Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions

Abstract

Citation: FRANCO, L.A. and LORD, E., 2011. Understanding multi-methodology: evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions. Omega-The International Journal of Management Science, 39 (3), pp. -372.Additional Information:• AbstractThis paper reports on the design and implementation of a multi-methodology intervention intended to support a budget prioritisation decision by a multi-organizational group tasked with tackling the problem of teenage pregnancy in an English borough. The intervention approach involved the combined use of cognitive/causal mapping and a multi-criteria decision analysis method to develop and prioritise a number of projects aimed at alleviating issues associated with teenage pregnancy. The paper describes and discusses the process of developing and applying the intervention approach, and provides an evaluation of its perceived impact by the client group. Drawing on the rich seam of data gathered over the course of our work with the multi-organisational group, we explore the varying degrees of impact that the mapping and multi-criteria evaluation methods achieved during and after the intervention. Analysis of the intervention data suggests that both methods were perceived to facilitate a different way of thinking and learning. In addition, we find that the mapping and multi-criteria evaluation methods successfully addressed participants' democratic and rational concerns. However, despite these reported positive effects, the full recommendations of the intervention were not implemented. An attempt is made to explain this outcome in terms of both, the multi-organisational context within which the intervention took place, and the nature of the group task. Directions for further research are then proposed.

Unpacking multimethodology: Impacts of a community development intervention

“…In our case, our knowledge of and experience with problem structuring and decision analysis methods (e.g. Franco & Lord, 2011;Henao, Cherni, Jaramillo, & Dyner, 2012;Hindle & Franco, 2009) meant that we had the requisite level of competency for mixing these methods in practice and, therefore, our particular choice of methods seemed both natural and useful for the intervention at hand. Table 2 provides an overview of our intervention design.…”

“…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).…”

“…Indeed, several authors have compared the strengths and weaknesses of different methodologies against particular conceptualizations of intervention stages. For example, scholars such as Franco and Lord (2011) and Belton et al (1997) argue that qualitative problem structuring methodologies and quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis approaches differ in their relative ability to support the divergent and convergent work stages of an intervention, respectively. More generally, Mingers and Brocklesby (1997) discuss the strengths and weaknesses of different methodologies in relation to the appreciation, analysis, assessment and action stages of an intervention.…”

“…Of course, there is no denying that there is an increasing literature of the use of multimethodology in practice. However, with some notable exceptions (Franco & Lord, 2011;White, 2009), there is a lack of empirically-informed accounts showing how these expected benefits are realised in practice, and what underpinning mechanisms are behind their attainment (cf. Howick & Ackermann, 2011).…”

Integrating the Data Envelopment Analysis and the Balanced Scorecard approaches for enhanced performance assessment

“…Franco and Lord [23] provide an example of a combination of multiple methodologies to support organizational decision making.…”