www.isdrc19.co.za Large-Scale Collaborative Problem Solving using the Example of Phosphorus as a Global Case (Global TraPs): A Transdisciplinary Approach Gerald Steiner* Harvard University, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs (WCFIA) University of Graz, Institute for Systems Science, Innovation & Sustainability Research Email: gsteiner@wcfia.harvard.edu Roland W. Scholz Fraunhofer Project Group Materials Recycling and Resource Strategies IWKS University of Zürich, Department of Psychology University of Stellenbosch, Department of Management and Planning Abstract Despite growing interest in the development of innovation systems and collaborative approaches for organizational, local, national, and regional transitions, a general framework for large-scale collaborative problem solving based on comprehensive stakeholder involvement has remained elusive. We identify sustainable development of the multilevel innovation system as the primary component of interest and consider stakeholder-based collaboration processes as strategically key. With this perspective in mind, we analyse a number of established innovation and/or sustainability approaches with regards to their underlying collaboration patterns and discuss how a transdisciplinarity approach can provide the basis for stakeholder-driven sustainability policies. To illustrate how multilevel innovation systems and collaborative problem solving processes are interrelated, we use the example of sustainable phosphorus (P) management along the global P-supply-demand chain, the ongoing Global Transdisciplinary Processes for Sustainable Phosphorus Management (Global TraPs) project.,because of the high impact of phosphorus fertilizers on food security, this case equally concerns decision-makers, policy-makers, researchers, and the society at large. Keywords: Collaborative problem solving; transdisciplinarity; multilevel innovation systems; food security; sustainable phosphorus management. 1. Introduction Isolated policies and strategies either related to organizations, clusters, regions, or nations, inevitably produce isolated solutions and actions, as evidenced many times in human history. Examples of global crises requiring to overcome isolation, are the on-going economic and financial crisis, food crises, security crises, the green revolution, and many others. Isolation can hamper collaborative problem solving processes and is a multifaceted phenomenon which ranges from (1) geographical isolation (i.e., the focus on a specific geographic system and neglecting, e.g., cross-border effects); (2) hierarchical isolation (i.e., power structures can lead to domination of, e.g., many times forgotten stakeholders such as the poor or those with no loud voice ); (3) functional isolation, by either focusing on a single functionality (e.g., productivity improvements, financial performance) or ignoring other functionalities (e.g., social, cultural, political, and ecological effects); (4) disciplinary isolation (in contrast to an inter- or at least multi-disciplinary * Corresponding author
approach); (5) linguistic isolation (i.e. specific languages of various stakeholder groups, e.g., a working process based on scientific language might be counterproductive for motivating stakeholders to become active problem solving agents); to (6) stakeholderspecific isolation, by either focusing on the preferences of certain stakeholders (e.g., one s own preferences) or not involving the innovation-potential of creative stakeholders as part of a collaborative problem solving approach (besides those who are typically considered as problem solving agents such as scientists and professionals of R&D departments). Overview of innovation and development approaches In recent years, collaborative innovation and development approaches have become increasingly popular. However, most approaches provide little guidance in designing their underlying strategic and operative working processes. The emphasis of these approaches varies and ranges in focus from products and services (e.g., von Hippel, 2002, 2005); to firms (e.g., Chesbrough, 2003, 2006); societal transition of local systems (e.g., Rotmans, Kemp, & Asselt, 2001; Loorbach, 2007; Kemp, Loorbach, & Rotmans, 2007); societal problems in communities (e.g., Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004; Goldsmith, 2010); national and regional innovation systems (e.g. Vigier, 2007); and complex real-world problems (Scholz & Tietje, 2002; Steiner, 2009, 2013; Scholz, 2011). Key aspects of existing collaborative innovation and development approaches are summarized below in Table 1. Table 1: Collaborative innovation approaches Source Approach Policy focus Rotmans, Kemp, & Asselt (2001); Loorbach (2007); Kemp, Loorbach, & Transition Rotmans (2007) management von Hippel (2002, 2005) User-driven innovation Scholz & Tietje (2002); Scholz (2011) Transdisciplinarity Sustainability focus Societal transition by transition experiments Yes Yes Products