Exploring the Effectiveness of Boundary Critique in an Intervention: a Case in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria

  • Daniel Ebakoleaneh UfuaEmail author
Original Paper


This paper applied boundary critique to identify, structure and address operational issues in an intervention process. A commercial livestock was used as case study. The research addressed identified issues from the perspectives of the affected stakeholders, i.e. participants who were either involved or affected by the operations of the case study firm. Workshop and boundary critique were used for data collection in the research process. Findings from the research show that the application of boundary critique established a foundation for interactions in the research process. Also highlighted in the research were factors that influenced the establishment of common ground that underpinned the application of boundary critique in the research. Key issues identified and addressed in the research were inadequate water supply and poor sales management in the operations of the case study organisation, via effective deployment of boundary critique and workshop in the research. The research wound up with the suggestion for researchers to pay attention to the willingness of the control stakeholders, and decisions makers to implement suggested changes in an intervention.


Affected stakeholders Boundary critique Common ground Intervention 



  1. Achterkamp MC, Vos JF (2007) Critically identifying stakeholders: evaluating boundary critique as a vehicle for stakeholder identification. Syst Res Behavioural Sci: The Official J Int Federation Syst Res 24(1):3–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akkerman SF, Bakker A (2011) Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Rev Educ Res 81(2):132–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arksey H, Knight P (1999) Interviewing for social scientist. London. Sage Pub LtdGoogle Scholar
  4. Barbour R (2007) Doing focus groups. London. Sage pub LtdGoogle Scholar
  5. Beers P, Boshuizen HPA, Kirschner PA, Gijselasers WH (2006) Common ground, complex problems and decision making. Group Decis Negot 15:529–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bender, D.E. and Ewbank, D. (1994). The focus group as tool for health research: issues in design and anlysis. Health transition review, (4)1, pp.63–78Google Scholar
  7. Brydon-Miller M (2003) Why action research? Action Res 1(1):9–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cabrera D, Colosi L, Lobdell C (2008) Systems thinking. Evaluation program planning 31:299–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ Sci 15(5):555–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley & Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  11. Checkland P, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action. A short definitive account of soft system methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. England, Wiley and Sons LtdGoogle Scholar
  12. Checkland P, Scholes J (1999) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: includes a 30-year retrospective. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  13. Churchman CW (1968) The systems approach. Dell, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Churchman CW (1970) Operations research as a profession. Management science, (17) 2, Oct, pp B37–B53Google Scholar
  15. Churchman CW (1971) The design of inquiry systems. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking. Rethinking management information systems, pp.45-56.Google Scholar
  17. Churchman CW (1979) The systems approach and its enemies. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Collis J, Hussey R (2009) Business research. A practical guide for undergraduate & postgraduate students, 3rd edtn edn. United Kingdom, Macmillan Pub LtdGoogle Scholar
  19. Cordoba JR, Midgley G (2006) Broadening the boundaries: an application of critical system to IS planning in Colombia. J Oper Res Soc 57:1064–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (2011). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research. SageGoogle Scholar
  21. Dey, I. (2003). Qualitative data analysis: a user friendly guide for social scientists. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Flood RL, Jackson MC (1991) Creative problem solving. Total system intervention. United Kingdom. Wiley & Sons LtdGoogle Scholar
  23. Foote JL, Gregor JE, Hepi MC, Baker VE, Houston DJ, Midgley G (2007) Systemic problem structuring applied to community involvement in water conservation. J Oper Res Soc 58:645–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Francis NO, Esa YB (2016) A review of production protocols used in producing economically viable monosex tilapia. J Fish Aquat Sci 11(1):1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gaede J, Rowlands IH (2019) The value of multiple perspectives: problem-solving and critique in the evaluation of social acceptance research—a response to M. Wolsink Energy Research & Social Science 48:262–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gamme, I and Lodgaard, E. (2018). Organizational or systems boundaries; possible threats to continuous improvement process, 12 th CIRP Conference on Intelligence in Manufacturing Engineering, 18-20th July, Gulf of Naples, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibson, E.L. (2005). Boundary control. Subnational authoritarianism in democratic countries. World politics. Oct. (58), pp. 102–132Google Scholar
  28. Gillham B (2000) The research interview. Cotinnum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Gillham, B.(2005) The research interviewing. England. Open University pressGoogle Scholar
  30. Grohs, J.R., Kirka, G.R., Michelle M., Soledad, M.M., and Knight, D.B. (2018). Assessing systems thinking: a tool to measure complex reasoning through ill-structured problems, Thinking Skills and Creativity, 28, June, pp.110–130Google Scholar
  31. Gubrium, J.F. and Holstein, J.A. (2002). Interview research context and method. United Kindom, Sage publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. Hart D, Paucar-Caceres A (2017) A utilisation focussed and viable systems approach for evaluating technology supported learning. Eur J Oper Res 259(2):626–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hatton, E. (2015). Work beyond the bounds: a boundary analysis of the fragmentation of work. Work, Employment & Society 0950017014568141Google Scholar
  34. Henao F, Franco LA (2016) Unpacking multimethodology: impacts of a community development intervention. Eur J Oper Res 253(3):681–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hodgson, A., and Midgley, G. (2015, January). Bringing foresight into systems thinking: a three horizon approach. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2014, United States, (1)1 Google Scholar
  36. Ireland V (2013) Exploration of complex system types. Procedia Computer Science 20:248–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Jackson, M.C. (2000). System approaches to Management. NewYork, Kluwer academic/plenum PubGoogle Scholar
  38. Jackson, M.C. (2003). System thinking creative holism for managers. United Kingdom, John Wiley & sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  39. Kitzinger J (1994) The methodology of focus groups: the importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of health and Illness 16(1):103–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Langford, J. and McDonagh, D. (2003). Focus Groups:Supporting effective product development. USA. Taylor and FrancisGoogle Scholar
  41. Lee CP (2007) Boundary negotiating artefacts: unbinding the routine of boundary objects and embracing chaos in collaborative work. Computer Cooperative Work 16:307–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lehtinen, J., Aaltonen, K. and Rajala, R. (2018). Stakeholder management in complex product systems: practices and rationales for engagement and disengagement. Ind Mark ManagGoogle Scholar
  43. Lenartowicz M, Weinbaum D, Braathen P (2016) The individuation of social systems: a cognitive framework. Procedia Computer Science 88:15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levick D, Woog R (2000) From systems boundary to fractality: broadening the practitioner’s paradigm. In: 1st international conference on Tthinking management, pp Pg341–Pg346Google Scholar
  45. Light, A. and Anderson, T.D. (2009). Research project as boundary object: negotiating the conceptual design of a tool for international development. In ECSCW 2009 (pp. 21–41). Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. McIntosh, M.J. and Morse, J.M., (2015). Situating and constructing diversity in semi-structured interviews. Global qualitative nursing research, 2, p.2333393615597674Google Scholar
  47. McNiff J (1998) Action research principles and practice. Routledge, USAGoogle Scholar
  48. Midgley, G. (1989). Critical systems: The theory and practice of partitioning methodologiesProceedings of 33rd annual meeting of the international society for general Systems research Vol.2, Endibough, Scotland, 2-7JulyGoogle Scholar
  49. Midgley G (1992) The sacred and profane in critical systems thinking. Systems Practice 5:5–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Midgley G (1997) Dealing with coercion: critical system heuristics and beyond. System practice 10(1):37–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. London, Kluwer academic/plenum publishersGoogle Scholar
  52. Midgley (2003). Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and complexity for the philosophy of science. Systemic practice and Action Research. Sept. (16)2, pp.77–97Google Scholar
  53. Midgley, G. (2011). Theoretical pluralism in systemic action research. Systems Practice and Action Research. Feb. (24), pp.1–15Google Scholar
  54. Midgley, G. (2015). Systemic intervention. In H. Bradbury (Ed.), The Sage handbook of action research (3rd edition). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  55. Midgley, G. (2016). Moving beyond value conflicts: systemic problem structuring in action. Hull University Business SchoolGoogle Scholar
  56. Midgley, G. and Ochoa-Arias, A.E. (2004). Community operational research: OR and systems thinking for community development, Eds. London, KluwerAcademic/ Plenum PublishersGoogle Scholar
  57. Midgley G, Pinzón LA (2011) Boundary critique and its implications for conflict prevention. J Oper Res Soc 62(8):1543–1554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Midgley G, Munlo I, Brown M (1998) The theory and practice of boundary critique: developing housing services for older people. J Oper Res Soc 49:467–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Midgley, G., Foote, J., Ahuriri-Driscoll A., and Wood D. (2007). Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic and participative methods. pp.1–19Google Scholar
  60. Midgley G, Cavana R, Brockesby J, Foote JL, Wood DRR, Ahiriri-Driscoll A (2013) Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. Eur J Oper Res 229:143–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  62. Mingers J (2015) Helping business schools engage with real problems: the contribution of critical realism and systems thinking. Eur J Oper Res 242(1):316–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Montoya RD (2017) Boundary objects/boundary staff: supporting digital scholarship in academic libraries. J Acad Librariansh 43(3):216–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Newcomer, K.E., Hatry, H.P. and Wholey, J.S.(2015). Conducting semi-structured interviews. Handbook of practical program evaluation, p.492Google Scholar
  65. O'Keeffe J, Buytaert W, Mijic A, Brozović N, Sinha R (2016) The use of semi-structured interviews for the characterisation of farmer irrigation practices. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20(5):1911–1924CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Olokundun MA, Ogbari EM, Obi JN, Ufua DE (2019) Business incubation and student idea validation: a focus on Nigerian universities. J Entrepreneurship Education 22(1)Google Scholar
  67. Pemsl, D.E. and Madan, M.D. (2015). Determining high potential aquaculture production areas-analysis of key socio-economic adoption factorsGoogle Scholar
  68. Perrone, V. Zahar, A. McEvilly, B.(2003). Free to be trusted? Organisational constraints on trust in boundary spanners. Organisational science, (14)4, pp.422-439Google Scholar
  69. Petrovic SP (2015) Systemic intervention in creative managing problems in enterprises. J Bus Econ Manag 16(5):949–961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rajagopalan R, Midgley G (2015) Knowing differently in systemic intervention. Syst Res Behav Sci 32:546–561CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rendtorff JD (2015) Case studies, ethics, philosophy, and Liberal learning for the management profession. J Manag Educ 39(1):36–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Saunders, M. Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A. (2003). Research methods for business students. 3 rd Edn, England, Prentice HallGoogle Scholar
  73. Singh J (1993) Boundary role ambiguity: facets, determinants and impacts. J Mark 57(2):11–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sujan MA, Huang H, Braithwaite J (2017) Learning from incidents in health care: critique from a safety-II perspective. Saf Sci 99:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Taylor A, Taylor M (2009) Operations management research: contemporary themes, trends and potential future directions. International J Operations Management Production 29(12):1316–1340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ufua, D.E. (2015). Enhancing lean interventions through the use of systems thinking in the food production industry: a case in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria. PhD Thesis, Hull: University of Hull, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  77. Ufua DE, Adebayo AO (2019) Exploring the potency of rich pictures in a systemic lean intervention process. Syst Pract Action Res 26(5):1–13Google Scholar
  78. Ufua, D.E., Papadopoulos, T., and Midgley, G. (2015). Enhancing Lean Interventions through the use of Systems Thinking in the food production industry: a case in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. In proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of ISSS. July27th-Aug. 1st. Washington D.C. USA. ISSN 1999-6918Google Scholar
  79. Ufua DE, Papadopoulos T, Midgley G (2018) Systemic lean intervention: enhancing lean with community operational research. Eur J Oper Res 268(3):1134–1148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Ufua, D.E., Olokundun, M.A.,Ogbari, M.E., Atolagbe, T.M. (2019). Achieving zero waste operation in a private organisation through extended stakeholders’ consultation: a case in the Niger Delta region, Nigeria International J Mechanical Engr Technol, 10(2), pp155–168Google Scholar
  81. Ulrich, W.(1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: a new approach to practical philosophy. Haupt,BerneGoogle Scholar
  82. Ulrich W (1988) Churchman’s process of unfolding- its significance for policy analysis and evaluation. Syst Pract 1:415–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Ulrich, W. (1996). Critical systems thinking for citizens: a research proposal. Centre for Systems Studies Research Memorandum #10. Centre for Systems Studies, University of Hull, HullGoogle Scholar
  84. Ulrich, W. (2002). Boundary critique .The informed student guide to management science. HG Daellenbach and RL Flood. London, Thomson Learning: 41fGoogle Scholar
  85. Ulrich W (2003) Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. J Oper Res Soc Apr 54(4):325–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Ulrich W (2012) Operational research and critical systems thinking- an integrated perspective part 1: OR as applied systems thinking. J Oper Res Soc 63:1228–1247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Velez-Castiblanco, J. I. (2013). Stretching the concept of boundary in boundary critique. In Proceedings of the 56th Annual Meeting of the ISSS-2012. September, San Jose, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  88. Velez-Castiblanco J, Brocklesby J, Midgley G (2016) Boundary games: how teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of intervention. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):968–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Von Bertalanffy L (1968) General system theory. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  90. Watt MA, Ebbutt D (1987) More than the sum of the parts: research methods in group interviewing. Br Educ Res J 1(13):25–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wenger E (2010) Communities of practice and social learning systems: the career of a concept. In: Social learning systems and communities of practice. Springer, London, pp 179–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Williams T (2002) Modelling complex projects. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  93. Wu, S.Y. and Wu, M.S. (1994). Systems analysis and design. New York, West publishing companyGoogle Scholar
  94. Yolles, M. (1999). Management systems: A viable approach. London: Financial Times Pitman Publishing.Google Scholar
  95. Yolles M (2001) Viable boundary critique. J Oper Res Soc 52(1):35–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Yolles, M. (2007). Viable boundary critique. J Oper Res Soc January, (51), pp. 1–12Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business managementCovenant UniversityOtaNigeria

Personalised recommendations