Fran Ackermann

Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector

This paper reports the use, in the UK Home Office Prison Department, of cognitive mapping techniques for policy analysis. The methodology used has been developed to facilitate more effective management of messy problems by management teams. Here it is used for the collation, comparison and analysis of the views of many experts in relation to a major policy issue. The analysis makes use of the specially designed computer software, Decision Explorer. The paper discusses the impact of the approach and suggests general implications for the way in which policy analysis is conducted.

Integrated Support from Problem Structuring through to Alternative Evaluation Using COPE and V·I·S·A

Work in the field of multiple criteria analysis has generally focused on evaluation procedures, taking as its starting point a well-defined problem with specified alternatives and criteria. However, in reality, problems are rarely so well-structured; hence, in order to usefully support decision making in practice, multiple criteria analysts need to address the issue of problem structuring. In this respect, much can be learned from the body of work stemming from operational research and systems in the U.K., known collectively as problem-structuring methods. In this paper we describe a study which sought to integrate one of these approaches, SODA (strategic options development and analysis), using the COPE software for cognitive mapping, with multiple criteria evaluation based on a multi-attribute value function using V·I·S·A. The study took the form of a 2 day action research workshop to explore the strategic direction of the Supplies and Commercial Services Department of a large U.K. NHS Hospital Trust and to develop an action plan consistent with the agreed direction. Even though the workshop was intended to be exploratory, from the point of view of both the facilitators and the participants, it enabled the group to make progress towards the definition of a strategic direction and led to an increased understanding and awareness of the issues. Drawing on this experience, we comment in general on the potential benefits arising from the integration of these two approaches and suggest fruitful areas for future research and development of the software tools and associated methodologies.

Participants' perceptions on the role of facilitators using Group Decision Support Systems

The impact of facilitation upon group meetings has been a topic of research and debate for over 40 years. However, with the emergence and increasing usage of Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS), the role of facilitators is once more being addressed. Facilitators aim to substantially increase the effectiveness of group working, making meetings more productive and efficient through the management of both content and process. However, while the benefit that facilitators can bring is acknowledged, developing the necessary skills and techniques is more problematic. There are few manuals for would-be faciliators to draw upon, and much of their ability is acquired through experience. This article therefore attempts to increase the knowledge available and to provide facilitators with some practical suggestions. The research focuses on a series of interviews with group members (participants) who had used a particular GDSS—Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA)—for organizational decision making. From the analysis of the interviews, a number of reoccurring issues were identified which are presented as a set of learning points. These cover not only the workshop/meeting itself, but also the pre-workshop and post-workshop stages. The article also reflects on the impact which these identified learning points have on design and future GDSS development.

The role of feedback dynamics in disruption and delay on the nature of disruption and delay (D&D) in major projects

The idea that small disruptions and delays can cause serious consequences to the life of a major project, well beyond that which might be easily attributed to their direct impact, is well established. Nevertheless, the nature of this ‘delay and disruption’ is still not fully understood. This paper discusses some of the issues and difficulties in gaining a full understanding. In particular it presents the variety of ways in which disruptions occur, and the variety of consequences that may unfold. It also focuses attention on a number of issues that arise when ‘normal’ methods of analysis of complex projects might be used, for example, the analysis and costing of change orders and the use of network analysis. The role of dynamic feedback and the ‘portfolio effect’ is introduced, particularly with reference to project acceleration and changing productivity.

Problem structuring methods ‘in the dock’: arguing the case for soft OR

Problem structuring methods (‘soft’ OR) have been around for approximately 40years and yet these methods are still very much overlooked in the OR world. Whilst there is almost certainly a number of explanations for this, two key stumbling blocks are: (1) the subjective nature of the modelling yielding insights rather than testable results, and (2) the demand on users to both manage content (through modelling) and processes (work with rather than ‘on behalf’ of groups). However, as evidenced from practice there are also a number of significant benefits. This paper therefore aims to examine the case of Soft OR through examining the case for and against problem structuring methods.

Where next for problem structuring methods

Over the past two decades three problem structuring methods have become particularly well known: soft systems methodology (SSM), strategic choice (SC), and strategic options development and analysis (SODA) (Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001). Discussion of these methods often focuses upon the differences. In order to develop an effective future for problem structuring methods, we believe it might be more appropriate to focus on their similarities. It is likely to be the similarities that have driven their success, as organizations, and managers, seek to find ways of managing complex messy problems. Indeed, other than the originators of these three methods, who are, not surprisingly, very fussy about the way in which each of the methods are used, the majority of users tend to use parts of each of the methods in a contingent manner (sometimes combining parts from one method with those from another with little regard for the theoretical underpinnings). Each of the originators has been upset at this lack of purity, which they argue shows a misunderstanding of the theoretical and practice backgrounds to the methods. If a stronger focus could be placed on similarities then it would enable potential users to understand the underlying principles and so increase the probability of more sympathetic and successful applications. Thus, it is the similarities of the underlying aspects of the methods that will break down the debate about purity, and allow a future development that derives from the wider practice.

Mapping distinctive competencies: a systemic approach

The paper discusses the role that formal modelling, both qualitative and quantitative, and the use of a group support system can play in developing strategic direction. In particular the paper focuses on the modelling of competencies as patterns and the way in which patterns often express the distinctiveness of competencies. The relationship between patterns of competencies and the goals of an organisation are explored as the basis for establishing core distinctive competencies and for developing and exploring the business model which will inform strategic direction. As an introduction the nature of strategic management is discussed, as it relates to the role of modelling competencies.

Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation

This paper proposes a tool for multi-criteria decision aid to be referred to as a Reasoning Map. It is motivated by a desire to provide an integrated approach to problem structuring and evaluation, and in particular, to make the transition between these two processes a natural and seamless progression. The approach has two phases. In the first one, the building of a Reasoning Map supports problem structuring, capturing a decision makers reasoning as a network of means and ends concepts. In the second phase, this map is enhanced, employing a user-defined qualitative scale to measure both performances of decision options and strengths of influence for each means–end link. This latter phase supports the decision maker in evaluating the positive and negative impacts of an action through synthesis of the qualitative information. A case study, which investigates the use of the method in practice, is also presented.

Structuring a delay and disruption claim : an application of cause-mapping and system dynamics

Abstract The idea of “Delay and Disruption” within projects is well-known and is often the subject of litigation claims. However, the term is ill-defined, and it is difficult to justify such claims within a legal process. This paper demonstrates a well-developed approach, which is a logical, transparent, auditable and sustainable means of presenting such a claim. It describes the format for a claim document that presents first the disruptive triggers, then using a formal qualitative model builds the case from the interacting effects of these triggers. Transformation of this model into a computer simulation and the ability to explore different scenarios provides the quantitative part of the claim document. Thus three elements are presented in the document: demonstration of causality, of responsibility and of a quantum for the claim. This process also provides additional benefits, including a high level of participant “buy-in”, and the basis of a model that can be used to support the claim.

Group decision and negotiation in strategy making

For a large number of organisations effective delivery of strategy depends upon the psychological and emotional commitment of the Top Management Team (TMT) thus involving group negotiation and decision making. Computer based group support promoting open debate and developing commitment is therefore important and illustrated through examples from the presenters large number of strategic interventions.