Objectivity subjectivity

The section above has focussed upon plural values. However, decision participants' idiosyncratic definition of situations, and therefore identification of problems raises questions about what constitutes a truthful description of a problematic situation.

Eden and Sims (1979) claimed that the "underlying paradigm guiding OR practice" viewed a problem as:

"an objective reality, a system of interacting variables that as a consequence of manipulation could be made to behave differently".

They argued that problems are subjectively owned, based on personal interpretation of events. Checkland (1981) utilises a similarly "soft" approach. He argues that he does not "search for 'root definitions' [of problematic situations] as if they were somehow there in the problem situation but obscured. Checkland simply makes up some root definitions which might be 'relevant'" (Checkland, 1985, emphases added). OR workers in this study considered problems to have a

'technical', possibly observable core. However, it is in the

multi-subjective attempts to manage this core that problems are found. Problems are seen as elusive; one practitioner explained that:

"sometimes, in the process of investigating a problem, you may find that there's not a problem to investigate".

At least one (adequately powerful) traumatised subject is required to define the existence of a problem.

Cropper argues that even if a problem is recognised to have a human/political nature, it may be considered (by an OR practitioner) either as "a single space within which there may be a number of viewpoints" or as a complex where "there are as many spaces as there are viewpoints and the spaces may not be commensurable" (Cropper, 1987). In the first case, differing subjectivities are thought to be due to differences in

perception; in the second, they are due to differences in

construction. OR practitioners in this study tend towards the first viewpoint: where organisational actors cannot agree how to define a situation, it is because their normal human limitations, along with their different personalities, backgrounds and position within the organisation, prevent them from perceiving "the whole problem" - or encourage them to

choose a narrower perspective.

If an operational researcher adopts an egocentric attitude, focussing on a single client, then it is natural (if not necessarily logical) that only a single viewpoint should be considered necessary and relevant for defining the problem. The problem, therefore, exists, independently of the differing subjectivities (in terms of values or perception). Paradoxically, a problem defined by an individual subject may be regarded as objective.

In the methodologies of the practitioners interviewed during this research, a problem exists if (and only if) one or more persons, with sufficient authority or power, believes a problem to exist. The nature of the problem is based on a social 'product' of the subjective problems perceived by these persons.

The need for projects to be commissioned by a problem-owner (or someone other than the OR practitioner) suggests that an ORer's definition would be insufficient to define the existence of a suitable 'problem' for OR work. However, OR groups may sometimes sponsor their own speculative research in the hope that their problem definition may be adopted by someone else at a later date:

"If we perceive a problem, maybe an unstated one, or one that someone isn't sure that they've got, we can go in there and spend a bit of time showing this person that things are not as wonderful as they might be" .

Operational researchers have power, as respected organisational actors, to influence situations, so the relevant social product of subjective problems reflects their perceptions, as well as those of clients. Furthermore, an ORer must "seek a redefinition of the problem in such a way that it makes sense to himself" (Eden and Sims, 1979). As one OR worker put it :

"we wouldn't simply accept the parameters that the client trotted out".

Consequently, the ORer will actually be concerned with a problem which is re-defined, based on his perception of the social product defined above.

If this dynamic model of problem definition is expanded to reflect the fact that each stakeholder is continually redefining the situation in knowledge of the perceptions of others, we can see how complicated the process of problem definition really is. Furthermore, since most OR practitioners are devoted to either a single problem-owner or a small coalition of problem owners at managerial level, the social and intellectual processes will reflect this asymmetry of power and partisanship. The dynamics of problem definition will be discussed in the following section.

5 .5 Problem Dynamics

There are a number of features of problems which contribute to a dynamic nature. Many of these features are related to the decision-making (subject) system. Sometimes, problem dynamics may be simply due to changes in the information that clients offer: one practitioner described the emergence of 'new' information in one project:

"they'd never think to tell you this, and it's the sort of thing you'd never think to ask .. and you feel like saying 'why the bloody hell didn't you tell us that before!', but you say 'Oh, that's interesting. I'll make use of that".

On other occasions, problem owners have better reasons for redefining problems. Often, decisions made in related areas can influence the situation (see UR, section 5.4.2). Practitioners refer to situations where "someone's moved the goalposts". This may also happen as a result of managers reflecting upon their preferences with regard to a particular problem area. This may be manifest as directions from senior management, or as changes in decision area boundaries, planning deadlines etc. Problems may be conceived, not in terms of the making of one-off decisions, but in terms of