Advertisement

Organizational Intervention Skills as Corporate Competence

Abstract

Finding ways to lead and develop organizations is a constant quest seeking to ensure competitiveness in a changing and dynamic world, which is well illustrated by Forrester’s words calling change “the essence of the manager’s environment.”1 Furthermore, industries are typically facing shorter changes cycles in new technologies, competition, value chain, environmental factors, and customer demands, resulting in an increased need for effectiveness and efficiency in organizational change processes.2 The changes constitute challenges representing both threats and new opportunities for the individual business organization, putting pressure on its ability to learn and transform.3 Organizations change in various ways: in organic, incremental processes of adapting to changing environments or in more abrupt organizational interventions.4 The latter way is the focus of this dissertation.

Keywords

Mental Model Harvard Business Review Organizational Intervention Plan Change Participative Modeling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Forrester, Jay W.: Industrial Dynamics, Cambridge, 1961, p. 1.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    See Kotter, John P: Leading Change, Boston, 1996, p. 18; Fine, Charles H.: “Clockspeed-based strategies for Supply Chain Design”, Production and Operation Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2000, p. 213; Brown, John Seely: “Research That Reinvents the Corporation”, Harvard Business Review, August 2002, p. 105.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    In de Geus, Arie P.: “Planning as Learning”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, March–April 1988, p. 71, it is proposed that “the ability to learn faster than competitors may be the only sustainable competitive advantage.”Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    The Japanese concept of Kaizen is an example of a continued process improvement focus, whereas the western world typically is more oriented towards innovation-and result-oriented thinking, see Imai, Masaaki: Kaizen: Der Schlüssel zum Erfolg der Japaner im Wettbewerb, German translation, München, 1992, p. 15.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Takahara, Yasuhiko: “A Formal Model of Organization”, in Takahashi, Singo, Kyoichi Kijima and Ryo Sato (eds.): Applied General Systems Research on Organizations, Tokyo, 2004, p. 3.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Own translation of figure in Milling, Peter: Systemtheoretische Grundlagen zur Plannung der Unternehmenspolitik, Berlin, 1981, p. 17. It should be noted that the original figure uses the German term “Führungsstratum” (translated to Managing Stratum) which is a broader term also encompassing the meaning of leading, steering, controlling. This model is chosen due to its abstraction level suitable to illustrate the concept of interventions. Takahara offers a more detailed basic model of organizations decomposing the operational level (the causal stratum), which inherent has a stronger focus on internal structures and coordination challenges; see Takahara, Yasuhiko: A Formal Model of Organization, in Takahashi, Singo, Kyoichi Kijima and Ryo Sato (eds.): Applied General Systems Research on Organizations, Tokyo, 2004, pp. 10–13.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Milling, Peter: Systemtheoretische Grundlagen zur Plannung der Unternehmenspolitik, Berlin, 1981, p. 18. Milling later decomposes the managing stratum into four levels: the normative level (formulation of long-term goals), the structuring level (determination of the basic structures), the adaptive level (specification of change programs) and the operative level (selection of actions), p. 20.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A Behavioural Science View, Reading, Massachusetts, 1970, p. 21.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley: Organizational Development and Change, Ohio, 2001, p. 142, describe the term intervention as “sequenced planned actions or events intended to help an organization increase its effectiveness. Interventions purposely disrupt the status quo; they are deliberately attempts to change an organization or sub-unit towards a different and more effective state.” Linguistic, the term ‘intervention’ indicates, that a party is proactively doing something to change the system. This is also seen in fields like economy (state interventions) and foreign affairs (armed conflicts).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    In Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A behavioural Science View, Reading, Massachusetts, 1970, p. 15, the importance of independency between the client and the interventionist is stressed, whereas in Schein, Edgar H.: Process Consultation, Boston, 2000, part II, p. 35, (collection of work first published in the 1960’s), it is argued that both external consultants as well as managers from within the company can serve the role of the interventionist. Recent textbooks generally support the latter view.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    See Chin, Robert and Kenneth D. Benne: “General Strategies for Effecting Changes in Human Systems”, in Bennis, Warren G., Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin: The Planning of Change, 4th edition, New York, 1985, p. 24; and Bungard, Walter and Catrin Niethammer: “Psychologische Aspekte des Change Management im interorganisationalen Kontext”, in Walter Bungard, Jürgen Fleischer, Holger Nohr, Dieter Spath and Erich Zahn (eds.), Customer Knowledge Management, Stuttgart, 2003, p. 109.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schein, Edgar H.: Process Consultation, Boston, 2000, part I, pp. 9–12, and part II, pp. 29–35. It should be noted, that this book mainly consists of reprints from his work in the late 1960’s. Schein’s work in general addresses the last intervention model type, the Process Consultation Model.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    In Akkermanns, Henk: Modelling With Managers, Breda, The Netherlands, 1995, pp. 7–12, a literature overview of decision-making and problem solving is found, covering Operation Management, System Dynamics, Strategic Management, Operations Research/“Soft OR”, Group Decision Support Systems and Organizational Psychology.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    See Schein, Edgar H.: Process Consultation, Boston, 2000, part I, p. 61. The model is an elaboration of a model originally developed by Richard Wallen for use in sensitivity training programs. The model has strong similarities with Dörner’s “Steps in Planning and Action”, although Dörners model less sharp separate in a planning and an implementation part, see Dörner, Dietrich: The Logic of Failure, New York, 1996, p. 43. Also, the model has similarities with the PDCA-cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act) as seen in TQM. The PDCA-cycle is a generic version of the Deming Cycle, see Imai, Masaaki: Kaizen: Der Schlüssel zum Erfolg der Japaner im Wettbewerb, german translation, München, 1992, p. 87.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Huff, Anne S. and Rhonda Kay Reger: “A Review of Strategic Process Research”, Journal of Management, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1987, p. 212. It should be noted, that Huff and Reger use the term strategy formulation rather than strategy forming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    The term ‘diagnostics’ is often used as heading for activities leading to the planned change interventions, e.g. see the list of contents in Bennis, Warren G., Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin: The Planning of Change, 4th edition, New York, 1985 as well as in Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley: Organizational Development and Change, Ohio, 2001.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Flood, Robert L.: Solving Problem Solving, Chichester, 1995, p. 32.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    See Mintzberg, Henry: The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, New York, 1994, p. 77; de Geus, Arie P.: “Planning as Learning”, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1988, p. 71; Davenport, Thomas H.: Process Innovation, Boston, 1993, pp. 278–279. In Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.: “Strategy as Strategic Decision Making”, Sloan Management Review, Spring 1999, p. 66, this process is described as “building collective intuition.”Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    For a discussion on mental models and literature on mental models, see among others Senge, Peter M.: The Fifth Discipline, New York, 1994, pp. 174–204; Doyle, James K. and David N. Ford: “Mental models concepts for system dynamics research”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 1998, pp. 3–29, Doyle, James K. and David N. Ford: “Mental models concepts revisited: some clarifications and a reply to Lane”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 1998, pp. 3–12. The word’ subconscious’ is used in this dissertation as “existing or operating in the mind beneath or beyond consciousness”, see Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, New York, 1989, p. 1414.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    See Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 21; Senge, Peter M.: The Fifth Discipline, New York, 1994, p. 175; Kampmann, Christian P. E.: Feedback complexity and market adjustment — An experimental approach, Boston, 1992, p. 29; Bakken, Bent E.: Learning and Transfer of Understanding in Dynamics Decision Environments, Boston, 1993, p. 30; Hogarth, Robin: Judgment and Choice — The Psychology of Decision, 2nd edition, Chicago, 1987, p. 130.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    See Bakken, Bent E.: Learning and Transfer of Understanding in Dynamics Decision Environments, Boston, 1993, p. 30; Argyris, Chris: Reasoning, Learning, and Action — Individual and Organizational, San Francisco, 1982, p. 39.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    See Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykologi, Danish translation, Herning, 1990, p. 53; Kieser, Alfred: “Human Relations-Bewegung und Organisationspsychologie”, in Kieser, Alfred (ed.): Organisationstheorien, 3rd edition, Stuttgart, 1999, pp. 101–131.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    This viewpoint is discussed in Jöns, Ingela: Managementstrategien und Organisationswandel, Mannheim, 1995, p. 156.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    See Preface, Warren, Kim: Competitive Strategy Dynamics, Chichester, 2002. For a theoretical discussion of the implementation problem, see also McPherson III, L. Fillmore: “Organizational Change: An Industrial Dynamics Approach”, in Edward B. Roberts (ed.): Managerial Applications of System Dynamics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978, pp. 447–449.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    See Repenning, Nelson P. and John D. Sterman: “Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems that Never Happened: Creating and Sustaining Process Improvement”, California Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, Summer 2001, p. 65.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Senge, Peter M.: The Dance of Change, New York, 1999, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    This does not imply that strategy making is easy. Rethinking strategies and entire business concepts is both a difficult and crucial task in given situations; see Hamel, Gary: Leading the Revolution, Boston, 2000, p. 28; Fine, Charles H.: “Clockspeed-based strategies for Supply Chain Design”, Production and Operation Management, Vol. 9, No. 3, 2000, pp. 213–221.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    See preface in Gold, Martin: The Complete Social Scientist: A Kurt Lewin Reader, Washington, 1999; Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykologi, Danish translation, Herning, 1990, p. 249.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    See Chin, Robert and Kenneth D. Benne: “General Strategies for Effecting Changes in Human Systems”, in Bennis, Warren G., Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin: The Planning of Change, 4th edition, New York, 1985, p. 22.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    The intervention process described by Argyris concerning moving an individual, a group or an organization towards Model II theory-in-use and double-loop learning is an example of an extensive and detailed planned change intervention in action research tradition, see Argyris, Chris: Reasoning, Learning, and Action — Individual and Organizational, San Francisco, 1982, especially pp. 162–162 and pp. 468–474.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lewin, Kurt: “Group Decision and Social Change” (first published in Newcomb and Hartley’s Readings in social psychology, 1948, pp. 330–341), in Gold, Martin: The Complete Social Scientist — A Kurt Lewin Reader, Washington, 1999, p. 281.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    See Schein, Edgar H.: Organisations Psykologi, Herning, 1990, pp. 254–255.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lewin, Kurt: “Group Decision and Social Change”, in Gold, Martin: The Complete Social Scientist — A Kurt Lewin Reader, Washington, 1999, p. 265. The arguments include, that behavior observed in a training program is often not continued when the person goes back to his normal routines. 34 See Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykologi, Herning, 1990, pp. 256–257; Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley: Organizational Development and Change, Ohio, 2001, pp. 22–30.Google Scholar
  34. 35.
    Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A Behavioural Science View, Reading, Ma., 1970, chapters 1 & 2; Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykologi, 1990, p. 40; Senge, Peter M.: The Fifth Discipline, New York, 1994, pp. 57–67; Sterman, John D.: “All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, Winther 2002, p. 526.Google Scholar
  35. 36.
    Borum, Finn: Strategier for organisationsændringer, Copenhagen, 1995, p. 15.Google Scholar
  36. 37.
    Chin, Robert and Kenneth D. Benne: “General Strategies for Effecting Changes in Human Systems”, in Bennis, Warren G., Kenneth D. Benne and Robert Chin: The Planning of Change, 4th edition, New York, 1985, pp. 22–45.Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    The school of scientific management dates back to the early 20th century with Taylor’s work on rational optimization of work processes. The most well known mechanism element might be the detailed time studies of work procedures, although this should be seen in context with the underlying principles, including focus on science development, scientific basis for selection and development of workmen, and friendly cooperation between the management and the men, see Taylor, Frederick W.: The Principles of Scientific Management, New York, 1967, (first published in 1911), pp. 129–130.Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    In Borum, Finn: Strategier for organisationsændringer, Copenhagen, 1995, the change strategies are discussed thoroughly, and at p. 117, a schematic overview can be found. Furthermore a fourth change strategy regarding network organizations/communities is discussed.Google Scholar
  39. 40.
    Anderson, Linda A. and Dean Anderson: “Awake at the Wheel: Moving beyond Change Management to Conscious Change Leadership”, OD Practitioner, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2001, p. 44. The two mindsets seem to a high extend to correspond with the traditional two views on Man-in-Organization: The Human View vs. The Resource View, see Leavitt, Harold J., William R. Dill, and Henry B. Eyring: The Organizational World — A systematic view of managers and management, New York, 1973, pp. 122–123.Google Scholar
  40. 41.
    Overcoming human resistance to change is among the most discussed topics the literature of strategy implementation and change management, see Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley: Organizational Development and Change, Ohio, 2001, pp. 154–173; Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A behavioral Science View, Reading, Ma., 1970, p. 70.Google Scholar
  41. 42.
    Ajzen, Icek: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, Chicago, 1988, pp. 20–131. See also Rouwette, Etiënne: Group model building as mutual persuasion, Nijmegen, 2003, pp. 104–111, for a discussion on Ajzen’s framework.Google Scholar
  42. 43.
    See Rouwette, Etiënne: Group model building as mutual persuasion, Nijmegen, 2003, p. 103.Google Scholar
  43. 44.
    See Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykologi, Herning, 1990, p. 142 for a literature overview of management traditions in regards to involvement of subordinates in decisions.Google Scholar
  44. 45.
    Jöns, Ingela: Managementstrategien und Organisationswandel, Mannheim, 1995, p. 157.Google Scholar
  45. 46.
    An extensive literature-based discussion of the relationship between practice and theory in organizations theories in general (not specific related to action research) can be found in Scherer, Andreas G.: “Kritik der Organisation oder Organisation der Kritik? Wissenschaftstheoretische Bemerkungen zum Umgang mit Organisationstheorien”, in Kieser, Alfred (ed.): Organisationstheorien, 3rd edition, Stuttgart, 1999, pp. 1–37.Google Scholar
  46. 47.
    See Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykologi, Herning, 1990, pp. 249–259; Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley: Organizational Development and Change, Ohio, 2001, pp. 22–30. Action research has some parallels to the field of cybernetics, where focus is on behavior of systems (what does it do) rather than on a detailed understanding of the system elements (what is this thing), see Ashby, W. Ross: An Introduction to Cybernetics, paperback version, London, 1964, p. 1.Google Scholar
  47. 48.
    See Gold, Martin: The Complete Social Scientist — A Kurt Lewin Reader, Washington, 1999, p. 253.Google Scholar
  48. 50.
    Only external information input (ue) is made explicit, as resource input is viewed as controllable in P. M, Ue, Y, represent the sets of values of the manipulating value, the external input and the outcomes. The decision problem is to find the decision variable (m) in M such that G(m,ue,P(m,ue)) is maximized. For further description see Takahara, Yasuhiko: “A Formal Model of Organization”, in Takahashi, Singo, Kyoichi Kijima and Ryo Sato (eds.): Applied General Systems Research on Organizations, Tokyo, 2004, pp. 15–21.Google Scholar
  49. 51.
    Takahara, Yasuhiko: “A Formal Model of Organization”, Tokyo, 2004, p. 16.Google Scholar
  50. 52.
    It should be noted, that a model is always only a limited reflection of a real system, representing a given viewpoint on a problem or a system, based on human decisions on parameters and structures to be included in the model. In Sterman, John D.: “All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, Winter 2002, p. 525, a model is called “a simplification, an abstraction, a selection” and “inevitably incomplete, incorrect — wrong.” Nevertheless, modeling offers an opportunity to overcome a number of the problems in unsupported decision-making, as discussed later in this chapter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 53.
    In Forrester, Jay W.: Industrial Dynamics, Cambridge, 1961, p. 56, objectives in using mathematical models are described as follows: “A mathematical model of an industrial enterprise should aid in understanding that enterprise. It should be a useful guide to judgment and intuitive decisions. It should help establish desirable policies.” Milling, Peter: “Leitmotive des System-Dynamics-Ansatzes”, Wirtshaftswissenschaftliches Studium, Vol. 10, 1984, p. 508, also supports this understanding of system dynamics: “System Dynamics verwendet formale Modelle, um zu einem verbesserten Verständnis des zu studierende Phänomens zu gelangen und um Eingriffe in das System auf ihre Konsequenzen hin zu untersuchen.”Google Scholar
  52. 54.
    See Forrester, Jay W.: Industrial Dynamics, Cambridge, 1961, p. 115. For examples of the practical usage of system dynamics, see the numerous cases published in System Dynamics Review over the years.Google Scholar
  53. 55.
    See Lyneis, James M.: Corporate Planning and Policy Design: A System Dynamics Approach, Massachusetts, 1980, p. 3; and Warren, Kim: Competitive Strategy Dynamics, Chichester, 2002, preface; Mintzberg, Henry: The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, New York, 1994, p. 319.Google Scholar
  54. 56.
    In René Descartes first major contribution, 1628, “Regulae ad directionem ingenii,” regarding rules for the use of the human’s cognitive means, a method for acquiring scientific or any other type of rational founded insight is described, see Lübcke, Poul (ed.): Politikens filosofi leksikon, Copenhagen, 2001, pp. 82–87. Wikipedia (accessed April 2006) describes the work as a method for scientific and philosophical thinking and translates the title of the book into “Rules for the Direction of the Mind.”Google Scholar
  55. 57.
    See Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, pp. 10–11; Kampmann, Christian P. E.: Feedback complexity and market adjustment — An experimental approach, Boston, 1992, p. 31; Bakken, Bent E.: Learning and Transfer of Understanding in Dynamics Decision Environments, Boston, 1993, pp. 29–30; Dörner, Dietrich: The Logic of Failure, New York, 1996, pp. 38–42.Google Scholar
  56. 58.
    Größler, Andreas: “A Content and Process View on Bounded Rationality in System Dynamics”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 21, No. 4, July/August, 2004, p. 320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 59.
    Bonabeau, Eric: “Don’t Trust Your Guts”, Harvard Business Review, May 2003, pp. 118–119.Google Scholar
  58. 60.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “System Dynamics, System Thinking, and Soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, Summer 1994, p. 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 61.
    Lyneis, James M.: Corporate Planning and Policy Design — A System Dynamics Approach, Massachusetts, 1980, p. 9 and p. 15; Lane, David C.: “Should System Dynamics be Described as a ‘Hard’ or ‘Deterministic’ System Approach?” Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 17, 2000, p. 4.Google Scholar
  60. 62.
    de Geus, Arie P.: “Planning as Learning”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, March–April 1988, pp. 70–74.Google Scholar
  61. 63.
    Miller, George A.: “The Magical Number Seven, Plus Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information”, The Psychological Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, March 1956, p. 95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 64.
    Lane, David C.: “Should System Dynamics be Described as a ‘Hard’ or ‘Deterministic’ System Approach?”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 17, 2000, p. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 65.
    Milling, Peter: “Modeling Innovation Processes for Decision Support and Management Simulation”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1996, p. 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 66.
    Bakken, Bent E.: Learning and Transfer of Understanding in Dynamics Decision Environments, Boston, 1993, p. 31.Google Scholar
  65. 67.
    See Warren, Kim: Competitive Strategy Dynamics, Chichester, 2002, p. 30; Snabe, Birgitte and Andreas Größler: “Targeted Participative Modelling as Organisational Intervention: Concept and Case Study”, Journal of Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 23, No. 4, in print, 2006, p. 20.Google Scholar
  66. 68.
    Through the introduction of participative model-building methodologies and “planning as learning”, focus has been put on creating conceptual insights, changing mental models of decision-makers and creating consensus and commitment; see Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 97; de Geus, Arie P.: “Planning as Learning”, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1988, p. 70; Lane, David C.: “Modelling as Learning: A consultancy methodology for enhancing learning in management teams”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No.1, 1992, pp. 64–84.Google Scholar
  67. 69.
    See Akkermans, Henk: Modelling With Managers, Breda, p. 20.Google Scholar
  68. 70.
    See Lane, David C.: “Modelling as Learning: A consultancy methodology for enhancing learning in management teams”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No.1, 1992, p. 64; Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, pp. 98–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 71.
    See Akkermanns, Henk: Modelling With Managers, Breda, 1995, p. 17.Google Scholar
  70. 72.
    Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics, Boston, 2000, p. 80 and p. 88; Roberts, Edward B.: “Strategies for Effective Implementation of Complex Corporate Models”, in Edward B. Roberts (ed.): Managerial Applications of System Dynamics, Cambridge, 1978, pp. 79–84. A more critical view on system dynamics efforts in organizational interventions can be found in Zock, Alexander: “A critical review of the use of System Dynamics for organizational consulting projects”, at CD-ROM of Proceedings, System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, 2004, p. 7, where it is argued that not even the participative modeling approaches are sufficient attentive to the overall challenges of change processes.Google Scholar
  71. 73.
    The use of modeling-oriented simulations vs. gaming-oriented simulations comes from the taxonomy proposed by Maier, Frank und Andreas Größler: “What are we talking about? A taxonomy of Computer Simulations to Support Learning”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 16, No 2, 2000, p. 143. The term ‘modeling-oriented simulations’ does not refer to the context of the project in regards to decision-making or implementation.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 74.
    In this dissertation, strategic formulation is understood to include both strategic planning and policy formulation. In the system dynamics society, the term “policy formulation” is often used as the aim of modeling projects with policies being rules stating how the day-by-day operating decisions are made, see Forrester, Jay W.: Industrial Dynamics, Cambridge, 1961, p. 93. Strategies are constituted by both corporate goals and corporate policies, and strategic planning is defined as the process of transforming corporate goals into policies, see Lyneis, James M.: Corporate Planning and Policy Design: A System Dynamics Approach, Boston, 1980, p. 19 and p. 3.Google Scholar
  73. 75.
    ‘Exploratory modeling’ should not be mistaken with ‘exploratory models’ as described in Homer, Jack B.: “Why we iterate: scientific modeling in theory and practice”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring 1996, p. 1. Homer defines exploratory models as a kind of easy-made, draft models less occupied with validation. In this dissertation ‘exploratory modeling’ refers to the purpose of the project: to explore and understand a given problem, no matter if the model used is less detailed or if it is highly developed and refined with scientific rigor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 76.
    In Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 99, it is argued that learning cannot be predicted in the outset of a project.Google Scholar
  75. 77.
    In Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 97, it is argued that insights are conceptual rather than instrumental, and although stressing that the purpose of system dynamics is performance improvement, he also states (p. 99) that “implementation becomes evasive.” Richardson, George P. and Alexander L. Pugh: Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling with DYNAMO, Cambridge, 1981, p. 355, write that “a modeling study usually focuses on what policies will help, not on how those policies ought to be introduced into the system.”Google Scholar
  76. 78.
    See Forrester, Jay W.: “Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1992, pp. 59–60, and Forrester, Jay W.: Industrial Dynamics, Cambridge, 1961, p. 364, where it is recommended to use industrial dynamics in a business company by initiating in a small, exclusive group of people with the right qualities to go in-depth with the dynamics of the company including the “innermost secrets and hopes of the organization.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 79.
    Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 112.Google Scholar
  78. 80.
    For definitions of action research, see Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley: Organizational Development and Change, Ohio, 2001, p. 23.Google Scholar
  79. 81.
    Borum, Finn: Strategier for organisationsændringer, Copenhagen, 1995, p. 58, discuss the problem of “a free, informed choice as a condition for establishment of commitment” in a change process planned and controlled by consultants.Google Scholar
  80. 82.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “System Dynamics, System Thinking, and Soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994, p. 247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 83.
    An interesting case, where a modeling project was continued into instrumental implementation activities is the well-known “Maintenance Game” described in Repenning, Nelson P. and John D. Sterman: “Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems that Never Happened: Creating and Sustaining Process Improvement”, California Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, Summer 2001, pp. 64–88.Google Scholar
  82. 84.
    See Flood, Robert L. and Michael C. Jackson: Creative Problem Solving — Total Systems Intervention, Chichester, 1991, p. 12; Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A Behavioural Science View, Reading, Massachusetts, 1970, p. 81; and Borum, Finn: Strategier for organisationsændringer, Copenhagen, 1995, pp. 77–89.Google Scholar
  83. 85.
    For discussions on “Employee Involvement”, see both Cummings, Thomas G. and Christopher G. Worley: Organizational Development and Change, Ohio, 2001, p. 317; and Thun, Jörn-Henrik, Peter M. Milling, and Uwe Schwellbach: “The Impact of Total Employee Involvement on Time-based Manufacturing”, in Blackmon, Kate, Steve Brown, Paul Cousins, Andrew Graves, Christine Harland, Richard Lamming, and Harvey Maylor (eds.): “What Really Matters in Operations Management”, Bath, 2001, pp. 133–135.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2007

Personalised recommendations