Strategic Options Development and Analysis - Essay Example

Executive Report on SODA /Cognitive Mapping Methodology for strategy Formulation and organizational Problem solving Introduction Numerous operational research practitioners are conscious of cognitive mapping as an operational research method that is helpful in solving organizational problems even though just a few may have applied it. Cognitive mapping is a modeling method that is founded on two-D directed graphs of nodes comprising of text that are connected together as a map. Through this a model is established to represent the problem space by a series of interconnected maps (Berente et al, 2010). This method is embedded within Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) methodology. SODA was initially developed over thirty years ago by the United Kingdom Operational Research community to help in strategic decision making. Scholars have defined the SODA methodology as an outline for developing problem solving intervention employing cognitive mapping. In this report, we will discuss how SODA/cognitive mapping methodology are useful for strategy formulation and organizational problem solving. Assumptions and theory behind SODA/cognitive mapping In literature, the word cognition has been defined in different ways which are applicable in diverse situations. In this report, cognition will be used to refer to belief systems, or metal models, which are used by individuals to frame, interpret, simplify or solve complex problems. Variously, these mental models are denoted as cognitive maps and reference frames. Cognitive maps are embedded within Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) methodology. They are constructed from past practices and encompass internally represented relationships and concepts and are thereafter employed by persons in interpreting new events. The theory behind this is that, decision makers have a partial capability for processing information which is useful while solving complex problems for example innovation. As a result decision makers are incapable of processing all the vital information required to solve the same. Cognitive maps as a result assist decision makers in selecting information and in deciding on what measures are suitable (Coopey et al, 1997). Therefore, as put forth by scholars, cognitive maps are significance in shaping the decisions of an organization. However, the extent of their application is determined by the socio-political context and the capability of these cognitive maps to influence and organizations decisions. The SODA/cognitive mapping methodology are built on various assumptions. One of these assumption which is deemed as very fundamental is that organization politics and power lie at the center of decision making and problem solving (Eden, 1998; Clegg, 1989; Clegg et al, 2006). This methodology agrees on the aspects that aspirations are disputed, there exists conflicts and the top management usually compete for the limited resources provided for by the organization. As a result, action plans requires to be implemented or the way forward to be negotiated upon (Eden, 2001). Essentially, it is not the optimal way forward that is pursued, but that which the team is willing to agree upon and commit to. In order to achieve cognitive commitment to the action plan, there should be development of shared understanding among the participants and emotional commitment through participation in the workshop process (Eden, 1992). Furthermore, SODA methodology assumes that, every stakeholder has a subjective perception of the predicament based on the persons experience and knowledge (Eden, 2001). In order to share these diverse views, the stakeholders have to communicate them among themselves. In actual fact, this implies that, as opinions are represented in a map, the team members have to discuss their different ideas. Through this, the facilitator can take advantage and encourage the group members to debate about the model and therefore bring about shared agreement by allowing the team members to gradually change their minds (Dahl, 1957). Therefore, a SODA workshop necessitates modeling the problem by the use of cognitive mapping, employment of mapping software and the presence of a team facilitator who will manage the group process. The nature of cognitive mapping, oval mapping and causal mapping and any differences between them Cognitive maps simply are a method used to develop as well as accumulate the spatial knowledge to help reduce the cognitive load, enhance recall as well as the learning of information. This kind of thinking could also be used like a symbol in non-spatial tasks, whereby people performing such kind of tasks involving imaging and memory apply spatial knowledge to help them accomplish their tasks (Darke et al, 1998) These maps have been studied in various disciplines which include; urban planning, cartography, planning, architecture, management, psychology, landscape architecture, education, archaeology, conspiracy theories as well as geography. Cognitive mapping entails the different processes that are used to sense, store, decode, encode as well as use the acquired information. Oval mapping is a technique that helps people to work out the notions surrounding an issue. With this technique one can choose to either use the formal methodology or simply use the informal methodology. Oval mapping typical uses are negotiating, generating a strategy as well as discovering how the ideas could be used together. The technique implies that by placing the ideas on their appropriate place and adding the required link to them, the participants are able to generate a common understanding of the main issues of concern (Gohler, 2009). Causal mapping is all about the identification of the cause and the effect relations of the market natural development as well as its key factors. The causal mapping technique was gotten from systems theory and they are used to remove the natural hindrances to market growth. Advantages, disadvantages, problems and issues with cognitive mapping, causal mapping and oval mapping The advantages of cognitive of mapping include; it is an application of both the quantitative and qualitative measures of analysis, it allows for both collective and individual thinking of the social element of the business relationship value, and it gives a deeper understanding of the main business relationship value as well as the conceptualization based on this knowledge. The issues, problems and disadvantages of cognitive mapping include; communication problems, assessing the nature and scope of the problems inaccurately and the tendency to ignore the broader issues in the organization (Elmes et al, 2005; Keen, 1981) The advantages of causal mapping are; they are simple to apply both at single and multiple locations and it is possible to build a network from any angle using the causal maps. On the other hand the disadvantages, issue and problems include; the possibility of developing a complex model and that with their use there is no need for structured approach to construct a network. The advantage of oval mapping is that it allows for a group of people to use their ideas in solving certain issues surrounding them. Advantages, disadvantages, problems and issues with the SODA methodology SODA methodology has various advantages which include: the team members themselves offer the concept, and this ensures that all concepts are pertinent. This implies that, persons can entirely produce different maps for similar problem domain. Moreover in SODA methodology, the concepts put forth are bipolar for example; they do not adopt new systems, but rather continue with the existing ones (Davenport & Leitch, 2005). Similar to repertory grids, concepts in SODA methodology can be clustered statistically. Furthermore, SODA methodology is supported by COPE (computer software) which helps to build, modify and perform different statistical analysis of the map. COPE has the capability of aggregating maps thus ensuring that maps are produced for stakeholders groups. This group map highlights individual shared beliefs and also points out those which are idiosynchratic and is applied in facilitating decision making, problem solving and strategy formulation. However, SODA methodology disadvantages, problems and issues of concern. The fact that SODA assumes the organization politics and power lie at the center of decision making and problem solving is a fundamental issue. The application of SODA/Cognitive mapping to both strategy formulation and organizational problem solving SODA methodology as a cognitive mapping technique has been applied in organizations to deal with various organizational matters including problem solving and strategy formulation. Cognitive mapping aims at offering an instrument for revealing individuals subjective beliefs in an eloquent manner so that they can be examined both by the persons for whom the map is built and other persons and groups (Hodgson, 2002). The subsequent cognitive map hopes to depict the most significant beliefs of the concerned stakeholders. Through this, valuable knowledge possibly remain hidden is entered into the problem solving or strategy formulation. As a result, stakeholders are encouraged to reflect on the understanding of the problem concerned (Luck et al, 2006). Moreover, cognitive mapping techniques allow stakeholders to look at maps that have been built by other decision makers in order for them to understand and employ alternative views on the problem. However crude, this insight into the way other persons are thinking regarding the problem can inspire negotiation and assist in reducing conflicts in an organization. In addition, this insight helps the stakeholders to formulate strategies that are helpful in the running of an organization. A characteristic of cognitive mapping technique is that it allows the externalization of knowledge in visual-spatial layout which is thereafter open for critical consideration (Orssato and Clegg, 1999). This allows for the objectification and discussion of subjective knowledge in a less threatening manner than direct questioning. Therefore, if used as the problem solving process unfolds, cognitive mapping methods may assist in the management of the process. It is apparent that, mapping techniques employ different methodologies to elicit from a person main concepts and linkages among concepts and to build a map for that person. Thus, differences among persons may be revealed and expectantly understood. Some techniques even integrate maps from different persons into a composite map which represents the groups’ beliefs. This is significant in that beliefs which are shared by stakeholders have more potential of influencing the strategic direct of an organization (Marshall, 2006). This means that, the decision making group is very likely of formulating strategies that are of significance to a firm. Range of applicability of SODA/Cognitive mapping It is apparent that SODA/cognitive mapping can be applied by an organization in diverse areas. Some of these areas which have been discussed in this report are strategy formulation and problem solving. Referring to the above discussed application it is true to say that cognitive mapping and SODA methodology is useful in solving all types of organizational problems. This is evidenced by the fact that it allows for collective and individual thinking of the social element of the organizational relationship value. Specially, it is deemed that through mapping and thus making explicit the cognitive processes of individuals, through successive discussion, stakeholders may insight and understanding of the problem as viewed by others which should result in all the team members gaining a shared understanding of the nature of the problem, and of the requirements for which would assist better aspects of the problem (Smeijsters and Aasgaard, 2005). Cognitive mapping is designed to support decision makers in dealing with the complexity and interdependency inherent in many organizational problem situations (Eden, 2001). IMAGINERY MAPPING DIAGRAM Goals Improve level of service Organizational representation Strategy formulation Open local offices to centralize services Potential Greater delegation of authority options Follow current management initiatives References Berente, N., Gal, N. and Yoo, Y. 2010, Dressage, Control, and Enterprise Systems: The Case of NASA’s Full Cost Initiative. European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 19, pp. 21-34. Clegg, S.R. 1989, Frameworks of Power, Sage Publications, London. Clegg, S.R., Courpasson, D., and Phillips, N. 2006, Power and Organizations. Sage Publications, London. Coopey, J., Keegan, O., and Elmer, N. 1997, Manager’s Innovations as ‘Sense making’. British Journal of Management, Vol. 8, pp. 301-318. Dahl, R.A. 1957, The Concept of Power. Behavioral Science, Vol. 20, pp. 201-215. Darke, P., Shanks, G. and Broadbent, M. 1998, Successfully Completing Case Study Research: Combining Rigour, Relevance and Pragmatism. Information Systems Journal, Vol. 8, pp. 273-289. Davenport, S. and Leitch, S. 2005, Circuits of Power in Practice: Strategic Ambiguity as Delegation of Authority. Organization Studies Online First, September, pp. 1-21. Eden CL 1992, A Framework for Thinking about GDSSs. Group Decision and Negotiation 1: 199-218. Eden CL and Ackermann F 2001, SODA – The Principles. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited 2001. Wiley: Chicheste Eden CL and Ackermann F. 1998, Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. London, Sage Publications. Eden, C. 1992, On the nature of cognitive maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 261-265. Eden, C. 2004, Analyzing Cognitive Maps to Help Structure Issues or Problems. European Journal of Operational Research, 159(2004): 673-686  Elmes, M.B., Strong, D.M., and Volkoff, O. 2005, Panoptic Empowerment and Reflective Conformity in Enterprise Systems-Enabled Organizations. Information and Organization, Vol. 15, pp. 1-37. Gohler, G. 2009,‘Power to’ and ‘Power over’. Chapter 1 in Clegg, S.R. and Haugaard, M. (2009) The Sage Handbook of Power, Sage Publications, London. Hodgson, D. 2002, Disciplining the Professional: The Case of Project Management. Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 39, Issue 6, pp. 803-821. Keen, P.G.W. 1981, Information Systems and Organizational Change. Communications of the ACM, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 24-33. Luck, L., Jackson, D. and Usher, K. 2006 "Case Study: A Bridge Across the Paradigms", Nursing Inquiry, 13(2): 103-109. Lyles, M. & Schwenk, C.R. 1992, Top management strategy and organizational knowledge structures. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 155-174 Marshall, N. 2006, Understanding Power in Project Settings. Chapter 11 in Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. 2006, Making Projects Critical. Palgrave McMillan, Houndmills. Orssato, R.J. and Clegg, S.R. 1999, The Political Ecology of Organizations. Organization and Environment, Vol. 12, No. 3, September, pp. 263-279. Smeijsters, H and Aasgaard, T. 2005, "Qualitative Case Study Research" in B.L. Wheeler (ed.) Music Therapy Research, 2nd ed. Barcelona Publishers, Gilsum, NH. Read More