Skip to main content
Log in

The management of change and the Viplan Methodology in practice

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Conventional approaches to change management tend to be prescriptive with the assumption that the specific course of action will lead to the intended outcome, with surprise when this does not materialise as expected. This possibly can be attributed to a failure to understand the context of change and thereby the failure to deal with conditions less than conducive to supporting the desired change. This paper presents Raul Espejo's Viplan Methodology as an appropriate framework to examine the context of change in an explicit and structured manner and thereby support the creation of conditions more conducive to change, thus increasing the likelihood of the desired outcomes. It draws upon the author's experience as a practitioner engaged in effecting operational change within UK small and medium-sized enterprises.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a more detailed account refer to Ashby (1963) or Beer (1979).

  2. The SSM is presented as a ‘cyclical learning system’, which is depicted as four activities in Checkland and Scholes (1990, Figure 1.3, p. 7).

  3. The format of ‘activity’ is used to denote the idealised activity presented in the model of the Cybernetic Methodology in contrast to the actual practices.

  4. The word organisation is used to denote any configuration of stakeholders, which may or may not be coterminous with formally recognised organisational entities (eg divisions, functions).

  5. Structure is defined as the set of regular relations between stakeholders.

  6. Formal relations and informal relations as well as cultural-political.

  7. This is typified by the models of processes, whether actual or possible. While these might take the form of flow diagrams, they lose the richness of the detail. One approach to capture detail is to follow the documentation/screens and map the processes by creating collages using the documentation/screen-dumps. These serve as models (boundary objects) that allow discussion among the various stakeholders, with a view to reaching some form of agreement as to the desired change.

  8. Not to be confused with the VIPLAN Methodology.

References

  • Ackoff RL (1974). Redesigning the Future. John Wiley & Sons: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL (1981). The art and science of mess management. Interfaces 11 (1): 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby WR (1963). An Introduction to Cybernetics. John Wiley & Sons: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker P (2002). Why is lean so far off? Works Mngt 55 (October): 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1966). Decision and Control. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1972). Brain of the Firm. Allen Lane, The Penguin Press: Harmondsworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (ed.) (1975). Fanfare for effective freedom: Cybernetic praxis in government. The 3rd Richard Goodman Memorial Lecture, delivered, Brighton Polytechnic, Brighton, 14 February 1973. Platform for Change. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1979). The Heart of Enterprise. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1981). Brain of the Firm. 2nd edn, John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1984). The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. J Opl Res Soc 35 (1): 7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1985). Diagnosing the System for Organisations. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellman RE and Zadeh LA (1970). Decision making in a fuzzy environment. Mngt Sci 17 (4): B141–B164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhasin S and Burcher P (2006). Lean viewed as a philosophy. J Manuf Technol Mngt 17 (1): 56–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd A, Geerling T, Gregory WJ, Kagan C, Midgley G, Murray P and Walsh MP (2007). Systemic evaluation: A participative, multi-method approach. J Opl Res Soc 58: 1306–1320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns OM, Turnipseed D and Riggs WE (1991). Critical success factors in manufacturing resource planning implementation. Int J Opns Prod Mngt 11 (4): 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callarman T and Heyl J (1986). A model for material requirements planning implementation. Int J Opns Prod Mngt 6 (5): 30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carnall CA (1990). Managing Change in Organisations. Prentice-Hall International: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1972). Towards a systems-based methodology for real-world problem solving. J Syst Eng 3 (2): 87–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1999). Soft Systems Methodology: A 30-Year Retrospective. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P and Holwell S (2004). ‘Classic’ OR and ‘soft’ OR—An asymmetric complementarity. In: Pidd M (ed). Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P and Scholes J (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman CW (1967). Guest editorial, wicked problems. Mngt Sci 14 (4): B141–B142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins D (1998). Organisational Change: Sociological Perspectives. Routledge: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davenport TH and Short JE (1990). The new industrial engineering: information technology and business process redesign. Sloan Mngt Rev 32 (2): 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Develin & Partners (1989). The Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Programmes in British Business. Develin & Partners: London.

  • Dwyer J (1995). Old headline, young shoulders. Manuf Computer Solutions (July–August): 3.

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (2006). Where next for problem structuring methods. J Opl Res Soc 57 (7): 766–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Jones S and Sims D (1983). Messing About in Problems: Informal Structured Approach to Identification and Management. Pergamon Press: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espejo R (1986). Lecture Notes from MBA module on ‘Problem Solving’. October–December, Aston University, Birmingham.

  • Espejo R (1988). A cybernetic methodology to study and design human activities. PhD Thesis, Aston University, Birmingham.

  • Espejo R (1990). Complexity and change: Reflections upon the cybernetic intervention in Chile, 1970–1973. Syst Pract 3 (3): 303–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espejo R (1991). The cybernetic methodology. (draft), September.

  • Espejo R (1992). Management of complexity in problem solving. Trans Inst Measure Control 14 (1): 8–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espejo R (1994). What is systemic thinking? Syst Dynam Rev 10 (2–3): 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espejo R and Harnden RJ (eds). (1989). The Viable System Model: Interpretation and Applications of Stafford Beer's VSM. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espejo R and Reyes A (2011). Organizational Systems: Managing Complexity with the Viable System Model. Springer: Heidelberg.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Espejo R, Schuhmann W, Schwaninger M and Bilello U (1996). Organizational Transformation and Learning. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espejo R, Bowling D and Hoverstadt P (1999). The viable system model and the Viplan software. Kybernetes 28 (6/7): 661–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa A (2006). A cybernetic re-evaluation of socio-economic development programs. Kybernetes 35 (1/2): 30–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa A, Harnden R and Walker J (2004). Cybernetics and participation: From theory to practice. Syst Pract Action Res 17 (6): 573–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa A, Harnden R and Walker J (2008). A complexity approach to sustainability: Stafford Beer revisited. Eur J Opl Res 187: 636–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher C and Bois R (2007). Ending CRM failures: Get in the loop. 28 September, AMR Research, www.amrresearch.com/content/view.aspx?compURI=tcm:7-33871&title=Ending+CRM+Failures:+Get+in+the+Loop, accessed 12 December 2009.

  • Flood RL and Jackson MC (1991). Total systems intervention: A practical face to critical systems thinking. Syst Pract 4 (3): 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Francoise O, Bourgault M and Pellerin R (2009). ERP implementation by critical success factors' management. Bus Process Mngt J 15 (3): 371–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammer M (1990). Re-engineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate. Harvard Bus Rev 68 (4): 104–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrington HJ (1998). Performance improvement: The rise and fall of reengineering. TQM Mag 10 (2): 69–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harwood SA (2002). ERP: The Implementation Cycle. Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harwood SA (2009). The changing structural dynamics of the Scottish tourism industry examined using Stafford Beer's VSM. Syst Pract Action Res 22 (4): 313–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harwood SA (2011). Mixing methodologies and paradigmatic commensurability. J Opl Res Soc 62: 806–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland CP and Light B (1999). A critical success factors model for ERP implementation. IEEE Software 16 (3): 30–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson MC (2006). Beyond problem structuring methods: Reinventing the future of OR/MS. J Opl Res Soc 57: 868–878.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King SF and Burgess TF (2006). Beyond critical success factors: A dynamic model of enterprise system innovation. Int J Inform Mngt 26 (1): 59–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kneppelt LR (1981). Implementing manufacturing resource planning/difficulty of the task. Prod Invent Mngt 22 (2): 39–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippitt GL, Langseth. P and Mossop J (1985). Implementing Organisational Change: A Practical Guide to Managing Change Efforts. Jossey-Bass Publishers: San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana H (1970). Neurophysiology of cognition. In: Garvin PL (ed). Cognition: A Multiple View. Spartan Books: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana HR and Varela FJ (1988). The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Shambhala: Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCalman J and Paton RA (1992). Change Management: A Guide to Effective Implementation. Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley G, Munlo I and Brown M (1998). The theory and practice of boundary critique: Developing housing services for older people. J Opl Res Soc 49 (5): 467–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller JG (1981). Fit production systems to the task. Harvard Bus Rev 59 (1): 145–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (1997). Multi-paradigm multimethodology. In: Mingers JC and Gill A (eds). Multimethodology. John Wiley and Sons: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J and Brocklesby J (1997). Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega 25 (5): 489–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J and Rosenhead J (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Opl Res 152: 530–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morecroft JDW (1983). A systems perspective on material requirements planning. Decis Sci 14 (1): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Corrbui D and Corboy M (1999). The seven deadly sins of strategy. Mngt Account 10: 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parr A and Shanks G (2000). A model of ERP project implementation. J Inform Technol 15 (4): 289–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paucar-Caceres A (2010). The development of management sciences/operational research discourses: Surveying the trends in the US and the UK. J Opl Res Soc 58: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paucar-Caceres A and Rodriguez-Ulloa R (2007). An application of Soft Systems Dynamics Methodology (SSDM). J Opl Res Soc 58: 701–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rockart JF (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Bus Rev 57 (2): 81–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodriguez-Ulloa R and Paucar-Caceres A (2005). Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM): Combining soft systems methodology (SSM) and systems dynamics (SD). Syst Pract Action Res 18 (3): 303–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J (1996). What's the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces 26: 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star SL (1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In: Gasser L and Huhns MH (eds). Distributed Artificial Intelligence. Vol. 2, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers: San Francisco, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stickland F (1998). The Dynamics of Change: Insights into the Organisational Transition from the Natural World. Routledge: London.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor FW (1947). The Principles of Scientific Management. W.W. Norton & Company: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Timco D (2001). Lean manufacturing: ‘Been there, done that’, http://www.sae.org/manufacturing/lean/column/leanmay01.htm, accessed 5 January 2010.

  • Ulrich W (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New Approach to Practical Philosophy. Haupt: Bern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (2003). Beyond methodology choice: Critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. J Opl Res Soc 54 (4): 325–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Foerster H (1979). Cybernetics of cybernetics. In: Krippendorff K (ed). Communications and Control in Society. Gordon & Breach: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams JJ and Ramaprasad A (1996). A taxonomy of critical success factors. Eur J Inform Syst 5: 250–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson B (1984). Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolley RN and Pidd M (1981). Problem structuring—A literature review. J Opl Res Soc 32 (3): 197–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965). Fuzzy sets. Inform Control 8 (June): 99–102.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Very special thanks must go to Professor Raul Espejo for sharing his thoughts about the Viplan Methodology and for his critical comments about earlier drafts of this paper. I would also like to thank Gary Scott, an operations manager, who provided a practitioner insight on this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S A Harwood.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Harwood, S. The management of change and the Viplan Methodology in practice. J Oper Res Soc 63, 748–761 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2011.73

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2011.73

Keywords

Navigation