European Journal of Operational Research 249 (2016) 796–805

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor

The what, the why and the how of behavioural operational research—An
invitation to potential sceptics
John Brocklesby∗
Victoria University, Victoria Management School, Rutherford House, Box 600, Wellington, New Zealand

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Primarily this paper addresses those members of the OR community who remain unconvinced that widening
Received 14 December 2014 the Behavioural Operational Research agenda beyond decision behaviour modelling to encompass research
Accepted 18 September 2015
on the modelling process itself, is a desirable and/or necessary step for the parent discipline to take. Using
Available online 28 September 2015
a process perspective that emphasises human activity and the temporal evolution of OR projects, the paper
Keywords: shows that the appeal of this particular strand of BOR lies in its ability to strengthen the bridge between
Behavioural operational research academic OR and its professional practice in which the human and social challenges can be just as important
OR process as the intellectual and technical ones. In so doing, this wider remit for BOR better positions practitioners to
Behavioural science and OR reduce the reliance that they currently have on apprenticeship and the gradual accumulation of craft skills in
Social science and OR meeting the various challenges that they face. An immediate priority outlined in this paper is for academic
and practitioner authors to turn further in the direction of relevant theory in an attempt to communicate
process understandings of OR interventions through the literature that better resonate with experience.
© 2015 Elsevier B.V. and Association of European Operational Research Societies (EURO) within the
International Federation of Operational Research Societies (IFORS). All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
‘Behavioural Operational Research’ (‘BOR’ hereafter) is positioned
as a new area of specialisation that is interested in aspects of be-
haviour that are deemed to be relevant to the use of OR in problem
solving and decision support. The espoused aim is to provide a bet-
ter understanding of how these affect the conduct of, and interac-
tion with, model-based processes that support problem solving and
decision-making. Whilst recognising that for some time behavioural
issues have been studied by particular OR communities the claim is
that more such research is needed to sustain the overall purpose of
BOR which is: “ . . . to make better use of OR by both experts and users,
so that the intended benefits of OR are effectively realized in practice”
(Franco & Hämäläinen, 2014).
While this paper seeks to be of interest to a wider audience, its
main aim is to appeal to those from the mainstream mathemat-
ical modelling community who might be wondering why BOR is
now attracting so much attention. The motivation for offering this
commentary reflects a belief that broadening the current footprint
that BOR has in the parent discipline not only offers tangible bene-
fits to those who may not have engaged with it previously, but can
also expedite its shift from OR’s periphery to a position closer to
its central core. For some time OR researchers have sought to better
∗
Tel.: +64 212435136; Fax: +64 4 471 2200.
E-mail address: john.brocklesby@vuw.ac.nz
understand some of the less rational aspects of human decision mak-
ing; they have also examined how human behaviours intersect with
the technical aspects of the regularly recurring problem situations
that attract so much OR attention. The current agenda, however, fore-
shadows extending BOR’s jurisdiction to include research on the myr-
iad of human/social forces that initiate the use of OR in the first place,
that influence what components of OR are used, how they are used
and for what purpose, and, as a result of all of this, largely determine
the overall outcomes. The critic might claim that focusing on these
kinds of issues is not a central concern for the discipline, and/or that
when they arise in professional practice they are best left in the ca-
pable hands of clients, decision makers, change agents, OD experts,
professional managers and anyone else who for example, might be
responsible for implementation. In response it is worth remember-
ing that long standing debates have sought to impress upon the OR
community the need to better align the largely technical agendas
pursued by the academic wing of the core discipline with the client-
oriented nature of its professional practice; the argument being that
a prolonged imbalance between the two is detrimental to the longer
term sustainability of the discipline (see, for example, Ackoff, 1979;
Checkland, 1989; Dando & Bennett, 1981).
In order to demonstrate why BOR is important, it is first neces-
sary to be clear about what it is. Here, the paper takes a deliberately
broad view that covers the long standing interest that OR has had
in adding behavioural components to models, as well as the more
recent interest in examining the human and social influences that

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.09.034
0377-2217/© 2015 Elsevier B.V. and Association of European Operational Research Societies (EURO) within the International Federation of Operational Research Societies (IFORS).
All rights reserved.
 J. Brocklesby / European Journal of Operational Research 249 (2016) 796–805
intersect with the modelling process. As Franco and Rouwette (2014)
note, this distinction between models and modelling can be taken
to reflect the long standing ontological conundrum of whether re-
ality is best understood as an aggregation of noun/objects or, as
verb/processes. Here however, I am using the idea of process in a less
philosophically sophisticated manner. Essentially it is to indicate that
instead of seeing OR practice as a discrete analytical/technical event
carried out by one or more analysts, it is better to think of it as a wider
set of iteratively linked activities that occur over time, and which of-
ten involves a range of other actors including clients, decision mak-
ers and various other stakeholders. It is suggested that this is where
many of professional OR’s human and behavioural complications and
challenges originate.
In covering the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ of BOR it makes sense to also
ask the ‘how’ question. Looking at how something is done, in this case
how BOR is currently configured, is very much defining of what it is.
Beyond that, looking at the gaps in its provision and thinking about
how these might best be plugged could hold the key to convincing
the critics that what is proposed is beneficial.
The structure of the paper is as follows. It begins by taking a quick
look at the aforementioned distinction between research that inves-
tigates the human behaviours that pertain to specific OR phenom-
ena, and that which is more interested in how human behaviours in-
tersect with the process of modelling. Both of these aspects, which
are nicely captured through Robinson’s (2014) distinction between
research that ‘models behaviour’ and research on ‘behaviour with mod-
els’, sit comfortably with the view that BOR is: “ . . . the study of be-
havioural aspects related to the use of operational research methods in
modelling, problem solving and decision support.” (Hämäläinen, Luoma,
& Saarinen, 2013:623). As I have already indicated, academic OR has
had a sustained interest in the former aspect primarily in a quest to
help managers better problem solve and provide effective decision
support. The paper takes this to signify its general acceptance, and
for that reason only a short commentary is provided at the begin-
ning. The main purpose is to flesh out the distinction between the
two categories and to provide some illustrations.
In coming up with an argument for more research on the sec-
ond aspect, i.e. the human and social aspects of the OR process, the
most strident opponent might first want to know why any such re-
search is necessary. Since OR’s historical constitution, and its strong
connection with the philosophy of objectivist science and its meth-
ods of inquiry would almost certainly crop up as part of such an
argument, these aspects are outlined next. Following that, in illus-
trating how human particularities mediate the relationship between
abstract models and their application and outcomes in concrete set-
tings, participants’ biases and predispositions and the social dynam-
ics that circumscribe their involvement in projects are singled out
for attention. This part of paper pieces together and elaborates upon
views that have been expressed about OR for some time, so while
they are not new, they are central to the case for BOR.
In the final ‘how’ section, the paper argues that much can be done
in both the logical-positivist and interpretive BOR research paradigms
to make it a more attractive proposition. Particular attention is paid
to the need for more theoretically informed accounts of the human
and social aspects of modelling interventions, and the role that so-
cial scientists, OR academics, and most importantly, OR practitioners
themselves might play in this.
2. The what: from modelling behaviour to the behaviour of
modelling
2.1. The two basic ‘types’ of BOR
In very simple terms what here is referred to as ‘type 1’ BOR,
involves building human behaviour, particularly so-called ‘non-
rational’ behaviour, into models. The origins of this can be traced
797
back to Simon’s (1947) seminal work on the behavioural and
cognitive processes of human decision making, and later on,
Kahneman and Tversky’s (1973) work on decision biases and heuris-
tics. Extending this, OR has long been interested in understanding
how behavioural factors such as weight judgements impact upon
decision making (see, for example, Ho, Xiaowei, & Prasanta, 2010;
Liu, H. & G. Wang, 2007). In similar vein, OR scholars have sought to
capture, model, and simulate a range of human behaviours that arise
alongside OR’s recurring problems. The decision ‘games’ that people
play in the well-known ‘beer game’ (Sterman, 1988; Strozzi, Bosch, &
Zaldivar, 2007), their ‘stopping behaviour’ in the ‘secretary’ or ‘fi-
ance’ problem (Corbin, 1980; Seale, 1997), and their interactions in
queuing theory (Squazzoni & Boero, 2005) are good examples of this.
Even though BOR is described as a relatively new area of special-
ization, this type of behavioural research has generated literally hun-
dreds of published articles, including several EJOR special issues (see,
for example, Bisdorf, R. & G. Lundberg, 2007). For that reason there is
little need to press its case further. If there remains opposition, which
I doubt, then it is too late; the horse has well and truly bolted.
‘Type 2’ BOR, i.e. research that is interested in the behavioural as-
pects of modelling is an entirely different proposition; it is newer,
there is less of it, and since there are aspects of it that do not sit too
comfortably with some of the understandings, traditions and cultures
of OR, its case needs to be laid out and more persuasively argued.
2.2. The case against
It is generally agreed that OR originated out of the attachment
of mathematically astute scientists to support the efforts of military
planners during World War II. From there the discipline has spread
its wings across all sectors of the public, private, manufacturing, and
service economies. Subsequent developments highlighting the man-
ifest inability of optimizing methods to cope with ‘messy’ or ‘wicked’
ill-defined problem situations ushered in a range of what are now
known as ‘soft OR’ non-mathematical methods that target areas such
as strategic planning as well as problem structuring more generally
(see, for example, Checkland, 1981; Rosenhead, 1989; Eden, 1989;
Friend, 1989). Fundamentally though, OR is mainly about using math-
ematical models to promote supposedly rational decision-making
and optimize system design. From an applied mathematics skill base,
this is achieved using a ‘scientific method’ model of practice that, in
a nutshell, and through controlled experimentation, involves testing
hypotheses about the nature and strength of relationships between
entities in a manner that leads to repeatable results and generalis-
able theory.
Although it is hard to escape the essential fact that OR is some-
thing that is done by particular human beings, a critic of BOR might
want to debate how much significance one might want to attach to
this aspect. Witness for example, constitutional documents such as
the historically significant US Operations Research Society’s ‘Guide-
lines for the Practice of OR’ (Berger et al., 1971; see also Mason, 1994).
Its portrayal of the emotionally detached and inter-changeable ana-
lyst working diligently to establish the essential ‘facts’ of the situa-
tion, to build models with scientific precision and then to ‘objectively’
evaluate the range of possible solutions, surely implies that providing
the analyst has the requisite skills, it does not overly matter who, how
and where they are involved (for discussions on this, see Checkland,
1981; Rosenhead, 1989). On this account of OR, the case against BOR
might simply be that it is an unnecessary distraction and that the
discipline would be better advised to continue developing and fine-
tuning the undoubtedly impressive and very often highly effective
technical weaponry upon which its reputation has been built.
2.3. From models to the process of using them
Integral to the case being made here to better integrate the
human, social, and technical aspects of OR is to think about
798 J. Brocklesby / European Journal of Operational Research 249 (2016) 796–805

it in process terms. What this means however, is subject to vary- 1989); between the ‘technical’ and the ‘social’ (Keys, 1998), and be-
ing interpretations and, as a result, there are varying degrees of tween the ‘intellectual’ aspects and the ‘action’ ones (Lesourne, 1990).
difficulty attached to doing it. As was alluded to in the introduc- What is new here, is the proposition that a well conceived, well orga-
tion, if this is taken to reflect the perennial philosophical question nized, and appropriately researched and reported-on BOR, might at
of whether ontological primacy is accorded to either substance or last allow the parent discipline to start making some real progress in
process it can be a complicated matter and certainly shifting from dealing with these issues.
the former, which is our normal everyday way of relating to our
circumstances, to the latter, can be an intensely personal transition 3. The why: OR as a situated human activity process
that some will undoubtedly be unwilling to take. Certainly in the
academic world, such a shift has been shown to have major ram- 3.1. On ‘the logic of the situation’
ifications for research, theory development, and indeed for prac-
In technical OR, the idea that a regularly recurring problem situ-
tice, as debates in other disciplines: organisation studies, strate-
ation can have a ‘logic’ of its own that can succumb to standardized
gic management, operations management, psychotherapy, to name
analytical and modelling techniques is not only intuitively compelling
but a few, have shown lately (see, for example: Carter, Clegg, &
but, in part correct; there are indeed many areas of intersection when
Kornberger, 2008; Jarzabkowsi, 2004; Langley, 2007; Pettigrew, 1997;
a particular problem keeps cropping up on a regular basis. Yet expe-
Efran, Lukens & Lukens, 1990). In passing, it is worth noting that
rienced practitioners also know that while OR algorithms are formu-
Franco and Rouwette (2014) have recently categorised different ap-
lated on the basis of aggregating the results of repeated operations,
proaches to BOR on this basis.
this does not mean that ostensibly similar situations can be addressed
In the current context however, ‘thinking process’ does not have
in a uniform manner; situations almost always contain some degree
to be overly complicated. It simply involves focussing on the dy-
of novelty which means that individual unique solutions often have
namic aspects of organisational and professional life and consider-
to be found that are adapted to the particular problem and setting,
ing how and why ‘things’ – contexts, activities, practices, strategies –
and not least, as some have rightly argued (see, for example Midgley,
change and evolve over time. This is not difficult: thinking about OR
2000), to the needs of the particular people involved. In OR, even
in such terms is an almost inevitable conclusion that one would draw
seemingly straightforward product mix and other related problems
through even a cursory glance at its practice. Rarely does OR’s in-
in linear and goal programming cannot be appropriately and effec-
volvement result in decisions being made or actions taken through
tively addressed without striking up a decent relationship with the
some one-point-in-time snapshot ‘measurement’ of a problem situa-
client, and possibly other stakeholders, in order to tailor the model to
tion, akin in science for example, to the way in which a seismograph
their needs and the specific situation at hand (Mabin & Davies, 2003).
might measure the intensity and magnitude of an earthquake, or the
Indeed for the client, it can be as much his/her unique requirements
triple-beam balance might measure the mass of an object. As many
and the ‘content details’ of a situation that makes it problematic as
have pointed out (Boothroyd, 1978; Tomlinson & Kiss, 1984; Mason,
it is the form that makes it general (Checkland, 1989; Pidd, 2010). As
1994; Little, 1994; Pidd, 1996; Wallace, 1994; Ormerod, 2010), OR is
such it is the ‘to-ing and fro-ing’ human processes of working these
not like this; it is almost always an iterative sequence of analysis, for-
aspects through that is often critical to the success of the entire ven-
mulation, decisions and actions that is inextricably tied to the inter-
ture. To the extent that BOR is interested in this aspect of practical OR
actions of real people, to particular events, and to evolving contexts.
clearly speaks to its relevance.
In other words it is a process where the activity – modelling – cap-
Even if there is sufficient similarity across situations to imply that
tures just as much, if not more about what is important and what
there might be something of a ‘situation logic’ that can produce com-
really matters, as does the ‘object’ or ‘entity’ – model.
mon outcomes, BOR sends the message that practical OR always oc-
While thinking about OR in these terms inevitably forces consid-
curs in the context of human meanings so what actually happens still
eration of how human agency intersects with and operates on OR’s
depends upon the significance that people attach to the situation as it
models, it does not undermine the pivotal role these play in defining
evolves through time. What arises as salient and in need of urgent at-
the discipline for what it is. If there are no models and/or no tools
tention in one situation, or at one point in time, can easily go unseen,
for measurement, and if there is no analysis that aspires to be objec-
non-prioritised and not acted upon elsewhere, or even later in the
tive, or decisions that aspire to be rational, then what we are observ-
same situation. Even if recognised and acted upon, the response still
ing is undoubtedly something else, perhaps action research, manage-
depends upon people’s worldviews, their personal agendas and/or
ment or systems science. But without these things one would be hard
those of the host organisation. It surely follows that OR’s problems,
pushed to say that it is OR.
its problem formulations, and therefore its problem solutions are in-
All that is being said here is what most practitioners will already
extricably part of a human process.
