Advertisement

Strategic Options Development and Analysis

Chapter

Abstract

Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) enables a group or individual to construct a graphical representation of a problematic situation, and thus explore options and their ramifications with respect to a complex system of goals or objectives. In addition the method aims to help groups arrive at a negotiated agreement about how to act to resolve the situation. It is based upon the use of causal mapping – a formally constructed means-ends network – as representation form. Because the picture has been constructed using the natural language of the problem owners it becomes a model of the situation that is ‘owned’ by those who define the problem. The use of formalities for the construction of the model makes it amenable to a range of analyses as well as encouraging reflection and a deeper understanding. These analyses can be used in a ‘rough and ready’ manner by visual inspection or through the use of specialist causal mapping software (Decision Explorer). Each of the analyses helps a group or individual discover important features of the problem situation, and these features facilitate agreeing agood solution. The SODA process is aimed at helping a group learn about the situation they face before they reach agreements. Most significantly the exploration through the causal map leads to a higher probability of more creative solutions and promotes solutions that are more likely to be implemented because the problem construction process is wider and more likely to include richer social dimensions about the blockages to action and organizational change. The basic theories that inform SODA derive from cognitive psychology and social negotiation, where the model acts as a continuously changing representation of the problematic situation – changing as the views of a person or group shift through learning and exploration. This chapter, jointly written by two leading practitioner academics and the original developers of SODA, Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann, describes the SODA techniques as they are applied in practice.

