Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Literature about public decision making experiences, including stakeholders’ engagement, offers best practices but also reports of unsuccessful case studies. Meaningful participation activities require direct integration of stakeholders into all the phases of the public decision process to unleash innovation. Often, policy making incorporates participation late in the process, after the problem definition has occurred, alternatives have been defined, without considering stakeholders’ knowledge and problem understanding. The early stage of policy alternatives design is essential to the development of policy. Our research presents an extensive literature review with respect to policy design and design theory in order to show that the formal process of generation of alternatives has been little investigated. There is a demand for methodologies aiming at supporting policy makers and relevant stakeholders during policy design. In this regard, this paper introduces (and explores) the operational role of design theory in the policy making process for the generation of policy alternatives. Design thinking, as a way to inform a collective problem definition leading to innovation, highlights the value of early stakeholders’ engagement. The aim of this paper is to understand, from an operational point of view, what “design” means in a policy making context, developing an innovative approach for assisting the formalization of policy design. The paper uses the results of a pilot case study to illustrate the application of the Concepts–Knowledge (C-K) theory framework to support the innovative design of policy alternatives for the groundwater protection policy of the Apulia Region (southern Italy).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (2011) Strategic management of stakeholders: theory and practice. Long Range Plan 44(3):179–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Heinzerling L (2004) Priceless: on knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing. The New Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7499.1091

    Google Scholar 

  • Adla A, Zarate P, Soubie J (2011) A proposal of toolkit for GDSS facilitators. Group Decis Negot 20(1):57–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-010-9204-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Agogué M, Kazakçi AO (2014) 10 Years of C–K theory: a survey on the academic and industrial impacts of a design theory. Anthol Theor Models Des. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6338-1_11

    Google Scholar 

  • Agogué M, Hooge S, Arnoux F, Brown I (2014) An introduction to innovative design. Elements and applications of C–K theory. TRANSVALOR, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander C (1964) Notes on the synthesis of form. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander ER (1982) Design in the decision-making process. Policy Sci 14:279–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Alford J (2009) Engaging public sector clients: from service delivery to co-production. Palgrave MacMillan, Houndmills

    Google Scholar 

  • Alshuwaikhat HM, Nkwenti DI (2002) Visualizing decision making: perspectives on collaborative and participative approach to sustainable urban planning and management. Environ Plan 29(4):513–531. https://doi.org/10.1068/b12818

    Google Scholar 

  • Ananda J, Herath G (2003) Incorporating stakeholder values into regional forest planning: a value function approach. Ecol Econ 45(1):75–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer LB (1965) Systematic method for designers. The Design Council, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer LB (1970) An overview of the structure of the design process. In: Moore G (ed) Emerging methods in environmental design and planning. MIT, Cambridge, pp 285–307

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardach E (1977) The implementation game. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayazit N (2004) Investigating design: a review of forty years of design research. Des Issues 20(1):16–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Bayley C, French S (2008) Designing a participatory process for stakeholder involvement in a societal decision. Group Decis Negot 17(3):195–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9076-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Beierle TC (2002) The quality of stakeholder-based decisions. Risk Anal 22(4):739–749. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.00065

    Google Scholar 

  • Beierle TC, Cayford J (2002) Democracy in practice: public participation in environmental decisions. Resources for the Future, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Bemelmans-Videc M, Vedung E (1998) Conclusion: policy instrument types, packages, choices and evaluation. In: Bemelmans-Videc M, Rist RC, Vedung E (eds) Carrots, sticks and sermons: policy instruments and their evaluation. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, pp 249–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobrow D (2006) Policy design: ubiquitous, necessary and difficult. In: Peters BG, Pierre J (eds) Handbook of public policy. Sage, London, pp 75–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobrow D, Dryzek JS (1987) Policy analysis by design. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Bressers H, Klok P (1988) Fundamentals for a theory of policy instruments. Int J Soc Econ 15(3/4):22–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown T (2008) Design thinking. Harvard Bus Rev 84(6):15–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown T (2009) Change by design: how design thinking transforms organisation and inspires innovation. Harper Collins, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugha R, Varvasovsky Z (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plan 15:239–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan R (1992) Wicked problems in design thinking. Des Issues 8(2):5–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Celino A, Concilio G (2011) Explorative nature of negotiation in participatory decision making for sustainability. Group Decis Negot 20(2):255–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-010-9197-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (2000) Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Syst Res Behav Sci 17:S11–S58

    Google Scholar 

  • Colorni A, Tsoukiàs A (2018) What is a decision problem? designing alternatives. In: Matsatsinis N, Grigoroudis E (eds) Preference disaggregation in multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90599-0_1

    Google Scholar 

  • Creighton JL (2005) The public participation handbook. Jossey-Bass, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniell KA, Mazri C, Tsoukiàs A (2010) Real world decision-aiding: a case of participatory water management. In: Insua DR, French S (eds) e-Democracy: a group decision and negotiation perspective, vol 5. Springer, Berlin, pp 125–150

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi G, Lucertini G, Tsoukiàs A (2016) From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics. Ann Oper Res 236(1):15–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-014-1578-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Rıo P, Carrillo-Hermosilla J, Konnola T (2010) Policy strategies to promote eco-innovation. J Ind Ecol 14(4):541–557

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem solution. Des Stud 22(5):425–437

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2004) Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):615–630. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00061-4

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2013) Problem structuring: on the nature of, and reaching agreement about, goals. EURO J Decis Process 1(1):7–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmore RF (1987) Instruments and strategy in public policy. Policy Stud Rev 7(1):174–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmquist M, Segrestin B (2009) Sustainable development through innovative design: lessons from the KCP method experimented with an automotive firm. Int J Autom Technol Manag 9(2):229–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti V, Pluchinotta I, Tsoukiàs A (2019) Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes. Eur J Oper Res 273:353–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F (2000) Citizens, experts and the environment: the politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press, Durham

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer F, Miller G, Sidney MS (2007) Handbook of public policy: theory, politics, and methods. Sage, London. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848608054

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester J (1999) The deliberative practitioner: encouraging participatory planning processes. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman RE (2010) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • French S, Bayley C (2011) Public participation: comparing approaches. J Risk Res 14(2):37–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.515316

    Google Scholar 

  • French S, Insua DR, Ruggeri F (2007) E-participation and decision analysis. Decis Anal 4:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend J, Hickling A (1987) Planning under pressure. The strategic choice approach. Pergamon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend J, Power J, Yewlett C (1974) Public planning: the inter-corporate dimension. Tavistock, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano R, D’Agostino D, Apollonio C, Lamaddalena N, Vurro M (2013) Bayesian belief network to support conflict analysis for groundwater protection: the case of the Apulia Region. J Environ Manag 115:136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.11.011

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano R, D’Agostino D, Apollonio C, Scardigno A, Pagano A, Portoghese I, Lamaddalena N, Piccinni AF, Vurro M (2015) Evaluating acceptability of groundwater protection measures under different agricultural policies. Agric Water Manag 147:54–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2014.07.023

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano R, Brugnach M, Pluchinotta I (2017a) Ambiguity in problem framing as a barrier to collective actions: some hints from groundwater protection policy in the Apulia Region. Group Decis Negot 26(5):911–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9519-1

    Google Scholar 

  • Giordano R, Pagano A, Pluchinotta I, Olivo R, Hernandez SM, Lafuente ES (2017b) The complexity of the network of interactions in flood emergency management: the Lorca flash flood case. Environ Model Softw 95:180–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2017.06.026

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Fischhoff B, McDaniels T (2005) Acceptable input: using decision analysis to guide public policy deliberations. Decis Anal 2:4–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Gunningham N, Grabosky P, Sinclair D (1998) Smart regulation: designing environmental policy. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hand LC (2012) Public policy design and assumptions about human behaviour. In: Western political science association’s annual conference

  • Harrison S, Qureshi M (2000) Choice of stakeholder groups and members in multicriteria decision models. Nat Resour Forum 24(1):11–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel A, Weil B (1999) Pour une théorie unifiée de la conception, Axiomatiques et processus collectifs. CGS Ecole des Mines, GIS cognition-CNRS

  • Hatchuel A, Weil B (2002) C–K theory: notions and applications of a unified design theory. In: Proceedings of the Herbert Simon international conference on «design sciences», pp 1–22

  • Hatchuel A, Weil B (2003) A new approach of innovative design: an introduction to CK theory. In: XIVth international conference on engineering design, Stockholm, Sweden, 19th–21st August

  • Hatchuel A, Weil B (2009) C–K design theory: an advanced formulation. Res Eng Des 19(4):181–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2004) C–K theory in practice: lessons from industrial applications. Des Conf 2004:245–258

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B (2008) Teaching innovative design reasoning: how could C–K theory help? In: Proceedings of 10th international conference on engineering and product design education pp 73–78

  • Hatchuel A, Le Masson P, Weil B, Agogué M, Kazakçi AO, Hooge S (2015) Multiple forms of applications and impacts of a design theory-ten years of industrial applications of C-K theory. In: Lindemann ACU (ed) Impact of design research on industrial practice—tools, technology, and training, December. Springer, Munich, pp 189–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood C (1986) The tools of government. Chatham House, Chatham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooge S, Béjean M, Arnoux F (2016) Organising for radical innovation: the benefits of the interplay between cognitive and organisational processes in Kcp workshops. Int J Innov Manag 20(4):1–33. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919616400041

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett M (2004) Beyond good and evil in policy implementation: instrument mixes, implementation styles and second generation theories of policy instrument choice. Policy Soc 23(2):1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett M (2011a) Designing public policies: principles and instruments. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett M (2011b) Revisiting policy design: the rise and fall (and rebirth?) of policy design studies. In: General conference of the European consortium for political research (ECPR), pp 1–32

  • Howlett M (2014) From the ‘old’ to the ‘new’ policy design: design thinking beyond markets and collaborative governance. Policy Sci 47(3):187–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-014-9199-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett M, Lejano R (2013) Tales from the crypt: the rise and fall (and re-birth?) of policy design studies. Adm Soc 45(3):356–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Howlett M, Mukherjee I, Woo JJ (2015) From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: the new design orientation towards policy formulation research. Policy Polit 43(2):291–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Hysing E (2009) From government to governance? a comparison of environmental governing in Swedish forestry and transport. Governance 22:547–672

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazakçi AO, Tsoukiàs A (2005) Extending the C–K design theory: a theoretical background for personal design assistants. J Eng Des 16(4):399–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Keyes JM (1996) Power tools: the form and function of legal instruments for government action. Can J Adm Law Pract 10:133–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim WC, Mauborgne RA (1995) A procedural justice model of strategic decision-making: strategy content implications in the multinational. Organ Sci 6(1):44–61. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.44

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim WC, Mauborgne RA (1998) Procedural justice, strategic decision making, and the knowledge economy. Strateg Manag J 19(4):323–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell H (1954) Key symbols, signs and icons. In: Bryson L, Finkelstein L, MacIver RM (eds) Symbols and values: an initial study. Harper & Bros, New York, pp 77–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell H (1956) The decision process: seven categories of functional analysis. Bureau of Governmental Research, College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland

  • Lasswell H (1971) A pre-view of policy sciences. American Elsevier, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lavin J (2010) Participatory processes and instruments. In: Rios Insua D, French S (eds) E-participation. A group decision and negotiation perspective. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Masson P, Weil B, Hatchuel A (2014) Théorie, méthodes et organisations de la conception. TRANSVALOR, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi-Faur D (2012) The Oxford handbook of governance. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Liedtka J, King A, Bennett K (2013) Solving problems with design thinking: ten stores of what works. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lienert J, Schnetzer F, Ingold K (2013) Stakeholder analysis combined with social network analysis provides fine grained insights into water infrastructure planning processes. J Environ Manag 125:134–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.052

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder SH, Peters BG (1984) From social theory to policy design. J Public Policy 4(3):237–259. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X0000221X

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowi T (1985) The state in politics: the relation between policy and administration. In: Noll R (ed) Regulatory policy and the social sciences. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 67–105

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynn LE, Gould SG (1980) Designing public policy: a casebook on the role of policy analysis. Goodyear Publishing Company, Santa Monica

    Google Scholar 

  • Majone G (1993) Pitfalls of analysis. In: Majone G, Quade E (eds) International series on applied system analysis. Wiley, New York, pp 7–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin R (2009) The design of businesses: why design thinking is the next competitive advantage. Harvard Business Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Mustajoki J, DufvaM Karjalainen T (2013) How to design and realize participation of stakeholders in MCDA processes? a framework for selecting an appropriate approach. EURO J Decis Process 3(1–2):187–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-013-0016-3

    Google Scholar 

  • May PJ (1981) Hints for crafting alternative policies. Policy Anal 7(2):227–244

    Google Scholar 

  • May PJ (1991) Reconsidering policy design: policies and publics. J Public Policy 11(02):187. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X0000619X

    Google Scholar 

  • May PJ (2003) Policy design and implementation. In: Guy Peters B, Pierre J (eds) Handbook of public administration. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 223–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz R (1979) Public bureaucracies and policy implementation. Int Soc Sci J 31(4):633–645

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayntz R (1981) The changing conditions of effective public policy: a new challenge for. Policy Anal II(2):123–143

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazri C (2007) Apport méthodologique pour la structuration de processus de décision publique en contexte participatif. Le cas des risques industriels majeurs en France. Université Paris-Dauphine, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintrom M, Luetjens J (2016) Design thinking in policy making processes: opportunities and challenges. Aust J Public Adm 75(3):391–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12211

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore MH (1995) Creating public value: strategic management in government. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Nogueira F, Borges M, Wolf JH (2017) Collaborative decision-making in non-formal planning settings. Group Decis Negot 26(5):875–890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9518-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Norese M, Rolando D, Fregonara E (2015) Integration of problem structuring methods: a methodological proposal for complex regional decision-making processes. Int J Decis Support Syst Technol 7(2):58–83. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJDSST.2015040104

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole L (2000) Research on policy implementation: assessment and prospects. J Public Adm Res Theor 10(2):263–288

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppl S (2017) Supporting the collaborative construction of a shared understanding about work with a guided conceptual modeling technique, vol 26. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9485-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostanello A, Tsoukiàs A (1993) An explicative model of ‘public’ interorganizational interactions. Eur J Oper Res 70:67–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2010) Governing a commons from a Citizen’s perspective. Heinrich-Boell Stiftung, Cologne, pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl G, Beitz W (1984) Engineering design, a systematic approach. The Design Council, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Peters BG, Pierre J (1998) Governance without government? rethinking public administration. J Public Adm Res Theor 8(2):223–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M (2004) Complementarity in systems modelling. In: Pidd Michael (ed) Systems modelling: theory and practice theory and practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Pluchinotta I (2015) Multi-agent modelling for distributed intelligent decision in water management. Doctoral thesis Université Paris Dauphine, PSL Univ, France and Techinical University of Bari, Italy

  • Pluchinotta I, Pagano A, Giordano R, Tsoukiàs A (2018) A system dynamics model for supporting decision makers in irrigation water management. J Environ Manag 223:815–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.06.083

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollock S, Rothkopf M, Barnett A (1994) Operational research and the public sector. North Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Portoghese I, D’Agostino D, Giordano R, Scardigno A, Apollonio C, Vurro M (2013) An integrated modelling tool to evaluate the acceptability of irrigation constraint measures for groundwater protection. Environ Model Softw 46:90–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed M, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? a typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90(5):1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

    Google Scholar 

  • Renn O (2006) Participatory processes for designing environmental policies. Land Use Policy 23(1):34–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.005

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J (2006) Past, present and future of problem structuring methods. J Oper Res Soc 57(7):759–765. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602206

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe P (1998) Design thinking. MIT Pres, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe GT, Horlick-Jones JW, Pidgeon N (2005) Difficulties in evaluating public engagement initiatives: Reflections on an evaluation of the UK GM Nation? public debate. Public Underst Sci 14:331–352

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabatier P (2007) Theories of the policy process. Westview Press, Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon L (1981) Rethinking public management: third party government and the changing forms of government action. Public Policy 29(3):255–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoro S, Pluchinotta I, Pagano A, Pengal P, Cokan B, Giordano R (2019) Assessing stakeholders’ risk perception to promote nature based solutions as flood protection strategies: the case of the Glinšˇcica river (Slovenia). Sci Total Environ 655:188–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.11.116

