IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v40y2023i1p16-42.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The logic of semiotics applied to mathematical and social interaction in operational research consulting practice: Towards a foundational view

Author

Listed:
  • Richard John Ormerod

Abstract

The paper investigates semiotics as an integrative, foundational framework for operational research (OR). To this end, the semiotics of the pragmatist C.S. Peirce is explained and its application in OR research, and consulting practice is explored. It is the fourth in a series of papers each seeking to ground OR in a different logic: philosophic/mathematical logic, pragmatic logic, economic logic and now semiotic logic. For Peirce, semiotics is a logic, and as such it is argued in the paper that it can embrace philosophical/mathematical, pragmatic and economic logics. The comprehensive nature of semiotics is such that it brings to a close the research programme aimed at establishing foundations for OR. However, the closure of one programme opens up another—the application of semiotics in OR practice and academic research. Possible avenues for further research include learning from, and collaboration with, neighbouring disciplines such as information systems and computer science.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard John Ormerod, 2023. "The logic of semiotics applied to mathematical and social interaction in operational research consulting practice: Towards a foundational view," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 16-42, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:40:y:2023:i:1:p:16-42
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2828
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2828
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2828?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. Richard Ormerod, 2021. "The fitness and survival of the OR profession in the age of artificial intelligence," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 72(1), pages 4-22, January.
    3. Richard Ormerod, 2020. "The pragmatic logic of OR consulting practice: Towards a foundational view," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 71(11), pages 1691-1709, November.
    4. Nicholas Valcourt & Jeffrey Walters & Amy Javernick‐Will & Karl Linden, 2020. "Assessing the efficacy of group model building workshops in an applied setting through purposive text analysis," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 135-157, April.
    5. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    6. Franco, L. Alberto & Greiffenhagen, Christian, 2018. "Making OR practice visible: Using ethnomethodology to analyse facilitated modelling workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 673-684.
    7. Richard Ormerod, 2020. "The history and ideas of sociological functionalism: Talcott Parsons, modern sociological theory, and the relevance for OR," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 71(12), pages 1873-1899, December.
    8. Elena Tavella & L. Alberto Franco, 2015. "Dynamics of Group Knowledge Production in Facilitated Modelling Workshops: An Exploratory Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 451-475, May.
    9. Richard J. Ormerod, 2018. "The logic and methods of OR consulting practice: towards a foundational view," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 69(9), pages 1357-1378, September.
    10. Bell, Peter C., 1991. "Visual interactive modelling: The past, the present, and the prospects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 274-286, October.
    11. Brocklesby, John & Midgley, Gerald, 2016. "Boundary games: How teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of interventionAuthor-Name: Velez-Castiblanco, Jorge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 968-982.
    12. Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2010. "The sociomateriality of organisational life: considering technology in management research," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 34(1), pages 125-141, January.
    13. White, Leroy & Burger, Katharina & Yearworth, Mike, 2016. "Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 983-1004.
    14. Maurice W Kirby, 2003. "Operational Research in War and Peace:The British Experience from the 1930s to 1970," World Scientific Books, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., number p247, August.
    15. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 791-795.
    16. Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden, 2011. "Negotiation in Strategy Making Teams: Group Support Systems and the Process of Cognitive Change," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 293-314, May.
    17. T Horlick-Jones & J Rosenhead, 2007. "The uses of observation: combining problem structuring methods and ethnography," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 588-601, May.
    18. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    19. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    20. J Mingers, 2000. "The contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for OR/MS and systems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(11), pages 1256-1270, November.
    21. D Shaw & F Ackermann & C Eden, 2003. "Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(9), pages 936-948, September.
    22. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran & Walls, Lesley & Quigley, John & Houghton, Tom, 2017. "Learning from mixed OR method practice: The NINES case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 70-81.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ormerod, Richard & Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2023. "Understanding participant actions in OR interventions using practice theories: A research agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 810-827.
    2. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    3. Franco, L. Alberto & Greiffenhagen, Christian, 2018. "Making OR practice visible: Using ethnomethodology to analyse facilitated modelling workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 673-684.
    4. Johnson, Michael P. & Midgley, Gerald & Chichirau, George, 2018. "Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1178-1191.
    5. Jorge Velez-Castiblanco & Diana Londono-Correa & Olandy Naranjo-Rivera, 2018. "The Structure of Problem Structuring Conversations: A Boundary Games Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 853-884, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 791-795.
    8. 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.
    9. Katharina Burger & Leroy White & Mike Yearworth, 2018. "Why so Serious? Theorising Playful Model-Driven Group Decision Support with Situated Affectivity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 789-810, October.
    10. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    11. Burger, Katharina & White, Leroy & Yearworth, Mike, 2019. "Developing a smart operational research with hybrid practice theories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 1137-1150.
    12. Edoardo Fregonese & Isabella M. Lami & Elena Todella, 2020. "Aesthetic Perspectives in Group Decision and Negotiation Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 993-1019, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P., 2018. "Community Operational Research and Citizen Science: Two icons in need of each other?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1111-1124.
    15. Harper, Alison & Mustafee, Navonil & Yearworth, Mike, 2021. "Facets of trust in simulation studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 197-213.
    16. Stephen Harwood, 2021. "Introducing the VIPLAN Methodology (with VSM) for Handling Messy Situations – Nine Lessons," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(6), pages 635-668, December.
    17. Richard John Ormerod, 2022. "The economic logic of OR consulting practice: Towards a foundational view," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(4), pages 685-707, July.
    18. Scott, Rodney J & Cavana, Robert Y & Cameron, Donald, 2016. "Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 908-918.
    19. Brocklesby, John & Midgley, Gerald, 2016. "Boundary games: How teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of interventionAuthor-Name: Velez-Castiblanco, Jorge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 968-982.
    20. 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.

    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:40:y:2023:i:1:p:16-42. 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.