L. Alberto Franco

Facilitated modelling in operational research

The traditional way of employing operational research in organisational interventions has been the expert mode. In this mode, the problem situation faced by the client is given to the operational research consultant, who then builds a model of the situation, solves the model to arrive at an optimal (or quasi-optimal) solution, and then provides a recommendation to the client based on the obtained solution. An alternative mode of engagement is to conduct the whole intervention together with the client: from structuring and defining the nature of the problem situation of interest, to supporting the evaluation of priorities and development of plans for subsequent implementation. In this latter mode, the operational researcher works throughout the intervention not only as an analyst, but also as a facilitator to the client. This paper discusses this latter mode of engagement with clients, with particular emphasis on the use of facilitated modelling as the intervention tool. Drawing on research scattered across a range of publications and domains, the review presented here provides a formal definition of facilitated modelling, together with a general framework that allows the conceptualisation of a wide variety of facilitated modelling approaches to organisational intervention. Design issues in facilitated modelling and their practical implication are discussed, and directions for future research identified.

Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects

In this paper I draw on research on the role of objects in problem solving collaboration to make a case for the conceptualisation of models as potential boundary objects. Such conceptualisation highlights the possibility that the models used in Soft OR interventions perform three roles with specific effects: transfer to develop a shared language, translation to develop shared meanings, and transformation to develop common interests. If these roles are carried out effectively, models enable those involved to traverse the syntactic, semantic and pragmatic boundaries encountered when tackling a problem situation of mutual concern, and help create new knowledge that has consequences for action. I illustrate these roles and associated effects via two empirical case vignettes drawn from an ongoing action research programme studying the impact of Soft OR interventions. Building on the insights generated by the case vignettes, I develop an analytical framework that articulates the dynamics of knowledge creation within Soft OR interventions. The framework can shed new light on a core aspect of Soft OR practice, especially with regards to the impact of models on the possibilities for action they can afford to those involved. I conclude with a discussion of the prescriptive value of the framework for research into the evaluation of Soft OR interventions, and its implications for the conduct of Soft OR practice.

Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops

While the facilitated modelling literature recognises the importance of the group process within facilitated modelling workshops, published empirical research rarely examines their dynamic nature. In this paper, we address this gap in the literature in two ways. First, we propose to locate facilitated modelling workshops as the main focus of investigation, and adopt decision development as the analytical lens. Second, we provide guidance regarding how to implement a research strategy that is informed by such a focus. We start by mapping the different conceptualisations of decision development that seem embedded within the facilitated modelling tradition, and contrast them with theoretical models from the group communication field. Our analysis identifies a number of potentially useful areas for the study of facilitated modelling workshops from a decision development perspective, and articulates a number tentative research questions and testable propositions amenable to empirical research. Central to our proposal are research methods for the study of dynamic group processes. We thus discuss the steps required to extract group process data from facilitated modelling workshops that are usable and open to analysis. This includes a review of issues regarding research design, coding scheme development, data coding and choice of analytical techniques. Finally, we offer conclusions and briefly discuss some feasibility issues related to the implementation of our proposal.

Structuring resource allocation decisions: a framework for building multi-criteria portfolio models with area-grouped options

Multi-criteria portfolio modelling has been extensively employed as an effective means to allocate scarce resources for investment in projects when considering costs, benefits and risks. Some of these modelling approaches allow the grouping of projects into organisational areas, thus also supporting the decision of resource allocation among organisational units in a way that is collectively efficient for the organisation. However, structuring in practice a portfolio model using this latter type of approach is not a trivial task. How should areas be defined? Where should new projects be included? How should one define the criteria to evaluate performance? As far as we know, there is very little indication in the operational research and decision sciences literatures on how to structure this type of model. This paper suggests different ways to structuring portfolio models where projects are divided into areas and evaluated by multiple criteria, and illustrates their use in two action-research projects. Drawing on these experiences it then suggests a general framework for the structuring of such models in practice. Directions for future research are also identified.

An integrated process and management tools for ranking multiple emerging threats to animal health

The UKs Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs supports the use of systematic tools for the prioritisation of known and well defined animal diseases to facilitate long and medium term planning of surveillance and disease control activities. The recognition that emerging events were not covered by the existing disease-specific approaches led to the establishment of the Veterinary Risk Group (VRG), constituted of government officials, and supporting structures such as the Risk Management Cycle and the Emerging Threat Highlight Report (ETHiR), to facilitate the identification, reporting and assessment of emerging threats to UKs animal health. Since its inception in November 2009 to the end of February 2011, the VRG reviewed 111 threats and vulnerabilities (T&V) reported through ETHiR. In July 2010 a decision support system (DSS) based on multi-criteria-decision-analysis (MCDA) improved ETHiR to allow the systematic prioritisation of emerging T&V. The DSS allows the regular ranking of emerging T&V by calculating a set of measurement indices related to the actual impact, possible impact on public perception and level of available capabilities associated with every T&V. The systematic characterisation of the processes leading to the assessment of T&V by the VRG has led to a consistent, auditable and transparent approach to the identification and assessment of emerging risks. The regular use of MCDA to manage a portfolio of emerging risks represents a different and novel application of MCDA in a health related context.

Visual Interactions with Strategy Tools: Producing Strategic Knowledge in Workshops*

How do managers visually interact with strategy tools during workshops to produce knowledge about strategic issues? Building on the strategy-as-practice perspective and visual organization studies, we conceptualize workshops as arenas where visual interaction with strategy tools takes place. Following this approach, we examine how a top management team creates a strategy tool during a workshop (using primarily video data). Our findings reveal three distinctive patterns of visual interactions: shift, inertia, and assembly. We also show how each of these patterns is enabled by the affordances of the tool used. Our study contributes to theoretical elaborations of how actors visually interact with strategy tools, which offers extensions to the strategy-as-practice and visual organization literatures.

Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession

We witness and welcome the resurgence of interest in the study of behavioural issues in the conduct of operational research (OR). The use of the term ‘resurgence’ is deliberate: the consideration of human factors in models and model-supported processes can be traced back to debates in the 1960s and 1970s (e.g. Ackoff, 1977; Churchman, 1970; Dutton & Walton, 1964). However, whilst the socially situated nature of OR in practice has long been recognised (e.g. Keys, 1997), it was not until the wave of recent activity triggered by Hamalainen et al.’s (2013) paper in this journal that the role and impact of behaviour in OR practice regained centrality in academic and practitioners circles alike.

Different paths to consensus? The impact of need for closure on model-supported group conflict management

Empirical evidence on how cognitive factors impact the effectiveness of model-supported group decision making is lacking. This study reports on an experiment on the effects of need for closure, defined as a desire for definite knowledge on some issue and the eschewal of ambiguity. The study was conducted with over 40 postgraduate student groups. A quantitative analysis shows that compared to groups low in need for closure, groups high in need for closure experienced less conflict when using Value-Focused Thinking to make a budget allocation decision. Furthermore, low need for closure groups used the model to surface conflict and engaged in open discussions to come to an agreement. By contrast, high need for closure groups suppressed conflict and used the model to put boundaries on the discussion. Interestingly, both groups achieve similar levels of consensus, and high need for closure groups are more satisfied than low need for closure groups. A qualitative analysis of a subset of groups reveals that in high need for closure groups only a few participants control the model building process, and final decisions are not based on the model but on simpler tools. The findings highlight the need to account for the effects of cognitive factors when designing and deploying model-based support for practical interventions.

Unpacking multimethodology: Impacts of a community development intervention

Multimethodology interventions are being increasingly employed by operational researchers to cope with the complexity of real-world problems. In keeping with recent calls for more research into the ‘realised’ impacts of multimethodology, we present a detailed account of an intervention to support the planning of business ideas by a management team working in a community development context. Drawing on the rich steam of data gathered during the intervention, we identify a range of cognitive, task and relational impacts experienced by the management team during the intervention. These impacts are the basis for developing a process model that accounts for the personal, social and material changes reported by those involved in the intervention. The model explains how the interventions analytic and relational capabilities incentivise the interplay of participants’ decision making efforts and integrative behaviours underpinning reported intervention impacts and change. Our findings add much needed empirical case material to enrich further our understanding of the realised impacts of operational research interventions in general, and of multimethodology interventions in particular.

Engaging with behavioural OR: On methods, actors, and praxis

In this chapter, we highlight the importance of the behavioural perspective to advance the discipline of operational research (OR). The power of this perspective lies in its ability to identify the conditions under which the impact of OR-supported processes is enhanced or hindered by behavioural factors, with a view to developing more effective OR practice. To help organise and guide the conduct of empirical studies in the sub-discipline of behavioural OR (BOR), we draw on practice theories from the social and organisational sciences to propose an integrative framework based on the three central concepts of OR methods, OR actors, and OR praxis. In discussing these concepts, we refer to the developing empirical BOR literature to highlight alternative analytical foci. We end the chapter by discussing the implications of the behavioural perspective for advancing the OR discipline, particularly with regards to foregrounding OR praxis in academic papers, attending to a wide diversity of OR actors, developing OR competences, and the role of theory and research methodology.