What are Problem Structuring Methods?
Source: PROBLEM STRUCTURING IN PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS
Problem structuring methods provide a methodological complement to theories of policy design. Arguably, structuring a problem is a prerequisite of designing solutions for that problem.4 In this context, problem structuring methods are metamethods. They are “about” and “come before” processes of policy design and other forms of problem solving.
Source: Strategic Development: Methods and Models
- Soft OR
- Hard OR
- Unstructured Problems
- System Sciences
- SODA Strategic Options Development and Analysis
- SSM Soft Systems Methodology
- SCA Strategic Choice Approach
- Robustness Analysis
- Drama Theory
- Interactive Planning
- Scenario Planning
- Critical Systems Heuristics
- Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing
- Viable Systems Model VSM
- System Dynamics
- Decision Conferencing
- John Mingers
- Jonathan Rosenhead
- John Morecroft
- MC Jackson
- Operational Research
- Problem Structuring Methods PSM
- Stafford Beer
- Robert Dyson
- Jay Forrester
- Russell Ackoff
- Robert Flood
- Peter Checkland
- Group Model Building
- Behaviour Operational Research
- Community Operations Research
- Ill-structured versus Well-structured Problems
- Wicked Versus Tame Problems
- Ill-Defined versus Well-Defined Problems
- Nigel Howard
Problem Structuring Methods
Source: Past, present and future of problem structuring methods
The problematic situations for which PSMs aim to provide analytic assistance are characterized by
- Multiple actors,
- Differing perspectives,
- Partially conflicting interests,
- Significant intangibles,
- Perplexing uncertainties.
The relative salience of these factors will differ between situations (and different methods are selective in the emphasis given to them). However, in all cases there is a meta-characteristic, that of complexity, arising out of the need to comprehend a tangle of issues without being able to start from a presumed consensual formulation. For an introduction to PSMs, see Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001
Source: Problem structuring methods in action
Strategic options development and analysis (SODA) is a general problem identification method that uses cognitive mapping as a modelling device for eliciting and recording individuals’ views of a problem situation. The merged individual cognitive maps (or a joint map developed within a workshop session) provide the framework for group discussions, and a facilitator guides participants towards commitment to a portfolio of actions.
Soft systems methodology (SSM) is a general method for system redesign. Participants build ideal-type conceptual models (CMs), one for each relevant world view. They compare them with perceptions of the existing system in order to generate debate about what changes are culturally feasible and systemically desirable.
Strategic choice approach (SCA) is a planning approach centered on managing uncertainty in strategic situations. Facilitators assist participants to model the interconnectedness of decision areas. Interactive comparison of alternative decision schemes helps them to bring key uncertainties to the surface. On this basis the group identifies priority areas for partial commitment, and designs explorations and contingency plans.
Robustness analysis is an approach that focuses on maintaining useful flexibility under uncertainty. In an interactive process, participants and analysts assess both the compatibility of alternative initial commitments with possible future configurations of the system being planned for, and the performance of each configuration in feasible future environments. This enables them to compare the flexibility maintained by alternative initial commitments.
Drama theory draws on two earlier approaches, meta games and hyper games. It is an interactive method of analysing co-operation and conflict among multiple actors. A model is built from perceptions of the options available to the various actors, and how they are rated. Drama theory looks for the “dilemmas” presented to the actors within this model of the situation. Each dilemma is a change point, tending to cause an actor to feel specific emotions and to produce rational arguments by which the model itself is redefined. When and only when such successive redefinitions have eliminated all dilemmas is the actors’ joint problem fully resolved. Analysts commonly work with one of the parties, helping it to be more effective in the rational-emotional process of dramatic resolution. (Descriptions based substantially on Rosenhead, 1996.)
Given the ill-defined location of the PSM/non- PSM boundary, there are a number of other methods with some currency that have at least certain family resemblances. These include critical systems heuristics (CSH) (Ulrich, 2000), interactive planning (Ackoff, 1981), and strategic assumption surfacing and testing (Mason and Mitroff, 1981). Other related methods which feature in this special issue are SWOT (Weihrich, 1998), scenario planning (Schoemaker, 1998), and the socio-technical systems approach (Trist and Murray, 1993). Those which are particularly close to the spirit of PSMs in at least some of their modes of use, and therefore thought to merit inclusion in Rosenhead and Mingers (2001), are the following:
Viable systems model (VSM) is a generic model of a viable organization based on cybernetic principles. It specifies five notional systems that should exist within an organization in some form––operations, co-ordination, control, intelligence, and policy, together with the appropriate control and communicational relationships. Although it was developed with a prescriptive intent, it can also be used as part of a debate about problems of organizational design and redesign (Harnden, 1990).
System dynamics(SD) is a way of modelling peoples’ perceptions of real-world systems based especially on causal relationships and feedback. It was developed as a traditional simulation tool but can be used, especially in combination with influence diagrams (causal–loop diagrams), as a way of facilitating group discussion (Lane, 2000; Vennix, 1996).
Decision conferencing is a variant of the more widely known “decision analysis”. Like the latter, it builds models to support choice between decision alternatives in cases where the consequences may be multidimensional; and where there may be uncertainty about future events which affect those consequences. What distinguishes decision conferencing is that it operates in workshop mode, with one or more facilitators eliciting from the group of participants both the structure of the model, and the probabilities and utilities to be included in it. The aim is cast, not as the identification of an objectively best solution, but as the achievement of shared understanding, the development of a sense of common purpose, and the generation of a commitment to action (Phillips, 1989; Watson and Buede, 1987).
There are a number of texts which present a different selection of “softer” methods than do Rosenhead and Mingers. These include Flood and Jackson (1991), who concentrate on systems-based methods, Dyson and O’Brien (1998) who consider a range of hard and soft approaches in the area of strategy formulation; and Sorensen and Vidal (1999) who make a wide range of methods accessible to a Scandinavian readership. There is clearly an extensive repertoire of methods available. In fact it is common to combine together a number of PSMs, or PSMs together with more traditional methods, in a single intervention––a practice known as multimethodology (Mingers and Gill, 1997). So the range of methodological choice is wider even than a simple listing of methods might suggest.
Source: Are project managers ready for the 21th challenges? A review of problem structuring methods for decision support
Benefits of Problem Structuring Methods
Source: Are project managers ready for the 21th challenges? A review of problem structuring methods for decision support
My Related Posts
Key Sources of Research
Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory.
White, L., Burger, K., & Yearworth, M. (2016).
European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 983-1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.044
“Is Value Focused Thinking a Problem Structuring Method or Soft OR or what?”
Management Science and Information Systems Faculty Publication Series. Paper 42.
Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict
John Mingers, Jonathan Rosenhead
2001 Book Second ed.
The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review
Problem structuring methods in action
John Mingers a,*, Jonathan Rosenhead b
a Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
b London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK
European Journal of Operational Research 152 (2004) 530–554
Introduction to the Special Issue: Teaching Soft O.R., Problem Structuring Methods, and Multimethodology.
John Mingers, Jonathan Rosenhead, (2011)
INFORMS Transactions on Education 12(1):1-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/ited.1110.0073
Problem Structuring Methods, 1950s-1989: An Atlas of the Journal Literature
Georgiou, Ion and Heck, Joaquim,
(June 26, 2017).
“An Investigation on the Effectiveness of a Problem Structuring Method in a GroupDecision-Making Process”
(2020). Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, Engineering Management, Old Dominion University,
What’s the Problem? An Introduction to Problem Structuring Methods
Published Online:1 Dec 1996
PROBLEM STRUCTURING IN PUBLIC POLICY ANALYSIS
William N. Dunn
Graduate School of Public and International Affairs University of Pittsburgh
Past, present and future of problem structuring methods
London School of Economics, London, UK
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2006), 1–7
Framing and Reframing as a Creative Problem Structuring Aid
Victoria J Mabin, and John Davies Management Group Victoria University of Wellington PO Box 600 Wellington
Tel +4-495 5140
email: firstname.lastname@example.org Tel + 4-471 5382
Fax + 4-471 2200
Reassessing the scope of OR practice: the influences of problem structuring methods and the analytics movement
Ranyard, J.C., Fildes, R. and Hun, T-I (2014).
(LUMS Working Paper 2014:8).
Lancaster University: The Department of Management Science.
Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation
G Montibeller1∗, V Belton2, F Ackermann2 and L Ensslin3
1London School of Economics, London, UK; 2University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK; and 3Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Floriano ́polis, Brazil
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2008) 59, 575–589
Special issue on problem structuring research and practice
Fran Ackermann • L. Alberto Franco • Etie ̈nne Rouwette • Leroy White
EURO J Decis Process (2014) 2:165–172 DOI 10.1007/s40070-014-0037-6
Soft OR Comes of Age – But Not Everywhere!
Mingers, John (2011)
ISSN 0305-0483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2011.01.005
Omega, 39 (6). pp. 729-741
An Investigation on the Effectiveness of a Problem Structuring Method in a Group Decision-Making Process
Old Dominion University, email@example.com
OR competences: the demands of problem structuring methods
Richard John Ormerod
EURO J Decis Process (2014) 2:313–340
Hard OR, Soft OR, Problem Structuring Methods, Critical Systems Thinking: A Primer
Hans G. Daellenbach
Department of Management University of Canterbury Christchurch, NZ
Are project managers ready for the 21th challenges? A review of problem structuring methods for decision support
José Ramón San Cristóbal Mateo
Emma Diaz Ruiz de Navamuel
María Antonia González Villa
Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods
Gerald Midgley Robert Y. Cavana John Brocklesby , Jeff L. Foote David R.R. Wood , Annabel Ahuriri-Driscoll
European Journal of Operational Research 229 (2013) 143–154
Problem structuring methods
Chapter in book
(1) The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, England
Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001
Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science
2001 Edition | Editors: Saul I. Gass, Carl M. Harris
Beyond Problem Structuring Methods: Reinventing the Future of OR/MS
Author(s): M. C. Jackson
Source: The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, No. 7, Special Issue: Problem Structuring Methods (Jul., 2006), pp. 868-878
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals on behalf of the Operational Research Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4102274
Strategic Development: Methods and Models
May 1998 346 Pages
Group Model Building:
Problem Structuring, Policy Simulation and Decision Support
David F. Andersen, University at Albany
Jac A.M. Vennix, Radboud University Nijmegen George P. Richardson, University at Albany Etiënne A.J.A. Rouwette, Radboud University Nijmegen
Reassessing the Scope of OR Practice: the Influences of Problem Structuring Methods and the Analytics Movement
J. C. Ranyard, R. Fildes* and Tun-I Hu
The Department of Management Science Lancaster University Management School Lancaster LA1 4YX