Advertisement

Interpreting the Interpretive Structural Model

Original Article

Abstract

Interpretive structural modeling (ISM) is a process that transforms unclear and poorly articulated mental models of systems into visible, well-defined models useful for many purposes. The interpretation of links is comparatively weak in ISM; the interpretation of the directed link in terms of how it operates is lacking. This paper is an attempt to interpret the links in the interpretive structural models using the tool of Interpretive Matrix and leads to evolve the framework and methodology of total interpretive structural modeling (TISM). First, an overview of ISM is provided. This is taken-up further by highlighting the need of interpretation of interpretive structural models. In order to evolve the framework of TISM, the tool of Interpretive Matrix is briefly introduced, which is integrated into the methodology of TISM. The basic process of TISM is presented in a step-by-step manner with indicative directions for scaling-up this process. Some tests for validating total interpretive structural models are also proposed. Finally, the basic process of TISM is illustrated with the help of an example in the context of organizational change. This process can be used for conceptualization and theory building in organizational research.

Keywords

Interpretive Matrix Interpretive structural modeling Organizational change Theory building Total interpretive structural modeling 

References

  1. Agarwal, A., Shankar, R., & Tiwari, M. K. (2007). Modeling agility of supply chain. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(4), 443–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishwas, S. K., & Sushil. (2011). Knowledge management process in organizations and its linkages with flexibility: A caselets base inductive study, Eleventh Global Conference on Flexibile Systems Management, IIMK-GLOGIFT 11, IIM Kozikode, December 9–12, 2011.Google Scholar
  3. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Haleem, A., Sushil, M. A., Quadri, & Kumar, S. (2012). Analysis of critical success factors of worldclass manufacturing practices: An application of interpretative structural modelling and interpretative ranking process. Production Planning and Control, 1–13.Google Scholar
  5. Hansen, J. V., McKell, L. J., & Heitger, L. E. (1979). ISMS: Computer-aided analysis for design of decision support systems. Management Science, 25(11), 1069–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Harary, F., Norman, R. Z., & Cartwright, D. (1965). Structural models-an introduction to the theory of directed graphs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Hawthrone, R. W., & Sage, A. P. (1975). On application of interpretive structural modelling to higher education program planning. Socio-Economic Planning, 9(1), 31–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hill, J. D., & Warfield, J. N. (1972). Unified program planning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-2(5), 610–621.Google Scholar
  9. Jedlicka, A. & Meyer, R. (1980) Interpretive structural modeling cross cultural uses. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-10(1), 49–51.Google Scholar
  10. Lee, D. M. (2008). Structured decision making with ISMimplementing the core of interactive management, www.sorach.com.
  11. Lin, M. C., Wang, C. C., & Chen, T. C. (2006). A strategy for managing customer-oriented product design. Concurrent Engineering, 14(3), 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malone, D. W. (1975). An introduction to the applications of interpretive structural modeling. Proceedings of the IEEE, 63(3), 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mandal, A., & Deshmukh, S. G. (1994). Vendor selection using interpretive structural modeling (ISM). International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 14(6), 52–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mohammed, I. R., Shankar, R., & Banwet, D. K. (2008). Creating Flex-lean-agile value chain by outsourcing: An ISM based interventional roadmap. Business Process Management Journal, 14(3), 338–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Nasim, (2011). Total interpretive structural modeling of continuity and change forces in e-government. Journal of Enterprise Transformation, 1(2), 147–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nasim, S., & Sushil (2010). Managing continuity and change—a new approach for strategizing in e-government. Transforming Government: People, Processes and Policy, 4(4), 338–364.Google Scholar
  17. Nasim, S., & Sushil (2011). Revisiting organizational change: Exploring the paradox of ‘managing continuity and change’. Journal of Change Management, 11(2), 185–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saaty, T. L. (1977). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  19. Saxena, J. P., Sushil & Vrat, P. (2006). Policy and strategy formulation: An application of flexible systems methodology. Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, New Delhi: GIFT Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Sharma, H. D., & Sushil (1995). The objectives of waste management in india: A futures inquiry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 48, 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Srivastava, A., & Sushil (2011). Adapt: The pillar of strategy execution process linking back to strategy, Eleventh Global Conference on Flexibile Systems Management, IIMK-GLOGIFT 11, IIM Kozhikode, December 9–12, 2011.Google Scholar
  22. Sushil (2005a). Interpretive matrix: A tool to aid interpretation of management and social research. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 6(2), 27–30.Google Scholar
  23. Sushil (2005b). A flexible strategy framework for managing continuity and change. International Journal of Global Business and Competitiveness, 1(1), 22–32.Google Scholar
  24. Sushil (2009a). SAP-LAP linkages—a generic interpretive framework for analyzing managerial contexts. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(2), 11–20.Google Scholar
  25. Sushil (2009b). Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(4), 1–10.Google Scholar
  26. Sushil (2012). Flowing stream strategy: Managing confluence of continuity and change. Journal of Enterprise Transformation, 2(1), 26–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Waller, R. J. (1980). Contextual relations and mathematical relations in interpretive structural modeling. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, 10(3), 143–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Warfield, J. N. (1973a). Intent structures. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-3(2), 133–140.Google Scholar
  29. Warfield, J. N. (1973b). Binary matrices in system modeling. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-3, 441–449.Google Scholar
  30. Warfield, J. N. (1973c). Assault on complexities. Battelle Monograph, 3 April. Battelle Memorial Inst., Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
  31. Warfield, J. N. (1973d). On arranging elements of a hierarchy in graphic form. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-3, 121–132.Google Scholar
  32. Warfield, J. N. (1974a). Structuring complex systems. Battelle monograph. Columbus, OH: Battelle Memorial Inst. 4.Google Scholar
  33. Warfield J.N. (1974b) Developing Sub-System Matrices in Structural Modeling, IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-4, 74-80.Google Scholar
  34. Warfield, J. N. (1974c). Towards Interpretation of complex structural models. IEEE Transactions: System, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-4(5), 405–417.Google Scholar
  35. Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning. Policy and complexity. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Warfield, J. N. (1994). A science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design. Iowa: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Warfield, J. N. (1999). Twenty laws of complexity: Science applicable in organizations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(1), 3–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Warfield, J. N. (2003). The mathematics of structure. Palam Harbor, FL: Ajar Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  39. Warfield, J. N., & Cárdenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Whetten, D. A. (1989). What constitutes a theoretical contribution? Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management StudiesIndian Institute of Technology, DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations