Systems Thinking And Practice 1

Systems Thinking And Practice 1

Systems Thinking and Practice

Introduction

This paper intends to explore about the problem structuring methodologies. Problem

structuring methodologies are commonly known as ‘wide band’ group decision support approaches

or ‘Soft OR’ or ‘Systems’ methodologies. Problem structuring methodologies have been made and

evaluated throughout the history; however, traditional problem structuring methodologies were not

able to address the issue of deciding about the actual problem. All the new problem structuring

methodologies (PSMs) facilitates the decision makers in order to identify the actual problem within

their agreed frameworks. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the evaluation techniques or process

of evaluating the impact of problem structuring methodologies. Moreover, the paper will also explore

the various problem structuring methodologies along with various approaches to assess the usefulness

or impact of such methodologies.

Discussion

The inception of new problem structuring methodologies can be traced since 1970s. Such

methods were initially developed in the field of Operations Research in order to deal with the

complex, uncertain and conflicting issues. The impact of problem structuring methodologies is

immense. All such methodologies help decision makers better identify their problems which

ultimately results in projects that are well-defined and the problems related to those projects can

easily be solved using traditional or new problem structuring methodologies. Moreover, these

methodologies also enable decision makers to get clear pictures of the circumstances resulting in a

more responsive and agreed plan of action. Analysts are provided with an opportunity to access the

strategic problems and structuring them appropriately (Ackermann & Eden, 2009 Pp. 125-130).

Problem structuring methodologies are known for supporting decisions that require diverse
 Systems Thinking And Practice 1

composition within an environment which tends to be complex. These methods usually focus on

getting the problem identified and also making decision-makers able to commit comprehensive action

plans. The problems under focus are usually unstructured. The characteristics of such problems

include having high levels of uncertainty; interests that are conflicting and usually multiple

perspectives to the problem are arising. In order to be impactful to such problems, all the problem

structuring methodologies need to operate transparently by allowing contingent solutions. Moreover,

another basic requirement of problem structuring methodologies to become impactful is to operate

iteratively while also respecting alternate perspectives (Flood & Jackson, 1991 Pp. 125-150).

United Kingdom possesses the ownership of many of the problem structuring methodologies.

Soft OR methodologies are common in the field of Operations Research. All the different approaches

to structuring problems are collectively known as ‘Soft OR.’ These Soft OR methodologies are

contrasting with the traditional problem structuring techniques like linear programming and integer

programming which were commonly known as ‘Hard OR.’ Hard OR refers to the techniques which

are tangible and easy to explain or use. However, Soft OR refers to the techniques which are

intangible and not easy to explain or use. Some basic and most commonly known Soft OR techniques

are Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA), Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and

Strategic Choice (SC). These three Soft OR techniques are generically called ‘problem structuring

methodologies’ (Franco, 2009 Pp. 193-203).

Problem Structuring Methodologies

The problem structuring methodologies work with the primary objective of structuring the

basic issues that arise whilst working within some project or with some people. In order to evaluate

the impact of such methodologies, we need to realize its basic characteristics. The problem

structuring methodologies primarily focus on the ‘people involved within the problem’; this

characteristic clearly depicts that in order to evaluate the impact of such methodologies, we need to

consider the extents to which the people are happy and satisfied with the problem structuring
 Systems Thinking And Practice 1

methodologies. Furthermroe, these methodologies also focus on the problem itself. The basic

difference analyzed between the hard and Soft OR technique is the focus on people. Hard OR

technique does not regard the importance of people involved with the problem, whereas Soft OR

technique realizes the importance of people involvement (Franco & Montibeller, 2010 Pp. 489-500).

The first problem structuring methodology is Strategic Options Development and Analysis

(SODA). This technique works with gaining information from people about the problem. All the

information gained is then represented on cognitive maps. These maps show relevant concepts and

their personal linkages. This method is an ‘action oriented’ method. This method aims at developing

various options in order to alter the situation positively (Huff & Eden, 2009 Pp. 3-8).

The second problem structuring methodology is Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). This

methodology works with several different stages in order to define the root of the problem, build

models of systems and to structure the differences prevailing. There are seven stages in this method,

each one of them contributes towards deciding about the actual problem and its solution.

The third problem structuring methodology is Strategic Choice (SC). This method works with

four different activities that are utilized in order to identify various modes of decision making. This

technique initially calls for shaping the structure of the decision problems, than designing several

courses of action, comparing those courses and finally choosing the best course of action. Presence of

a facilitator is important in this methodology. The basic aim purpose of this method is to identify

‘uncertainty areas’ related to the problems (Huff & Eden, 2009 Pp. 3-8).

After having an in depth discussion of various soft OR methodologies, it will be easier to

assess the importance of evaluating impact of problem structuring methodologies. Evaluating the

impact of problem structuring methodologies is extremely important because implementing any of

these Soft OR techniques requires a lot of investment in the form of financial and human capital. If

the companies or the ‘project heads’ are not able to accurately measure the impact of problem

structuring methodologies, there is no benefit of applying such techniques (Huff & Eden, 2009 Pp.

3-8).
 Systems Thinking And Practice 1

Evaluation of Problem Structuring Methodologies

All the problem structuring methodologies are different in nature and practice whilst having a

common aim of providing solutions to the problems that relates to the field of OR. Since all the

methodologies work in a different manner, their impact is different. Nevertheless, the basic impact of

all such methodologies is to enhance the coordination of people involved within the problem arena

and also to develop solutions for the prevailing problem. The most important thing that is needed to

be evaluated is the ‘effectiveness’ of applying problem structuring methodologies. The impact of all

such methodologies needs to be positive (Shaw, Eden & Ackermann 2009 Pp.15-30).

Whilst evaluating the impact of problem structuring methodologies; if it appears that the

technique is not contributing positively towards the attainment of the objective of applying OR

techniques, the strategy can be altered. Nonetheless, it is not an easy task to evaluate the impact of

problem structuring methodologies. The extent to which one can evaluate the contribution of problem

structuring methodologies is unclear. The extensive utilization of problem structuring methodologies

depicts the effectiveness of such techniques; however, there is no one way to evaluate or claim that

these techniques are better than other processes for problem structuring or even more specifically

which one specific technique is better than another.

In order to evaluate the usefulness of any specific technique, there is a need to develop

accurate measuring methods which is a quite difficult task since soft OR techniques focus on the

people aspect of the problem primarily. Evaluating the satisfaction or impact on people cannot be

achieved accurately. Moreover, it is also unclear whether the evaluation is even desirable or not.

Every problem situation is unique and that is the main reason, evaluating the impact of problem

structuring methodologies is difficult. One technique might facilitate in one unique problem situation

but fail in the other. These differences in the problem situations make the evaluating aspect a difficult

one (Shaw, Eden & Ackermann 2009 Pp.15-30).

Evaluating the impact of applying problem structuring methodologies is still vague despite of
 Systems Thinking And Practice 1

the extensive utilization of soft OR techniques. The extent to which anyone can evaluate the success

of problem structuring methodologies is unclear. The fame of problem structuring methodologies and

its repetitive utilization provide evidence of its efficiency; however, measuring the actual contribution

or impact of specific method is more of a judgmental thing. The evaluation is sometimes assumed to

be neither desirable nor feasible from the viewpoint of project heads. The uniqueness factor again

comes in the question. Meaningful evaluation of the impact of problem structuring methodology is

difficult because the context of the problem and people is unique each time.

The uniqueness of problems restricts the users of methodologies to perform according to the

situations. This restriction might create hurdles in contributing positively towards the problem

structuring and also the evaluation becomes difficult. Nevertheless, Jackson provided three system

approaches in 2000 which help classify various problems and evaluate the impact of OR approaches

to those problems. These approaches are functionalist system approach, interpretive systems approach

and emancipatory systems approach. All these approaches initially classify the intensity of the

problems and then, as a result, the impact of the OR techniques applied (Jackson, 2000 Pp. 50-75).

Functionalist systems approach evaluates the impact of OR techniques by assessing the

problem situations and their technical complexity in relation with the technique applied. Nonetheless,

this approach only works for the problems which possess low human complexity and low divergence

of interests. This approach is also helpful because it assumes that ‘systems’ are objective viewpoints

of reality. This assumption makes the people aware that the decision makers usually share the systems

and objectives (Jackson, 2000 Pp. 50-75).

The next approach is interpretive systems approach. This approach is more of a subjective

approach towards system thinking. This approach calls for the decision maker’s or observer’s view of

the world within the context of the problem situation. This approach helps in identifying the impact

which people have from the involvement in the OR techniques. This approach allows little divergence

of interests. This approach is helpful in identifying the impact of problem structuring methodologies

because it facilitates to deal with more complex situations of human and their interests; however,
 Systems Thinking And Practice 1

greater difficulty in dealing with technical complexities is assessed through this approach.

The last approach is Emancipatory systems approach. This approach also considers the

subjectivity of the systems. ‘Boundary Judgments’ usually makes the basis of this approach. This

approach is extremely helpful in evaluating the impact because it tries to justify the existence of the

relevant methods applied for the problem structuring. Public policy issues are best dealt with this

approach. This approach addresses the conflicting relationship that exists between different people

within the problem contexts (Jackson, 2000 Pp. 50-75).

Yet the Soft Systems Methodology represents the highest degree of internal rigor. Several

theoretical and philosophical grounds provide evidence of Soft System Methodology as one of the

most relevant and important techniques. Various approaches debate the usefulness of problem

structuring methodologies. In order to evaluate the impact of problem structuring methodologies,

there are certain approaches like positivist and interpretivist approaches. Positivist approach usually

calls experimental surveys in order to determine the impact of problem structuring methodologies.

Generalization is the basic claim of this approach making the scientific reasoning an explicit basis of

determining the impact (Neiderman & DeSanctis, 1995 Pp. 451-474).

The interpretivist approach claims for less explicit explanations. Both the approaches work for

emphasizing the evaluation of problem structuring methodologies through assessing their validity and

reliability aspects. The significance of generalization and causality of explanation is undeniable. The

interpretivist approach is assumed to be more realistic and applicable from the viewpoint of assessing

the impact of problem structuring methodologies. The positivist approach only seems to provide the

experimental evidence which is assumed to be weak whilst depicting insignificant differences. On the

other hand, interpretivist approach provides insights on current performance and also contributes

towards the structuring of future problem structuring methodologies (Mingers & Taylor, 1992 Pp.

321-332).

The utilization of problem structuring methodologies is important in order to solve the issues

related to the projects. The focus on people and problems is significantly important. The evaluation of
 Systems Thinking And Practice 1

positivist approach seems to less realistic and a deviation from the real life context. On the other

hand, interpretivist approach focuses more on internal validity and reliability and thus making itself

more relevant for the assessment of impact of problem structuring methodologies. The evaluation of

impact that problem structuring methodologies have on the identification and elimination of problems

is immense and cannot be denied. In order to make sure that problem structuring methodologies are

working accurately and are able to identify and solve the problems accordingly, it is extremely

important to constantly measure the impact of such methodologies (Eden & Ackermann, 2010 Pp.

201-272).

Conclusion

The paper explored the problem structuring methodologies. Problem structuring

methodologies are commonly known as ‘wide band’ group decision support approaches or ‘Soft OR’

or ‘Systems’ methodologies. Problem structuring methods are extremely important for successfully

implementing the process of decision making. Whilst several problem structuring methodologies are

in place, there is still a need to make such methodologies widely acceptable by making such

evaluation techniques which measure the usefulness of such methodologies. The purpose of this paper

was to analyze the evaluation techniques or process of evaluating the impact of problem structuring

methodologies. Moreover, the paper also discussed the various problem structuring methodologies

along with various approaches to assess the usefulness or impact of such methodologies. By

exploring various useful evaluation methods, the impact of problem structuring methodologies can be

enhanced and people may get increasingly involved in the application of such methodologies.
 Systems Thinking And Practice 1

References

Ackermann, F. & Eden, C. (2009) “Strategic Options Development and Analysis” A Practical Guide:

London: Open University Press/Springer Pp. 125-130

Eden, C. & Ackermann, F. (2010) “Decision Making in Groups: theory and practice”; Handbook of

Decision Making, Oxford: Blackwell; Pp. 201-272

Flood & M.C. Jackson (1991) “Creative Problem Solving: Total System Intervention”; Chichester:

Wiley Pp. 125-150

Franco, A. L. (2009) “Problem structuring methods as intervention tools Reflections from their use

with multi-organizational teams”; Omega Pp. 193-203

Franco, L. A. & Montibeller, G. (2010) “Facilitated Modelling in Operational Research”; European

Journal of Operational Research 205(3) Pp. 489-500

Huff, A. & Eden, C. (2009) “Managerial and Organizational Cognition”; International Studies of

Management and Organization Pp. 3-8

M.C. Jackson (2000) “Systems Approaches to Management”, New York: Kluwer/Plenum Pp. 50-75

Mingers, J. & Taylor, S., (1992) “The use of soft systems methodology in practice”; Journal of the

Operational Research Society 43 (4) Pp. 321–332

Niederman, F. & DeSanctis, G. (1995) “The impact of a structured argument approach on group

problem formulation”; Decision Sciences Pp. 451–474

Shaw, D., Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2009) “Mapping Causal Knowledge: How managers consider

their environment during meetings”; International Journal of Management and Decision

Making Pp. 15-30