Decision making – Integration and Implementation Insights

Five structural levers to reopen feedback loops that are resistant to external evidence

April 21, 2026

By Lachlan S. McGill.

lachlan-mcgill — Lachlan S. McGill (biography)

When feedback loops have become resistant to external evidence, what are some potential ways of intervening to reopen them?

This i2Insights contribution builds on my previous post which covers understanding why feedback loops can become resistant to external evidence and how to diagnose such a structural problem.

Here I introduce five structural ways to intervene in such a closed feedback loop. These are structural levers, each targeting a different aspect of how signals flow, how authority is allocated, and how evaluative standards are defined.

One practical note before beginning. Applying the interventions below often requires institutional authority, coalition building, or regulatory support, so that isolated actors may not be able to deploy them fully, leaving the problematic dominant structure intact.

Understanding and diagnosing when feedback loops become resistant to external evidence

May 5, 2026April 21, 2026

By Lachlan S. McGill.

Why does better evidence sometimes fail to improve decision making? How can we tell if this is caused by feedback loops becoming resistant to external evidence?

Understanding how structural patterns become problematic

In most organisations, decisions are embedded in feedback loops that connect indicators, incentives, and authority structures. These loops determine what counts as success, which signals influence decisions, and how performance is evaluated over time.

When feedback loops are well aligned with system goals, they support learning. However, feedback loops can also evolve in ways that reinforce a narrow definition of success. This is generally associated with a system relying on a small number of indicators to guide decisions. Common examples include financial return on investment, productivity or output measures, growth targets, publication counts or grant income, and compliance indicators.

Navigating power: A partial pragmatic map

December 2, 2025December 2, 2025

By Katie Moon.

In research, how can we start to appreciate unexamined assumptions about what power is, where it resides, how it works, and who holds it, especially how these assumptions influence not only the problems we recognize, but the solutions we pursue? And importantly, who decides? How can we get a better idea of how power informs how we act: what interventions we attempt, whose knowledge we value, whose interests we centre, and what consequences we anticipate?

In this i2Insights contribution I provide an intentionally simplified orienting map that disaggregates power into six dimensions that mirror the ways researchers tend to separate and locate power into distinct domains to rationalise and evaluate interventions. I match these dimensions to three onto-epistemological frames—objective, constructionist, and relational—which were described in a previous i2Insights contribution A guide to ontology, epistemology, and philosophical perspectives for interdisciplinary researchers.

Harnessing the collision of four ways of knowing

May 27, 2025

By Adrian Wolfberg.

How can solving today’s most complex challenges reckon with four fundamentally different ways of knowing? How can the collision of their distinct epistemic strengths and blind spots be harnessed for innovation in threat assessment and decision-making on complex problems?

Let me unpack these four ways of knowing and how they shape, support, and sometimes undermine each other. Here, I use the example of climate security intelligence, but the insights and lessons are likely to apply to a wider range of complex societal and environmental issues. The four ways of knowing are:

Scientific knowledge from the physical sciences
Scientific knowledge from the social sciences
Judgment under uncertainty by knowledge-producing professionals
Practical decision-making by practitioners who are senior executives.

Structured dialogical design

July 10, 2024July 9, 2024

By Yiannis Laouris

How can heterogeneous groups reach consensus on complex issues in a reasonably limited amount of time? What kind of process allows for meaningful community involvement that is genuinely participatory and democratic?

Structured Dialogical Design is a process that achieves both these aims. The key aspects of the process and steps are presented.

Triggering questions

Structured Dialogical Design processes are always structured around triggering questions, which frame the discussions and help define the stakeholders of the issues under consideration. The idea is that those primarily concerned with and/or affected by the issues under consideration should become the primary participants.

For Structured Dialogical Design all stakeholders (or their representatives) concerned with the issues at stake must be included, including those seemingly without a voice (which many of us may not be hearing and are not responsive to listening to, such as the voice of nature).

Decision support interventions

May 7, 2024April 30, 2024

By Etiënne Rouwette and Alberto Franco

authors_etienne-rouwette_alberto-franco — 1. Etiënne Rouwette (biography)
2. Alberto Franco (biography)

What are interventions to support team decision making? And how can interventions enable team decision making to become a rigorous, transparent and defensible process?

Interventions are procedures designed to improve a decision making process. Within the content of team decision making, an intervention is comprised of designed facilitated activities carried out in order to help a team achieve its goals. Team goals include generating a better and shared understanding of a situation of interest or concern, producing a recommendation on how to respond to the situation, or simply deciding what to do next regarding the situation.

Because team members are likely to have different views and goals regarding the situation, facilitation is central to an intervention. Specifically, facilitated activities are designed to encourage the active participation of team members in discussions, so that a mutual understanding within the team can be achieved. In addition, these activities also play a critical role in fostering the development of integrative solutions that create a sense of shared responsibility for their implementation.

Integration and Implementation Sciences (i2S) 3.0: An updated framework to foster expertise for tackling complex problems

February 24, 2025April 16, 2024

By Gabriele Bammer

gabriele-bammer_nov-2021 — Gabriele Bammer (biography)

How can researchers interested in tackling complex societal and environmental problems easily find and draw on what they need from inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, systems thinking, action research, post-normal science and a range of other ways of combining disciplinary and stakeholder perspectives in order to bring about improvements? How can the necessary expertise be fostered and supported in a systematic way?

These are the questions that I have been addressing for more than 20 years in considering whether a new discipline – Integration and Implementation Sciences or i2S – could provide a way forward. i2S 3.0 is the third conceptualization of this discipline and the current version is summarised in the figure below.

At this stage in its development, i2S is focused on providing a framework and conduit for sharing concepts, methods, processes and other tools that are currently fragmented across inter- and transdisciplinarity, systems thinking, action research, post-normal science and other approaches.

How science thought leadership enhances knowledge exchange

March 5, 2024March 5, 2024

By Stefan Kaufman and Anthony Boxshall

stefan-kaufman_anthony-boxshall — 1. Stefan Kaufman (biography)
2. Anthony Boxshall (biography)

What is science thought leadership? What characterises science thought leadership and leaders? How does science thought leadership offer opportunities for researchers to participate in knowledge exchange?

Most examinations of knowledge exchange focus on the researchers and/or the decision makers, while the role of experts and intermediaries who are internal to the decision making process, but not the decision makers themselves, has largely been ignored. It is these internal experts and intermediaries that we refer to as science thought leaders.

Specifically, for us “science thought leadership” is “when people using, brokering or providing evidence are (simultaneously): influential, credible and valued in supporting decision making in their organization and its context” (Kaufman and Boxshall, 2023).

We found that science thought leadership has the following 11 characteristics, grouped into four categories:

Designing a rapid participatory scenario planning process

January 30, 2024January 30, 2024

By Giles Thomson and Varvara Nikulina

authors_giles-thomson_varvara-nikulina — 1. Giles Thomson (biography)
2. Varvara Nikulina (biography)

How can transdisciplinary researchers efficiently and effectively support diverse and time-poor actors in participatory scenario planning processes?

Scenario planning is a useful tool for policy development, especially for contexts with high uncertainty and complexity as described by Bonnie McBain in her i2Insights contribution, Designing scenarios to guide robust decisions. However, participatory scenario planning takes time, as pointed out by Maike Hamann and colleagues in their i2Insights contribution, Participatory scenario planning.

To address this challenge, we designed, tested and evaluated a rapid scenario planning method for a regional sustainability transition. In this case, the regional authority (host organization) wanted to increase collaboration and strengthen the link between municipal spatial planning and regional development by building consensus on the region’s most important development issues over a 30-year horizon to 2050.

Learning to use Appreciative Inquiry

January 16, 2024January 16, 2024

By Rachel Arnold

What is Appreciative Inquiry? How does one shift from research that focuses on problems and negative details to the strengths-based approach of Appreciative Inquiry? What are the benefits and requirements of such an approach? And what is it about Appreciative Inquiry that fosters change?

Appreciative Inquiry, developed by David Cooperrider and Suresh Srivastva, is a five-step process (originally four steps), as shown in the figure below. The steps are:

Definition – deciding what to study is critical in moving humans in a positive direction
Discovery – discovering and appreciating best experiences
Dream – imagining the ideal – how it would be if those valued experiences happened most of the time
Design – defining the dream more clearly and discussing steps towards realizing it
Destiny – implementing wide ranging actions, improvisation, learning, and adjustments.

Eighth annual review

January 12, 2024December 12, 2023

By Gabriele Bammer

Which i2Insights contributions inspired you in 2023? What did you learn that was new and how did it help you in tackling the complex societal or environmental problems you focus on? What would you like to see in 2024 and beyond?

One of the delights of curating i2Insights is learning something from every blog post. Another is the personal interactions involved in broadening the global community of contributors, introducing fresh voices and fresh insights, alongside those who are more seasoned contributors.

In this last blog post for 2023, I survey three of the year’s many highlights and what they mean for the operation of i2Insights:

integration and synthesis as an emerging ‘hot’ topic
re-introducing “golden oldies,” ie. tried and tested tools
increasing the number of countries represented by contributors, with an accompanying focus on decolonisation.

The Strategic Choice Approach in shaping public policies

April 3, 2025October 31, 2023

By Catherine Hobbs

catherine-hobbs_2021 — Catherine Hobbs (biography)

How can we be inspired, rather than overwhelmed, by differing perspectives in the inter-organisational planning required to more effectively address cross-cutting issues, or interacting areas of policy? How can we learn from the achievements of public policy action research, in the light of the local and global uncertainties of the 2020s?

Strategic Choice Approach was developed by John Friend with Allen Hickling, originating during the 1960s and 1970s. It emerged through a series of collaborative action research projects applied to public policy challenges in a number of countries, so that its origins are empirical rather than theoretical.

Friend described Strategic Choice Approach as being helpful as a practical approach to planning under pressure where “people of different outlooks and allegiances are working together with a shared concern to move rapidly towards commitments to action or to changes of policy on difficult issues of shared concern” (Friend, no date).