Designing a Power Tool for Policy Analysts: Dynamic Actor Network Analysis Pieter W.G. Bots, Mark J.W. van Twist, and Ron van Duin Delft University of Technology Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management PO Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands Voice: +31 15 2782948 Fax: +31 15 2783422 E-mail: bots@sepa.tudelft.nl Abstract For policy analysts, knowledge about the values and opinions of the actors involved in a decision making situation are more important than knowledge about the factors in such a situation. Finding out how actors perceive a situation, or – to be more realistic – reflecting on the consequences if actor perceptions were such-and- so, may well be the primary task of a policy analyst. In this paper, we present a conceptual modeling approach to actor network analysis, and a computerized support tool we are in the process of developing. The modeling language is based on the policy network paradigm and embodies concepts from cognitive mapping and linguistic approaches to approximate reasoning. The present tool design includes support for ‘gut feeling analysis’, graphical rendering of perceptions, and a range of analytic queries. 1. Introduction How sensible is a policy analyst when she 1 maps a decision situation in terms of the actors involved, their objectives, their means, and various other causal factors, in an attempt to make a scientifically sound model of a decision making situation? What is the likelihood that these actors themselves will have ideas and opinions that correspond to this model? Probably small, and the chances of projected decision outcomes based on a rational analysis of the model will be even smaller. Can a policy analyst do better? That is the question we address in this paper. According to Thomas [26, p. 23], “The environment by which (man) is influenced and to which he adapts himself – his world, not the objective world of science – is nature and society as he sees them, not as the scientist sees them.” 1 This is not a gender bias, but a didactic choice. The distinction between policy analysts and the actors that figure in a policy arena is so important in this paper, that we shall consistently refer to a policy analyst/modeler as ‘she’ and to an actor being modelled as ‘he’. Not the way the policy analyst sees the (interaction between) relevant factors is directive to their actions, but how actors see these themselves. Precisely because in acting, actors go from their own subjective, possibly incomplete or even blatantly incorrect perceptions, they make these real as it were [1]. That has been powerfully worded in the Thomas-theorem: “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”. The Thomas-theorem implies that a policy analyst should not pursue the model of a situation, but a rich set of models that reflects the diversity in actor perceptions. The soundness of this model set is determined not by the degree of correspondence with reality, but by the acuteness with which it mirrors the assumptions that the actors make about this reality – their reality. This interpretation of decision modeling has led us to a modeling approach which we call dynamic actor network analysis (DANA). The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how DANA can be supported with information technology. To do so, we must dwell some more on the concept of decision making in actor networks (section 2) before we move on to the analytic method we propose. Having outlined the basic modeling steps and iterations (section 3), we define the actor network modeling language that constitutes the core of this paper (section 4). Method and language come together in the functionality of a modeling support tool that has both graphical and analytical capability (section 5). We conclude this paper with some ideas that have come up while experimenting with the modeling approach, and a reflection on how the tool may be received by analysts and decision makers. 2. Analysis and design in policy networks Studies of decision making in policy networks have caused a fundamental change in thinking about the role of decision makers, stakeholders, and policy analysts [13]. The image – illusion perhaps – of policy making as a Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1999 0-7695-0001-3/99 $10.00 (c) 1999 IEEE Proceedings of the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 1999 1