Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Behavioral Operational Research pp 3–25Cite as

Palgrave Macmillan

Engaging with Behavioral Operational Research: On Methods, Actors and Praxis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

In this chapter, we highlight the importance of the behavioural perspective to advance the discipline of operational research (OR). The power of this perspective lies in its ability to identify the conditions under which the impact of OR-supported processes is enhanced or hindered by behavioural factors, with a view to developing more effective OR practice. To help organise and guide the conduct of empirical studies in the sub-discipline of behavioural OR (BOR), we draw on practice theories from the social and organizational sciences to propose an integrative framework based on the three central concepts of OR methods, OR actors and OR praxis. In discussing these concepts, we refer to the developing empirical BOR literature to highlight alternative analytical foci. We end the chapter by discussing the implications of the behavioural perspective for advancing the OR discipline, particularly with regards to foregrounding OR praxis in academic papers, attending to a wide diversity of OR actors, developing OR competences, and the role of theory and research methodology.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.theorsociety.com/Pages/SpecialInterest/Behaviouralor.aspx.

  2. 2.

    bor.aalto.fi.

  3. 3.

    Even Swaps method helps decision makers to find the most preferred alternative out of a set of multi-attribute alternatives (Lahtinen and Hämäläinen 2016).

References

  • Ackermann, F., and C. Eden. 2011. Negotiation in strategy making teams: Group support systems and the process of cognitive change. Group Decision and Negotiation 20: 293–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F., D.F. Andersen, C. Eden, and G.P. Richardson. 2011. ScriptsMap: A tool for designing multi-method policy-making workshops. Omega 39: 427–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff, R. 1977. Optimization + objectivity = opt out. European Journal of Operational Research 1: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, R., and S. Robinson. 2013. Modeling and simulation in business and industry: Insights into the processes and practices of expert modellers. Journal of the Operational Research Society 65: 660–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Amini, M., T. Wakolbinger, M. Racer, and M.G. Nejad. 2012. Alternative supply chain production-sales policies for new product diffusion: An agent-based modeling and simulation approach. European Journal of Operational Research 216: 301–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakken, B., J. Gould, and D. Kim. 1992. Experimentation in learning organizations: A management flight simulator approach. European Journal of Operational Research 59: 167–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bendoly, E., W. Van Wezel, and D.G. Bachrach (eds.). 2015. The handbook of behavioral operations management: Social and psychological dynamics in production and service settings. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birnberg, J.G., J. Luft, and M.D. Shields. 2007. Psychology theory in management accounting research. In Handbook of management accounting research, ed. C.S. Chapman and A.G. Hopwood, 113–135. Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brailsford, S.C., and B. Schmidt. 2003. Towards incorporating human behaviour in models of health care systems: An approach using discrete event eimulation. European Journal of Operational Research 150: 19–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brailsford, S.C., P. Harper, and D. Shaw. 2009. Milestones in OR. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60: S1–S4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brailsford, S.C., P.R. Harper, and J. Sykes. 2012. Incorporating human behaviour in simulation models of screening for breast cancer. European Journal of Operational Research 219: 491–507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brailsford, S.C., T.B. Bolt, G. Bucci, T.M. Chaussalet, N.A. Connell, P.R. Harper, J.H. Klein, M. Pitt, and M. Taylor. 2013. Overcoming the barriers: A qualitative study of simulation adoption in the NHS. Journal of the Operational Research Society 64: 157–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brocklesby, J. 2016. The what, the why and the how of behavioural operational research: An invitation to potential sceptics. European Journal of Operational Research 249: 796–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce, B. (ed.). 2010. Handbook of behavioral finance. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C.F. 2003. Behavioral game theory: Experiments in strategic interaction. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camerer, C.F., and G. Lowenstein (eds.). 2003. Advances in behavioral economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capelo, C., and J.F. Dias. 2009. A system dynamics-based simulation experiment for testing mental model and performance effects of using the balanced scorecard. System Dynamics Review 25: 1–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, K.A., and S.D. Bond. 2006. Improving preference assessment: Limiting the effect of context through pre-exposure to attribute levels. Management Science 52: 410–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung, Q., T. Willemain, and R. O’Keefe. 2000. Influence of model management systems on decision making: Empirical evidence and implications. Journal of the Operational Research Society 51: 936–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C.W. 1970. Operations research as a profession. Management Science 17: 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Connell, N. 2001. Evaluating soft OR: Some reflections on an apparently ‘unsuccessful’ implementation using a soft systems methodology (SSM) based approach. Journal of Operational Research Society 52: 150–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropper, S. 1990. Variety, formality and style: Choosing amongst decision-support methods. In Tackling strategic problems: The role of group decision support, ed. C. Eden and J. Radford, 92–98. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutton, J.M., and R.E. Walton. 1964. Operational research and the behavioural sciences. Operational Research Quarterly 15: 207–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., and F. Ackermann. 2004. Use of ‘soft OR’ methods by clients, what do they want from them? In Systems modeling: Theory and practice, ed. M. Pidd, 146–163. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellspermann, S.J., G.W. Evans, and M. Basadur. 2007. The impact of training on the formulation of ill-structured problems. Omega 35: 221–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fasolo, B., and C.A. Bana e Costa. 2014. Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers’ numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words. Omega 44: 83–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, M.S., and W.J. Orlikowski. 2011. Theorizing practice and practicing theory. Organization Science 22(5): 1240–1253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortuin, L., and M. Zijlstra. 2000. Operational research in practice: Consultancy in industry revisited. European Journal of Operational Research 120: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, L.A. 2013. Rethinking soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects. European Journal of Operational Research 231: 720–733.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, L.A., and R.P. Hämäläinen. 2016. Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession. European Journal of Operational Research 249: 791–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, L.A., and E. Lord. 2011. Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions. Omega 39: 362–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, L.A., and M. Meadows. 2007. Exploring new directions in problem structuring methods research: On the role of cognitive style. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58: 1621–1629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, L.A., and G. Montibeller. 2010. Facilitated modeling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research 205: 489–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, L.A., and E.A. Rouwette. 2011. Decision development in facilitated modeling workshops. European Journal of Operational Research 212: 164–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, L.A., M. Cushman, and J. Rosenhead. 2004. Project review and learning in the UK construction industry: Embedding a problem structuring method within a partnership context. European Journal of Operational Research 152: 586–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, L.A., E.A. Rouwette, and H. Korzilius. 2016. Different paths to consensus? The impact of need for closure on model-supported group conflict management. European Journal of Operational Research 249: 878–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, S., J. Maule, and N. Papamichail. 2009. Decision behaviour, analysis and support. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Graham, A.K., J.D.W. Morecroft, P.M. Senge, and J.D. Sterman. 1992. Model-supported case studies for management education. European Journal of Operational Research 59: 151–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, R.P. 2015. Behavioural issues in environmental modeling: The missing perspective. Environmental Modeling and Software 73: 244–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, R.P., J. Mustajoki, and M. Marttunen. 2010. Web-based decision support: Creating a culture of applying multi-criteria decision analysis and web supported participation in environmental decision making. In e-Democracy: A group decision and negotiation perspective, ed. D. Rios-Insua and S. French, 201–221. Dordrecht: Springer Science and Business Media B.V.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen, R.P., J. Luoma, and E. Saarinen. 2013. On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems. European Journal of Operational Research 228: 623–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, D.A., P.V. Johnson, A. Fitzsimons, J. Lovell, B. Chippendale, and J.K. Clayton. 1979. A case study on the development of the home defence training game HOT SEAT. Journal of the Operational Research Society 30: 861–871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horlick-Jones, T., and J. Rosenhead. 2007. The uses of observation: Combining problem structuring methods and ethnography. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58: 588–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovmand, P.S., D.F. Andersen, E. Rouwette, G.P. Richardson, K. Rux, and A. Calhoun. 2012. Group model-building ‘scripts’ as a collaborative planning tool. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 29: 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howick, S., and F. Ackermann. 2011. Mixing OR methods in practice: Past, present and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research 215: 503–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C., and S. Cropper. 1994. From many to one—And back. An exploration of some components of facilitation. Omega 22: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M.C., P. Keys, and S.A. Cropper (eds.). 1989. OR and the social sciences. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarzabkowski, P., J. Balogun, and D. Seidl. 2007. Strategizing: The challenges of a practice perspective. Human Relations 60: 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keys, P. 2006. On becoming expert in the use of problem structuring methods. Journal of the Operational Research Society 57: 822–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunc, M. 2012. Teaching strategic thinking using system dynamics: Lessons from a strategic development course. System Dynamics Review 28: 28–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahtinen, T.J., and R.P. Hämäläinen. 2016. Path dependence and biases in the even swaps decision analysis method. European Journal of Operational Research 249: 890–898.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D.C. 1995. On a resurgence of management simulations and games. Journal of the Operational Research Society 46: 604–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, J.E. (ed.). 1966. Operational research and the social sciences. London: Tavistock Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Menestrel, M., and L.N. Van Wassenhove. 2004. Ethics outside, within or beyond OR models? European Journal of Operational Research 153: 477–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Le Menestrel, M., and L.N. Van Wassenhove. 2009. Ethics in operations research and management sciences: A never-ending effort to combine rigor and passion. Omega 37: 1039–1043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, N. 1995. Social systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., and J. Rosenhead. 2012. Introduction to the special issue: Teaching soft O.R., problem structuring methods, and multimethodology. INFORMS Transactions on Education 12: 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, G. 1993. The practice of operational research. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller, G., and D. Von Winterfeldt. 2015. Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Analysis 35: 1230–1251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller, G., L.A. Franco, E. Lord, and A. Iglesias. 2009. Structuring resource allocation decisions: A framework for building multi-criteria portfolio models with area-grouped projects. European Journal of Operational Research 199: 846–856.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morecroft, J.D. 1988. System dynamics and microworlds for policymakers. European Journal of Operational Research 35: 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morton, A., and B. Fasolo. 2009. Behavioural decision theory for multi-criteria decision analysis: A guided tour. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60: 268–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicolini, D. 2012. Practice theory, work and organization: An introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, F.A. 2004. Scenario planning: Lessons for practice from teaching and learning. European Journal of Operational Research 154: 709–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, F.A. 2011. Supporting the strategy process: A survey of UK OR/MS practitioners. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62: 900–920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, F.A. 2015. On the roles of OR/MS practitioners in supporting strategy. Journal of the Operational Research Society 66: 202–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Keefe, R.M. 2016. Experimental behavioural research in operational research: What we know and what we might come to know. European Journal of Operational Research 249: 899–907.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod, R.J. 2008. The transformation competence perspective. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59: 1435–1448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod, R.J. 2014a. The mangle of OR practice: Towards more informative case studies of ‘technical’ projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society 65: 1245–1260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod, R.J. 2014b. OR competences: The demands of problem structuring methods. EURO Journal on Decision Processes 2: 313–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod, R.J., and W. Ulrich. 2013. Operational research and ethics: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 228: 291–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papamichail, K.N., G. Alves, S. French, J.B. Yang, and R. Snowdon. 2007. Facilitation practices in decision workshops. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58: 614–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petropoulos, F., R. Fildes, and P. Goodwin. 2016. Do ‘big losses’ in judgmental adjustments to statistical forecasts affect experts’ behaviour? European Journal of Operational Research 249: 842–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickering, A. 1995. The mangle of practice: Time, agency and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pierre Brans, J., and C. Macharis. 1997. Play theatre a new way to teach O.R. European Journal of Operational Research 99: 241–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M.S. 2004. Generalization in process theories of communication. Communication Methods and Measures 1: 181–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, S.G., and T.R. Willemain. 2007. How novices formulate models. Part I: Qualitative insights and implications for teaching. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58: 983–995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, T.C., D. Lovallo, and C.R. Fox. 2011. Behavioral strategy. Strategic Management Journal 32: 1369–1386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ranyard, J.C., R. Fildes, and T.-I. Hu. 2015. Reassessing the scope of OR practice: The influences of problem structuring methods and the analytics movement. European Journal of Operational Research 245: 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reckwitz, A. 2002. Towards a theory of social practices: A development in cultural theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory 5: 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S., C. Worthington, N. Burgess, and Z.J. Radnor. 2013. Facilitated modeling with discrete-event simulation: Reality or myth? European Journal of Operational Research 234: 231–240.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, E.A.J.A., J.A.M. Vennix, and T. Van Mullekom. 2002. Group model building effectiveness. A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review 18: 5–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, E.A.J.A., H. Korzilius, J.A.M. Vennix, and E. Jacobs. 2011. Modeling as persuasion: The impact of group model building on attitudes and behavior. System Dynamics Review 27: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzki, T.R., K. Knorr-Cetina, and E. Von Savigny (eds.). 2001. The practice turn in contermporary theory. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling, M.S., N. Oeser, and C. Schaub. 2007. How effective are decision analyses? Assessing decision process and group alignment effects. Decision Analysis 4: 227–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R.J., R.Y. Cavana, and D. Cameron. 2013. Evaluating immediate and long-term impacts of qualitative group model building workshops on participants’ mental models. System Dynamics Review 29: 216–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R.J., R.Y. Cavana, and D. Cameron. 2016. Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building. European Journal of Operational Research 249: 908–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P.M., and J.D. Sterman. 1992. Systems thinking and organizational learning: Acting locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future. European Journal of Operational Research 59: 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, D., F. Ackermann, and C. Eden. 2003. Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring. Journal of the Operational Research Society 54: 936–948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J.D. 2000. Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston: Irwin McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Syntetos, A.A., I. Kholidasari, and M.M. Naim. 2016. The effects of integrating management judgement into OUT levels: In or out of context? European Journal of Operational Research 249: 853–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tako, A.A. 2014. Exploring the model development process in discrete-event simulation: Insights from six expert modellers. Journal of the Operational Research Society 66: 747–760.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tako, A.A., and S. Robinson. 2010. Model development in discrete-event simulation and system dynamics: An empirical study of expert modellers. European Journal of Operational Research 207: 784–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavella, E., and T. Papadopoulos. 2015a. Expert and novice facilitated modeling: A case of a viable system model workshop in a local food network. Journal of the Operational Research Society 66: 247–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavella, E., and T. Papadopoulos. 2015b. Novice facilitators and the use of scripts for managing facilitated modeling workshops. Journal of the Operational Research Society 66: 1967–1988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner, S. 1994. The social theory of practices. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty. Heuristics and biases. Science 185: 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velez-Castiblanco, J., J. Brocklesby, and G. Midgley. 2016. Boundary games: How teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of intervention. European Journal of Operational Research 249: 968–982.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeldt, D., and W. Edwards. 1986. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waisel, L., W. Wallace, and T. Willemain. 2008. Visualization and model formulation: An analysis of the sketches of expert modellers. Journal of the Operational Research Society 59: 353–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wein, L.M. 2002. Introduction to the 50th anniversary issue of operations research. Operations Research 50: iii-iii.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, L. 2009. Understanding problem structuring methods interventions. European Journal of Operational Research 99: 823–833.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, L. 2016. Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions. European Journal of Operational Research 249: 827–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, L., K. Burger, and M. Yearworth. 2016. Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory. European Journal of Operational Research 249: 983–1004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R. 2003. The work of strategizing and organizing: For a practice perspective. Strategic Organization 1: 117–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R. 2006. Completing the practice turn in strategy research. Organization Studies 27: 613–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittington, R. 2011. The practice turn in organization research: Towards a disciplined transdisciplinarity. Accounting, Organizations and Society 36: 183–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemain, T.R. 1994. Insights on modeling from a dozen experts. Operations Research 42: 213–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemain, T.R. 1995. Model formulation: What experts think about and when. Operations Research 43: 916–932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Willemain, T.R., and S.G. Powell. 2007. How novices formulate models. Part II: A quantitative description of behaviour. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58: 1271–1283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G and Bolger, F. 1992. Expertise and decision support. New York: Springer Science and Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, G., G. Cairns, and P. Goodwin. 2009. Teaching scenario planning: Lessons from practice in academe and business. European Journal of Operational Research 194: 323–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, Loughborough, Leicestershire, LE11 3TU, UK

    L. Alberto Franco

  2. Systems Analysis Laboratory, Aalto University, 11100, 00076, Aalto, Finland

    Raimo P. Hämäläinen

Authors
  1. L. Alberto Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raimo P. Hämäläinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Martin Kunc

  2. BT Technology Service & Operations, Martlesham Heath, UK

    Jonathan Malpass

  3. Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Leroy White

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Franco, L.A., Hämäläinen, R.P. (2016). Engaging with Behavioral Operational Research: On Methods, Actors and Praxis. In: Kunc, M., Malpass, J., White, L. (eds) Behavioral Operational Research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53551-1_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation