Why so serious? Theorising playful model-driven group decision support with situated affectivity

This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available from Springer via the DOI in this record.An integrative approach to theorising behavioural, affective and cognitive processes in modeldriven group decision support (GDS) interventions is needed to gain insight into the (micro-)processes by which outcomes are accomplished. This paper proposes that the theoretical lens of situated affectivity, grounded in recent extensions of scaffolded mind models, is suitable to understand the performativity of affective micro-processes in model-driven GDS interventions. An illustrative vignette of a humorous micro-moment in a group decision workshop is presented to reveal the performativity of extended affective scaffolding processes for group decision development. The lens of situated affectivity constitutes a novel approach for the study of interventionist practice in the context of group decision making (and negotiation). An outlook with opportunities for future research is offered to facilitate an integrated approach to the study of cognitive-affective and behavioural micro-processes in model-driven GDS interventions.This work was supported in part by the EU FP7-ENERGY- SMARTCITIES-2012 (314277) project STEEP (Systems Thinking for Comprehensive City Efficient Energy Planning

Learning from mixed OR method practice: The NINES case study

Despite continued interest in the use of mixed OR/MS methods, limited attention has been paid in the literature to generic lessons that could be gained from mixing methods . in practice. Many organisational problems demand the use of a mixed method approach and thus recognising and sharing lessons could prove beneficial to both practitioners and researchers. This paper reports on an in-depth evaluation of a case study involving risk identification and quantification of the Northern Isles New Energy Solutions (NINES) project which sought to trial and plan a new energy system. The intervention involved a mixed method approach and client feedback on the efficacy of the approach was sought. The evaluation reported in this paper is carried out using a set of themes taken from the literature and seeks to highlight transferable lessons. The set of lessons that emerge are presented along with their implications for both general OR modelling practice and the specific situation of mixing OR/MS methods. The paper concludes by discussing the implications of the work and directions for future work which will be of interest to both practitioners and researchers interested in mixed method OR/MS work

Behavioural operational research : towards a framework for understanding behaviour in or interventions

Stimulated by the growing interest in behavioural issues in the management sciences, research scholars have begun to address the implications of behavioural insights for Operational Research (OR). This current work reviews some foundational debates on the nature of OR to serve as a theoretical backdrop to orient a discussion on a behavioural perspective and OR. The paper addresses a specific research need by outlining that there is a distinct and complementary contribution of a behavioural perspective to OR. However, there is a need to build a theoretical base in which the insights from classical behavioural research is just one of a number of convergent building blocks that together point towards a compelling basis for behavioural OR. In particular, the focus of the paper is a framework that highlights the collective nature of OR practice and provides a distinct and interesting line of enquiry for future research

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

Ways of Seeing Wholes: Systemic Problem Structuring Methods for the Uninitiated

Softer forms of systems thinking and Soft-OR (Operational Research) provide the theory, the methodology and the methods by which managers can see the situations they are trying to manage as wholes. They facilitate what has become known as “bigger picture” thinking and are widely acknowledged as effective ways to manage complexity. But despite nearly 50 years of development, the extent to which these ideas have penetrated mainstream management thinking and practice is very limited. Existing research suggests that adoption of systemic problem structuring methods (systemic PSMs) is frustrated by a number of factors. But questions about the take-up of systemic PSMs remain under-theorised. This thesis aims to deepen our understanding of how managers receive and take-up, and sometimes repudiate, systemic PSMs. It uses a qualitative multiple case study design to report findings from four interventions using systemic PSMs in four organisations (two from the UK and two from Romania). The findings are interpreted through the lens of Luhmann’s complex social systems theory. Applications of softer forms of systems thinking are better received and are more likely to be taken-up in situations where an existing organisational decision premise is contested and no longer functions as a stable reference point for future decisions. In these circumstances, managers show greater curiosity in systemic PSMs and are more willing to adopt them to generate new “ways of seeing”. However, they also present managers with a paradox. Used as a means to explore an organisation’s future, and as a means of deciding what that future could be, managers are more reluctant to perform “bigger picture” analyses if the product of such thinking is perceived to over-specify plans for the future; plans which might well turn out to be ill-adapted to a “future” that is fundamentally unknown. This changes the way we think about interventions using systemic PSMs and leads to a theory that produces a more nuanced understanding of the circumstances in which they might be needed and effectively deployed. Existing theory tends to focus on ideal-type problem contexts. But the near-manifestation of such contexts in actual practice does not automatically guarantee that systems-inquiring methods will be taken-up, for existing theory underplays the inherent decision logic of the organisation in which the intervention takes place and underestimates the organisation’s ability to create its own “secondary complexity”. Systemic PSMs are more likely to be in demand when existing “ways of seeing” have been exhausted