Problem-structuring methods and project management: an example of stakeholder involvement using Hierarchical Process Modelling methodology

Davis, J. P.; MacDonald, Adriane; White, Leroy

doi:10.1057/jors.2010.12

Cited by 44 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 67 publications

(82 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…STEEP employs Hierarchical Process Modelling to structure the problem situation (Davis et al, 2010) that allowed participants to take a wide view of 'energy', including building types and usage profiles, infrastructure systems and technology, movement/transport mix, thereby considering social practices (the changing nature of work in networking hubs, an increasing awareness of sustainable energy behaviours and environmentally and healthfriendly travel choices).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory

White

Bürger

Yearworth

2016

European Journal of Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

1Highlights  Paper presents a conceptual framework and methodological guide for researching and understanding OR interventions. The paper outlines the main theoretical and methodological concerns that need to be appreciated in studying PSM interventions. The paper explores activity theory as an approach to study them. A case study describing the use of this approach is provided. AbstractThis article argues that OR interventions, particularly problem structuring methods (PSM), are complex events that cannot be understood by conventional methods alone. In this paper an alternative approach is introduced, where the units of analysis are the activity systems constituted by and constitutive of PSM interventions. The paper outlines the main theoretical and methodological concerns that need to be appreciated in studying PSM interventions. The paper then explores activity theory as an approach to study them. A case study describing the use of this approach is provided.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory

White

Bürger

Yearworth

2016

European Journal of Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This helps to inform the next action by the group, i.e. to agree on the allocation of coloured scoring points to the model (Davis et al 2010) to prioritise the allocation of resources-emotional and cognitive-in a conceptual format by adding scoring points to the flipchart model for relevant pro-cesses. In consequence, affect performed in-situ can be said to have influenced the plan for action beyond the workshop.…”

Section: "As Soon As You Start Talking About … They Go…mentioning

confidence: 99%

Why so Serious? Theorising Playful Model-Driven Group Decision Support with Situated Affectivity

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An integrative approach to theorising behavioural, affective and cognitive processes in model-driven 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.

show abstract

“…Hierarchical process modelling (HPM) is a knowledge structuring process emerging from a systems thinking approach to address practical problems in complex systems by generating a visual representation (or architecture) of the system (Davis & Fletcher, 2000;Davis, MacDonald, & White, 2010). There are different approaches to modelling complex systems; for example, causal loop modelling looks at the interactions between the parts of the system (Jackson, 2000;White, 2006), or Beer's viable systems model, which models different levels of a system (1985; 1984).…”

Section: Hierarchical Process Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are different approaches to modelling complex systems; for example, causal loop modelling looks at the interactions between the parts of the system (Jackson, 2000;White, 2006), or Beer's viable systems model, which models different levels of a system (1985; 1984). However, the ECHO project team selected HPM (Davis, MacDonald, & White 2010) because it is framed around the system's purpose and thus has particular application to leadership decision making in the context of high-stakes accountability frameworks. In particular, it offers a practical way of coming to grips with complexity and a forum for stakeholder engagement and participation in 1) defining and evaluating their particular purpose and in 2) ongoing leadership decision making based on a visual representation of data derived from critical core processes in the system.…”

Section: Hierarchical Process Modellingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Analytics for Wholistic School Improvement: Hierarchical Process Modelling and Evidence Visualization

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Central to the mission of most educational institutions is the task of preparing the next generation of citizens to contribute to society. Schools, colleges, and universities value a range of outcomes -e.g., problem solving, creativity, collaboration, citizenship, service to community -as well as academic outcomes in traditional subjects. Often referred to as "wider outcomes," these are hard to quantify. While new kinds of monitoring technologies and public datasets expand the possibilities for quantifying these indices, we need ways to bring that data together to support sense-making and decision-making. Taking a systems perspective, the hierarchical process modelling (HPM) approach and the "Perimeta" visual analytic provides a dashboard that informs leadership decision-making with heterogeneous, often incomplete evidence. We report a prototype of Perimeta modelling from education, aggregating wider outcomes data across a network of schools, and calculating their cumulative contribution to key performance indicators, using the visual analytic of the Italian flag to make explicit not only the supporting evidence, but also the challenging evidence, as well as areas of uncertainty. We discuss the nature of the modelling decisions and implicit values involved in quantifying these kinds of educational outcomes.

show abstract

Problem-structuring methods and project management: an example of stakeholder involvement using Hierarchical Process Modelling methodology

Cited by 44 publications

References 67 publications

Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory

Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory

Why so Serious? Theorising Playful Model-Driven Group Decision Support with Situated Affectivity

Towards Analytics for Wholistic School Improvement: Hierarchical Process Modelling and Evidence Visualization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About