(Re)framing of challenges in portfolio-based approaches for system transformations
This article sums up insights from a study on the (re)framing of challenges as part of a (transformative) portfolio approach. The study was initiated in autumn 2021 during one of the joint meetings between the teams of the Swedish Strategic Innovation Programme “Viable Cities” and of the Strategic Innovation Unit of UNDP. Kateryna is collaborating with Viable Cities as an accompanying researcher/följeforskare and since the beginning of 2021 was in touch with the UNDP team to learn from their pioneering work on introducing the portfolio approach for addressing complex societal challenges in different parts of the world. For this study, she interviewed five experts from the UNDP Istanbul and Thailand Regional hubs who lead the experimentation with the portfolio approach in collaboration with local and national governments and their partners. The study was exploratory by its nature and evolved around such questions as: how can a framing process unfold? what is to be framed? to what extent is framing an open-ended process? how can a new framing confront the previously established identities of those involved? what roles such international organisations as UNDP can play in developing more inclusive and system transformation-oriented framings of urban challenges? This article presents some insights in relation to those questions and highlights a number of open questions that are yet to be addressed by researchers and practitioners working with (transformative) portfolio approaches for addressing complex societal challenges.
Introduction
(Re)framing of challenges is rather central for portfolio-based approaches aimed at steering system transformations. The very nature of system transformations — shifts in the ways societal functions are fulfilled — requires looking deeper than what is on the surface. This might be difficult at times; existing systems bind our imagination, while different factors might prevent us from exploring the root causes of the wicked challenges we are dealing with. Acknowledging that “the questions we ask shape the answers [i.e., policy solutions] we get” (Rein & Schön, 1977), we should pay attention to how the challenges are framed so we don’t spend time and resources on “solving wrong problems”.
The importance of (re)framing in steering system transformations was highlighted in the series of deep-dive conversations between the teams of the SIP “Viable Cities” and the Strategic Innovation Unit of UNDP that unfolded in spring-autumn 2021. These conversations were focused on the experimentation with portfolio-based approaches which both organisations are engaged in. Viable Cities pilots a transformative portfolio approach for urban low-carbon transitions in Sweden targeting the mission: “Climate-neutral cities 2030 with a good life for all within planetary boundaries”. The Strategic Innovation Unit of UNDP develops a portfolio approach to address complex societal challenges in different parts of the world. Both Viable Cities and UNDP act as intermediary actors, involving local and national governments and their partners in co-creation processes aimed at delivering complex societal missions. By the end of 2021, the UNDP team has accumulated valuable experience in the implementation of the portfolio approach, particularly its stage of the (re)framing of challenges. This study aims to catch this experience.
Most of the examples in this study come from cities in a wide range of countries in Eastern Europe, South East Asia, Central Asia, and Africa. In these diverse conditions, UNDP through its Regional hubs, Accelerator Labs and country offices collaborates with municipalities and their partners to address challenges related to depopulation, future of work, digital transformations, waste management and many others.
From ‘entry points’ to systemic challenges
Portfolio-based approaches emerge as a way to address systemic challenges under the conditions of uncertainty. In practice, they often start with what can be called ‘entry points‘ — initial framings of problems or issues identified as problematic in existing systems, those that are visible on the surface. They might indicate a need for interventions since it is becoming clear that a business-as-usual scenario would not lead to desirable outcomes in the long run.
However, those ‘entry points’ might be bound by the existing systems, and simply do not allow for radically rethinking and changing them. Critically and proactively working with entry points is what can be called a ‘reframing process’. For example, conventionally to address the challenge of traffic jams, the lack of roads (inherent elements of the current infrastructure) would be seen as a problem and a solution eventually would be to increase their width or amount. However, this is not the right way to proceed from the system transformation perspective. It would instead call for the identification of deep roots and causes associated with a challenge. As a result of a reframing process, the focus might shift to the challenges of urban mobility and lead to looking for alternative solutions for accessibility of services, places, people and goods in our cities. In another example, shared by an interviewee in this study, a ‘waste management’ challenge was reframed as a challenge of shifting toward the circular economy.
These two examples illustrate what difference a reframing process can make. To better understand the process of reframing in the portfolio approach this study addressed such questions as what a (re)framing process can look like in practice? what is the rationale to engage in it? what can (unexpected) outcomes of reframing processes be?
Examples from the practice: through reframing UNDP enables holistic perspective and collaborations, by Millie Begovic
Entry points often manifest the taxonomies within which the public sector lives. Urban mobility is an issue because there is a mobility team within a city. However reframing that as, for example, a pedestrian-focused city opens up the need to collaborate with mobility as well as teams working on urban planning, public space and health for example. Structured in a siloed way, the public sector is incapable of ‘seeing’ issues whose drivers ‘sit’ across different departments (James, 1999).
In their global active portfolios across 11 cities, UNDP with its partners pursued all single sector entry points at the onset — from waste and air pollution to unemployment and informality. Meeting partners where they are, the gradual process of reframing required ‘deep listening’ of voices from across the spectrum of the affected and orchestrating ecosystems of partners that otherwise would be considered as having competing priorities or would not have a common space to build a shared intent.
This has led to the pivot whereby a single sector entry point evolved into a pursuit of a far more systematic set of issues. Across the board, UNDP supports its city partners to rethink the logic that underpins its economic system — from extractive to circular (where waste is a symptom of a far deeper set of dynamics), from informal to ‘normal’ economy (where informality addressed market weaknesses of existing systems and simultaneously Covid-19 exposed a large number of workers to the risks of lacking access to social services) and from a deficit-based view of minorities to frontrunners of the creative economy.
UNDP has deployed portfolio approach for urban transformation (in a variety of forms but with consistent theoretical underpinnings) across cities in 11 countries around the world: Pasig (Philippines), Skopje (North Macedonia), La Paz (Bolivia), Denang (Vietnam), Almaty (Kazakhstan), Pljevlja (Montenegro), and cities in Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Angola, Armenia and Kosovo.
(Re)framing processes and their outcomes
Normativity and requirements to the process
One interesting aspect that emerged from the interviews with UNDP experts, is the degree of normativity in reframing processes. Thus, sometimes a team that leads a reframing process can have an idea in mind regarding its direction. In one example, a team wanted to shift framing from a “waste management” (that would most probably lead to system optimisation) to “the circular economy” (that could open up a possibility for system innovations). In such a case, a reframing process is normative and need to be guided. Thus, to facilitate the reframing in the discussed case, a new axis was introduced in the system description to help involved stakeholders reflect on the whole value chain, leading them to the realisation that avoiding waste can be an option.
Another observed possibility is a norm-free process of reframing which however unfolds based on certain requirements. Thus, in several examples shared in this study, reframing was guided by the idea of inclusivity. Accordingly, a “community listening” approach was used to identify and explore a variety of perspectives on a problem by talking to different members of a community. When applied to the challenge of ‘air pollution’, such an approach led it to (unexpectedly) be reframed as ‘the lack of alternative jobs in a city’.
Influence of landscape factors and dominant framings
Further, the role of landscape factors and dominant framings in reframing processes were highlighted by the interviewees. For the first, the Covid-19 pandemic was a prominent landscape factor in the global discourse in 2021. It was named several times by different interviewees who suggested its positive influence on system thinking in reframing. Thus, it helped to link environmental issues with economic and social, contributing to more holistic and system-oriented framings of challenges being formulated.
Dominant in a certain context framings of challenges are, importantly, reflected in funding calls and priorities of potential investors of (transformative) portfolios. With this, stakeholders can perceive it as “risky” to engage in reframing processes, take a step back and identify needs in society and deep causes behind a problem; the process which might lead in unexpected directions and potentially highlight challenges that are not on ‘priority lists’ of financiers. One strategy to deal with this, pointed out by the interviewees, is to build synergies between different framings. On the other hand, this confirms a need in involving funders and investors to be a part of (re)framing processes together with other actors in society so they could jointly come up with more inclusive and system-transformation oriented perspectives for funding calls.
The influence of ongoing in a certain context projects was also noticeable in reframing processes discussed. Those projects can be brought into discussions and lead to certain aspects being given attention rather than others. Similarly to the landscape factors, this can hinder certain aspects and promote others, influencing reframing processes and their outcomes. Furthermore, stakeholders might simply want to build upon what is already done and therefore, be willing to consider their other projects and activities.
In such a way, it appears that an interplay of different factors would shape reframing processes on the ground. However, it might be useful to think about what “normative” views we hold before engaging in reframing (e.g. sustainability, circularity), what qualities of a process we seek (e.g. inclusivity), and what factors can inevitably be brought into discussions, so we can prepare to use them as leverages of system transformation-oriented framing and not hinders.
Outcomes of (re)framing: holistic and long-term oriented framings
This study also proved that holistic and long-term oriented framings are seen as desirable outcomes of reframing processes in the portfolio approach. Thus, in most examples shared in this study, reframing resulted in system-oriented, holistic framings that are broader than the initial ones. This can enable the exploration of a wider and more diverse range of options to be included in a portfolio aimed at addressing complex challenges. However, in one example a reframing process led to the narrowing down of an initial challenge — the challenge of “green growth” was reframed as “circularity in biowaste”. This narrowing-down was motivated by the willingness of the involved stakeholders to facilitate monitoring of the progress and collect evidence to support possible replication of the portfolio approach. Though, in this example, the resulting challenge is still systemic and would require system innovations.
Another desirable characteristic of reframed challenges is their long-term orientation. Though, it was found that in many cases initial framings are short-term oriented. The eagerness to deal with pressing problems is understandable. However, often more sustainable and resilient ways to address them can only be found through extending the planning horizon and taking a long-term perspective. Therefore, shifting conversations to a longer time frames is needed to open up new policy space and allow the development of novel options as part of transformative portfolios.
Methods for (re)framing
To achieve the desirable qualities in reframing processes and leverage system transformation-oriented framings, the UNDP team experimented with several methods for reframing. One prominent group of methods are those focused on inclusivity and diversity of perspectives. These are ethnographic approaches and primarily the “community listening” method. This method aims to collect bottom-up perspectives from citizens through interviews and observations. Capturing citizens’ voices can help to find “seeds” for reframing which can be later used to come up with new perspectives but also identify what existing ideas can be catalysed by portfolios. As suggested by one interviewee, it is important not to be prescriptive in “community listening” processes, be ready to find out what is happening on the ground and map local initiatives from an open and unbiased perspective. More insights about this method and its implementation are provided in the recently publsihed Guidebook.
Another group of methods target a shift from improvements in existing systems to system transformation. Such tools as “reframing cards” exemplified in this article are a helpful way to communicate the difference between ‘old’ and ‘new’ framings. One known technique to work towards the identification of system transformation-oriented framing is the so-called “why-question technique”. It helps to identify the needs and functions of existing socio-technical systems to later rethink how they can be provided in radically different ways (e.g. by asking ‘why do we need a transportation system?’ one can uncover the challenge of accessibility of people, services, and goods).
Addressing new framings requires new roles and identities
It was already mentioned that a reframing process might lead to unexpected framings and new challenges to be identified as ‘causes behind the symptoms’. This can be perceived as risky by some, e.g. due to the willingness to stay closer to the dominant framings reflected in funding opportunities. However, another, no less important, risk was shared by the interviewees — the risk to the identities of those involved in reframing and portfolio design. Thus, in several examples, teams that led reframing processes found that initial challenges are associated with deeper systemic barriers in society and addressing them would require skills that are beyond their current skill set. This realisation opened up a range of questions for the teams: should they develop new skills internally? Or find and involve new team members with relevant skills? How to proceed with attracting investments for addressing a challenge in its new framing? What are their roles in the process from now on?
Furthermore, after a new framing emerged, someone in a team still had to take a decision to work with it. Such a decision might have its consequences with regard to the team structure, e.g. will someone lose their job if there is a new problem to be actually addressed? Different organisational responses have to be invented, including reorganisation. These kinds of consequences might sound risky and prevent some from engaging in reframing processes. Though, this also confirms that system transformations would require changes in organisations and individuals.
Conclusions
Interestingly, as one of the interviewees emphasised, “reframing is a skill, not a step”. A continuous engagement with reframing would be needed to ensure the coherence between a portfolio and evolving challenges that will continuously emerge in the process of change. This is an important reminder about the overall idea of the portfolio approach being a learning process. Furthermore, reframing has to be a collective skill, the one to be developed by a variety of actors when they jointly are going through sense-making and reframing processes in their environments.
Concluding, this article highlights a number of insights from the pioneering work with the portfolio approach by the team of the Strategic Innovation Unit of UNDP and its partners in different parts of the world. A focus is given to the (re)framing of challenges — a rather central part of the portfolio approach that very much defines an aim and composition of a portfolio. At that, many important questions remain outside the scope of this study, primarily those related to the participatory nature of reframing processes. The issues of capabilities, skills and vocabularies that are needed to implement and facilitate the portfolio approaches in collaborative contexts deserve special attention and can be a matter of another article. The shifting of identities and actor roles are other important areas that were only partially touched upon in this study and have to be further explored.
Inspiration and further reading
- Begovic, M. 2021. Weeknote: The ‘art’ of framing.
- Cukier, K., Mayer-Schönberger, V. and de Véricourt, F., 2021. Framers: Human advantage in an age of technology and turmoil. Penguin.
- Hulst, M. van, Yanow, D., 2016. From Policy “Frames” to “Framing”: Theorizing a More Dynamic, Political Approach. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 46, 92–112. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0275074014533142
- James, S. 1999. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed. Yale University Press.
- Martinez, E. “42|Frames”: https://medium.com/750-max/42-frames-bd7a46fc51c0
- Martinez, E. “16|Framing”: https://medium.com/750-max/16-framing-a7eaa5b89cb2
- Mulgan, G. ‘Learning Loops’ by Geoff Mulgan”.
- Rein, M. and Schon, D., 1977. Problem setting in policy research. Using social research in public policy making (pp.235–251). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
- UN Climate Change Global Innovation Hub — Solving problems vs reimagining: https://unfccc.int/topics/un-climate-change-global-innovation-hub#eq-7
- UNDP, 2022. “System Change: A Guidebook for Adopting Portfolio Approaches”. Bangkok, Thailand.
