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.

Unpacking multimethodology: Impacts of a community development intervention

“…The former is concerned with the feasibility of mixing methodologies from different paradigms -namely, the commensurability versus incommensurability debate -(e.g. Eden, Ackermann, Bryson, Richardson, & Andersen, 2009;Jackson, 2009;Kotiadis & Mingers, 2006;Mingers, 1997;Zhu, 2011); whereas the latter relates to the different ways in which specific methodologies, methods and tools are actually mixed in organisational interventions (Brown, Cooper, & Pidd, 2006;Ferreira, 2013;Franco & Lord, 2011;Gondal, 2004;Ormerod, 2001;Pollack, 2009;Small & Wainwright, 2014;Sørensen, Vidal, & Engstrom, 2004;Tako & Kotiadis, 2015;Williams, Ackermann, & Eden, 2003;Yearworth & White, 2013).…”

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

“…Here, the most common proposals for classification and differentiation are hard/soft, normative/descriptive and bottom-up/topdown paradigms or approaches. There is no consensus on the paradigm or approach classification category for these since the analysis framework at times transcends the purely methodological views of the approaches (Georgiou, 2012;Harwood, 2011;Kotiadis & Mingers, 2006;Pollack, 2009;Zhu, 2011). However, for clarity in this paper it is the hard/soft characterisation of paradigm differentiation that concerns us.…”

“…The calls for more research on multimethodology are now filtering through into the literature (Mingers & Brocklesby, 1997;Mingers & Gill, 1997;Pollack, 2009;Taket & White, 1998).…”

“…(Georgiou, 2012;Harwood, 2011;Howick & Ackermann, 2011;Kotiadis & Mingers, 2006;Pollack, 2009;Zhu, 2011). Here, the most common proposals for classification and differentiation are hard/soft, normative/descriptive and bottom-up/topdown paradigms or approaches.…”

Embracing emergence: problem solving on complex projects

“…. richly communicative" (Remington 2011, p. 4), enabling development of a bespoke mix of theories and tools, drawing insight from a wide range of sources not historically part of the project manager's toolbox (Pollack 2009;Remington & Pollack 2007). …”