Keywords

Feedback Loop Procedural Justice Oval Mapping Natural Heritage Group Decision Support System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Ackermann, F. 1996. Participants Perceptions on the Role of Facilitators using Group Decision Support Systems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 5: 93-112.Google Scholar
  2. Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 1994. Issues in Computer and Non-Computer Supported GDSSs. International Journal of Decision Support Systems, 12: 381-390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 1997. Contrasting GDSSs and GSSs in the Context of Strategic Change: Implications for Facilitation. Journal of Decision Systems, 6: 221-250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2001a. Contrasting Single User and Networked Group Decision Support Systems for Strategy Making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10: 47-66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2001b. SODA – Journey Making and Mapping in Practice. In Rosenhead, J. and Mingers, J. (Eds.), Rational Analysis in a Problematic World Revisited: 43-60. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2004. Using Causal mapping: individual and group; traditional and new. In Pidd, M. (Eds.), Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice: 127-145. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2010a. Strategic Management of Stakeholders: theory and practice. Long Range Planning, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  8. Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2010b. Negotiation in Strategy Making Teams: Group Support Systems and the Process of Cognitive Change. Group Decision and Negotiation, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  9. Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. 2010c. The Role of Group Decision Support Systems: negotiating safe energy. In Kilgour, M. and Eden, C. (Eds.), Handbook for Group Decision and Negotiation: Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Ackermann, F., Eden, C., and Williams, T. 1997. Modeling for Litigation: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Interfaces, 27: 48-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ackermann, F., Eden, C., with Brown, I. 2005. The Practice of Making Strategy: A Step by Step Guide. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Ackoff, R. L. 1981. Creating the Corporate Future. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Andersen, D., Richardson, G. P., Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. Using the Group Explorer Group Support System to Add Value to Group Model Building. System Dynamics Review, Forthcoming.Google Scholar
  14. Belton, V., Ackermann, F., and Shepherd, I. 1997. Integrated Support from Problem Structuring through to Alternative Evaluation Using COPE and V.I.S.A. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6: 115-130.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bougon, M., Weick, K., and Binkhorst, D. 1977. Cognition in organizations: analysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22: 609-632.Google Scholar
  16. Bryson, J. B., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., and Finn, C. 2004a. The Oval Mapping Process: Identifying Strategic Issues and Formulating Effective Strategies. In Strategic Planning for Public and Non-Profit Organisations: 355-376. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Google Scholar
  17. Bryson, J., Ackermann, F., Eden, C., and Finn, C. 2004b. Visible Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Bryson, J. M., Ackermann, F., and Eden, C. 2007. Putting the Resource-Based View of Strategy and Distinctive Competencies To Work in Public Organizations. Public Administration Review, July.Google Scholar
  19. Buzan, T. and Buzan, B. 1993. The mind map book. London: BBC Books.Google Scholar
  20. Eden, C. 1987. Problem Solving or Problem Finishing? In Jackson, M. C. Keys P. (Eds.), New Directions in Management Science: 97-107. Hants: Gower.Google Scholar
  21. Eden, C. 1988. Cognitive Mapping: a review. European Journal of Operational Research, 36: 1-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eden, C. 1990. The Unfolding Nature of Group Decision Support. In Eden, C. and Radford, J. (Eds.), Tackling Strategic Problems: the role of group decision support: 48-52. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Eden, C. 2004. Analyzing Cognitive Maps to Help Structure Issues or Problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 159: 673-686.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 1998. Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2000. Mapping distinctive competencies: a systemic approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51: 12-20.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2001. A Mapping Framework for Strategy Making. In Huff, A. and Jenkins, M. (Eds.), Mapping Strategy: 173-195. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2004a. Cognitive Mapping Expert Views for Policy Analysis in the Public Sector. European Journal of Operational Research, 152: 615-630.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2004b. Use of ‘soft-OR’ models by clients – what do they want from them? In Pidd, M. (Eds.), Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice: 146-163. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2007. The Resource Based View: theory and practice. Presented to Academy of Management Conference Philadelphia. Google Scholar
  30. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. 2010. Competences, Distinctive Competences, and Core Competences. In Sanchez, R. and Heene, A. (Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on Competence-Based Management, Advances in Applied Business Strategy, Volume 12: Bingley: Emerald Group.Google Scholar
  31. Eden, C. and Galer, G. 1990. A Client’s perspective. Long Range Planning, 23: 42-43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eden, C., Jones, S., and Sims, D. 1979. Thinking in Organisations. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  33. Eden, C., Jones, S., and Sims, D. 1983. Messing about in problems; an informal structured approach to their identification and management, Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  34. Eden, C., Jones, S., and Sims, D. 1994. Misunderstandings: understanding problems and the problems of misunderstanding. In Armson, R. and Paton, R. (Eds.), Organizations: cases, issues, concepts: London: Paul Chapman Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Eden, C., Ackermann, F., Bryson, J., Richardson, G., Andersen, D., and Finn, C. 2009. Integrating Modes of Policy Analysis and Strategic Management Practice: Requisite Elements and Dilemmas. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60: 2-13.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Friend, J. and Hickling, A. 1987. Planning Under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  37. Harvey, J. 1988. The Abilene Paradox: the management of agreement. Organizational Dynamics, Summer: 17-34.Google Scholar
  38. Hickling, A. 1990. ‘Decision Spaces’: A Scenario about Designing Appropriate Rooms for Group Decision Management. Tackling Strategic Problems: the role of group decision support, 169-177.Google Scholar
  39. Hofstede, G. 1980. Cultures Consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Howick, S., Eden, C., Ackermann, F., and Williams, T. 2008. Building Confidence in Models for Multiple Audiences: the Modelling Cascade. European Journal of Operational Research, 186: 1068-1083.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Huff A. (Editor) 1990. Mapping Strategic Thought. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  42. Huff, A. and Jenkins, M. 2002. Mapping Strategic Knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Janis, I. L. 1972. Victims of Group Think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  44. Kelly, G. A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  45. Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. A. 1995. A Procedural Justice Model of Strategic Decision Making. Organization Science, 6: 44-61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Langfield-Smith, K. and Wirth, A. 1992. Measuring Differences between Cognitive Maps. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 43: 1135-1150.Google Scholar
  47. Laukannen, M. 1998. Conducting Causal Mapping Research: Opportunities and Challenges. In Eden, C. Spender J. C. (Eds.), Managerial and Organizational Cognition: London: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Lindblom, C. E. 1959. The Science of Muddling Through. Public Administration Review, 19: 79-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. McFadzean, E. S. and Nelson, T. 1998. Facilitating Problem Solving Groups: A Conceptual Model. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 19: 6-13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nutt, P. C. 2002. Why Decisions Fail: Avoiding the Blunders and Traps that lead to debacles. San Franscisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
  51. Phillips, L. and Phillips, M. C. 1993. Facilitated Work Groups: Theory and Practice. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44.Google Scholar
  52. Pidd, M. 2003. Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science. Chicester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  53. Richardson, G. and Pugh, A. L. III 1981. Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling. Boston, MA: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rittel, H. W. J. and Webber, M. M. 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4: 155-169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Shaw, D. 2003. Evaluating electronic workshops through analysing the ‘brainstormed’ ideas. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54: 692-705.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Simon, H. A. 1976. From substantive to procedural rationality. In Latsis, S. J. (Eds.), Method and Appraisal in Economics: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Stasser, G. and Titus, W. 2003. Hidden Profiles: A Brief History. Psychological Inquiry, 14: 304-313.Google Scholar
  58. Thomas, W. I. and Thomas, D. S. 1928. The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs. NewYork: Knopf.Google Scholar
  59. van der Heijden, K. 1996. Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. Weick, K. E. 1979. The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Strathclyde Business SchoolGlasgowScotland

Personalised recommendations