The problem in San Francisco’s North Beach is that there is shortage in parking space and the residents can no longer enjoy the privilege of residential parking. There is a requirement that residents must pay in order to park, and spend lots of time driving around the block in search for parking space. Attempts to solve this problem appear to have failed and there is need to intervene. This situation is a problem as it causes interference with the comfort of residents and makes the North Beach crowded and leads to difficulty in obtaining parking space by residents.

Classification analysis uses logical division and logical classification. In this case, there is substantive relevance of the problem in that there is shortage of parking space and increase in the car registration to the North Beach address by individuals from outlying districts, and that previous interventions have failed to solve the problem. The exhaustiveness of the problem is that all aspects of the problem its causes and its aggravating factors emerge clearly from the paragraph that describes it. The disjointness of the problem is that the residents now have to pay for parking in their own neighborhood; they have to spend lots of time driving round the block for packing space and those individuals from outlying districts have car registration to the North Beach Address leading to the aggravation of the existent problem. The consistency of the problem is evident from the fact that reports from a newspaper indicate previous attempts at solving the problem. The hierarchical distinctiveness of this problem is evident as portrayed in the statement.

Hierarchy analysis enables the identification of possible, plausible and actionable causes. In this case, the possible causes of the problem include daytime parking by commuters and registration of cars from outlying districts using the North Beach address. These causes are plausible causes as well since they are reasonable. These causes are also actionable as they are a point of intervention. Synetics use various analogies to structure the problem. These include personal analogies, direct analogies, symbolic analogies and fantasy analogies. This involves comparison of the problem with something else in order to state it clearly (Dunn & W, 2007). The problem uses the direct analogy to compare the resident before and after the creation of an intervention, as being $10 poorer.

The two key differences between the process of group interviewing and content analysis include the fact that content analysis only enables objective evaluation as compared to group interviews, which allow the incorporation of both the subjective and objective aspects of data collection. In addition, group interviewing enables return of feedback to the respondents during the group interview and therefore enables complete collection of data. The group interviewing method is, in my opinion, superior to content analysis as a data collection method.


Dunn, W. N. (2007). Public policy analysis: An introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.