WWP influence diagram animated tutorial

This influence diagram contains text, arrows and circles. In this description the term “label” refers to text in the diagram, and the term “phrase” refers to text in the audio description or transcript. 

Page	Transcript	Description	
Page 1	There are two approaches to creating an influence diagram. One way is to start from an existing systems map with established boundaries; the other is to start with a blank sheet and build up an influence diagram adding boundaries where appropriate. Both approaches are explored in this tutorial.

I’ll start with a systems map of the WWP and see where the lines of influence might be drawn to transform it into an influence diagram.	The screen is divided into two, with two different styles of influence diagram displayed.
On the left, the label  “Diagram 1: from a systems map” with a small diagram of a systems map appears. The systems map is a large circle with a number of smaller circles inside and outside. At the phrase “with established boundaries”, arrows appear linking the different circles.
On the right, the label “Diagram 2: direct form source of information” and elements of another small diagram appear. First a number of circles, then arrows linking these circles to other circles, then more circles appear. At the phrase “adding boundaries where appropriate” a large circle appears, enclosing some of these circles.

At the phrase “I’ll start with a systems map of the WWP” the small diagram on the left grows in size and becomes a full screen systems map diagram, labelled “Diagram 1: Influencing factors associated with the WWP”. 

This systems map is also described in section 2.4 in Diagramming for Development 1.
A large circle labelled “Working for Water Programme (WWP)” contains four smaller, shaded circles representing subsystems. These are labelled “’know how’ support”, “measures of success”, “decision making” and “intended beneficiaries”.
In the subsystem circle labelled “’know how’ support” are the labels “citizen participation”, “interdisciplinary expertise” and “intersectoral practice”. 
In the subsystem circle labelled “measures of success” are the labels “public awareness”, “high water quality/quantity”, “improved health/sanitation”, “low unemployment”, “integrated policy design”, “political stability” and “ecosystem sustainability”. 
In the subsystem circle “decision making” are the labels “NGOs”, “resources”, “SA local and national government”, “landowners”, “programme personnel” and “donor agencies”.
In the subsystem circle labelled “intended beneficiaries” are the labels “’ecosystems’”, “water consumers” and “unemployed black South Africans”. 
Outside the largest circle there are shaded circles, labelled “traditional sector-based practices”, “demand for non-native invasive species”, “international conventions”, “South African economy” and “South African policy domain”.	
Page 2	Examining the four key sub-systems inside the boundary – these are components of the WWP – I began exploring where the key lines of influence might be.	At the phrase “examining the four key subsystems”, the four subsystem circles are highlighted.
At the phrase “where the key lines of influence”, various arrows appear between the subsystem circles. As the arrows appear they are briefly highlighted. 
From “’know how’ support” there are arrows pointing to “measures of success” and “decision making”. From “measures of success” there is an arrow pointing to “‘know how’ support”. From “decision making” there is an arrow pointing to “’know how’ support”. From “intended beneficiaries” there are arrows pointing to “’know how’ support” and “decision making”.	
Page 3	Next I looked at the paths of influence that environmental factors had on the programme. Any environmental factor in a systems map by definition has an influence on the system of interest and can be affected by the system of interest.

However, to avoid having too many arrows on the diagram, I chose not to include all the arrows in the final diagram except those I thought had a very significant influence.	At the phrase “an influence on the system of interest”, arrows appear pointing from the circles outside the largest circle to it and its subsystem circles. “South African economy”, “demand for non-native invasive species”, and “international conventions” all have arrows pointing to the “decision making” subsystem circle. From “South African policy domain” there is an arrow pointing to the largest circle, labelled “Working for Water Programme”. From “traditional sector-based practices” there is an arrow pointing to “’know how’ support”. 

At the phrase “affected by the system of interest”, arrows appear pointing from the largest circle and its subsystem circles to the circles outside the largest circle. From the largest circle there are arrows pointing to “South African policy domain” and “South African economy”. From the subsystem “’know how’ support” there is an arrow pointing to “traditional sector-based practices”. From the subsystem “decision making” there is an arrow pointing to “international conventions”.

At the phrase “I chose not to include all the arrows”, most of the arrows between the outside and the inside of the largest circle fade, leaving three arrows pointing to “South African economy”, “international conventions” and “South African policy domain” from the largest circle, and an arrow pointing from “South African policy domain” back to the largest circle. All arrows inside the largest circle are retained.	
Page 4	Some influences from the environment might be associated with particular components or sub-systems.	The arrows removed on the last page reappear, highlighted.	
Page 5	After adding in these arrows, I assigned different levels of influence to each relationship, emphasising relatively strong influences with thick arrows.	Certain arrows are made thicker. These are: the arrows pointing from “South African economy” and “international conventions” to the subsystem “decision making”, both arrows pointing to and from “South African policy domain” and the largest circle “Working for Water Programme (WWP)”, and the arrow pointing from the “’know how’ support” subsystem to “traditional sector-based practices”.	
Page 6	Looking at this diagram you might appreciate why influence diagrams are a useful tool for triggering debates between people with different perspectives on a situation. How do you respond to the diagram? What are the key areas of influence you disagree with?	No change made to the diagram.	
Page 7	I could try drawing more specific lines of influence between the various individual components of the sub-systems. However, doing this directly from a systems map is likely to end up being very messy.

I can avoid any potential messiness using the second approach to influence diagramming. Starting with a blank sheet it allows you to explore the factors of influence in more detail, as well as letting you look at the situation from a different perspective.	At the phrase “various individual components of the sub-systems…”, many arrows appear linking elements of the internal subsystems. At the phrase “However, doing this directly from a systems map…” these arrows disappear.

The arrows which appear are: 
- from “citizen participation” in the subsystem “’know-how’ support” to the labels “ecosystem sustainability”, “public awareness” and “political stability”, all in the subsystem “measures of success”
- from “intersectoral success” in the subsystem “’know-how’ support” to “NGOs” in the subsystem “decision making”
- from “political stability” in the subsystem “measures of success” to “resources” in the subsystem “decision making”
- from “integrated policy design” in the subsystem “measures of success” to “’ecosystems’” in the subsystem “intended beneficiaries”
- from “landowners” in the subsystem “decision making” to “unemployed black South Africans” in the subsystem “intended beneficiaries”
- from “donor agencies” to “NGOs”, both in the subsystem “decision making”.

At the phrase “I can avoid any potential messiness” the whole diagram disappears. The page is divided into two showing the two different styles of influence diagram as on Page 1. The diagram labelled “Diagram 2: direct from source of information” is highlighted and grows to fill the screen.	
Page 8	Being free of preconceived boundaries and elements can sometimes be useful in exploring other influences and relationships. Influence diagrams can be established directly from knowledge about a particular area of interest. On a separate sheet of scrap paper, as a brainstorming exercise, I listed all possible structural factors relevant to the development of the programme. This might create far more structural factors than I can usefully work with.	At the phrase “Influence diagrams can be established…” the page goes blank. At the phrase “On a separate sheet of scrap paper…”, a drawing of a piece of lined scrap paper appears with the title “Demand for economic growth in a natural resource-based economy” and various phrases appear on it in two columns. 

In the left column are the points:
“cost of implementation”
“multi agency involvement”
“water availability and competition”
“environmental pressure groups”
“conventional sectoral agricultural intervention”
“rural black poverty”
“research on invasive species”
“rural black unemployment”
“water-related policies and Acts”
“sanitation and health issues”
“post-apartheid government support for WWP”.

In the right column are the points:
“cultivation of invasive species”
“success of implementation”
“ecosystem deterioration”
“WWP projects”.	
Page 9	In looking at the key influences around WWP, I spotted the 240+ projects. These represent the key structural components of the programme. Having decided to focus on the projects, I began to think of the key influences on generating support for them. Clearly the support of the national government was paramount. But what influenced the provision of such government support?	At the phrase “…I spotted the 240+ projects”, the point “WWP projects” is circled.
Everything else on the page disappears except for the circled “WWP projects” label.
At the phrase “Clearly the support of the national government…”, another circled label “post-apartheid government support for WWP” appears, with an arrow pointing to the label “WWP projects”.	
Page 10	The driving trigger of influence for WWP was ecosystem deterioration, in particular, the cultivation of invasive species. Given that much of the influence on the programme is mediated through the government, I began to think of the key factors of influence that would trigger government support.	A circled label “cultivation of invasive species” with an arrow pointing to another circled label “ecosystem deterioration” appears.
At the phrase “Given that much of the influence on the programme…”, the circled label “post-apartheid government support for WWP” is highlighted.
At the phrase “I began to think of the key factors…”, three further circled labels appear: “water availability and competition”, “sanitation and health issues” and “rural black poverty”. All three labels have arrows pointing at them from “ecosystem deterioration” and arrows pointing from them to “post-apartheid government support for WWP”.	
Page 11	I then began to wonder what other factors would influence government support. Certainly, the relative costs and benefits of implementing WWP are critical (as shown by the ‘success’ of project implementation). But other factors were also thought to be important.	A circle label “costs of implementation” with an arrow pointing to “post-apartheid government support for WWP” appears.
At the phrase “…as shown by the ‘success’ of project implementation”, another circle label “success of implementation” appears with arrows pointing to “costs of implementation” and “post-apartheid government support for WWP”.
At the phrase “But other factors were also thought to be important”, a number of circled labels with arrows pointing to “post-apartheid government support for WWP” appear: “rural black unemployment”, “other competing social welfare programmes”, “international conventions”, “South African water strategy” and “research on invasive species”. An arrow appears pointing from “ecosystem deterioration” to “research on invasive species”.	
Page 12	It occurred to me that the prime success of WWP projects was influenced by the involvement of different agencies from different sectors.	A circled label: “multi agency involvement” appears with an arrow pointing to “success of implementation” and is briefly highlighted.
Another circled label: “environmental pressure groups” appears with arrows pointing to “multi agency involvement” and “post-apartheid government support for WWP”, and with another arrow pointing to it from “ecosystem deterioration”.	
Page 13	Looking first at ecosystem deterioration and cultivation of invasive species blobs, I wondered what influences there were on the continuation of these features.	The label “ecosystem deterioration” is highlighted.
Two circled labels appear with arrows pointing to “cultivation of invasive species”: “demand for economic growth in a natural resource based economy” and “conventional sectoral agricultural intervention”.	
Page 14	Looking at the series of blobs and arrows, I then explored which factors belonged in close association with the WWP’s remit of control, and which factors remained outside its control. Doing this helped me to establish the boundary of the WWP. Having done this I checked back with my original list of influence factors and discovered an omission.	At the phrase “Doing this helped me to establish the boundary of the WWP.”, a large circle labelled “Working for Water Programme (WWP)” appears including some of the existing diagram.
Inside the large circle are the labels: “water availability and competition”, “ecosystem deterioration”, “sanitation and health issues”, “post-apartheid government support for WWP”, “cultivation of invasive species”, “rural black poverty”, “rural black unemployment”, “costs of implementation”, “environmental pressure groups”, “WWP projects”, “multi agency involvement” and “success of implementation”.
At the phrase “Having done this I checked back…” a circled label “water-related policies and Acts” appears outside the large circle with arrows pointing to and from this new circle.	
Page 15	Finally, I wanted to illustrate what I thought were particularly strong factors of influence.	Some arrows in the diagram are made thicker.
These arrows are: 
-	from “ecosystem deterioration” three arrows to “research on invasive species”, “water availability and competition” and “environmental pressure groups”
-	from “cultivation of invasive species” to “ecosystem deterioration”
-	from “demand for economic growth in a natural resource based economy” to “cultivation of invasive species”
-	from “rural black poverty” and “other competing social welfare programmes” to “post-apartheid government support for WWP”
-	from “post-apartheid government support for WWP” to “WWP projects”
-	from “multi agency involvement” to “success of implementation	
Page 16	Like the first influence diagram, you might not agree with some of my judgements on key factors and their relative strengths and positions. If you were considering the WWP as an actual case for future intervention, you’d probably find it very useful to note down any contentious points. You could then ask other interested stakeholders to make similar notes, as a means of beginning to surface different perspectives.	No change to the diagram.	
Summary	Summary

(if not starting from a systems map)

1 Identify an issue on which to explore relevant influences and construct a title for your diagram.

2 Define all the various influencing factors (including human agents or ‘actors’).

3 Position the various factors of direct influence within circles around the central issue.

4 Position the factors of less direct influence within circles around the factors of more direct influence.

5 Link the components of your diagram with relatively thick (strong influence) and thin (weak influence) arrows illustrating both the direction and strength of influence.

6 If it helps, draw a boundary between those factors which can be controlled (factors inside the boundary) and those factors which cannot be controlled (outside the boundary; in the ‘environment’).