<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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Problem-structuring methods and project management: an example of stakeholder involvement using Hierarchical Process Modelling methodology

Project Management has gained in importance over the last few decades and it isincreasingly common in many types of organisations. Today there is a concernover the relevance of the more conventional project management approaches toproblems that are increasingly complex and constrained and involve large numbersof interested parties or stakeholders. This paper examines the relevance ofproblem-structuring methods to project management, focusing on the front-end ofmanaging complex projects and discusses stakeholder involvement usingHierarchical Process Modelling methodology.     

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.     

Decision-making on prioritization of projects in higher education institutions using the analytic network process approach

The prioritization of projects in higher education institutions is a complex decision-making problem. In this paper we deal with two scenarios within Higher Education Institutions. The first scenario is a need to prepare an action plan for activities that will result in the implementation of a portfolio of projects at the institutional level. The second scenario is making a decision on whether to start a new project application, and if so, which project to choose in a situation where project teams have several project ideas and limited resources. The purpose of the paper is to show how to include corporate strategy in the decision-making process and use the Analytic Network Process as a multiple criteria decision-making methodology which can be used in solving project selection problems.     

Messing about in transformations: Structured systemic planning for systemic solutions to systemic problems

The literature on multimethodology indicates that cognitive mapping is relevant to enriching the preliminary, information-gathering phase of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), and especially the rich picture. By noting the structural complementarity evidenced between SSM’s transformations and the bipolar constructs used in the cognitive mapping methodology known as Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA), this paper shows how SODA can be applied beyond SSM’s initial stage, and much more analytically within the heart of SSM, to guide the manner in which a systemic resolution to a problematic situation may be approached. It is proposed, and illustrated through examples, that a SODA map of large numbers of transformations, resulting from an exercise in SSM, offers a methodological means for structuring what might otherwise be perceived as a mess. The paper discusses how in such cases ‘strategic options development and analysis’ of transformations, or SODA-T maps, serve, among other things, to identify relations between transformations, their hierarchies and priorities, problem epicenters and starting points for intervention. In addition, the arsenal of graph theory can be used to cut through what would otherwise appear as interlinked chaos requiring structured operationalization. In this respect, the SODA-T map offers a high-level connective orientation which can guide the interconnections between the respective human activity systems of the transformations, resulting in the final systemic plan. Ultimately, SODA-T mapping is shown to facilitate a structured approach toward systemic planning.     

An application of Soft Systems Dynamics Methodology (SSDM)

The paper argues that by combining some of systems dynamics (SD) and soft systems methodology (SSM) stages, within the intellectual framework proposed by soft systems dynamics methodology (SSDM), a systemic methodology developed by Rodriguez-Ulloa, much can be gained in a systemic intervention when tackling complex social problematic situations. A framework for comparing the ontological, epistemological and methodological principles of SD, SSM and SSDM is proposed and the synthesizing role of SSDM is advanced. SSDM ten stages are briefly outlined and a full account of an application on a small Peruvian enterprise is presented. A reflection on SSDM as a systemic intellectual tool is proposed and conclusions together with points for further research are suggested.     

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.     

Process and content: two ways of using SSM

Soft systems methodology (SSM) includes several ways of gaining a rich appreciation of the problem situation addressed. ‘Analysis One’, exploration of the intervention itself, is the subject here, since it is sparsely covered in the literature. The analysis is conducted in terms of three roles: ‘client’, ‘problem solver’ and ‘problem owner’. Whoever is in the role of ‘problem solver’ is free to define a list of possible ‘problem owners’, which brings many perspectives to bear on the situation. It was realized that ‘client’ and ‘problem solver’ should themselves feature in the ‘problem owner’ list. The ‘problem’ owned by the ‘problem solver’ is that of undertaking the intervention. This led to a realization that SSM is relevant to both the content of a perceived situation (SSMc) and the process of dealing with that content (SSMp). This development is described and illustrated by work in the National Health Service. The focus of the SSM use was to define the intellectual process for a service specification project which NHS professionals would themselves carry out.     

Using SSM to rethink the analysis of energy efficiency initiatives

This paper reflects an attempt to rethink the process of analysis of energy efficiency initiatives using soft systems methodology (SSM) as a problem structuring tool. The aim of the work is to provide public and private initiative promoters or evaluators with a structured support for a more informed decision regarding the implementation of energy efficiency measures. The SSM approach contributed with the identification of all market players and their relations, as well as the insight into the deficiencies of current methodologies. Some future work directions are also proposed.     

SSM and technology management: Developing multimethodology through practice

Growing competition and economic recession is driving the need for more rapid redesign of operations enabled by innovative technologies. The acquisition, development and implementation of systems to manage customer complaints and control the quality assurance process is a critical area for engineering and manufacturing companies. Multimethodologies, and especially those that can bridge ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ OR practices, have been seen as a possible means to facilitate rapid problem structuring, the analysis of alternative process design and then the specification through to implementation of systems solutions. Despite the many ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ OR problem structuring and management methods available, there are relatively few detailed empirical research studies of how they can be combined and conducted in practice. This study examines how a multimethodology was developed, and used successfully, in an engineering company to address customer complaints/concerns, both strategically and operationally. The action research study examined and utilised emerging ‘soft’ OR theory to iteratively develop a new framework that encompasses problem structuring through to technology selection and adoption. This was based on combining Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) for problem exploration and structuring, learning theories and methods for problem diagnosis, and technology management for selecting between alternatives and implementing the solution. The results show that, through the use of action research and the development of a contextualised multimethodology, stakeholders within organisations can participate in the design of new systems and more rapidly adopt technology to address the operational problems of customer complaints in more systemic, innovative and informed ways.     

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.     

Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring

Problem-structuring techniques are an integral aspect of ‘Soft-OR’. SSM, SAST, Strategic Choice, and JOURNEY Making, all depend for their success on a group developing a shared view of a problem through some form of explicit modelling. The negotiated problem structure becomes the basis for problem resolution. Implicit to this process is an assumption that members of the group share and build their knowledge about the problem domain. This paper explores the extent to which this assumption is reasonable. The research is based on detailed records from the use of JOURNEY Making, where it has used special purpose Group Support software to aid the group problem structuring. This software continuously tracks the contributions of each member of the group and thus the extent to which they appear to be ‘connecting’ and augmenting their own knowledge with that of other members of the group. Software records of problem resolution in real organisational settings are used to explore the sharing of knowledge among senior managers. These explorations suggest a typology of knowledge sharing. The implications of this typology for problem structuring and an agenda for future research are considered.     

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.     

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.     

R&amp;D Project Selection in a Multidimensional Environment: A Practical Approach

This paper investigates the R&D project selection problem within government departments. The Department of National Defence is taken as a case in point. The multidimensional character of the problem is detailed, and existing methods for priority allocation are briefly surveyed. Two basic models for selecting projects are described. One of these, the ordinal intersection method, was found to be the most appropriate for the actual problem settings investigated. An illustrative example is given, and concluding remarks are made.     

An MCDA approach for the selection of bike projects based on structuring and appraising activities

This paper presents an MCDA approach for the structuring and appraising activities of a large and complex decision problem. More specifically, the paper makes use of the three-step structuring process for decision analysis proposed by von Winterfeldt and Edwards: (1) identifying the problem; (2) selecting an appropriate analytic approach; and (3) developing a detailed analytic structure. For illustration of the approach a case study dealing with the assessment task of prioritising and selecting initiatives and projects from a public pool with limited funds is examined throughout the paper. The process is embedded in a Decision Support System (DSS) making use of the REMBRANDT technique for pair wise comparisons to determine project rankings. A procedure for limiting the number of pair wise comparisons to be made in the process is in this connection presented. Finally, strengths and weaknesses in the approach are discussed and conclusions are made.     

Some Recurring Themes in Using Soft Systems Methodology

The object of inquiry in this paper is all organisation-based M.Sc. student projects of two consecutive years, using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), undertaken as part of the course requirements at Lancaster University. This paper reports on a survey of 25 projects conducted by the group who originally developed SSM. No questionnaire that would trigger replies was used; rather, attending the students' project presentations at Lancaster after about four months in their client organisations brought to the fore those themes that the 45 users themselves deemed relevant during their use of SSM on the projects. This paper describes, discusses and analyses those themes, and relates them to each other. Reference to previous surveys is made and the consequences of the results presented are discussed.