Ostrom thought of the IAD as a "multi-level conceptual map" with which one could zoom in and out of particular hierarchical parts of the regularised interactions in an established social system. The IAD framework helps to perceive complex socialcollective phenomenonaction problems by dividing them into 'action arenas', that are smaller pieces of practically understandable function.<ref name="indiana" /> The analyst assumes that the structure of the action situation is fixed in the short-term. For an action situation to exist, there must be "actors in positions" (the number of possible roles that are available in this recurring interaction situation)<ref name="Understanding Institutional Diversity">{{cite book|url=http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8085.pdf|title=Understanding Institutional Diversity|author=Elinor Ostrom|date=2009|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=9781400831739|___location=Princeton|accessdate=30 January 2015}}</ref>. Actors have choices within the existing (rule) structure. In the study of outcomes from collective choice situations, actors are influenced by the institutional arrangements, the socio-economic conditions, and the physical environment<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Krister Andersson|title=Understanding decentralized forest governance: an application of the institutional analysis and development framework|url=http://sspp.proquest.com/archives/vol2iss1/0507-010.andersson.html|journal=Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy|accessdate=2 February 2015}}</ref>. The institutional arrangements can be studied by seven rule types (as per below).<ref name="Understanding Institutional Diversity" />
