Experiences of mixed method OR Practitioners: moving beyond a technical focus to insights relating to modelling teams

References

• Ackermann, F. (2015). Teaching soft OR methods: What, why and how? In The Wiley encyclopaedia of operations research and management science (pp. 1–9). Wiley.
   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(3), 796–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.09.034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (1996). Horses for courses”: A stakeholder approach to the evaluation of GDSSs. Group Decision and Negotiation, 5(4–6), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404647
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2004). Use of soft OR models by clients - what do they want from them? In M. Pidd (Ed), Systems modelling: Theory and practice (pp. 146–163). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Espinosa, A., & Duquq, C. (2018). Complexity management and multi-scale governance: A case study in an Amazonian indigenous association. EJOR, 268(3), 1006–1020.
   Google Scholar
• Fildes, R., & Ranyard, J. C. (1997). Success and survival of operational research – A review. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(4), 336–360. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600389
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco, L. A., & Greiffenhagen, C. (2018). Making OR practice visible: Using ethnomethodology to analyse facilitated modelling workshops. European Journal of Operational Research, 265(2), 673–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.08.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco, L. A., & Hamalainen, R. P. (2016). Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 791–795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.10.034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco, L. A., & Lord, E. (2011). Understanding multi-methodology: Evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions. Omega, 39(3), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2010.06.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• Hamalainen, R. P., Luoma, J., & Saarinen, E. (2013). On the importance of behavioural operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamics systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 228(3), 623–634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henao, F., & Franco, L. A. (2016). Unpacking multi-methodology: Impacts of a community development intervention. European Journal of Operational Research, 253(3), 681–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.02.044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howick, S., & Ackermann, F. (2011). Mixing OR methods in practice: Past, present and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 215(3), 503–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.03.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howick, S., Ackermann, F., Walls, L., Quigley, J., & Houghton, T. (2017). Learning from mixed OR method practice: The NINES case study. Omega, 69, 70–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2016.08.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, M. C. (1999). Towards coherent pluralism in management science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600661
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keys, P. (2000). Creativity, design and style in MS/OR. Omega, 28(3), 303–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(99)00055-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1995). A Procedural Justice Model of Strategic Decision Making. Organization Science, 6(1), 44–61. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.1.44
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirby, M. W. (2003). Operational research in war and peace: The British experience from the 1930s to 1970. Imperial College Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kotiadis, K., & Mingers, J. (2006). Combining PSMs with hard OR methods: The philosophical and practical challenges. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7), 856–867. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Marttunen, M., Lienert, J., & Belton, V. (2017). Structuring Problems for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in practice: A literature review of method combinations. European Journal of Operational Research, 263(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.04.041
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Midgley, G., Cavana, R. Y., Brocklesby, J., Foote, J. L., Wood, D. R., & Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. (2013). Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 229(1), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.01.047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Mingers, J. (2000). Variety is the spice of life: Combining soft and hard OR/MS methods. International Transactions in Operational Research, 7(6), 673–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-3995.2000.tb00224.x
   Google Scholar
• Mingers, J. (2001). Multi-methodology: Mixing and matching methods. In J. Rosenhead & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited (pp. 289–309). Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Mingers, J. (2003). A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(6), 559–570. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601436
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multi-methodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega, 25(5), 489–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(97)00018-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell, G. (1993). The practice of operational research. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, J. S., Howick, S., & Belton, V. (2017). A toolkit of designs for mixing discrete event simulation and system dynamics. European Journal of Operational Research, 257(3), 907–918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2016.08.016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Munro, I., & Mingers, J. (2002). The use of multi-methodology in practice: Results of a survey of practitioners. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(4), 369–378. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601331
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Myllyviita, T., Hujala, T., Kangas, A., Eyvindson, K., Sironen, S., Leskinen, P., & Kurttila, M. (2014). Mixing methods – assessment of potential benefits for natural resources planning. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 29(sup 1), 20–29.
   Google Scholar
• Nabli, H., & Chahdoura, S. (2015). Algebraic simplex initialization combined with the Nonfeasible basis method. European Journal of Operational Research, 245, 384–391.
   Google Scholar
• O’Keefe, R. (1989). The implications of cognitive-style findings for operational research. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 40(5), 415–422.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J. (2008). The transformation competence perspective. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(11), 1435–1448. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602482
   Web of Science ®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(8), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.78
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J. (2014b). OR Competences: The demands of problem structuring methods. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 2(3-4), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-013-0021-6
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4rth ed.). Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Pidd, M. (2003). Tools for thinking: Modelling in management science. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Pollack, J. (2009). Multi-methodology in series and parallel: Strategic planning using hard and soft OR. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(2), 156–167. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602538
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santos, S., Belton, V., Howick, S., & Pilkington, M. (2018). Measuring organisational performance using a mix of OR methods. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 131, 18–30.
   Google Scholar
• Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms: The case of paradigm interplay in organisational culture studies. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 529–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Small, A., & Wainwright, D. (2014). SSM and technology management: Developing multimethodology through practice, EJOR, 233(3), 660–673.
   Google Scholar
• Tomlinson, R., & Idama, A. (1986). The personality of OR workers – Are they different? Journal of the Operational Research Society, 37, 1039–1045.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Velez-Castiblanco, J., Brocklesby, J., & Midgley, G. (2016). Boundary games: How teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of intervention. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 968–982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, L. (2016). Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 827–841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.032
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, L., Burger, K., & Yearworth, M. (2016). Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 983–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.07.044
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, T. M. (2008). Management science in practice. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, Z. (2011). After paradigm: Why mixing-methodology theorising fails and how to make it work again. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(4), 784–798. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2010.31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar