European Journal of Operational Research 240 (2015) 202–212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /e jor

Innovative Applications of O.R.

A methodology for supporting strategy implementation basedon the VSM: A case study in a Latin-American multi-national

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.0140377-2217/� 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⇑ Corresponding author. at: Hull Business School, Hull University, CottinghamRd., Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom.Tel.: +44 1482 463814/+57 1 339 4949x2320.

E-mail addresses: A.Espinosa@hull.ac.uk, am.espinosa240@uniandes.edu.co(A. Espinosa), e.reficco@uniandes.edu.co (E. Reficco), ac.martinez430@uniandes.edu.co (A. Martínez), ar-guzma@uniandes.edu.co (D. Guzmán).

1 Tel.: + 57 1 339 4949x2320.

Angela Espinosa a,b,⇑, Ezequiel Reficco b,1, Andrea Martínez b,1, David Guzmán b,1

a Hull Business School, Hull University, Cottingham Rd., Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdomb Los Andes School of Management, Calle 21 # 1-20, Bogota, Colombia

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

Article history:Received 16 July 2013Accepted 17 June 2014Available online 26 June 2014

Keywords:(I) OR in developing countries(S) Complexity theoryProblem structuring (P)Viability theoryOrganizational redesign

Soft OR tools have increasingly been used to support the strategic development of companies atoperational and managerial levels. However, we still lack OR applications that can be useful in dealingwith the ‘‘implementation gap’’, understood as the scarcity of resources available to organizations seekingto align their existing processes and structures with a new strategy. In this paper we contribute tofilling that gap, describing an action research case study where we supported strategy implementationin a Latin American multinational corporation through a soft OR methodology. We enhanced the‘Methodology to support organizational self-transformation’, inspired by the Viable System Model, withsubstantive improvements in data collection and analyses. Those adjustments became necessary tofacilitate second order learning and agreements on required structural changes among a large numberof participants. This case study contributes to the soft OR and strategy literature with insights aboutthe promise and constraints of this soft OR methodology to collectively structure complex decisions thatsupport organizational redesign and strategy implementation.

� 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Dyson, Bryant, Morecroft, and O’Brien (2007) view the strategicdevelopment process as one that explicitly incorporates reflectiveengagement and analytical reasoning, supported by models tohelp assess and rehearse strategic options. Systemic and soft ORresearchers have traditionally contributed to the development ofstrategic management through the provision of methods and tools.Nevertheless, there is still a pervasive scarcity of resources to assistmanagers in dealing with what has been called in the strategyliterature the ‘‘implementation gap’’ (Atkinson, 2006). In particu-lar, the difficult task of adapting structures to the requirementsof a newly agreed structure, has not been covered yet by any softOR researcher.

In this paper we present an example of a soft OR methodology,the ‘‘Methodology to support organizational Self-Transformation’’(Espinosa & Walker, 2012), adapted and used for such a purposein a Latin-American multinational corporation. In order to be fit

for this purpose, the intervening consultants had to further developthe methodology. This was achieved through the use of mixedmethods in data gathering and analysis, and by the innovativedesign of meetings and workshops to support strategic agree-ments. These new tools, sought to: (a) investigate the structuralconstraints that prevented effective strategy implementation in alarge organization and (b) facilitate the emergence of a politicalconsensus among members representing all levels of organization,on cultural, structural and technological changes to mitigate suchexisting constraints.

In the final section, we reflect on the way that the innovationsin methods and tools supported group learning, and providedimproved reliability and robustness to the analyses. We close witha critical assessment of the experience, based on the feedbackreceived from organization members through different assess-ments and suggest open paths for continued research in this field.

2. Literature review

According to Mingers and White (2010), systems thinking andsoft OR pioneers like Ackoff, Mintzberg, Pidd, Dyson and others haveimportantly influenced strategy theory developments. Particularlyrelevant is the Strategy Development Process (SDP) model fromDyson, Bryant, Morecroft, and O’Brien (2007) and Tomlinson andDyson (1983), which presents a systemic view of the strategy

2 www.marval.com.co.3 For tax related reasons, the organization is broken up nominally in two different

corporations, Marval S.A. and Urbanizadora Marin Valencia S.A., by revenue the 2ndand 6th largest building companies in 2011, respectively. However, if both areconsolidated, they become Colombia’s largest building corporation, outstripping SFMS.A, its main competitor, by 14%. Source: ‘‘Gestor Comercial y de Crédito’’. Database,www.gestorcc.com, retrieved 3-on March 15–12, 2013.

4 A process that Professor Henry Mintzberg would label ‘‘emergent’’ strategy(1994).

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 240 (2015) 202–212 203

development process. O’Brien (2011) identifies a range of soft ORapplications in strategy as ‘strategic development support’, whichinvolves the use of systemic frameworks, models and methods tosupport strategic development of an organization.

A review of the OR literature shows that tools based on OR/MSapproaches are strongly present, both at the strategy level and insupporting operational issues which are important in creating stra-tegic advantage (O’Brien, 2011). According to Stenfors, Tanner,Syrjänenc, Seppäläb, and Haapalinnab (2007), while most OR toolsare used to achieve efficiency at the operational level, some ofthem are also employed to support strategic management.Mingers and White (2010) summarize the way soft OR methodol-ogies have contributed to address issues of ‘strategy support’.Tables 1 and 2 (see Appendix A present relevant applications fromsoft OR approaches that aim to support different aspects of strate-gic management. Table 1 presents a summary of key examples ofthe soft OR approaches most commonly identified as offering con-tributions to strategy support – namely SSM, critical systems, sys-tems dynamics, and more recently complex adaptive systems.

From Table 1, we find that SSM has been perhaps the most usedsoft OR for strategy support. In particular, Ormerod has used itextensively to structure strategic information systems planning(1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2009). His work includesdetailed guidelines on how to use this soft OR approach to supportIS strategy, but not organizational strategy. Eden and Ackermann(2000), Gregory and Midgley (2000), Jacobs (2004), and Kocher,Kaudela-Baum, and Wolf (2011) also offer insightful tools andexamples on how to develop strategic direction using SSM. How-ever, none of these authors offer criteria to address issues of strat-egy implementation, once such capabilities have been identified.Some explain insights from critical systems to support strategydevelopment at a very generic level, but not specifically addressingthe implementation gap – e.g. Cao, Clarke, and Lehaney (2004),Lyneis (1999), Lyneis, Cooper, and Els (2001). Also, there are afew promising works on the combined use of the strategy develop-ment process (SDP) and complex adaptive systems theory to sup-port strategy, but not focused on implementation (Mason, 2007;Hammer, Edwards, & Tapinos, 2011; Houchin & MacLean, 2005).

Even if the VSM has not been recognized widely as a tool forstrategy support, there is ample evidence of the potential of VSMapplications to support strategic management and organizationalchanges, as shown in Table 2. Gregory (2007), Paucar-Caceres(2009), and Preece, Shaw, and Hayashi (2013) all use VSM withother soft or systemic approaches to support performance manage-ment or strategic information management. Other authors haveused VSM to support strategy or policy formulation – i.e.Clemens (2009), Devine (2005), Stephens and Haslett (2011) –strategic relationships management (Golinelli, Pastore, Gatti,Massaroni, & Vagnani, 2011), and operational planning (Kinloch,Francis, Francis, & Taylor, 2009). While other authors in Table 2offer examples of application of the VSM to support strategicchanges in organizations, none of them has explained in detailthe whole process and stages in a large systemic intervention aim-ing to align strategy and structure. They offer evidence of interven-tions to support organizational strategic developments that wemay call, following Yearworth and White (2014), ‘‘non-codifieduses’’ of Problem Structured Methods for strategic developments.

In summary, we could not find any application of a ProblemStructured Method, or more broadly, a soft OR approach, that sup-ported alignment of the organizational strategy and structure in alarge company. The few available published applications of soft ORmethodologies to support strategy and organizational changes donot present in detail the stages used for the analysis, the tools usedto gather and analyze the data collected, and to structure collectivedecisions. This lack of detail makes it difficult to deal with the com-plexity of dealing with a large organization, as it leaves a lot of

responsibility on the analyst’s judgment. This is acceptable forexperienced analysts, but difficult for the uninitiated. Moreover,to our knowledge no study has explored the use of soft OR toolsto engage in organizational redesign as part of the implementationof a newly crafted strategy.

We address this gap in the literature by presenting a completeredesign of a large Latin American multinational company, usingan enhanced version of the ‘Methodology to support organizationalself-transformation,’ focused to address the implementation gap ina large organization. The improved version of the methodologyprovides far more detail in the tools for data collection (surveys,interviews) and data analysis (VSM analysis combined with quali-tative software and mind maps) than the original one. It also pro-vides more structure in the interaction with customers, bydesigning a better context for collective decision-making: namely,workshops in which double loop learning is facilitated at differentstages during the intervention.

3. The intervention: Marval S.A

By early 2012, Marval S.A.2 (hereafter ‘‘Marval’’) was the largestbuilding company in Colombia, by revenue.3 The company was pres-ent in all Colombian major cities (Bogotá, Bucaramanga, Barranquil-la, Cartagena, and Cali), and had a nascent presence overseas, withoperations in Peru and Panama. It employed 1,050 people directlyand about 4,500 indirectly –it is common practice in the buildingindustry to outsource most labor at the building site. In some ways,Marval epitomized the successful Colombian family business. It hadbeen founded and run by brothers, who managed to keep the com-pany on a path of sustained growth throughout the years, despiteups and downs of its business and the wider political context. How-ever, these achievements had been the product of intuition and trialand error;4 the company had never gone through the exercise ofcrafting a deliberate course of action.

In early 2012, senior management approached one of thispaper’s co-authors to assist them in their first strategic planningexercise. The initial consulting engagement developed betweenJanuary and April 2012, and its results can be summarized as fol-lows. Environmental analysis by and large showed positive trendsin the short and mid-term. The industry as a whole would continueto grow at robust rates. In the mid to long term, however, somecaution was advised. Within the building industry, various linesof business showed relevant differences in terms of barriers toentry or exposure to economic cycles. The analysis showed goodreasons to change company positioning, lowering exposure insome sectors and moving decisively into others with a more attrac-tive industry structure and less exposed to macro-economic risks.Geographically, the company decided to expand into middle citiesand to boost its international expansion. In turn, such a decisioncalled for changes in the company value chain, addressing a num-ber of weaknesses identified by the management team who tookpart in the exercise.

This initial exercise in strategy formulation set the stage for theauthors’ 2nd engagement. In June 2012, company managementcontacted us again asking if we could assist them in the implemen-tation phase; by July both parties had reached an understanding onthe engagement’s terms of reference, and were ready to start

204 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 240 (2015) 202–212

working. The objectives were defined contractually as follows: (a)To identify the structures, functions and roles that Marval neededto consolidate its existing positioning and move into new lines ofbusiness and geographic markets. (b) Develop an implementationplan to carry out those changes, to be delivered by March 2013.

In our minds, we had an additional goal: to facilitate secondorder learning. Argyris and Schon (1996) present second orderlearning as a type of double-loop learning that allows organiza-tional members to ‘learn to learn’ – that is, to discover and modifythe organizational learning system. The learning system isdescribed by rules that recreate patterns of organizational inquiryin the organization, so as to make change possible; They consid-ered that the role of academic consultants in an interventionshould be to enhance the capabilities to develop second orderlearning: in this case regarding ways of organizing themselves.As Gharajedaghi argues, as long as the organizing principles of anorganization remain unchanged, so will its members’ behavior.To develop, ‘‘these systems [organizations] need to go through anactive process of unlearning and redesign. Unlearning is an itera-tive and collective process of the second order learning thatdemands freedom to question the sacred underlying assumptions’’(2007). As explained in the next section, we decided to use theViable System Model as our framework to support the systemicintervention. Although it has not been traditionally considered aProblem Structuring Method, we considered its case one ofnon-codified use (see Appendix B). We expected that the chosenmethodology and approach would encourage second orderlearning.

4. The choice of research approach

In this particular systemic intervention, our intention was tosupport our clients in their learning process on the required struc-tural changes to implement the previously agreed strategy. Theyhad previous knowledge about our expertise in supporting strate-gic management and organizational changes from a systemic per-spective, and were keen to learn jointly with us on the use of softOR tools for their needs. The research context satisfied the charac-teristics described by Checkland and Holwell (1998) for an actionresearch project.

We were aware of action research being ‘‘a potent tool forintentional change, in a collaborative context,’’ and also aware ofits limitation in terms of validity and generalization – as describedby Reason and Bradbury (2006). This is related with the knowledgespecificity that characterizes the process, considering that a soleorganization offers limited observation opportunities. On the sameline, the researcher’s involvement with the observed events mayhinder the observation process (West, 2011). This author has alsoexpressed concerns about power relationships between facilitatorsand participants, considering that the action research project’s ulti-mate goal is to empower the organization. Nonetheless, thisapproach draws on participants’ knowledge –considered expertknowledge – on the issues considered problematic, recognizing thatthose challenges will be better understood by the main actors.

We expected that participants, having to address strategicissues of major impact for organizational development, would be‘‘willing to act on what has been learned in the course of theresearch’’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2006, p. 451). Previous experienceshad convinced us of the merits of working with a systemicapproach to management. As Flood (2010) has suggested, actionresearch carried out with a systemic perspective in mind promisesto construct meaning that resonates strongly with our experienceswithin a profoundly systemic world.

Following these ideas, we framed our intervention on an action-research approach, which allowed us to agree with the participantson intended changes for the organization aiming to implement

their previously agreed strategy. In the next section we describethe action research case study, following Checkland and Howellsuggested description of an action research project: the FMA:Framework, Methodology and Area (Checkland, 1981; Checkland& Holwell, 1998; West & Stansfield, 2001).

4.1. Framework (F): The viable systems model

Inspired by R Ashby’s pioneering theories of self-organizationand complexity management, as well as W Mc Culloch’s modelof the brain as a neural network, S Beer developed the Viable Sys-tem Model (VSM) as the theory of viability in complex organiza-tions, or the theory for effective management of complexity(1979, 1981, 1985). The VSM offers a meta-language to describerecurrent patterns of interaction, and the way different roles andgroups deal with complexity in an organizational context. It isnot the intention of this paper to provide a detailed descriptionof the VSM; for such purpose see Beer (1979, 1981, 1985),Espinosa, Harnden, and Walker (2008), or Espinosa and Walker(2011). Appendix C provides a brief summary of the core aspectsof the VSM as a meta-language for mapping organizational com-plexity. As mentioned earlier, only a few VSM researchers haveoffered methodologies that explain in detail the way that the struc-ture may be adjusted to implement a particular strategy. Weexplain below our methodological choices for this project.

4.2. Methodology (M): The methodology to support organizationalself-transformation, enhanced through a mixed methods convergentparallel design

We choose to use the Methodology to support organizationalself-transformation, because we found that it was the bestsystemic methodology offering systemic guidance to conduct sucha process of reorganization, and because we did have the expertiseto use it. Such methodology had been tested in a different context(SMEs), so using it for the first time in a large multinational with afocus on investigating the ‘implementation gap’ demanded someadjustments. We needed new data collection and analysis toolsto cope with the complexity of interacting with a large organiza-tion. More structured surveys and interviews were necessary toassess the effectiveness of current structure, as well as new toolsfor analyzing resulting large data sets.

We decided then to follow a mixed methods methodology(Gharajedaghi, 2007; Molina-Azorin, 2010; Onwuegbuzie, Daley,& Waytowich, 2008). From the outset, it was decided that ourresearch would follow a typology-based, fixed design (Creswell &Clark, 2011), in which the overall methodology is predeterminedearly in the process. The model chosen was the convergent paralleldesign, whereby researchers carry out the quantitative and quali-tative strands independently, and then bring together the resultswith the goal of obtaining ‘‘different but complementary data onthe same topic’’ (Morse, 1991) to best understand the researchproblem, assessing convergence or divergence. This is the ‘‘mostwell-known’’ approach to mix methods (Creswell & Clark, 2011)and the first used in the mixed methods literature (Jick, 1979).

Data collection was carried out in a concurrent, but separatefashion. On the quantitative side, a broad-base online surveyinspired by the VSM was launched, using the paid version of theSurvey-Monkey software. The goal was to cast a wide net thatwould allow us to capture valuable, quantifiable data. The surveytargeted 144 company personnel, assuring diversity on the func-tional, hierarchical and geographical dimensions. The surveysought to capture perceptions on a number of propositions usinga 7 points Likert scale, where 1 meant total disagreement and 7meant complete agreement.

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 240 (2015) 202–212 205

For analytical purposes, the group was disaggregated in threelevels of recursion: corporate headquarters, regional branches,and local projects. At the national level, 15 people were targetedwith a response rate of 100%. At the regional level, 41 peoplereceived the survey with a response rate of 83% (34 respondents).At the local level, 120 people were targeted, of whom 91 (roughly76%) actually took the survey. In total, 125 individuals weresurveyed. On the qualitative side, semi-structured interviews werecompleted, targeting a smaller, yet diverse sample of 46 keyinformants from diverse functional areas, hierarchical levels andbranches. In all, we interviewed 11 individuals from the nationallevels, 15 from regional branches, 16 from local projects, 2customers, and 2 suppliers.

Data analysis was also carried out independently, and throughanalytic procedures firmly established on the quantitative andqualitative traditions. Survey results were aggregated and theresulting data was analyzed quantitatively for descriptivepurposes. The results of the interviews were processed using con-tent analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Data was coded, dividedinto relevant phrases, and then clustered around themes usingspecialized software (Dedoose). To make our analysis morespecific and nuanced, we looked into the frequency with whichsome codes appeared in the interviews. This technique, calledquantitizing, is used in qualitative research ‘‘to facilitate patternrecognition or otherwise to extract meaning from qualitative data’’(Sandelowski, Voils, & Knafl, 2009). At the same time, as Maxwellnoted, ‘‘providing numerical data about the distribution of obser-vations, or the number of instances of a particular type of eventor statement, helps to (. . .) counter claims that you havesimply cherry-picked your data’’ in order to support the authors’interpretations (2010, p. 479).

Results were only compared and mixed in the final interpreta-tion stage. During the workshops we used Tools used MindMapsand prototypes to facilitate strategic decisions with the partici-pants. Although our methodology was mixed, the overall designgave priority to the qualitative method. Quantitative analysis waslimited, and carried out only for descriptive purposes. Moreover,our study did not make any attempt to establish causal relationsbetween variables but rather sought to understand the processesby which some events influence others, which is what reallydefines qualitative research (Maxwell, 2010) and more broadly,the ‘‘interpretive’’ approach to social sciences (Maxwell, 1996).

The reasons why the authors resorted to a mixed methodologyhave been summed up by Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989).First, the chosen methodology assured triangulation, seeking cor-roboration and convergence of the results from different methods.Second, combining the quantitative and qualitative offered com-plementarities, as the results from one strand of research wereenhanced and clarified by the other method’s results. Finally, usingthe results from one method helped develop the results from theother. These synergies come across clearly when one considersthe relative strengths of each of the analytical tools used.

In surveys, data-capture is done through standardized pro-cesses that measure how a given group stands vis-à-vis some clo-sely formulated propositions, which allows the aggregation ofresults transparently and objectively. The downside with surveysis that ‘‘we don’t know what we don’t know’’. That is, theresearcher can only put to the test some propositions that appearrelevant a priori – which will be confirmed or falsified. Thus, itstransparency is coupled with rigidity.

Content analysis of semi-structured interviews, on the otherhand, has diametrically opposed characteristics. Coding offers ahighly flexible tool to organize large amounts of data and to extractmeaning from it to the very last drop. While good methodologicaldesign using qualitative tools should enable the researcher to‘‘deal with plausible validity threats’’ (Maxwell, 1996) the risk of

subjective bias is always present. In other words, qualitativecontent analysis offers flexibility, coupled with higher subjectivity.In sum, combining both can leverage their highly complementarystrengths.

4.3. Area (C): Enabling second order learning about improvedstructures

Our Area of concern was defined according to our main objec-tive: to facilitate second order learning (March (1991), Levinthaland March (1993), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Argyris andSchon (1996), Gharajedaghi, (2007)), so as to enable them to rede-sign their structures, functions and roles in a way that will create abetter context for strategy implementation. In the following para-graphs the methodology used is described in detail, arguing that byusing this methodology it was possible to facilitate a process ofself-constructed solutions and redesign parameters. This method-ology was framed in the Viable System Model, hoping that VSMmeta-questions led the participants to better understand the com-plexity of the organization and build contextualized solutions. Par-ticipants agreed on developing the project as an action researchprocess, in which changes proposed were going to be constructedas a result of interaction between researchers and participants.

5. The improved methodology to support organizational self-transformation

The main characteristic of the ‘Methodology to support self-transformation’ is that it uses the VSM as a meta-language, as ahermeneutical tool, to enable people to engage in a structured con-versation about organizational viability and adaptability. In thisway, it helps actors to create the required organizational arrange-ments to improve their own chances of long-term viability (i.e. bycreating a better structural context for strategy implementation).Fig. 1 explains the stages of the methodology: (1) identify theSystem-in-Focus, (2) map the relevant recursions, (3) look forweaknesses in the system’s viability by reflecting on themeta-questions, (4) reflect on strategy vs. structure gaps, (5) agreeand implement the required changes; and finally (6) monitor andreview the situation.

At the 1st stage, we facilitate debates about the organizationalidentity (identity in use and espoused identity) and the boundariesof the system in focus. At the 2nd stage we elaborate with the par-ticipants representations of the levels of complexity inside theirorganization. Once the system in focus is agreed, we start theVSM Diagnosis: in a large company like Marval, this implied com-plex processes of data collection and analyses, to make sure we hada valid data sample. Next section explains in detail how we dealtwith this challenge. After producing a structured VSM diagnosisbased on data, we validated it with a sample of representativesfrom all organizational levels.

The next stage is to identify the critical areas for strategic devel-opment of the organization and to assess which of the core diag-nostic issues would affect them. Based on this analysis, wefiltered out the most strategic changes required for effective strat-egy implementation and design improvements for each of them.Again, such generic change projects needed to be validated withcompany representatives. Once agreement was secured, we sug-gested an implementation plan, which included a comprehensivereview of (a) levels of organization and operational units, (b)meta-systemic management changes at each level, (c) changes inroles and structures, and (d) suggested technological innovationsto support strategy implementation. The last stage is monitoringand assessment of changes.

Fig. 1. Methodology to facilitate organizational self-transformation. (Adapted from Espinosa & Walker, 2011, chap. 3.)

206 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 240 (2015) 202–212

In the following sections we explain in detail the innovationsproduced in this intervention, in order to cope with the complexityof the interactions with the representatives of a large multina-tional, at different levels.

6. The methodology in action

6.1. Organizational and learning context

We started the project in August 2012, and it finished in March2013. The preliminary stage included developing the proposal,with a detailed account of the project’s objectives, organization,methodology, stages and expected outcomes. To facilitate collabo-rative decision-making, two interlocutors were created on thecompany side: an Executive Committee (hereafter, Exec-Comm)and a Technical Committee (Tech-Comm), which functioned assounding boards to consultants’ proposals. The Exec-Comm vali-dated all political decisions, such as workshops dates, agenda andattendees. On the other hand, the Tech-Comm provided constantfeedback and detailed knowledge of company operations. Whatfollows is a detailed account of how each stage of the projectunfolded.

6.2. Preliminary stage

The initial meeting with the Exec-Comm took place through avideoconference, as participants were based in different cities.The academic consultants presented the project methodology,phases and goals, and took questions from participants. It wasagreed that the company would organize the logistics and provideadministrative support for the two workshops. The consultants, onthe other hand, would design and run the surveys, interviews, vid-eoconferences and workshops, working closely in tandem with aproject’s manager from the company, who would facilitate accesson a need-base to other authorities and staff inside the corporation.

6.3. Diagnostic stage

The diagnostic stage unfolded during the months of August andSeptember, and laid the ground for the 1st workshop, held in

November 2013 (see Appendix C). We started off by carefullyreviewing published data about the company and the industryfrom secondary sources, and holding semi-structured interviewswith key informants – see details in the Methodology section.Concurrently, we designed and ran the electronic survey (seeAppendix D).

The qualitative data was processed with specialized software, asexplained in the Methodology section, and quantitized – countingthe frequency of coding, and slicing it by level of recursion. Thecombination of quantitative data from surveys and processedqualitative data allowed us to triangulate (seeking corroborationand convergence of the results emerging from both methods), tocapture complementarities (as the results from one strand ofresearch were enhanced and clarified by the other) and to furtherdevelop our analysis and understanding (Greene et al., 1989). Forexample, the anonymous survey showed considerable levels ofsupport behind the proposition ‘‘we do not have enough autonomyto plan and develop services from our office’’ (see Fig. 2).

At the same time, data from interviews confirmed and specifiedthat point of diagnostic. However, as Fig. 3 shows, that problemwas not felt equally at all levels of the organization. On the con-trary, the perceived bottleneck was particularly painful at the levelof regional branches, and almost invisible from national headquar-ters. The convergence between the quantitative and qualitativestrands of analysis lent credence to that point of diagnostic, whilethe specificity that came from the disaggregation of interview dataallowed us to pin point it with precision (see Fig. 3).

Similar complementarities between the quantitative andqualitative data emerged at every step of the analysis, giving theconsulting team a robust diagnosis to share with companymanagers in the first workshop. We were left with the challengeof sharing our findings in a manner that (a) was clear and intuitive,allowing the consulting team to share great amounts of data in afriendly manner and (b) stimulated critical discussion, allowingparticipants to validate or falsify (or at least to question) each ofthe points of diagnostic.

To that end, we resorted to mind-maps, crafted with the assis-tance of specialized software (MindManager v. 9). Results weresummarized, disaggregated by recursion level, and structured ina mind map following the five systems that the VSM is based upon(see Fig. 4 and Appendix E for an example). Those mind-maps were

Fig. 2. ‘Example 1: Triangulating answers from the survey’.

13.0%

65.2%

27.1%

Local projects

Regional branches

National headquarters

Fig. 3. ‘Example 2: Triangulating answers from the survey’.

Fig. 4. The VSM.

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 240 (2015) 202–212 207

printed in giant sheets (33 by 46 inches) and used as a heuristicdevice to have structured discussions in small groups, whichgathered around those maps and considered point after point of ourpreliminary diagnosis. Under the guidance of a facilitator, eachgroup constructed a shared vision of the most urgent problemsfacing the organization. They also expressed their opinions throughthe technique of ‘‘visual applause’’ attaching red or green dots toeach diagnostic point, showing agreement or disagreement.Comments were also captured through post-it notes, attached tothe maps (see Appendix F for illustrative photos).

The 1st workshop encompassed about 40 employees, assuringdiversity from functional, geographical and operational perspec-tives. A consulting team of four facilitators also took part. Thetwo senior members of the team facilitated group discussions dur-ing plenary sessions, while the remaining two joined in the facili-tation of small group discussions, as explained above. Participantsremained actively engaged throughout these intense two-days,validating the external diagnosis and in the process building ashared understanding of the problems at hand. Such a consensusamong company managers proved highly valuable later on, to pri-oritise and detail the solutions outlined by the consulting team.

A few weeks after the workshop, we submitted the 1st reportwith the complete VSM diagnosis of the company, as collectivelydiscussed, improved and validated by company members. Section 7details the diagnostic tools and findings.

6.4. Redesign stage

The design stage took place between November 2012 andFebruary 2013, in the last 3 months of the project. Instead of

delivering a one-time report with proposals, the consulting teammoved forward through successive iterations, where each stepbuilt on the previous one. At each step, a number of key redesignproposals were crafted – based on the agreed upon diagnosis – andthen validated through dialog with the Tech-Comm, who commentedon the relevance, desirability and feasibility of the proposed steps.The first videoconference was focused on organizational changes atthe national and international levels; the second one dealt withchanges at the regional level, and the last one with changes atthe production level. At each videoconference, the suggestedchanges were clarified and detailed, in preparation for the finalworkshop.

Eventually, a clearer picture of the desired end-results emergedfrom this dialog. To decide on a rollout process, setting prioritiesand phases, we went back to the strategic planning exercise. Wereviewed the organizational constraints that had emerged in thevalue chain analysis, and the goals and action plans establishedin the strategic map. Those elements were factored in, and as aresult a change plan was crafted, with clear priorities. This planwas also discussed and validated with the Tech-Committee, mak-ing sure that we had secured agreements from middle manage-ment before the 2nd and final workshop was held.

At this point we had finished our detailed redesign proposal,with a number of suggested changes at various levels of the orga-nization (see Section 7). We summarized them through Mind-Maps at each level of recursion, in order to share them with com-pany management. The final workshop took place in early February2013 (see Appendix C). During 2 days, the suggested changes werediscussed in detail, using the same tools that had worked so well inthe initial workshop.

A short case study, focused on a real company project, was writ-ten as an additional tool to show and validate the diagnostic andproposed change plan. The purpose was to take a deep view intothe way company activities flow, and to have participants see ina direct and practical way (a) the bottlenecks that existing struc-tures created and (b) how those obstacles would be removed withthe proposed change plan. Instead of delivering our prescriptions‘‘top-down’’, expecting managers to ‘‘trust’’ our judgement, we cre-ated an experience where the actors themselves built inductively arecommended solution, based on VSM criteria. Following standardcase analysis practice (Gini, 1985; Greenhalgh, 2007; Herried,2011), the consultants did not prescribe any a priori solution; onthe contrary, they limited themselves to presenting the facts andchallenged participants with questions.

Case preparation required ten additional interviews and thedevelopment of a detailed flowchart of the project under analysis(see Appendix G). The case was shared with the participants afew days before the 2nd workshop, to give them time to analyseit and prepare for discussion. They were asked to identify key roles,main problems, and main causes in each of the phases of a projectdevelopment. Case discussion proved highly effective in building ashared understanding of the problems at hand and of the projectedbenefits of moving forward with change – including changes inroles, structures and processes. This discussion provided the basesfor ensuing sessions, where we agreed on changes to the organiza-tional chart, critical change projects, individual accountability inchange implementation, a broad rollout plan, and KPIs. After the2nd workshop a new project flowchart was built in order to sup-port the change plan implementation (see Appendix G).

In the three weeks that followed, we worked on the final report,which included a summary of the whole learning process and theagreements on organizational changes, implementation plan, pilotprojects and monitoring systems. There follows a detailed accountof the key findings at each stage, followed by our reflections on thelearning we got from this experience in using the methodology inthe described action research context.

208 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 240 (2015) 202–212

7. Structuring VSM diagnosis

As explained before, the tasks of data collection and analyseswere quite demanding because of the size of the organization,which required the team to handle a substantial amount of data.Despite the challenges, the tools and methodologies describedearlier made possible a clear diagnosis based on the tenets of theVSM. What follows is a summary of its main points, structuredaccording to the organization’s levels of recursion.

7.1. National level

The corporation lacked a clear division of roles between corpo-rate headquarters and regional branches. Thus, relations betweenthese levels were not characterized by synergies and complemen-tarities, but rather by duplicity and recurring frictions. The nationallevel needed to clarify what exactly it does – in VSM parlance, toidentify its system 1 – and how those operations related to thework being done at each branch. For example, the CEO was doingboth general management of the company (recursion level 0) andof one branch (recursion level 1), ending up overwhelmed by thecomplexity of the branch’s operations and having not enough timefor attending strategic issues at the national level.

In addition, the organization as a whole lacked any effectiveanti-oscillatory mechanisms to make possible the seamless coordi-nation of its parts – what the VSM calls systems 2 functions (e.g.oscillations between purchasing and engineering roles). It alsolacked an effective System 3 – its ‘‘internal eye’’ (e.g. clearresources negotiations against agreed upon goals with lower recur-sion levels, holding them accountable against those targets andleaving them to decide autonomously on how to reach thosegoals).

Because no such mechanism existed, the national level had todescend systematically to micro-manage operational details inregional branches. This, in turn, generated other dysfunctions. Onthe one hand, since senior managers in headquarters took up tasksthat belonged elsewhere, they were systematically overwhelmedand failed to deliver on some of the functions only they could per-form. On the other hand, regional managers were systematicallybypassed in most significant decisions. Thus, a culture of strongcentralization and rigidity was created, which tended to createbottlenecks and delays. Additionally, there was not much time leftfor the national or regional managers to keep a close eye on thechanging business environment and to develop strategically – inVSM language, it lacked effective system 4 (the ‘‘external eye’’)and system 5 (‘‘policy and identity’’) functions and roles, atnational, regional and local levels, essential to develop organiza-tional strategic capabilities.

7.2. Regional level

The analysis of the regional level (each of the companybranches), revealed important deficiencies in their basic and criti-cal operations (system 1 functions), such as customer service –which was fractionalized among different areas, with an approachthat was reactive, short-term and defensive in nature. Many ofthose operational tasks were carried out on an ad-hoc basis, withgreat variance from branch to branch, and even from project toproject, (lack of effective system 2 mechanisms). No one had theresponsibility for creating synergies and improving cost-qualityratios among branches – the essence of system 3. There was alsoa void when it came to picking up lessons, best practices andinnovations from company operations, and disseminating themto other projects or branches. Externally, branches lacked a roleformally entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring the

regional environment, tracking changes in regulation, demandtrends or long-term supply of land – this is the ‘‘Outside and Then’’focus that define system 4’s role. Finally, branches also lacked aclear head with the legitimacy, power and means to set policyand deliver on operational goals agreed with national headquarters– a system 5’s duty.

7.3. Project level

At the project level, formally designed processes were so rigidthat – in order to meet deadlines – personnel had resorted to thecreation of ad-hoc ‘‘parallel practices’’ to gain flexibility in theiroperations (system 1). In particular, many critical processes werestructured along vertical reporting lines, which went from the pro-ject all the way up to national directors. This created the conditionsfor recurrent deadlock in critical processes, as project managerslacked the resources to absorb discontinuities.

Let us consider a project with a value chain of 3 linear roles: A, Band C. An unforeseen event determines that A’s output is not in linewith B expectations (say, the originally planned door is out ofstock, and the engineer needs to authorize a different one affectingcosts, but the comptrollers will not authorize it). Because there isnot a strong authority with overall responsibility for the wholeproject, ‘‘parallel logics’’ will develop. The engineer will reportthe problem up to regional and national managers, and so willthe comptroller. Eventually, a decision will be made at the topand then come back to the project. This is clearly a sub-optimalway of operating. As long as A and B do not see others as membersof the same team, which succeeds or fails as a whole, and account-able to the project leader, coordination problems will recur.

Finally, projects lacked mechanisms to systematically identifyand report innovations and best practices to be shared with otherprojects and branches.

8. Some redesign proposals at the national level

This section offers a succinct account of the main redesign areasthat resulted from the intervention at the national level, structuredby the VSM systems. Due to space constraints, only a few ideaswere selected for mention here to provide examples.

In the last decade, the company transitioned from mono tomulti-business, but its structures had not evolved accordingly.Some of the industries to which it had diversified had value chainswith little or nothing in common with its core building business –e.g. facility management. Experience had shown that mixing‘‘apples and oranges’’ under the same organizational umbrella con-strained growth; thus, the creation of some dedicated structureswas in order.

Coordination problems between branches could be tackled byputting in place nationwide operating standards, which wouldbring uniformity to key roles and processes (system 2). In turn,coordination among branches would be enhanced by the creationof a collegiate decision-making body –the ‘‘Exec-Comm’’–, whichwould bring together senior national management with regionalmanagers (System 3). In this body, branch managers wouldnegotiate resources with HQ against agreed upon goals. Nationalleaders would refrain from intervening in the lower recursion aslong as chosen essential variables (growth, sales, margins)remained within predefined acceptable limits. Under these condi-tions, branches would enjoy responsible autonomy, and would befree to decide on how best to reach their goals. Should things gowrong, however, regional managers would be accountable forfailure; eventually, recurring underperformance would triggerintervention from HQ.

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 240 (2015) 202–212 209

As national authorities had been embroiled in operationaldetails, some forward-looking functions had been overlooked;chief among them was R&D and more broadly, innovation in gen-eral. A number of dedicated structures were proposed, to captureknowledge (both internal and external) that would help the orga-nization deal with the future – a typical role of system 4. Amongthese were a sub-direction of innovation (charged with scanningrelevant technological developments on a global basis), an ‘‘Obser-vatory’’ of the PEST environment (which would report periodicallyon regulatory issues, macro-economic conditions, market trends)and an ‘‘alliance coordinator’’ (would seek to create strategic part-nerships with universities and think-tanks to create proprietarytechnologies).

Other functions that had suffered historically were thoserelated to policy and organizational identity (system 5). This voidwould be filled through the creation of the Executive Committee,which would monitor strategy implementation. Meetings wouldnot deal with operational details; instead, discussions shouldanalyse the evolution of essential variables (growth, sales,margins), both at the national and branch level, and if necessaryanalyse causes and remedies to deviations. Finally, it was proposedthat the Board of Directors would be reinvigorated with externaldirectors, in order to bring experience from the industry andbeyond – from relevant domains, such as government or academia.

9. Assessing second order learning from the intervention

As was said earlier, our intention was to support second orderlearning from organizational members about their strategy andtheir perceived needs for organizational changes to progress effec-tively in the strategic direction agreed, we used different learningtools to assess, and/or enable second order learning: at the begin-ning of the project we used the surveys at each level of organiza-tion to see members’ perceptions and learning constraints foreffective operations. The interviews allowed us to deepen ourunderstanding of the main learning constraints identified throughthe statistical analysis of the surveys. Through the workshops (1stand 2nd), we collectively identified, prioritised and agreed themain directions for structural change.

After the first workshop, we assessed the participants’ percep-tion of their on-going learning process, by asking each of the par-ticipants to fill in an evaluation questionnaire (see results inAppendix H). As shown in this diagram, a substantial majoritythe participants considered the topics discussed to be relevant(71%), valued very positively their learning about these topics(71%), considered that workshop design gave them ample opportu-nities to engage in meaningful debate (67%), and felt highly com-mitted to the implementation of agreed upon changes (80%).

By the end of the final workshop we made a new assessment ofthe participants’ learning throughout the entire project. AppendixH summarizes the participants’ perceptions. Data shows that bythe end of the intervention, participants where highly engaged inthe learning process (64%), found it very inclusive (68%), discussedhighly relevant topics (72%), and felt very committed to imple-menting the agreed changes in their structure and roles (84%).

10. Discussion

Through this action research case study, we have contributed bypresenting in detail a new application of a soft OR multi-method-ology, aimed at facilitating second order learning in an organiza-tion seeking to redesign its structure, to make it more adaptiveto the environment and aligned with its new strategic plan. The‘‘Methodology to support self-transformation’’ was strengthenedin this application by designing and using VSM-based surveys

and interviews in the appreciative stage, as well as quantitativeand qualitative analytical tools at the appreciation and assessmentstages. This complements existing applied research in soft ORusing multi-methodology and mixed methods approaches; andby further explaining the power of the VSM as a meta-languageto encourage 2nd order learning in the context of an organizationalchange program.

10.1. On contributions to soft OR supporting strategy development

We have shown that the VSM is a soft OR and a non-codifiedPSM approach that could be useful to support strategydevelopment. Through our action research case study we showedan example of a VSM application based on the (improved)Methodology for self-transformation, aimed at supporting thealignment of strategy and structure in a large multinational.

This VSM methodology for supporting strategic organizationalchanges has a good potential to contribute to enhance Dyson’sidentified ‘MS toolkit for strategic planning’ (2000), as it providesrobust ‘models of the organisation’ – see Fig. 1.7. ‘‘The StrategicDevelopment Process’’; in Dyson et al. (2007, p. 12). Morespecifically, the VSM intervention facilitated agreement on collec-tive mental models of the organization (VSM models), that werebuilt using mixed methods for data collection and analyses. TheVSM was used as a language for mapping and identifying learningconstraints that were blocking effective strategy implementation.

Business policy textbooks usually consider the alignment ofstructure and strategy as implementation’s first logical step(Andrews, 1971; Galbraith & Nathanson, 1978), followed by theestablishment of operating-level objectives, the design of operat-ing structures and, finally, the creation of proper incentives andcontrol mechanisms that support the implementation (Hrebiniak& Joyce, 1984; Lorange, 1982). Our (enhanced) Methodology forself-transformation has offered a pathway to tackle all of thoseissues in a holistic and integrated fashion, through bottom-updynamics that assure buy-in and commitment from participants.By doing that, this paper has contributed to filling the so-calledimplementation gap.

The VSM intervention helped the organization to realize themain operational and managerial learning constraints that had tobe overcome to create a proper context for strategy implementa-tion. It offered an innovative self-mapping and self-reflection pro-cess, involving representatives from all areas. This process resultedin the identification of critical bottlenecks that had to be addressed– via the redesign of the organizational structure, key processes,and a few roles – to implement the agreed strategy. Both thediagnosis and the change plan were crafted through a VSMparticipatory self-transformation process. Identified issues weremapped and debated collectively by protagonists, facilitated bythe consultants. The decisions that came out of this exercise werehighly valued by the company’s senior management, as theyprepared the organization to deal with is strategic challenges.

The case study action contributes to OR practice (as in Ormerod,2013) by providing further understanding on ways on which PSMscan support the strategy development process in a systemic way.Further development and testing of the contributions of thismethodology to fill the implementation gap in a systemic wayshould encompass organizations operating in various industries,in different cultural and geographic contexts.

10.1.1. On contributions to multi-methods approachesThe interest of the soft OR community in using multi-method

approaches have been growing since the first advocates suggestedthe idea (Bennett, 1985, 1990; Busch, 2011; Flood & Zambuni,1990; Mingers & Brocklesby, 1997; Mingers & Gill, 1997; Mingers& White, 2010; Mintzberg, 1994; Ormerod, 1995; Ormerod, 1996;

210 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 240 (2015) 202–212

Ormerod, 1997; Pauley & Ormerod, 1998). As Mingers and White(2010) demonstrate, the number of applications of multi-methodsin soft OR has been increasing in the last decade. This researchcontributes to such developments, by presenting more in-depthdescriptions of interventions using mixed methods in order todevelop our understanding, as Howick and Ackermann (2011)recommended.

Specifically, the multi-method approach to action research pre-sented here explains in more detail than similar publications haddone before the nature of the data collection and data analysisrequired to manage the complexity of interactions with clients ina large VSM intervention. While using the VSM as a meta-languageto frame the research questions and analyses, we simplified thetechnical aspects of the model by framing a survey (inspired inthe conceptual framework but expressed in business terms) andthen using combined methods for the analyses. We found that bycombining the chosen quantitative and qualitative methods, theresults from one strand of research were enhanced and clarifiedby the other method’s results: this provided increased robustnessof the research process and results.

On the other side, combining ‘‘hard’’ numbers with qualitativedata, serves to counter to some extent the criticisms levied onqualitative research, which traditionalists regard as unscientific,entirely personal and full of bias (Berkhout, Hertin, & Gann,2006). Other soft OR critics have expressed concerns in generalabout subjectivity and lack of structure in some soft OR applica-tions. This case study is an insightful example of a multi-methoddesign of a systemic intervention to support a strategic develop-ment process at a large scale. Our research approach offers possiblesolutions and alternatives to provide more structured analysis andless subjective interpretations of clients’ perceptions, relevantwhen working at such a large scale. Moreover, our experience sug-gests advantages in the combination that go beyond methodologyand ‘‘OR academic research’’, and becomes relevant to ‘‘ORpractice’’ (Ormerod, 2009). When it comes to sharing with man-agement diagnostic points identified by the consultants, showingthat different methodological lenses give convergent results canease the socialization of research results, and facilitate internaliz-ing the diagnosis in the organization. As Yearworth and White(in press) would put it, this case study contributes to visualizingthe process of a PSM use and to our collective learning aboutPSM practice.

10.2. On overcoming limitations of the VSM

Previous research on the VSM and its application to supportorganizational transformations have criticized it by saying thatthe VSM language is difficult to grasp and generates cognitive bar-riers to users (Jackson, 2001; Ulrich, 1981). Aware that this may bethe case with non-experts, and considering that large interventionsgrant fewer opportunities for one-on-one coaching – as was thecase in Espinosa and Walker (2012) – we took a number of steps.

� First, we decided to create a survey and a questionnaire, whichwould give us the information we needed to do the VSManalyses, without expecting users to fully understand the VSMmeta-language. This way we managed to collect a statisticallysignificant sample of responses to core VSM questions acrossthe organization.� Then, to prevent cognitive tensions during discussions with

users, during the initial workshop we invested time in makingsure that participants had a clear understanding of basic VSMprinciples. We kept theory to a minimum and sought to bringout managerial relevance through ‘‘down-to-earth’’ examples.As in Espinosa and Walker (2012), we aimed at making surethat participants understood the systemic aspects of their

organization, so that they could challenge their existing struc-tures. Absorbing VSM categories and concepts, would enableparticipants to engage in second order learning about theircurrent structures and relational practices. This was enhancedby the iterative and participative aspects of the methodology(see Appendix B).� We used Mind-Maps to visually represent the final diagnostic

points, grouping them into VSM categories (Systems 1–5 ateach level of recursive organization). This heuristic deviceproved highly effective in bypassing the complexities oftraditional VSM diagrams, while communicating all relevantconcepts. Although workshop discussions were entirely basedon VMS meta-language and concepts, participants did not haveany problem communicating, as proved by their assessment ofworkshops quality, the level of participation and commitmentshown in workshop evaluations.� To ease the appropriation of proposed changes, we refrained

from ‘‘imposing’’ them top-down, and resorted to a casediscussion, from which a clear direction for change emergedin a ‘‘bottom-up’’ fashion, through inductive reasoning. Thisexercise proved effective in helping the group ‘‘visualize’’ inconcrete forms the promise of organizational change.

10.3. About the type of intervention and the engagement with theclients

As said earlier, the purpose of this intervention was to enhancesecond order learning of the organization, by helping people toidentify required changes in structures, functions and roles andto develop an implementation plan to carry out those changes.The initial encounters were smoothed by the experience of an ear-lier and successful intervention led by one of the co-authors. Clientsatisfaction with that experience built trust and credibility, whichfacilitated the initial decisions on process. Setting up the Exec-Comm and the Tech-Comm enabled the consultants to build a fluiddialog with management, at various levels. Questionnaires, inter-views, sample and workshops’ design were discussed and vali-dated with these Committees, assuring on-going commitmentand political buy-in at different levels of the organization.

The highly participatory nature of the intervention, and the factthat management were constantly fed with highly structuredappreciations of their organizational problems (resulting fromour VSM analyses based on their responses to surveys andinterviews) eliminated fears about us imposing any views.Managers soon began to offer creative solutions aligned with VSMcriteria on their own, and felt all the way through that criticaldecisions ‘emerged’ from them, rather than being ‘handed’ to them.In summary, this intervention is another full example of using theVSM as a Problem Structuring Method, as in Franco andMontibeller (2010), but to the best of our knowledge this is the onlyexample presenting a fully detailed VSM intervention aimed atstructuring participant’s knowledge through facilitated modeling.

10.4. On the impact of the intervention

Mingers and Rosenhead (2004) reflect on the use and effective-ness of PSM approaches and express concerns on the generic diffi-culty practitioners face on how to assess the value of anintervention; they suggest that what a particular PSM approachoffers is ‘a model of the situation’ that will enable participants toclarify their predicaments. In this intervention – as the aim wasto help participants to question and redesign their organization –we can only assess how effective they felt the intervention wasto help them appreciate their own learning and structuralconstraints, and how much it helped them to question currentstructures and co-design a new, more adaptive structure and roles.

A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 240 (2015) 202–212 211

What seems clear from this case study was that the participantsmanaged to develop a critical awareness about their organizationalproblems, through a facilitated environment for agreeing on majorissues needing redesign, and main directions for change. Appendi-ces G and H show that participants felt their perceptions did changeas a result of the workshops, and that these sessions wereinstrumental in building consensus around the changes needed.

On reflection on the mixed method strategy used to produce theinputs for discussion at the workshops, we consider that the partic-ipants trusted the academic consultants’ proposals as they couldsee ‘their own inputs as the basis of our proposals’. The statisticalreports on frequencies of diagnostic points at each level showedthem summaries of a large sample of people’s views on organiza-tional constraints. What emerged from them was ‘common sense’,with self-evident priorities. This is, in our view, a much betterapproach to facilitate organizational learning – and second orderlearning- than the traditional ‘expert mode’ of consultancy, aslearning is happening all the way through the intervention and itis the result of this learning what remains in people’s attitudesand behaviors after the intervention. As change becomesembedded in participants through their interactions with theaction research team, it is more permanent than in traditionalconsultancy engagements. At this level, this case study contributesto deepen our understanding of OR interventions (Yearwoth &White, 2014).

11. Conclusions

The research project presented in this paper contributes to on-going research in soft OR by improving an existing soft OR method-ology through the development of data collection and analysestools to support a large intervention, and VSM redesign processesthat structure even further the ways of engagement with the cus-tomers. This is particularly useful when the intervention happensin a large organization.

Our case study exemplifies the use of VSM as a ‘‘non-codified’’use of PSM; that is, as a PSM that has been useful to structure col-lective knowledge on organizational structure, processes and roles,in a context of strategy development, and more specifically, strat-egy implementation. It also explains in detail, and in a completelydifferent context from the ones published before, the way that theVSM can be used as a meta-language to facilitate second orderlearning in an organization going through a self-transformationprocess. As Gharajedaghi would say, in order to achieve secondorder learning ‘‘these systems need to go through an active processof unlearning and redesign’’ (2007). Here we have experienced theprocess of unlearning by collectively challenging existing roles andstructures, rethinking them using VSM distinctions, and challeng-ing underlying assumptions about power structures and possiblenew ways of relating between roles.

Acknowledgment

We would like to acknowledge the directives and all membersof MARVAL, who contributed to the VSM project.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014.

References

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organisational learning II. Theory, method andpractice. Reading, MA: Addisson-Wesley.

Andrews, K. R. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, Illinois: DowJones-Irwin.

Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: A role for the balanced scorecard?.Management Decision, 44, 1441–1460.

Beer, S. (1979). The heart of enterprise. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the firm. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the system for organizations. Chichester: John Wiley &

Sons.Bennett, P. G. (1985). On linking approaches to decision-aiding: Issues and

prospects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36, 659–670.Bennett, P. G. (1990). Mixing methods: Combining conflict analysis, SODA, and

strategic choice. In C. Eden & J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling strategic problems: Therole of decision support. London: Sage.

Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., & Gann, D. M. (2006). Learning to adapt: Organisationaladaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic Change, 78, 135–156.

Busch, T. (2011). Organizational adaptation to disruptions in the naturalenvironment: The case of climate change. Scandinavian Journal ofManagement, 27, 389–404.

Cao, G., Clarke, S., & Lehaney, B. (2004). The need for a systemic approach to changemanagement – a case study. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17, 103–126.

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: John Wiley &Sons.

Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action research: Its nature and validity. SystemicPractice and Action Research, 11, 9–21.

Clemens, R. (2009). Environmental scanning and scenario planning: A 12 monthperspective on applying the viable systems model to developing public sectorforesight. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22, 249–274.

Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methodsresearch. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.

Devine, S. (2005). The viable systems model applied to a national system ofinnovation to inform policy development. Systemic Practice and Action Research,18, 491–517.

Dyson, R. G., Bryant, J., Morecroft, J., & O’Brien, F. (2007). The strategic developmentprocess. In F. O’Brien & R. G. Dyson (Eds.), Supporting strategy: Frameworks,methods and models (1st ed., pp. 3–24). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2000). Mapping distinctive competencies: A systemicapproach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 12–20.

Espinosa, A., Harnden, R., & Walker, J. (2008). A complexity approach tosustainability – Stafford Beer revisited. European Journal of OperationalResearch, 187, 636–651.

Espinosa, A., & Walker, J. (2011). A complexity approach to sustainability: Theory andapplication. London: World Scientific Publishing Company.

Espinosa, A., & Walker, J. (2012). Complexity management in practice: A viablesystem model intervention in an Irish eco-community. European Journal ofOperational Research, 225(1), 118–129.

Flood, R. (2010). The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ action research. SystemicPractice and Action Research, 23, 269–284.

Flood, R., & Zambuni, S. (1990). Viable systems diagnosis. 1. Application with amajor tourism services group. Systems Practice, 3, 225–248.

Franco, A., & Montibeller, G. (2010). Facilitated modelling in operational research.European Journal of Operational Research, 205, 489–500.

Galbraith, J. R., & Nathanson, D. A. (1978). Strategy implementation: The role ofstructure and process. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co.

Gharajedaghi, J. (2007). Systems thinking: A case for second-order-learning.Learning Organization, 14, 473–479.

Gini, A. (1985). The case method: A perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 4,351–352.

Golinelli, G. M., Pastore, A., Gatti, M., Massaroni, E., & Vagnani, G. (2011). The firm asa viable system: Managing inter-organisational relationships. Sinergie rivista distudi e ricerche.

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual frameworkfor mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,11, 255–274.

Greenhalgh, A. M. (2007). Case method teaching as science and art: A metaphoricapproach and curricular application. Journal of Management Education, 31,181–194.

Gregory, A. J. (2007). Target setting, lean systems and viable systems: A systemsperspective on control and performance measurement. Journal of theOperational Research Society, 58, 1503–1517.

Gregory, W. J., & Midgley, G. (2000). Planning for disaster: Developing a multi-agency counselling service. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51,278–290.

Hammer, R. J., Edwards, J. S., & Tapinos, E. (2011). Examining the strategydevelopment process through the lens of complex adaptive systems theory.Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63, 909–919.

Herried, C. (2011). Case study teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,128, 31–40.

Houchin, K., & MacLean, D. (2005). Complexity theory and strategic change: Anempirically informed critique⁄. British Journal of Management, 16, 149–166.

Howick, S., & Ackermann, F. (2011). Mixing OR methods in practice. Past, presentand future directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 215, 503–511.

Hrebiniak, L. G., & Joyce, W. F. (1984). Implementing Strategy. New York: Macmillan.Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content

analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.Jackson, M. C. (2001). Critical systems thinking and practice. European Journal of

Operational Research, 128, 233–244.

212 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 240 (2015) 202–212

Jacobs, B. (2004). Using soft systems methodology for performance improvementand organisational change in the English National Health Service. Journal ofContingencies and Crisis Management, 12, 138–149.

Jick, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation inaction. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.

Kinloch, P., Francis, H., Francis, M., & Taylor, M. (2009). Supporting crime detectionand operational planning with soft systems methodology and viable systemsmodel. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26, 3–14.

Kocher, P.-Y., Kaudela-Baum, S., & Wolf, P. (2011). Enhancing organisationalinnovation capability through systemic action research: A case of a SwissSME in the food industry. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 24, 17–44.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic ManagementJournal, 14, 95–112.

Lorange, P. (1982). Implementation of strategic planning. Prentice Hall, p. 231.Lyneis, J. M. (1999). System dynamics for business strategy: A phased approach.

System Dynamics Review, 15, 37–70.Lyneis, J. M., Cooper, K. G., & Els, S. A. (2001). Strategic management of complex

projects: A case study using system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 17,237–260.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.

Mason, R. B. (2007). The external environment’s effect on management andstrategy: A complexity theory approach. Management Decision, 45, 10–28.

Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: Aninteractive approach. SAGE Publications.

Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16,475–482.

Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: Towards a framework formixing methodologies. Omega, 25, 489–509.

Mingers, J., & Gill, A. (1997). Multimethodology: Towards theory and practice andmixing and matching methodologies. Wiley.

Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. EuropeanJournal of Operational Research, 152, 530–554.

Mingers, J., & White, L. (2010). A review of the recent contribution of systemsthinking to operational research and management science. European Journal ofOperational Research, 207, 1147–1161.

Mintzberg, H. (1994). Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review,107–114.

Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2010). The use and added value of mixed methods inmanagement research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5, 7–24.

Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative–quantitative methodologicaltriangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120–123.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanesecompanies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.

O’Brien, F. (2011). Supporting the strategy process: A survey of UK OR/MSpractitioners. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 900–920.

Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Daley, C. E., & Waytowich, V. L. (2008). A mixed methodsinvestigation of male juvenile delinquents’ attributions toward violence. Journalof At-Risk Issues, 14.

Ormerod, R. J. (1995). Putting soft OR methods to work: Information systemsstrategy development at Sainsbury’s. Journal of the Operational Research Society,277–293.

Ormerod, R. J. (1996). Putting soft OR methods to work: Information systemsstrategy development at Richards Bay. Journal of the Operational ResearchSociety, 1083–1097.

Ormerod, R. J. (1997). The design of organisational intervention: Choosing theapproach. Omega, 25, 415–513.

Ormerod, R. J. (2009). Justifying the methods of OR. Journal of the OperationalResearch Society, 61, 1694–1708.

Ormerod, R. J. (2013). The mangle of OR practice. Towards more informative casestudies of ‘technical’ projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 14, 1–16.

Paucar-Caceres, A. (2009). Measuring the performance of a research strategic plansystem using the soft systems methodology’s three ‘Es’ and the viable systemmodels indices of achievement. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22,445–462.

Pauley, G. S., & Ormerod, R. J. (1998). The evolution of a performance measurementproject at RTZ. Interfaces, 28, 94–118.

Preece, G., Shaw, D., & Hayashi, H. (2013). Using the Viable System Model (VSM) tostructure information processing complexity in disaster response. EuropeanJournal of Operational Research, 5, 67–78.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2006). Handbook of action research: Concise paperbackedition. SAGE Publications.

Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of MixedMethods Research, 3, 208–222.

Stenfors, S., Tanner, L., Syrjänenc, M., Seppäläb, T., & Haapalinnab, I. (2007).Executive views concerning decision support tools. European Journal ofOperational Research, 181, 929–938.

Stephens, J., & Haslett, T. (2011). A set of conventions, a model: An application ofStafford Beer’s viable systems model to the strategic planning process. SystemicPractice and Action Research, 24, 429–452.

Tomlinson, R., & Dyson, R. (1983). Some systems aspects of strategic planning.Journal of the Operational Research Society, 765–778.

Ulrich, W. (1981). A critique of pure cybernetic reason: The Chilean experience withcybernetics. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 8, 33–59.

West, C. (2011). Action research as a professional development activity. ArtsEducation Policy Review, 112, 89–94.

West, D., & Stansfield, M. H. (2001). Structuring action and reflection in informationsystems action research studies using Checkland’s FMA model. Systemic Practiceand Action Research, 14, 251–281.

Yearworth, M., & White, L. (2014). The non-codified use of Problem StructuringMethods and the need for a generic constitutive definition. European Journal ofOperational Research, 237, 932–945.