200:
This analysis procedure shows that the credibility of threats and promises (sanctions and improvements) is of importance in metagame analysis. A threat or promise, one that the stakeholder prefers to carry out for its own sake, is inherently credible. Sometimes a stakeholder may want to make credible
186:
preferred to the particular scenario, making it not worthwhile for that stakeholder to have helped with the improvement. The general "law of stability" to be used in scenario analysis is: for a scenario to be stable, it is necessary for each credible improvement to be deterred by a credible sanction (
185:
Identify all sanctions that exist to deter the unilateral improvements. A sanction against an improvement is a possible reaction to an improvement by the stakeholders who were not involved in the improvement. It is such that the stakeholder who was involved in the improvement finds the sanction not
177:
Choose a particular scenario to analyse for stability. A scenario is stable if "each stakeholder expects to do its part and expects others to do theirs." Note that stable scenarios are accepted by all stakeholders, but that acceptance does not need to be voluntary. There may be more than one stable
195:
Draw a strategic map, laying out all the threats and promises stakeholders can make to try to stabilise the situation at scenarios they prefer. Strategic maps are diagrams in which scenarios are shown by balloons, with arrows from one balloon to another representing unilateral improvements. Dotted
147:
The present scenario, which may differ from the Status Quo as it incorporates the intentions that are expressed by the stakeholders to change their plans; the Status Quo necessarily remains the same, but the present scenario may change as stakeholders interact and influence each other's
181:
Identify all unilateral improvements for stakeholders and subsets of stakeholders from the particular scenario. These are all the scenarios that are both preferred by all members of a certain subset and 'reachable' by them alone changing their selection of individual
131:
If the set of feasible scenarios is too large to be analysed in full, some combinations may be eliminated because the analyst judges them to be not worth considering. When doing so, the analyst should take care to preserve these particular types of scenarios
256:
The manager as politician and general: the metagame approach to analysing cooperation and conflict. In: Rosenhead J (ed) Rational analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and
201:
an 'involuntary' threat or promise, to use this to move the situation in the desired direction. Such threats and promises can be made credible in three basic ways: preference change, irrationality, and deceit (
50:
exist, and who has the power to control the course of events. The practical application of metagame theory is based on the analysis of options method, first applied to study problems like the strategic
157:
between two stakeholders, defined as scenarios that, while not the position of either, are preferred by both to the other's position. A compromise does not necessarily have to involve all stakeholders.
92:
The dependencies between options should typically be formulated as "option X can only be implemented if option Y is also implemented", or "options Y and Z are mutually exclusive". The result is a
26:
in which participants try to realise their objectives by means of the options available to them. The subsequent meta-analysis of this game gives insight in possible strategies and their outcome.
169:
The next step in the metagame analysis consists of the actual analysis of the scenarios generated so far. This analysis centres around stability and is broken down in the following four steps (
128:. Conversely, the dependencies between options will reduce the number of scenarios, because they rule out those containing logically or physically impossible combinations of options.
151:
The positions of different stakeholders, being the scenarios they would like others to agree to. Similar to the present scenario, positions may change through interaction.
213:
Metagame analysis is still used as a technique in its own right. However it has been further developed in distinct ways as the basis of more recent approaches:
196:
arrows from improvement arrows to balloons represent sanctions by which the improvements may be deterred, thus changing the destination of the improvement arrow.
124:
possible outcomes. As the number of stakeholders and the number of the options they have increase, the number of scenarios will increase steeply due to a
192:
Steps 1 to 3 need to be repeated to analyse some additional scenarios. When a number of scenarios have been analysed, one can proceed to the next step:
46:
in terms of decision issues, and stakeholders who may exert different options to gain control over these issues. The analysis reveals what likely
264:
242:
160:
Conflict points, defined as scenarios that stakeholders might move to in trying to force others to accept their positions.
285:
67:
Metagame analysis proceeds in three phases: analysis of options, scenario development, and scenario analysis.
38:
on a non-quantitative basis, hoping that it would thereby make more practical and intuitive sense (
306:
Proceedings of the 34th
Conference of the International Simulation and Gaming Association (ISAGA)
125:
220:
34:
Metagame theory was developed by Nigel Howard in the 1960s as a reconstruction of mathematical
278:
Games in a world of infrastructures. Simulation-Games for
Research, Learning, and Intervention
56:
43:
329:
85:
Make an inventory of policy options by means of which the stakeholders control the issues.
8:
178:
scenario, the stability of a scenario may change, and unstable scenarios can also happen.
298:
281:
260:
238:
104:
The possible outcomes of the game, based on the combination of options, are called
82:
Identify the stakeholders who control the issues, either directly or indirectly.
323:
75:
The first phase of analysis of options consists of the following four steps:
35:
299:"Developing 'playable metagames' for participatory stakeholder analysis"
154:
141:
52:
105:
93:
47:
235:
Paradoxes of
Rationality: Games, Metagames, and Political Behavior
79:
Structure the problem by identifying the issues to be decided.
23:
144:, representing the future as it was previously expected.
88:
Determine the dependencies between the policy options.
96:
model, which can then be analysed in different ways.
22:
involves framing a problem situation as a strategic
296:
275:
321:
116:who have Oi options (i = 1, ..., N), there are O
42:, pp. xi). Metagame analysis reflects on a
276:Veeneman, Wijnand; Igor Mayer, eds. (2002).
237:. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
259:. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
108:. In theory, a game with N stakeholders s
297:Bots, P. W. G.; Hermans, L. M. (2003).
99:
322:
253:
232:
202:
187:
170:
133:
70:
39:
164:
16:Problem solving as a strategic game
13:
280:. Delft, The Netherlands: Eburon.
14:
341:
208:
1:
226:
7:
10:
346:
62:
29:
126:combinatorial explosion
254:Howard, Nigel (1989).
233:Howard, Nigel (1971).
221:confrontation analysis
173:, pp. 248–255):
57:nuclear proliferation
136:, pp. 243 ff):
100:Scenario development
71:Analysis of options
266:978-0-471-92286-5
244:978-0-262-58237-7
205:, pp. 257).
165:Scenario analysis
20:Metagame analysis
337:
316:
314:
313:
303:
291:
270:
248:
345:
344:
340:
339:
338:
336:
335:
334:
320:
319:
311:
309:
301:
288:
267:
245:
229:
217:the graph model
211:
191:
190:, pp. 251)
167:
123:
119:
115:
111:
102:
73:
65:
32:
17:
12:
11:
5:
343:
333:
332:
318:
317:
308:. Chiba, Japan
293:
292:
286:
272:
271:
265:
250:
249:
243:
228:
225:
224:
223:
218:
210:
207:
198:
197:
193:
183:
179:
166:
163:
162:
161:
158:
152:
149:
145:
121:
117:
113:
109:
101:
98:
90:
89:
86:
83:
80:
72:
69:
64:
61:
31:
28:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
342:
331:
328:
327:
325:
307:
300:
295:
294:
289:
287:90-5166-924-0
283:
279:
274:
273:
268:
262:
258:
252:
251:
246:
240:
236:
231:
230:
222:
219:
216:
215:
214:
206:
204:
194:
189:
184:
180:
176:
175:
174:
172:
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
143:
139:
138:
137:
135:
129:
127:
107:
97:
95:
87:
84:
81:
78:
77:
76:
68:
60:
58:
54:
49:
45:
41:
37:
27:
25:
21:
310:. Retrieved
305:
277:
255:
234:
212:
199:
168:
130:
103:
91:
74:
66:
33:
19:
18:
330:Game theory
209:Development
203:Howard 1989
188:Howard 1989
171:Howard 1989
155:Compromises
134:Howard 1989
40:Howard 1971
36:game theory
312:2007-09-22
227:References
142:Status Quo
106:scenarios
53:arms race
48:scenarios
324:Category
257:conflict
182:options.
112:, ..., s
94:metagame
44:problem
284:
263:
241:
148:plans.
120:×...×O
63:Method
30:Origin
302:(PDF)
282:ISBN
261:ISBN
239:ISBN
140:The
55:and
24:game
326::
304:.
59:.
315:.
290:.
269:.
247:.
132:(
122:N
118:1
114:N
110:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.