Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Strategic Options Development and Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide

Abstract

Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) enables a group or individual to construct a graphical representation of a problematic situation, and thus explore options and their ramifications with respect to a complex system of goals or objectives. In addition the method aims to help groups arrive at a negotiated agreement about how to act to resolve the situation. It is based upon the use of causal mapping – a formally constructed means-ends network – as representation form. Because the picture has been constructed using the natural language of the problem owners it becomes a model of the situation that is ‘owned’ by those who define the problem. The use of formalities for the construction of the model makes it amenable to a range of analyses as well as encouraging reflection and a deeper understanding. These analyses can be used in a ‘rough and ready’ manner by visual inspection or through the use of specialist causal mapping software (Decision Explorer). Each of the analyses helps a group or individual discover important features of the problem situation, and these features facilitate agreeing agood solution. The SODA process is aimed at helping a group learn about the situation they face before they reach agreements. Most significantly the exploration through the causal map leads to a higher probability of more creative solutions and promotes solutions that are more likely to be implemented because the problem construction process is wider and more likely to include richer social dimensions about the blockages to action and organizational change. The basic theories that inform SODA derive from cognitive psychology and social negotiation, where the model acts as a continuously changing representation of the problematic situation – changing as the views of a person or group shift through learning and exploration. This chapter, jointly written by two leading practitioner academics and the original developers of SODA, Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann, describes the SODA techniques as they are applied in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ackermann, F. 1996. Participants Perceptions on the Role of Facilitators using Group Decision Support Systems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 5: 93-112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 1994. Issues in Computer and Non-Computer Supported GDSSs. International Journal of Decision Support Systems, 12: 381-390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 1997. Contrasting GDSSs and GSSs in the Context of Strategic Change: Implications for Facilitation. Journal of Decision Systems, 6: 221-250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2001a. Contrasting Single User and Networked Group Decision Support Systems for Strategy Making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10: 47-66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2001b. SODA – Journey Making and Mapping in Practice. In Rosenhead, J. and Mingers, J. (Eds.), Rational Analysis in a Problematic World Revisited: 43-60. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2004. Using Causal mapping: individual and group; traditional and new. In Pidd, M. (Eds.), Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice: 127-145. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2010a. Strategic Management of Stakeholders: theory and practice. Long Range Planning, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2010b. Negotiation in Strategy Making Teams: Group Support Systems and the Process of Cognitive Change. Group Decision and Negotiation, forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2010c. The Role of Group Decision Support Systems: negotiating safe energy. In Kilgour, M. and Eden, C. (Eds.), Handbook for Group Decision and Negotiation: Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F., Eden, C., and Williams, T. 1997. Modeling for Litigation: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Interfaces, 27: 48-65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F., Eden, C., with Brown, I. 2005. The Practice of Making Strategy: A Step by Step Guide. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff, R. L. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, D., Richardson, G. P., Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. Using the Group Explorer Group Support System to Add Value to Group Model Building. System Dynamics Review, Forthcoming.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton, V., Ackermann, F., and Shepherd, I. 1997. Integrated Support from Problem Structuring through to Alternative Evaluation Using COPE and V.I.S.A. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6: 115-130.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bougon, M., Weick, K., and Binkhorst, D. 1977. Cognition in organizations: analysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 609-632.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. B., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., and Finn, C. 2004a. The Oval Mapping Process: Identifying Strategic Issues and Formulating Effective Strategies. In Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Profit Organisations: 355-376. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., and Finn, C. 2004b. Visible Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. 2007. Putting the Resource-Based View of Strategy and Distinctive Competencies To Work in Public Organizations. Public Administration Review, July.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzan, T. and Buzan, B. 1993. The mind map book. London: BBC Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. 1987. Problem Solving or Problem Finishing? In Jackson, M. C. Keys P. (Eds.), New Directions in Management Science: 97-107. Hants: Gower.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. 1988. Cognitive Mapping: a review. European Journal of Operational Research, 36: 1-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. 1990. The Unfolding Nature of Group Decision Support. In Eden, C. and Radford, J. (Eds.), Tackling Strategic Problems: the role of group decision support: 48-52. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. 2004. Analyzing Cognitive Maps to Help Structure Issues or Problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 159: 673-686.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 1998. Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2000. Mapping distinctive competencies: a systemic approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51: 12-20.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2001. A Mapping Framework for Strategy Making. In Huff, A. and Jenkins, M. (Eds.), Mapping Strategy: 173-195. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2004a. Cognitive Mapping Expert Views for Policy Analysis in the Public Sector. European Journal of Operational Research, 152: 615-630.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2004b. Use of ‘soft-OR’ models by clients – what do they want from them? In Pidd, M. (Eds.), Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice: 146-163. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2007. The Resource Based View: theory and practice. Presented to Academy of Management Conference Philadelphia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2010. Competences, Distinctive Competences, and Core Competences. In Sanchez, R. and Heene, A. (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on Competence-Based Management, Advances in Applied Business Strategy, Volume 12: Bingley: Emerald Group.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. and Galer, G. 1990. A Client’s perspective. Long Range Planning, 23: 42-43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., Jones, S., and Sims, D. 1979. Thinking in Organisations. London: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., Jones, S., and Sims, D. 1983. Messing about in problems; an informal structured approach to their identification and management, Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., Jones, S., and Sims, D. 1994. Misunderstandings: understanding problems and the problems of misunderstanding. In Armson, R. and Paton, R. (Eds.), Organizations: cases, issues, concepts: London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., Ackermann, F., Bryson, J., Richardson, G., Andersen, D., and Finn, C. 2009. Integrating Modes of Policy Analysis and Strategic Management Practice: Requisite Elements and Dilemmas. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60: 2-13.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Friend, J. and Hickling, A. 1987. Planning Under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, J. 1988. The Abilene Paradox: the management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics, Summer: 17-34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hickling, A. 1990. ‘Decision Spaces’: A Scenario about Designing Appropriate Rooms for Group Decision Management. Tackling Strategic Problems: the role of group decision support, 169-177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultures Consequences. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howick, S., Eden, C., Ackermann, F., and Williams, T. 2008. Building Confidence in Models for Multiple Audiences: the Modelling Cascade. European Journal of Operational Research, 186: 1068-1083.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Huff A. (Editor) 1990. Mapping Strategic Thought. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huff, A. and Jenkins, M. 2002. Mapping Strategic Knowledge. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of Group Think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. A. 1995. A Procedural Justice Model of Strategic Decision Making. Organization Science, 6: 44-61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langfield-Smith, K. and Wirth, A. 1992. Measuring Differences between Cognitive Maps. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43: 1135-1150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laukannen, M. 1998. Conducting Causal Mapping Research: Opportunities and Challenges. In Eden, C. Spender J. C. (Eds.), Managerial and Organizational Cognition: London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. 1959. The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19: 79-88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadzean, E. S. and Nelson, T. 1998. Facilitating Problem Solving Groups: A Conceptual Model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 19: 6-13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, P. C. 2002. Why Decisions Fail: Avoiding the Blunders and Traps that lead to debacles. San Franscisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. and Phillips, M. C. 1993. Facilitated Work Groups: Theory and Practice. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidd, M. 2003. Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science. Chicester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, G. and Pugh, A. L. III 1981. Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling. Boston, MA: Productivity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4: 155-169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D. 2003. Evaluating electronic workshops through analysing the ‘brainstormed’ ideas. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54: 692-705.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. 1976. From substantive to procedural rationality. In Latsis, S. J. (Eds.), Method and Appraisal in Economics: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stasser, G. and Titus, W. 2003. Hidden Profiles: A Brief History. Psychological Inquiry, 14: 304-313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, W. I. and Thomas, D. S. 1928. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. NewYork: Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Heijden, K. 1996. Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Strathclyde Business School, 40 George Street, Glasgow, Scotland, G1 1QE

    Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden

Authors
  1. Fran Ackermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Colin Eden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Communication & Systems Dept., Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom

    Martin Reynolds

  2. Communication & Systems Dept., Open University, Walton Hall, Milton Keynes, MK7 6AA, United Kingdom

    Sue Holwell

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ackermann, F., Eden, C. (2010). Strategic Options Development and Analysis. In: Reynolds, M., Holwell, S. (eds) Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-809-4_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-809-4_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-808-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-809-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation