Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multicriteria Mapping as a Problem Structuring Method for Project Front-Ending

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Problem Structuring Approaches for the Management of Projects

  • 795 Accesses

Abstract

Despite high uncertainties, strongly diverging values, and often-perverse effects of powerful vested interests, large and complex projects require clear decisions to be made from the outset. Coburn and Stirling introduce multicriteria mapping (MCM) as a problem structuring method for addressing these challenges in project appraisal by engaging with key stakeholders, broadening out the scope of the project, and opening up alternative possible interpretations concerning how to proceed. From defining project goals through to analysing results, two case studies illustrate the MCM process. The resulting interlinked quantitative and qualitative information provides a broader and deeper picture than is usual. Clearly highlighting how different conditions hold contrasting practical implications for action, MCM offers a more robust basis for making decisions under circumstances of uncertainty and complexity.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ackoff, R. L. (1979). The Future of Operational Research Is Past. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 30(2), 93–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arthur, W. B. (1989). Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-in by Historical Events. The Economic Journal, 99(394), 116–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barling, D., de Vriend, H., Cornelese, J. A., Ekstrand, B., Hecker, E. F. F., Howlett, J., … Top, R. (1999). The Social Aspects of Food Biotechnology: A European View. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology, 7(2), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1382-6689(99)00009-5.

  • Bellamy, R., Chilvers, J., Vaughan, N. E., & Lenton, T. M. (2013). “Opening Up” Geoengineering Appraisal: Multi-Criteria Mapping of Options for Tackling Climate Change. Global Environmental Change, 23(5), 926–937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.07.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2014). Managing Structural and Dynamic Complexity: A Tale of Two Projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J., Stirling, A., Clark, J., Davies, G., Eames, M., Staley, K., & Williamson, S. (2007). Deliberative Mapping: A Novel Analytic-Deliberative Methodology to Support Contested Science-Policy Decisions. Public Understanding of Science, 16(3), 299–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1985). From Optimizing to Learning: A Development of Systems Thinking for the 1990s. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36(9), 757–767.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2007). Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology, and Its Use Practitioners, Teachers and Students. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coburn, J., & Stirling, A. (2016). Multicriteria Mapping Manual, Version 2.0, SWPS 2016–21. Brighton: SPRU, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. (1982). Critical Decision Making: A New Theory of Social Choice. London: Frances Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genus, A., & Stirling, A. (2017, February). Collingridge and the Dilemma of Control: Towards Responsible and Accountable Innovation. Research Policy, 0–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2017.09.012.

  • Holt, R. (2004). Risk Management: The Talking Cure. Organization, 11(2), 251–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508404041615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, T. (1983). Networks of Power: Electrification in Western Society 1880–1930. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitchner, K. S. (1983). Cognition, Metacognition, and Epistemic Cognition: A Three-Level Model of Cognitive Processing. Human Development, 26(4), 222–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Y. (Judy). (2006). Enhance Second Generation Design Capability by Realising the Issue of Communication v Location Specialization and Evaluate Its Potential Strategy by Using the MCM Tool (MSc Thesis). Brighton: SPRU – Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowall, W., & Eames, M. (2007). Towards a Sustainable Hydrogen Economy: A Multi-criteria Sustainability Appraisal of Competing Hydrogen Futures. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 32(18), 4611–4626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.06.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P. (2002). Science, Objective Knowledge, and the Theory of Project Management. Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers: Civil Engineering, 150(2), 82–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, P. W. G., & Geraldi, J. (2011). Managing the Institutional Context for Projects. Project Management Journal, 42(6), 20–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raven, R., Ghosh, B., Wieczorek, A., Stirling, A., Ghosh, D., Jolly, S., … Sengers, F. (2017). Unpacking Sustainabilities in Diverse Transition Contexts: Solar Photovoltaic and Urban Mobility Experiments in India and Thailand. Sustainability Science, 12(4), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-017-0438-0.

  • Ravetz, J. R. (1971). Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisted: Problem Structuring Method for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saadi, X., & Bell, G. (2018). Exploring the Use of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) in Front-Ending Public Funded Rural Bridge Construction Projects in Bangladesh. In G. Bell, R. Pagano, C. Sato, & J. Warwick (Eds.), Problem Structuring Approaches for the Management of Projects: Demonstrating Successful Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samset, K. (2009). Projects, Their Quality at Entry and Challenges in the Front-end Phase. In T. M. Williams, K. Samset, & K. J. Sunnevåg (Eds.), Making Essential Choices with Scant Information: Front-End Decision Making in Major Projects. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (1997). Multi-Criteria Mapping: Mitigating the Problems of Environmental Valuation? In J. Foster (Ed.), Valuing Nature? Ethics, Economics and the Environment (pp. 186–210). London/New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (1999). Science and Precaution in the Management of Technological Risk: Volume I – A Synthesis Report of Case Studies. Seville: EUR 19056 EN, European Commission, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2010). Keep It Complex. Nature, 468, 1029–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2017). Precaution in the Governance of Technology. In K. Yeung (Ed.), Oxford Handbook on the Law and Regulation of Technology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A., & Coburn, J. (2017). From CBA to Precautionary Appraisal: Practical Responses to Intractable Problems: Draft. Brighton: SPRU—Science Policy Research Unit.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A., & Mayer, S. (2000). Precautionary Approaches to the Appraisal of Risk: A Case Study of a Genetically Modified Crop. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 6(3), 342–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A., & Mayer, S. (2001). A Novel Approach to the Appraisal of Technological Risk: A Multicriteria Mapping Study of a Genetically Modified Crop. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19, 529–555. https://doi.org/10.1068/c8s.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A., Lobstein, T., & Millstone, E. (2007). Methodology for Obtaining Stakeholder Assessments of Obesity Policy Options in the PorGrow Project. Obesity Reviews, 8(Suppl. 2), 17–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2007.00355.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Heijden, K. (2009). Scenarios Planning. In T. M. Williams, K. Samset, & K. J. Sunnevåg (Eds.), Making Essential Choices with Scant Information (pp. 68–84). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • White, R. (2017). Multicriteria Mapping. In C. L. Spash (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Ecological Economics: Nature and Society (pp. 321–330). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, T. (2009). Decisions Made on Scant Information: Overview. In T. M. Williams, K. Samset, & K. J. Sunnevåg (Eds.), Making Essential Choices with Scant Information (pp. 3–17). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, T. M., Samset, K., & Sunnevåg, K. J. (Eds.). (2009). Making Essential Choices with Scant Information: Front-End Decision Making in Major Projects. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winter, M. (2009). Using Soft Systems Methodology to Structure Project Definition. In T. M. Williams, K. Samset, & K. J. Sunnevåg (Eds.), Making Essential Choices with Scant Information (pp. 125–144). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1997). Methodology and Institutions: Values as Seen from the Risk Field. In J. Foster (Ed.), Valuing Nature? Ethics, Economics and the Environment (pp. 135–154). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

    Josie Coburn & Andy Stirling

Authors
  1. Josie Coburn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andy Stirling
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Josie Coburn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sussex Business School, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK

    Gary Bell  & Carlos Sato  & 

  2. Faculty of Business and Law, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK

    Rosane Pagano

  3. Faculty of Business, London South Bank University, London, UK

    Jon Warwick

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Coburn, J., Stirling, A. (2019). Multicriteria Mapping as a Problem Structuring Method for Project Front-Ending. In: Bell, G., Pagano, R., Warwick, J., Sato, C. (eds) Problem Structuring Approaches for the Management of Projects. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93263-7_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation