Intro To Policy Alternatives PDF

Introduction to
Policy Alternatives
Michael Tumanut
Training on Policy Formulation and Analysis
NCPAG, UP Diliman
8 May 2018
Methodology of policy analysis
Source: Dunn, 2016

Outline of presentation
Lecture Activity
•  Review (15 minutes) •  Workshop and short
–  Tools & methods in Problem presentation (45 min)
Structuring
–  How to prioritize problems
•  What are Policy Alternatives
(30 min)
–  Rationale for PA
–  Types and sources of PA
3

structure policy problems
REVIEW
Problem structuring
•  Focuses on policy problem
–  Ideally based on evidences/data
•  Higher-order compared to “problem solving”
–  Examines interdependence of problems/issues
–  (but problems are subjective or socially
constructed)
5
Priority of problems
Problem PROBLEM
Sensing SITUATION
Problem
Structuring
Problem POLICY Problem

Dissolving PROBLEM Unsolving
NO RIGHT
PROBLEM?
YES
Problem
Solving
POLICY Problem
SOLUTION Resolving
YES POLICY
SOLUTION?
Phases of problem structuring
Dunn, 1981
Errors of the third type (EIII)
How well do the substantive and formal problems
correspond to the original problem situation?
•  If most problem situations are policy messes, then
models should reflect complexity
Types of errors
•  Type I – rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true
•  Type II – accepting the null hypothesis when it is false
•  Type III – solving the wrong problem
Role of research or inquiry
in Problem Structuring
Sources of knowledge
authority
tradition
ordinary human
inquiry
Errors in inquiry

Errors in inquiry
Data & problem structuring
•  Problems/issues: Elite opinion vs
public opinion
•  Not just anecdotes or gut feel but
–  Based on data
–  (Anecdotes should be validated)
•  Thus, gather enough (and reliable)
sources of evidence (e.g., adequate
sample of farmers interviewed)
13
•  As an analyst, one must know how to
“appraise” data or research study
– be careful of “fake news”
•  Validity and reliability
Methods for collecting data
•  Use of existing records
–  Census, survey, admin data system
–  Others (private, NGO, academe, social network)
–  (use ELA or LGPMS data)
•  Case study approach
•  Discussion/consultation
•  Survey
•  Key informant interview
•  Observation
15
Sample ELA (Jagna, Bohol 2014-16)
16
Source: http://jagna.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/JAGNA-ELA-CapDev-2013-2016.pdf
17
18
Sample Poverty Database Monitoring
System (PDMS)
19
Good practices
•  Learning lessons from others
•  Idea of replication
•  Warning: must identify the conditions under which
these practices become effective or are working
–  Identify key conditions/factors that should also be
present in the area for replication
Review: Tools in
structuring policy
problems
Brainstorming
•  Idea generation and evaluation
•  Accept all ideas
•  Evaluate after all ideas
are exhausted
22
Multiple perspective analysis
•  Joint use of technical,
organizational &
personal perspectives
•  May reflect differing
values/norms
•  use of clustering or
classification in cause-
effect analysis

23
Classification analysis
•  Dividing up the problem into component parts
•  Based on the analyst’s view of the problem
•  Classification is exhaustive
•  Classification is mutually exclusive
•  Usually aided by diagrams
–  Fishbone diagram
–  Problem-tree analysis
Tool: Fishbone diagram (Ishikawa)
•  Step 1: Based on the problem situation, identify
the (meta)problem to be structured/analyzed
•  Step 2: Identify all possible causes
•  Step 3: Arrange causes according to level of
importance or detail
–  Introduce categories (e.g., manpower, materials,
machinery, procedures, policies, etc.)
–  Causal categories usually represent the “bones” or
branches (for problem-tree diagram)
25
Fishbone diagram
26
http://www.conceptdraw.com/examples/hr-fishbone-=-samples
Tool: Fishbone diagram (Ishikawa)
•  Step 4: Label causes that are “actionable” at
your preferred “policymaking level”
•  Step 5: Subject “actionable” problem causes
to further test using the following tool:
27
Causal or hierarchy analysis
•  Identify variables or
factors affecting a
particular problem
or phenomenon
•  Not all factors have
the same effect
– 2-4 major
determinants
28
Types of causes
•  Possible causes (remote but contributory)
–  (Ultimate or underlying causes?)
•  Plausible causes (proximate and empirically
linked)
–  Proximate or immediate causes
•  Actionable causes (subject to manipulation by
policymakers; short- or medium-term)
29
Sample tools (cause-effect diagrams)
•  Fishbone
•  Why-why
•  Problem tree
Tool: Problem Tree Analysis
•  Planning method based on needs
–  Verification of the subject of analysis
–  ID of problems related to the subject
–  Establishment of a cause-effect hierarchy
between the problems
–  Visualisation of the cause-effect relations

(Source: MDF, 2005)
33
Problem Tree Diagram
34
Quick exercise
•  Task: Subject to cause-effect analysis
•  Material: Manila paper
•  Focal problem: “rampant drug use”
–  What are the immediate/proximate causes
–  First- and second-tier causes
–  Can we identify underlying causes?
___________ ___________
Rampant illegal drug use

____________ ____________ ___________
____________ ____________ ___________
____________ ____________ ___________

prioritize problems or
causes of problems
REVIEW
Policy problems triage
•  Not all problems can be handled by a
committee at once
•  Prioritize problems before identifying
solutions
38
•  Step 1: Plan the process
–  Varying norms/values affect the process
–  Exclusive to staff?
–  Invite/involve other stakeholders and experts?
–  Validate with other stakeholders and affected
citizens (through FGD or interview)?
39
•  Step 2: Adopt criteria to use in prioritizing
–  Magnitude or size: Number of persons/farms/families
affected
–  Seriousness: Degree to which the problem leads to
accident, death, disability, poverty, etc.
–  Trend: Whether or not the problem is getting better
or worse in the community over time
–  Consequences of inaction: Risks associated with
exacerbation of problem if not addressed at the
earliest opportunity
40
•  (Step 3: You may convert problems into
general objectives)

41
Objectives analysis
42
•  Step 4: Cluster related objectives/problems
–  Reveals differing perspectives or different
dimensions of the problem
43
Clustering
44
•  Step 5: Conduct scoping analysis
–  AKA Control & Influence matrix
45
Tool: Scoping analysis
•  For each cause/problem, examine your level
of control and knowledge
•  Use matrix below to assist you in deciding
CONTROL NO CONTROL

KNOWLEDGE Do it Influence
NO KNOWLEDGE Stay
Get help
away
46
Clustering
47
Sample Scoping and clustering analysis
•  Irrigation system
–  Within control, requires urgent intervention
•  Agri inputs
–  Outside control of Sanggunian/LGU (requiring
intervention of market)
•  Soil fertility
–  requires expertise
•  Immigration
–  sensitive issue; task by national-level politicians and
central government
48
•  Step 6: Using adopted criteria (see Step 2)
–  Depending on the number of analysts or
decisionmakers, reach a consensus on which
problem to prioritize
–  alternatively, you may use “dotmocracy
technique”
–  (Assumption: you have adequate knowledge/
information on the problems)
49
Tool: Dot-mocracy Method
•  A voting process using colorful dots
•  An easy and fun way to collective decisionmaking
•  Step 1: List all “actionable” causes
•  Step 2: Participants get selected number of votes
(indicated by dots)
•  Step 3: Create a matrix pitting each rootcause against
all other rootcauses based on agreed criteria
•  Step 4: Rank causes and decide on number of
problems/objectives to be tackled by the Sanggunian

50
Sample matrix B (w/ different weights)
Seriousness (3) Intervention Equity (1) Feasibility (2) TOTAL DOTS RANK
Rootcause Size (3)
(1)
Cause A 24 1
Cause B 11 5
Cause C 16 3
Cause D 8 6
Cause E 6 7
Cause F 13 4
Cause G 23 2
51
validate problems
using other reports
DILG’s LGPMS or Governance
Assessment Report
•  http://lgpms.blgs.gov.ph/
•  Use LGMPS report to validate prioritized
problems

•  (Assumption: LGPMS data is accurate and
current)
•  (Limitations: limited scope; not stated as
problems but “compliance/non-compliance”
not actual performance and outcomes)
53
54
Source: http://lgpms.blgs.gov.ph/
55
Source: http://lgpms.blgs.gov.ph/
•  One major root cause of problem is “absence of
garbage disposal site” (workshop output from May
2017)
•  LGMPS indicator No. 38
•  2 red dots (recurring problem in the past 2 years)
•  Despite having SWM plans (see indicators 35-36)
56
Use of ELA or MPDO survey
•  (Assumption: ELA data is accurate & current)
•  Strengths
–  In some LGUs, issues/problems are identified
–  use of MPDO survey or similar reliable data
–  Identification of priority dev’t projects/programs
•  Limitation
–  Problems not structured
–  Priority programs may be palliative
57
Sample Poverty Database Monitoring
System (PDMS)
58
Steps of the ELA process
•  Redefining/revisiting LGU vision-mission statements
•  Determining the vision-reality gap
•  Formulating sectoral goals, objectives, strategies
•  Identifying programs, projects, activities, and legislative
requirements
•  Prioritizing programs, projects, and activities and
legislative requirements
•  Ranking and matching of prioritized PPA’s and legislative
requirements with available funds
Source: http://www.region6.dilg.gov.ph/index.php/programs/35-programs/
110-ela
59
Problem specification
Formal problem
SMART approach
•  After reaching consensus on the “formal problem”
to tackle
–  You may convert this problem into SMART objectives
61
Sample objectives analysis
(metaproblem: Poverty)
Actionable SMART Objective Policy solutions
problem
High (25%) local Reduce local
unemployment unemployment rate,
rate among young adults,
by 50% in 5 years
(National average:
6.6% in Jan2017)

62
(metaproblem: Food shortage)
Actionable SMART Objective Policy solutions
problem
Poor maintenance 100% improvement

system for of irrigation facilities
irrigation facilities in 3 years
63
*Actual output from participants (farmers/volunteers)
Workshop 1b:
Review of “actionable problems”
Time allotted: 15-20 minutes
Material: manila paper, marker
Task:
1.  Choose 1 focal problem
2.  Structure the problem using a combination of
brainstorming, multiple perspective and problem
tree analyses
3.  Apply clustering & scoping analyses
4.  Prioritize causes or problems
5.  Identify and prioritize “actionable” policy problem
6.  Convert problem into a SMART objective
7.  (Presentation of outputs)
64
Policy Alternatives
Policy alternatives
•  “Real meat” of the whole policy analysis
•  Good solutions not possible without good
alternatives
•  Weakness: considering only a single solution
66
Policy alternatives
•  Decisionmakers need good information
•  Technical teams (YOU) take on the task of
delivering “recommendations” to decision
makers
–  recommendations must also consider value
judgments by decisionmakers
67
Why develop alternative
policy solutions
•  Provide comprehensive approach to the decision
situation
–  alternative not a single action, but set of possible
actions
•  To reflect different approaches to the problem or
different priorities across objectives
•  Provide decisionmakers real options and choices
•  In reality: solutions also undergo natural
selection process
68
“Policy primeval soup”
•  Solutions are many, floating
(or may sink)
–  Resembles biological natural
selection
•  What will be selected will
depend on
–  Survival (based on viability/
feasibility, acceptability,
anticipation of future
constraints)
–  Values and cohesion of policy
communities
–  Role of reform agent or policy
entrepreneur
–  (by chance)
69
identify policy solutions
or alternatives
Tips in developing alternative solutions
•  First, problem we are trying to solve must be

correctly identified and structured (e.g., using
problem tree analysis, multiple perspective
analysis)
•  Brainstorming
•  Be creative and expansive
–  Generate enough policy alternatives
–  Can generate as many as possible (for a particular
issue/problem)
–  Manageable is between 4 and 7
71
No-action alternative
•  Status quo (not doing anything is also a policy)
•  Important for establishing baseline
72
Review current policies
•  M&E
•  What can be improved
–  This may include conduct of surveys, interviews, etc.
•  “incremental approach”
•  (low risk)
73
Modify existing solutions
•  Based on M&E, you may consider the following:
–  magnify, minify, substitute, combine, re-arrange
–  Location, timing, finance, organization
–  Decision sites, influence points, risk management
•  “incremental approach”
•  (low risk)
74
Redefine or restate problem
•  Redefine by considering others’ points of view (Multiple
Perspective Analysis)
•  Restate using the following approaches:
–  Paraphrase
–  180-degree turn
–  Broade focus
–  Redirect focus
–  Use of diagram
75
Based on cause-effect analysis
•  Focus on eliminating or lessening causes or factors
–  E.g., from problem-tree analysis
•  Review of the literature
•  Theories
•  Expert judgment
•  “Rational-comprehensive model”
76
Transfer approach
•  remodeling alternatives
from other experiences
with similar problems
•  Learning from practices
of others
•  (must consider
contexts, conditions)
•  Replication or “Policy
diffusion model”
•  (low- to high-risk)
77
Create or invent
•  “New” idea/proposal
•  Use analogies (e.g., get ideas from other discipline)
•  “Policy innovation model”
•  (high risk)
78
Summary of approaches
•  No-action alternative
•  Review of current policies
•  Modify existing solutions
•  Redefine or restate problems
•  Based on cause-effect analysis
•  Transfer approach
•  Create or invent
79
Sources and methods
•  Brainstorming, MPA
•  desk review or use of existing statistics/records
•  focus group discussion
•  survey (in-person, mailed, telephone, online,
etc.)
•  key informant interview
•  consultation with experts
•  “Lakbay aral” or benchmarking
80
Some tips
•  (Sometimes, focus on key decision criteria)
–  (to narrow space within which to search for alternatives)
–  (this can also come later)
•  Consider types of policy actions
–  Governments can
•  take direct and indirect actions
•  pursue monetary and non-monetary policies
81
Types of Policy Actions
DIRECT INDIRECT
Provide Tax
Monetary Purchase Subsidize
Nonmonetary Prohibit Inform

Require Request
Source: Patton & Sawicki, 1993, p.10 82

DIRECT INDIRECT
Provide Tax

Require Request

DIRECT INDIRECT
E.g., Use public

funds to
provide police Tax
Monetary Subsidize
force; purchase
utility service

Require Request

DIRECT INDIRECT
Provide Tax

Require Request

DIRECT INDIRECT
Provide Tax
e.g., Prohibit Inform

Nonmonetary driving under
influence of Request
alcohol; or
require licenses
to emitting
pollutants
DIRECT INDIRECT
Provide Tax

Require Request

DIRECT INDIRECT
E.g., Tax
Provide corporate profits;
Monetary Purchase subsidize
hospitals

Require Request

DIRECT INDIRECT
Provide Tax

Require Request

DIRECT INDIRECT
Provide Tax
Prohibit E.g., Inform small

Nonmonetary business owners
Require about services
offered by LGU;
Use public
relations campaign
to encourage
Source: Patton & Sawicki, 1993, p.10 citizens not to litter 90
Examples of Policy Actions
DIRECT INDIRECT
E.g., Use E.g., Tax

public funds to corporate
provide police profits;
subsidize
Monetary force;
hospitals
purchase
utility service
E.g., Inform
Nonmonetary e.g., Prohibit small business
driving under owners about
influence of services offered
alcohol; or by LGU; Use
require licenses public relations
to emitting campaign to
pollutants encourage
citizens not to 91
Source: Patton & Sawicki, 1993, p.10 litter
Examples of
policy alternatives
92
Actionable problem: Human exposure from
air pollution in Brazil (Requia et al., 2016)
•  Policy alternatives
–  Land use management
–  New green areas intra urban
–  Vehicle traffic control (VHT)
–  Public transport development (PTD)
•  Methods: GIS, analytic hierarchy process,
fuzzy logic
•  Findings: PTD best option, followed by VHT
93
Source: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837716300941
(Metaproblem: Poverty)
Actionable problem SMART Objective Policy alternative
High (25%) local Reduce local (Strengthen local industries - MSMEs)

unemployment unemployment •  To provide incentives for business owners
rate* rate, among young promoting local industries/employing locals
adults, by 50% in 5 •  To package and market local tourism
years*
(National average: (Attract new investors by instituting reforms at LGU –
6.6% in Jan2017) creating new jobs)
•  To streamline business processes
•  To offer tax breaks to new investors
•  To improve local peace and order
(Boost education and training)
•  To create strong linkage between schools and
potential employers (i.e., internship)
•  To strengthen PESO in assisting youth in job search
•  To increase number of local scholarships
•  To offer free training programs on soapmaking
94
* hypothetical (No action)
(Metaproblem: Food shortage)
Actionable SMART Objective Policy alternative
problem
Poor maintenance 100% improvement To appoint focal person/committee