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider A, Ingram H (1997) Policy design for democracy. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence

    Google Scholar 

  • Schon D (1983) The reflective practitioner: how professionals think in action. Basic Books (Reprinted 1995), New York

  • Ullah AMMS, Rashid MM, Tamaki J (2012) On some unique features of C–K theory of design. CIRP J Manufact Sci Technol 5(1):55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirpj.2011.09.001

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1954) Some strategic considerations in the construction of social science models. In: Simon H (ed) Models of bounded rationality: behavioural economics and business organization. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1969) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1976) From substantive to procedural rationality. In: Latsis S (ed) Method and appraisal in economics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill, Boston. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601336

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterner T (2003) Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. Resource for the Future Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh N (1990) Principles of design. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Tavella E, Franco LA (2015) Dynamics of group knowledge production in facilitated modelling workshops: an exploratory study. Group Decis Negot 24(3):451–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9398-2

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukiàs A (2007) On the concept of decision aiding process: An operational perspective. Ann Oper Res 154(1):3–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0187-z

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukiàs A, Montibeller G, Lucertini G, Belton V (2013) Policy analytics: an agenda for research and practice. EURO J Decis Process 1(1–2):115–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-013-0008-3

    Google Scholar 

  • UNDP UNDP (2012) Multi-stakeholder decision-making a guidebook for establishing a multi-stakeholder decision-making process to support green. Low-Emission and Climate-Resilient Development Strategies

  • Utterback J, Abernathy W (1975) A dynamic model of process and product innovation. Omega 3(6):639–665

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix JAM (1996) Group model-building: tackling messy problems. Syst Dyn Rev 15(4):379–401

    Google Scholar 

  • Webler T, Renn O (1995) A brief primer on participation: philosophy and practice. In: Renn O, Webler T, Wiedemann P (eds) Fairness and competence in citizen participation evaluating models for environmental discourse. Springer, Berlin, pp 17–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Weimer D (1992) The craft of policy design: can it be more than art? Rev Policy Res 11(3–4):370–388. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.1992.tb00479.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildavsky A (1979) Speaking truth to power: the art and craft of policy analysis. Little-Brown, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilensky R (1981) Meta-planning: representing and using knowledge about planning in problem solving and natural language understanding. Cogn Sci 5:197–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-4832-1446-7.50044-3

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodside K (1986) Policy instruments and the study of public policy. Can J Polit Sci 19(4):775–793. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900055141

    Google Scholar 

  • Zarate P (2013) Tools for collaborative decision-making. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118574690

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research activity described in this work have been financially supported by the INNDOPP (Innovative Design of Public Policies) Project, funded by PSL Research University. It has been developed in cooperation with the National Research Council-Water Research Institute (CNR-IRSA) of Bari (Italy) and the Centre de Gestion Scientifique of the Ecole des Mines ParisTech, Paris (France). We would like to thank the institutional and non-institutional stakeholders that provided their knowledge and expertise at the base of this work. Moreover, a great thanks goes to the Capitanata Irrigation Consortium (Consorzio di Bonifica di Capitanata) and to Dr. Luigi Nardella for their general support, engagement and availability during the work sessions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LAMSADE-CNRS, PSL Research University, Université Paris Dauphine, Place du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, 75016, Paris, France

    Irene Pluchinotta & Alexis Tsoukiàs

  2. Centre de Gestion Scientifique, MINES ParisTech, PSL Research University, 60 Boulevard Saint-Michel, 75006, Paris, France

    Akin O. Kazakçi

  3. Water Research Institute, National Research Council, Via De Blasio 5, Bari, Italy

    Raffaele Giordano

Authors
  1. Irene Pluchinotta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akin O. Kazakçi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raffaele Giordano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alexis Tsoukiàs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irene Pluchinotta.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pluchinotta, I., Kazakçi, A.O., Giordano, R. et al. Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes. Group Decis Negot 28, 341–375 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-09610-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-018-09610-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation