Outline

  • Abstract
  • 1 Introduction
  • 2 Method
  • 2.1 Wicked and Messy Problems
  • 2.2 Problem Structuring Methods (psms)
  • 2.3 Evaluation Methods
  • 2.4 Effectiveness of Expert Modelling
  • 2.5 Super Wicked Problems
  • 3. Discussion
  • 4 Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • References

رئوس مطالب

  • چکیده
  • کلید واژه ها
  • 1. مقدمه
  • 2. روش انجام کار
  • 2.1. مسائل بد و آشفته
  • 2.2. روش های ساخت مسئله (PSM)
  • 2.3. روش های ارزیابی
  • 2.4. بازدهی مدل سازی تخصصی
  • 2.5. مسائل بسیار بد
  • 3. بحث
  • 4. نتیجه گیری
  • تقدیر و تشکر

Abstract

Characterizing sustainability as a ‘super-wicked’ problem alerts us to issues beyond where current thinking about problem structuring enables engineers to deal with the merely wicked. Time is running out, no one authority is in control, we are the cause of the problem anyway, and we inherently discount the future in our everyday decision-making. When these are added to the usual definitions of wicked and messy problems, which only now are we addressing in engineering education, what are the potential limits and opportunities for the methodology of engineering in sustainability? Some modest extrapolations are discussed, based on the results from a recent research project in addressing energy planning in a city development zone. An analysis from another case study is also presented, which provides some triangulation of the ideas developed in this article.

Keywords: - - - -

Conclusions

s="fontstyle0">The STEEP project has provided an opportunity to test the performance of a PSM in a realistic messy problem context. Formal evaluation has revealed a number of shortcomings in the methodology despite the original confidence that PSMs were suitable for this type of problem context based on (Coelho, Antunes, & Martins, 2010; Gezelius & Refsgaard, 2007; Neves, Martins, Antunes, & Dias, 2004; Sheffield, 2004). When these shortcomings are also analysed against the concerns of super-wicked problems it is possible to see where improvements to methodology can be made. This leads to the following focus points for the development of PSMs for use by engineers in sustainability projects:

  • Setting transformational goals, owning stakeholder engagement, and dealing with goal erosion are interdependent problems, which when combined with multi-agency working suggests that conventional workshop-style facilitator-led settings are no longer appropriate.
  • Dealing with worldviews, subjectivity and the fact that we are contributing to the problem in which we are trying to intervene suggests that we need to extend existing methods to deal with more inclusive and widespread participation.
  • The fact that time is running out suggests that we need to move to methods that are quick and inexpensive to deploy, iterate quickly, and persist over time.

These three suggestions when combined point towards the development of PSMs that can be implemented and deployed in an online setting. The STEEP project has already moved in this direction by the implementation of the collaborative stakeholder engagement platform, which can be accessed from the STEEP project website. Further developments along these lines are indicated by the work of (Franco, 2007; Morton, Ackermann, & Belton, 2007; Shaw, Westcombe, Hodgkin, & Montibeller, 2004).

دانلود ترجمه تخصصی این مقاله دانلود رایگان فایل pdf انگلیسی