Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Effectiveness of Boundary Critique in an Intervention: a Case in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Systemic Practice and Action Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper applied boundary critique to identify, structure and address operational issues in an intervention process. A commercial livestock was used as case study. The research addressed identified issues from the perspectives of the affected stakeholders, i.e. participants who were either involved or affected by the operations of the case study firm. Workshop and boundary critique were used for data collection in the research process. Findings from the research show that the application of boundary critique established a foundation for interactions in the research process. Also highlighted in the research were factors that influenced the establishment of common ground that underpinned the application of boundary critique in the research. Key issues identified and addressed in the research were inadequate water supply and poor sales management in the operations of the case study organisation, via effective deployment of boundary critique and workshop in the research. The research wound up with the suggestion for researchers to pay attention to the willingness of the control stakeholders, and decisions makers to implement suggested changes in an intervention.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Fingerlings are a new batch of fish in their developmental process, which are about 3–4 weeks old. They are either sold to external customers or reared further to the adult stage in the farm (Pemsl and Madan 2015; Francis and Esa 2016).

  2. According to the respondents, smoking is a method of processing live-stock products done by using heat, usually from a fire source to dry up the watery content of the product to preserve it for use.

References

  • Achterkamp MC, Vos JF (2007) Critically identifying stakeholders: evaluating boundary critique as a vehicle for stakeholder identification. Syst Res Behavioural Sci: The Official J Int Federation Syst Res 24(1):3–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkerman SF, Bakker A (2011) Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Rev Educ Res 81(2):132–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Arksey H, Knight P (1999) Interviewing for social scientist. London. Sage Pub Ltd

  • Barbour R (2007) Doing focus groups. London. Sage pub Ltd

  • Beers P, Boshuizen HPA, Kirschner PA, Gijselasers WH (2006) Common ground, complex problems and decision making. Group Decis Negot 15:529–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Bender, D.E. and Ewbank, D. (1994). The focus group as tool for health research: issues in design and anlysis. Health transition review, (4)1, pp.63–78

  • Brydon-Miller M (2003) Why action research? Action Res 1(1):9–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera D, Colosi L, Lobdell C (2008) Systems thinking. Evaluation program planning 31:299–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ Sci 15(5):555–568

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley & Sons, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action. A short definitive account of soft system methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. England, Wiley and Sons Ltd

  • Checkland P, Scholes J (1999) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: includes a 30-year retrospective. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW (1968) The systems approach. Dell, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW (1970) Operations research as a profession. Management science, (17) 2, Oct, pp B37–B53

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW (1971) The design of inquiry systems. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking. Rethinking management information systems, pp.45-56.

  • Churchman CW (1979) The systems approach and its enemies. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Collis J, Hussey R (2009) Business research. A practical guide for undergraduate & postgraduate students, 3rd edtn edn. United Kingdom, Macmillan Pub Ltd

  • Cordoba JR, Midgley G (2006) Broadening the boundaries: an application of critical system to IS planning in Colombia. J Oper Res Soc 57:1064–1080

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. Sage

  • Dey, I. (2003). Qualitative data analysis: a user friendly guide for social scientists. Routledge

  • Flood RL, Jackson MC (1991) Creative problem solving. Total system intervention. United Kingdom. Wiley & Sons Ltd

  • Foote JL, Gregor JE, Hepi MC, Baker VE, Houston DJ, Midgley G (2007) Systemic problem structuring applied to community involvement in water conservation. J Oper Res Soc 58:645–654

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis NO, Esa YB (2016) A review of production protocols used in producing economically viable monosex tilapia. J Fish Aquat Sci 11(1):1

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaede J, Rowlands IH (2019) The value of multiple perspectives: problem-solving and critique in the evaluation of social acceptance research—a response to M. Wolsink Energy Research & Social Science 48:262–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamme, I and Lodgaard, E. (2018). Organizational or systems boundaries; possible threats to continuous improvement process, 12th CIRP Conference on Intelligence in Manufacturing Engineering, 18-20th July, Gulf of Naples, Italy

  • Gibson, E.L. (2005). Boundary control. Subnational authoritarianism in democratic countries. World politics. Oct. (58), pp. 102–132

  • Gillham B (2000) The research interview. Cotinnum, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillham, B.(2005) The research interviewing. England. Open University press

  • Grohs, J.R., Kirka, G.R., Michelle M., Soledad, M.M., and Knight, D.B. (2018). Assessing systems thinking: a tool to measure complex reasoning through ill-structured problems, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28, June, pp.110–130

  • Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (2002). Interview research context and method. United Kindom, Sage publications Ltd.

  • Hart D, Paucar-Caceres A (2017) A utilisation focussed and viable systems approach for evaluating technology supported learning. Eur J Oper Res 259(2):626–641

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatton, E. (2015). Work beyond the bounds: a boundary analysis of the fragmentation of work. Work, Employment & Society 0950017014568141

  • Henao F, Franco LA (2016) Unpacking multimethodology: impacts of a community development intervention. Eur J Oper Res 253(3):681–696

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson, A., and Midgley, G. (2015, January). Bringing foresight into systems thinking: a three horizon approach. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2014, United States, (1)1

  • Ireland V (2013) Exploration of complex system types. Procedia Computer Science 20:248–255

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M.C. (2000). System approaches to Management. NewYork, Kluwer academic/plenum Pub

  • Jackson, M.C. (2003). System thinking creative holism for managers. United Kingdom, John Wiley & sons Ltd.

  • Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of health and Illness 16(1):103–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Langford, J. and McDonagh, D. (2003). Focus Groups:Supporting effective product development. USA. Taylor and Francis

  • Lee CP (2007) Boundary negotiating artefacts: unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Cooperative Work 16:307–339

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehtinen, J., Aaltonen, K. and Rajala, R. (2018). Stakeholder management in complex product systems: practices and rationales for engagement and disengagement. Ind Mark Manag

  • Lenartowicz M, Weinbaum D, Braathen P (2016) The individuation of social systems: a cognitive framework. Procedia Computer Science 88:15–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Levick D, Woog R (2000) From systems boundary to fractality: broadening the practitioner’s paradigm. In: 1st international conference on Tthinking management, pp Pg341–Pg346

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, A. and Anderson, T.D. (2009). Research project as boundary object: negotiating the conceptual design of a tool for international development. In ECSCW 2009 (pp. 21–41). Springer, London

  • McIntosh, M.J. and Morse, J.M., (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured interviews. Global qualitative nursing research, 2, p.2333393615597674

  • McNiff J (1998) Action research principles and practice. Routledge, USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, G. (1989). Critical systems: The theory and practice of partitioning methodologiesProceedings of 33rd annual meeting of the international society for general Systems research Vol.2, Endibough, Scotland, 2-7July

  • Midgley G (1992) The sacred and profane in critical systems thinking. Systems Practice 5:5–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G (1997) Dealing with coercion: critical system heuristics and beyond. System practice 10(1):37–57

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. London, Kluwer academic/plenum publishers

  • Midgley (2003). Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and complexity for the philosophy of science. Systemic practice and Action Research. Sept. (16)2, pp.77–97

  • Midgley, G. (2011). Theoretical pluralism in systemic action research. Systems Practice and Action Research. Feb. (24), pp.1–15

  • Midgley, G. (2015). Systemic intervention. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The Sage handbook of action research (3rd edition). London: Sage.

  • Midgley, G. (2016). Moving beyond value conflicts: systemic problem structuring in action. Hull University Business School

  • Midgley, G. and Ochoa-Arias, A.E. (2004). Community operational research: OR and systems thinking for community development, Eds. London, KluwerAcademic/ Plenum Publishers

  • Midgley G, Pinzón LA (2011) Boundary critique and its implications for conflict prevention. J Oper Res Soc 62(8):1543–1554

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G, Munlo I, Brown M (1998) The theory and practice of boundary critique: developing housing services for older people. J Oper Res Soc 49:467–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, G., Foote, J., Ahuriri-Driscoll A., and Wood D. (2007). Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic and participative methods. Journals.isss.org. pp.1–19

  • Midgley G, Cavana R, Brockesby J, Foote JL, Wood DRR, Ahiriri-Driscoll A (2013) Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. Eur J Oper Res 229:143–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2015) Helping business schools engage with real problems: the contribution of critical realism and systems thinking. Eur J Oper Res 242(1):316–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Montoya RD (2017) Boundary objects/boundary staff: supporting digital scholarship in academic libraries. J Acad Librariansh 43(3):216–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Newcomer, K.E., Hatry, H.P. and Wholey, J.S.(2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. Handbook of practical program evaluation, p.492

  • O'Keeffe J, Buytaert W, Mijic A, Brozović N, Sinha R (2016) The use of semi-structured interviews for the characterisation of farmer irrigation practices. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20(5):1911–1924

    Google Scholar 

  • Olokundun MA, Ogbari EM, Obi JN, Ufua DE (2019) Business incubation and student idea validation: a focus on Nigerian universities. J Entrepreneurship Education 22(1)

