First of all, the environment of the decision must be taken into account. Made up of different facets, it must be considered from its āsalient pointsā, that is, the critical and decisive elements for the entirety of a problematic situation. Any situation of crisis needs to be mapped in order to provide an intelligible representation of its context and the nature of the system to be studied. The context will be referred to here as the āstrategic landscapeā. By avoiding the trap of an overly exhaustive approach, a structural analysis can help identify the particularities of the situation and clarify the configuration of its main facets. The strategic landscape is made up of three macrocomponents: the strategic frame of reference, the future general environment, and the specific context or theater of intervention. Once the strategic landscape has been established, it must be represented using a figurative approach by means of a succession of nested systemic frameworks (or components).
1.1.1. Identifying the variables and factors that make up the situation
The first course of action is to place the limits of the field of reflection or study. For this, the first step is to reach agreement on the question that forms the basis and justifies the reflection. In fact, on the one hand, we cannot expect to provide solutions to false problems, and on the other hand, there is no system that can act as a mode of representation of a reality without a prior intention, even if only implicit. It is therefore important to list all the variables and/or factors, both internal and external, characterizing a system or likely to affect its evolution in the prospective horizon. At this stage, it is important to be as exhaustive as possible, taking care to avoid gray areas in the description of the system or its seeds of change. In addition to the collective reflection and brainstorming meetings, it is advisable to foster and support the establishment of the variables through directive interviews without leadership, especially for particular areas where the group lacks expertise, as well as with personalities with particular knowledge of the presumed actors within the system.
In the second step, the list of variables is then formatted, completing it if necessary, but also grouping or breaking it down, or even eliminating it, in order to arrive at a list with a sufficient level of homogeneity.
After first classifying the variables according to categories that allow for a more precise distinction between internal and external elements of the system, an effort is made to formalize their meaning within a multidisciplinary group created for this purpose.
The formation of this group is carried out both on the basis of the professional responsibilities and the intuitu personae skills of these presumed members. This will primarily involve facilitating comprehension using simple headings to avoid any misinterpretation by persons outside the group. For each of the variables, we then add:
- ā its definition in the perspective adopted by the group;
- ā a mention of the problematic elements that it raises (highlights) and any indications of its retrospective and possible future evolutionary trends;
- ā an appreciation of possible trend breaks, whether presumed, desired, or feared.
It is important to mention that any discussion of problems that may arise during the collection of variables may feed into the rest of the process. This phase is fundamental because it is an excellent opportunity within the group to build a common reference to represent and in this way understand the system. Moreover, it encourages the decompartmentalization and cross-fertilization of different points of view. The potential identification of the relationships between the variables that form the core of the structural analysis is substantially improved, which helps to stimulate the appropriation process within the group.
1.1.2. Detecting the context of the situation through structural analysis
How, and in what way, can the application of a structural-type analysis help, beyond the construction of the information base necessary for the modeling of the strategic landscape, to reveal context through the identification and assembly of relevant nested components?
1.1.2.1. Main steps
In order to answer this question, we will limit ourselves to recalling the main steps of the method known as āstructural analysisā (see Box 1.1), in order to focus on the interpretation and visualization of the results obtained.
Box 1.1. A three-step analysis
- 1) Identification of the variables and factors making up the system.
- ā Review of available information and studies concerning the system.
- ā Identification of factors of change and key variables.
- ā Detailed formulation and establishment of the glossary of variables.
- 2) Development and processing of the structural analysis matrix.
- ā Systematic reconstruction of the direct influence relations between the variables.
- ā Establishment of the synoptic table of cross-influences corresponding to the structural analysis matrix.
- āComputer processing of the structural analysis matrix.
- 3) Visualization and interpretation of results.
- ā Keys to interpreting the influence/dependency plan.
- ā Summary and taking the results of the structural analysis further.
An illustration of our argument using the case of a ādeveloping countryā allows us to reconfigure the cloud of variable points, which constitutes t...