Problem structuring without workshops? Experiences with distributed interaction within a PSM process

Morton, Alec; Ackermann, Fran; Belton, Valérie

doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602210

Cited by 20 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The value of the facilitation process for individual, group and collective is now clearly established (Huxham and Cropper, 1994;McFadzean and Nelson, 1998;Morton et al, 2007), and the requisite skills and essential inputs of the facilitator in contexts of systemic interventions have been addressed in detail (Ackermann, 1996;Nutt, 2002). The OR community continued to consider not just 'what' groups do but 'how they do it'.…”

Section: Experiences Of Problem Structuring With Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…How do they interact with one another and with the client group as the game plan evolves? (Andersen and Richardson, 1997, p 126) The OR community have traditionally discoursed in detail about the methodologies used in various forms of intervention and the issue of multi-disciplinarity in problem structuring (in the group facilitation domain, see, for example, Robinson, 2001;Taket, 2002;Mingers and Rosenhead, 2004;Rosenhead, 2006;Morton et al, 2007); however, our focus remains around the nature of the facilitation process itself and how outcomes are achieved. Papamichail et al (2007) have provided more insights into the importance of the idiosyncratic tendencies of the facilitator, and Franco et al (Franco and Montibeller, 2010;Franco and Rouwette, 2011) have explored the value of facilitation, and critically:…”

Section: Experiences Of Problem Structuring With Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Groups and facilitators within problem structuring processes

Bell

Morse

2013

Journal of the Operational Research Society

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In problem structuring methods, facilitators often ask of themselves questions such as: what makes a 'good' problem structuring group (PSG) and indeed what does 'good' mean? How can group dynamics be improved and does it matter in terms of the quality of the problem structuring that that group engages in? On the surface these questions seem to be straightforward. Indeed, those who have helped facilitate many participatory workshops will think they intuitively know the answers to these questions; they can, from their professional practice, 'feel' which PSGs are doing well and producing novel insights and those which are functioning less well and perhaps generating something that is less imaginative and more routine as a consequence. The intuitive, practice-learned insight will depend upon a rich array of visual signals that become more obvious with experience. This paper asks whether there is value in being much more open and analytical about these questions and answers. If so, then how can we make the unwritten processes and outcomes of PSGs written? Indeed, open to whom? Finally, how much of any insights learned by facilitators should be shared with those engaged in workshops?

show abstract

Section: Experiences Of Problem Structuring With Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experiences Of Problem Structuring With Groupsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groups and facilitators within problem structuring processes

Bell

Morse

2013

Journal of the Operational Research Society

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The process also promotes the discussion of individual ideas within the working group. This opens up a rich negotiation and convergent phase, when the group will seek to define a common reality towards a proposed action plan (Morton et al, 2007).…”

Section: Value-focused Brainstorming (Vfb)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This would help to support group work and facilitate ongoing staff engagement. We believe this strategy would optimize time, assist by extending participation and breaking through any existing HR barriers (Morton et al, 2007). It would be prudent to anticipate challenges with such step changes (Shaw et al, 2004), but this could be the subject for a future research.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systemic framework based on Soft OR approaches to support teamwork strategy: An aviation manufacturer Brazilian company case

Abuabara

Paucar‐Caceres

Belderrain

et al. 2017

Journal of the Operational Research Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper reports on the application of a combination of Operational Research (OR) approaches to a real-world case of re-designing the strategy of a department management team, in an aircraft manufacturing organization in Brazil. We combine approaches from 'Soft' OR Problem Structuring Methods in a multi-methodological framework arguing that this helps to discuss, develop and implement a new departmental strategy. The proposed framework uses elements of Soft Systems Methodology; Strategic Options Development and Analysis to understand and structure the situation; Value-Focused Thinking to define the means and objectives; and ValueFocused Brainstorming to highlight the potential solutions. We conceptualize a four-phased systemic framework linking elements of the above four 'Soft' OR approaches and apply it to a real-world case in a department where a new team leader was appointed with the specific brief to improve the departmental strategy and its performance in general. Findings suggest that combining the approaches into a framework encourages trust and participation from stakeholders which, in practice, is translated into an improved strategy for the organization. A reflection on the multi-methodological approach is proposed. Conclusions and points for further research are suggested.

show abstract

“…The value of the facilitation process for individual, group and collective action is now clearly established (Huxham et al 1994;McFadzean et al 1998;Morton et al 2007) and the requisite skills and essential inputs of the facilitator in contexts of systemic interventions has been addressed in detail (Ackermann 1996;Nutt 2002). However, the literature indicates a number of key issues in any group work context.…”

Section: Group Work: a Conundrummentioning

confidence: 99%