  • Pemsl, D.E. and Madan, M.D. (2015). Determining high potential aquaculture production areas-analysis of key socio-economic adoption factors

  • Perrone, V. Zahar, A. McEvilly, B.(2003). Free to be trusted? Organisational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organisational science, (14)4, pp.422-439

  • Petrovic SP (2015) Systemic intervention in creative managing problems in enterprises. J Bus Econ Manag 16(5):949–961

    Google Scholar 

  • Rajagopalan R, Midgley G (2015) Knowing differently in systemic intervention. Syst Res Behav Sci 32:546–561

    Google Scholar 

  • Rendtorff JD (2015) Case studies, ethics, philosophy, and Liberal learning for the management profession. J Manag Educ 39(1):36–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, M. Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students. 3rd Edn, England, Prentice Hall

  • Singh J (1993) Boundary role ambiguity: facets, determinants and impacts. J Mark 57(2):11–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Sujan MA, Huang H, Braithwaite J (2017) Learning from incidents in health care: critique from a safety-II perspective. Saf Sci 99:115–121

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor A, Taylor M (2009) Operations management research: contemporary themes, trends and potential future directions. International J Operations Management Production 29(12):1316–1340

    Google Scholar 

  • Ufua, D.E. (2015). Enhancing lean interventions through the use of systems thinking in the food production industry: a case in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria. PhD Thesis, Hull: University of Hull, United Kingdom

  • Ufua DE, Adebayo AO (2019) Exploring the potency of rich pictures in a systemic lean intervention process. Syst Pract Action Res 26(5):1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Ufua, D.E., Papadopoulos, T., and Midgley, G. (2015). Enhancing Lean Interventions through the use of Systems Thinking in the food production industry: a case in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. In proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of ISSS. July27th-Aug. 1st. Washington D.C. USA. ISSN 1999-6918

  • Ufua DE, Papadopoulos T, Midgley G (2018) Systemic lean intervention: enhancing lean with community operational research. Eur J Oper Res 268(3):1134–1148

    Google Scholar 

  • Ufua, D.E., Olokundun, M.A.,Ogbari, M.E., Atolagbe, T.M. (2019). Achieving zero waste operation in a private organisation through extended stakeholders’ consultation: a case in the Niger Delta region, Nigeria International J Mechanical Engr Technol, 10(2), pp155–168

  • Ulrich, W.(1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: a new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt,Berne

  • Ulrich W (1988) Churchman’s process of unfolding- its significance for policy analysis and evaluation. Syst Pract 1:415–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, W. (1996). Critical systems thinking for citizens: a research proposal. Centre for Systems Studies Research Memorandum #10. Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull

  • Ulrich, W. (2002). Boundary critique .The informed student guide to management science. HG Daellenbach and RL Flood. London, Thomson Learning: 41f

  • Ulrich W (2003) Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. J Oper Res Soc Apr 54(4):325–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (2012) Operational research and critical systems thinking- an integrated perspective part 1: OR as applied systems thinking. J Oper Res Soc 63:1228–1247

    Google Scholar 

  • Velez-Castiblanco, J. I. (2013). Stretching the concept of boundary in boundary critique. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2012. September, San Jose, CA, USA

  • Velez-Castiblanco J, Brocklesby J, Midgley G (2016) Boundary games: how teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of intervention. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):968–982

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Bertalanffy L (1968) General system theory. Penguin, London

  • Watt MA, Ebbutt D (1987) More than the sum of the parts: research methods in group interviewing. Br Educ Res J 1(13):25–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (2010) Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In: Social learning systems and communities of practice. Springer, London, pp 179–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams T (2002) Modelling complex projects. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, S.Y. and Wu, M.S. (1994). Systems analysis and design. New York, West publishing company

  • Yolles, M. (1999). Management systems: A viable approach. London: Financial Times Pitman Publishing.

  • Yolles M (2001) Viable boundary critique. J Oper Res Soc 52(1):35–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Yolles, M. (2007). Viable boundary critique. J Oper Res Soc January, (51), pp. 1–12

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Business management, Covenant University, Ota, Ogun state, Nigeria

    Daniel Ebakoleaneh Ufua

Authors
  1. Daniel Ebakoleaneh Ufua
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Ebakoleaneh Ufua.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ufua, D.E. Exploring the Effectiveness of Boundary Critique in an Intervention: a Case in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria. Syst Pract Action Res 33, 485–499 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-019-09493-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-019-09493-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation