The failure of strategic initiatives : perceptions of leaders, managers & employees

Strategic initiatives fail for many reasons. We examine such failure in a major UK-based single site case. We discover the influence of differing perceptions of the strategic initiatives across hierarchical levels, from leaders on the executive board to operational managers and frontline staff, on an organization’s dynamic capability. Adopting an issue management perspective, we present data from a single case study in which differing views between leaders triggering the strategic initiatives and those close to operationalizing them, resulted in a lack of dynamic capability. This is explained by an absence of procedural rationality – a concept reflecting the extent to which a decision-making process and its results are perceived as sensible and relevant. We argue that procedural rationality, enabled by social interaction between hierarchical levels, is vital to building employee commitment to purposeful change and organizational dynamic capability

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

Structuring electronic discourse for inter-organisational decision making

Electronic technology is increasingly used to support inter-organisational decision making groups in situations where the objectives of participants are divergent and power diffused. This creates conceptual and practical difficulties for participants and sponsors alike. How should the problem be structured? How should success be measured? What type of model should drive the problem structuring process? While the literature on electronically-supported inter-organisational decision making raises issues such as these it does not provide a solution. The current research draws on the problem structuring literature to fill this gap. A conceptual problem structuring model is developed from the theoretical perspectives of pluralism and communicative action. The model is applied to structure strategically important electronically-supported inter-organisational decision making meetings sponsored by government organisations. The focus question is: ‘Does electronic discourse increase the success of inter-organisational decision making? If so, what problem structuring principles and processes were employed, and what level of participant satisfaction was achieved?

Quid pro quo:reflections on the value of problem structuring 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

Making OR practice visible: Using ethnomethodology to analyse facilitated modelling workshops

Empirical studies attempting to open the ‘black box’ of the practice of operational research (OR) are beginning to appear in the literature, particularly within the area known as behavioural OR. Many scholars within this community share a commitment to both empirically investigate what OR practitioners and users actually do when engaged in OR-supported processes, and evaluate what the effect of these ‘doings’ is. Despite these developments, we still know very little about the complexities and situated specifics of OR practice as it happens on the ground. This is mostly due to the methodological challenges involved in treating real-time OR practice as an analytical problem, which requires making OR practice ‘visible’ by bringing to the fore its material and interactional features for close examination. In this paper we adopt ethnomethodology as one way to address this challenge. Using an empirical vignette drawn from a facilitated modelling workshop in which causal mapping was used with a top management team, we illustrate how an ethnomethodologically-informed perspective can reveal the ways in which OR-supported activity is practically accomplished by those involved, moment by moment, and with what effects. We conclude the paper by summarising the contribution that these kinds of fine-grained studies of OR practice make to the behavioural OR agenda, and outline some potentially useful avenues for future research

Dynamics of group knowledge production in facilitated modelling workshops: an exploratory study

The term ‘facilitated modelling’ is used in the literature to characterise an approach to structuring problems, developing options and evaluating decisions by groups working in a model-supported workshop environment, and assisted by a facilitator. The approach involves an interactive process by which models are jointly developed with group members interacting face-to-face, with or without computer support. The models produced are used to inform negotiations about the nature of the issues faced by the group, and how to address them. While the facilitated modelling literature is impressive, published empirical research rarely examines what actually happens in a facilitated modelling environment. The present study addresses this gap by reporting on exploratory empirical research undertaken to closely examine the conduct of facilitated modelling within its actual context of immediate use, namely, the workshop. Drawing on the knowledge-perspective of group communication, we conducted a micro-level analysis of a transcript of a facilitated modelling workshop held with the management team of an Alternative Food Network in the UK. Our analysis suggests that facilitated modelling interactions can take the form of three distinct group knowledge production patterns: generative, collaborative and assertive. Further, each pattern is characterised by a particular mix of communicative behaviours and model-supported interactions that has implications for the creation of new knowledge within the workshop. Our findings contribute to increase our understanding of the nature of facilitated modelling within its context of use

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

Understanding participant actions in OR interventions using practice theories: a research agenda

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available on open access from Elsevier via the DOI in this recordPractice theory is a collective concept embodying a group of social theories that take practice, in other words actions, as the central focus of their theorising. In this paper we examine the intellectual development of practice theory, highlighting the importance of the key ideas that have shaped thinking on organisational activities and show their relevance to OR. In particular, we examine the social theories that OR researchers have adopted, what data was captured, and how it was analysed in order to establish empirical grounding in case studies involving workshops and meetings published by OR researchers. The cases thus provide a useful empirical basis for comparison to outline the prospects for the use of practice theories by OR academic researchers. Finally, we propose an agenda to advance the understanding of practice theories and their contribution to the theory and practice of OR

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