Advertisement

Understanding PSM Interventions Through Sense-Making and the Mangle of Practice Lens

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 218)

Abstract

In this paper we seek to understand how individuals, as part of a group facilitated modelling setting, commit themselves to a set of actions, as a basis of sense-making, sense-giving and coordinated actions. For this we introduce Pickering’s Mangle of Practice to understand the practice of a group facilitated modelling setting. Using video data from a group modelling building exercise, we analyze how individual actors framed their circumstances in communication with one another and how through facilitated model building this affected their subsequent interpretation and decisions as the process unfolds. We show how, through the models as objects enhanced the interaction between verbal communication, expressed and felt emotion and material cues led to collective behavior within the group. With our study we extend prior research and elaborate on the role of objects and materiality as part of group decision making.

Keywords

Group decision making Problem structuring methods Sense-making The mangle Collective behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported in part by the EU FP7-ENERGY-SMARTCITIES-2012 (314277) project STEEP (Systems Thinking for Comprehensive City Efficient Energy Planning).

References

  1. 1.
    Mingers, J., Rosenhead, J.: Problem structuring methods in action. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 152, 530–554 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eden, C.: On evaluating the performance of “wide-band” GDSS’s. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 81, 302–311 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    White, L.: Evaluating problem-structuring methods: developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSMs. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 57, 842–855 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ackermann, F.: Problem structuring methods “in the Dock”: arguing the case for Soft OR. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 219, 652–658 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Montibeller, G., Franco, A.: Decision and risk analysis for the evaluation of strategic options. In: O’Brien, F.A., Dyson, R.G. (eds.) Supporting Strategy: Frameworks, Methods and Models, pp. 251–284. Wiley, West Sussex (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ackermann, F., Eden, C.: Negotiation in strategy making teams: group support systems and the process of cognitive change. Group Decis. Negot. 20, 293–314 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fisher, R., Ury, W.: Getting to yes. Hutchinson, London (1982)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ormerod, R.: The mangle of OR practice: towards more informative case studies of ‘technical’ projects. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 65, 1245–1260 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pickering, A.: The mangle of practice - agency and emergence in the sociology of science. Am. J. Sociology 99, 559–589 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pickering, A.: The Mangle of Practice: Time, Agency, and Science. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Weick, K.E., Roberts, K.H.: Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Adm. Sci. Q. 38, 357–381 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Connell, N.A.D.: Evaluating Soft OR: some reflections on an apparently “Unsuccessful” implementation using a soft systems methodology (SSM) based approach. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 52, 150–160 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    White, L.: Understanding problem structuring methods interventions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 199, 823–833 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yearworth, M., White, L.: The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 237, 932–945 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franco, L.A.: Forms of conversation and problem structuring methods: a conceptual development. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 57, 813–821 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Franco, L.A., Meadows, M.: Exploring new directions for research in problem structuring methods: on the role of cognitive style. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 58, 1621–1629 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Weick, K.E., Sutcliffe, K.M., Obstfeld, D.: Organizing and the process of sense-making. Organ. Sci. 16, 409–421 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gioia, D.A., Chittipeddi, K.: Sense-making and sense-giving in strategic change initiation. Strategic Manage. J. 12, 433–448 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maitlis, S., Lawrence, T.B.: Triggers and enablers of sense-giving in organizations. Acad. Manage. J. 50, 57–84 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Smircich, L., Morgan, G.: Leadership: the management of meaning. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 18, 257–273 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Fiske, S.T., Taylor, S.E.: Social Cognition, 2nd edn., Xviii, 717 pp. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eden, C., Ackermann, F.: Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 152, 615–630 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Eden, C., Ackermann, F.: Group decision and negotiation in strategy making. Group Decis. Negot. 10, 119–140 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Latour, B.: Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1987)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rittel, H.W., Webber, M.M.: Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci. 4, 155–169 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ackoff, R.L.: The art and science of mess management. Interfaces 11, 20–26 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    White, L.: Behavioural Issues in PSMs [WWW Document]. IFORS Conf. Present (2014). http://www.ifors2014.org/files2/program-ifors2014.pdf
  28. 28.
    Checkland, P.: Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-year Retrospective. Wiley, Chichester (1999)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Geels, F.W.: Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Res. Policy 39, 495–510 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Checkland, P., Scholes, J.: Soft systems methodology: a 30-year retrospective (1999)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Davis, J., MacDonald, A., White, L.: Problem-structuring methods and project management: an example of stakeholder involvement using Hierarchical Process Modelling methodology. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 61, 893–904 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yearworth, M., Schien, D., Burger, K.: D2.1 R1 Energy Master Plan Process Modelling STEEP PROJECT (314277) - Systems Thinking for Comprehensive City Efficient Energy Planning, p. 70. University of Bristol (2014)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yearworth, M., Schien, D., White, L., Burger, K.: Sustainable urban energy planning: a development of problem structuring methodology (2015) (in review)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hindle, G.A.: Case Article—Teaching soft systems methodology and a blueprint for a module. INFORMS Trans. Educ. 12, 31–42 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Marashi, E., Davis, J.P.: An argumentation-based method for managing complex issues in design of infrastructural systems. Reliab. Eng. Sys. Safe. 91, 1535–1545 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Emerson, R.: Working with ‘key incidents’. In: Seale, C., Gobo, G., Gubrium, J.F., Silverman, D. (eds.) Qualitative Research Practice, pp. 427–442. Sage, London (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yearworth, M.: D2.5 Evaluation STEEP PROJECT (314277) - Systems Thinking for Comprehensive City Efficient Energy Planning, p. 56. University of Bristol (2014)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Franco, A.: Rethinking Soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 231, 720–733 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Bristol City Council: Bristol Smart City Programme [WWW Document] (2012). http://www.greendigitalcharter.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Smart-City-Bristol-Programme-April-2012-Briefing-Note.doc. Accessed on 27 November 2014
  40. 40.
    Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J.: Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World. 14, 78–91 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Warwick Business SchoolUniversity of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Faculty of EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations