Introduction to “issue storms” and “issue trees”

By David Wojick

Like Galileo I have two new sciences, not that I am in his league. His were the statics (structure) and dynamics of physical stuff. Mine are the structure and dynamics of complex issues. This is explained briefly below.

The dynamics is about a highly nonlinear information flow that I call an issue storm, which I discovered about 40 years ago but never wrote about because I was making lots of money knowing about it. The science involves mapping and measuring issue storms over time. It also includes prediction to the extent feasible. Like physical storms, issue storms tend to be somewhat unpredictable.

To begin with, we need what I call looping. If A communicates to B and B replies to A, that is a single loop. When a major issue arises in an organization, or community, or country, or globally, there can be a tremendous amount of looping.

Most importantly, this evolving body of looping will have a specific pattern, which will vary from case to case. Imagine if you could just look down in the dark and see all the email traffic as an issue breaks, grows, and spreads, with each email as a streak of light. You could see the pattern, including how it changes over time.

Here is how I made the discovery. The scene was big city building permits. The city was attempting a huge downtown renovation, but it was taking something like a year on average to get a permit for each planned project. There were about 2,000 permit applications in process at a time. So, the core community was the 18 offices that reviewed applications, plus the numerous developers that applied. People were very angry.

We tracked applications and found the pattern causing the delays. First, it turned out that the average application went back 9 times for revision. So they were, in effect, processing 20,000 applications, not 2,000. Thus, the workload on all sides was much greater than thought. Each rejection, revision, and resubmission is a laborious loop.

Second, it turned out that about 60% of the repeated revisions were due to a new energy conservation code that was basically being articulated by trial and error. This is typical for new rule systems. Another 20% was due to two offices enforcing contradictory rules, so whipsawing the applicants.

Once the pattern was found, it was relatively easy to greatly reduce the looping in the two main drivers. The efficiency code was articulated and communicated to the community, and the two-office conflict was resolved. But first, you have to see the pattern.

I call such a body of looping an issue storm. These storms can be very disruptive because they consume a lot of cognitive resources. In fact, they can be paralyzing. Managing them is a major challenge, which most of our management tools do not do well. We need new tools.

On the other hand, in the policy world, issue storms are very important. This is how major policy issues get thrashed out, and final policies get articulated and voted on. CFACT is a storm center for important energy and environmental issues. We even fire up a few storms, like whales versus offshore wind, which is growing pretty big.

In addition to different patterns, issue storms can have vastly different sizes and durations. A quick argument might be a two-person, ten-minute storm with a few dozen simple exchanges. A major issue might involve thousands of exchanges, many involving large groups, and last for several years. The climate debate has been going on for over 40 years, with millions of exchanges. It likely is the biggest issue storm in history.

Typically, we are hit by multiple storms at the same time. Ours is an issue-driven world, which is why we often do not know what issues we will be working on a week from now. Thus, predicting and managing issue storms is a major challenge. I have done a lot of work on that. It all depends on the nature of the storm and your place in it. This is a very broad science, so here are just a few general points.

The most important thing is to understand the concept. Just knowing that issue storms exist and their basic properties should help you anticipate and deal with them to a considerable degree. It may be all you need in many cases.

Predicting issue storms is also important. In some cases, it may be possible to predict that one or more storms will occur. Then, one can take steps so as not to be surprised. There are really two cases here. The nature of the storm might be predictable, or it may just be that something is likely to happen, you know not what.

An example of the first case is when you publish a controversial finding and can expect a negative reaction from certain sources. You should budget your time for dealing with this.

An example of the second case that I have done a lot of work on is when you plan an innovative or unprecedented project. If it has not been done before, it is very likely that you will encounter unanticipated problems. Your Plan should include a rapid response capability, plus added time and budget. Note that this is not contingency planning because the contingencies are unknown.

When a storm hits, you need to think about the pattern and how it is likely to evolve over time. A major consideration for yourself (and those you manage) is how to budget time. Issue storms tend to rapidly consume cognitive resources, especially attention and thinking, so a useful principle is not to involve others unless necessary, thereby conserving resources. Conversely, if you are feeding a policy storm, you need to think about how best to grow it.

Then there are issue trees, which I discovered fifty years ago. See https://www.cfact.org/2020/11/17/the-structure-of-complex-issues/ for a relatively detailed explanation with useful references. The basic idea is that in a big issue, each response can engender multiple responses, each of which brings out multiple responses, as the issue emerges in the message traffic.

Blog comments often exhibit this treelike structure in one place, but it also occurs when the issue is discussed and debated in many different places. The issue tree is a fundamental structure of every complex issue.

Lots of issue tree features can be measured. Given the tree structure, the number of things to think about grows exponentially as the issue evolves. This is how they quickly consume cognitive resources. If the response rate (I call it the branching rate) is 3 responses per response, then the 10th level has almost 60,000 responses, while the whole tree has over 100,000 to that level.

One can also measure the allocation of attention to various sub-issues within the tree. Some may be neglected or missing altogether, while others are overemphasized. There is a second dynamic here, namely how the tree is evolving over time. The issue storm is how the issue is moving among the people. Tree evolution is how the people are moving among the sub-issues.

The deep problem is that while work (and life) has increasingly become issue-driven, we simply do not have the tools to manage the issue storms that buffet us. We do not even have the concepts and language to talk about these things, but I have made a small start. Different issue storms and issue trees have specific natures, consume specific resources, and evolve in specific ways. If we cannot even describe these features, then we certainly cannot manage them. This is a research project in waiting.

But at least we can understand that issue storms and issue trees are there, and we are in them. There is science here to be done and applied. Take time from engaging in an issue to study the critter itself. Above all, stay calm. Rise above the storm.

Author 

David Wojick

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an inDr. David Wojick is an independent policy analyst and senior advisor to CFACT. As a civil engineer with a Ph.D. in logic and analytic philosophy of science, he brings a unique perspective to complex policy issues. His specializes in science and technology intensive issues, especially in energy and environment. As a cognitive scientist he also does basic research on the structure and dynamics of complex issues and reasoning. This research informs his policy analyses. He has written hundreds of analytical articles. Many recent examples can be found at https://www.cfact.org/author/dwojick/ Often working as a consultant on understanding complex issues, Dr. Wojick’s numerous clients have included think tanks, trade associations, businesses and government agencies. Examples range from CFACT to the Chief of Naval Research and the Energy Department’s Office of Science. He has served on the faculty of Carnegie Mellon University and the staff of the Naval Research Laboratory. He is available for confidential consulting, research and writing.

From cfact.org