Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 55, Issue 5, pp 453–463

Problem structuring methods for large group interventions

Case-oriented Paper

Abstract

Problem structuring methods (PSMs) aim to build shared understanding in a group of decision makers. This shared understanding is used as a basis for them to negotiate an agreed action plan that they are prepared to help implement. Engaging in a social process of negotiation with a large number of people is difficult, and so PSMs have typically focused on small groups of less than 20. This paper explores the legitimacy of deploying PSMs in large groups of people (50–1000), where the aim is to negotiate action and build commitment to its implementation. We review the difficulties of facilitating large groups with PSMs, drawing heavily on our experience of working with over 25 large groups. We offer a range of lessons learned and suggest concrete approaches to facilitating large groups to achieve the objectives of PSMs. This paper contributes to the evaluation and development of PSMs.

Keywords

DN group decision support ML management learning SO soft OR/problem structuring facilitation 

References

  1. Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds) (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  2. Conklin J (2003). Wicked problems and social complexity. Working paper of the CogNexus Institute. Available at: http://www.cognexus.org.
  3. Doyle M and Straus D (1993). How to Make Meetings Work! The New Interaction Method. Berkley Books: New York.Google Scholar
  4. Kaner S, Lind L, Toldi C, Fisk S and Berger D (1996). Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. New Society Publishers: Gabriola Island, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  5. Rittel HWJ and Webber MM (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4: 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ackoff RL (1979). The future of operational research is past. Opl Res Quart 25: 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schön DA (1995). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. Arena Press: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  8. White L (2002). Size matters: large group methods and the process of operational research. J Opl Res Soc 53 (2): 149–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bunker BB and Alban BT (1997). Large Group Interventions: Engaging the Whole System for Rapid Change. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  10. Owen H (1992). Open Space Technology. Abbot: Pontomac, MD.Google Scholar
  11. Beer S (1994). Beyond Dispute: the Invention of Team Syntegrity. John Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  12. Weisbord MR (1987). Productive Workplaces. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  13. Weisbord MR (1992). Discovering Common Ground. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc: San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  14. Emery M (1993). Participative Design for Participative Democracy. Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University: Canberra.Google Scholar
  15. Emery M (2000). Participative Design Workshop. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  16. Leith M (1999). Creating collaborative gatherings using large group interventions. In: Landale A (ed). Gower Handbook of Training and Development. Gower Publishing: England (Chapter 28).Google Scholar
  17. Bunker BB and Alban BT (1996). Large Scale Group Interventions. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  18. Dannemiller-Tyson Associates (1994). Real-time Strategic Change: a Consultant's Guide to Large-scale Meeting. Dannemiller-Tyson Associates: Ann Arbor, MI.Google Scholar
  19. Seel R (2001). Anxiety and incompetence in the large group: a psychodynamic perspective. J Organ Change Mngt 14: 493–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carlsson C and Walden P (1995). AHP in political group decisions: a study in art of possibilities. Interfaces 25: 14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ackermann F and Eden C (2001). Stakeholders matter: how can we identify and manage them. In: Ackermann F and de Vreede G-J (eds). Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiation Conference. Technische Bestuurskunde, Delft University of Technology, Delft, pp 225–226.Google Scholar
  22. Bryson JM and Anderson SR (2000). Applying large-group interaction methods in the planning and implementation of major change efforts. Public Administration Rev 60 (2): 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nuttman-Shwartz O and Shay S (2000). Large group intervention to encourage dialogue between directors and workers in the context of organizational ambiguity. Group 24: 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Polanyi MFD (2002). Communicative action in practice: future search and the pursuit of an open, critical and non-coercive large-group process. Syst Res Behav Sci 18: 357–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Spencer LJ (1989). Winning Through Participation: Meeting the Challenge of Corporate Change with the Technology of Participation. Kendell-Hunt: Dubuque, IA.Google Scholar
  26. Dannemiller KD and Jacobs RW (1992). Changing the way organizations change: a revolution of common sense. J Appl Behav Sci 28: 459–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klein DC (1992). Simu-Real: a simulation approach to organizational change. J Appl Behav Sci 28: 566–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Axelrod EM and Axelrod RH (1999). Collaborating for Change: Conference Model. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  29. Phillips LD and Phillips MC (1993). Facilitated work groups: theory and practice. J Opl Res Soc 44 (6): 533–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Bostrom R, Anson R and Clawson V (1993). Group facilitation and group support systems. In: Jessup LM and Valacich JS (eds). Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. Macmillan: New York, NY.Google Scholar
  31. Pidd M (1996). Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  32. Dickson GW, Lee-Partidge JE, Limayem M and DeSanctis GL (1996). Facilitating computer-supported meetings: a cumulative analysis in a multiple-criteria task environment. Group Decis Negot 5: 51–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Beckhard R and Harris RB (1977). Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  34. Ginzberg MA (1981). Key recurrent issues in the MIS implementation process. MIS Quart 5 (2): 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Eden C (1995). On evaluating the performance of wide-band GDSS. Eur J Oper Res 81: 302–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Westcombe M (2003). Dialog mapping for systems dynamics. Presented at the 13th Bi-Annual Conference of the Young Operational Researcher. Bath, UK.Google Scholar
  37. Edwards JS, Collier PM and Shaw D (2003). Making a Journey in knowledge management. J Inform Knowl Mngt 2 (2): 135–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Checkland P and Scholes J (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  39. Gambetta D (1998). “Claro!”: an essay on discursive machismo. In: Elster J (ed). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  40. Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Sage: London.Google Scholar
  41. van der Heijden K and Eden C (1998). The theory and praxis of reflective learning in strategy making. In: Eden C and Spender J-C (eds). Managerial and Organizational Cognition. Sage: London.Google Scholar
  42. Shaw D (2003). Evaluating electronic brainstorms through analysing the ‘brainstormed’ ideas. J Opl Res Soc 54 (7): 692–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Westcombe M (2003). Oval mapping technique: post-its, brainstorming and facilitation. Presented at the 13th Bi-Annual Conference of the Young Operational Researcher. Bath, UK.Google Scholar
  44. Simon HA (1976). From substantive to procedural rationality. In: Latsis (ed). Method and Appraisals in Economics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, pp 424–443.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Friend J and Hickling A (1987). Planning Under Pressure: the Strategic Choice Approach. Pergamon: Oxford.Google Scholar
  47. Eden C (1992). A framework for thinking about GDSSs. Group Decis Negot 1: 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Dennis AR, Valacich JS, Connolly T and Wynne BE (1996). Process structuring in electronic brainstorming. Inform Syst Res 7: 268–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Brown J and Cooper C (2004). The complementary use of hard and soft OR in developing tax policy. In: Pidd M (ed). Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice. John Wiley, Chichester, in press.Google Scholar
  50. March JG and Olsen JP (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  51. Garfield MJ, Taylor NJ, Dennis AR and Satzinger JW (2001). Research report: modifying paradigms — Individual differences, creativity techniques, and exposure to ideas in group idea generation. Inform Syst Res 12: 322–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Grise ML and Gallupe RB (1999). Information overload in face-to-face electronic meetings: an integrative complexity approach. J Mngt Inform Syst 16 (3): 157–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Janis IL (1982). Groupthink. 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflen Company: Boston.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aston Business School, Aston TriangleBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Attivation ConsultingLancasterUK
  3. 3.Stirling UniversityStirlingScotland
  4. 4.Kingston Business SchoolLondonUK

Personalised recommendations