and services Chesbrough (2003, 2006) Open innovation Firm Steiner (2009, 2011) Open creativity Multilevel consideration (individual, group, organization, local system, nation, region) Individual, group, organization, network Strategic and operative process focus Comprehensive stakeholder perspective Theory- practise cooperation (i.e. transdisciplinary) Main focus on the strategic process, little operational guidance Yes t exlicitly Focus on users and organizations t exlicitly Complex real-world systems, from the firm to global systems, according the case Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Complex real-world systems Yes; not fully operationlized Organization and network Yes Focus on firm's stakeholders t exlicitly Inter- disciplinary scientific orientation Main focus on the strategic process (until now exemplarily applied) Yes Partly Partly Goldsmith & Eggers (2004); Goldsmith (2010) Vigier (2007) Social innovation (& social entrepreneurship) Citizen-driven innovation Societal problems National and regional innovation systems Marginally, basis for social sustainability Individual, group (citizens) Focus on citizens and policy makers t exlicitly Yes (as policy framework) t exlicitly As outlined in Table 1, each approach centers on collaboration across various boundaries, yet their policy focus varies, and with the exception of Scholz s transidsciplinarity approach (Scholz & Tietje 2002; Scholz, 2011), only the transistion management (Rotmans, Kemp, & Asselt, 2001; Loorbach, 2007; Kemp, Loorbach, & Rotmans, 2007), the open creativity (Steiner, 2009, 2011), and the citizen-driven innovation approach (Virgier, 2007) apply a multilevel approach. The various approaches differ in the design of their underlying collaboration processes; for example the transdisciplinarity approach offers comprehensive method-guided support at the strategic and operational level; by contrast, the transition management approach and the open creativity approach focus on strategic method support.
Based on more than 20 years of real-world project experience, its scientific basis, multilevel orientation, and inter- but also transidisciplinary focus, the transdisciplinarity approach is currently applied in the Global TraPs Project. In the following, we discuss how this approach, and more generally, collaborative problem solving processes, are interrelated with multilevel innovation systems. To our knowledge, the Global TraPs Project currently represents the only example worldwide, in which such a collaborative effort takes place at a global level. The central research question of this paper is to explore how large-scale collaborative problem solving approaches need to be designed in order to be drivers for innovation within the framework of sustainable development. How can collaborative approaches, such as the transdisciplinarity approach, help to overcome geographical, hierarchical, functional, disciplinary, linguistic, and stakeholder-specific isolations, close existing knowledge gaps, and, simultaneously, enhance the innovation potential for developing economically, ecologically, and socially sustainable solutions? 2. The reciprocity of transdisciplinarity in multilevel innovation systems To holistically deal with the global P-demand-supply chain from a multi-stakeholder perspective (Scholz, 2011; Steiner, 2008), we attempted to apply a collaborative problem solving approach within the Global TRaPs Project, based on a transdisciplinary philosophy which deals with relevant, complex societal problems. This approach relates knowledge and values of agents from the scientific and the non-scientific world (Scholz, 2011: 374; see also Scholz, 2000), and addresses processes that use knowledge from theory and practice to generate socially robust solutions for sustainable development (Scholz, 2011: xxi). The underlying multilevel innovation model we apply draws on Freeman s theoretical innovation systems approach (Freeman, 2002), using a constructivist viewpoint to allow for knowledge integration and to overarch systems of various scales (Freeman, 2002). This theoretical basis is aimed at building a framework to help deal with P-case s multitude of stakeholders from various geographical regions, political systems, cultures, histories, religions, all of which are directly or indirectly involved in the global P-supply-demand chain. In the following, we briefly introduce the concepts of a novel multilevel innovation system, which was developed by Steiner (Steiner, 2013b), and of transdisciplinarity (Scholz, 2011). We also address how transdisciplinary problem solving processes can become a driving force for sustainable development of such multilevel systems. Hence, an innovation based transition towards sustainability cannot be purely externally imposed on a certain system (e.g., an industrial sector, a smallholder farming system); instead, it must utilize the capabilities of the system and its environment to develop sustainable solutions in a joint problem solving process across science and society (i.e. transdisciplinary), as well as across various scientific disciplines and across various stakeholder groups. 2.1. Multilevel innovation systems Innovation systems are well-known drivers for economic growth (e.g., Freeman, 2002), but they are also increasingly recognized as drivers for sustainability as well (e.g., Juma, 2011; Steiner, 2013b). Originally referred to as National Systems of Innovation or National Innovation Systems (Lundvall, 2010; Freeman, 2002), today, the synonym innovation system is used to refer to systems of various scales, from organizational system, sub-national (regional) systems, to national systems, and also sub-continental, continental, and global systems (Freeman, 2002; Steiner, 2013b). As outlined in detail elsewhere (Steiner, 2013b), an innovation system can be viewed as a learning system in change, which is defined by its structure, its institutional set up and its geographical, functional, and socio-cultural boundaries, and its environment (i.e. political, legal, &
institutional dimension; sociocultural dimension; economic & financial dimension; technological dimension; infrastructural & architectural dimension; and ecological dimension), which is aimed at developing solutions for complex real-world challenges. The challenge of sustainable development is an example for a complex real-world challenge. To broaden the scope of innovation systems, it appears crucial to refer to them as learning systems, rather than the learning economy (as defined by Lundvall & Johnson, 1994; Archibugi & Lundvall, 2001). Only then can stakeholders be integrated into the innovation system who might otherwise have been excluded as problem solving agents without any economical involvement. In real-world applications, multilevel innovation system frameworks can serve systems of different scope, from organizations to national or even global systems. This implies that broadening the system perspective enables a higher number of interrelated subsystems. 2.2. Transdisciplinarity Transdisciplinarity organizes mutual learning among members of science and society that can generate socially robust knowledge (Scholz, 2011: 375). Consequently, transdisciplinarity differs from interdisciplinarity (i.e. merging concepts and methods from different disciplines) and extends beyond science by joining knowledge and values of both scientific and non-scientific agents, when dealing with complex real-world problems to enable mutual learning between science and society (Häberli, Bill, Grossenbacher- Mansuy et al., 2001; Scholz, 2011: 374; Steiner, 2013a). Others have defined transdisciplinarity less ambitiously, for example Gibbons, Limoges, wotny et al. (1994), who consider research applied in real-life problems as transdisciplinary. To assist problem solvers in dealing with complex real-world problems in a transdisciplinary manner, Scholz (2011: 405-462) introduced a human-environment system (HES) framework in which human systems and environmental systems as constituents relate to the underlying problem solving process. The HES framework builds on seven postulates: human and environmental systems are P1 complementary, P2 have a hierarchical structure, P3 have disruptive interactions particularly between the micro and macro levels, P4 have various feedback loops; human systems P5 can be conceived as decision-makers who act to satisfy goals and P6 have different types of environmental awareness; and P7 environment first finally postulates that a thorough analysis of the material and the social environment is the basis for designing sustainable humanenvironment interactions and the analysis of inextricably coupled human and environmental systems. 3. Large-scale collaborative problem solving: The Global TraPs Case The Global TraPs Project (http://www.globaltraps.ch/) is designed to operate between 2010 and 2015 and aims to contribute to sustainable use of phosphorus in the future. In addition, it seeks to increase food security and provide benefits for the poor, to improve phosphorus economic efficiency along the P-supply-demand chain by technological, structural, and social innovations, to decrease negative ecological effects, and to increase environmental quality. Phosphorus fertilizers are highly related with food security, hence, the Global TraPs Project equally concerns decision-makers, policy-makers, researchers, and the society at large. The Global TraPs Project is ill-defined, highly complex, and encompasses all levels of society. To give two examples at opposite ends of the multilevel innovation system: On a meta-level, phosphate rock is a scarce resource, which can only be found in few countries worldwide, hence, geopolitical dependency might be associated with it (e.g., Cooper et al., 2011, Scholz & Wellmer, 2013). On a micro-level, smallholder farmers depend on mineral fertilizers such as phosphate, but cannot afford it (also related to high volatility of phosphate prices).
This project represents a case example that allows us to outline and explore large-scale collaborative problem solving processes as part of a multilevel innovation system. A central guiding question of the Global TRaPs Project is: Which new knowledge, technologies, and policy options are needed to ensure that future phosphorus use is sustainable, improves food security and environmental quality, and provides benefits to the poor? Based on the results of the initial four Global TraPs Workshops in 2011 and 2012, which were based on a transdisciplinary approach, critical questions on sustainable phosphorus use have already been identified. Organization and structure The project design is directly related to the P-supply-demand chain and is divided into several nodes, which can be viewed as working groups related to exploration, mining, processing, use, dissipation & recycling, and trade & finance. The latter represents a crosscutting working group, which is related to all other nodes. Figure 2: Design of the global transdisciplinary process for sustainable phosphorus management 2010-2015 (Source: http://www.globaltraps.ch/; Scholz, Ulrich, Eilittä, & Roy, 2013) 4. Next steps As pointed out, sustainable management of phosphorus at a global scale is a complex challenge, which calls for a holistic approach and large-scale collaborative problem solving based on comprehensive stakeholder involvement to avoid isolated perspectives and solutions. As an example for a large-scale application of the above outlined theories, the 1st Global TraPs World Conference will take place in China in June 2013 to provide space for dialogue sessions (DS) and mutual learning sessions (MLS). During these sessions, small groups of up to 20 practitioners and scientists will work on select cases to improve their understanding and to identify case-specific challenges, including stakeholder preferences, in phosphorus use. The conference will also include Chinese cases (e.g. a biotech company, smallholder farmers phosphorus use, recycling of phosphorus from sewage plants, sustainable mining) and African as well as other
international cases related to phosphorus (e.g. over- and underuse of phosphorus by smallholder farmers in Vietnam or Kenya, assessment of phosphorus pollution in the Manila Bay area, etc.). The primary aim of the conference is to involve stakeholders along the P-supply-demand chain and of all levels of this multilevel innovation system in a transdisciplinary discourse on sustainable phosphorus management (e.g., mining companies, fertilizer industry, traders, from smallholder farmers to large-scale irrigation farmers, food industry, financial institutions, governments, regulatory bodies, international organizations, and end consumers). In sum, the Global TraPs Project exemplifies the collaborative problem solving approach as a promising basis to overcome functional, geographical, stakeholder-specific, and disciplinary isolation in order to cope with complex real-world challenges, such as food security and sustainable development. Particularly transdisciplinarity is called for, as a methodologically guided joint effort between science and society or, more generally, between theory and practice. The results presented in this paper are based on an ongoing 62-months project, which is planned to be finalized by 2015. 5. Conclusions and recommendations As an example for a large-scale collaborative problem solving initiative, the sustainable management of phosphorus along the global P-supply-demand chain is a complex realworld problem with tremendous socio-cultural, technological, political, economic, and ecological impact, especially with respect to food security and related agricultural policies and strategies, farming practices, mining industries, food industries etc. This real-world case of sustainable P management provides a basis for research on how collaborative problem solving has to be organized on a global multi-stakeholder level. We discussed the processes, methods, and competences required to successfully work on such complex challenges. To be highlighted, in setting up large-scale collaboration processes, special attention needs to be paid to the design of educational strategies and programs for the purpose to train stakeholders so they will be fit to take their roles within transdisciplinary problem solving processes which are aimed to further develop the multilevel innovation system. Here, again, it will be crucial to overcome geographical, hierarchical, functional, disciplinary, linguistic, and stakeholder-specific isolations, and to close existing knowledge gaps. The learning outcomes of this on-going project provide first hand experiences of transdisicplinary problem solving in a global context. Ultimately, our findings are not only limited to P-use but can readily be applied to similar complex real-world challenges relevant for Just Transitions. References Archibugi, D. & Lundvall, B.-Å. (Eds.). 2001. Europe in the globalising learning economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chesbrough, H. W. 2003. The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3): 35-41. Chesbrough, H. W. 2006. Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Cooper, C., Lombardi, R., Boardman, D., & Carliell-Marquet, C. 2011. The future distribution and production of global phosphate rock reserves. Resources, Conservation & Recycling, 57: 76-86.
Freeman, C. 2002. Continental, national and sub-national innovation systems complementarity and economic growth. Research Policy, 31: 191 211. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., wotny, H. et al. 1994. The new production of knowledge. London: Sage. Häberli, R., Bill, A., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W. et al. 2001. Synthesis. In J. Thompson Klein, w. Grossenbacher-Mansuy, R. Häberli et al. (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society. An effective way for managing complexity: 6-22. Basel: Birkhäusser. Juma, C. 2011. The new harvest: Agricultural innovation in Africa. Oxford et al.: Oxford University Press. Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. 2007. Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. The International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14(1): 78 91. Loorbach, D. 2007. Transition Management: New mode of governance for Sustainable Development. Utrecht, Netherlands: International Books. Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B. 1994. The learning economy. J. Ind. Stud.: 1(2): 23 42. Lundvall, B.-Å., Johnson, B., Andersen, E. S., & Dalum, B. 2002. National systems of production, innovation and competence building. Research Policy, 31: 213 231. Lundvall, B.-Å. 2010. National systems of innovation: Toward a theory of innovation and interactive learning. London/New York, NY: Anthem. Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & van Asselt, M. 2001. More evolution than revolution: Transition management in public policy. Foresight, 3(1): 15-31. Scholz, R. W., & Tietje, O. 2002. Embedded case study methods: Integrating quantitative and qualitative knowledge. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage Publications. Scholz, R. W. 2011: Environmental Literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scholz, R. W. & Wellmer, F. W. 2013. Approaching a dynamic view on the availability of mineral resources: What we may learn from the case of phosphorus? Global Environmental Change, 23(1): 11-27. Scholz, R. W., Ulrich, A. E., Eilittä, M., & Roy, A. R. 2013. Sustainable use of phosphorus: A finite resource. In Review. Shiroyama, H., Yarime, M., Matsuo, M., Schroeder, H., Scholz, R., & Ulrich, A. Governance for sustainability: Knowledge integration and multi-actor dimensions in risk management. Sustainability Science, 7(1):45-55. Steiner, G. 2008. Supporting Sustainable Innovation through Stakeholder Management: A systems view. International Journal of Innovation and Learning, 5(6): 595-616. Steiner, G. 2009. The concept of open creativity: Collaborative creative problem solving for innovation generation - a systems approach. Journal of Business and Management, 15(1): 5-34. Steiner, G. 2011. Das Planetenmodell der kollaborativen Kreativität. Systemischkreatives Problemlösen für komplexe Herausforderungen. Wiesbaden: Gabler Research. Steiner, G. (2013a): Competences for a complex world: Toward a mental-model based theory of competences for non-routine real-world problems. Working Paper Series..13-03. Cambridge: Harvard University, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. Steiner, G. (2013b): Barriers and Opportunities for Industrial Innovation Systems in Transition: Exemplified by Old Industrial Regions. Working Paper Series..13-05. Cambridge: Harvard University, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. Vigier, P. 2007. Towards a citizen-driven innovation system in Europe: A governance approach for a European innovation agenda. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 20(3): 191 202.
von Foerster, H. 2010. Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition. (Softcover reprint of hardcover 1st ed. 2003 edition). New York et al.: Springer. von Hippel, E. 2002. Horizontal innovation networks - by and for users. Working paper. 4366-02, Cambridge, MA: MIT Sloan School of Management. von Hippel, E. 2005. Democratizing innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.