The uses of qualitative data in multimethodology:Developing causal loop diagrams during the coding process

In this research note we describe a method for exploring the creation of causal loop diagrams (CLDs) from the coding trees developed through a grounded theory approach and using computer aided qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS). The theoretical background to the approach is multimethodology, in line with Minger’s description of paradigm crossing and is appropriately situated within the Appreciate and Analyse phases of PSM intervention. The practical use of this method has been explored and three case studies are presented from the domains of organisational change and entrepreneurial studies. The value of this method is twofold; (i) it has the potential to improve dynamic sensibility in the process of qualitative data analysis, and (ii) it can provide a more rigorous approach to developing CLDs in the formation stage of system dynamics modelling. We propose that the further development of this method requires its implementation within CAQDAS packages so that CLD creation, as a precursor to full system dynamics modelling, is contemporaneous with coding and consistent with a bridging strategy of paradigm crossing

Business Domain Modelling using an Integrated Framework

This paper presents an application of a “Systematic Soft Domain Driven Design Framework” as a soft systems approach to domain-driven design of information systems development. The framework combining techniques from Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), the Unified Modelling Language (UML), and an implementation pattern known as “Naked Objects”. This framework have been used in action research projects that have involved the investigation and modelling of business processes using object-oriented domain models and the implementation of software systems based on those domain models. Within this framework, Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is used as a guiding methodology to explore the problem situation and to develop the domain model using UML for the given business domain. The framework is proposed and evaluated in our previous works, and a real case study “Information Retrieval System for academic research” is used, in this paper, to show further practice and evaluation of the framework in different business domain. We argue that there are advantages from combining and using techniques from different methodologies in this way for business domain modelling. The framework is overviewed and justified as multimethodology using Mingers multimethodology ideas

Multimethodology in series and parallel: strategic planning using hard and soft OR

Abstract: This paper examines two distinct ways in which hard and soft operational research (OR) methodologies can be combined, in series and in parallel. Multimethodology in series is acknowledged as the simpler and more common approach. Multimethodology in parallel is identified as having the potential to provide significant benefits to projects in political, changing, or ‘wicked ’ contexts that multimethodology in series cannot. Observations regarding these approaches to multimethodology are examined in light of an information systems strategic planning project in the Australian public sector. Two distinct methodologies were combined in the project: soft systems methodology and project management. These methodologies are based on the soft and hard paradigms, respectively. However, findings in this paper have the potential to be transferred to combinations of other hard and soft OR methodologies

Ethics and OR: Operationalising Discourse Ethics

Operational researchers help managers decide what they ought to do and yet this is generally evaluated in terms of efficiency or effectiveness, not ethicality. However, the combination of the tremendous power of global corporations and the financial markets, and the problems the world faces in terms of economic and environmental sustainability, has led to a revival of interest in ethical approaches. This paper explores a relatively recent and innovative process called discourse ethics. This is very different from traditional ethical systems in taking ethical decisions away from individuals or committees and putting them in the hands of the actual people who are involved and affected through processes of debate and deliberation. The paper demonstrates that discourse ethics has strong connections to OR, especially in the areas of soft and critical systems, and that OR can actually contribute to the practical operationalisation of discourse ethics. At the same time, discourse ethics can provide a rigorous discursive framework for “ethics beyond the model"

Four domains of complexity

In this short paper, which reflects on one of my contributions to the systems literature in 1992 (Pluralism and the Legitimation of Systems Science), I discuss the context at that time. Systems scientists were embroiled in a paradigm war, which threatened to fragment the systems research community. This is relevant, not only to understanding my 1992 contribution, but also because the same paradigms are evident in the complexity science community, and therefore it potentially faces the same risk of fragmentation. Having explained the context, I then go on to discuss my proposed solution to the paradigm war: that there are four domains of complexity, three of which reflect the competing paradigms. The problem comes when researchers say that inquiry into just one of these domains is valid. However, when we recognise all four as part of a new theory of complexity, we can view them as complementary. The four domains are natural world complexity, or “what is” (where the ideal of inquiry is truth); social world complexity, or the complexity of “what ought to be” in relation to actual or potential action (where the ideal of inquiry is rightness); subjective world complexity, or the complexity of what any individual (the self or another) is thinking, intending or feeling (where the ideal of inquiry is understanding subjectivity); and the complexity of interactions between elements of the other domains of complexity in the context of research and intervention practice. Following a discussion of the relevance of this theory for complexity scientists, I end the paper with a final critical reflection on my 1992 paper, pointing to some theoretical assumptions and terminology that I would, in retrospect, revise

Helping Business Schools Engage with Real Problems: The Contribution of Critical Realism and Systems Thinking

The world faces major problems, not least climate change and the financial crisis, and business schools have been criticised for their failure to help address these issues and, in the case of the financial meltdown, for being causally implicated in it. In this paper we begin by describing the extent of what has been called the rigour/relevance debate. We then diagnose the nature of the problem in terms of historical, structural and contextual mechanisms that initiated and now sustain an inability of business schools to engage with real-world issues. We then propose a combination of measures, which mutually reinforce each other, that are necessary to break into this vicious circle – critical realism as an underpinning philosophy that supports and embodies the next points; holism and transdisciplinarity; multimethodology (mixed-methods research); and a critical and ethical-committed stance. OR and management science have much to contribute in terms of both powerful analytical methods and problem structuring methods

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 intervention's 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

Supporting strategy : a survey of UK OR/MS practitioners

This paper reports the results of an on-line survey conducted with practitioner members of the UK Operational Research (OR) Society. The purpose of the survey was to explore the current practice of supporting strategy in terms of activities supported and tools used. The results of the survey are compared to those of previous surveys to explore developments in, inter-alia, the use of management/strategy tools and „soft‟ Operational Research / Management Science (OR/MS) tools. The survey results demonstrate that OR practitioners actively support strategy within their organisations. Whilst a wide variety of tools, drawn from the OR/MS and management / strategy fields are used to support strategy within organisations, the findings suggest that soft OR/MS tools are not regularly used. The findings also demonstrate that tools are combined to support strategy from both within and across the OR/MS and management / strategy fields. The paper ends by identifying a number of areas for further research

Co-guarantor attributes: a systemic approach to evaluating expert support

The paper suggests features of a generic framework which can assist in highlighting good practice as well as revealing shortcomings in expert support for management decision-making. Following the earlier writings of Habermas, I argue that expertise might be identified and considered as a set of �co-guarantor attributes� based upon knowledge constitutive interests. Co-guarantor attributes can be used as a benchmark for evaluation, where affirmative features of expert support can be identified as well as the incidence of �false guarantor� attributes which might be significant in perpetuating costly and unsuccessful intervention