IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/syseng/v19y2016i4p301-321.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Planning For 5G: A Problem Structuring Approach for Survival in the Telecoms Industry

Author

Listed:
  • William Jones
  • Mahesh Sooriyabandara
  • Mike Yearworth
  • Angela Doufexi
  • R. Eddie Wilson

Abstract

This paper examines the application of systemic problem structuring methods to the development of a research strategy in response to the challenges of fifth generation (5G). The paper proposes a methodology for strategic decision making. The key stakeholders, objectives, technologies, and boundaries from existing literature are identified and problem structuring based on hierarchical process modeling is used to explore the dependency of certain features of 5G on specific technologies, giving an indication of the importance of certain technologies over others and thus insight into where to place research effort. The hard technical challenges of 5G are discussed and equally the importance of the soft social and business challenges explored. For context, we explain how 5G will provide a platform for innovations and discuss how new and existing businesses may use this to their advantage. Problem structuring is used to explore how the challenges and opportunities of future wireless systems are related to the process of developing new business models.

Suggested Citation

  • William Jones & Mahesh Sooriyabandara & Mike Yearworth & Angela Doufexi & R. Eddie Wilson, 2016. "Planning For 5G: A Problem Structuring Approach for Survival in the Telecoms Industry," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 301-321, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:syseng:v:19:y:2016:i:4:p:301-321
    DOI: 10.1002/sys.21354
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sys.21354
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sys.21354?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. J Rosenhead, 2006. "Past, present and future of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 759-765, July.
    2. J Davis & A MacDonald & L White, 2010. "Problem-structuring methods and project management: an example of stakeholder involvement using Hierarchical Process Modelling methodology," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(6), pages 893-904, June.
    3. Jonathan Rosenhead, 1996. "What's the Problem? An Introduction to Problem Structuring Methods," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 117-131, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    6. Marashi, Emad & Davis, John P., 2006. "An argumentation-based method for managing complex issues in design of infrastructural systems," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 91(12), pages 1535-1545.
    7. Derek Walker & Lynda Margaret Bourne & Arthur Shelley, 2008. "Influence, stakeholder mapping and visualization," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(6), pages 645-658.
    8. E A J A Rouwette, 2011. "Facilitated modelling in strategy development: measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 879-887, May.
    9. K Kotiadis & J Mingers, 2006. "Combining PSMs with hard OR methods: the philosophical and practical challenges," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 856-867, July.
    10. O'Reilly, Charles & Harreld, J. Bruce & Tushman, Michael L., 2009. "Organizational Ambidexterity: IBM and Emerging Business Opportunities," Research Papers 2025, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    11. 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. 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.

    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. 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.
    3. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Lowe, David & Espinosa, Angela & Yearworth, Mike, 2020. "Constitutive rules for guiding the use of the viable system model: Reflections on practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(3), pages 1014-1035.
    7. 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.
    8. Durugbo, Christopher M., 2020. "Affordance-based problem structuring for workplace innovation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(2), pages 617-631.
    9. 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.
    10. D Champion & J M Wilson, 2010. "The impact of contingency factors on validation of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(9), pages 1420-1431, September.
    11. 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.
    12. Sondoss Elsawah & Elena Bakhanova & Raimo P. Hämäläinen & Alexey Voinov, 2023. "A Competency Framework for Participatory Modeling," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(3), pages 569-601, June.
    13. Konsti-Laakso, Suvi & Rantala, Tero, 2018. "Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1040-1049.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran, 2011. "Mixing OR methods in practice: Past, present and future directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(3), pages 503-511, December.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Killemsetty, Namesh & Johnson, Michael & Patel, Amit, 2022. "Understanding housing preferences of slum dwellers in India: A community-based operations research approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 699-713.
    20. 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.

    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:wly:syseng:v:19:y:2016:i:4:p:301-321. 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: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6858 .

    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.