Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring

  • Special Article
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Problem-structuring techniques are an integral aspect of ‘Soft-OR’. SSM, SAST, Strategic Choice, and JOURNEY Making, all depend for their success on a group developing a shared view of a problem through some form of explicit modelling. The negotiated problem structure becomes the basis for problem resolution. Implicit to this process is an assumption that members of the group share and build their knowledge about the problem domain. This paper explores the extent to which this assumption is reasonable. The research is based on detailed records from the use of JOURNEY Making, where it has used special purpose Group Support software to aid the group problem structuring. This software continuously tracks the contributions of each member of the group and thus the extent to which they appear to be ‘connecting’ and augmenting their own knowledge with that of other members of the group. Software records of problem resolution in real organisational settings are used to explore the sharing of knowledge among senior managers. These explorations suggest a typology of knowledge sharing. The implications of this typology for problem structuring and an agenda for future research are considered.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6

References

  • Rittel HWJ and Webber MM (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4: 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff R (1981). The art and science of mess management. Interfaces 11: 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J and Mingers J (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (2001). Soft systems methodology. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley: Chichester, pp 61–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P and Scholes J (1991). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend J and Hickling A (1987). Planning Under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach. Pergamon: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend J and Hickling A (1989). The Strategic Choice Approach. In: Rosenhead J (ed). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Wiley: Chichester, pp 121–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (2001). SODA—the principles. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley: Chichester, pp 21–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. Sage: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Heijden K (1996). Scenarios: The Art of Strategic Conversation. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell S, Robertson M, Scarborough H and Swan J (2002). Managing Knowledge Work. Palgrave: Basingstoke.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1990). The unfolding nature of group decision support. In: Eden C and Radford J (eds). Tackling Strategic Problems: The Role of Group Decision Support. London: Sage, pp 48–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim WC and Mauborgne RA (1995). A procedural justice model of strategic decision making. Org Sci 6: 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finholt and Sproull L (1990). Electronic groups at work. Org Sci 1: 41–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahai SS and Cooper RB (1999). The effect of computer-mediated communication on agreement and acceptance. J Manage Inform Syst 16: 165–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1995). On evaluating the performance of wide-band GDSS. Eur J Oper Res 81: 302–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips L (1989). Person-centred group decision support. In: Doukidis G, Land F and Miller G (eds). Knowledge Based Management Support Systems. Ellis Horwood: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborn AF (1953). Applied Imagination. Charles Scribner's Sons: New York NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1995). Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA). In: Rosenhead J (ed). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Wiley: Chichester, pp 21–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell S, Robertson M, Scarbrough H and Swan J (2002). Managing Knowledge Work. Palgrave: USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Analysing and comparing idiographic causal maps. In: Eden C and Spender, J-C (eds). Managerial and Organizational Cognition. Sage: London, pp 192–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnstein E and Vinokur A (1975). What a person thinks upon learning that he has chosen differently from others: nice evidence for the persuasive arguments explanation of choice skills. J Exp Soc Psychol 11: 412–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tesser A and Leone C (1977). Cognitive schemas and thought as determinants of attitude change. J Exp Soc Psychol 13: 340–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart LR, Bennett RJ and Brett JM (1993). The impact of consideration of issues and motivational orientation in group negotiation process and outcome. J Appl Psychol 78: 504–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick KE (1986). Managerial thought in the context of action. In Srivastva SA (ed). The Executive Mind: New Insights on Managerial Thought and Action. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco CA, pp 221–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn JJ (1996). The role of good conversation in strategic control. J Manage Stud 33: 381–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas H and Hatch MJ (2001). Complex thinking, complex practice: the case for a narrative approach to organizational complexity. Hum Relat 54: 979–1013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly GA (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Norton: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R and Brown C (1988). Getting Together: Building a Relationship That Gets to Yes. Houghton-Mifflin: Boston, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher R and Ury W (1982). Getting to Yes. Hutchinson, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neisser U (1963). The multiplicity of thoughts. Br J Psychol 54: 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHugh P (1968). Defining the Situation. Bobbs-Merrill: New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1992). On the nature of cognitive maps. J Manage Stud 29: 261–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson P and Johnson G (2002). Facilitating group cognitive mapping of core competencies. In: Huff AS and Jenkins M (eds). Mapping Strategic Knowledge. Sage: London, pp 220–236.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Abelson RP (1976). Script processing in attitude formation and decision-making. In: Carroll JS and Payne JN (eds). Cognition and Social Behavior. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, pp 33-46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins M (1998). The theory and practice of comparing cause maps. In: Eden C and Spender J-C (eds). Managerial and Organisational Cognition. Sage: London, pp 231–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe RB, Cooper WH, Grise ML and Bastianutti LM (1994). Blocking electronic brainstorms. J Appl Psychol 79: 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinsonneault A, Barki H, Gallupe RB and Hoppen N (1999). Electronic brainstorming: the illusion of productivity. Inform Syst Res 10: 110–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennis AR, Aronson JE, Heninger WG and Walker E (1999). Structuring time and task in electronic brainstorming. MIS Quart 23: 95–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouzdine-Chameevra T and Michrafy M (2001). Cognitive mapping applied for strategic issues of brand extension Proceedings of Group Decision and Negotiation Conference. 4–7 June La Rochelle, France.

  • Laukkanen M (1998). Conducting causal mapping research: opportunities and challenges. In: Eden C and Spender J-C (eds). Managerial and Organisational Cognition. Sage: London, pp 168–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D (2001). Exploring what happens in a JOURNEY Making gathering: using group communication software to support brainstorm-type activities. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland.

  • Miles MB and Huberman AM (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Sage: Thousand Oaks: CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berelson B (1952). Content Analysis in Commmunicative Research. Free Press: New York, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D (2002). Structuring electronic causal maps during group workshops. Aston Business School Working Paper, Birmingham, UK, Number: RP0211, ISBN: 1854495275.

  • Weick K and Roberts K (1993). Collective mind in organizations: heedful interrelating on flight decks. Admin Sci Quar 38(3): 357–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlsson C and Walden P (1995). AHP in political group decisions: a study in art of possibilities. Interfaces 25: 14–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagasundaram M and Bostrom RP (1995). The structuring of creative processes using GSS: a framework for research. J Manage Inform Syst 11: 89–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sosik JJ, Avolio BJ and Kahai SS (1998). Inspiring group creativity—comparing anonymous and identified electronic brainstorming. Small Group Res 29: 3–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham C and Vangen S (2000). Leadership in the shaping and implementation of collaboration agendas: How things happen in a (not quite) joined-up world. Acad Manage J 43: 1159–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinyer PH (2000). A cognitive approach to group strategic decision taking: a discussion of evolved practice in the light of received results. J Opl Res Soc 51: 21–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (2000). Mapping distinctive competencies: a systemic approach. J Opl Res Soc 51: 12–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick K (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diehl M and Stroebe W (1987). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: toward the solution of a riddle. J Pers Soc Psychol 53: 497–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aston Business School, University of Aston, Birmingham, UK

    D Shaw

  2. Management Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

    F Ackermann

  3. University of Strathclyde, Graduate School of Business, Glasgow, UK

    C Eden

Authors
  1. D Shaw
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F Ackermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. C Eden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D Shaw.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Shaw, D., Ackermann, F. & Eden, C. Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring. J Oper Res Soc 54, 936–948 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601581

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601581

Keywords

Search

Navigation