IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v302y2022i1p280-293.html

The importance of eliciting stakeholders’ system boundary perceptions for problem structuring and decision-making

Author

Listed:
  • Pluchinotta, Irene
  • Salvia, Giuseppe
  • Zimmermann, Nici

Abstract

Differences in system boundaries and problem framings are unavoidable in multi-organisational decision-making. Unstructured problems, such as the grand challenges, are characterised by the existence of multiple actors with different perspectives and conflicting interests, and they require a coordinated effort from multiple organisations. Within this context, this paper aims to understand stakeholders’ perceptions of system boundaries and problem framings, and their potential effects on decision-making by systematically comparing different stakeholder groups’ causal maps around the same shared concern. Bridging notions from Operational Research, System Dynamics and Organisational Studies, the comparison is based on a novel type of thematic analysis of Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs) built with each stakeholder group on their perceptions of a given system. The proposed integrated approach combines qualitative with quantitative analysis, such as the centrality of the variables and the structure of the CLDs. Such CLDs comparison provides an intuitive way to visualise differences and similarities of the thematic clusters of variables, underlining factors influencing the shared concern. This could be considered a starting point for more shared understanding as well as more integrated holistic perceptions of the system and, consequently, a more systemic decision-making. Furthermore, for the sake of replicability, this paper also presents a qualitative participatory System Dynamics modelling process aimed to define the key aspects of a problem for each group of stakeholders to support a collaborative multi-organisational decision-making process. The research is based on the activities carried out for an urban regeneration case study in Thamesmead, London, United Kingdom.

Suggested Citation

  • Pluchinotta, Irene & Salvia, Giuseppe & Zimmermann, Nici, 2022. "The importance of eliciting stakeholders’ system boundary perceptions for problem structuring and decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 280-293.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:302:y:2022:i:1:p:280-293
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2021.12.029
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221721010857
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.12.029?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ferretti, Valentina & Pluchinotta, Irene & Tsoukiàs, Alexis, 2019. "Studying the generation of alternatives in public policy making processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 273(1), pages 353-363.
    2. 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.
    3. Franco, L. Alberto & Rouwette, Etienne A.J.A., 2011. "Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 164-178, July.
    4. Eden, Colin & Ackermann, Fran, 2004. "Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 615-630, February.
    5. Sucheta Nadkarni & Pamela S. Barr, 2008. "Environmental context, managerial cognition, and strategic action: an integrated view," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(13), pages 1395-1427, December.
    6. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    7. G Midgley & L A Pinzón, 2011. "Boundary critique and its implications for conflict prevention," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(8), pages 1543-1554, August.
    8. William Ocasio, 2011. "Attention to Attention," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1286-1296, October.
    9. Lane, David C., 1999. "Social theory and system dynamics practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 501-527, March.
    10. Raffaele Giordano & Marcela Brugnach & Irene Pluchinotta, 2017. "Ambiguity in Problem Framing as a Barrier to Collective Actions: Some Hints from Groundwater Protection Policy in the Apulia Region," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 911-932, September.
    11. William Ocasio & Tomi Laamanen & Eero Vaara, 2018. "Communication and Attention Dynamics : an Attention-Based View of Strategic Change," Post-Print hal-02312047, HAL.
    12. William Ocasio & Tomi Laamanen & Eero Vaara, 2018. "Communication and attention dynamics: An attention‐based view of strategic change," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 155-167, January.
    13. Irene Pluchinotta & Akin O. Kazakçi & Raffaele Giordano & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2019. "Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 341-375, April.
    14. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2013. "The uses of qualitative data in multimethodology: Developing causal loop diagrams during the coding process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 151-161.
    15. William Ocasio, 1997. "Towards An Attention‐Based View Of The Firm," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(S1), pages 187-206, July.
    16. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    17. Forrester, Jay W., 1992. "Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 42-63, May.
    18. 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.
    19. Scott, Rodney J & Cavana, Robert Y & Cameron, Donald, 2016. "Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 908-918.
    20. Schaffernicht, Martin & Groesser, Stefan N., 2011. "A comprehensive method for comparing mental models of dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 57-67, April.
    21. J L Foote & J E Gregor & M C Hepi & V E Baker & D J Houston & G Midgley, 2007. "Systemic problem structuring applied to community involvement in water conservation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 645-654, May.
    22. Nicholas Valcourt & Jeffrey Walters & Amy Javernick‐Will & Karl Linden, 2020. "Assessing the efficacy of group model building workshops in an applied setting through purposive text analysis," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 135-157, April.
    23. Theresa S. Cho & Donald C. Hambrick, 2006. "Attention as the Mediator Between Top Management Team Characteristics and Strategic Change: The Case of Airline Deregulation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 453-469, August.
    24. C. West Churchman, 1970. "Operations Research as a Profession," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 37-53, October.
    25. Lane, David C. & Munro, Eileen & Husemann, Elke, 2016. "Blending systems thinking approaches for organisational analysis: Reviewing child protection in England," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 613-623.
    26. J. P. Eggers & Sarah Kaplan, 2009. "Cognition and Renewal: Comparing CEO and Organizational Effects on Incumbent Adaptation to Technical Change," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(2), pages 461-477, April.
    27. Céline Bérard & Martin Cloutier L. & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print halshs-01666605, HAL.
    28. Ulrich, Werner, 1987. "Critical heuristics of social systems design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 276-283, September.
    29. Irene Pluchinotta & Akin Kazakçi & Raphael Giordano & Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2019. "Design Theory for Generating Alternatives in Public Decision Making Processes," Post-Print hal-02072311, HAL.
    30. Pankaj & Seth, Kiran & Sushil, 1994. "A fuzzy set theoretic approach to qualitative analysis of causal loops in system dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 78(3), pages 380-393, November.
    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. Aguiar, Anaely & Rajah, Jefferson K. & Conway-Moore, Kaitlin & Savona, Natalie & Knai, Cécile & Vlad, Ioana & Samdal, Oddrun & Rutter, Harry & Lien, Nanna & Kopainsky, Birgit, 2025. "Converging perspectives on the processes exacerbating adolescent obesity: An integrative systems approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 367(C).
    2. repec:osf:socarx:f6suj_v2 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. H. Berkay Tosunlu & Joseph H. A. Guillaume & Alexis Tsoukiàs & Emeline Hassenforder & Samia Chrii & Houssem Braiki & Irene Pluchinotta, 2026. "Integrating problem structuring methods with formal design theory: collective water management policy design in Tunisia," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 77(1), pages 407-425, January.
    4. Wenjing Xu & Seyyed Ahmad Edalatpanah & Ali Sorourkhah, 2023. "Solving the Problem of Reducing the Audiences’ Favor toward an Educational Institution by Using a Combination of Hard and Soft Operations Research Approaches," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(18), pages 1-21, September.
    5. Richard Ormerod, 2024. "Pragmatism as practice theory: The experience of systems and OR scholars," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 52-81, January.
    6. repec:osf:socarx:f6suj_v3 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Irene Pluchinotta & Ke Zhou & Nici Zimmermann, 2024. "Dealing with soft variables and data scarcity: lessons learnt from quantification in a participatory system dynamics modelling process," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(4), October.

    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. Philip Mundlos, 2025. "The impact of artificial intelligence on managerial attention allocation for discontinuous change: a conceptual framework," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 75(2), pages 1-45, June.
    2. He, Qi & Wang, Chang & Deng, Chan & Zhou, Yifang, 2025. "Insisting or shifting technological trajectory? TMT attention and firms’ innovation responses to technology-forcing policy changes," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. John Eklund & Manav Raj & J. P. Eggers, 2025. "Attention Focus and New Opportunities: The Moderating Role of Managerial Attention to Alternative Issues," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(1), pages 21-39, January.
    4. Sonal Kumar & Munish Kumar Thakur, 2025. "Attention dynamics: Evolution of attention-based view and its implications," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 3727-3772, December.
    5. Angelshaug, Magne S. & Saebi, Tina & Foss, Nicolai J., 2025. "Steering managerial attention towards business model innovation: The role of organizational design," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(C).
    6. Tomi Laamanen, 2019. "Dynamic attention-based view of corporate headquarters in MNCs," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, December.
    7. Andrews, Daniel S. & Fainshmidt, Stav & Ambos, Tina & Haensel, Kira, 2022. "The attention-based view and the multinational corporation: Review and research agenda," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 57(2).
    8. Yichen Wang & Christopher Marquis, 2025. "Does Product Market Competition Promote or Reduce Firms’ Corporate Social Responsibility Behavior? How Stakeholder Attention Shapes Responsiveness to Stakeholders," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 200(4), pages 867-896, September.
    9. Desmond (Ho-Fu) Lo & Francisco Brahm & Wouter Dessein & Chieko Minami, 2022. "Managing with Style? Microevidence on the Allocation of Managerial Attention," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(11), pages 8261-8285, November.
    10. Zhe Zhang & Xin Wang & Ming Jia, 2021. "Echoes of CEO Entrepreneurial Orientation: How and When CEO Entrepreneurial Orientation Influences Dual CSR Activities," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(4), pages 609-629, April.
    11. H. Berkay Tosunlu & Joseph H. A. Guillaume & Alexis Tsoukiàs & Emeline Hassenforder & Samia Chrii & Houssem Braiki & Irene Pluchinotta, 2026. "Integrating problem structuring methods with formal design theory: collective water management policy design in Tunisia," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 77(1), pages 407-425, January.
    12. Havrylyshyn, Andre & Eckardt, Rory & Yakushko, Nataliia, 2024. "Management research on the war in Ukraine: Building theory and supporting practitioners," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 42(5), pages 647-652.
    13. Victor Barros & Isabel Ramos, 2025. "Collective attention overload in a global manufacturing company: a case study," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 391-422, June.
    14. Sydelko, Pamela & Midgley, Gerald & Espinosa, Angela, 2021. "Designing interagency responses to wicked problems: Creating a common, cross-agency understanding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 250-263.
    15. Weiqi Dai & Mingqing Liao & Qiao Lin & Jincai Dong, 2022. "Does entrepreneurs’ proactive attention to government policies matter?," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(3), pages 396-431, July.
    16. Chen, Yu-Lin & Huang, Mei-Chu, 2025. "Do narcissistic CEOs respond differently to energy conservation in energy-intensive and non-energy-intensive industries? Evidence from renewable energy utilization in Taiwan," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 338(C).
    17. Zhao, Shan & He, Xinming & Ma, Baichao & Zuo, Wenming, 2025. "Customer concentration, firm R&D investment and moderation effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    18. Ricarda B. Bouncken & Martin Ratzmann & Jeffrey G. Covin, 2023. "Fluffy cuffs: SME’s innovation in alliances with buyer firms," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(3), pages 1231-1251, October.
    19. Lei Fan & Luqun Xie & Qian Wang & Yang Yang, 2025. "CEO family-to-work enrichment, attention to innovation, and organizational ambidexterity," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 42(4), pages 1957-1981, December.
    20. Zhongju Liao & Mengnan Zhang & Jie Chen, 2025. "How Does Government Supervision Affect Firms' Environmental Innovation? The Role of Attention Allocation and Political Connections," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(8), pages 10844-10855, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:302:y:2022:i:1:p:280-293. 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.