IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v197y2009i2p834-836.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A graph-theoretic perspective on the links-to-concepts ratio expected in cognitive maps

Author

Listed:
  • Georgiou, Ion

Abstract

Strategic options development and analysis (SODA) has maintained that it expects a links-to-concepts ratio of 1.15-1.20 in cognitive maps. This expectation is investigated from a graph-theoretic perspective in order to highlight two issues that the SODA literature has not mentioned. First, the ratio is impossible to achieve in tree-structured maps. Second, adherence to the expectation can result in minimally connected maps. Both issues are discussed with examples and calculations, and a conclusion is drawn that graph theory is a potentially rich, yet relatively untapped, source of insights for not only SODA, but for soft OR and systems thinking in general.

Suggested Citation

  • Georgiou, Ion, 2009. "A graph-theoretic perspective on the links-to-concepts ratio expected in cognitive maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 197(2), pages 834-836, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:197:y:2009:i:2:p:834-836
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(08)00666-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Eden, Colin, 2004. "Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 673-686, December.
    2. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann & Steve Cropper, 1992. "The Analysis Of Cause Maps," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 309-324, May.
    3. Michel G. Bougon, 1992. "Congregate Cognitive Maps: A Unified Dynamic Theory Of Organization And Strategy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 369-387, May.
    4. D Shaw & F Ackermann & C Eden, 2003. "Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(9), pages 936-948, September.
    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. Abuabara, Leila & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2021. "Surveying applications of Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1051-1065.
    2. van Winsen, Frankwin & de Mey, Yann & Lauwers, Ludwig & Van Passel, Steven & Vancauteren, Mark & Wauters, Erwin, 2013. "Cognitive mapping: A method to elucidate and present farmers’ risk perception," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 42-52.
    3. Georgiou, Ion, 2012. "Messing about in transformations: Structured systemic planning for systemic solutions to systemic problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 392-406.
    4. Tan, Kim Hua & Zhan, YuanZhu & Ji, Guojun & Ye, Fei & Chang, Chingter, 2015. "Harvesting big data to enhance supply chain innovation capabilities: An analytic infrastructure based on deduction graph," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 223-233.

    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. R Volkema, 2009. "Natural language and the art and science of problem/opportunity formulation: a transportation planning case analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(10), pages 1360-1372, October.
    2. Schaffernicht, Martin F.G. & Groesser, Stefan N., 2014. "The SEXTANT software: A tool for automating the comparative analysis of mental models of dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 566-578.
    3. David P. Tegarden & Linda F. Tegarden & Steven D. Sheetz, 2009. "Cognitive Factions in a Top Management Team: Surfacing and Analyzing Cognitive Diversity using Causal Maps," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 537-566, November.
    4. Marchant, Thierry, 1999. "Cognitive maps and fuzzy implications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 626-637, May.
    5. Eden, Colin & Ackermann, Fran, 2018. "Theory into practice, practice to theory: Action research in method development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(3), pages 1145-1155.
    6. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    7. Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Montibeller, Gilberto & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2017. "Modelling multicriteria value interactions with Reasoning Maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1054-1071.
    8. 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.
    9. Hettiarachchi, Biman Darshana & Brandenburg, Marcus & Seuring, Stefan, 2022. "Connecting additive manufacturing to circular economy implementation strategies: Links, contingencies and causal loops," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 246(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Spanellis, Agnessa & MacBryde, Jillian & Dӧrfler, Viktor, 2021. "A dynamic model of knowledge management in innovative technology companies: A case from the energy sector," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(2), pages 784-797.
    12. D Shaw, 2006. "Journey Making group workshops as a research tool," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 830-841, July.
    13. G Montibeller & V Belton, 2006. "Causal maps and the evaluation of decision options—a review," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 779-791, July.
    14. Roy D. Johnson & Astrid Lipp, 2007. "Cognitive Mapping: A Process to Support Strategic Planning in an Academic Department," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 43-60, January.
    15. Tegarden, David P. & Sheetz, Steven D., 2003. "Group cognitive mapping: a methodology and system for capturing and evaluating managerial and organizational cognition," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 113-125, April.
    16. Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden, 2005. "Using Causal Mapping with Group Support Systems to Elicit an Understanding of Failure in Complex Projects: Some Implications for Organizational Research," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 355-376, September.
    17. repec:dau:papers:123456789/2350 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Ülengin, Füsun & Kabak, Özgür & Önsel, Sule & Ülengin, Burç & Aktas, Emel, 2010. "A problem-structuring model for analyzing transportation-environment relationships," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(3), pages 844-859, February.
    19. Timo J. Septer & Jacob Dijkstra & Frans N. Stokman, 2012. "Detecting and measuring crucial differences between cognitive maps," Rationality and Society, , vol. 24(4), pages 383-407, November.
    20. Franco, L. Alberto & Lord, Ewan, 2011. "Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 362-372, June.
    21. Ikhlas Hentati-Klila & Saida Dammak-Barkallah & Habib Affes, 2017. "Do auditors’ perceptions actually help fight against fraudulent practices? Evidence from Tunisia," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 21(3), pages 715-735, September.

    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:eee:ejores:v:197:y:2009:i:2:p:834-836. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.