This chapter has introduced and framed the research questions that will be addressed by this thesis. It also identifies the motivation of the researcher and thereby provides some context for the project. Finally the structure of the thesis is identified.
Next, Chapter 2 shows the theoretical context of the thesis focusing on the development of OR, PSMs and WASAN.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.0 Introduction
The central aim of this thesis is to critically analyse the philosophy, theory, and methodology of PSMs. This is achieved through the theoretical and methodological development of the fringe PSM WASAN into a generic problem structuring method. This process of development compels the researcher to ask and answer pertinent questions regarding the nature of PSMs, as well as what is common across their philosophy, theory, and methodology. The learning from this process will then be extracted and developed into contributions to the theory and methodology of PSMs. To critically question the philosophy, theory, and methodology of PSMs this thesis poses and answers four research questions: First,
the thesis asks, “What are the defining philosophical, theoretical, and
methodological features of PSMs?” (RQ1). Second, through the development of
WASAN in an action research project the project asks, “How can PSMs be
developed into suitably generic approaches applicable in multiple problem contexts?” (RQ2). Third, the framework from RQ1 is applied to WASAN to ask,
“How can an approach show it has the defining features of PSMs?” (RQ3). Fourth,
the thesis aims to develop a new PSM theory with WASAN and asks, “Can
philosophical, theoretical, and methodological contributions identified in one PSM be shown as relevant in others, thus showing a common framework?”(RQ4).
This chapter provides the theoretical context for the central aim of this thesis—that is, to critically analyse the philosophy, theory, and methodology of PSMs. To contextualise this process the PSM and related literature is reviewed. This chapter begins by introducing the inception of Operations Research (OR) in the
1930s and then exploring the positivist assumptions underpinning these early OR approaches. The quantitative roots of OR are explored as the field developed and proliferated into industry and universities. By the 1970s, the use of quantitative OR became more widespread; however, limitations were identified in its applicability to the strategic problems of the day, which led to disillusionment with quantitative OR by some authors and practitioners. This was labelled the ‘Crisis in OR’, which can be categorised by a divergence of opinions regarding the nature of problems and how best to solve them. Some researchers and practitioners were disillusioned by the positivist assumptions underpinning quantitative OR, which culminated in the divergence of PSMs from the existing set of OR approaches. This difference in opinions called for a new paradigm of analysis (Rosenhead & Mingers, 2001a) making differing assumptions regarding ontology (the form and nature of reality and what can be known), epistemology (the nature of relationships between the knower and what can be known), axiology (what is valued in terms of the research process for generating knowledge), and methodology (how the knower can find out what can be known) (Guba & Lincoln, 1994, 2005). This point of divergence is explored to
understand what common philosophical, theoretical, and methodological
foundations were laid down for PSMs. Understanding this point of divergence is critical for understanding the development context for the PSMs that were established in the 1980s and the extent to which they were developed with common underpinning assumptions.
Second, the literature review focuses on RQ1; the different ways in which PSMs have been categorised and defined are explored, followed by an investigation of the existing PSM literature to understand the common defining features of PSMs? These features are organised into a framework which forms the basis for answering RQ1. Therefore, the literature review does not only serve the standard function of a literature review by setting the context for future theory-building and demonstrating
knowledge of the existing theory but also contributes to theory by developing a framework by which to judge if an approach exhibits the common features of PSMs.
To answer RQ2, the process in which WASAN is developed into a generic methodology is evaluated; this is done by applying WASAN in an action research project at a UK Police Force. To understand how WASAN can be further developed, this chapter reviews the original development context of the approach. WASAN was originally developed in the nuclear industry where there was demand for an approach to minimise avoidable waste within a nuclear processing facility. The review considers both the underpinning philosophy of WASAN and the original approach to development to provide an understanding of how WASAN may be developed into a generic methodology during this research project. To answer RQ3, the thesis operationalises the framework developed in RQ1 to understand if WASAN as applied in the UK Police Force exhibits the features of PSMs.
In answering RQ4, this thesis seeks to identify what new contributions WASAN makes to the theory of PSMs. In an attempt to show that WASAN and PSMs share a common framework, this research question aims to make a contribution to that framework and then show the transferability of that contribution from the framework to the established PSMs. The further study at the UK Police Force models the expanded system, thereby combining the multiple horizontally related system models to identify the interdependency across a meta-system. The similarities between this method and the notion of recursion (Beer, 1981) prompts the researcher to consider if this type of model building is actually a new type of recursion. Consequently, the project has reconceptualised how recursion can be used to represent multiple horizontally interdependent modelled systems and their interactions. This model building approach is then tested in some established PSMs in the Discussion Chapter to assess the transferability of the contribution. This
Literature Review contextualises recursion in its broader sense, which is built upon in Chapters 5 and 6.