Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are PSMs Relevant in a Digital Age? Towards an Ethical Dimension

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Palgrave Handbook of Operations Research

  • 1473 Accesses

Abstract

Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs) were developed over 40 years ago, so the question of its relevance today appears legitimate. This chapter takes a firm and justified position on their importance: PSMs are still significant but the challenging contextual conditions, in particular the digital revolution, may have altered the way they are to be used and the purpose for which they are applied. Observing what is particularly special about PSM use, the chapter highlights the need to shift from an emphasis on design to one on deliberation. In this regard, a new type of concern is explored, an ethical one that heightens the relevance of PSMs, related to the fact that machines and software can contribute to the structuring and representation of problems, but not to decision-making, which continues to remain in the purely human sphere.

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 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ackermann, F., & Eden E. (2011). Negotiation in strategy making teams: Group support systems and the process of cognitive change. Group Decision and Negotiation 20, 293–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2005). Using Causal Mapping with Group Support Systems to Elicit an Understanding of Failure in Complex Projects: Some Implications for Organizational Research. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14(5), 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (1994). Issues in Computer and Non-computer Supported GDSSs. Decision Support Systems, 12(4,5), 381–390.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ackermann, F., Eden, C., Pyrko, I. (2016). Accelerated multi-organization conflict resolution. Group Decision and Negotiation 25(5), 901–922.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Ackermann, F., Eden, C., Williams, T. (1997). Modeling for Litigation: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Interfaces 27, 48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ackermann, F., Yearworth, M., White, L. (2018). Micro-processes in Group Decision and Negotiation: Practices and Routines for Supporting Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation 27(1), 709–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Ackoff, R.A. (1974). Redesigning the future: a systems approach to societal problems, New York - John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bana e Costa, C., Lourenço, J., Oliveira, M., Bana e Costa, J. (2013). A socio-technical approach for group decision support in public strategic planning: The Pernambuco PPA case. Group Decision and Negotiation 23, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bharadwaj, A., El Sawy, O., Pavlou P.A., Venkatraman, N. (2013). Digital Business Strategy: Toward A Next Generation Of Insights. MIS Quarterly 37(2), 471–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bialecka-Colin E. (2007) Future with Uncertainties. Urban regeneration at Sodra Alvstranden, Goteborg, Archiprix Shanghai 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1997). The Art of Continuous Change: Linking Complexity Theory and Time-Paced Evolution in Relentlessly Shifting Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Burger, K., White, L., Yearworth, M. (2018). Why so serious? Theorising playful model-driven group decision support with situated affectivity. Group Decision and Negotiation 27, 789–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Carlile, R.P. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ Sci 15, 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Carlile, R.P. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci 13, 442–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Checkland, P., & Holwell S. (1998). Information, systems and information systems: making sense of the field. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Churchman, C. W. (1967). Guest Editorial: Wicked Problems. Management Science, 14(4), B141–B142.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Coelho, D., Antunes, C.H., Martins, A.G. (2010). Using SSM for structuring decision support in urban energy planning. Technological and Economic Development of Economy 16, 641–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cushman, M., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Planning in the face of politics: reshaping children’s health services in Inner London. In M. Brandeau, F. Sainfort, W. Pierskalla (Eds.), International Series in Operations Research & Management Science. Operations research and health care: A handbook of methods and applications (pp. 555–592). Kluwer Academic: London.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dehning, B., Stratopoulos, T. C. (2003). Determinants of a Sustainable Competitive Advantage Due to an IT-Enabled Strategy. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 12(1), 7–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dutra, A., Tumasjan, A., Welpe, I.M. (2018). Blockchain is changing how media and entertainment companies compete. MIT Sloan Management Review, 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Eden, C. (1992). Strategy development as social process. Journal of Management Studies 29(6), 799–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Eden, C. (1985). Perish the Thought!. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36(9), 809–819.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2018). Theory into practice, practice to theory: Action research in method development, European Journal of Operational Research 271(3), 1145–1155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2013). ‘Joined-Up’ Policy-Making: Group Decision and Negotiation Practice. Group Decision and Negotiation 23, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001). SODA: the principles. In J. Rosenhead, & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict: 21–41. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Fahey, D.K., Carson, E.R., Cramp, D.G., Gray, J.A.M. (2004). Applying systems modelling to public health. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 21(6), 635–649.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Ferraris, M. (2021). Documanità. Filosofia del mondo nuovo. Roma: Laterza.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Franco, L.A. (2013). Rethinking soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects. Eur J Oper Res 231(3), 720–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Franco, L.A. (2008). Facilitating collaboration with problem structuring methods: A case of an interorganisational construction partnership. Group Decision and Negotiation 17(4), 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Fregonese, E., Lami, I.M., Todella, E. (2020). Aesthetic Perspectives in Group Decision and Negotiation Practice. Group Decision and Negotiation 29, 993–1019.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Friend, J. K. (1993). Planning in the presence of uncertainty: Principles and practice. Journal of Infrastructure Planning and Management, 476, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Friend, J. K., Hickling, A. (1987). Planning under pressure: The strategic choice approach. Pergamon (Urban and Regional Planning Series): Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Friend, J. K., Hickling, A. (2005). Planning under pressure: The strategic choice approach (3rd ed.). Routledge: London and New York.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Gimpel, H., Hosseini, S., Huber, R., Probst, L., Röglinger, M., Faisst, U. (2018). Structuring Digital Transformation: A Framework of Action Fields and its Application at ZEISS. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application 19(1), 31–54.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Herrera, H. J., McCardle-Keurentjes, M. H. F., & Videira, N. (2016) Evaluating Facilitated Modelling Processes and Outcomes: An Experiment Comparing a Single and a Multimethod Approach in Group Model Building, Group Decision and Negotiation 25(6), 1277–1318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Horn, R.E. (2001). Knowledge Mapping for Complex Social Messes, a presentation to the “Foundations in the Knowledge Economy” at the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, July 16.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Huxham, C. (2003). Theorizing collaboration practice. Public Management Review 5(3), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Keys, P. (1997). Approaches to understanding the process of OR: Review, critique and extension. Omega 25(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Keys, P. (1995). Reducing the process lacuna in operational research by taking a knowledge work perspective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 24(3), 285–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kotiadis, K., & Mingers, J. (2014). Combining problem structuring methods with simulation: The philosophical and practical challenges. In S. Brailsford, L. Churilov, & B. Dangerfild (Eds.), Discrete-event simulation and system dynamics for man- agement decision making (pp. 52–75). John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Kotiadis, K., & Mingers, J. (2006). Combining PSMs with Hard OR Methods: the Philosophical and Practical Challenges. J. Operational Research Society 57(7), 856–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Kreulich, K.; Dellmann, F.; Schutz, T.; Harth, T.; Zwingmann, K. (2016). Digitalisierung - Strategische Entwicklung einer kompetenzorientierten Lehre für die digitale Gesellschaft und Arbeitswelt. UAS7 e. V., Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lami, I. M., & Tavella, E. (2019). On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops. European Journal of Operational Research, 275, 1020–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lami I.M., & Todella E. (2019). Facing urban uncertainty with the strategic choiceapproach: the introduction of disruptive events. Rivista di Estetica 71, 222–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Lazarus, R.J. (2009). Super wicked problems and climate change: restraining the present to liberate the future. Cornell Law Rev. 94(5), 1153–1234.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Lehaney, B., & Paul, R.J. (1996). The use of soft systems methodology in the development of a simulation of outpatient services at Watford General Hospital. Journal of the Operational Research Society 47(7), 864–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Le Menestrel, M., Van Wassenhove, L.N. (2009). Ethics in Operations Research and Management Sciences: A never-ending effort to combine rigor and passion. Omega 37, 1039–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sci. 45, 123–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Midgley, G., Cavana, R. Y., Brocklesby, J., Foote, J. L., Wood, D. R.R., Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. (2013). Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods, European Journal of Operational Research 229(1), 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Mingers, J. (2011). The Contribution of Systemic Thought to Critical Realism, Journal of Critical Realism, 10:3, 303–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2011). Introduction to the Special Issue: Teaching Soft O.R., Problem Structuring Methods, and Multimethodology. INFORMS Transactions on Education 12(1), 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action, European Journal of Operational Research 152, 530–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Mingers, J., & White, L. (2010). A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(3), 1147–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Mortenson, M. J., Doherty, N. F., & Robinson, S. (2015). Operational research from Taylorism to Terabytes: A research agenda for the analytics age. European Journal of Operational Research, 241(3), 583–595.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Moulin, M. (1991). Getting planners to take notice. OR Insight 4(1), 25–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Ormerod, R. (2006). The history and ideas of pragmatism. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(8), 892–909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Ormerod, R. (2005). Putting soft OR methods to work: the case of IS strategy development for the UK Parliament. Journal of the Operational Research Society 56(12), 1379–1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Ormerod, R. (1999). Putting soft OR methods to work: The case of the business improvement project at PowerGen. European Journal of Operational Research 118(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Ormerod, R. (1996). Putting soft OR methods to work: information systems strategy development at Richards Bay. Journal of the Operational Research Society 47(9), 1083–1097.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Ormerod, R. (1995). Putting soft OR methods to work: information systems strategy development at Sainsbury’s. Journal of the Operational Research Society 46(3), 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Paroutis, S., Franco, L.A., Papadopoulos, T. (2015). Visual Interactions with Strategy Tools: Producing Strategic Knowledge in Workshops. British Journal of Management 26(S1), S48–S66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Peirce, C.S. (1958). 1931-1958. Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vol. 1-8, eds. P. Weiss, C. Hartshorne, & A.W. Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Pidd, M. (2003). Tools for thinking: modelling in management science, 2nd ed. Wiley, Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973) Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804397.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  67. Rosenhead, J. (1996). What’s the Problem? An Introduction to Problem Structuring Methods. Interfaces 26, 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Rosenhead, J. (2013). Problem structuring methods. In: S. Gass & F. Fu (Eds.), Encyclopedia of operations research and management science (pp. 1162–1172). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  69. Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Bastings, I., & Blokker, H. (2011). A comparison of Group Model Building and Strategic Options Development and Analysis. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(6), 781–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Saaty, T. L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Schallmo, D.R.A., Williams, C.A. (2018). History of Digital Transformation. In: Digital Transformation Now!. SpringerBriefs in Business (pp. 3–8). Springer, Cham.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Schwer, K., Hitz, K. (2018). Designing organizational structure in the age of digitization. Journal Of Eastern European And Central Asian Research 5(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Smith, C. M., & Shaw, D. (2019). The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 274(2), 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Star, S.L., Griesemer, R.J. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’, and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrae zoology. Soc Stud Sci 19, 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Taleb, N.N. (2007). The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable. Penguin Random House: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Tavella E., & Lami, I.M. (2019). Negotiating perspectives and values through soft OR in the context of urban renewal. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 136–161.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Tavella, E., & Papadopoulos T. (2017). Applying OR to problem situations within community organisations: a case in a Danish non-profit, member-driven food cooperative. European Journal of Operational Research 258(2), 726–742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Todella, E., Lami, I.M., Armando, A. (2018). Experimental Use of Strategic Choice Approach (SCA) by Individuals as an Architectural Design Tool. Group Decision and Negotiation 27(5), 811–826.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Yearworth, M., & White, L. (2021). A Problem Structuring Method implemented using a Group Support System. Paper presented at the 31st European Conference on Operational Research (EURO 2021), Athens, Greece.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Yearworth, M., & White, L. (2018). Spontaneous emergence of Community OR: self-initiating, self-organising problem structuring mediated by social media. European Journal of Operational Research, 268(3), 800–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Yearworth, M., & White, L. (2014). The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition. European Journal of Operational Research, 237(3), 932–945.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Weill, P., Woerner, S. (2018). Is Your Company Ready for a Digital Future? MIT Sloan Management Review; Cambridge 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Westcombe, M., Franco, L. A., & Shaw, D. (2006). Where Next for PSMs: A grassroots revolution? The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7), 776–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Weick, K. E. (1989). Theory Construction as Disciplined Imagination. The Academy of Management Review 14(4), 516–531.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. White, L. (2016). Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 827–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. White, L. (2009). Understanding Problem Structuring Methods Interventions. European Journal of Operational Research, 99(3): 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. White, L., 2003. The role of systems research and operational research in community involvement: A case study of a health action zone. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 20(2), 133–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. White, L., & Lee, G.J. (2009). Operational research and sustainable development: Tackling the social dimension. European Journal of Operational Research 193(3), 683–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  89. White, L., & Taket, A. R. (1993). Community OR-Doing what feels good. OR Insight 6(2), 20–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Wilson, J. M. (1998). Information systems provision: The contribution of soft systems methodology. Journal of the Operational Research Society 49(3), 296–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Zeiderman, A., Kaker, S., Silver, J., Wood, A., Ramakrishnan, K. (2017). Urban Uncertainty: Governing cities in turbulent times, London, LSE Cities.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy

    Isabella M. Lami

  2. Management Department, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK

    Leroy White

Authors
  1. Isabella M. Lami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leroy White
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabella M. Lami .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Kent Business School, University of Kent, Canterbury, UK

    Saïd Salhi

  2. Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK

    John Boylan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lami, I.M., White, L. (2022). Are PSMs Relevant in a Digital Age? Towards an Ethical Dimension. In: Salhi, S., Boylan, J. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Operations Research . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96935-6_24

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation