Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Writing practitioner case studies to help behavioural OR researchers ground their theories: application of the mangle perspective

  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Behavioural research into the practice of OR needs to be grounded. Case studies written by practitioners can potentially help address this need but currently most do not. The paper explores a way of describing OR projects that place the emphasis on the ‘actors’ who provide the motivating force and the consequences of their actions. The ‘mangle’ perspective focuses on the dynamic intertwining of people, technology and concepts; this can provide the basis for an insightful narrative describing the reality of the project in terms of the planned approach, the problems met and the outcomes. Two examples are given, one of a conventional model building exercise, the second of a ‘soft OR’ intervention: both describe projects conducted by practitioners for commercial purposes. It is concluded that, by using the mangle perspective, the OR case writer can winnow the wheat from the chaff in order to write a succinct informative narrative, a narrative that could be utilized by behavioural OR (BOR) researchers. It is further concluded that BOR researchers should engage with ‘practice theory’ to deepen their understanding of what actually happens in projects.

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

  • Ackermann F, Howick S and Quigley JL (2014). Systemic risk elicitation: Using causal maps to engage stakeholders and build a comprehensive view of risks. European Journal of Operational Research 238(1): 290–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C and Williams T (1997). Modeling for litigation: Mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27(2): 48–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderer J, McDonald A and Nakicenovic N (1981). Energy in a finite world: Paths to a sustainable future. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Retrieved October 2, 2013, from http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/XB-81-202.pdf.

  • Barnes B (2001). Practice as collective action. In: Schatzki TR, Cetina KK and Savigny EV (eds). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (pp. 17–28). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Becker KH (2016). An outlook on behavioural OR – Three tasks, three pitfalls, one definition. European Journal of Operational Research 249(3): 806–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benebasat I, Goldstein DK and Mead M (1987). The case research strategy in studies of information systems. MIS Quaterly 11(3): 369–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendoly A, Donohue K and Schultz KL (2006). Behavior in operations management: Assessing recent findings and revisiting old assumptions. Journal of Operations Management 24(6): 737–752.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloor D (1976). Knowledge and Social Imagery. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonoma TV (1983). A case study in case research: Marketing implementation. Working Paper 9-585-142, Harvard University Graduate School of Business Aministration, Boston, MA.

  • Boothroyd H (1978). Articulate Intervention: The Interface of Science, Mathematics and Administration. London: Taylor and Francis.

  • Brocklesby J (2009). Ethics beyond the model: How social dynamics can interfere with ethical practice in operational research/management science. Omega 37(6): 1073–1082.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brocklesby J (2016). The what, the why and the how of behavioural operational research – An invitation to potential sceptics. European Journal of Operational Research 249(3): 796–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland PB (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley.

  • Christenson C (1976). Proposals for a program of empirical research into the properties of triangles. Decision Sciences 7(4): 631–648.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1982). Cognitive mapping. European Journal of Operational Research 36(1): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA and Hämäläinen RP (2016). Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession. European Journal of Operational Research 249(3): 791–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gans N and Croson R (2008). Introduction to the special issue on behavioral operations. Manufacturing & Service Operations Management 10(4): 563–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerring J (2004). What is a case study and what is it good for? American Political Science Review 98(2): 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Häfele W (1981). Energy in a finite world: A global systems analysis. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger. Retrieved October 2, 2013, from http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/XB-81-203.pdf.

  • Hämäläinen RP, Lahtenan TJ (2016). Path dependence in operational research – How the modeling process can influence the results. Operations Research Perspectives 3: 14–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Luoma J and Saarinen E (2013). On the importance of behavioural research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems. European Journal of Operational Research 228(3): 623–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys P (1998). OR as technology revisited. Journal of the Operational Research Society 49(2): 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour B (2005). Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long R (1982). Constraints on International Trade in Coal. IEA Coal Research Economic Assessment Service Report No, GS/83, London.

  • MacIntyre AC (1981). After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London: Duckworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meredith J (1998). Building operations management theory through case and field research. Journal of Operations Management 16(4): 441–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G (1998). Theory and practice in operational research. Journal of the Operational Research Society 49(11): 1219–1220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G, Munlo I and Brown M (1998). The theory and practice of boundary critique: Developing housing services for older people. Journal of the Operational Research Society 49(5): 467–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB (1979). Qualitative data as an attractive nuisance: The problem of analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly 24(4): 590–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini D (2013). Practice Theory, Work, and Organization: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (1995). Putting soft OR methods to work: Information systems strategy development at Sainsbury’s. Journal of the Operational Research Society 46(3): 277–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (1996). Information systems strategy development at Sainsbury’s supermarkets using “soft” OR. Interfaces 26(1): 102–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (1997). OR models assist the Sizewell B public inquiry - the NCB’s use of linear programming. OR Insight 10(3): 2–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (1998). JORS editorial policy. Journal of the Operational Research Society 49(11): 1221–1223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (2005). Putting soft OR methods to work: The case of IS strategy development for the UK Parliament. Journal of the Operational Research Society 56(12): 1379–1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (2010). Articulate intervention revisited. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61(7): 1078–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (2013). Collaborative research in energy: How the US-USSR initiated a research project 40 years ago. Journal of Research Practice 9(1), Article V5. http://jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/389/314. Accessed 23 January 2015.

  • Ormerod RJ (2014). The mangle of OR practice: Towards more informative case studies of ‘technical’ projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society 65(8): 1379–1398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ and McLeod J (1984). The development and use of the NCB Strategic Model. The Statistician 33(1): 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew AM (1985). The Awakening Giant: Continuity and Change in ICI. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering A (1995). The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Plackett MW, Ormerod RJ and Toft F (1982). The National Coal Board strategic model. European Journal of Operational Research 10(4): 351–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ragin CC (1992). Introduction: Cases of “what is a case?” In: Ragin CC and Becker HS (eds). What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry (pp. 1–17). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Ranyard JC, Fildes R and Hu TI (2015). Reassessing the scope of OR practice: The influences of problem structuring methods and the analytics movement. European Journal of Operational Research 245(1): 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reckwitz A (2002). Towards a theory of social practices: A development in cultural theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5(2): 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roethlisberger FJ (1977). The elusive phenomena. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Division of Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds) (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandberg J and Tsoukas H (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. The Academy of Management Review 36(2): 338–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki TR (2001). Introduction: Practice theory. In: Schatzki TR, Cetina KK and Savigny EV (eds). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory (pp. 1–14). Abingdon: Routledge.

  • Schatzki TR, Cetina KK and Savigny EV (eds) (2001). The Practice Turn in Contemporary Theory. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss AL (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turner S (1994). The Social Theory of Practices: Tradition, Tacit Knowledge, and Presuppositions. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss C, Tsikriktsis N and Frohlich M (2002). Case research in operations management. International Journal of Operations & Production Management 22(2): 195–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velez-Castiblanco J, Brocklesby J and Midgley G 2016. Boundary games: How teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of intervention. European Journal of Operational Research 249(3): 968–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White L (2009). Understanding problem structuring methods interventions. European Journal of Operational Research 93(3): 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White L (2016). Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions. European Journal of Operational Research 249(3): 827–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson CL (1980). Coal – Bridge to the future: Report of the world coal study. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter M (2006). Problem structuring in project management: An application of soft systems methodology. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57(7): 802–812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin RK (1981). The case study crisis: some answers. Administrative Science Quarterly 26(1): 58–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao X, Zhao X and Wu Y (2013). Opportunities for research in behavioral operations management. International Journal of Production Economics 142(1): 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Warwick University, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK

    Richard Ormerod

Authors
  1. Richard Ormerod
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Ormerod.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ormerod, R. Writing practitioner case studies to help behavioural OR researchers ground their theories: application of the mangle perspective. J Oper Res Soc 68, 507–520 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-016-0011-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-016-0011-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation