IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v30y2013i4p430-443.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Can't We All Just Accommodate: A Soft Systems Methodology Application on Disagreeing Stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • Luke Houghton

Abstract

The idea of accommodating worldviews in problem structuring is a common approach across many methodologies. A key assumption of this research is the idea that actors must reach a point where a debate about change, through an accommodation of worldviews, can occur. This paper looks at a field study where actors actively used their declared worldviews against each other to argue for change. Even though this process led to a stalling of the method, an argument is made that there is still much to be learned from actors who actively structure disagreement. In particular by studying how this process occurs, we can develop new streams of research into problem framing and methodology use that are currently absent problem structuring research. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Luke Houghton, 2013. "Why Can't We All Just Accommodate: A Soft Systems Methodology Application on Disagreeing Stakeholders," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 430-443, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:30:y:2013:i:4:p:430-443
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2136
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2136
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2136?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. C Eden & F Ackermann, 2006. "Where next for problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 766-768, July.
    2. L A Franco, 2006. "Forms of conversation and problem structuring methods: a conceptual development," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 813-821, July.
    3. Alberto Franco, L., 2009. "Problem structuring methods as intervention tools: Reflections from their use with multi-organisational teams," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 193-203, February.
    4. P Checkland, 2006. "Reply to Eden and Ackermann: Any future for problem structuring methods?," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 769-771, July.
    5. Jackson, Mike C., 2001. "Critical systems thinking and practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 233-244, January.
    6. F Liebl, 2002. "The anatomy of complex societal problems and its implications for OR," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 53(2), pages 161-184, February.
    7. N A D Connell, 2001. "Evaluating soft OR: some reflections on an apparently ‘unsuccessful’ implementation using a Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) based approach," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 52(2), pages 150-160, February.
    8. Franco, L. Alberto & Lord, Ewan, 2011. "Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 362-372, June.
    9. W Ulrich, 2003. "Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(4), pages 325-342, April.
    10. L Houghton & M Metcalfe, 2010. "Synthesis as conception shifting," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(6), pages 953-963, June.
    11. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    12. J Mingers, 2003. "A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(6), pages 559-570, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Luke Houghton & Larry Crump, 2016. "Temporal Events and Problem Structuring," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 324-340, May.
    2. Payam Hanafizadeh & Mohammad Mehrabioun, 2018. "Application of SSM in tackling problematical situations from academicians’ viewpoints," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 179-220, April.
    3. Luke Houghton & David Tuffley, 2015. "Towards a Methodology of Wicked Problem Exploration through Concept Shifting and Tension Point Analysis," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 283-297, May.
    4. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    5. Ryan Armstrong & Guillermo Jiménez, 2022. "Micro-Skills for Learning Soft Systems Methodology? Challenges and Opportunities in an Undergraduate Dissertation Project," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(6), pages 831-853, December.
    6. Steven E. Wallis, 2020. "Integrative Propositional Analysis for developing capacity in an academic research institution by improving strategic planning," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 56-67, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. David Lowe & Louise Martingale & Mike Yearworth, 2016. "Guiding interventions in a multi-organisational context: combining the Viable System Model and Hierarchical Process Modelling for use as a Problem Structuring Method," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(12), pages 1481-1495, December.
    2. Ion Georgiou & Joaquim Heck, 2021. "The emergence of problem structuring methods, 1950s–1989: An atlas of the journal literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 756-796, November.
    3. Michael Yearworth & Gordon Edwards, 2014. "On the Desirability of Integrating Research Methods into Overall Systems Approaches in the Training of Engineers: Analysis Using SSM," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 47-66, January.
    4. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    5. Luke Houghton & David Tuffley, 2015. "Towards a Methodology of Wicked Problem Exploration through Concept Shifting and Tension Point Analysis," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 283-297, May.
    6. Luke Houghton & Larry Crump, 2016. "Temporal Events and Problem Structuring," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 324-340, May.
    7. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    8. Cronin, Karen & Midgley, Gerald & Jackson, Laurie Skuba, 2014. "Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 145-158.
    9. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    10. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    11. Etienne Rouwette & Ingrid Bastings & Hans Blokker, 2011. "A Comparison of Group Model Building and Strategic Options Development and Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 781-803, November.
    12. Small, Adrian & Wainwright, David, 2018. "Privacy and security of electronic patient records – Tailoring multimethodology to explore the socio-political problems associated with Role Based Access Control systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 344-360.
    13. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    14. Henao, Felipe & Franco, L. Alberto, 2016. "Unpacking multimethodology: Impacts of a community development intervention," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 681-696.
    15. Franco, L. Alberto & Lord, Ewan, 2011. "Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 362-372, June.
    16. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    17. L Houghton & M Metcalfe, 2010. "Synthesis as conception shifting," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(6), pages 953-963, June.
    18. Sydelko, Pamela & Midgley, Gerald & Espinosa, Angela, 2021. "Designing interagency responses to wicked problems: Creating a common, cross-agency understanding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 250-263.
    19. Abuabara, Leila & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2021. "Surveying applications of Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1051-1065.
    20. Luke Houghton & Heather Stewart, 2017. "Using the ‘Engagement’ Model of Problem Solving to Assist Students in Capstone Learning," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 471-485, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:30:y:2013:i:4:p:430-443. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.