Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

‘Doing the right problem’ versus ‘doing the problem right’: problem structuring within a Land Force environment

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

Abstract

The essential first step of any OR investigation is to ensure that the ‘right problem’ is studied. Our approach is to propose a set of six ‘rights’ or questions whereby achievement against particular aspects of a problem space is made and these provide the basis for scoping the context, understanding the system, and proposing sound options to the decision-maker. This style of problem structuring is an essential element of the Defence problem domain, and especially so for the Land Force, where there exist multiple degrees of freedom for poorly defined problems in an environment of uncertainty and ambiguity. Central to this is performing conceptual rather than analytical modelling, as perturbations then provide a basis for exploring a space, rather than solving a problem.

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

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackoff RL (1979a). The future of operational research is past. J Opl Res Soc 30: 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL (1979b). Resurrecting the future of operational research. J Opl Res Soc 30: 189–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL (2001). OR: after the post-mortem. Syst Dyn Rev 17: 341–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergvall-Kåreborn B (2002a). Enriching the model-building phase of soft systems methodology. Syst Res Behaviour Sci 19: 27–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergvall-Kåreborn B (2002b). Qualifying function in SSM modeling—a case study. Syst Prac Action Res 15: 309–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boardman JT and Cole AJ (1996). Integrated process improvement in design and manufacture using a systems approach. IEE Proc Control Theory Appl 143: 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boswell S, Curtis NJ, Dortmans P and Tri N (2003). A parametric investigation of the factors that lead to success in conflict: potential future warfighting concepts. In: Land Warfare Conference. Adelaide, pp 369–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt G and van der Heijden K (2003). First Steps: towards purposeful activities in scenario thinking and future studies. Futures 35: 1011–1026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland PB (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland PB and Holwell S (2004). ‘Classic’ OR and ‘soft’ OR—an asymmetric complementarity. In: Pidd M (eds). Systems Modelling Theory and Practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland PB and Scholes J (2001). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates V et al (2001). On the future of technological forecasting. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 67: 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corner J, Buchanan J and Henig M (2001). Dynamic decision problem structuring. J Multi-Criteria Decision Making 10: 129–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle G (1997). The nature and value of futures studies or do futures have a future? Futures 29: 77–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle G (1998). The practice of system dynamics: milestones, lessons and ideas from 30 years experience. Syst Dyn Rev 14: 343–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle RG, Crawshay R and Sutton L (1994). Futures assessment by Field Anomaly Relaxation. Futures 26: 25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Curtis NJ (2000). Planning for the next generation of soldier modernisation. In: Land Warfare Conference. Melbourne, pp 314–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis NJ and Bowley DK (1999). Hierarchical systems of enquiry for analysis of the Land Force. In: Proceedings of the Australian Society for Operations Research (ASOR), Queensland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis NJ and Dortmans PJ (2001). A semiquantitative construct to identify opportunities for technology insertion using a generic description of the Land Forces. In: Land Warfare Conference, Sydney, pp 364–380.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis NJ and Dortmans PJ (2004). A dynamic conceptual model to explore technology-based perturbations to a complex system: the Land Force. Asia Pacific J Opl Res 21: 463–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dortmans PJ (2005). Forecasting, backcasting, migration landscapes and strategic planning maps. Futures 37: 273–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dortmans PJ et al (2004). On the application of simple OR models to the Land Force. In: Proceedings of 21st ISMOR Conference. United Kingdom.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dortmans PJ, Curtis NJ and Tri N (2005). An analytical approach for constructing and measuring concepts. J Opl Res Soc, doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602059.

  • Dortmans PJ and Eiffe E (2004). An examination of future scenarios using historical analogy. Futures 36: 1049–1062.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dreborg KH (1996). Essence of backcasting. Futures 28: 813–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (2001). SODA—the principles. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Endsley M (1998). Situation awareness. In: Pew, RW and Mavor, AS (eds). Modelling Human and Organisational Behaviour, Chapter 7. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

  • Forder R (2004). Operational research in the UK Ministry of Defence: an overview. J Opl Res Soc 55: 319–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friend J (2001). The strategic choice approach. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 115–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend J and Hickling A (1997). Planning under Pressure: the Strategic Choice Approach, 2nd edn. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao F, Li M and Nakamori Y (2002). Systems thinking on knowledge and its management: systems methodology for knowledge management. J Knowledge Mngt 6: 7–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gill AW, Egudo R and Dortmans PJ (2001). Supporting the army capability development process using agent based distillations. J Battlefield Technology 4: 24–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs WSR, Goyne D and Curtis NJ (2000). LAND 125 Soldier Combat System (Project WUNDURRA) Australia's Soldier Modernisation Program: past, present and future. In: SMI Conference on Next Generation Technology. London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC and Keys P (1984). Towards a system of systems methodologies. J Opl Res Soc 35: 473–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joldersma C and Roelofs E (2004). The impact of soft-OR methods on problem structuring. Eur J Opl Res 152: 696–708.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lauren MK and Baigent DL (2001). Exploring the value of sensors to a Recce unit using agent-based distillations. J Battlefield Technol 4: 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauren MK, Engelback N, Stephen RT and Anderson MA (2002). Modelling precision manoeuvre using MANA. Defence Technology Agency (NZ).

  • Lyons M (2004). Insights from complexity: organizational change and systems modeling. In: Pidd M (ed). Systems Modelling Theory and Practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macmillan H and Tampoe M (2000). Strategic Management: Process, Content and Implementation. Oxford University Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (1992). Recent developments in critical management systems. J Opl Res Soc 43: 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J and Rosenhead J (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Opl Res 152: 530–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Defence UK (2001). Guidance in the use of subjective methods in operational analysis DG(S&A)4/3/1. Ministry of Defence, UK.

  • Munro I and Mingers J (2002). The use of multimethodology in practice—results of a survey of practitioners. J Opl Res Soc 53: 369–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (2002). On the nature of OR: taking stock. J Opl Res Soc 53: 475–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M (1996). Five simple principles of modelling. In: 1996 Winter Simulation Conference, Coronado, CA, USA, pp 721–728.

  • Pidd M (1999). Just modeling through:a rough guide to modeling. Interfaces 29: 118–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M (2004a). Complementarity in systems modelling. In: Pidd M (ed). Systems Modelling Theory and Practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidd M (2004b). Contemporary OR/MS in strategy development and policy-making: some reflections. J Opl Res Soc 55: 791–800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell JH and Coyle RG (2005). Indentifying strategic action in highly politicized contexts using agent-based qualitative system dynamics. J Opl Res Soc 56: 787–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhyne R (1980). Whole-pattern futures projection using field anomaly relaxation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 19: 331–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rhyne R (1995). Field anomaly relaxation: the arts of usage. Futures 27: 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson JB (1990). Futures under glass: a recipe for people who hate to predict. Futures 23: 820–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J (1996). What's the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces 26: 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J (2001). Robustness analysis: keeping your options open. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 181–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J and Mingers J (2002). A new paradigm of analysis. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D, Westcombe M, Hodgkin J and Montibeller G (2004). Problem structuring methods for large group interventions. J Opl Res Soc 55: 453–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shine DR (2005). An exploratory study of the Army-as-a-System core skills. J Battlefield Technology 8: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer Jr EA (1959). Experience and Reflection. University of Pennsylvania press: Philadelphia.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Skelton D (2000). Real world ‘messes’: possibilities for teaching IT through a soft systems viewpoint. In: Proceedings of the NACCQ 2000. Wellington, NZ, pp 321–329.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins MD and Bazerman MH (2003). Predictable surprises: the disasters you should have seen coming. Harvard Bus Rev March: 72–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson B (2001). Soft Systems Methodology: Conceptual Model Building and its Contribution. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Defence Science & Technology Organisation, Edinburgh, South Australia, Australia

    N J Curtis, P J Dortmans & J Ciuk

Authors
  1. N J Curtis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. P J Dortmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J Ciuk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to N J Curtis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Curtis, N., Dortmans, P. & Ciuk, J. ‘Doing the right problem’ versus ‘doing the problem right’: problem structuring within a Land Force environment. J Oper Res Soc 57, 1300–1312 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602123

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602123

Keywords

Search

Navigation