Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Problem structuring methods for large group interventions

  • Case-oriented Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds) (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conklin J (2003). Wicked problems and social complexity. Working paper of the CogNexus Institute. Available at: http://www.cognexus.org.

  • Doyle M and Straus D (1993). How to Make Meetings Work! The New Interaction Method. Berkley Books: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rittel HWJ and Webber MM (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4: 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL (1979). The future of operational research is past. Opl Res Quart 25: 361–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön DA (1995). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think In Action. Arena Press: Aldershot.

    Google Scholar 

  • White L (2002). Size matters: large group methods and the process of operational research. J Opl Res Soc 53 (2): 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bunker BB and Alban BT (1997). Large Group Interventions: Engaging the Whole System for Rapid Change. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen H (1992). Open Space Technology. Abbot: Pontomac, MD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1994). Beyond Dispute: the Invention of Team Syntegrity. John Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbord MR (1987). Productive Workplaces. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisbord MR (1992). Discovering Common Ground. Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery M (1993). Participative Design for Participative Democracy. Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University: Canberra.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery M (2000). Participative Design Workshop. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bunker BB and Alban BT (1996). Large Scale Group Interventions. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannemiller-Tyson Associates (1994). Real-time Strategic Change: a Consultant's Guide to Large-scale Meeting. Dannemiller-Tyson Associates: Ann Arbor, MI.

  • Seel R (2001). Anxiety and incompetence in the large group: a psychodynamic perspective. J Organ Change Mngt 14: 493–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson C and Walden P (1995). AHP in political group decisions: a study in art of possibilities. Interfaces 25: 14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spencer LJ (1989). Winning Through Participation: Meeting the Challenge of Corporate Change with the Technology of Participation. Kendell-Hunt: Dubuque, IA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dannemiller KD and Jacobs RW (1992). Changing the way organizations change: a revolution of common sense. J Appl Behav Sci 28: 459–480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein DC (1992). Simu-Real: a simulation approach to organizational change. J Appl Behav Sci 28: 566–579.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod EM and Axelrod RH (1999). Collaborating for Change: Conference Model. Berrett-Koehler: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD and Phillips MC (1993). Facilitated work groups: theory and practice. J Opl Res Soc 44 (6): 533–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Pidd M (1996). Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beckhard R and Harris RB (1977). Organizational Transitions: Managing Complex Change. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginzberg MA (1981). Key recurrent issues in the MIS implementation process. MIS Quart 5 (2): 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1995). On evaluating the performance of wide-band GDSS. Eur J Oper Res 81: 302–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westcombe M (2003). Dialog mapping for systems dynamics. Presented at the 13th Bi-Annual Conference of the Young Operational Researcher. Bath, UK.

  • Edwards JS, Collier PM and Shaw D (2003). Making a Journey in knowledge management. J Inform Knowl Mngt 2 (2): 135–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P and Scholes J (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gambetta D (1998). “Claro!”: an essay on discursive machismo. In: Elster J (ed). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Sage: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Shaw D (2003). Evaluating electronic brainstorms through analysing the ‘brainstormed’ ideas. J Opl Res Soc 54 (7): 692–705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Friend J and Hickling A (1987). Planning Under Pressure: the Strategic Choice Approach. Pergamon: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1992). A framework for thinking about GDSSs. Group Decis Negot 1: 199–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Valacich JS, Connolly T and Wynne BE (1996). Process structuring in electronic brainstorming. Inform Syst Res 7: 268–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • March JG and Olsen JP (1976). Ambiguity and Choice in Organizations. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL (1982). Groupthink. 2nd ed. Houghton Mifflen Company: Boston.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to other members of the Modelling Strategic Problems Group (a UK network for the young OR problem structuring community) for the motivation that initiated this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aston Business School, Aston Triangle, Birmingham, UK

    D Shaw

  2. Attivation Consulting, Lancaster, UK

    M Westcombe

  3. Stirling University, Stirling, Scotland

    J Hodgkin

  4. Kingston Business School, London, UK

    G Montibeller

Authors
  1. D Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M Westcombe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J Hodgkin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. G Montibeller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D Shaw.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shaw, D., Westcombe, M., Hodgkin, J. et al. Problem structuring methods for large group interventions. J Oper Res Soc 55, 453–463 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601712

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601712

Keywords

Search

Navigation