know, namely that focusing exclusively on the technical aspects of
OR cannot account for the fundamental nature of its practice; nor 3.2. On predispositions and biases
can it foreshadow the many human, social and organisational chal-
lenges that crop up on a regular basis. Making some sense of these, The notion that human particularities can have a significant im-
which is really all BOR seeks to do, and signalling ways of alleviat- pact on outcomes, stands in stark contrast to the traditional view of
ing their worst excesses can only be done by studying the situation- OR, which as Tomlinson (1998:404) points out, was often thought
specific interaction between the models and associated technology about as being to “ . . . discover the truth, to present that truth to the
on the one hand, and the human/social processes and organisational decision-maker . . . (and) that the OR analyst had to remain scientific,
context in which they are used on the other. So while the discipline objective and separate.” (Tomlinson, 1998:404). On this account, the
of OR is quite justifiably rooted in the natural and mathematical sci- analyst is taken to be a “universalistic, ahistorical, acultural, disembod-
ences, its professional practice inescapably also places it as a disci- ied anyone” (Mingers, 1997:427; see also: Taket, 1994; Taket & White,
pline of the behavioural and social sciences. The caveat is that this 1993), and not, in any way, as a particular someone.
is not some new revelation; whole conferences have been devoted While the analyst can clearly aspire to deal with the situation in
to the topic (Lawrence, 1966; Jackson, Keys & Cropper, 1989), and for the sort of dispassionate arms-length manner about which Tomlin-
decades writers have often warned of dangerous ‘imbalances’ in OR, son speaks, accomplishing this in practice is by no means easy. Why
for example between its ‘solution’ and ‘client-oriented’ aspects (Eden, would the OR community want to believe otherwise? In modelling
1989); between the ‘knowledge discovery’ motivations of the analyst decision making behaviour the discipline has had a long-term inter-
and wider purposeful ‘human intentions’ of managers (Checkland, est in the role played by human biases, heuristics, perceptions of risk,
 J. Brocklesby / European Journal of Operational Research 249 (2016) 796–805
and so on. On that basis alone it would surely be anomalous to believe
that the agent, or anyone else, can engage in a project in a manner
akin to an ‘objective’ scientist entering a laboratory, or even follow-
ing some framework (see, for example, Jackson & Keys, 1984; Mingers
and Brocklesby, 1996) that some might mistakenly interpret as pro-
viding a set of rules for dealing with particular kinds of situations in
particular ways.
In OR, Churchman (1971) is generally recognised as being the
first to highlight the tacit ‘positioning’ that influences how people
frame problems; how they make decisions about who will be in-
volved and how they will be involved; about what technology will
be used and how will it be used; about what variables will, and will
not be included in the model (see also Brocklesby, 1995a; Brocklesby
and Cummings, 1995b; Carrier & Wallace, 1994; Wilby, 1997). BOR
can provide a context for further investigating the impact of these
kinds of enabling and constraining predispositions, as well as their
origins which in most cases are likely to arise through some combina-
tion of educational, training, and professional socialisation processes,
and even personal characteristics such as age, personality, gender and
ethnicity.
None of this is to say that the analyst or any of those involved ar-
rive at a situation with a ‘hard-wired’ set of predispositions, merely
that there is no such thing as a ‘clean slate’. Neither is it to say that
participants are incapable of reflecting upon how their predisposi-
tions translate into what are now often referred to as ‘boundary judg-
ments’ (Ulrich, 1982; Midgley, Munro, & Brown, 1998). It is to say
however that nullifying the worst excesses of one’s positioning is not
easy. The analyst can certainly have some awareness of their biases
and predispositions and genuinely make an effort to proceed in as
objective a manner as possible. However since it is clients or key de-
cision makers who initiate the OR work in the first place, it is they
who determine the broad parameters within which the work is car-
ried out, if not necessarily the finer outcome details. As Eden (1989)
points out ‘success’ in OR terms is not measured through the varacity
or elegance of technical solutions; what counts is how OR is practiced
in the meaningful context in which it occurs. ‘Factual analyses’ then,
have to confront personal and organisational biases and prejudices
and not all scientific approaches pass the quality test of practical ap-
plicability and usefulness (see also Bardmann, 1996; Keys, 1989, 1991,
1998; Mingers, 2001; White & Taket, 1994). Considered purely from
an intellectual perspective an OR project can be a great success, but if
clients/decision makers do not see it that way, it will almost certainly
fail to gain traction.
Under these circumstances it would be erroneous to suggest that
professional OR practice could ever be entirely conducted in an objec-
tive manner that is akin to the scientist’s dispassionate search for ‘the
facts’, under an ethic of truth and for the general good. This squarely
ties the ethical concerns of BOR to daily OR practice. When OR is
largely thought about as depersonalised knowledge discovery in sup-
port of rational decision making about situations that have a singular
logic, the agent is relieved of the ethical imperative to take an appro-
priate share of responsibility for outcomes. Under the conception of
OR provided here there is no such relief.
3.3. On interactions and relationships
Although the biases and predispositions that the various parties
bring to OR may mean that certain choices have already been made
and some options effectively already either ruled in or out, the
substantive character of a project is invariably shaped by the social
dynamics of the situation as the process unfolds through time.
Indeed in Soft OR where key stakeholders work collectively to reach
accommodation and a common view on how to proceed, this is the
whole point of the exercise. While Soft OR’s organised and purpose-
ful interactions are usually less evident in technical OR, its social
dynamics can be just as pivotal in determining the shape, content
799
and success of the project. Using the central idea that practical OR
(and organisations more generally) is more ‘negotiated order’ than an
embodiment of a unifying purpose or single rationality respectively,
Eden (1989) claims that the success of OR depends upon the ability of
the analyst to understand the nature of this order and to continually
negotiate and ‘manage meanings’ such that any ‘objective analysis’
that does take place is considered relevant by the key players.
The extent to which social dynamics exert themselves in a project
is, of course, highly contingent. In all likelihood, even though person-
ality clashes, communication difficulties and power plays can radi-
cally alter the shape of any project, if the analyst is working alone
modelling a regularly recurring situation according to some per-
ceived standard procedure, the overall effect will likely be much less
than when teams of analysts and other actors are involved in less
structured and more drawn-out investigations. In situations such as
these, while initial predispositions may constrain the range of possi-
bilities, what actually happens will depend upon an evolving ‘present’
as people interact, as experiences are reflected upon, and as actions
are negotiated or determined by key decision makers. Often these
interactions can be a highly positive thing, shared experiences and
opinions leading to better decisions through the process and better
outcomes beyond it. However negative tensions in social interaction,
personality clashes and irreconcilable opinions on what needs to be
done can also seriously undermine the process. Delving beneath ob-
servable behaviours the sometimes explicit but often more subtle and
less visible manner in which power relations shape all aspects of the
process can also be pivotal in determining outcomes.
Not only does this client-focused and social process perspective
on OR speak to the relevance of BOR, but it also has major ramifi-
cations for its research agenda. And while it would be reasonable to
claim that the ‘softer’ regions of OR have always thought about in-
terventions in these terms, advocating, for example, that streams of
‘political’ and ‘cultural’ analyses be conducted alongside the ‘logic-
based’ (see, for example, Checkland & Scholes, 1990), there is a world
of difference between doing this to facilitate the accommodation of
diverse viewpoints in a particular setting, and doing it as a part of a
wider BOR project to develop a better all-round social science of OR
practice.
4. The how: research options, challenges and future directions
In outlining this process perspective on OR, the writer is hopeful
that, in principle at least, the sceptic is now beginning to better ap-
preciate the role that BOR might play not only in drawing together
existing work that has been done on the human and social aspects
of OR, but also charting a more orderly course for the future that will
bring it from the periphery of the parent discipline to a position closer
to its central core. From there it will be better placed to have a real
impact on professional practice. ‘In principle’ approval however, does
not necessarily translate into support, so in order to press the case
further some consideration must be given to the challenges and dif-
ficulties that, in the eyes of the critic, might prevent what appears to
be a decent enough idea from delivering on its promise.
4.1. The vast disciplinary and methodological landscapes of the
behavioural and social sciences
Foremost amongst the difficulties facing BOR in developing a
strong behavioural/social science of OR, is the challenge of priori-
tising amongst a seemingly unlimited set of possibilities. These
possibilities cover different levels of analysis each one of which
opens up multiple potential strands of research with a commensu-
rate number of logical connections to other disciplines and fields of
study. For example, research propositions formulated from economic
and political perspectives can help to better elucidate some of the
macro-level constraints on OR practice. Systems theory, while strictly
800 J. Brocklesby / European Journal of Operational Research 249 (2016) 796–805
speaking not a social science, has plenty to say about human and so-
cial processes, and it is potentially useful for understanding how the
self-organising tendencies of OR contexts are enabling or constrain-
ing whatever the analyst is seeking to accomplish. Social psychology
has a vast body of empirical knowledge and theory that specifically
bears upon the social and organisational dynamics that, as we have
suggested, characterise, colour and shape particular interventions.
As we can deduce from OR’s past work in behaviour modelling, at
finer levels of granularity, cognitive and decision science, as well
as psychology more generally, can help in exploring the individual
cognitive biases and decision processes of those involved in the
process. Moreover, neuro-scientific researchers are now exploiting
the capabilities of sophisticated imaging technology to observe
patterns of brain activation as individuals make choices thereby
allowing some, admittedly tentative, conclusions to be drawn about
what might underlie observed behaviour (see, for example, Naqvi,
Shiv, & Bechara, 2006; Rilling & Sanfey, 2011).
While disciplinary connections such as these provide a rich source
of knowledge that bears upon the BOR project, different sets of prin-
ciples exist about how research questions should be formulated, in-
vestigations conducted, data analysed, and findings written up. Ul-
timately many of these differences can be traced back to various
paradigm-related assumptions that are made about the nature of re-
ality, about what constitutes ‘valid’ knowledge, and about how these
assumptions translate into different forms of ‘research praxis’ (for a
BOR perspective on this, see Franco & Rouwette, 2014). Here however,
the discussion is going to avoid the intellectual minefield that in-
evitably characterises paradigm-related debate and instead just con-
centrate on what are most likely to be the main methodological op-
tions that BOR researchers will draw upon. These provide a basis for
thinking about where the key gaps in current BOR provision lie and
what might be done to plug them.
4.2. Logical-positivism
Understandably, since it aligns well with OR’s traditional scien-
tific grounding, research conducted in the so-called logical-positivist
tradition has been the most widely used approach in BOR thus far.
Hence the basic praxis of logical-positivism is well understood: for-
mulate hypotheses, test these empirically and then develop theory
that specifies the directionality and strength of interactions between
two or more entities.
Franco and Hämäläinen (2014) specifically highlight the need for
more of this type of research; speaking, for example, of research that
examines the effect of individual and group behavioural character-
istics on model-based interactions. Amongst other possibilities one
could include research that examines the impact of age, gender, eth-
nicity, and organisational and cultural variables on various OR pro-
cesses and outcomes. A project along these lines might simply inves-
tigate the impact of one variable on another; alternatively so-called
‘complexity’ studies (Franco & Rouwette, 2014) can use sophisticated
mathematical and simulation modelling to explain more complex in-
teractions and their dynamic consequences across a wider range of
variables.
Generally speaking the expertise that is required to conduct these
kinds of investigations aligns well with that used in OR’s behaviour
modelling outlined earlier, so capability does not immediately arise
as a critical issue. Since the possibilities are vast however, a critic
might want to know more about how BOR will go about prioritizing
from among the myriad of opportunities that exist for this type of re-
search. This is a very good question that the BOR community will have
to address. One logical priority is to construct relevant frameworks
that can organise, provide bridges across, and integrate the findings of
different research projects. Franco and Rouwette’s (2014) ‘two by two’
matrix that identifies four basic types of BOR characterised accord-
ing to the underlying ontology of the research on the one-hand, and
‘variance’ versus ‘socio-material’ research on the other, provides a
useful starting point. More needs to be done however; compared with
cognate disciplines such as behavioural accounting and behavioural
economics (see, for example, Birnberg, 2011; Wilkinson, 2008) this
aspect of BOR is relatively under-developed. Without frameworks
that are capable of organizing and making things coherent, the whole
exercise could easily turn into a highly fragmented and disconnected
set of projects and individual agendas with little cross-project learn-
ing and no shared vision for future research directions. One way of
thinking about this might to suggest that BOR needs some plausi-
ble and useful ‘jigsaw puzzles’ in order to fit and connect the vari-
ous ‘pieces’. Without these, the BOR research agenda runs the risk
of being developed in an ad hoc fashion as and when researchers re-
spond to specific behavioural conundrums that, from time to time,
get thrown up from within OR’s various specialisms. This is unlikely
to enhance the standing of BOR in the parent discipline.
4.3. The interpretivist alternative
Longer term, developing BOR through a coherent logical-positivist
research agenda can deliver a corpus of evidence-based knowledge
that has the potential to assist practitioners in foreshadowing some
of the human/social challenges that they might face out in the field.
The caveat however is that developing useful knowledge of this sort is
not easy; indeed causal explanation of human/social behaviour is no-
toriously difficult, especially when it requires disentangling multiple
behavioural interactions. Relatedly, since the generalizable proposi-
tions of this form of research are formulated out of the aggregated
results of large data populations, and are typically limited to a small
number of variables, they are not always going to be applicable under
particular circumstances where the overall behavioural ‘outcome’ is
both complex and emergent.
Generally speaking, when the analyst is looking to successfully
navigate a route through the often convoluted stages of a project,
their engagement is not with particular ‘types’ of people who can be
relied upon to act in a stereotypical manner; rather it is with real peo-
ple whose response to events and circumstances will reflect whatever
meaning they attach to the situation at hand. So while variance the-
ories are very good at identifying and measuring general patterns of
relationships between, for example, personal characteristics and be-
havioural outcomes, they do not tell us much about how, in particular
situations, these patterns come to be. And this matters because, in the
often messy reality of professional OR, understanding the often com-
plex process steps that are required to achieve particular results with
real people, is what really counts.
Despite their lack of generalizability, compared with the relatively
‘thin’ representations of the OR process provided by variance-type
research, projects that incorporate narrative, interpretive and qual-
itative data are more immediately appealing for the ‘thick’ or ‘rich’
process detail that they provide. In placing situational specifics and
human meanings at the forefront of investigation, this kind of re-
search generally adopts observational and ethnographic-type meth-
ods. Where such research is conducted with a particular theory in
mind, this is much more about providing a language and a set of con-
cepts that allows people to look at, grasp, represent, and generate
insight into complex phenomena and particular situations (Abend,
2008; Midgley, 1998), than it is about testing the relationships be-
tween or the dynamic consequences of interacting variables. This is
surely important in professional OR. Indeed knowing how to look at,
think about, and grasp the novelty and complexity of situations, and
as a result, act in a manner that will maximise the chances of a project
being successful in the context where it occurs, will often be a much
more pressing requirement than striving to cobble together and in-
tegrate the insights of a vast array of cause-effect theories in a vain
attempt to figure out ‘what might be going on.
 J. Brocklesby / European Journal of Operational Research 249 (2016) 796–805
4.4. Reporting on OR interventions
At this point the yet-to-be-convinced critic of BOR might want
to argue that the many published case accounts of OR interventions
provides sufficient evidence that a distinctive interpretive form of re-
search and reporting already exists, and that nothing more needs to
be done. But does it? As has been said, the social aspects of the OR
process can be pivotal in determining outcomes, so this immediately
raises questions about the relevance of the typical intervention ac-
count which: “. . . is deliberately centred upon the individual and hence
is limited in that it has not given sufficient attention to the way ana-
lysts act as part of wider social groups and the influence that these may
have upon them……” (Keys, 2000:311). Adding to the chorus of crit-
icism, Franco and Rouwette (2011) consider the typical intervention
account that merely highlights the context, rationale and chronology
of the intervention to be equally unenlightening. Examples cited by
these authors include Barcus and Montibeller (2008); Connell (2002);
Franco, Cushman, and Rosenhead (2004); Ormerod (1995); Vennix
et al. (1996). In the interests of consistency and fairness, case ac-
counts provided by Brocklesby (1995b); and Brocklesby and Cum-
mings (1996), are equally culpable, and can be added to the list.
Against this background, Ormerod’s (2014a) analysis of OR case re-
search published in the main OR journals makes for interesting read-
ing. The most common cases, it seems, mainly focus on the technical
aspects of the model used, less common ones report on why it was
used, and, even less commonly, there are those that report on out-
comes. While case reports such as these have their place, earlier the
lack of attention to social process, including the non-linear, iterative,
and often delicately negotiated aspects of the model-use-in-practice
prompted Ormerod (1998:428) to issue the plea that the discipline
desperately needs to “coax more practitioners with a good story to tell
into the open”. Echoing that theme, and borrowing a turn of phrase
from Watson (1994:778), my sense is that one of the key things that
BOR can do is to encourage researchers and/or practitioner authors
to produce a type of research, a reflexivity and a style of writing that
‘lets the audience see the puppet’s strings as they watch the puppet show’
(Watson, 1994:78). Whether the critic will consider this to be neces-
sary will I suppose depend upon his/her experiences. My own sense
is that in OR and similar interventions, the ‘strings’ are always ‘be-
ing pulled’, to some extent, somewhere, somehow and by, at least,
someone.
All of this raises the question as to why research/writing of this
sort is rarely seen in the OR literature. Most obviously some authors
may simply be blind to their own culpability in influencing outcomes
and cling to the view that what they do is an exercise in objectivist
science; hence they report on it using the accepted scientific conven-
tion of an observer-independent reality. If not, maybe they are co-
erced into such reporting at the behest of reviewers/journal editors.
Maybe it is because the journal guardians of the discipline’s reputa-
tion believe that publishing richer descriptions of interventions that
sheds light on its interpretive ambiguity, its ‘messiness’, its politics,
and the more-than-occasional failure of OR to have any sustained im-
pact, would destroy the image of a clear-cut heroic story of success.
Maybe it is just that the overall discourse of the literature has en-
couraged publishing OR researchers to deepen their training and per-
sonal investment in quantitative methods and statistical analysis; in
other words to stay in the comfort-zone of what they already know
rather than consider other approaches that may illuminate other as-
pects and be helpful from a practice point of view, but which require
a very different set of skills
For practitioner authors it may simply be that they lack the incli-
nation and/or the time to systematically investigate and report on the
intervention in this more discursive manner. Certainly compiling real
time diary notes that describe and reflect on the processual aspects
of a project adds significantly to the demands, especially for the sole
analyst who is concurrently working on a substantive technical issue,
801
often with limited resources and under severe time constraints.
Admittedly, once the writer is removed from the heat of the battle
the task becomes more manageable. But even then, for someone who
has been intensively engaged in all the twists and turns of a project
there is the problem of ‘sifting the wheat from the chaff’; and as
Ormerod (2014b:1254) rightly points out, much of what is interesting
about the dynamics of OR projects lies in the ‘discarded chaff’. This
resonates very strongly with the view, long held in philosophy,
that much of what is critically important about expert practice is
concealed in unrecognised ‘commonsense’ understandings (see, for
example, Dreyfuss, 1996; Merleau-Ponty, 1961; Varela, Thompson,
& Rosch, 1991). In an ideal world, this might signal the need for
BOR to engage the services of a dedicated social science-trained
‘outsiders’ who can work alongside analysts to record and make
sense of qualitative data as an intervention proceeds. Something
similar often happens in technology-mediated Soft OR interventions
that have separate content and process facilitation roles (see, Eden,
1989b). While this kind of approach is entirely possible for particular
BOR projects, it would not be feasible on a larger scale.
4.5. Turning to theory
From a BOR agenda-setting perspective, there is perhaps another
explanation as to why there are so few accounts of OR interventions
that communicate process understandings well in ways that resonate
with experience. Returning to the metaphor used earlier, if you want
to even begin to understand the various ‘puppet strings’ that surrep-
titiously direct social action, you need to know where to look. Therein
lies one of the main value propositions of good theory: it brings into
view that which otherwise remains out of sight, hidden away in the
background. For the practitioner, good theory at least generates an
awareness, if not a complete understanding of things; for the re-
searcher it delineates phenomena that can be investigated with an
eye on explanation. And OR is not exactly short of situations that need
to be better understood. Witness, for example, Peter Checkland, who
in response to questioning about how his conceptual modelling pro-
cess can promote accommodations among stakeholders with diver-
gent worldviews, admits that such “mysterious processes” are deliber-
ately obscured because “ . . . they defy description, let alone prescrip-
tion.” (Checkland & Stowell, 2012). Likewise Franco (2013), refers to
the micro-dynamics of facilitated model building interventions as a
“black box”. On these accounts the implied blindness may be as much
a theoretical and conceptual problem as it is an empirical one.
What advice then might be given to the OR academic or practi-
tioner who is a potential contributor to the BOR agenda, but is unsure
as to what aspects of process might be worth paying particular atten-
tion to, either through targeted research, or more commonly perhaps,
conducted in parallel with a substantive intervention. By now it ought
to be clear that for both scholarly and performative reasons it is vital
that OR be understood, not just in scientific/technical terms, but also
in the context of a broader set of theories and discourses from the be-
havioural and the social sciences. Both of these areas are critical to the
overall BOR agenda and both provide a rich source of potentially use-
ful conceptual and theoretical knowledge. There are important differ-
ences however. Generally speaking, whereas the core capability of the
behavioural sciences is to develop theory through controlled cause-
effect empirical investigation, that of the social sciences is to develop
frameworks and theories that provide a much broader window on,
and into, the unerringly complex processes of social systems. In that
regard, the social sciences are better equipped for the specific task
under discussion here. The caveat, issued particularly for social psy-
chology which has a foot in both the behavioural and social science
camps, is that the difference can be a matter of emphasis, and it is un-
doubtedly the case that both broad fields can provide concepts and a
language that can better illuminate the OR process, as well as advance
knowledge and develop theory through empirical methods.
802 J. Brocklesby / European Journal of Operational Research 249 (2016) 796–805
Because its predominantly positivist approach to empirical inves-
tigation is a continuation of what is taught in the natural sciences,
it is probably reasonable to conclude that many OR researchers will
initially have a greater natural affinity with the behavioural sciences
than they do with the social. Yet OR’s recent history reveals plenty of
scientifically-trained writers who have turned to the social sciences,
and social theories in particular: Habermas, Foucault, Marx, to name
but a few. Sometimes this has been to outline distinctive approaches
to OR, or raise questions about its practice; sometimes it has been
to provide greater clarity on the philosophical underpinnings of dif-
ferent OR research paradigms, and/or to integrate them within vari-
ous meta-level frameworks (Brocklesby & Cummings, 1996; Jackson,
1991, 1993; Mingers, 2001; Ormerod, 2008; Rosenhead & Thunhurst,
1982). Others have turned to the social sciences in order to tease out
the theoretical underpinnings of particular methodologies. The inter-
est of Checkland and Casar (1986) and Eden (1989), in Vickers’ notion
of the ‘Appreciative System’ and Kelly’s ‘Personal Construct Theory’
respectively, stand as good examples of this.
Despite such theoretical engagement, there are relatively few ex-
amples of work that use social science theory to frame and conduct
research on the modelling process. This stands in stark contrast to
cognate disciplines where there is now a long tradition of drawing
upon the social sciences in a quest to better understand professional
practice in the various contexts in which it occurs. In Accounting
for example, a ‘collective non-positivist enterprise’ (Baxter & Chua,
2003), has variously converged around ‘Naturalistic Research’, ‘Struc-
turation Theory’, ‘Institutional Theory’, as well as different ‘schools
of thought’ such as ‘Foucauldian’, and ‘Latourian’. Investigations have
explored a wide range of process-related phenomena: examples in-
clude the manner in which practice is constrained by the ‘habits of
mind’ of its exponents, the different rationalities of practice and the
ways in which these are enacted and given meaning, the receptive-
ness to and potency of particular techniques in particular contexts
and the role that accounting practices play in buttressing organiza-
tional power relations (see, Hopwood, 1983; Boland & Tenkasi, 1995;
Baxter & Chua, 2003; Hopwood & Miller, 1994; Miller & O’Leary,
1987). As an aside, it is worth noting that these perspectives on Ac-
counting have also filtered through into the tertiary level teaching of
the subject which clearly links the conceptualization of professional
practice with its competency requirements. The paper returns to this
issue in the concluding section.
What then can be said about the few examples in OR that have
looked at its processes in similar ways. Here I highlight four contri-
butions. The first uses ‘Actor Network Theory’ to study the socially
constructed interpretations of multiple stakeholders in an OR inter-
vention concerned with the development of a regional biofuels in-
dustry (White, 2009). ‘Narrative analysis’ is used to reveal the hidden
patterns and themes of communication that characterise these net-
works. In this case, which broadly rehearses the conception of OR por-
trayed in Section 3, a storyline is developed that shows how networks
provide a mechanism through which the technical and social aspects
of OR become are inextricably interwined, as well as how they are
formed and how they can fall apart.
A second example uses Maturana’s ‘Theory of the Observer’
to analyse the processes through which senior executives worked
with analysts in re-modelling organisational structures in a national
telecommunications company (Brocklesby, 2009). The main theoret-
ical proposition here is that language and emotions are ‘braided’ each
one affecting the other in continually flowing conversations that be-
come the source of people’s rationalities and conceptions of actions
that are deemed to be ‘sensible’ or otherwise. In the case in ques-
tion, the early emergence of broad consensuality among a relatively
small and tightly knit group of people, and a strong ‘emotional flow’
in support of a particular course of action generated premature cog-
nitive closure in which key conversations became circular and self-
referential, each one solidifying a potentially dangerous commitment
to proceed in a particular direction that, had it not been curtailed
through Government intervention, could have led to major social
dislocation.
The third example draws upon Carlile’s work on organizational
knowledge management to examine the role played by OR’s mod-
els in drawing attention to some of the key barriers that can stand
in the way of successful collaboration (Franco, 2013). The theoretical
contribution here is to show that models are not static intervention
tools but play highly specific roles in the OR process. On this partic-
ular account, case vignettes, taken from facilitated model-building
workshops, are used to illustrate the different roles that models, as
‘boundary objects’, can play in developing shared language, shared
meaning, and shared commitment to action respectively. Depending
upon the context, different models have different ‘affordances’, or ca-
pabilities that facilitate or constrain the interaction that is necessary
for successful collaboration
These kinds of accounts of the modelling process are interesting
because they illustrate the distinctive insights generated by particu-
lar theories. By now one hopes that the sceptic will agree that these
kinds of insights are important, i.e. that networks, language, peoples’
emotions, and models with distinctive capabilities can play key roles
in the negotiation of meanings that can make or break OR interven-
tions. What is interesting though is that these papers were written
by OR academics all of whom have had a long standing interest in
its behavioural and/or its social aspects. So while it is eagerly antici-
pated that BOR will provide a context for more research of this type,
doubts remain about whether it is possible to build a sustainable new
sub-discipline purely around the interests and efforts of a few like-
minded scholars; others need to get involved.
This brings us to the fourth example. The case in question is
Ormerod’s (2014b) application of Pickering’s (1992, 1995) so called
‘sociology of science as practice and culture’ to reflect upon the devel-
opment of the National Coal Board (NCB) UK Energy Model in the
1970’s and 80’s. In short, Pickering conceptualizes scientific/technical
practice as a dynamic of intertwined elements that involves action
over time, the forward momentum of which arises out of the inter-
play of human, material, and cultural forces. While expressed in dif-
ferent terms all of this is consistent with the portrayal of OR through-
out this paper. Methodologically, the task facing the researcher is to
identify how these elements combine to initiate a project in the first
place, and then to examine how what is described as the ‘mangled’
intersection of people, technology, and concepts is adjusted as a re-
sult of problems being met, and/or change occurring in people, their
activities, new goals, new ideas, new technology and so on.
In terms of the argument being developed here the significance of
Ormerod’s contribution is less the specific theoretical aspect, rather
it is the manner in which this has been translated into some rela-
tively straightforward research and writing protocols that, irrespec-
tive of their area of specialization, are well within the capabilities of
most academic and practitioner OR professionals. Whereas the ap-
proach taken in the first three examples sits comfortably within the
BOR agenda, the investment and time required in getting to grips
with the theory, organizing the logistics of the research, designing the
methodology, collecting and analysing data is likely to be of interest
to and feasible for a relatively small number of researchers.
Ormerod’s approach however, which provides clear guidelines
such as writing up accounts of projects that describe the wider con-
text, that identifies the roles of the authors and other key actors, de-
scribes the managerial and technical processes and progress of the
intervention including ‘blind alleys’, and so on, is a much more fea-
sible proposition for a wider population. This is important, because
as Ormerod rightly points out, you can’t expect scientifically-trained
OR practitioners to fully immerse themselves in the complexities of
social theories just for the sake of writing a more informative case
study. In these aspects, his self-proclaimed ‘modest move’ towards
more theoretically-informed but experience-resonating work signals
 J. Brocklesby / European Journal of Operational Research 249 (2016) 796–805
very strongly a direction that BOR might now usefully extend to other
areas of the social sciences that offer a myriad of other lenses on the
OR process.
5. Conclusion
This paper set out to persuade critics that a research agenda
geared towards better understanding the human and social chal-
lenges that OR professionals face in their modelling work with organ-
isations is important not only to improve tangible outcomes but also
to dampen long-standing concerns that have been expressed about
the relationship between academic and professional OR. The argu-
ment has been that since the human and social challenges facing the
analyst can be just as important as the intellectual and technical ones,
any serious attempt to bridge the gap between academic and profes-
sional OR must surely be welcome.
From a practitioner perspective a successful BOR stands to pro-
vide a better understanding of the OR process thereby enhancing and
short-circuiting the knowledge of the human and social aspects of
modelling that currently mainly accumulates through practical ex-
perience. In OR there has always been an awareness that successful
practice requires the analyst to have good listening and communi-
cation skills, as well as be “adaptive, opportunistic, articulate and
sensitive to the political and social environment around him/her”
(Eden, 1989a:44). Influential figures have even suggested that the an-
alyst needs to be as much a ‘social therapist’ as a ‘scientist/engineer’
(Lesourne, 1989), and while literally this is not a realistic proposition,
there is more than a grain of truth to it. Getting clients to appreciate
the benefits of modelling, let alone getting them to commit to doing
it, and then making change happen, almost always involves engaging
people emotionally as well as logically. Maintaining credibility and
‘staying onside’ with different stakeholders might require the analyst
to ‘tread carefully’ and negotiate their way through difficult political
situations; making informed decisions about what method or combi-
nation of methods might best ‘fit’ in a particular intervention might
require as much consideration be given to the receptiveness of the
people involved to different approaches as it does to the perceived
needs of the situation under investigation. All of this is consistent
with the need to maintain a sensible balance between the technical
and the human/social in order to produce tangible results.
The promise of BOR is that in key respects it can help the OR pro-
fessional do these things. This may be through the direct application
of knowledge from particular BOR investigations or, more sustainably
perhaps, by influencing the core tertiary OR curriculum. The example
of how tertiary-level accounting training has incorporated insights
from behavioural accounting and other non-positivist research on its
human and social aspects is noteworthy. Thus far there have been no
compelling arguments to suggest that this has been to the detriment
of the profession; indeed in the light of the 2008–2009 global finan-
cial crisis the professional associations are demanding even more ed-
ucation and training on these aspects.
Appealing now to the less performative sensitivities of the critic,
BOR also holds out the promise that he/she will be better informed
and more empowered to reflect more widely on the meaning and
significance that they attach to their work. This is an inevitable con-
sequence of the key shift in thinking about the analyst role; once it is
understood in human as well as in technical terms its characterisa-
tion becomes much more contingent, situated, and value-laden than
simply being about promoting rational decision making including
the ‘sensible’ allocation of resources, and/or ‘clever’ systems design.
This does not mean that the analyst cannot at least aspire to continue
to do things largely in the spirit of the scientific method and retain,
where appropriate, their ability to think rationally, but it does mean
that they need to have some sensitivity in relation to how their
own positioning and that of others impacts upon outcomes, In that
regard there is a logical connection between BOR and the burgeoning
803
literature on the role of ethics in OR (see, for example, Barraba, 1994;
Brocklesby, 2009; Le Menestrel & Van Wassenhoven, 2004, 2009;
Ormerod & Ulrich, 2013; Wallace, 1994).
Finally the paper has signalled important priorities for both the
logical-positivist and the interpretive BOR paradigms. With regard to
the former, but with an eye on the complete BOR enterprise as well,
the paper has identified an urgent need for conceptual frameworks
to accommodate and organise different types of research along the
lines of the tentative steps in this direction that have already been
taken. For the latter the paper has shown that while traditional lin-
ear accounts of OR interventions can help to sketch out some of their
contextual and processual aspects, they rarely provide much insight
into the more nuanced human and social aspects, not least the inter-
pretations that participants attach to a situation that are so critical in
explaining how they respond to it. This is unfortunate because this is
where the greatest practitioner challenges often lie.
In addition to the wealth of knowledge in the behavioural and so-
cial sciences that can be usefully drawn upon, the paper has fore-
shadowed an important role for social theories in the BOR agenda
primarily because it provides the basic categories for understanding
phenomena that otherwise can go undetected or are deemed to be
too difficult to grasp. To date, social theory accounts of the OR process
are relatively few in number and there is great potential to for BOR to
provide the sort of context that is now quite common in the afore-
mentioned cognate disciplines and which, as has been said, is im-
pacting upon the training curriculum in these fields. Yet while these
social theory-informed accounts of OR are a necessary component of
the BOR agenda, doubts remain about whether they, in themselves,
will be sufficient to sustain it longer term. The fact is that grasping the
finer points of complex social theory can require a considerable com-
mitment, even for academics who are trained in the social sciences or,
as in the case of the few OR academics who write about social theory
in some manner or other, and have had a long standing interest in it.
Critical to the longer term sustainability of BOR however is the need
to bring it much closer to the central core of the parent discipline
than is currently the case. Since you cannot build a subdiscipline out
of the goodwill of outsiders the future of BOR cannot be left in the
hands of social scientists themselves; a minority might consider OR
to be an interesting object of inquiry, but this is not sustainable longer
term. This foreshadows an active role being played by not only by
social-theory minded academics from within the discipline, but also
by practitioner/authors. It is on that basis that the paper has outlined
the virtues of OR applications of social theories that translate the core
ideas into a form that is readily accessible to members of the wider
community who see the value of reflecting upon their practice from
new angles and sharing this with their colleagues.
References
Abend, G. (2008). The meaning of theory. Sociological Theory, 26(2), 173–199.
Ackoff, R. (1979). The future of operational research is past. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 30(2), 93–104.
Barabba, V. (1994). The role of models in managerial decision making- never say the
model says. In W. A. Wallace (Ed.), Ethics in modeling (pp. 145–160). Oxford: Else-
vier Science Ltd.
Barcus, A., & Monibeller, G. (2008). Supporting the allocation of software development
work in distributed teams with multi-criteria decision analysis. OMEGA - Interna-
tional Journal of Management Science, 36(3), 464–475.
Bardmann, T. M. (1996). Social work: ’profession without qualities’. Attempt to link
social work and cybernetics. Systems Research, 13(3), 205–214.
Baxter, J., & Chua, W. F. (2003). Alternative management accounting research - whence
and whither. Accounting Organizations and Society, 28(2-3), 97–126.
Berger, H., Caywood, T., Engel, J., Magee, J., Miser, H., & Thrall, R. (1971). Guidelines for
the practice of OR. Operations Research, 19, 1123–1148.
Birnberg, J. G. (2011). A proposed framework for behavioural accounting research. Be-
havioral Research in Accounting, 23(1), 1–43.
Bisdorf, R., & Lundberg, G. (2007). Human centred processes: towards a naturalistic
decision making paradigm. European Journal of Operational Research, 177(3), 1313–
1316.
Boland, R. J., & Tenkasi, R. V. (1995). Perspective making and perspective taking in com-
munities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372.
804 J. Brocklesby / European Journal of Operational Research 249 (2016) 796–805
Boothroyd, H. (1978). Articulate intervention: The interface of science, mathematics and
administration. London: Taylor and Francis.
Brocklesby, J. (1995a). Intervening in the cultural constitution of systems - comple-
mentarism and other visions of systems science. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 46, 1285–1298.
Brocklesby, J. (1995b). Using soft systems methodology to identify competence require-
ments in human resource management. International Journal of Manpower, 16(5/6),
70–84.
Brocklesby, J., & Cummings, S. (1996). Designing a viable organization structure. Inter-
national Journal of Strategic Management: Long Range Planning, 29(1), 49–57.
Brocklesby, J., & Cummings, S. (1996). Foucault plays Habermas: an alternative philo-
sophical underpinning for critical systems thinking. Journal of the Operational Re-
search Society, 47(July), 741–754.
Brocklesby, J. (2009). Ethics beyond the model: how social dynamics can interfere with
ethical practice in operational research/management science. OMEGA - Interna-
tional Journal of Management Science, 37, 1073–1082.
Carrier, H. D., & Wallace, W. A. (1994). An epistemological view of decision aid tech-
nology with emphasis on expert systems. In W. A. Wallace (Ed.), Ethics in modeling
(pp. 37–57). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Carter, C., Clegg, S., & Kornberger, M. (2008). Strategy as practice? Strategic Organization,
6(1), 83–99.
Checkland, P. (1989). OR and social science: fundamental thoughts. In M. C. Jackson,
P. Keys, & S. Cropper (Eds.), Operational research and the social sciences (pp. 35–41).
New York: Plenum Press.
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Checkland, P., & Casar, A. (1986). Vickers’ concept of an appreciative system: a systemic
account. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 13, 3–13.
Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Checkland, P., & Stowell, F. (2012). Interview with Peter Checkland. https://www.
youtube.com/watch?v=Pq90qS5FvBg
Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems. New York: Basic Books.
Connell, N. (2002). Evaluating soft OR: Some reflections on an apparently ‘unsuccessful’
implementation using a SSM approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society,
52(1), 150–160.
Corbin, R. M. (1980). The secretary problem as a model of choice. Journal of Mathemat-
ical Psychology, 21(1), 1–29.
Dando, M. R., & Bennett, P. (1981). A Kuhnian crisis in management science? Journal of
the Operational Research Society, 32(2), 91–104.
Dreyfus, H. L. (1996). The current relevance of Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology of em-
bodiment. In H. Haber, & G. Weiss (Eds.), Perspectives on embodiment (pp. 1–13).
New York and London: Routledge.
Eden, C. (1989a). Operational research as negotiation. In M. C. Jackson, P. Keys, &
S. Cropper (Eds.), Operational research and the social sciences (pp. 43–50). New York:
Plenum Press.
Eden, C. (1989b). Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and anal-
ysis (SODA). In J. Rosenhead (Ed.), Rational analysis for a problematic world (pp. 21–
42). London: John Wiley & Sons.
Efran, J., Lukens, M., & Lukens, R. (1990). Language, structure, and change - frameworks
of meaning in psychotherapy. New York: W.W.Norton and Co. Inc..
Franco, L. A., Cushman, M., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Project review and learning in the
UK construction industry: embedding a problem structuring method within a part-
nership context. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 586–601.
Franco, L. A. (2013). Rethinking soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects. Eu-
ropean Journal of Operational Research, 231(3), 720–733.
Franco, L. A., & Rouwette, E. A. (2011). Decision development in facilitated modelling
workshops. European Journal of Operational Research, 212(1), 164–178.
Franco, L. A., & Rouwette, E. A. (2014). A typology of behavioural OR studies. In Paper
presented at the conference of the International Federation of Operational Research
Societies.
Franco, L. A., & Hämäläinen, R. P. (2014). Call for papers: Special issue on behavioural
OR. http://bor.aalto.fi/ejor.html.
Friend, J. (1989). The strategic choice approach. In J. Rosenhead (Ed.), Rational analysis
for a problematic world (pp. 121–158). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Hämäläinen, R. P., Luoma, J., & Saarinen, E. (2013). On the importance of behavioural op-
erational research: the case of understanding and communicating about dynamic
systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 228(3), 623–634.
Hopwood, A. G., & Miller, P. (1994). Accounting as social and institutional practice. Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ho, W., Xiaowei, X., & Prasanta, K. D. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches
for supplier evaluation and selection: a literature review. European Journal of Oper-
ational Research, 202(1), 16–24.
Jackson, M., Keys, P., & Cropper, S. (1989). OR and the social sciences. New York: Plenum
Press.
Jackson, M. C. (1991). Systems methodology for the management sciences. New York and
London: Plenum Press.
Jackson, M. C., & Keys, P. (1984). Towards a system of system methodologies. Journal of
the Operational Research Society, 35(6), 473–486.
Jackson, M. C. (1993). Social theory and operational research practice. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 44(June), 563–578.
Jarzabkowski, P. (2004). Strategy as practice: Recursiveness, adaptation and practices-
in-use. Organization Studies, 25(4), 529–560.
Keys, P. (1989). Or as technology: some issues and implications. Journal of the Opera-
tional Research Society, 40, 753–759.
Keys, P. (1998). OR as technology revisited. Journal of the Operational Research Society,
49(2), 99–108.
Keys, P. (1991). Operational research in organisations: a metaphorical analysis. Journal
of the Operations Research Society, 42(6), 435–446.
Langley, A. (2007). Process thinking in strategic organization. Strategic Organization,
5(3), 271–282.
Lawrence, J. E. (1966). Operational research and the social sciences. London: Tavistock.
LeMenestral, M., & VanWassenhove, L. N. (2004). Ethics outside, within, or beyond OR
models? European Journal of Operational Research, 153, 477–484.
Lesourne, J. (1990). OR and the social sciences. Journal of the Operational Research Soci-
ety, 41(1), 1–7.
Liu, H., & Wang, G. (2007). Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on intuition-
istic fuzzy sets. European Journal of Operational Research, 179(1), 220–233.
Little, J. D. C. (1994). On model building. In W. A. Wallace (Ed.), Ethics in modeling
(pp. 167–182). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Mabin, V., & Davies, J. (2003). A framework for understanding the complementary na-
ture of TOC frames: insights from the product mix dilemma. International Journal
of Production Research, 41(4), 661–680.
Mason, R. O. (1994). Morality and models. In W. A. Wallace (Ed.), Ethics in modeling
(pp. 183–194). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Menestrel, M. Le&, & Van Wassenhove, L. (2009). Ethics in operations
research and management science: a never-ending effort to combine rigor
and passion. Omega - International Journal of Management Science, 37(6), 1039–
1043.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1961). Phenomenology of perception. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Midgley, G. (2000). Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice -
contemporary systems thinking. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Midgley, G., Munro, I., & Brown, M. (1998). The theory and practice of boundary cri-
tique: developing housing services for older people. Journal of the Operational Re-
search Society, 49, 467–478.
Midgley, G. (1998). Theory and practice in operational research. Journal of the Opera-
tional Research Society, 49(11), 1219–1220.
Miller, P., & O’Leary, T. (1987). Accounting and the construction of the governable per-
son. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(3), 235–265.
Mingers, J. (2001). The contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy
for OR/MS and systems. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51(11), 1256–
1270.
Mingers, J. (1997). Towards critical pluralism. In J. Mingers, & A. Gill (Eds.), Multi-
methodology: the theory and practice of combining management science methodolo-
gies (pp. 407–440). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1996). Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing
methodologies. Omega - International Journal of Management Science, 25(5), 489–
509.
Naqvi, N., Shiv, B., & Bechara, A. (2006). The role of emotion in decision making: a cog-
nitive neuroscience perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5),
260–264.
Ormerod, R. J. (1995). Putting soft OR methods to work: information systems strategy
development at Sainsbury’s. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(3), 277–
293.
Ormerod, R. J. (1998). Beyond internal OR groups. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 49(4), 420–429.
Ormerod, R. J. (2008). The history and ideas of Marxism: the relevance for OR. Journal
of the Operational Research Society, 59(12), 1573–1590.
Ormerod, R. J. (2010). Articulate intervention revisited. Journal of the Operational Re-
search Society, 61(7), 1078–1094.
Ormerod, R. J., & Ulrich, W. (2013). Operational research and ethics: a literature review.
European Journal of Operational Research, 228(2), 291–307.
Ormerod, R. J. (2014a). OR competences: the demands of problem structuring methods.
EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 2(3), 313–340.
Ormerod, R. J. (2014b). The mangle of OR practice: towards more informative case stud-
ies of ’technical’ projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 65(8), 1245–
1260.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1997). What Is a processual analysis? Scandanavian Journal of Man-
agement, 13(4), 337–348.
Pickering, A. (1992). Science as practice and culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: time, agency, and science. Chicago: The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Pidd, M. (2010). Why modelling and model use matter. Journal of the Operational Re-
search Society, 61, 14–24.
Pidd, M. (1996). Tools for thinking: modeling in management science. Chichester: John
Wiley and Sons 1996.
Rilling, J. K., & Sanfey, A. (2011). The neuroscience of social decision-making. Annual
Review of Psychology, 62, 23–48.
Robinson, S. (2014). Have I been doing behavioural OR for the last 20 years?. In Paper
presented at the conference of the International Federation of Operational Research
Societies.
Rosenhead, J., & Thunhurst, C. (1982). A materialist analysis of operational research.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 33(2), 111–122.
Rosenhead, J. (1989). Rational analysis for a problematic world. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.
Seale, D. A., & Rapoport, A. (1997). Sequential decision making with relative ranks: an
experimental investigation of the secretary problem. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 69(3), 221–236.
Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Squazzoni, F., & Boero, R. (2005). Towards an agent-based computational sociology.
Good reasons to strengthen cross fertilization between complexity and sociology.
Advances in Sociology Research, 2, 103–133.
 J. Brocklesby / European Journal of Operational Research 249 (2016) 796–805
Strozzi, F., Bosch, J., & Zaldivar, J. M. (2007). Beer game order policy optimization under
changing customer demand. Decision Support Systems, 42(4), 2153–2163.
Sterman, J. D. (1988). Deterministic chaos in models of human behavior:
methodological issues and experimental results. System Dynamics Review, 4(1-2),
148–178.
Taket, A., & White, L. (1993). After OR: an agenda for postmodernism and poststruc-
turalism in OR. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44(9), 867–881.
Taket, A. (1994). Undercover agency? - ethics, responsibility and the practice of OR.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(2), 123–132.
Tomlinson, R. C. (1998). The six principles for effective OR - their relevance in the 90 s.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49(4), 403–407.
Tomlinson, R., & Kiss, I. (1984). Rethinking the process of operational research and systems
analysis. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: a heuristic for judging frequency and
probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207–232.
Ulrich, W. (1982). Critical heuristics of social planning: a new approach to practical phi-
losophy. Berne: Haupt.
805
Varela, F., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind - cognitive science and
human experience. Cambridge Mass: MIT Press.
Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group model building: facilitating team learning using system
dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.
Wallace, W. A. (1994). Introduction. In W. A. Wallace (Ed.), Ethics in modeling (pp. 1–9).
Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.
Watson, T. J. (1994). Managing, crafting and researching: Words, skill and imagina-
tion in shaping management research. British Journal of Management, 5(June), 77–
87.
White, L. (2009). Understanding problem structuring methods interventions. European
Journal of Operational Research, 99(3), 823–833.
White, L., & Taket, A. (1994). The death of the expert. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 45(7), 733–748.
Wilby, J. (1997). The observer’s role and the process of critical review. Systems Practice,
10(4), 409–418.
Wilkinson, N. (2008). An introduction to behavioral economics. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.