The logic and methods of OR consulting practice: towards a foundational view

References

• Ackermann, F. (1990). The role of computers in group decision support. In C. Eden & J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling strategic problems: The role of group decision support (pp. 132–141). London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Ackermann, F., Andersen, D. F., Eden, C., & Richardson, G. P. (2010). Using a group decision support system to add value to group model building. System Dynamics Review, 26(4), 335–346.10.1002/sdr.444
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the future. New York, NY: John Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Adamson, P. (2014). Classical philosophy: A history of philosophy without any gaps (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bartha, P. (2013). Analogy and analogical reasoning. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (fall 2013 edition). Retrieved August 29, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall20133/entries/reasoning-analogy/
   Google Scholar
• Beer, S. (1966). Decision and control. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Beer, S. (1984). The viable systems model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. Journal of the Operational Research Society , 35(1), 7–25.10.1057/jors.1984.2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1991). De la Justification. Les Économies de la Grandeur. Paris: Gallimard.
   Google Scholar
• Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification. Economies of worth. Translation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Boothroyd, H. (1978). Articulate intervention: The interface of science, mathematics, and administration. London: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Burgess, J. P. (2009). Philosophical logic. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400830497
   Google Scholar
• Butler, C. (2012). The dialectical method: A treatise Hegel never wrote. Amherst NY: Humanity Books/Prometheus.
   Google Scholar
• Buzan, T. (2002). How to mind map; the thinking tool that will change your life. London: HarperCollins.
   Google Scholar
• Carlsson, C., Fedrizzi, M., & Fullér, R. (2004). Fuzzy logic in management. New York, NY: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4419-8977-2
   Google Scholar
• Castaneda, H.-N. (1981). Paradoxes of deontic logic: The simplest solution to all of them in one fell swoop. In R. Hilpinen (Ed.), New studies in deontic logic (pp. 37–85). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
   Google Scholar
• Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Checkland, P. (2001a). Soft systems methodology. In J. Rosenhead & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited (pp. 61–89). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Checkland, P. (2001b). Soft systems methodology in action: Participative creation of an information strategy for an acute hospital. In J. Rosenhead & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited (pp. 91–113). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of systems and organization. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Churchman, C. W. (1979). The systems approach and its enemies. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Dane, F. C. (1990). Research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• De Bono, E. (1985). Conflicts: A better way to resolve them, six thinking hats. London: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• De Meyer, A., Loch, C. H., & Pich, M. T. (2002, Winter). Managing project uncertainty: From variation to chaos. MIT Sloan Management Review, 2002, 60–67.
   Google Scholar
• Dunnette, M. D., Campbell, J. D., & Jaastad, K. (1963). The effect of group participation on brainstorming effectiveness for two industrial samples. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47(1), 30–37.10.1037/h0049218
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dutilh Novaes, C., & Veluwenkamp, H. (2017). Reasoning biases, non-monotonic logics and belief revision. Theoria, 83(1), 29–52.10.1111/theo.2017.83.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Eden, C. (1990). Managing the environment as means to managing complexity. In C. Eden & J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling strategic problems: The role of group decision support (pp. 154–161). London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001a). SODA – The principles. In J. Rosenhead & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited (pp. 21–41). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001b). SODA – Journey making and mapping in practice. In J. Rosenhead & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited (pp. 43–60). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2001c). Group decision and negotiation in strategy making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 119–140.10.1023/A:1008710816126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Englebretsen, G., & Sayward, C. (2011). Philosophical logic: An introduction to advanced topics. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
   Google Scholar
• Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Creative problem solving: Total systems intervention. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Ford, M. (2015). The rise of the robots. London: Oneworld.
   Google Scholar
• Franco, L. A., & Montibeller, G. (2010). Facilitated modelling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(3), 489–500.10.1016/j.ejor.2009.09.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frawley, W., Eschenroeder, E., Mills, S., & Nguyen, T. (2006). The expression of modality. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110197570
   Google Scholar
• Friend, J., & Hickling, A. (2001). The strategic choice approach. In J. Rosenhead & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited (pp. 61–149). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Friend, J., & Hickling, A. (2005). Planning under pressure: The strategic choice approach. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
   Google Scholar
• Gabbay, D. V., Hogger, C. J., & Robinson, J. A. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of logic in artificial intelligence and logic programming. Oxford: Clarendon.
   Google Scholar
• Garson, J. W. (2016a). Modal logic for philosophers (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garson, J. W. (2016b). Modal logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring 2016 edition). Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/logic-modal/
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartxman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Giddens, A. (1993). New rules of sociological method (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Polity Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goble, L. (Ed.). (2001). The blackwell guide to philosophical logic. Oxford: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Groarche, L. (2015). Informal logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (summer 2015 edition). Retrieved August 29, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/logic-informal/
   Google Scholar
• Guthrie, W. K. C. (1950). The Greek philosophers. Abingdon: Methuen.
   Google Scholar
• Haack, S. (2014). Evidence matters: Science, proof, and truth in the law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139626866
   Google Scholar
• Havel, D., Kozen, D., & Tiuryn, J. (2002). Dynamic logic. In D. M. Gabbay & F. Guenthner (Eds.), Handbook of philosophical logic (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 99–217). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Heinlein, R. A. (1999). Revolt in 2010/methuselah’s children. Riverdale, NY: Baen Publishing Enterprises.
   Google Scholar
• Henaway, E., Klibanoff, P., & Mukerji, S. (2016). Incomplete information games with ambiguity averse players. Retrieved August 21, 2017, from http://econ.qmul.ac.uk/media/econ/documents/incompleteinfogamesHKM-November-14-2016.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Hesse, M. B. (1974). The structure of scientific inference. Berkely, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hickling, A. (1990). ‘Decision spaces’: A scenario about designing appropriate rooms for group decision management. In C. Eden & J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling strategic problems: The role of group decision support (pp. 169–177). London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hickling, A. (2001). Gambling with frozen fire? In J. Rosenhead & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited (pp. 151–180). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Huxham, C. (1990). On trivialities in process. In C. Eden & J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling strategic problems: The role of group decision support (pp. 162–168). London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2016). Philosophy of medicine. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.) The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved November 9, 2016, from http://www.iep.utm.edu/medicine/
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, M. C. (1985). Social systems theory and practice: The need for a critical approach. International Journal of General Systems, 10(2–3), 135–151.10.1080/03081078508934877
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, M. C. (2000). Systems approaches to management. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers. Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Jennings, N. R., Faratin, P., Lomuscio, A. R., Parsons, S., Wooldridge, M. J., & Sierra, C. (2001). Automated negotiation: Prospects, methods and challenges. Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(2), 199–215.10.1023/A:1008746126376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kennedy, G. A. (1991). Rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koons, R. (2014). Defeasible reasoning. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring 2014 edition). Retrieved August 29, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/reasoning-defeasible/
   Google Scholar
• Loveland, D. W., Hodel, R. E., & Sterrett, S. G. (2014). Three views of logic: Mathematics, philosophy and computer science. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400848751
   Google Scholar
• Marsden, D. (2016). Ambiguity and incomplete information in categorical modes of language. Retrieved August 7, 2017 from http://qpl2016.cis.strath.ac.uk/pdfs/QPL_2016_paper_17.pdf
   Google Scholar
• McKeon, R. (1941). The basic works of Aristotle. New York, NY: Random House.
   Google Scholar
• McNara, P. (2016). Deontic logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.). The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring 2016 edition). Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/logic-deontic/
   Google Scholar
• Meyer, J. J. (1988). A different approach to deontic logic: Deontic logic viewed as a variant of dynamic logic. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic, 29(1), 109–136.
   Google Scholar
• Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology and practice. New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.10.1007/978-1-4615-4201-8
   Google Scholar
• Mingers, J. (1980). Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: Critical theory and soft systems methodology. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 7(1), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Mingers, J. (2000). The contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for OR/MS and systems. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 1256–1270.10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601033
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mingers, J. (2014). Systems thinking, critical realism and philosophy: A confluence of ideas. Abingdon: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega, 25(5), 489–509.10.1016/S0305-0483(97)00018-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Minto, W. (1899). Logic inductive and deductive. London: John Murray.
   Google Scholar
• Müller-Merbach, H. (1989). On technical, pragmatic and ethical action – A challenge for OR? In M. C. Jackson, P. A. Keys, & S. A. Cropper (Eds.), OR and the social sciences (pp. 97–104). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Müller-Merbach, H. (2006). Three kinds of knowledge, reflecting Kant’s three types of action. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4(1), 73–74.10.1057/palgrave.kmrp.8500087
   Google Scholar
• Nagel, E., & Newman, J. R. (2001). Gödel’s proof. New York, NY: New York University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nievergelt, Y. (2015). Logic, mathematics and computer science: Modern foundations with practical applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.10.1007/978-1-4939-3223-8
   Google Scholar
• Nuyts, J. (2000). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective: Human cognitive processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
   Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J. (1997). The role of OR in shaping the future: smart bits, helpful ways and things that matter. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(11), 1045–1056.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J. (2008). The transformation competence perspective. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(11), 1435–1448.10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602482
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J. (2010a). Articulate intervention revisited. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 61(7), 1078–1094.10.1057/jors.2009.47
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J. (2010b). Rational inference: Deductive, inductive and probabilistic thinking. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 61(8), 1207–1223.10.1057/jors.2009.96
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J. (2010c). OR as rational choice: A decision theory perspective. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 61(12), 1761–1776.10.1057/jors.2009.146
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J. (2013). Logic and rationality in OR interventions: An examination in the light of the ‘critical rationalist’ approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 64(4), 469–487.10.1057/jors.2012.58
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J. (2014). Critical rationalism in practice: Strategies to manage subjectivity in OR investigations. European Journal of Operational Research, 235(3), 784–797.10.1016/j.ejor.2013.12.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J. (2016). Critical rationalism for practice and its relationship to critical systems theory. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(1), 4–23.10.1002/sres.2326
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J., & Ulrich, W. (2013). OR and ethics: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 228, 291–307.10.1016/j.ejor.2012.11.048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem solving (3rd, Rev ed.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Parsons, S. D., Gymtrasiewicz, P., & Wooldridge, J. (Eds.). (2012). Game theory and decision theory in agent-based systems (Vol. 5). Berlin: Springer Science and Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Pattaro, E. (2007). A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence. Dordecht: Springer Science & Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, R. W. (1983). The logic of creative and critical thinking. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 21–39.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips, L. D. (1990). Decision analysis for group decision support. In C. Eden & J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling strategic problems: The role of group decision support (pp. 142–150). London: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Plumer, G., & Olson, K. (2001). What constitutes a formal analogy? OSSA conference archive (Paper 93). Retrieved August 22, 2017, from http://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1678&context=ossaarchive
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, J. L. (1974). Knowledge and justification. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, J. L. (1991). A theory of defeasible reasoning. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 6(1), 33–54.10.1002/(ISSN)1098-111X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollock, J. L. (2001). Defeasible reasoning with variable degrees of justification. Artificial Intelligence, 133(1–2), 233–282.10.1016/S0004-3702(01)00145-X
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pospesel, H. (2000). Introduction to propositional logic (3rd ed.). London: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Pospesel, H. (2003). Introduction to predicate logic (2nd ed.). London: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (2001). Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (2011). Facilitated modelling in strategy development: Measuring the impact, of communication, consensus and commitment. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(5), 879–887.10.1057/jors.2010.78
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sample, J. A. (1984). Nominal group technique: An alternative to brainstorming. Journal of Extension, 22(2). Retrieved August 26, 2016, from https://joe.org/joe/1984march/iw2.php/site_urlcontact-joe-article.php
   Google Scholar
• Segerberg, K., Meyer, J. J., & Kracht, M. (2016). The logic of action. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (fall 2016 edition), forthcoming. Retrieved August 27, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2016/entries/logic-deontic/
   Google Scholar
• Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., & McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes in computer-mediated communications. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37(2), 157–187.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simons, H. W. (1990). The rhetorical turn: Invention and persuasion in the conduct of inquiry. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226759036.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Smith, R. (2016). Aristotle’s logic. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (spring 2016 edition). Retrieved August 20, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/aristotle-logic/
   Google Scholar
• Soetman, A. (2013). Logic in law: Remarks on logic and rationality in normative reasoning, especially as it relates to the law (Vol. 6). Dordecht: Springer Science+Business Media.
   Google Scholar
• Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2011). Reasoning, logic, and psychology. Wires Cognitive Science, 2(5), 555–567.10.1002/wcs.134
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stenning, K., & van Lambalgen, M. (2012). Human reasoning and cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511557842
   Google Scholar
• Susskind, R., & Susskind, D. (2015). The future of the professions: How technology will transform the work of human experts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tate, G. (1995). Soft systems methodology – A process view. In M. Lee, B.-Z. Barta, & P. Juliff (Eds.), Software quality and productivity: Theory, practice, education and training (pp. 156–161). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, W. (1983). Critical heuristics of social planning: A new approach to practical philosophy. Bern: Haupt.
   Google Scholar
• Ulrich, W. (2007). Philosophy for professionals: Towards critical pragmatism. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(8), 1109–1113.10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602336
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ulrich, W. (2016). Philosophy for professionals: Towards critical pragmatism. Revised version of 20 March 2016. Reflections on critical pragmatism, part 7. Ulrich’s bimonthly, March–April 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Walton, D. N. (2007). Dialog theory for critical argumentation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/cvs.5
   Google Scholar
• Weber, E., Wouters, D., & Meheus, J. (2014). Logic, reasoning, and rationality. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-017-9011-6
   Google Scholar
• Weber, M. (1987). Decision making with incomplete information. European Journal of Operational Research, 28(1), 44–57.10.1016/0377-2217(87)90168-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wenstøp, F. (2005). Mindsets, rationality and emotion in multi-criteria decision analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 13, 161–172.10.1002/(ISSN)1099-1360
   Google Scholar
• Wenstøp, F. (2010). Operations research and ethics: Development trends 1996-2009. International Transactions in Operational Research, 17, 413–426.10.1111/itor.2010.17.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wooldridge, M., & Parsons, S. (2000). On the use of logic in negotiation. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Agent Communication Languages, Barcelona, Spain.
   Google Scholar
• Zadeh, L. A. (1983). The role of fuzzy logic in the management of uncertainty in expert systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 11(1–3), 199–227.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar