Evaluating Soft Approaches Used in Strategy Development and Planning by Mohammad Ali Jaafar

Evaluating
Soft Approaches
Used in Strategy
Development and
Planning
Mohammad Ali Jaafar, PhD Systems Mgmt. and Complexity

Overview
O The paper introduces and evaluates six soft
approaches used in strategy development
and planning.
O These are the SWOT analysis, the Future
Workshop, the Scenario methodology,
Strategic Option Development and Analysis,
Strategic Choice Approach and Soft Systems
Methodology.

O Evaluations of each methodology are carried
out using a conceptual framework where:
 the organization, the result, the process and
the technology of the specific approach are
taken into consideration.
 The conceptual framework for evaluations of
soft approaches increases the
understanding of them, their transparency,
and their usability in practice.

What is Strategy Development
and Planning?
O According to Mintzberg (1998) strategy
development and planning in an organization is
understood, as a process in which strategy is
developed through synthesis, creativity and a
holistic approach, while planning is an analytical
activity where tasks are decomposed into
activities.
Therefore,
O In other words planning begins with strategic
thinking where strategies are identified and
formulated and later interpreted, analyzed and
transformed into detailed plans

How this Process became a
Learning Process?
O According to Ackoff (1974), this understanding of
strategy development and planning is the same
as ‘interactive planning’ principles.
Therefore:
O SD& P is seen as a dynamic, interactive process
built upon principles of participation of
individuals in the organization, coordination of
various problem situations, integration of all
levels in the organization, and continuous
planning, leading to Learning Process.

Methods used to Support
SD&P
O There exist several soft OR methodologies to be used
in problem structuring, strategy development,
planning and problem solving (Rosenhead, 1996;
Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001).
But,
O They have highly different ways of technically and
methodologically addressing this task.
Therefore,
O a comparison and evaluation framework is needed,
to choose the methodologies that give the most
suitable support to a specific problematic situation.

The Six Soft Approaches
Selected:

The Conceptual Framework
O Ackoff (1974) has formulated the process of SD&P through the four
principles of interactive planning :
 Participation which means, that planning has value in terms of both the
process it initiates and creates and the results of the plan.
 Coordination which means, that planning is built upon the idea that
messy problem situations needs to be addressed through holistic vision,
where the interaction between problem situations becomes more
important than describing concrete actions.
 Integration which means, that planning must take place on every level in
the organization and this planning must be coordinated. More over short-
term goals must be coordinated with long term goals and actions of
strategic planning.
 Continuity which means, that planning cannot be seen as a static act but,
plans must be re-evaluated, updated and changed continuously to
address the ever changing world and the uncertainties of the future.

Methods and Methodologies
According to Borges (1997):
O Planning Methods:
directions on how a ’good’ decision should be taken?
 They are steps that can be seen as a tools for
solving a certain task or problem.
O Planning Methodologies:
directions on how decisions are taken?
 seeks to structure and support an uncertain,
undefined problem situation.
We use the term Approach that include both methods
and methodologies.

Soft Approaches Versus Traditional
OR methods: A General outline
O According to Rosenhead and Mingers (2001),
the fundamental characteristics of soft OR
are as follows:
Soft Approaches Traditional OR methods
problem structuring problem solving
operate non-linearly through a dynamic process linear way of working
designed for use in groups of humans with different background used by experts
use mathematics in limited terms use hard mathematics
focus on supporting evaluations
more than representing
evaluations
process product oriented
Flexibility of applying Inflexible in applying

1. SWOT analysis
O Description:
 Identify the organization's internal strengths
and weaknesses and its external options and
threats.
 Evaluate and prioritize different points
identified and then place them in the SWOT
matrix.
 analyze and/or implement the strategy or
strategies that seem(s) most relevant from the
four types of strategies.

SWOT Matrix:

2. The Future Workshop
O Objective:
It is established to focus on a specific problematic
situation, generate visions about the future and
discuss how these visions can be realized.
Participants of the workshop share the same
problem, and have a wish to change the situation.
O Process:
Future Workshop does not use a specific model. It
primarily focuses on the problem solving process.
O Note that carrying out the workshop requires a
planner who is a facilitator.

Future Workshop Five Phases:
O Preparation Phase: the overall purpose of creating
the necessary frames for the workshop. (ex. finding
location of workshop, participants, getting pens..etc.)
O Critical Phase: each of the members of the workshop
describe and criticizes the problem.
O Fantasy Phase: positive solutions & suggestions are
formulated & critical items and themes are changed
into positive statements, visions.
O Realistic Phase: critical problem areas and positive
solutions are compared with the options and
limitations of reality to form realistic strategies. Then
presented to decision makers.
O Follow-up Phase: the process itself is evaluated as
well as the new situation.

3. Scenario Methodology
O Scenario is a description of a likely future as well as
the corresponding actions or ways that lead to this
future.
O The purposes of the usage of scenarios in strategy
development and planning are:
 to find and identify priority problems (key variables)
for the organization by looking at relations between
variables in the areas of focus.
 to determine the central actors and their strategies
as well as resources and means to make a
successful project.
 to describe (in scenarios) the development of a
certain system in focus by taking into account the
most likely developmental trends of the key variables
and to look on the different actors’ influence.

Two Aspects of the Scenario
Methodology
O The Problem Structuring:
In the problem structuring the following two areas are
considered:
 Approaches for describing the system in focus using
either the inductive or deductive principle.
 Inductive principle implies looking at the system and its
parts, it’s fundamental factors and their functions and
relations are analyzed. From this picture, alternative
scenarios are constructed.
 Deductive principle also analyses the whole system but
decomposition is not performed, more over, it uses
concluding as a tool and it requires a large number of
factors to describe alternative futures.

 Approaches that can take care of the dynamics of
the system in focus by applying the anticipatory or
explanatory principle.
 Anticipatory approach starts with forecasting
certain future picture of the system as it would be
the most desirable picture. Then to finding the
possible ways leading from the specific future
picture to the known present situation.
 Explanatory approach, the present situation is
investigated under different sets of trends and
assumptions giving a range of different future
pictures of the system in focus.
Aspects of the Scenario
Methodology (continued):

Methodological Aspects of
Scenario Methodology
There are two schools of thought behind the scenario
methodology: the American school building on
quantitatively oriented methods, and the French school
based on more informal ways of handling the situation in a
mixture of methods and methodologies.
In either case, the scenario methodology is based on a
combination of steps:
 investigating the system (organization or problem area)
 investigating the environment surrounding the system
 investigating historical trends and the present situation
 identifying key variables,
 Constructing scenarios and alternative strategies.

4. Strategic Option Decision and
Analysis (SODA)
SODA is a way of working with a group of people and a technique
for constructing cognitive maps of how people perceive and think
about a problematic situation.
SODA is made up by a number of concepts and theories:
 That each individual perceives the world subjectively.
 That the organization is made up by processes and
negotiations more than structures.
 That the planner’s function is defined as being supportive in
the above mentioned negotiation processes so decisions can
be reached through consensus and agreements not through
demonstrations of power.
 That the primary tool or technique used is cognitive maps were
participants try to understand different ways of thinking and to
involve all partners to redefine the problem perceptions and
form ground for commitment and consensus decisions.

Process of (SODA)
The process of SODA can be outlined as follows:
 Individual problem construction where each individual of the group
is interviewed about the problem situation and cognitive maps are
created.
 Individual problem acknowledgement where maps are analyzed
and each map is presented for the individuals again for discussion
and acceptance. Some times another interview can be carried out.
 Group redefining the situation, which involve that a merged map is
created based on the individual maps. The merged map includes
perceptions of all individuals and in this way it represents all the
members of the group. Through the merged map, they can
commonly redefine the problem situation.
 Group consensus on a number of strategies where a negotiation
process has been carried out based on the redefined problem
situation, and solutions are found. It is assumed that consensus
and engagement lies behind the sequence of strategies being the
visible results of SODA.

5. Strategic Choice Approach
SCA can be characterized as a planning methodology that
focuses on dealing with the uncertainty of problematic
situations and decisions.
In SCA the planning process is divided into four modes:
 Shaping. In the shaping mode, the decision areas and
problem focus is decided upon.
 Designing. The most urgent decision areas are now
analyzed in terms of different decision options and their
interconnectedness.
 Comparing. Different criteria or comparison areas are now
discussed to find out about the requirements for the
strategies to construct.
 Choosing. For the combinations of decision options that
look most promising, considerations to uncertainties of
different types are made.

6. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
O According to Checkland (2001) Soft systems
methodology (SSM) is an approach to
organizational process modeling and it can be
used both for general problem solving and in
the management of change.
O It acknowledges that individuals have
subjective views on the problematic situation
(their world views) and through a learning
system, they are learning about the problem,
acknowledging others’ views, comparing, and
finding ways (strategies) to improve the
situation.

Checkland (SSM) Diagram

O Even though the six approaches are based
on the same fundamental purpose of
supporting learning processes and
developing strategies, they are quite
different in terms of their support in specific
problematic situations. Therefore, an
evaluation framework can be used.
O The framework addresses the principles of
Ackoff’s interactive planning and therefore
directs the learning process of strategy
development and planning
Evaluation Framework

Overview of the dimensions of an approach
(based on Friend and Hickling, 2005)

Diamond and Dimensions
The diamond symbolizes that the dimensions are
biased and cannot be evaluated alone. The four
dimensions can be defined as:
 The Process: The process’ focuses on how time is
used most efficiently and if the group individuals
goes through the necessary considerations in terms
of reaching the wanted results of applying the
approach.
 The Product: According to Ackoff’s principles,
looking at strategy development and planning with
the views lying in, it is clear that, products of
strategy development and planning can be obtained
at different levels; in terms of substance and in
terms of processes.

Classification of Products

Dimensions (cont.)
 The Organization: The third dimension describes
how the work for strategy development and
planning is organized. This includes looking at the
individuals and their way of being involved in the
process.
 The Technology: The last dimension, the
technology, refers to the ‘tools’ or techniques used
in the process, i.e., the special structuring and
perhaps programming tools such as pencils and
software programmes. An evaluation of these tools
and techniques is important because of their
influence on the process and the individuals’
possibility to understand the process and its
results.

Evaluation of the Approaches

Evaluation of the Approaches (cont.)

Evaluation Results
When comparing the approaches, we should take into
consideration that:
The characterization of being soft approaches is
dependent on the way they are applied both by the
planner and the involved participants. Viewing objectively
on the descriptions of their way of working, they if have
focus on supporting a learning process, on visible results
of substance, can be applied individually or in groups,
uses various technologies, and require a planner who
must be an expert but also can be a facilitator.
 the SWOT analysis and the scenario methodology are
close to traditional planning and OR. Both approaches
are in terms of background and the linear way of
working not necessarily supported by a group process.

Evaluation Results (cont.)
 The future workshop is on the other hand far
from the traditional OR planning methods. The
future workshop supports a learning process for
the individuals participating. Moreover It is
assumed that all individuals participate without
any power relations implicating the situation.
 SODA support also a group process however
more indirectly by focusing on the individuals
and gathering their opinions on the problematic
situation before a real workshop is carried out.
SODA supports a learning process and gives
products in all four categories

 SCA has a very analytical way of working with the
problematic situation and developing strategies.
Anyhow, the SCA supports a learning process by
changing between different ways of working and
the cyclic view on the process.
 SSM is a classical example on a soft approach.
Through its cyclic way of working and the
acknowledgement that problems are never solved
but must be monitored and dealt with almost
continuously, it deals with future uncertainties in
the way that decisions are never definitive but
can and must be changed all the time.
Evaluation Results (cont.)

Conclusions
 The evaluation shows that the six soft
approaches are different in terms of the
dimensions specified above and, in their
way of supporting the learning processes of
strategy development and planning.
 Whether more suitable solutions are found
using these kinds of approaches can be
discussed only in terms of the context in
which they are applied.

 No matter which approach is chosen, it will be
perceived in different ways leaving parts of the
problem situation unsolved or outside the scope of
the methodology.
 However, rational, conscious actions are not
enough, experience, intuition, creativity, and
subjectivity are other ingredients needed in the
process.
 Practice has shown that, after some applications
the learning process will develop into a situation
where the group does not need a facilitator any
longer and it has developed its own methodology
on the basis of their experiences.
Conclusions

References
 Ackoff, R.L. (1974): Redesigning the Future – A Systems
Approach to Societal Problems. John Wiley & Sons, New
York.
 Borges, P., Sørensen, L. and Vidal, R.V.V. (1997):
Strategy, Planning, Multicriteria. Why? How? For what?
The Institute of Mathematical Modelling, The Technical
University of Denmark, Lyngby.
 Mintzberg, H., Ahlstrand, B. and Lampel, J. (1998):
Strategy Safari: a Guided Tour Through the Wilds of
Strategic Management. The Free Press, NY.
 Rosenhead, J. (1996): What’s the Problem? An
Introduction to Problem Structuring Methods
 Sørensen, L. T., & Valqui Vidal, R. V. (2008). Evaluating
six soft approaches. Economic Analysis Working Papers,
7(9).

Evaluating Soft Approaches Used in Strategy Development and Planning by Mohammad Ali Jaafar

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Evaluating Soft Approaches Used in Strategy Development and Planning by Mohammad Ali Jaafar (20)

More from Mohammad Ali Jaafar (12)

Recently uploaded (20)

Evaluating Soft Approaches Used in Strategy Development and Planning by Mohammad Ali Jaafar