IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorsoc/v68y2017i5d10.1057_s41274-016-0011-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Writing practitioner case studies to help behavioural OR researchers ground their theories: application of the mangle perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Ormerod

    (Warwick University)

Abstract

Behavioural research into the practice of OR needs to be grounded. Case studies written by practitioners can potentially help address this need but currently most do not. The paper explores a way of describing OR projects that place the emphasis on the ‘actors’ who provide the motivating force and the consequences of their actions. The ‘mangle’ perspective focuses on the dynamic intertwining of people, technology and concepts; this can provide the basis for an insightful narrative describing the reality of the project in terms of the planned approach, the problems met and the outcomes. Two examples are given, one of a conventional model building exercise, the second of a ‘soft OR’ intervention: both describe projects conducted by practitioners for commercial purposes. It is concluded that, by using the mangle perspective, the OR case writer can winnow the wheat from the chaff in order to write a succinct informative narrative, a narrative that could be utilized by behavioural OR (BOR) researchers. It is further concluded that BOR researchers should engage with ‘practice theory’ to deepen their understanding of what actually happens in projects.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Ormerod, 2017. "Writing practitioner case studies to help behavioural OR researchers ground their theories: application of the mangle perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(5), pages 507-520, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:68:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1057_s41274-016-0011-8
    DOI: 10.1057/s41274-016-0011-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41274-016-0011-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41274-016-0011-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Plackett, M. W. & Ormerod, R. J. & Toft, F. J., 1982. "The National Coal Board strategic model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 351-360, August.
    2. M Winter, 2006. "Problem structuring in project management: an application of soft systems methodology (SSM)," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 802-812, July.
    3. Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden & Terry Williams, 1997. "Modeling for Litigation: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 27(2), pages 48-65, April.
    4. White, Leroy, 2009. "Understanding problem structuring methods interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 823-833, December.
    5. Becker, Kai Helge, 2016. "An outlook on behavioural OR – Three tasks, three pitfalls, one definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 806-815.
    6. Richard J. Ormerod, 1996. "Information Systems Strategy Development at Sainsbury's Supermarkets Using “Soft” OR," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 26(1), pages 102-130, February.
    7. Noah Gans & Rachel Croson, 2008. "Introduction to the Special Issue on Behavioral Operations," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 10(4), pages 563-565.
    8. Richard J Ormerod, 2014. "The mangle of OR practice: towards more informative case studies of ‘technical’ projects," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 65(8), pages 1245-1260, August.
    9. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    10. Gerring, John, 2004. "What Is a Case Study and What Is It Good for?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 341-354, May.
    11. Ranyard, J.C. & Fildes, R. & Hu, Tun-I, 2015. "Reassessing the scope of OR practice: The Influences of Problem Structuring Methods and the Analytics Movement," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(1), pages 1-13.
    12. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 791-795.
    13. Brocklesby, John, 2009. "Ethics beyond the model: How social dynamics can interfere with ethical practice in operational research/management science," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 1073-1082, December.
    14. Ackermann, Fran & Howick, Susan & Quigley, John & Walls, Lesley & Houghton, Tom, 2014. "Systemic risk elicitation: Using causal maps to engage stakeholders and build a comprehensive view of risks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 290-299.
    15. Brocklesby, John, 2016. "The what, the why and the how of behavioural operational research—An invitation to potential sceptics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 796-805.
    16. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    17. R Ormerod, 2005. "Putting soft OR methods to work: the case of IS strategy development for the UK Parliament," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(12), pages 1379-1398, December.
    18. Brocklesby, John & Midgley, Gerald, 2016. "Boundary games: How teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of interventionAuthor-Name: Velez-Castiblanco, Jorge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 968-982.
    19. R J Ormerod, 2010. "Articulate intervention revisited," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(7), pages 1078-1094, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Midgley, Gerald & Hodgson, Anthony M., 2020. "Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 321-340.
    2. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    3. Ksenia Ivanova & Sondoss Elsawah, 2022. "Iterative Refinement of Multi-Method OR Workshop Designs through Boundary Critique: An Analytical Framework and Case Studies in Technology Utilisation," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 345-374, June.
    4. Harper, Alison & Mustafee, Navonil & Yearworth, Mike, 2021. "Facets of trust in simulation studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 197-213.
    5. Ormerod, Richard & Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2023. "Understanding participant actions in OR interventions using practice theories: A research agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 810-827.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Franco, L. Alberto & Greiffenhagen, Christian, 2018. "Making OR practice visible: Using ethnomethodology to analyse facilitated modelling workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 673-684.
    2. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    3. Johnson, Michael P. & Midgley, Gerald & Chichirau, George, 2018. "Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1178-1191.
    4. Jorge Velez-Castiblanco & Diana Londono-Correa & Olandy Naranjo-Rivera, 2018. "The Structure of Problem Structuring Conversations: A Boundary Games Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 853-884, October.
    5. Ormerod, Richard & Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2023. "Understanding participant actions in OR interventions using practice theories: A research agenda," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 810-827.
    6. Harper, Alison & Mustafee, Navonil & Yearworth, Mike, 2021. "Facets of trust in simulation studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 197-213.
    7. Perera, H. Niles & Hurley, Jason & Fahimnia, Behnam & Reisi, Mohsen, 2019. "The human factor in supply chain forecasting: A systematic review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 574-600.
    8. Gallice, Andrea, 2017. "An approximate solution to rent-seeking contests with private information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(2), pages 673-684.
    9. Guo, Peijun, 2019. "Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1034-1043.
    10. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2017. "Self-interest and Equity Concerns: A Behavioural Allocation Rule for Operational Problems," Working Papers 2072/290757, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    11. Kennedy, Deanna M. & Sommer, S. Amy & Nguyen, Phuong Anh, 2017. "Optimizing multi-team system behaviors: Insights from modeling team communication," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 264-278.
    12. Konrad, Renata A. & Maass, Kayse Lee & Dimas, Geri L. & Trapp, Andrew C., 2023. "Perspectives on how to conduct responsible anti-human trafficking research in operations and analytics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(1), pages 319-329.
    13. Osório, António, 2017. "Self-interest and equity concerns: A behavioural allocation rule for operational problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(1), pages 205-213.
    14. Brocklesby, John & Midgley, Gerald, 2016. "Boundary games: How teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of interventionAuthor-Name: Velez-Castiblanco, Jorge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 968-982.
    15. Burger, Katharina & White, Leroy & Yearworth, Mike, 2019. "Developing a smart operational research with hybrid practice theories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 1137-1150.
    16. Brocklesby, John & Beall, Elizabeth, 2018. "Processes of engagement and methodology design in Community Operational Research – Insights from the indigenous peoples sector," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 996-1005.
    17. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    18. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    19. Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Rolf, Philipp, 2021. "Effects of decision training on individuals’ decision-making proactivity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 264-282.
    20. Katharina Burger & Leroy White & Mike Yearworth, 2018. "Why so Serious? Theorising Playful Model-Driven Group Decision Support with Situated Affectivity," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 789-810, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:68:y:2017:i:5:d:10.1057_s41274-016-0011-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.