The third step is to combine the views, knowledge and power of the knowledge experts and the different actors involved. A representative selection of actors and knowledge experts should try to find interventions that are acceptable to the majority of the actors.
Some of the opposition can be avoided by including some of the opponents, for example an ecological action group, in the problem handling process, and by giving these actors the opportunity to influence the project. This takes place during step two of the problem handling process, after the ‘neutral’ knowledge experts have analyzed which actors are involved, and what their goals are. Including the actors in this early phase of the problem handling process gives the problem-owner the chance, before the definitive plans for developing the project are made, to see what the different actors want and how they will react. Not all actors, however, can be included in the problem handling process. Including them all would make the group of problem analyzers too large. An other reason for not having all actors included in the problem analyzing process is that some actors may be overlooked, or might unexpectedly become part of the opposition.
In step three of the problem handling process plans for development of the project are made by representatives of the knowledge experts and the different actors. It is often very complicated to anticipate future situations, therefore different scenarios’ can be made and described as ‘real worlds’.
The method Compram prescribes in a framework model of six +1 steps how to handle these kinds of problems. This is the Basic Approach of the method Compram (see for a more detailed description of the Compram approach DeTombe, 1994; DeTombe, 2003).
Prof. Dr. Dorien J. DeTombe Founder and Chair International - , Euro - , West-Euro- & Dutch Operational Research Research Group Methodology of Societal Complexity Sichuan University, Chengdu, P.R. China
