P1: JQX

pp1160-spaa-484068 SPAA.cls March 2, 2004 7:11

Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 17, No. 2, April 2004 (C©2004)

Book Review

Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited: Problem StructuringMethods for Complexity, Uncertainty, and ConflictJonathan Rosenhead and John MingersWiley, Chichester, United Kingdom2001, 365 pp., Chaps. 15,£22.50 (Amazon)

A surprising number of books I have reviewed over the years have been com-pendiums of authors. I say this is surprising because I sometimes wonder at themotivation of coauthors. With the pressures of the RAE and the need to publishprimarily in journals and secondly sole author books, the tendency for these jointworks would appear to arise from no great outward pressure. Also, such booksare often a disappointment. Often authors go their own way without referenceto the needs of overall coherence and the editorial can appear merely as an at-tempt to superimpose order over thinly disguised anarchy. But this book bucksthe trend. Rarely, since the first edition of this book in 1989 is one privileged toread so many of the great and the good writing to a common theme between twocovers.

Jonathan Rosenhead and John Mingers have replicated the original feat interms of presenting icons of the genre while at the same time aligning them in asympathetic and comparable conceptual framework—allowing the reader a uniqueopportunity to compare, contrast, and judge. Given the stature and contribution ofthe authors this is no mean feat and this book deserves, if for nothing else than forthis alone, the epithet “the most referenced book by JORS authors over the last10 years” (J. Ranyard, 2001, from theJ. Oper. Res. Soc.51(12)).

The first chapter, by Rosenhead and Mingers, sets the scene on the historyof the development of Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs) which are seen tohave arisen from a paradigm shift in the way in which the world is seen andthe conspicuous failure of the traditional, conventional quantitative methods ofmodernism to cope with complexity and mess. The scene is set and the chap-ter brings to life what are often experienced as arid fluctuations in intellectuallife. It also puts flesh on the bones by aligning organizations and personalitieswith change and flux. What I found most enjoyable about the chapter was theway in which it set the scene for the necessary (if not sufficient) reason forPSMs which were nonquantifiable, participatory, and shared between problem-solvers.

143

1094-429X/04/0400-0143/0C©2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation

P1: JQX

pp1160-spaa-484068 SPAA.cls March 2, 2004 7:11

144 Book Review

Most of the remainder of the book comprises reviews of thinking and practicemaking use of a range of methods and methodologies. I should say at the outsetthat I, like all readers, have read much by some of these authors previously andas a result found some less interesting than others. I have tried to take this intoaccount in my review.

In Chapter 2 Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann provide “SODA—The Prin-ciples.” The purpose of my review is not to abbreviate the details of the complexmethods described and the title of this chapter sums up the content very ade-quately. The origins, assumptions, and key elements of the SODA approach aredescribed. The description is not unduly critical—given the authors position thisis not surprising—but the “selling” of the methodology was I thought a little overthe top. I wish I was as confident of my ideas as these folks seem to be. Chapter3—SODA—Journey Making and Mapping in Practice—develops a practitionerview of SODA. Ackermann and Eden are again the authors. I was disappointedby this chapter. It seemed to me to be uneventful or really interesting, recountingas it does the largely (apparently) successful use of the method in the context ofthe National Audit Office. The approach seems sensible and the consultant drivenfacilitator format seemed OK but. . . I have seen a lot of this kind of thing andI wonder if something more progressive, self-reflective or innovative might havebeen more useful for the rest of us?

Chapter 4, authored by Peter Checkland, is called: “Soft Systems Methodol-ogy.” Again, there is little to say about this chapter. Peter writes interestingly todescribe the problem context which led to the development of SSM. If I have aquibble to make about Chapter 4 it is similar to that which I raised about 2 and3. The presentation of the methodology seems almost to be inevitable given theproblems evident. I would love to read these authors criticizing their own ideasand putting in a rich range of counterarguments. This is what we expect of aspiringacademics and I think it is not too much to expect from the leaders of the field.Chapter 5 is: “Soft Systems Methodology in Action: Participative creation of aninformation strategy for an acute hospital” by Checkland. There is nothing wrongwith the chapter as a description of how Peter engaged with the Royal VictoriaInfirmary (RVI) to develop the strategy. My criticisms probably sound peevish. Alack of humility at times (e.g. “the fine professional management skills of Steve andJohn and I”), the occasional reference to something else the student has not read(e.g. referring to 5 as the “magical number 7 minus 2 in this case”!), occasionallack of clarity about terms (e.g. PT is not defined as meaning primary task untilseveral pages after it appears for the first time) and repetitive quoting of the authorsexisting work with precious else noted. It is a good chapter on practice which Peterprotects by saying it could have been done in different ways but it is pointless tofollow that and anyway SSM is used all over the place. . . so there! Fine. It wouldtake a hero to contradict and I am not one. But. But I am not happy. I wouldhave liked internal reflection on imperfection. I would have liked to know some

P1: JQX

pp1160-spaa-484068 SPAA.cls March 2, 2004 7:11

Book Review 145

craft skills and exactly who was making the decisions when in the consultancyprocess.

Chapter 6 is by John Friend—“the Strategic Choice Approach.” I found this inmany ways a satisfying chapter, giving me the level of detail I need to understandwho is making decisions and when and why. I get a picture of the craft skills ofthe consultant undertaking SCA and I have a feel for a range of outcomes—notall of which are made explicit. Chapter 7, is “Gambling with Frozen Fire” byAllen Hickling and again concerns the use of SCA this time in a project involvingstrategic choices in the Netherlands regarding Liquefied Petroleum Gas. As withthe previous chapter, the “dirty” side of real consultancy comes through, as wellas the rigour and difficulty involved in using an approach like this.

Chapter 8 is by one of the editors, Jonathan Rosenhead, “Robustness Analy-sis: Keeping Your Options Open.” All readers will approach a book like this withvariable amounts of preunderstanding of the various methods and methodologiesdescribed. For me this chapter dealt with something which I knew as atomizedelements (e.g. decision trees) but not as a complete approach. I am in total agree-ment with the author when he says: “This brief resume of the methodology isundoubtedly misleading. The presentation is both too elaborate, and not elaborateenough.” I detected a degree of detail here which had not been evident in many ofthe previous chapters but which led me asking—“but, surely this is far too elabo-rate to work in practice?” Maybe the chapter has done its job well if the reader isleft in this condition?

Chapter 9 is also by Jonathan—“Robustness to the First Degree.” In thischapter he applies robustness analysis to microlevel issues, issues of importanceto people and not necessarily megaorganizations. This is welcome in my view asthe image of problem-solving being something that PLCs are interested in but noone else is widespread. I am not sure if at the end I am convinced however that theuse was entirely plausible.

Chapter 10 “Drama Theory and Confrontation Analysis” is by Peter Bennett,Jim Bryant, and Nigel Howard and Chapter 11 “The M&A Play: Using DramaTheory for Mergers and Acquisitions” by Nigel Howard are linked as the earlierpairs of chapters in theory and practice. The origins of drama theory in game theoryand examples of its use are given and the procession into Confrontation Analysis isshown. In the second article which is presented as a dialogue between characters.Now, I am not being hypercritical but I had some problems with the presentationof this. It made me laugh and I do not think it was intended to. I am delightedto see academics using different writing styles and have tried to undertake to dothis myself at times but I wonder about the effect in this case. To do this kind ofthing well needs either God-given ability or a lot of practice. I love reading JaneAusten, Dumas, Eco, and Rushdi. They are all great at writing dialogue. In this casethe dialogue between characters seemed wooden and the obvious sell of methodjust seemed silly. For me it got in the way of the message of the piece. Having

P1: JQX

pp1160-spaa-484068 SPAA.cls March 2, 2004 7:11

146 Book Review

completed 11 chapters the structure of the book changes. The remaining chaptersare summative of a variety of methods and the way methods can be combined.

Chapter 12 is by the Editors “An Overview of Related Methods: VSM, SystemDynamics and Decision Analysis.” The chapter provides an overview of eachand some practical examples—although Decision Analysis/ Conferencing receivesrather less attention than the others.

Chapter 13 by John Mingers, is titled “Multimethodology—Mixing andMatching Methods.” I have a specific interest in this chapter as I spent my PhDyears working with Trevor Wood-Harper and Multiview on a range of Informa-tion Systems issues. Although Multiview never appears in the Multimethodologyliterature (and not here), it was an attempt to combine a range of approaches andremains current in various publications which I will not mention here for fear ofbecoming a self-publicist. Multimethodology is explained by John at a number oflevels, from an obvious need to mix to a philosophical paradigm demonstratingits logic and value. The chapter provides an example and develops a powerfulargument for the reasonableness of the project.

Chapter 14 by Richard Ormerod “Mixing Methods in Practice” builds onthe paradigm developed in Chapter 13 describing two cases from Sainsburys andPowergen. I enjoyed this chapter. It felt grown up and not too reverential of themethods which were poached and put together. It seemed full of craft skill and thehuman behind the consultancy. To me this made the right balance between theoryand practice with the bottom line being to deliver to the customer—rather than toextend theory.

Chapter 15 ties the book together. “Diverse Unity: Looking Inward and Out-ward” is by John Mingers and Jonathan Rosenhead. This excellent chapter repacksand summarize all that came before. Similarities and differences are drawn out,ideas for change are discussed, possible areas for application are described andlinks to other methods (such as Rapid Rural Appraisal—RRA. I was delighted tosee this included as it has been a hobby horse of mine for some time that con-temporary management science seems not to be learning from the dynamism ofdeveloping country practice) are made. The authors also allude to challenges forthe future. . .but more on this in my conclusions.

Overall, I liked a lot of the contents of this book and I appreciate the attemptto get so much weighty material between two covers. What the authors describeindicates that we are beginning to do things better, maybe we are making more senseof the apparently chaotic world, maybe we are working to find patterns. However,I do have some overarching criticisms which I set out here as the questions whichoccurred to me in reading.

“Are the authors selling as well as advocating?” I do not see why so manyof the contributors, so well established in the field, still seem to have the need tophrase their chapters as a hard sell of their ideas and a triumph of their abilities.Modesty and restraint are virtues. “Isn’t this stuff all the same?” By the time the

P1: JQX

pp1160-spaa-484068 SPAA.cls March 2, 2004 7:11

Book Review 147

reader gets half way through the book the contents of the chapters all have a ratherworrying degree of uniformity. Its not that they appear identical, rather it is thatthe underlying tools for reflecting, connecting, modelling, and doing (whoops,maybe Kolb is at the root of all this?) are repeated in different semantics. Theidiom of language and the genre is certainly the same. This leads to my nextquestion.

“Surely, after all these years, there are new ways of doing things?” Much ofwhat I read here is historical and as Peter Checkland argues, a necessary reactionand correction to the limitations of traditional approaches to problem-solving. But,having read this book, I feel we need to move on. On engaging with the chapters,the arrows and boxes remain largely the same across the approaches, the workshopsand brainstorming are ubiquitous and the piles of postit notes mount ceiling-ward.There are numerous cases of the approaches set out here “working”—we are toldthis by the advocates and I know from my own professional practice that theyhave great value. But, my feeling is that we are still just nibbling at the edges ofproblem-solving and that much of what we have here is not so much inspired andnew as a signpost directing followers in the same old direction.

I know of numerous academics and practitioners who take off-the-shelf ap-proaches like these and apply them uncritically. I know many who would not dareto contradict the conventional wisdom of the giants who write about them. Thequestion arises “are the problem-solving gurus themselves problems for the rest ofus?” I feel that through timidity and lack of vision we may all be parties to makinga problem-solving ghetto of calcified ideas. Human action is rich, we are told byJohn Friend, much richer than can be shown.

Surely, to be relevant, the practitioner community needs to grasp the realrichness and absorb the full gamut of what it is to be human if we are to makeour ventures into problem-solving fit for a world experienced as almost infinitelycomplex. I rarely feel that truly human complexity is represented in this book.Organizational capability building is fine and I recognize that the editors havenoted that the PSMs are designed to work with small groups, but with the linked-up nature of global issues to local concerns: the parlous state of the environment,growing social exclusion, the political demise of western liberalism, confusionregarding what constitutes information and who has access to it, the growth ofscepticism and cynicism relating to the capacity of any human action and agencyto make a difference.

These contemporary needs demand a response from those in positions to thinkabout practice to come up with a step forward. Holism and systemisism in theirpresent organised form may have had their day. The signs of decay are evidentin the inflexibility of the intellectual fixtures evident in some of the pages of thisbook. It would seem the world needs a new sideways look. Maybe an innovationderived from Participatory Appraisal or the new Vitalism (as advocated by PeterRoberts), the writings of Rupert Sheldrake or a truly humanized absorption of the

P1: JQX

pp1160-spaa-484068 SPAA.cls March 2, 2004 7:11

148 Book Review

implications of chaos and complexity theory? Probably not—probably somethingas yet unfinished and half formed. This terrain remains to be explored. But I amsure on reading this book that we really need to move on.

Simon BellOpen UniversityUnited Kingdom