Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Problem Structuring Methods: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Operations Research

Abstract

Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs) were developed almost 50 years ago within Operational Research (OR) to support group decision-making. Through the provision of modelling and facilitation support, PSMs are said to enable groups to develop a better understanding of a problem situation they wish to tackle, and come to agreements on how to respond to the situation. In this chapter we take stock of what we know about PSMs, first by describing their shared characteristics regarding technology and process, and then reviewing their use in practice. We also examine the evidence supporting or questioning the actual achievement of the impacts claimed to be the result of using PSMs. The chapter ends with a discussion of some areas of work that deserve critical attention for the continuing advance of PSMs as a field of practice and research within OR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Accident (1986) Report of the presidential commission on the space shuttle challenger accident. Washington, DC.

  2. 2.

    The original version contained six methods. In the revised version Metagame Analysis and Hypergame Analysis were fused into Drama Theory, resulting in five methods.

  3. 3.

    Mingers [108] makes a similar point.

  4. 4.

    Incidentally, many PSM pioneers reject the label ‘PSMs’ as it gives the (wrong) impression that the methods are only about structuring problems in a narrow sense [32, 53, 75].

  5. 5.

    A related and frequently used concept is ‘mental model’. In System Dynamics this term is typically used to refer to a person’s understanding of a complex issue he or she is involved in. Doyle and Ford [42] state that “A mental model of a dynamic system is a relatively enduring and accessible, but limited, internal conceptual representation of an external system (historical, existing or projected) whose structure is analogous to the perceived structure of that system” (p. 414).

  6. 6.

    Some PSMs also offer explicit means of analysing uncertainties. In traditional OR models, the uncertainty about future values of a factor of interest is handled by deriving probability distributions across its possible values. By contrast, PSM models focus on the ‘possibility’ and implications of an uncertain event deemed to be important enough by the group to enter their deliberations [140].

  7. 7.

    It is worth noting that some prominent PSM scholars consider other cognate approaches as falling within the PSM family, though they do not use models and modelling in the sense described above [108]. However, whilst it is possible to support problem structuring without the type of models described here, we believe that the use of models amenable to formal analysis of relationships is a shared characteristic that locates all PSMs firmly and unequivocally within OR. PSMs are sometimes referred to as Soft OR approaches, a loosely defined term to indicate any use of OR that pays attention to the non-quantitative elements of a problem or uses traditional quantitative OR methods in a ‘soft’ way. Thus Soft OR would include, for example, approaches such as Interactive Planning [12] and Strategic Assumptions Surfacing and Testing [103], as well as particular forms of multimethodology [111] that combine hard and soft methods. In this chapter, however, we will stick to the term ‘PSMs’ as it is more sharply defined and firmly located within OR.

  8. 8.

    Some PSMs do, however, use software [4] and web technologies [167] to support their modelling processes.

  9. 9.

    Built into some PSMs are features whose purpose is to enable participants to distance themselves from previous bindings during the problem structuring process, effectively providing them with a certain degree of ambiguity or ‘equivocality’ regarding their own positions [46]. This is often facilitated by the possibility of group members entering their inputs to the model anonymously, which can allow them to change their positions in response to what they have learned about the problem without destroying the social order in the group [46]. Changing positions implies individuals ‘changing their minds’, i.e. changed beliefs, changed values, and changes in the salience of particular issues or values [44]. The consequence of this adaptability is that it becomes easier for group members to reconcile the position they eventually take both with principles and with past words and actions during discussion.

  10. 10.

    The list has similarities to the one proposed by Mingers [108], although we have not included methods that do not build and use models (as defined here) in a facilitated mode. We also excluded other facilitated modelling methods that would fit the characterisation presented here but which do not have yet a substantive volume of applications published in the mainstream OR literature—see, for example, Conklin’s [35] Dialog Mapping and Ritchey’s Morphological Analysis [138].

  11. 11.

    Although the VSM was originally developed with a prescriptive orientation (see, for example, Jackson [90]), an increasing body of published VSM applications show practitioners using the method in an interpretivist mode akin to PSM use, namely, they work with stakeholder groups to understand disfunctions in the system of interest, identify suitable responses to improve its effectiveness and viability, and help stakeholders in building a commitment to implementation (see Harwood [80]).

  12. 12.

    Group Explorer was originally developed by Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann at the University of Strathclyde.

  13. 13.

    Decision Explorer is a software tool to support the creation of causal maps. It is developed and distributed by Banxia Software (www.banxia.com).

  14. 14.

    MACBETH is a software tool that supports the evaluation of options when multiple objectives need to be considered. It was originally developed by Carlos Bana e Costa at the University of Lisbon (m-macbeth.com).

  15. 15.

    Serious Case Reviews (SCRs) were established in the UK under the 2004 Children Act to review cases where a child has died and abuse or neglect is known or suspected. SCRs could additionally be carried out where a child has not died, but has come to serious harm as a result of abuse or neglect.

  16. 16.

    The list of PSMs included in Mingers [107] also considered problem methods that do not use models as defined here.

  17. 17.

    Papers proposing new PSMs are mentioned in Sect. 23.5.

  18. 18.

    In the case of VFT/DC and GMB, the problem frame represented in the model is often used to inform the development of a quantitative model.

  19. 19.

    See also, Footnote 4.

  20. 20.

    Accommodations between group members may also require coalition forming [44, 48, 54], which may produce a shift in power relations during the PSM process [46].

  21. 21.

    In specific contexts, commitment to maintain the group membership has also been claimed [41].

  22. 22.

    It is also worth noting that self-reports as a sole basis of evaluations are fraught with difficulties, as people struggle to distinguish between subjective and objective effects associated with PSM use [39, 142].

  23. 23.

    Although this meta-framework focuses on evaluating MCDA interventions, the framework could also be applied to evaluate PSM interventions.

  24. 24.

    Ackermann [2] argues that an academic’s PSM expertise can be real or vicarious. However, we would warn against the latter. Only academics with actual PSM expertise will be able to share their largely tacit, uncodified experience with their students, and in doing so help students appreciate the nuances and complexities of PSM practice, and know when and how to adapt a PSM intervention to fit the context in which it is deployed.

  25. 25.

    A recent development is the OR apprenticeship approved in 2020 by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education in the UK (https://www.instituteforapprenticeships.org). The apprenticeship has not started at the time of writing. Notably, how to select and apply, a range of PSMs to understand complex problems is part of the knowledge, skills, and behaviours expected from the participants taking up the apprenticeship.

  26. 26.

    Some PSMs also contain specific tools to gain an appreciation of context, for example, the use of rich pictures and analysis I, II, and III (cultural stream analysis) in SSM [31].

  27. 27.

    This approach to competence building has been pioneered in other professional fields such as mediation [155, 156] and education [92].

  28. 28.

    It is worth clarifying that the concern of Behavioural OR scholars relates to OR practice in general, and not just PSM practice.

References

  1. Abuabara, L., and Paucar-Caceres, A. 2021. Surveying applications of Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018. European Journal of Operational Research, 292(3): 1051–1065.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ackermann, F. 2011. Getting messy with problems: The challenges of teaching soft OR. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 12(1): 55–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ackermann, F. 2012. Problem structuring methods in the dock: Arguing the case for Soft OR. European Journal of Operational Research, 219(3): 652–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. 2001. Contrasting single user and networked group decision support systems for strategy making Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(1): 47–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. 2010. Strategic Options Development and Analysis. In M. Reynolds, and S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide: 135–190. London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. 2011a. Making strategy: Mapping out strategic success (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. 2011b. Negotiation in strategy making teams: Group support systems and the process of cognitive change. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(3): 293–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ackermann, F., Eden, C., and Williams, T. 1997. Modeling for litigation: Mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces, 27(2): 48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ackermann, F., Andersen, D. F., Eden, C., and Richardson, G. P. 2011. ScriptsMap: A tool for designing multi-method policy-making workshops. Omega, 39: 427–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ackermann, F., Howick, S., Quigley, J., Walls, L. and Houghton, T., 2014. Systemic risk elicitation: Using causal maps to engage stakeholders and build a comprehensive view of risks. European Journal of Operational Research, 238(1): 290–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Ackermann, F., Yearworth, M., and White, L. 2018. Micro-processes in group decision and negotiation: Practices and routines for supporting decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(5): 709–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Ackoff, R. 1999. Re-Creating the Corporation: A design of organizations for the 21st century. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2): 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Akkermans, H. A., and Vennix, J. A. M. 1997. Client’s opinions on group model building: An exploratory study. System Dynamics Review, 13(1): 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Andersen, D. F., and Richardson, G. 1997. Scripts for group model building. System Dynamics Review, 13(2): 107–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Andersen, D. F., Vennix, J. A. M., Richardson, G. P., and Rouwette, E. A. J. A. 2007. Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(5): 691–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bana e Costa, C.A., Lourenço, J.C. Duarte, M. and Bana e Costa, J.C. 2014. A socio-technical approach for group decision support in public strategic planning: The Pernambuco PPA case. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(1): 5–29.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Beer, S. 1985. Diagnosing the system for organizations: Wiley Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bennett, P. G., and Huxham, C. 1982. Hypergames and what they do: a ’soft OR’ approach. Journal of Operational Research Society, 33(1): 41–50.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Benford, R. D., and Snow, D. A. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1): 611–639.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Black, L. J. 2013. When visuals are boundary objects in system dynamics work. System Dynamics Review, 29(2): 70–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Black, L. J., and Andersen, D. F. 2012. Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflict in collaborative model-building approaches. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(2): 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brocklesby, J. 2016. The what, the why and the how of behavioural operational research: An invitation to potential sceptics. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3): 796–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Bryant, J. W. 2003. The Six Dilemmas of Collaboration. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bryant, J. 2014. Conflict Evolution: Tracking the Middle East Conflict with Drama Theory. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(6): 1263–1279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., and Finn, C. B. 2004. Visible Thinking: Unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Burger, K. 2020. Understanding participant engagement in problem structuring interventions with self-determination theory. Journal of the Operational Research Society.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Carlile, P. R. 2002. A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13: 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Carreras, A. L., and Kaur, P. 2011. Teaching Problem Structuring Methods: Improving understanding through meaningful learning. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 12(1): 20–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Checkland, P. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Checkland, P. 2000. Soft Systems Methodology: A thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17: 11–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Checkland, P. 2006. Reply to Eden and Ackermann: Any future for problem structuring methods? Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7): 769–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Chess, C. 2000. Evaluating environmental public participation: Methodological questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(6): 769–784.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Conklin, J. 2006. Dialog Mapping: Building shared understanding of wicked problems. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Creed, W. E. D., Langstraat, J. A., and Scully, M. A. 2002. A Picture of the Frame: Frame Analysis as Technique and as Politics. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1): 34–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cronin, K., Midgley, G., and Jackson, L. 2014. Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts European Journal of Operational Research, 233(1): 145–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. De Geus, A. 1988. Planning as Learning. Harvard Business Review, 66(2): 70–74.

    Google Scholar 

  39. De Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., van Kranenburg, H., Freeman, E., and van Breen, H. 2021. Cognitive change and consensus forming in facilitated modelling: A comparison of experienced and observed outcomes. European Journal of Operational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Donais, F. M., Abi-Zeid, I., Waygood, E. O. D., and Lavoie, R. 2021. A framework for post-project evaluation of multicriteria decision aiding processes from the stakeholders’ perspective: Design and application. Group Decision and Negotiation, 30(5): 1161–1191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Dooley, R., Fryxell, G., and Judge, W. 2000. Belaboring the not-so-obvious: consensus, commitment, and strategy implementation speed and success. Journal of Management, 26(6): 1237–1257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Doyle, J., and Ford, D. 1999. Mental models concepts revisited: Some clarifications and a reply to Lane. System Dynamics Review, 15(4): 411–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Dyson, R. G., O’Brien, F. A., and Shah, D. B. 2021. Soft OR and Practice: The Contribution of the Founders of Operations Research. Operations Research, 69(3): 727–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Eden, C. 1986. Problem Solving or Problem Finishing. In M. Jackson, and P. Keys (Eds.), New Directions in Management Science: 97–107. Aldershot: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Eden, C. 1990. Managing the Environment as a Means to Managing Complexity. In C. Eden, and J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling Strategic Problems: the role of group decision support: 154–161. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Eden, C. 1992. A framework for thinking about group decision support systems (GDSS). Group Decision and Negotiation, 1: 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Eden, C. 1995. On evaluating the performance of wide-band GDSS’s. European Journal of Operational Research, 81: 302–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Eden, C. 1996. The Stakeholder/Collaborator Strategy Workshop. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Collaborative Advantage: 44–56. London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  49. Eden, C. 2000. On evaluating the performance of GSS: furthering the debate, by Paul Finlay (European Journal of Operational Research 107, pp 193-201) -a response by Colin Eden. European Journal of Operational Research, 81(120): 218–222.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. 1996. Horses for courses. A stakeholder approach to the evaluation of GDSSs. Group Decision and Negotiation, 5: 501–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. 1998. Making strategy: The journey of strategic management. London: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  52. Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. 2004. Use of ’Soft OR’ Models by Clients: What do they want from them? In M. Pidd (Ed.), Systems Modelling: theory and practice: 146–163. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. 2006. Where next for problem structuring methods. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7): 766–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. 2010. Decision making in groups: Theory and practice. In P. C. Nutt, and D. C. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of decision making: 231–272. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. 2018. Theory into practice, practice to theory: Action research in method development. European Journal of Operational Research, 271(3): 1145–1155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Eden, C., Jones, S., and Sims, D. 1983. Messing about in problems: An informal structured approach to their identification and management. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Edmondson, A. C., and McLain Smith, D. 2006. Too hot to handle? How to manage relationship conflict. California Management Review, 49(1): 6–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Espejo, R., and Reyes, A. 2011. Organizational systems: Managing complexity with the viable system model: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Espinosa, A., and Walker, J. 2017. Complexity approach to sustainability: Theory and application: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Fairhurst, G. T. 2010. The power of framing: Creating the language of leadership: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Finlay, P. 1998. On evaluating the performance of GSS: Furthering the debate. European Journal of Operational Research, 107(1): 193–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Franco, L. A. 2006. Forms of conversation and problem structuring methods: a conceptual development Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57: 813–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Franco, L. A. 2007. Assessing the impact of problem structuring methods in multi-organisational settings: An empirical investigation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(6): 760–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Franco, L. A. 2008. Facilitating collaboration with problem structuring methods: A case of an inter-organisational construction partnership. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(4): 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Franco, L. A. 2009. Problem Structuring Methods as intervention tools: Reflections from their use with multi-organizational teams. OMEGA: The International Journal of Management Science, 37(1): 193–203.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Franco, L. A. 2013. Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects. European Journal of Operational Research, 231(3): 720–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Franco, L. A., and Greiffenhagen, C. 2018. Making OR practice visible: Using ethnomethodology to analyse facilitated modelling workshops. European Journal of Operational Research, 265(2): 673–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Franco, L. A., and Greiffenhagen, C. 2021. Group decision support practice as it happens. In D. M. Kilgour, and C. Eden (Eds.), Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation, 2nd ed., Vol. 2: 793–814. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Franco, L. A., and Hämäläinen, R. P. 2016a. Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3): 791–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Franco, L. A., and Hämäläinen, R. P. 2016b. Engaging with behavioural OR: On methods, actors, and praxis. In M. Kunc, J. Malpass, and L. White (Eds.), Behavioural operational research: Theory, methodology and practice: 3–26: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Franco, L. A., and Montibeller, G. 2010. Facilitated modelling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(3): 489–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Franco, L. A., and Nielsen, M. F. 2018. Examining group facilitation in situ: The use of formulations in facilitation practice. Group Decision and Negotiation, 27(5): 735–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Franco, L. A., Cushman, M., and Rosenhead, J. 2004. Project Review and Learning in the UK Construction Industry: Embedding a Problem Structuring Method within a partnership context. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3): 586–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Friend, J. 2001. The Strategic Choice Approach. In J. Rosenhead, and J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict: 115–149. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Friend, J. 2006. Labels, methodologies and strategic decision making support. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7): 772–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Friend, J., and Hickling, A. 2005. Planning Under Pressure: the Strategic Choice Approach (3rd ed.): Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Goffman, E. 1974. Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Gomes Jr, A. d. A., and Schramm, V. B. 2021. Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade. Systemic Practice and Action Research: 1–34.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Gregory, A., Atkins, J., Burdon, D., and Elliott , M. 2012. A problem structuring method for ecosystem-based management: The DPSIR modelling process. European Journal of Operational Research, 227(3): 558–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Harwood, S. A. 2019. A question of interpretation: The viable system model (VSM). European Journal of Operational Research, 274(3): 1198–1201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Henao, F., and Franco, L. A. 2016. Unpacking multimethodology: Impacts of a community development intervention. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(3): 681–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Hickling, A. 1990. ’Decision Spaces’: A scenario about designing appropriate rooms for group decision management. In C. Eden, and J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling Strategic Problems: The role of group decision support: 169–177. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Hindle, G. A. 2011. Case Article-Teaching Soft Systems Methodology and a Blueprint for a Module. INFORMS Transactions on Education, 12(1): 31–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Houghton, L. 2013. Why can’t we all just accommodate: A Soft Systems Methodology application on disagreeing stakeholders. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(4): 430–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Howard, N. 1994a. Drama theory and its relation to game theory. Part 1: Dramatic resolution vs. Rational solution. Group Decision and Negotiation, 3(2): 187–206.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Howard, N. 1994b. Drama theory and its relation to game theory. Part 2: Formal model of the resolution process. Group Decision and Negotiation, 3(2): 207–235.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Howick, S., and Ackermann, F. 2011. Mixing OR methods in practice: Past, present and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 215(3): 503–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Huxham, C. 1990. On Trivialities in Process. In C. Eden, and J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling Strategic Problems: The role of group decision support: 162–168. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Huz, S., Andersen, D. F., Richardson, G. P., and Boothroyd, R. 1997. A framework for evaluating systems thinking interventions. An experimental approach to mental health system change. System Dynamics Review, 13(2): 149–169.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Jackson, M. C. 1993. The system of systems methodologies: A guide to researchers. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(2): 208–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Jackson, M. 2000. Systems approaches to management. New York: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Kane, T. J., and Staiger, D. O. 2012. Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains (MET Project Research Paper). Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Keeney, R. L. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A path to creative decision-making Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Keeney, R. L. 2012. Value-Focused Brainstorming. Decision Analysis, 9(4): 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Keeney, G. L., and Von Winterfeldt, D. 2010. Identifying and structuring the objectives of terrorists. Risk Analysis, 30(12): 1803–1816.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Keys, P. 2006. On becoming expert in the use of problem structuring methods. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57: 822–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Lane, D.C., Munro, E. and Husemann, E., 2016. Blending systems thinking approaches for organisational analysis: Reviewing child protection in England. European Journal of Operational Research, 251(2): 613–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Langley, A. 1999. Strategies for theorising from process data. Academy of Management Review, 24(4): 691–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Laouris, Y., and Michaelides, M. 2018. Structured Democratic Dialogue: An application of a mathematical problem structuring method to facilitate reforms with local authorities in Cyprus. European Journal of Operational Research, 268(3): 918–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Ledington, P., and Donaldson, J. 1997. Soft OR and management practice: A study of the adoption and use of Soft Systems Methodology. Journal of Operational Research Society, 48(3): 229–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., and Gaeth, G. J. 1998. All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 76(2): 149–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Marttunen, M., Lienert, J., and Belton, V. (2017). Structuring problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in practice: A literature review of method combinations. European Journal of Operational Research, 263(1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Mason, O., and Mitroff, I. 1981. Challenging strategic planning assumptions: Theory, cases and techniques. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  104. McCardle-Keurentjes, Marleen HF, Rouwette, E.A.J.A., Vennix, J.A.M, and Jacobs, E. (2018). Potential benefits of model use in group model building: Insights from an experimental investigation. System Dynamics Review, 34(1–2): 354–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Midgley, G. 2000. Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology, and practice. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  106. Midgley, G., Cavana, R., Brocklesby, J., Foote, J., Ahuriri-Drscoll, A., and Wood, D. 2013. Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 229(1): 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Mingers, J. 2000. Variety is the spice of life. Combining soft and hard OR/MS methods. International Transactions in Operational Research, 7: 673–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Mingers, J. 2011. Soft OR comes of age -But not everywhere! OMEGA: The International Journal of Management Science, 39(6): 729–741.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Mingers, J. 2012. Abduction: The missing link between deduction and induction. A comment on Ormerod’s ’rational inference: deductive, inductive and probabilistic thinking’. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63(6): 860–861.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Mingers, J., and Brocklesby, J. 1997. Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega, 25(5): 489–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Mingers, J., and Gill, A. (Eds.). 1997. Multimethodology: The theory and practice of combining Management Science methodologies. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Mingers, J. and Rosenhead, J. 2004. Problem structuring methods in action. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3):530–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Mingers, J., and Taylor, S. 1992. The use of soft systems methodology in practice. Journal of Operational Research Society, 43(4): 321–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Mingers, J., and White, L. 2010. A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3): 1147–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Mohr, L. 1982. Explaining organizational behavior. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  116. Munro, I., and Mingers, J. 2002. The use of multimethodology in practice: Results from a survey of practitioners. Journal of Operational Research Society, 53(4): 369–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. O’Brien, F. A. 2011. Supporting the strategy process: A survey of UK OR/MS practitioners. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(5): 900–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  118. Ormerod, R. J. 1995. Putting Soft OR methods to work: Information systems strategy development at Sainsbury’s. Journal of Operational Research Society, 46(3): 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Ormerod, R. J. 1996. Information systems strategy development at Sainsbury’s supermarkets using soft OR. Interfaces, 26(1): 102–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Ormerod, R. J. 2014a. OR competences: The demands of problem structuring methods. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 2(3-4): 313–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Ormerod, R. J. 2014b. The mangle of OR practice: Towards more informative case studies of technical projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 65(8): 1245–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Papamichail, K. N., Alves, G., French, S., Yang, J. B., and Snowdon, R. 2007. Facilitation practices in decision workshops. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(5): 614–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Parnell, G.S., Hughes, D.H.,Burk, R.C., Driscoll,P.J., Kucik, P.D., Morales, B.L. and Nunn, L.R. Invited review -Survey of value-focused thinking: Applications, research developments and areas for future research. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 20(1-2): 49–60.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Paucar-Caceres, A. 2010. Mapping the changes in management science: A review of‘soft’ OR/MS articles published in Omega (1973-2008). OMEGA: The International Journal of Management Science, 38(1-2): 46–56.

    Google Scholar 

  125. Pawson, R. 2002. Evidence-based policy: The promise of realist synthesis. Evaluation, 8(3): 340–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Pentland, B. T. 1999. Building process theory with narrative: From description to explanation. Academy of Management Review, 24: 711–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Phillips, L. 1984. A Theory of Requisite Decision Models. Acta Psychologica, 56(1-3): 29–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Phillips, L. 2007. Decision Conferencing. In W. Edwards, R. Miles Jr, and D. von Winterfeldt (Eds.), Advances in Decision Analysis: from foundations to applications: 375–399. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  129. Phillips, L. D. and Bana e Costa, C.A. 2007. Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Annals of Operations Research, 154(1): 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  130. Phillips, L., and Phillips, M. 1993. Facilitated Work Groups: Theory and Practice. Journal of Operational Research Society, 44(6): 533–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Pidd, M. (Ed.). 2004. Systems Modelling: theory and practice. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Pidd, M. 2009. Tools for thinking. Modeling in management science (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Poole, M. S. 2007. Generalization in process theories of communication. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(3): 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  134. Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., and Holmes, M. E. (Eds.). 2000. Organizational change and innovation processes: Theory and methods for research. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Powell, J. H., and Mustafee, N. 2017. Widening requirements capture with soft methods: An investigation of hybrid M&S studies in health care. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68(10): 1211–1222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Ranyard, J. C., Fildes, R., and Hu, T.-I. 2015. Reassessing the scope of OR practice: The influences of Problem Structuring Methods and the Analytics movement. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(1): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Reynolds, M., and Holwell, S. (Eds.). 2010. Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide. London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  138. Ritchey, T. 2011. Wicked Problems-Social Messes: Decision support modelling with Morphological Analysis. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  139. Rosenhead, J. 1989. Rational analysis for a problematic world: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Rosenhead, J., and Mingers, J. (Eds.). 2001. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Rouwette, E. A. J. A. 2011. Facilitated modelling in strategy development: Measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62: 879–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  142. Rouwette, E. A. 2016. The impact of group model building on behavior, Behavioral operational research: 213–241: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  143. Rouwette, E. A. J. A., and Smeets, S. 2016. Conflict, consensus and the management of a good debate: Exploring the deliberative assumptions of group facilitating techniques. In I. Bleijenbergh, H. Korzilius, and E. A. J. A. Rouwette (Eds.), Methods, Model Building and Management: A liber amicorum for Jac Vennix: 129–146. Nijmegen: Institute for Management Research.

    Google Scholar 

  144. Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Korzilius, H., Vennix, J. A. M., and Jacobs, E. 2011. Modeling as persuasion: The impact of group model building on attitudes and behavior. System Dynamics Review, 27(1): 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  145. Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vennix, J. A. M., and Van Mullekom, T. 2002. Group model building effectiveness. A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review, 18(1): 5–45.

    Google Scholar 

  146. Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vennix, J. A. M., and Felling, A. J. A. 2009. On evaluating the performance of problem structuring methods: An attempt at formulating a conceptual model. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18(6): 567–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  147. Schilling, M.S, Oeser, N., and Schaub, C. (2007). How effective are decision analyses? Assessing decision process and group alignment effects. Decision Analysis, 4(4): 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Schuman, S. P. (Ed.). 2005. The IAF Handbook of Group Facilitation: Best practices from the leading organization in facilitation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  149. Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y., and Cameron, D. 2016. Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3): 908–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Shaw, D., and Blundell, N. 2010. WASAN: The development of a facilitated methodology for structuring a waste minimisation problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(1): 350–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Shaw, D., Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. 2003. Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(9): 936–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  152. Shaw, D., Smith, C. M., and Scully, J. 2017. Why did Brexit happen? Using causal mapping to analyse secondary, longitudinal data. European Journal of Operational Research, 263(3): 1019–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  153. Smith, C. M., and Shaw, D. 2019. The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 274(2): 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Sorensen, L., Vidal, R., and Engstrom, E. 2004. Using soft OR in a small company: The case of Kirby. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3): 555–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Stokoe, E. 2013. The (in)authenticity of simulated talk: Comparing role-played and actual conversation and the implications for communication training. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 46(2): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Stokoe, E. 2014. The Conversation Analytic Role-play Method (CARM): A method for training communication skills as an alternative to simulated role-play. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(3): 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Tavella, E., and Franco, L. A. 2015. Dynamics of group knowledge production in facilitated modelling workshops: An exploratory study. Group Decision and Negotiation, 24(3): 451–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  158. Tavella, E., Papadopoulos, T., and Paroutis, S. 2020. Artefact appropriation in facilitated modelling: An adaptive structuration theory approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society: 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  159. Tully, P., White, L., and Yearworth, M. 2018. The value paradox of Problem Structuring Methods. Systems Research and Behavioral Science.

    Google Scholar 

  160. Valcourt, N., Walters, J., Javernick-Will, A., and Linden, K. 2020. Assessing the efficacy of group model building workshops in an applied setting through purposive text analysis. System Dynamics Review, 36(2): 135–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Van de Water, H., Schinkel, M., and Rozier, R. 2007. Fields of application of SSM: a categorization of publications. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(3): 271–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Veldhuis, G. A., van Scheepstal, P., Rouwette, E., and Logtens, T. 2015. Collaborative problem structuring using MARVEL. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 3(3): 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  163. Vennix, J. A. M. 1996. Group model building. Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  164. Vennix, J. A. M. 1999. Group model-building: tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review, 15(4): 379–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Wong, H. 2007. Using Robustness Analysis to structure online marketing and communication problems. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(5): 633–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  166. Yearworth, M., and White, L. 2014. The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition. European Journal of Operational Research, 237(3): 932–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Yearworth, M., and White, L. 2021. Group support systems: Experiments with an online system and implications for same-time/different-places working. Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation: 681–706.

    Google Scholar 

  168. Yin, R. K. 2018. Case study research and applications: Design and methods. (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  169. Westcombe, M., Franco, L. A., and Shaw, D. 2006. Where next for PSMs—A grassroots revolution? Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7): 776–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Williams, T. M., Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. 2003. Structuring a delay and disruption claim: An application of cause-mapping and system dynamics. European Journal of Operational Research, 148(1): 192–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Williams, T., and Dickson, K. 2000. Teaching real-life OR to MSc students. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(12): 1440–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  172. White, L. 2006. Evaluating Problem Structuring Methods: Developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSM interventions. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7): 842–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  173. White, L. 2009. Understanding Problem Structuring Methods Interventions. European Journal of Operational Research, 99(3): 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. White, L., Burger, K., and Yearworth, M. 2016. Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3): 983–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  175. Winnicott, D. W. 1953. Transitional objects and transitional phenomena: A study of the first not-me possession. International Journal of Psycho-analysis, 34(2): 89–97.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK

    L. Alberto Franco

  2. Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    L. Alberto Franco & Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette

  3. Universidad del Pacifico, Lima, Peru

    L. Alberto Franco

Authors
  1. L. Alberto Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to L. Alberto Franco .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    Saïd Salhi

  2. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    John Boylan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Franco, L.A., Rouwette, E.A.J.A. (2022). Problem Structuring Methods: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead. In: Salhi, S., Boylan, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Operations Research . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96935-6_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation