Addressing Wicked Problems in Public Policy: The Potential of Boundary Organizations in Fostering Policy Coordination, Coherence, and Knowledge Governance

The paper addresses how governments can better govern wicked problems—nonlinear, multidimensional, and often ill-defined challenges such as climate change and migration—in a VUCA (volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity) context. It highlights that fragmentation and specialization in public administrations, intensified by New Public Management (NPM), hinder coherent policymaking. The study focuses on two complementary streams: Policy Coordination and Coherence (PCC), concerning institutional arrangements and integrated decision-making across horizontal and vertical levels; and Knowledge Governance (KG), addressing the production, sharing, and use of actionable knowledge through co-creation and multi-actor processes. The authors pose the question: Are PlanAPP and RePLAN deploying strategies to improve policymaking addressing wicked problems? They propose three interlinked ingredients for improved policymaking: internal cross-sectoral networking, external networking and participation, and knowledge sharing.

The literature on PCC emphasizes integrated and coherent decision-making to reduce redundancies, gaps, and contradictions, enhancing public service performance and citizen trust. Coordination operates horizontally (across units) and vertically (across municipal, regional, national, and international levels), requiring engagement across the policy cycle and with citizens. Line ministries hold domain-specific data but often lack cross-cutting analytical capacity, necessitating input from external epistemic communities (universities, think tanks, consultants). Evidence-informed policy benefits from structured use of data and knowledge throughout the policy process to distinguish values/power from facts and avoid costly errors. The KG literature argues for iterative, co-creative processes that connect diverse knowledge systems, moving beyond transactional knowledge management to institutional arrangements that enable inclusive decision-making and production of robust, usable, and accountable knowledge. Approaches range from linear (information produced for specific questions) to dynamic (interactive co-production among experts and decision-makers), with interaction legitimacy and shared knowledge increasing policy impact. Skills for co-creation and appropriate organizational modes are essential. Knowledge sharing as a commons can re-politicize wicked issues, expanding democratic debate and addressing legitimacy risks of de-politicization. Participation must be meaningful and attentive to power dynamics, avoiding hegemonic knowledge legitimation. Boundary organizations (BOs) sit at the interface of science and policy with accountability to both, facilitating participation across boundaries and producing boundary objects recognized as legitimate. BOs enhance salience, legitimacy, and credibility by managing multi-actor interactions, fostering transdisciplinarity, trust, and the consideration of evidence across the policy cycle. Their functions include producing boundary objects (e.g., models, briefs, reports), knowledge brokerage (aligning evidence supply with policy demand), and boundary management (mediating trade-offs and facilitating collaboration).

The study constructs an analytical framework combining two dimensions: (1) Boundary Organization (BO) activities—boundary object production, knowledge brokerage, and boundary management; and (2) PCC and KG characteristics—internal cross-sectoral networking, external networking and participation, and knowledge sharing. Using content analysis, the authors examine documentary sources related to PlanAPP and RePLAN: PlanAPP’s project database (“Mapa de Projetos”), PlanAPP’s official website, the Activities Programme 2023, and Decree-Law 21/2021 establishing PlanAPP. The analysis identifies (a) projects that potentially cross institutional and sectoral borders, their outputs, and partnerships; and (b) activities that promote PCC and KG. PlanAPP’s 19 projects were classified into three BO activity groups to assess the extent to which PlanAPP and RePLAN embody the characteristics essential for addressing complex challenges.

- PlanAPP engages in all three boundary organization activities across its portfolio of 19 projects. • Boundary object production: Projects design tools and prototypes to address specific policy problems by mobilizing external expertise, including an economic impact analysis tool at regional scale; a prototype for Artificial Intelligence for better regulation; and a prototype for Statistical Information Standardisation for Better Regulation. • Boundary management: Multiple teams facilitate multi-actor collaboration—Partnerships and Innovation (PI), Monitoring Unit (MU), Lab2050, and the Planning and Foresight Team (PFT). Examples include: “Science and Policy: How to build bridges?” workshops to foster a science-for-policy culture; “Roundtable Sessions” testing participatory methodologies and improving communication and knowledge sharing between researchers and policymakers; “Soil and Water 2030” engaging researchers, policymakers, and civil society to produce two policy briefs (on 2027 water governance objectives and 2030 soil climate adaptation/mitigation targets); Portugal’s SDG Monitoring Scheme with collaboration across public administration and civil society; a Living Lab to co-construct a roadmap for participation of people living in poverty in monitoring Portugal’s Poverty Strategy; and participation in the EU project “Open Strategic Autonomy,” including citizen engagement. • Knowledge brokerage: Projects respond to specific policymaker requests (e.g., modeling and evaluation studies), including a pilot study on implementing a 4-day work week in Public Administration. - PCC and KG potential (synthesized from Table 2 and document analysis): • Internal networking: RePLAN comprises representatives from public administration entities under different ministries, supporting cross-sectoral coordination. • External networking: PlanAPP coordinates cross-cutting strategic national documents (e.g., National Reform Plan, Major Planning Options), enhancing inter-organizational engagement. • Knowledge sharing: Partnerships with academia and national science system entities; citizen engagement mechanisms (e.g., Lab2050); multidisciplinary teams within PlanAPP; and multisectoral teams within RePLAN. - Capacity building and knowledge infrastructure: PlanAPP planned production of manuals, support tools, and implementation guides for the policy cycle; policy literacy content via interviews and podcasts. PlanAPP and RePLAN will survey training needs in planning, foresight, monitoring, and evaluation to establish a “Skills Incubator for Public Policy,” developing specialized training, a sector studies agenda, and a repository of scientific evidence to support policymaking. - Overall assessment: PlanAPP’s institutional setting and activities align with BO characteristics and contribute to PCC and KG, positioning it to support governance of wicked problems. However, there is room to intensify participatory production of boundary objects and expand citizen involvement in boundary activities.

The findings indicate that PlanAPP, linked to RePLAN, functions as a boundary organization within public administration, bridging science-policy-citizen interfaces. This arrangement counters fragmentation from NPM by fostering integrated, cross-sectoral coordination (PCC) and embedding knowledge processes that emphasize co-creation and usability (KG). By producing boundary objects, mediating among stakeholders, and brokering knowledge aligned with policy needs, PlanAPP enhances salience, legitimacy, and credibility of evidence in policymaking. The alignment with internal networking (via RePLAN), external networking (coordination of cross-cutting national strategies), and knowledge sharing (partnerships, citizen engagement, multidisciplinary teams) suggests the potential to improve coherence and reduce contradictions in public policy. To fully realize this potential, strengthening participatory approaches—particularly meaningful citizen involvement—can bolster trust, policy legitimacy, and democratic robustness, while balancing the role of scientific advisers. Expanding boundary management where actors jointly deliberate trade-offs and co-produce shared outputs may further embed learning and adaptability in complex, uncertain contexts. Multisectoral teams can serve as “engagement hubs” and “creative hubs,” integrating policymakers, researchers, and civil society for sustained knowledge exchange and co-creation across the policy cycle.

The study contributes an integrated framework combining PCC and KG to evaluate a public administration competence center (PlanAPP) and its network (RePLAN) as instruments for governing wicked problems. Evidence from document analysis shows that PlanAPP already performs key boundary organization activities—boundary object production, knowledge brokerage, and boundary management—while RePLAN strengthens internal networking across ministries. Together they support external networking and knowledge sharing through partnerships, citizen engagement initiatives, and multidisciplinary teams. These arrangements can underpin more coherent, evidence-informed policy in complex, crisis-driven times. Future work should intensify participatory methods for boundary object production, deepen citizen involvement in boundary activities, and leverage multisectoral teams as engagement and creative hubs. Continued capacity building via the Skills Incubator and development of repositories of scientific evidence can further institutionalize knowledge governance. Monitoring and evaluating the impacts of these initiatives on policy coherence, legitimacy, and outcomes will be important directions for research and practice.