115230 qiao zhang assignment 1

8/3/2019 115230 Qiao Zhang Assignment 1

1/9

Assumptions and Theory behind SODA/Cognitive Mapping

When defining what is SODA method, Eden (1989) described it as an approach

that is basically a set of techniques and tools, known as cognitive mapping, oval

mapping and so on. By using this, consultants are able to help their clients deal

with difficult issues. SODA method is also designed to provide a load of skills and

a constructive map for designing problem solving interventions. In the principles

of SODA, there two skills SODA aims to encourage the consultant to generate. On

one hand, skills, when teamwork efficiency and effectiveness are required, of a

facilitator of a problem solving process in reaching workable - politically feasible -

agreements. Secondly, skills concerned with dressing the true face of a problem by

modeling and appropriately analyzing the content of the issue, then providing

strategies and options that are agreed by team members (Eden & Ackermann, 2001).

Four theoretical perspectives consists of SODA methodology, that includes the

individual, the nature of organization, the consulting practice and the role of

technology and technique (Eden & Ackermann 1998).

In addition, Westcombe (2002) outlined the SODA as,

"SODA (Strategic Options Development and Analysis) is one of a number of

approaches developed in the UK Operational Research (OR) community over the past

30 years to assist strategic decision-making. The aim of these different approaches is

neatly captured in the title of Rosenheads book 'Rational Analysis for a Problematic

World'3, which brought together theoretical and practical chapters written on some of

these Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs)."

He also displayed Pidd's assumption. Pidd (1996) argued that,

"soft OR modeling is distinguished by the different assumptions the approaches

make regarding problem definition, the nature of organizations, the use of models and

the emphasis placed on organizational and individual learning. All of these PSMs take


2/9

a process-orientated approach to modeling 'messy' problems and have been

developed through Mode 2 (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott &

Trow, 1994) or action research."

Cognitive mapping is generally used as a important framework or a formal modeling

technique, Downs and Stea (1973) defined it as "a process composed of a series of

psychological transformations by which an individual acquires, codes, stores, recalls,

and decodes information about the relative locations and attributes of phenomena in

their everyday spatial environment." It is a technique designed to capture an

individuals values and embedded wisdom in a diagrammatic format (Ackermann,

Eden & Brown 2004)

Cognitive mapping, oval mapping and causal mapping

Cognitive mapping is the label that is generally used for mapping a person's thinking

process, which as known as a part of the field of psychological research on

perception. It is important to note that cognitive mapping is not just a simple "word

and arrow" diagram, or a "brain-map" (Eden & Ackermann, 2001). More importantly,

it is a formal modeling method with unbreakable rules for its development. As a

modeling system, is founded on the belief that language is a basic currency of

organizational problem solving. In 2005, McKay and Marshall quoted Bryson's

(2004) description, they said that a typical cognitive maps as a network of ideas

(nodes). Arrows represent relationships between thoughts, that are generated as

chunks of text, linked to each other.

Cognitive mapping is designed to provide:

an instrument to help negotiation towards best solution;

a way of capturing several people's perspectives at once by setting the views of

one person in the context of the ideas of others;

a method for providing structure to multiple and conflicting aspects of

argumentation;

a method which is designed to suggest action to resolve issues (Eden, 1988).


3/9

Eden added more goals in his paper of 1990, he outlined cognitive mapping is aimed

to developing a consensus about a goal's system;

produce systems that does not violate the natural role of discussion;

avoid group-think and bounded vision in a effective way;

attend to both the content of issues and to the need of recognition that people

change organizations;

ensure effective decision-making in certain environments (Eden 1990).

Oval Mapping Technique (OMT) has been described as a statement that make up the

map derive from individual members of the group, but the map itself is not the

thinking of any person, and so it is usually called a Cause Map, Group Map or

Strategy Map (Eden & Ackermann, 2001).

Therefore, obviously, there are few different things between SODA ad OMT.

Using the Oval Mapping Technique would allow the work to be "collapsed" into a

single session and, whilst not eliciting the depth and richness normally associated

with individual interviews using mapping, the technique has other benefits(Eden &

Ackermann, 2001).

Cognitive mapping is an important tool in a representation of thoughts as it is able to

reflect different views of team members, aide to structure a problem, facilitate mutual

understanding (Bouzdine-Chameeva, Durrieu, & Mandjk, 2000).

Siau, Keng, Tan and Xin outlined the advantages of cognitive mapping techniques

The produced maps using these cognitive mapping techniques are only a

reconstruction of subjective beliefs that people use to solve the problem domain and

take actions accordingly. Generally, they are formed by the certain pathway to create

the map or process. For example, a causal map will be from an individual's thought

and presenting a person's cause-effect ideas. Eden (1992) indicates two general use of

cognitive mapping techniques:

* Representing subjective statistics more meaningfully than other models, thus


4/9

acknowledging a utility for investigators interested in subjective opinions.

* Serving as a tool to facilitate decision-making, problem-solving, and negotiation

within the context of organizational problems.

What's more, Fiol and Huff (1992) concluded a load of imperative benefits of using

cognitive mapping techniques within organizations.

(i) Cognitive maps are able to focus attention and trigger memory;

(ii) Cognitive maps can help highlight priorities and key factors;

(iii) Cognitive maps may supply missing information;

(iv) Cognitive maps can reveal gaps in information or reasoning that need more direct

attention.

Advantages of Oval Mapping Technique (OMT)

1. The oval mapping technique is designed to be used within groups, therefore it is

possible to involve about 6 to 12 participants, which enables more people to be

involved.

2. A map is meant to be created to the ideas of the group, resulting in good

understanding of different contributions and how they fit together. They can get

results faster on key issues.

3. Being involved in the process, participants share the understanding and work as a

team. Its is based on an interview-based process, which increases the likelihood of

any actions that are forthcoming being implemented.

Problem addressing in using SODA methodology

1. Does the body of theory and the concepts that have been outlined here make sense?

If we draw upon our own experience of organizations and consulting, does the view

of organizational life and the nature of problems presented here fit with that

experience?

2. Does the emphasis on the design and analysis of process fit our own personal style

and capabilities?


5/9

3. Do we believe that the SODA approach, and cognitive mapping, adequately relate

to the theory, concepts, and declared aims?

4. Does the application of t he analytical techniques designed into the software seem

to be a useful and powerful addition to the package of tools available to us? (Eden &

Ackermann, 2001).

Strategy formulation and organizational problem solving

The strategic problems an organization may come to could possibly encompass

members concerns upon ongoing threats to the organizations, at the same time the

realization of potential opportunities. Apart from which complexion they tale, where

the issues stand, where we should freshly start. However, the research results upon

these issues involved learning to use sophisticated communications and analysis

techniques (mapping) and required the deployment of leadership skills by the

consultant/facilitator responsible. Therefore the whole emphasis has changed to

enable issues to emerge with the intention to build a strategic future, that is based on

these realities but not any abstraction of the future.

"Grounding the strategic future in the context of the issues facing managers not only

will ensure that organizational members are able to determine how the strategic intent

supports the concerns they are currently wrestling with, but will also ensure a more

robust strategic future" (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004).

Applications for cognitive maps

Cognitive Mapping techniques achieve eliciting from an individual's main concepts

and the relationships among them by different ways, constructing a map for that

individual. By these means, diversities among person to person can be revealed and,

hopefully and more importantly, understood. There are other techniques that go

further than this, combining maps from other single individuals into a more wide map

that reflects the core of a group (e.g. Bougon, Weick & Binkhorst, 1977; Eden, 1992).

As a decision-making group have more potential abilities to influence the strategic


6/9

plan and process of one company (Schwenk, 1988).

In their paper, Fleck, Scarbrough and Swan (2000) concluded,

" Cognitive mapping techniques for organizational analysis include: simple content

analysis of text (Birnhaum-More and Weiss, 1990); the use of repertory grid

techniques (Reger, 1990); the systematic coding of cause and effect relationships

(Bougon, Weick 7 Binkhorst, 1977; Axelrod, 1976); special interviewing techniques

(Bougon, 1983); computer software analyses of interview data (Eden, 1989); and

argument mapping (Fletcher and Huff, 1990). many of these techniques and their

applications are reviewed in an edited book by Huff (1990) and in journal articles (see

(e.g. Eden, 1992; Swan & Newell, 1994; Swan, 1995). "

In different complexity and depth of information we are trying to elicit, these mapping

techniques vary significantly. Some are quite complicated and time-consuming,

however reveal a big amount of specific information while others (e.g. content

analysis) can be done fairly faster but provide much less detailed statistics. As we are,

a multinational company, decisions on what methods we are focusing on, apparently

lies on what scenarios we are facing.


7/9

Reference list

Ackermann, F., Eden, C., and with Brown, I. (2004) The Practice of Making Strategy

, London: Sage.

Axelrod, R. (1976). Structure of Decision: the Cognitive Maps of Political Elites.

Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press

Bougon, M., Weick, K. & Binkhorst, D. (1977). Cognition in organizations: ananalysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 606-

639.

Bouzdine-Chameeva, T,. Durrieu F, & Mandjk,T., 2000, Cognitive Mapping

Methodology for Understanding of Business Relationship Value, Bordeaux Business

School and Budapest University of Economic Sciences and Public Administration,

France.

Downs, RM & Stea, D 1973, Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behaviour, Aldine

Publishing Company, Chicago.

Eden C and Ackermann F (2001). SODA The Principles. In: Rosenhead J and

Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited 2001. Wiley:

Chichester

Eden, C 1988, Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development and

Analysis, in J.Rosenhead, Participatpry Methods for handling complexity, Wiley,

London.

Eden, C 1990, Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development and
http://www.journeymaking.net/index.htmhttp://www.journeymaking.net/index.htm


8/9

Analysis, in J.Rosenhead

Eden, C. & Ackermann, F. (1998) Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic.

Eden, C. (1989). Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and

analysis (SODA). In J. Rosenhead (Ed.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World.

Chichester: Wiley.

Eden, C. (1992). On the Nature of Cognitive Maps. Journal of Management Studies,

29(3), 261-265.

Fiol, C. M., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Maps for managers: where are we? where do we go

from here? Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 267-285.

Fleck. J, Scarbrough, H. & Swan,J.2000. Instructor's Guide, Innovation Training

Materials Initiative.

Fletcher, K.E. & Huff, A. (1990). Argument mapping. In A.Huff (Ed.), Mapping

Strategic Thought. Chichester: Wiley.

John M. Bryson, Fran Ackermann, Colin Eden, and Charles B. Finn, Visible

Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results. Chichester,

England: John Wiley, 2004.

M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P.Scott and M. Trow (1994)

The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in

contemporary societies. Sage, London.

McKay, J, & Marshall, P, 2005, A Review of Design Science in Information Systems.

Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney,

29th November . 2nd December.


9/9

Reger, R.K. (1990). Managerial thought, structures and competitive positioning. In A.

Huff (Ed.), Mapping Strategic Thought. Chichester, Wiley

Siau, Keng, Tan & Xin, 2008, The Journal of Computer Information Systems.

Bougon, M., Weick, K. & Binkhorst, D. (1977). Cognition in organizations: an

analysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 606-

639.

Westcombe, M 2002, Problem Structuring: The Process of SODA Modeling, ACM

Hypertext 2002.

115230 qiao zhang assignment 1

Documents