ALBERT

Beschreibung: We present a Strengths, Vulnerability, and Intervention Assessment related to Digital Threats (SVIDT) method, which provides a problem structuring and decision support for organizational vulnerability and resilience management with respect to changes of the digital transition. The method starts from (i) a multi-level actor analysis, (ii) identifies strengths and weaknesses of organizations, (iii) constructs digital threat scenarios and provides judgment-based expert assessments on the organization's vulnerability, (iv) develops intervention scenarios for tangible threat scenarios, and (v) suggests win-win action scenarios when referring to the multi actor system analysis as for strategic management. A first validation and application includes a structural analysis of the response patterns and a quantitative and qualitative appraisal of the organizations’ managers. This validation is based on an application of the method to 18 German and Austrian organizations of different types and magnitude. We show how the basic concepts of vulnerability (i.e., sensitivity, exposure adaptive capacity) can be quantitatively operationalized when constructing consistent combinations of threat and intervention scenarios. The validation approaches indicate that the method provides meaningful data and assessments and that the managers provided a positive feedback on the method and the recommendations which they received. It is further deliberated whether the assessment method supports organizations’ specified resilience management in an overly complex, systemic digital transition in a (semi) quantitative manner. In addition, we discuss needs for future research regarding practical utility of SVIDT, as well as the positioning of SVIDT in relation to soft operational methods and other methods of operational research.

Beschreibung: Transdisciplinary problems are complex, ill-defined, societal real-world problems with high ambiguity that are contested and require multiple trade-offs. Part I of this paper showed that transdisciplinary processes include seven types of knowledge integration: system (ontological), epistemological, cultural, cognitive, social conflict, evolutionary (levels of representation), and complexity-theory-based types of knowledge integration. The epistemological integration of the different modes of reasoning from science and practice is a unique selling point of the transdisciplinary process. Part II presents five transdisciplinary processes for the responsible use of digital data in different vulnerable/sensitive subsystems of Germany (mobility, health, agriculture, SME, and social media). Between 10 and 18 participants (equally representing science and practice in each group) synchronously constructed socially robust orientations as pillars of a white book. We elaborate that outcomes of a transdisciplinary process can be improved, and barriers diminished by reflecting on which of the seven types of knowledge integration are applied (see Part I). This is done for the six phases of a transdisciplinary process: (1) triggering, (2) initiation, (3) preparation, (4) planning, (5) core, and (6) post-processing. We particularly address researchers and practitioners who seek insights into how the production and integration of knowledge can be improved by transdisciplinary processes.

Beschreibung: Transdisciplinary processes deal with transdisciplinary problems that are (i) complex, (ii) societally relevant, (iii) ill-defined, and (iv) real-world problems which often show a high degree of ambiguity resulting in contested perceptions and evaluations among and between scientists and practitioners. Therefore, they are susceptible to multiple trade-offs. Transdisciplinary processes construct socially robust orientations (SoROs) particularly for sustainable transitioning. The integration of science and practice knowledge on equal footing (1) is considered the core of transdisciplinary processes. Yet other forms of knowledge integration contribute essentially to construct SoROs. Individuals may (2) use different modes of thought; (3) refer to various cultures with diverse value and belief systems; and (4) problems are perceived and prioritized based on roles and interests. Coping with transdisciplinary problems, (5) purposeful differentiation and integration and (6) an integration of evolutionary evolving codes of representing knowledge are necessary. Finally, (7) what systems to integrate requires consensus-building among participating scientists and practitioners. This paper is Part I of a two-part publication. It provides a conceptualization of the different types of knowledge integration. Part II analyzes tasks, challenges, and barriers related to different types of knowledge integration in five transdisciplinary processes which developed SoROs for sensitive subsystems of Germany affected by the irresponsible use of digital data.