2009
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602585
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Robustness analysis for sustainable community development

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0
1

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
6
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Additionally, the literature recognises the transparency of the models and the intervention process itself as one of the most common positive impacts of OR interventions (e.g. Franco, 2009;Hjortsø, 2004;Howick & Ackermann, 2011;Namen, Bornstein, & Rosenhead, 2009;White & Taket, 1994). We relate transparency in the context of our own intervention as the possibility that team members had to perform objective valuations of their business ideas and being able to detach themselves from who would be the beneficiaries of those projects.…”
Section: "So I Think One Of the Important Aspects Of This Process Wamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Additionally, the literature recognises the transparency of the models and the intervention process itself as one of the most common positive impacts of OR interventions (e.g. Franco, 2009;Hjortsø, 2004;Howick & Ackermann, 2011;Namen, Bornstein, & Rosenhead, 2009;White & Taket, 1994). We relate transparency in the context of our own intervention as the possibility that team members had to perform objective valuations of their business ideas and being able to detach themselves from who would be the beneficiaries of those projects.…”
Section: "So I Think One Of the Important Aspects Of This Process Wamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This relates to other recent developments using multi-methodology in soft OR (e.g. Mingers, 1997;De Tombe, 2002;Gondal, 2004;White & Lee, 2009;Hermans & Thissen, 2009;Namen et al, 2009;Howick & Ackerman, 2011). It offers an in-depth description of an intervention using mixed methods, that may help to develop our understanding of multi-methodology, as Howick & Ackerman (2011) recommend.…”
Section: On Soft or And Multi-methodologymentioning
confidence: 57%
“…The debility score is defined similarly, but in terms of unsatisfactory configurations -so low debility is preferred. Different weights may be used to discriminate desirable from very desirable configurations (for more details see Namen et al, 2009). …”
Section: Robustness Analysis and Problem Structuring Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%