Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 54, Issue 9, pp 936–948 | Cite as

Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring

Special Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Part Special Issue: Modelling Organizational Knowledge


Problem-structuring techniques are an integral aspect of ‘Soft-OR’. SSM, SAST, Strategic Choice, and JOURNEY Making, all depend for their success on a group developing a shared view of a problem through some form of explicit modelling. The negotiated problem structure becomes the basis for problem resolution. Implicit to this process is an assumption that members of the group share and build their knowledge about the problem domain. This paper explores the extent to which this assumption is reasonable. The research is based on detailed records from the use of JOURNEY Making, where it has used special purpose Group Support software to aid the group problem structuring. This software continuously tracks the contributions of each member of the group and thus the extent to which they appear to be ‘connecting’ and augmenting their own knowledge with that of other members of the group. Software records of problem resolution in real organisational settings are used to explore the sharing of knowledge among senior managers. These explorations suggest a typology of knowledge sharing. The implications of this typology for problem structuring and an agenda for future research are considered.


cognitive mapping group decision support knowledge management problem structuring soft OR 


  1. Rittel HWJ and Webber MM (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4: 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackoff R (1981). The art and science of mess management. Interfaces 11: 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Rosenhead J and Mingers J (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  4. Checkland P (2001). Soft systems methodology. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley: Chichester, pp 61–90.Google Scholar
  5. Checkland P and Scholes J (1991). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  6. Friend J and Hickling A (1987). Planning Under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach. Pergamon: Oxford.Google Scholar
  7. Friend J and Hickling A (1989). The Strategic Choice Approach. In: Rosenhead J (ed). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Wiley: Chichester, pp 121–157.Google Scholar
  8. Eden C and Ackermann F (2001). SODA—the principles. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley: Chichester, pp 21–42.Google Scholar
  9. Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Sage: London.Google Scholar
  10. van der Heijden K (1996). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  11. Newell S, Robertson M, Scarborough H and Swan J (2002). Managing Knowledge Work. Palgrave: Basingstoke.Google Scholar
  12. 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. London: Sage, pp 48–52.Google Scholar
  13. Kim WC and Mauborgne RA (1995). A procedural justice model of strategic decision making. Org Sci 6: 44–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Finholt and Sproull L (1990). Electronic groups at work. Org Sci 1: 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kahai SS and Cooper RB (1999). The effect of computer-mediated communication on agreement and acceptance. J Manage Inform Syst 16: 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eden C (1995). On evaluating the performance of wide-band GDSS. Eur J Oper Res 81: 302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Phillips L (1989). Person-centred group decision support. In: Doukidis G, Land F and Miller G (eds). Knowledge Based Management Support Systems. Ellis Horwood: Chichester.Google Scholar
  18. Osborn AF (1953). Applied Imagination. Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY.Google Scholar
  19. Eden C (1995). Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA). In: Rosenhead J (ed). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Wiley: Chichester, pp 21–42.Google Scholar
  20. Newell S, Robertson M, Scarbrough H and Swan J (2002). Managing Knowledge Work. Palgrave: USA.Google Scholar
  21. Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Analysing and comparing idiographic causal maps. In: Eden C and Spender, J-C (eds). Managerial and Organizational Cognition. Sage: London, pp 192–209.Google Scholar
  22. Burnstein E and Vinokur A (1975). What a person thinks upon learning that he has chosen differently from others: nice evidence for the persuasive arguments explanation of choice skills. J Exp Soc Psychol 11: 412–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tesser A and Leone C (1977). Cognitive schemas and thought as determinants of attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 13: 340–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Weingart LR, Bennett RJ and Brett JM (1993). The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation in group negotiation process and outcome. J Appl Psychol 78: 504–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Weick KE (1986). Managerial thought in the context of action. In Srivastva SA (ed). The Executive Mind: New Insights on Managerial Thought and Action. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco CA, pp 221–242.Google Scholar
  26. Quinn JJ (1996). The role of good conversation in strategic control. J Manage Stud 33: 381–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Tsoukas H and Hatch MJ (2001). Complex thinking, complex practice: the case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Hum Relat 54: 979–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kelly GA (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Norton: New York.Google Scholar
  29. Fisher R and Brown C (1988). Getting Together: Building a Relationship That Gets to Yes. Houghton-Mifflin: Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  30. Fisher R and Ury W (1982). Getting to Yes. Hutchinson, London.Google Scholar
  31. Neisser U (1963). The multiplicity of thoughts. Br J Psychol 54: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. McHugh P (1968). Defining the Situation. Bobbs-Merrill: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  33. Eden C (1992). On the nature of cognitive maps. J Manage Stud 29: 261–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson P and Johnson G (2002). Facilitating group cognitive mapping of core competencies. In: Huff AS and Jenkins M (eds). Mapping Strategic Knowledge. Sage: London, pp 220–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Abelson RP (1976). Script processing in attitude formation and decision-making. In: Carroll JS and Payne JN (eds). Cognition and Social Behavior. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, pp 33-46.Google Scholar
  36. Jenkins M (1998). The theory and practice of comparing cause maps. In: Eden C and Spender J-C (eds). Managerial and Organisational Cognition. Sage: London, pp 231–249.Google Scholar
  37. Gallupe RB, Cooper WH, Grise ML and Bastianutti LM (1994). Blocking electronic brainstorms. J Appl Psychol 79: 77–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pinsonneault A, Barki H, Gallupe RB and Hoppen N (1999). Electronic brainstorming: the illusion of productivity. Inform Syst Res 10: 110–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Dennis AR, Aronson JE, Heninger WG and Walker E (1999). Structuring time and task in electronic brainstorming. MIS Quart 23: 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Bouzdine-Chameevra T and Michrafy M (2001). Cognitive mapping applied for strategic issues of brand extension Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiation Conference. 4–7 June La Rochelle, France.Google Scholar
  41. Laukkanen M (1998). Conducting causal mapping research: opportunities and challenges. In: Eden C and Spender J-C (eds). Managerial and Organisational Cognition. Sage: London, pp 168–191.Google Scholar
  42. Shaw D (2001). Exploring what happens in a JOURNEY Making gathering: using group communication software to support brainstorm-type activities. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.Google Scholar
  43. Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage: Thousand Oaks: CA.Google Scholar
  44. Berelson B (1952). Content Analysis in Commmunicative Research. Free Press: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  45. Shaw D (2002). Structuring electronic causal maps during group workshops. Aston Business School Working Paper, Birmingham, UK, Number: RP0211, ISBN: 1854495275.Google Scholar
  46. Weick K and Roberts K (1993). Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Admin Sci Quar 38(3): 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Carlsson C and Walden P (1995). AHP in political group decisions: a study in art of possibilities. Interfaces 25: 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nagasundaram M and Bostrom RP (1995). The structuring of creative processes using GSS: a framework for research. J Manage Inform Syst 11: 89–116.Google Scholar
  49. Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ and Kahai SS (1998). Inspiring group creativity—comparing anonymous and identified electronic brainstorming. Small Group Res 29: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Huxham C and Vangen S (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Acad Manage J 43: 1159–1175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Grinyer PH (2000). A cognitive approach to group strategic decision taking: a discussion of evolved practice in the light of received results. J Opl Res Soc 51: 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Eden C and Ackermann F (2000). Mapping distinctive competencies: a systemic approach. J Opl Res Soc 51: 12–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weick K (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  54. Diehl M and Stroebe W (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J Pers Soc Psychol 53: 497–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aston Business School, University of AstonBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Management Science, University of StrathclydeGlasgowUK
  3. 3.University of Strathclyde, Graduate School of BusinessGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations