La comprensión de textos expositivos

This section appraises the four pillar framework based upon its evaluation of the eight OR approaches. This provides a basis to understand if the four pillar framework provides an adequate tool for evaluating if an approach demonstrates the defining features of PSMs. This section examines the four pillar framework in a wider context by developing initial discussion points (shown in italics), which are revisited in the Discussion Chapter of the thesis.

Only the three established PSMs answered yes to all 15 questions and, according to the framework, could be classified as PSMs. This suggests that the framework can be effective at differentiating between PSMs and other OR approaches. Therefore, the framework could be applied to fringe PSMs as a way to evaluate if they have the attributes of a PSM. As the framework was built on the assumption PSMs make different assumptions philosophical assumptions to non-

PSMs. Discussion Point 1 considers if Rosenhead and Mingers were correct in

Question SSM SODA SCA VSM SD DEA Sim LP

Q13 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No

Q14 Yes Yes Yes N/A No N/A No N/A

Q15 Yes Yes Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes N/A

Figure 6: Pillar 4 Questions

Pillar 4: Structured analysis

Q13 Does the approach structure knowledge through different stages of analyses? Q14 Are there distinct phases for divergent and convergent thinking?

asserting PSMs have different underpinning assumptions when compared with other approaches.

A perceived weakness to the development of the framework is the circular argument in classifying three PSMs using the framework. The literature on these three PSMs led to the development of characteristics and questions and was then used to decide if the PSMs satisfied their own criteria. Critics could argue that this self-referencing approach presents a tautological argument and does not demonstrate that the established approaches are PSMs, but merely that they have characteristics that have already been identified in the literature. However, this misses the point of the framework and the reason it was applied to original PSMs. The framework has been developed to understand the classification of approaches where clarity does not exist about its status as a PSM. The inclusion of three PSMs in the analysis was a test of the framework rather than a test of the eight selected approaches. The important finding is the ability of the framework to delineate non- PMSs from PSMs, not the individual classifications of established PSMs. This again explains why the answers to the questions in the framework were relatively short as not to limit repetition of the argument.

All five non-PSMs answered ‘no’ (or were not applicable) to the following questions: 7) Does the approach focus on participants learning about the problem?; 8) Does the approach aim to produce politically and culturally feasible solutions over optimal solutions?; and 14) Are there distinct phases for divergent and convergent thinking? This might indicate that these are critical questions and the framework could be reduced to only three questions. However, the analysis only examined five non-PSM approaches; there could be other approaches that are not included within the analysis that would answer yes to some of these three questions without fulfilling all 15 criteria identified by the framework. For example, group brainstorming onto flipchart paper focuses on participants learning through sharing and building

knowledge. However, brainstorming does not meet the requirements of many of the other questions, for example, 13) Does the approach structure knowledge through different stages of analyses i.e. is it a methodology? The framework’s strength is its breadth, which has been developed by grounding it in the four philosophical constructs; reducing the framework would cause it to lose this strength as it would become no more useful than some of the descriptive definitions in Section 2.2.2.

All eight approaches answered ‘yes’ to the following questions: 4) Does the approach model an identifiable system? 10) Is the model building process suitably generic so it can be transferred to multiple problem contexts? and 12) Does the model build a validated audit trail of the decision making process? There could be an argument to eliminate these seemingly superfluous questions from the framework. However, the argument that these three questions did not filter out any of the five tested non-PSMs and therefore should be excluded is based upon a fallacy. Questions 4, 10, and 12 must be retained as they are all distinguishing characteristics of OR. Given that all eight approaches are established OR approaches, we would expect them to answer yes to questions 4, 10, and 12 as these are characteristics of OR approaches and not just PSMs. All eight approaches are taken from OR and should therefore demonstrate the features identified in questions 4, 10, and 12. For example, question 10 establishes if the approach is generically applicable to multiple problem contexts, this will be true for all established approaches but is a critical criterion for new methodologies which may have few actual applications. Without a large number of historic uses in differing problem contexts, how can an approach show that it is suitably generic to be considered a PSM? This is considered in Chapter 4 of the thesis in relation to WASAN.

Finally, the framework identified ‘knowledge leaks’, a new methodological concern when designing a PSM. Staged methodologies have been discussed

throughout the PSM literature (Checkland & Holwell, 1998; Friend & Hickling, 2005) as has knowledge creation using PSMs (Eden, 1992; Franco, 2013), but to this is added the importance of ensuring relevant and correct knowledge is not lost through

misrecordings between stages. Discussion Point 2 considers if the concept of

knowledge leaks is useful for practitioners and researchers to consider when designing an intervention.

This section has presented and tested a framework to assess what is a PSM. The four pillar framework constitutes Contribution A of the thesis. The 15

questions from the framework also answer RQ1: “What are the defining

philosophical, theoretical and methodological features of PSMs?” The four pillar

framework is used in Chapter 4 to answer RQ3: “How can an approach show it has

the defining features of PSMs?”. However, before that can be addressed, we must first understand WASAN, the context in which it was developed, and the process of that development. From there we can understand how to develop WASAN further.

The section also identified two Discussion Points which will be considered in the Discussion chapter alongside the other Discussion Points developed throughout this thesis. The Discussion chapter will broaden the theoretical and methodological contributions of this thesis by understanding the findings in a wider context.

To learn more about the defining features of PSMs, this research project is concerned with the development of the theory and methodology of one such fringe PSM, WASAN. The research project aims to position WASAN as a generic PSM; however, without an agreed framework by which to assess WASAN’s PSM credentials, this claim cannot be made. Therefore, Section 2.4 has been dedicated to understanding the common features of PSMs to aid answering RQ1 and deliver Contribution A of this thesis to “develop a framework to assess what is a PSM”.