Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 58, Issue 5, pp 576–587

Problem structuring methods: theorizing the benefits of deconstructing sustainable development projects

Special Issue Paper

Abstract

Problem structuring methods or PSMs are widely applied across a range of variable but generally small-scale organizational contexts. However, it has been argued that they are seen and experienced less often in areas of wide ranging and highly complex human activity—specifically those relating to sustainability, environment, democracy and conflict (or SEDC). In an attempt to plan, track and influence human activity in SEDC contexts, the authors in this paper make the theoretical case for a PSM, derived from various existing approaches. They show how it could make a contribution in a specific practical context—within sustainable coastal development projects around the Mediterranean which have utilized systemic and prospective sustainability analysis or, as it is now known, Imagine. The latter is itself a PSM but one which is ‘bounded’ within the limits of the project to help deliver the required ‘deliverables’ set out in the project blueprint. The authors argue that sustainable development projects would benefit from a deconstruction of process by those engaged in the project and suggest one approach that could be taken—a breakout from a project-bounded PSM to an analysis that embraces the project itself. The paper begins with an introduction to the sustainable development context and literature and then goes on to illustrate the issues by grounding the debate within a set of projects facilitated by Blue Plan for Mediterranean coastal zones. The paper goes on to show how the analytical framework could be applied and what insights might be generated.

Keywords

problem structuring methods sustainable development projects Blue Plan 

References

  1. Ackoff RL (1970). A black ghettos research on a university. Opns Res 18: 761–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Argyris C (1982). Reasoning, Learning and Action. Jossey Bass: San Francisco.Google Scholar
  3. Argyris C (1985). Making knowledge more relevant to practice: maps for action. In: Lawler E et al (ed). Doing Research that is Useful for Theory and Practice. Jossey Bass: San Francisco, pp. 79–106.Google Scholar
  4. Armson R (1997). The invisible practitioner or the holistic practitioner? The problem helper in the problem situation. In: Stowell A, Ison R and Armson R (eds). Systems for Sustainability: People, Organizations and Environments. Plenum: London, pp. 103–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Atkinson C (1997). Soft information systems and technologies methodology, SISTeM: A case study on developing the electronic patient record. Require Eng 2: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell S (1992). Self-analysis and pre-analysis: Lessons in the application of systems analysis in developing countries. In: Cyranek G and Bhatnagar SC (eds). Technology Transfer for Development: The Prospects and Limits of Information Technology. Tata McGraw Hill: New Delhi, pp. 151–164.Google Scholar
  7. Bell S (1996). Learning with Information Systems: Learning Cycles in Information Systems Development. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
  8. Bell S (1998). Managing and learning with logical frameworks: the case of an MIS project in China. Hum Syst Mngt 17: 15–28.Google Scholar
  9. Bell S (1999). Vulnerability and the aware IS Practitioner: A reflective discourse on unfinished business. In: Clarke S. (ed). Human Centered Methods in Information Systems: Current Research and Practice. Idea Group Publishing: Hershey, pp. 102–117.Google Scholar
  10. Bell S (2005). Systemic practice: coming of age? Syst Pract Act Res 18: 129–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bell S and Coudert E (2005). A Practioner's Guide to ‘ IMAGINE': the Systemic and Prospective Sustainability Analysis—Guide d'Utilisation pour ‘IMAGINE': l'Analyse de Durabilité Systémique et Prospective. Sophia Antipolis, Blue Plan: France.Google Scholar
  12. Bell S and Gibbon D (1994). Farming systems and learning systems: notes from the experience of the School of Development Studies, UEA, Norwich, Montpellier. Presented at the International Symposium: Systems Orientated Research in Agriculture and Rural Development.Google Scholar
  13. Bell S and Lane A (1996). From teaching to learning: technological potential and sustainable, supported open learning. A paper prepared for the United Nations University/INTECH European Community Workshop in Maastricht, ‘Europe and the Globalised Information Society: Employment, Education and Trade Implications'. 17–19 October, Maastricht.Google Scholar
  14. Bell S and Morse S (1999). Sustainability Indicators: Measuring the Immeasurable. Earthscan: London.Google Scholar
  15. Bell S and Morse S (2003). Measuring Sustainability: Learning from Doing. Earthscan: London.Google Scholar
  16. Bell S and Morse S (2005). Delivering sustainability therapy in sustainable development projects. J Environ Mngt 75: 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bennett P et al (2001). Drama theory and confrontation analysis. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisted: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertanity and Conflict. J Wiley and Sons: Chichester, UK, pp 225–248.Google Scholar
  18. Bentley C (2005). Prince 2 Revealed: Including How to Use Prince 2 for Smaller Projects. Butterworth-Heinemann: London.Google Scholar
  19. Berg BL (1998). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.Google Scholar
  20. Blaikie P (2000). Development post-, anti-, and populist: A critical review. Environ Plann 32: 1033–1050.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Boud D (1985). Reflection: Turning Experience Into Learning. Kogan Page: London.Google Scholar
  22. Callo V and Packham R (1997). Soft systems methodology: Its potential for emancipatory development. Forum 2: Action Research and Critical Systems Thinking, The Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull, UK.Google Scholar
  23. Castro CJ (2004). Sustainable development. Maintstream and critical perspectives. Organ Environ 17: 195–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Chambers R (1997). Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. Intermediate Technology Publications: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Chambers R (2002). Participatory Workshops: A Sourcebook of 21 Sets of Ideas and Activities. Earthscan: London.Google Scholar
  26. Checkland P (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  27. Checkland P (1994). Systems theory and management thinking. Amer Behav Sci 38: 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Checkland P and Holwell S (1998). Information, Systems and Information Systems: Making Sense of the Field. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  29. Checkland PB and Scholes J (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  30. Coleman G (1987). Logical framework approach to the monitoring and evaluation of agricultural and rural development projects. Project Appraisal 2: 251–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Davies LJ (1989). Cultural aspects of intervention with soft systems methodology, MSc Thesis, University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
  32. Espejo R and Stewart N (1998). Systemic reflections on environmental sustainability. Syst Res 15: 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fern EF (2001). Advanced Focus Group Research. Sage: Thousand Oaks, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Flood B et al (1997). Critical reflexivity: A multi-dimensional conversation. Forum 2: Action Research and Critical Systems Thinking, Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, Hull, UK.Google Scholar
  35. Friend J et al (1998). Negotiated project engagements: learning from experience. Hum Relat 51: 1509–1542.Google Scholar
  36. Gasper D (1997). Logical Frameworks—a Critical Look. Development Studies Association, University of East Anglia.Google Scholar
  37. Gasper D (2000). Evaluating the ‘logical framework approach’: towards learning-orientated development evaluation. Public Admin Develop 20: 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Godet M (2000a). The art of scenarios and strategic planning: tools and pitfalls. Technol Forecast Social Change 65: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Godet M (2000b). How to be rigorous with scenario planning. Foresight 2: 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Godet M (2001). Creating Futures: Scenario Planning as a Strategic Management Tool, Economica: London, Paris.Google Scholar
  41. Godet M et al (1999). Scenarios and Strategies: A Toolbox for Scenario Planning. Laboratory for Investigation in Prospective and Strategy: Toolbox, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers: Paris.Google Scholar
  42. Gold J (2001). Storying systems: Managing everyday flux using mode 2 soft systems methodology. Syst Pract Act Res 14: 557–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gordon T (1970). Parent Effectiveness Training. Plume Books, New American Library Inc.: New York.Google Scholar
  44. Harris P (2005). Prince 2 Planning and Control Using Microsoft Project. Eastwood Harris Pty Ltd: London.Google Scholar
  45. Holwell S (2001). Soft systems methodology: other voices. Syst Pract Act Res 13: 773–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Hughes B and Cotterell M (1999). Software Project Management. McGraw Hill: Maidenhead.Google Scholar
  47. Kidd C (1992). The evolution of sustainability. J Agri Environ Ethics 5: 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kolb D (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall: London.Google Scholar
  49. Lewis PJ (1992). Rich picture building in the soft systems methodology. Eur J Inform Syst 1: 351–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Matzdorf F and Ramage M (1999). Out of the box—into the future. Organ People 6: 29–34.Google Scholar
  51. Matzdorf F and Ramage M (2000). Planning for many futures. Scenarion Strategy Plann 2: 20–22.Google Scholar
  52. McIntyre-Mill J (2003). Critical Systemic Praxis Design and Governance for a Global Age. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: London.Google Scholar
  53. Midgley G and Ochoa-Arias A (eds) 2004. Community Operational Research: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development, Contemporary Systems Thinking. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mingers J (1995). Self-Producing Systems. Plenum: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mitcham C (1995). The concept of systainable development: its origins and ambivalence. Technol Soc 17: 311–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Moffat I (2004). On measuring sustainable development indicators. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 1: 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Open University (1987). T301—Complexity Management and Change: A Systems Approach. Open University Systems Group. The Open University Press: Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
  58. Open University (2000). T306 Managing Complexity: A Systems Approach. Open University: Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
  59. Open University (2004). T851 the Information Systems Toolkit. Open University: Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
  60. Robinson J (2004). Squaring the circle? Some thoughts on the idea of sustainable development. Ecological Econom 48: 369–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds) 2001. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World—Revisited. Wiley and Sons: Chichester.Google Scholar
  62. Simon S (2005). Systemic evaluation methodology: The emergence of social learning from environmental ICT prototypes. Systemic Pract Act Res 17: 471–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stowell FA et al (1990). Applications of SSM in information system design: some reflections. J Appl Syst Anal 17: 63–69.Google Scholar
  64. Taket A and White L (2000). Partnership and Participation: Decision Making in the Multi-agency Setting. Wiley: Chichester.Google Scholar
  65. Ulrich W (1996). A Primer to Critical Systems Heuristics for Action Researchers. The Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull: Hull, UK.Google Scholar
  66. Waltner-Toews D et al (2004). Adaptive methodology for ecosystem sustainability and health (AMESH): An introduction. In: Midgley G. and Ochoa-Arias A. (eds). Community Operational Research: OR and Systems Thinking for Community Development. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishing: New York, pp. 317–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.University of ReadingReading, BerkshireUK

Personalised recommendations