Problem structuring methods for large group interventions

Problem structuring methods (PSMs) aim to build shared understanding in a group of decision makers. This shared understanding is used as a basis for them to negotiate an agreed action plan that they are prepared to help implement. Engaging in a social process of negotiation with a large number of people is difficult, and so PSMs have typically focused on small groups of less than 20. This paper explores the legitimacy of deploying PSMs in large groups of people (50–1000), where the aim is to negotiate action and build commitment to its implementation. We review the difficulties of facilitating large groups with PSMs, drawing heavily on our experience of working with over 25 large groups. We offer a range of lessons learned and suggest concrete approaches to facilitating large groups to achieve the objectives of PSMs. This paper contributes to the evaluation and development of PSMs.     

Quantitative problem structuring methods for multi-actor problems: an analysis of reported applications

Problem structuring methods (PSMs) are proposed as vital tools for coping with complex and unstructured problems that help decision-makers make decisions or come to a shared understanding of a problem situation. Despite their popularity, choosing a PSM for an unstructured problem situation is problematic as good categorization and evaluation of PSMs is lacking. As a first step we postulate a categorization of quantitative PSMs applied to multi-actor situations. We list the different application areas, the types of design that were used, and the type of outcomes the methods provide. To understand why and how certain PSMs are applied, we categorize applications of metagames/conflict analysis, hypergames, drama theory, Q-methodology, and transactional analysis. We find that method choice and validation of the applications are yet underdeveloped for this specific sub-field, and suggest further work on this as it will help to understand the added value of PSMs.     

Assessing the impact of problem structuring methods in multi-organizational settings: an empirical investigation

Problem structuring methods (PSMs) have most commonly been employed with groups operating within single-organizational contexts. This paper argues that PSMs are by their nature also appropriate for supporting the work of multi-organizational groups (MOGs) operating within a partnership context. An experience of the use of a PSM in this context is reported and evaluated. The research findings suggest that there is indeed scope for the use of PSMs with MOGs, and that these methods do appear to have a positive role in achieving some of the products claimed for PSM interventions. In particular, the experience as a whole tends to demonstrate that mutual accommodations between the organizations represented in the MOG can be the result of the use of PSMs. The paper concludes with a discussion of the significance of the experience, and proposes some directions for further research.     

Exploring new directions for research in problem structuring methods: on the role of cognitive style

Prior research has argued that cognitive style can have a significant impact on group decision making. In addition, several scholars have proposed that cognitive style can play a key role in the design and use of group decision support systems. However, cognitive style has not received a great deal of attention in the problem structuring methods (PSMs) community. This is surprising, given that PSMs are specifically developed to support a group in their decision making. The purpose of this paper is thus to examine the significance of cognitive style within PSMs. The paper identifies and explores the role of four different cognitive style functions in problem structuring interventions. This analysis is carried out by focusing on the different tasks embedded within a group process supported by PSMs. Implications for the research and practice of PSMs are then discussed.     

Forms of conversation and problem structuring methods: a conceptual development

Problem structuring methods (PSMs) are a family of participatory and interactive methods whose purpose is to assist groups of diverse composition tackle a complex problematic situation of common interest. This is achieved through modelling and facilitation, with a view to generating consensus on problem structure, and agreement on initial commitments. Despite the apparent success of PSMs reported in the literature, little progress has been made towards the development of theoretical models that integrate these experiences and guide PSM practitioners and academics in developing and implementing effective PSM interventions. In particular, no theoretical models have been presented concerning how conversational processes within a group are affected by PSMs. This paper develops a theoretical model of conversation intended to provide a means to identify a specific role for the analytical assistance provided through PSMs, and for evaluating their effectiveness. The hypothesis articulated from this model is that PSMs have the potential to improve the quality of the conversation in which actors participate. PSMs generate this effect through facilitating the structuring and sense-making activities embedded within a conversation. Improvement in the quality of conversation should tend to help actors engage in dialogue as a particular form of conversation, achieve shared understanding, and increase the actors’ ownership of the commitments achieved during the conversation. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the model for research and practice.     

On becoming expert in the use of problem structuring methods

While much has been written about the theory and practice of using problem structuring methods (PSMs) there is little formal discussion of how individuals may effectively learn about their use. In this paper it is argued that a foundation for designing and providing a suitable learning environment lies in understanding the nature of being an expert user of PSMs and the knowledge that such experts hold and deploy. An analysis of how knowledge and expertise are grounded in the work involved in using PSMs is offered. This leads to some proposals for what is required if processes to support the acquisition of expertise in the use of PSMs are to be implemented.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Quid pro quo</Emphasis>: Reflections on the value of problem structuring group workshops

Attracting clients who are willing to invest in using a problem structuring method (PSM) can be particularly difficult for the emerging generation of modellers. There are many reasons for this, not least that the benefits of a problem structuring intervention are vague and evidence of benefits are often anecdotal for example, claims of constructing a deeper understanding of the problem or building the commitment of a group to implementing an outcome. This paper contributes to the evaluation of problem structuring methods by reflecting on the quid pro quo that a client and problem structuring modeller can enjoy from collaboration. The paper reflects on 21 cases, where Journey Making (a problem structuring method) was used with 16 organizations to help managers agree a suite of actions to tackle a complex strategic issue. The reflections are clustered around those benefits that pertain to: PSMs in general; PSMs that use computer-supported workshops; the Journey Making methodology.     

Past,present and future of problem structuring methods

To be able to exploit the future opportunities for Operational Research (OR), we need to prepare for them now. To conceptualize alternative futures for OR, we need to understand the potentialities of the present. To understand the present, we need to have a grasp of the past history that gave us the OR that we have, rather than some other analytic practice. OR was thrown up by a situation where traditional management methods were proving inadequate to handle the growing complexity of organizational arrangements. Problem structuring methods (PSMs) in turn were generated out of a sense that the trajectory of OR had led it away from important areas of social decision-making. PSMs have made great strides but are still encountering barriers to acceptance. This paper will explore the factors that presently constrain PSMs, and what developments could take them into new fields.     

Problem structuring in project management: an application of soft systems methodology (SSM)

Recent research suggests a major role for problem structuring methods (PSMs) in the field of project management, particularly at the front-end of projects, where objectives are often unclear and where different constituencies have conflicting aims. This paper presents a case example of soft systems methodology (SSM) at the front-end of a major project within Tesco Stores Ltd. A detailed account of the intervention is given, including the results achieved and a discussion of how the methodology was used for multiple purposes within the same intervention. Within the literature, there remains a lack of detailed examples from which people can learn more about the use of PSMs in project management. By providing a detailed example of SSM in action, this paper seeks to highlight the importance of problem structuring at the front-end of projects and the potential role an approach such as SSM can play at this crucial stage.     

Beyond problem structuring methods: reinventing the future of OR/MS

Some of the most influential pioneers of OR felt disappointed by the way it developed in the 1960s and 1970s. In their view, the original intention to create a holistic, interdisciplinary science addressed to strategic problems was betrayed. Problem structuring methods (PSMs) have made a significant contribution to taking OR/MS forward again in the direction charted by those pioneers. From a theoretical perspective, however, it is clear that the opportunities provided by PSMs tend to be limited to those drawn from the interpretive paradigm. That is only one way of adding to the positivist/quantitative approach of classical OR/MS. This paper suggests that OR has an obligation to explore a wider range of theoretical options and to convert the possibilities offered by all of these into a form that managers and management scientists can use. Only in this way can OR be reinvented to live up to the ambitions of its founders.     

The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition

When we use a PSM what is it we are actually doing? An answer to this question would enable the PSM community to considerably enlarge the available source of case studies by the inclusion of examples of non-codified PSM use. We start from Checkland’s own proposal for a “constitutive definition” of SSM, which originated from trying to answer the question of knowing when a claim of SSM use was legitimate. By extending this idea to a generic constitutive definition for all PSMs leads us to propose a self-consistent labelling schema for observed phenomena arising from PSMs in action. This consists of a set of testable propositions, which, through observation of putative PSM use, can be used to assess validity of claims of PSM use. Such evidential support for the propositions as may be found in putative PSM use can then make it back into a broader axiomatic formulation of PSMs through the use of a set-theoretic approach, which enables our method to scale to large data sets. The theoretical underpinning to our work is in causal realism and middle range theory. We illustrate our approach through the analysis of three case studies drawn from engineering organisations, a rich source of possible non-codified PSM use. The combination of a method for judging cases of non-codified PSM use, sound theoretical underpinning, and scalability to large data sets, we believe leads to a demystification of PSMs and should encourage their wider use.     

Towards understanding problem structuring and groups with triple task methodology ‘<Emphasis Type="Italic">e</Emphasis>’

The many issues which confront Problem Structuring Groups (PSGs) engaging in applying problem structuring methods (PSMs) are well reported in the literature. Often group problem structuring work is well organised around an array of processes and methods which has received wide-ranging testing in the field however, the assessment of the group in terms of its output, group dynamic and self-assessment tends to be handled piecemeal at best. Triple task methodology (TTM) has been described as a means to manage the three group assessments—group output, dynamic and self-assessment in one frame. In this paper an experimental version of TTM (TTMe) is described in use in an Education project setting in Abu Dhabi. It was intended to make TTM less cumbersome and time consuming and, at the same time, more systemically integrated, a significant objective being to make it easier to use by practitioners who have not used it before or who have only small prior use of group assessment methods. The paper describes the application of TTMe, provides an overall assessment of the value of the exercise, discusses the outputs of the group work and points to the value of TTMe in identifying and clarifying unique group qualities or signatures. The major contribution of the paper is to bring to PSG processes a degree of rapid, non-specialist, empirically comparable assessment on the richness of the group use of PSMs.     

Problem structuring methods: theorizing the benefits of deconstructing sustainable development projects

Problem structuring methods or PSMs are widely applied across a range of variable but generally small-scale organizational contexts. However, it has been argued that they are seen and experienced less often in areas of wide ranging and highly complex human activity—specifically those relating to sustainability, environment, democracy and conflict (or SEDC). In an attempt to plan, track and influence human activity in SEDC contexts, the authors in this paper make the theoretical case for a PSM, derived from various existing approaches. They show how it could make a contribution in a specific practical context—within sustainable coastal development projects around the Mediterranean which have utilized systemic and prospective sustainability analysis or, as it is now known, Imagine. The latter is itself a PSM but one which is ‘bounded’ within the limits of the project to help deliver the required ‘deliverables’ set out in the project blueprint. The authors argue that sustainable development projects would benefit from a deconstruction of process by those engaged in the project and suggest one approach that could be taken—a breakout from a project-bounded PSM to an analysis that embraces the project itself. The paper begins with an introduction to the sustainable development context and literature and then goes on to illustrate the issues by grounding the debate within a set of projects facilitated by Blue Plan for Mediterranean coastal zones. The paper goes on to show how the analytical framework could be applied and what insights might be generated.     

Problem structuring without workshops? Experiences with distributed interaction within a PSM process

Problem structuring methods (PSMs) have been widely and successfully used in many organizations, but the reliance on face-to-face meetings and workshops makes a typical PSM project difficult and time-consuming to organize, and means that the process may only involve a narrow cross-section of the organization. Yet much interaction in organizations is neither face-to-face nor even synchronous. This research seeks to (1) explore how the issues that arise in moderating such distributed interaction differ from the issues involved in facilitating a workshop and (2) identify the circumstances under which it makes sense to consider using the distributed mode of interaction within a PSM process. Three pairs of action research case studies using a distributed variant on the strategic options development and analysis (SODA) process are described, together with our answers to the above questions.     

A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science

The systems approach, or systems thinking, has been intimately connected with the development of OR and management science initially through the work of founders such as Churchman and Ackoff and latterly through innovations such as soft systems. In this paper we have undertaken a review of the contribution that systems thinking has been making more recently, especially to the practice of OR. Systems thinking is a discipline in its own right, with many theoretical and methodological developments, but it is also applicable to almost any problem area because of its generality, and so such a review must always be selective. We have looked at the literature from both a theoretical and an applications orientation. In the first part we consider the main systems theories and methodologies in terms of their recent developments and also their applications. This covers: the systems approach, complexity theory, cybernetics, system dynamics, soft OR and PSMs, critical systems and multimethodology. In the second part we review the main domains of application: strategy, information systems, organisations, production and operations, ecology and agriculture, and medicine and health. Our overall conclusion is that while systems may not be well established institutionally, in terms of academic departments, it is incredibly healthy in terms of the quantity and variety of its applications.     

基于级差最大化组合赋权TOPSIS灰关联投影法的区域碳效率动态评价

针对传统碳效率评价多为单一经济产出的静态评价的不足,从经济、福利及人口等角度构建碳效率综合评价指标体系;通过把TOPSIS、灰色关联理论和矢量投影法引入到碳效率评价中,在传统加法合成和乘法合成组合赋权的基础上利用级差最大化法对评价指标赋权;并进一步引入时间变量对时间序列赋权,利用时序算术平均算子对前后两次加权进行集成,提出一种基于级差最大化组合赋权的TOPSIS灰关联投影动态评价模型。以泛长三角区域为例进行实证研究显示:该区域碳效率水平存在明显差异,产业发展不均衡。研究认为,应充分挖掘该区域的战略优势和发展潜力,协同发展,实现低碳经济。     

A problem structuring method for ecosystem-based management: The DPSIR modelling process

The purpose of this paper is to learn from Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) theory to inform the development of Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs) both in general and in the specific context of marine management. The focus on marine management is important because it is concerned with a CAS (formed through the interconnection between natural systems, designed systems and social systems) which exemplifies their particularly ‘wicked’ nature. Recognition of this compels us to take seriously the need to develop tools for knowledge elicitation and structuring which meet the demands of CAS. In marine management, chief among those tools is the DPSIR (Drivers – Pressures – State Changes – Impacts – Responses) model and, although widely applied, the extent to which it is appropriate for dealing with the demands of a CAS is questionable. Such questioning is particularly pertinent in the context of the marine environment where there is a need to not only recognise a broad range of stakeholders (a question of boundary critique) but also to manage competing knowledge (economic, local and scientific) and value claims. Hence this paper emphasises how a CAS perspective might add impetus to the development of a critical perspective on DPSIR and PSM theory and practice to promote a more systemic view of decision-making and policy development.     

基于云模型和证据推理的生态环境安全评价

文章提出了一种生态环境安全综合评价模型。首先构建生态环境安全评价指标体系并划分等级区间, 通过云模型将各指标实际值转化为生态环境安全等级的关联度; 其次结合证据推理与熵权法动静态组合确定指标权重; 然后利用证据推理计算出各指标基本可信度分配函数, 再采用证据融合算法合成出生态环境安全综合评估概率分布; 最后根据“最大关联度准则”得出评价结果。以湖南省为例开展实例研究, 研究结果与模糊综合评价法评估等级结果一致, 验证了所提出方法具有合理性、可行性和有效性。     

基于传递性的效率评价及改进

现有交叉效率矩阵中往往会存在一些同行效率评价远低于自我效率评价的情形,即出现同行间的恶意评价。本文将第三方作为间接元素,考虑到这些间接元素在效率评价矩阵中具有传递性,引入间接判断结果对原有的交叉效率矩阵进行反复迭代,并证明迭代过程的最终稳定性。迭代的最终结果可以消除效率矩阵中的恶意评价元素,得到新的效率评价矩阵。最后,通过算例来说明模型的可行性和实用性。     

基于并列排名的组合评价方法及其鲁棒性分析

本文提出一种允许并列排名的组合评价方法,利用多种单一评价方法对方案进行排序,提取多个排序结果中的一致优劣关系作为约束条件,并以原始决策矩阵为自变量构造效用函数,通过目标规划求解各方案的综合效用值,以综合效用值的大小确定各方案的排名,综合效用值相同的方案被认为没有差别,排名并列。定义Weak-Kendall系数描述评价方法的鲁棒性,从数据的随机扰动和方案数量的变化两个角度设计仿真实验,引入实例,并与离差最大化法、均值法、模糊Borda法等组合评价方法进行比较,结果表明并列排名组合评价方法在这以上两方面具有更强的鲁棒性。最后,通过研究单一评价方法的选择对并列排名法的影响,探讨方法的改进方向。