a theoretical example of the use of the Compram methodology on a real-life problem in the field of global safety and healthcare applied on the HIV/Aids problem.

In this chapter, Global Safety and Sustainable Development, the relation between global safety and sustainable development is discussed as an example of a complex societal policy problem to which the Compram methodology can be applied. In this chapter we reflect further on research question d:

can one general methodology for handling complex societal problems support the problem handling process of different complex societal problems (expectation d)?

We emphasize in this chapter as a hypothetical theoretical example, the discussion of the definition of sustainable development in relation to agriculture, industry, and labor and the formulation of the desired goal of how the experts in step one of the Compram methodology could have performed this in their problem handling process regarding sustainable development. These are problem handling phases 1.4–2.1. Based on this hypothetical discussion, we give a definition of sustainable development and indicate how a desired goal can be discussed and formulated. In this example the view of only a few experts is given: the reflections of an expert on agriculture, on environment, and on economics. A further discussion of the other experts could lead to a different outcome of the discussion. Here only the way in which the Compram methodology can be applied is emphasized.

In this chapter, Global Safety and Economy: The Credit Crisis, we continue reflecting on research question d:

can one general methodology for handling complex societal problems support the problem handling process of different complex societal problems (expectation d)?

Here the application of the Compram methodology on a complex societal policy problem of global safety in the field of economy is discussed as a hypothetical example. The role of the actors in the discussion of the experts in step one of the Compram methodology is emphasized.

The way the financial system is organized worldwide with its dependency on stock exchange markets is rather vulnerable. Two major credit crises in the last 100 years show that the system is vulnerable to changes. The consequences of the financial crises for the people are huge: large amounts of unemployment and poverty. The financial crisis of 1929 could even be indicated as one of the causes of the Second World War (1939–1945). Who is responsible for creating and maintaining this vulnerable financial system? Is it controlled by the states and thus under the rule of law of the states or is it ruled by the huge financial markets, banks, and insurance companies, where people work who only have their own benefit in mind?

In this chapter the credit crisis is discussed by focussing on the sub-system economy, time scope 1929–2010, and geographical scope of Western Europe and USA/Canada (See Chap. 4, Sect. 4.​3.​9). This means we focus on the economy from the point of view of Western Europe and USA/Canada in the period of 1929–2010.

As far as human history goes, wealth and power are in the hands of a small selected group. This is the way the world is ruled. The idea of dividing the goods more or less equally among all people is a rather new concept. If one wonders if it is possible to distribute the world’s assets and work more equally among all people, based for instance on the idea of a world based on socialist capitalism including human rights and sustainable development, then many questions have to be answered. Do people want a more equal distribution of assets? Which kind of society can support this? Does this lead to a more equal distribution? Can the small number of people who now have the money and power be persuaded to accept this idea? Can this be done without riots, revolution, wars, and bloodshed?

In order to get some answers to these questions, a careful analysis of the problem should be made. What is going on in the world? Who is in power? Who is suffering? Who gets the benefits? What do the people want? What are their desired goals and how can these be reached?

Reflecting on the world economy from the point of view of human rights and sustainable development, we can ask ourselves: “Are the goods and assets in the world equally divided?” Answering this negatively the questions becomes: “What can be done to change the world with its unequal division of goods and work into a world which is divided more along the lines of human rights and sustainable development? What kind of political situation will this require? Is this a social democracy based on capitalism?”

Dividing the world along the lines of human rights may seem to be an idealistic view; however, human rights and sustainable development are taken seriously by many people. So it is worthwhile to undertake effort to see whether this goal can be reached. In order to do this, many questions have to be answered: “Which people share this idea and who does not? What has to be changed?” (see also Chap. 9 for this discussion).

Changing an economy, changing the distribution of goods and assets, is a complex societal problem. To find answers to these questions one needs the Theory of the Methodology of Societal Complexity and the Compram methodology (DeTombe 1994). Looking at complex societal issues in this way there is a possibility to arrive at more sustainable interventions. A multidisciplinary approach like the Compram methodology is necessary to find better and more sustainable answers to problems by applying interventions directed to causes and by including the main actors in the negotiation. The methodology is based on the idea that the whole is more than the sum of the individual parts (Wertheimer 1925).

This chapter, Global Safety and Climate Change, discusses the problem of climate change as a complex societal problem. By doing this we reflect further on research question d:

Can one general methodology for handling complex societal problems support different complex societal problems?

We emphasize in this chapter the relation between the problem handling phases and the steps of the Compram methodology. In this chapter some issues about the Theory of the Methodology of Societal Complexity that has been explained earlier are illustrated in the discussion of climate change. The issue of what makes a problem a complex societal problem is discussed. The other problem we discuss in this chapter is: “Who is the problem owner of a problem that involves many different countries?” Climate change is used as an example of thinking about and handling a real-life problem that is a global problem.

The rapid climate change, also referred to as global warming, has been discussed in scientific circles already for a long time (Brundtland, 1988; Legget, 1990). In the 1990s this issue was put on the political agenda (Rio de Janeiro, 1992; Kyoto Protocol, 1997; Davos, 2007). From that time on the scientific debate on climate change has been politically engaged and popularised (Luttikhuis, 2007, p. 4; De Rijk, 2007, p. 9). More and more alarming publications about rapid climate change have appeared in the media (Knip, 2007; Rosenthal, 2007; Gore, 2006; Gore, 2007). However, the discussion of the topic is often oversimplified.

In this chapter we reflect on the use of the Compram methodology for handling terrorism and large city problems. The special aspects of the Compram methodology discussed in this chapter focus on the idea that for handling complex societal problem theories of different disciplines are needed to understand the problem. The handling space will be discussed in relation with the role of the problem owner. Then we discuss a real-life project for increasing the level of living in a rural area in Turkey: the Balaban project. We continue with answering research question d:

can one general methodology for handling complex societal problems support the problem handling process of different complex societal problems (expectation d)?

Terrorism is considered on in this chapter from a social science point of view. Terrorism is regarded as a complex societal problem that should be handled according to the Theory of the Methodology of Societal Complexity and the Compram methodology. The Theory of the Methodology of Societal Complexity indicates that before finding interventions the problem has to be defined so as to avoid handling the “wrong” problem. Also the causes have to be analyzed. Otherwise only effects are handled and the problem will continue. Looking at the way governments in Western—Europe and the USA react on threats of terrorism, it seems more effort has gone into violating the rights of civilians, than on reducing terrorism. Analyzing “the war on terrorism”. The Bush Jr. Administration seems to support this statement. This “war on terrorism” resulted in a double threat for the people, that of terrorist attacks and that of their own government.

In acting on the problem of terrorism several stages can be distinguished. The most important stage is the prevention stage: to prevent terrorist attacks. This can be done by focusing on the causes of terrorism. Shifting the main human energy, brains, power, and money to the stage of prevention will, in the end, help to reduce terrorist attacks.

There are many causes for terrorism. Some of these will be discussed in this chapter, such as the relation between terrorism and identity. This subject will be approached by discussing large city problems. An example of trying to influence one of the causes of terrorism is a real-life project in Turkey to increase the standard of living in a rural area.

In this chapter, Implementation; Ethical Aspects, Validation, and Testing of Complex Societal Methodologies, the discussion about the use of the Compram methodology will continue with four issues:

The cases of the high-speed railway, the expansion of Schiphol airport, and the floods of Dutch rivers will be addressed to illustrate the Theory of the Methodology of Societal Complexity.