Abstract
The many issues which confront Problem Structuring Groups (PSGs) engaging in applying problem structuring methods (PSMs) are well reported in the literature. Often group problem structuring work is well organised around an array of processes and methods which has received wide-ranging testing in the field however, the assessment of the group in terms of its output, group dynamic and self-assessment tends to be handled piecemeal at best. Triple task methodology (TTM) has been described as a means to manage the three group assessments—group output, dynamic and self-assessment in one frame. In this paper an experimental version of TTM (TTMe) is described in use in an Education project setting in Abu Dhabi. It was intended to make TTM less cumbersome and time consuming and, at the same time, more systemically integrated, a significant objective being to make it easier to use by practitioners who have not used it before or who have only small prior use of group assessment methods. The paper describes the application of TTMe, provides an overall assessment of the value of the exercise, discusses the outputs of the group work and points to the value of TTMe in identifying and clarifying unique group qualities or signatures. The major contribution of the paper is to bring to PSG processes a degree of rapid, non-specialist, empirically comparable assessment on the richness of the group use of PSMs.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Notes
Systemic insight was interpreted as evidence in the outputs of the groups of one or all of three additional elements drawn from systems science; these were: a focus on relationships in the diagrams, emergent outcomes in the tasks and issues and systemic wholeness is implied in the scenarios. For example, the group output could have identified new links and relationships with other, related approaches in other sectors or other countries or, describing outcomes which are emergent from the context and not ‘given’ as part of the known landscape of education in the Kingdom or, presenting the current situation in a diagram as a ‘system’ as opposed to a disorganised and un-integrated ‘mess’ or ‘complex reality’.
References
Alberto Franco L (2013). Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects. European Journal of Operational Research 231(3): 720–733.
ASC (2007). Mind the Skills Gap: The Skills we Need for Sustainable Communities. Academy for Sustainable Communities, Leeds.
Banjade MR and Ojha H (2005). Facilitating deliberative governance: Innovations from Nepal’s community forestry program: A case study in Karmapunya. The Forestry Chronicle 81(3): 403–408.
Bell S (2011). From Sustainable Community to Big Society: Ten years learning with the Imagine Approach. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 20(3): 247–267.
Bell S (2012). DPSIR = A problem structuring method? An exploration form the “imagine” approach. European Journal of Operational Research 222(2): 350–360.
Bell S and Morse S (2011a). Being, engaging, contextualising and managing: BECM matrix—a means to assess group dynamics? Systems Research and Behavioural Science 28(4): 319–339.
Bell S and Morse S (2011b). Being, engaging, contextualizing and managing matrix: A means for nonspecialists to assess group dynamics? Systems Research and Behavioral Science 28(4): 319–339.
Bell S, Correa Pena A and Prem M (2013). Imagine coastal sustainability. Ocean & Coastal Management 83: 39–51.
Bell S and Morse S (2013a). An approach to comparing external and internal methods for analyzing group dynamic. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 17(4): 281–298.
Bell S and Morse S (2013b). Groups and facilitators within problem structuring processes. Journal of the Operational Research Society 64(7): 959–972.
Bion WR (1961). Experiences in Groups and Other Papers, Basic Books, New York.
Blumberg HH (2006). A simplified version of the SYMLOG (R) trait rating form. Psychological Reports 99(1): 46–50.
Bonebright D (2010). 40 years of storming: a historical review of Tuckman’s model of small group development. Human Resource Development International 13(1): 111–120.
Champion D and Wilson JM (2010). The impact of contingency factors on validation of problem structuring methods. Journal of the Operational Research Society 61(9): 1420–1431.
Coudert E and Larid M (2011). IMAGINE: A Set of Tools and Methods to Assist Integrated Coastal Zone Managment in the Mediterranean, Blue Plan UNEP/MAP Regional Activity Centre, Sophia Antipolis.
Cronin K, Midgley G and Jackson LS (2014). Issues mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts. European Journal of Operational Research 233(1): 145–158.
Franco LA, Cushman M and Rosenhead J (2004). Project review and learning in the construction industry: Embedding a problem structuring method within a partnership context. European Journal of Operational Research 152(3): 586–601.
Gillespie M, Bell S and Wilding C (2014). Understanding the Changing Cultural Value of the BBC World Service and the British Council Understanding the Changing Cultural Value of the BBC World Service and the British Council, Milton Keynes. Report produced for the Arts and History Research Council of the UK. Available at: http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/diasporas/sites/www.open.ac.uk.researchprojects.diasporas/files/Cultural%20Value%20of%20World%20Service%20and%20British%20Council%20AHRC%20Final%20Report%2022.07.14.pdf. Accessed Dec 1, 2014.
Hjortsø CN (2004). Enhancing public participation in natural resource management using Soft OR—an application of strategic option development and analysis in tactical forest planning. European Journal of Operational Research 152(3): 667–683.
Horney K (1994). Self-Analysis, Norton, London.
Isenberg D and Ennis J (1981). Perceiving group members: A comparison of derived and imposed dimensions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 41(2): 293–305.
Jago-on KAB et al. (2009). Urbanization and subsurface environmental issues: an attempt at DPSIR model application in Asian cities. The Science of the Total Environment 407(9): 3089–3104.
Jones E and Kelly R (2009). No pain, no grains: negative mood leads to process gains in idea-generation groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 13(2): 75–88.
Kolb D (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall, London.
Larid M and Plan B (2005). Analyse de Durabilite dans le cadre du PAC Zone cotiere algeroise (Algerie), Ministere de l’Amenagement du Territoire, Sophia Anitpolis.
Lury C and Wakeford N (2012). Inventive Methods: The Happening of the Social, Routledge, Oxford.
Mahroum S, Bell S, Al-Saleh Y and Yassin N (2016). Towards an effective multi-stakeholder consultation process: Applying the imagine method in context of Abu Dhabi’s Education Policy. Systemic Practice and Action Research 29(4): 335–353.
Mahroum S, Bell S and Yassin N (2013). Innovation in multi-stakeholder engagement. INSEAD Working Paper, 2013/113/I. Available at: http://sites.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/doc.cfm?did=53098.
Midgley G, Cavana RY, Brocklesby J, Foote JL, Wood DRR and Ahuriri-Driscoll A (2013). Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. European Journal of Operational Research 229(1): 143–154.
Mingers G (2011). Soft OR comes of age: but not everywhere! OMEGA: The International Journal of Managment Science 39(6): 729–741.
Moon J (1999). Reflection in Learning and Professional Development, Kogan Page Ltd, London.
Papmichail K et al. (2007). Facilitation practices in decision workshops. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58(5): 614–632.
Park JH (1985). SYMLOG as a method of a team diagnosis of soccer teams. International Journal of Sports Psychology 16(4): 331–332.
Rosenhead, J. & Mingers, J., 2001. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World—Revisited.
Rowe G and Frewer L (2000). Public participation methods: A framework for evaluation. Science, Technology and Human Values 25(1): 3–29.
Sjovold E (2007). Systematizing person-group relations (SPGR): A field theory of social interaction. Small Group Research 38(5): 615–635.
Smith G (2001). Group development: A review of the literature and a commentary on future research directions. Group Facilitation 3(Spring): 14–45.
Sørensen L, Vidal RVV and Engström E (2004). Using soft OR in a small company—the case of Kirby. European Journal of Operational Research 152(3): 555–570.
Swensen C (1981). Review of SYMLOG: A system for the multiple level observation of group by Robert Bales, and Stephen Cohen. Journal of Personality Assessmenet 45(1): 99–100.
Trutnevyte E, Stauffacher M and Scholz RW (2012). Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment. European Journal of Operational Research 219(3): 762–772.
Wall VDJ and Galanes GJ (1986). The SYMLOG dimensions and small group conflict. Central States Speech Journal 37(2): 61–78.
White L (2006). Evaluating problem-structuring methods: Developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSMs. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57(7): 842–855.
Acknowledgments
This working paper was developed using funds made available through the Abu Dhabi Education Council, whose support is gratefully acknowledged.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bell, S., Mahroum, S. & Yassin, N. Towards understanding problem structuring and groups with triple task methodology ‘e’. J Oper Res Soc 68, 192–206 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-016-0017-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-016-0017-2