system for of irrigation facilities
irrigation facilities in 3 years To strengthen M&E system of irrigation
facilities (supported by policies)
To increase budget to
-  repair irrigation facilities
-  purchase new equipment
-  construct new facilities
…
(No action)
95
*Actual output from participants (farmer-volunteers)
From policy solutions to agenda
setting
•  Who decides what will be decided?
•  Not all solutions can be accommodated at
once (remember “primeval soup”?)
•  Need to prioritize the “actionable” policy
solutions identified in the previous workshop
96
Agenda setters
•  Inside the government
–  Politicians (e.g., president, congress, mayor, council)
–  Policy advisory council
–  Bureaucrats
–  Legislative staff
•  Outside the government
–  Interest groups (e.g., contributors, businessmen)
–  Think tanks (e.g., UP-NCPAG, PIDS, academe)
–  Media (e.g., TV, radio, print, social media)
97
Workshop 2:
Identifying Policy Alternatives
•  Time allotted: 30 minutes
•  Material: manila paper, marker (or laptop)
•  Task:
1.  Using the SMART objective, identify 4-5 policy
solutions (i.e., means to achieve objective)
2.  Write a brief background about these 3-4
alternatives (e.g., details of PA, assumptions, if
any)
3.  (Presentation of outputs)
98
ASSESSMENT OF POLICY ALTERNATIVES
(E.g., SMART Objective: e.g., “Reduce out-of-school youth rate from 17% to 10% in 6
years”
COMPATIBILITY VIABILITY (COST-BENEFIT

ALTERNATIVE POLITICAL (Compliant with ANALYSIS) RISK &
(Specific policy action) acceptability rules and UNCERTAINTY
standards) COSTS BENEFITS
Alt. 1: Increase number of

scholarship grants

Status quo: Describe current policy (if
any); define OSY; current number of
OSY, etc.

Details about Alternative 1: number
of possible grants, target
beneficiaries, possible sources of
funds, etc.
Alt. 2:
Alt. 3: 99

Presentation of WS Output
•  Time allotted: 3-5 minutes per group (or
selected groups)
100
evaluate policy
alternatives
Choosing best policy solutions
Tool: Weighing policy solutions or
alternatives
•  Caveat: This exercise requires forecasting
based on trends (statistics) and other analyses
•  Step 1: Identify all possible criteria for
evaluation of solutions
•  Step 2: Agree on and prioritize the criteria to
be used
•  Step 3: Use tools in prioritization or evaluation
(refer to tools)
102
Forecasting policy outcomes
•  Theoretical assumptions (theories, models)
•  Trend extrapolation (regression)
–  (alternatively, use best practices results)
•  Informed judgment
103
Informed judgment
•  Reliance on experts’ opinion or insight (e.g.,
Delphi technique)
•  Principles of policy Delphi
–  Anonymity
–  Informed multiple advocacy
–  Structured feedback
–  Statistical response
–  Expert consensus
104
Delphi Technique
KEY STEPS:
•  Identify issues to address
•  Select panelists/experts representing various positions
•  Design a survey questionnaire
•  Analyze first-round results
•  Develop subsequent questionnaires
–  Including items on ranking issues, forecasting, policy
options
•  Organize face-to-face discussion
•  Prepare final report
105
Tool (for LegisTeam context):
Sanggunian Delphi Technique

•  (Not anonymous)
•  (Assumption: Members are “experts” & diverse)
•  (Focus: policy evaluation)

(Step 0: You have collectively examined problems and identified
solutions)

Step 1: In policy evaluation, upon adoption of a scoring system, you
may individually assess policy solutions per criterion using appropriate
tools

Step 2: Reach consensus, (may also explain individual assessment) or
get average score for each criterion (structured response, statistical
response)
106
HOW TO assess alternatives
•  No single approach
–  Requires good research, thorough assessment and sound
judgment
–  Depending on the alternatives/solutions identified
–  But there are some guidelines:
•  STEP 1: Provide simple description or attributes of

the proposed policy solution
–  E.g., type of policy, target users/beneficiaries, etc.
–  (May use data from MPDO or PDMS)
107
HOW TO assess alternatives
•  STEP 2: Agree on decision criteria to use
–  Define and weigh each criterion (equal or not?)
–  E.g., if budget constraints are severe, project/program cost
will be a critical factor (have more weight)
–  (Or key criteria have already influenced the ID of solutions)
108
Common criteria used when assessing
policy solutions
•  Effectiveness
•  Efficiency
•  Equity
•  Viability (or benefit-cost ratio)
•  Compatibility (government standards)
•  Political acceptability
•  Risk and uncertainty
•  Others?
109
References
•  Babbie, E. (2004). The practice of social research (10th ed). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth Publications.
•  Birkland, T. (2015). An introduction to the policy process (3rd ed). New
York: Routledge.
•  Dunn, W. (2016). Public policy analysis (5th ed). New York: Routledge.
•  Dye, T. (2002). Understanding public policy (10th ed). Upper Saddle River,
N.J.: Prentice Hall.
•  Kumar, R.(2011). Research methodology. London: Sage Publications.
•  http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/x5405e/x5405e07.htm
•  http://www.skymark.com/resources/tools/cause.asp
•  http://archived.naccho.org/topics/infrastructure/CHAIP/upload/Final-
Issue-Prioritization-Resource-Sheet.pdf
•  http://www.toolkitsportdevelopment.org/html/resources/
91/910EE48E-350A-47FB-953B-374221B375CE/
03%20Problem%20tree%20analysis.pdf
References
•  Committee on Assessing and Valuing the Services of Aquatic and Related
Terrestrial Ecosystems. (2005). Valuing Economic Services: toward better
environmental decision-making. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
Available at https://www.nap.edu/read/11139/chapter/1
•  Sartori, D., Catalano, G., Genco, M., Pancotti, C. Sirtori E., Vignetti, S., & Del
Bo, C. (2015). Guide to cost-benefit analysis of investment projects: Economic
appraisal tool for Cohesion Policy 2014-2020. Brussels: European Union.
Available at
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/studies/pdf/
cba_guide.pdf
•  Morse, K. & Struyk, R. (2006). Policy analysis for effective development:
Strengthening transition economies. New Delhi: TERI Press
•  Pascual, U. & Muradian, R. (2010). The economics of valuing ecosystem
services and biodiversity. TEEB. Available at
http://doc.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/D0-Chapter-5-The-
economics-of-valuing-ecosystem-services-and-biodiversity.pdf
Thank you for your participation!
michaeltumanut@gmail.com

Intro To Policy Alternatives PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Intro To Policy Alternatives PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Introduction to

Source: Dunn, 2016

Problem POLICY Problem

Rampant illegal drug use

____________ ____________ ___________

____________ ____________ ___________

Poor maintenance 100% improvement

• First, problem we are trying to solve must be

Nonmonetary Prohibit Inform

Source: Patton & Sawicki, 1993, p.10 82

Nonmonetary Prohibit Inform

Source: Patton & Sawicki, 1993, p.10 83

E.g., Use public

Nonmonetary Prohibit Inform

Source: Patton & Sawicki, 1993, p.10 84

Nonmonetary Prohibit Inform

Source: Patton & Sawicki, 1993, p.10 85

e.g., Prohibit Inform

Nonmonetary Prohibit Inform

Source: Patton & Sawicki, 1993, p.10 87

Nonmonetary Prohibit Inform

Source: Patton & Sawicki, 1993, p.10 88

Nonmonetary Prohibit Inform

Source: Patton & Sawicki, 1993, p.10 89

Prohibit E.g., Inform small

E.g., Use E.g., Tax

High (25%) local Reduce local (Strengthen local industries - MSMEs)

Poor maintenance 100% improvement To appoint focal person/committee

COMPATIBILITY VIABILITY (COST-BENEFIT

Alt. 1: Increase number of

• STEP 1: Provide simple description or attributes of

Potrebbero piacerti anche

__ _

__ _

•  First, problem we are trying to solve must be

•  STEP 1: Provide simple description or attributes of