فرا ترکیب روش‎های مدل‎سازی سیستم‎های پیچیده فنی ـ اجتماعی با رویکرد پارادایم چندگانه ـ روش‎شناسی چندگانه

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 استاد مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

2 دانشیار گروه MBA، دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

3 استادیار مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

4 دانشجوی دکتری مدیریت صنعتی، دانشکده مدیریت دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران

چکیده

هدف: امروزه اغلب سیستم‌های پیچیده‌ در سازمان‌ها، سیستم‌هایی با پیچیدگی‌های ساختاری، فناورانه و اجتماعی هستند که به آنها، سیستم‌های فنی ـ اجتماعی گفته می‎شود. در مدل‎سازی برای غلبه بر پیچیدگی و تنوع این سیستم‌ها، به روش‌هایی نیاز است که میزان مشابهی از تنوع را در اختیار محققان قرار دهند. با وجود توسعه روش‌هایی در حوزه‌های مختلف تصمیم‌گیری و نظریه سیستم‌ها، این روش‌ها معمولاً بر اهداف و جنبه منفردی از سیستم تمرکز دارند یا اینکه در مدل‎سازی آنها به ویژگی‌های خاص سیستم‌های فنی ـ اجتماعی توجه نشده است. همچنین برخی از روش‌ها، فرایند و چارچوب مشخصی ارائه نمی‌دهند. از این رو، مطالعه حاضر به‎دنبال فراترکیب روش‎های موجود به‎منظور ایجاد روشی ترکیبی برای مد‎ل‎سازی این سیستم‎هاست.
روش: در این مطالعه تلاش شده است که با استفاده از فراترکیب تفسیری انتقادی و بهره‎مندی از دیدگاه پارادایم چندگانه ـ روش‌شناسی چندگانه، فراترکیبی از روش‌های موجود ارائه شود که ویژگی‌های هر یک از سیستم‌های فنی ـ اجتماعی را در نظر می‎گیرد و بر اساس آن، از قوت‌ها و ابزارهای مناسب روش‌های موجود برای مدل‎سازی این سیستم‌ها بهره می‎برد.
یافته‎ها: بعد از اجرای فراترکیب، به‎منظور تحلیل و ترکیب روش‎های موجود 12 مؤلفه شناسایی شد، سپس به‎کمک آنها سازه‌های ترکیبی و تحلیلی برای فراترکیب روش‌ها به‎دست آمد و در ایجاد روش ترکیبی از آنها استفاده شد.
نتیجه‎گیری: روش پیشنهادی که از فراترکیب روش‎های موجود برای مدل‎سازی سیستم‎های فنی ـ اجتماعی به‎دست آمده، قادر است با بهره‎گیری از مفاهیم و ابزارهای متنوع ارائه شده از سوی رویکردها و روش‎های مختلف، جنبه‎های متفاوت سیستم‎های فنی ـ اجتماعی را مدل‎سازی کند. هر چند کارایی روش پیشنهاد شده باید در قالب موردکاوی‎های مختلف ارزیابی شود.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Meta Synthesis of the Modeling Methods of Complex Socio-technical Systems with a Multi Paradigm-multi Methodology Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Mohaghar 1
  • Manoucher Ansari 2
  • Mohammad Reza Sadeghi Moghaddam 3
  • Mohammad Mirkazemi Mood 4
1 Prof. of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Prof. in MBA, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3 Assistant Prof. of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
4 Ph.D. Student of Industrial Management, Faculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Objective: Today,organizations are dealing with the systems which have structural, technological and social complexities named socio-technical systems. To capture this complexity and variety in modeling, we need methods which provide the researchers with similar level of variety. Despite developing a number of methods in different disciplines such as decision-making and systems theories, these methods are commonly one dimensional or they do not consider special aspects of socio-technical systems. Moreover, some methods do not propose a specific framework to model these systems. Therefore, the current study presents a meta-synthesis of the existing modeling methods and creates a new modeling method.
Methods: The current study tries to present a meta-synthesis of the modeling methods using critical interpretive synthesis and a multi paradigm-multi methodology approach considering strengths and applicable tools of the extant methods.
Results: Following the meta-synthesis, 12 descriptive themes were identified and used to analyze the methods. In addition, synthetic and analytic constructs were identified and used to propose the synthetic method.
Conclusion: The proposed method, which is a by-product of the meta-synthesis of modeling methods of socio-technical systems, is able to model the different aspects of socio-technical systems using diverse concepts and tools of extant approaches and methods. However, its applicability has to be evaluated through different case studies.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Critical interpretive synthesis
  • Principles
  • Steps of methods
  • Theoretical paradigm
  • Tools and techniques
آذر، عادل؛ سقالرزاده، سمانه؛ رجب‎زاده، علی (1391). شبیه‌سازی فازی در شرایط عدم‌اطمینان. نشریه مدیریت صنعتی، 4(2)، 1-20.

حسین‎زاده، مهناز؛ مهرگان، محمد رضا (1395). طراحی چارچوب روش‎شناسی چندگانه برای تحقیق در عملیات با استفاده از تحلیل شبکه‎های اجتماعی. نشریه پژوهشهای نوین در تصمیمگیری، 1(1)، 1-26.

علی‎زاده، لیلا؛ نورالنساء، رسول؛ رئیسی، صدیق (1394). بهینه‎سازی هم‎زمان چند هدفه فرایند دادرسی کیفری به‎کمک شبیه‎سازی کمپیوتری گسسته پیشامد و طراحی آزمایش‎ها. نشریه مدیریت صنعتی، 7(1)، 65-82.

 صادقی مقدم، علی اصغر؛ خاتمی فیروزآبادی، علی؛ ربانی، یوسف (1390). استفاده از رویکرد ترکیبی SD و SSM برای حل مسائل اجتماعی غیرساختاریافته. نشریه مدیریت صنعتی، 3(7)، 55-76.

مصلح شیرازی، علی نقی؛ رعنایی، حبیب‎اله؛ ایمان، محمد تقی؛ تاجیک، مهدی (1395). روش‎شناسی سیستمی چندگانه: رویکردی نوین در پژوهش‎های مدیریت. فصلنامه روششناسیعلومانسانی، 22(87)، 7-32.

References

Ackermann, F. (2012). Problem structuring methods ‘in the Dock’: Arguing the case for Soft OR. European Journal of Operational Research, 219(3), 652-658.

Ackoff, R. L. (2001). A brief guide to interactive planning and idealized design. Retrieved on March, 19, 2006.

Ackoff, R.L. (1981). Creating the Corporate Future. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Alizadeh, L., Noorossana, R., Raissi, S. (2015). Multi-objective optimization of criminal trial process using descrete event computer simulation and design of experiment. Industrial management Journal of university of Tehran, 7 (1), 65-82. (in Persian)

Ashby, W. R. (1957). An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman and Hall, London.

Azar, A., Saghalorzadeh, S., Rajabzadeh, A. (2013). Fuzzy Simulation in Uncertain Circumstances. Industrial management Journal of university of Tehran, 4 (2), 1-20.
(in Persian)

Baxter, G., & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with computers, 23(1), 4-17.

Beer, S. (1984). The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. Journal of the operational research society, 31(1), 7-25

Bench, S., & Day, T. (2010). The user experience of critical care discharge: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. International journal of nursing studies, 47(4), 487-499.

Bennet, P., Bryant, J. & Howard, N. (2001). Drama theory and confrontation analysis. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Bukowski, L. (2016). System of systems dependability–Theoretical models and applications examples. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 151, 76-92.

Checkland, P. & Holwell, S. (2004). Classic’ OR and ‘soft’ OR - an asymmetric complementarity. In Systems modelling: Theory and practice. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Checkland, P. (2001). Soft system methodology. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use, for practitioners, teachers and students. John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., ... & Riley, R. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC medical research methodology, 6(1), 35.

Edwards, J., & Kaimal, G. (2016). Using meta-synthesis to support application of qualitative methods findings in practice: A discussion of meta-ethnography, narrative synthesis, and critical interpretive synthesis. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 51, 30-35.

Espinosa, A., & Walker, J. (2013). Complexity management in practice: A viable system model intervention in an Irish eco-community. European Journal of Operational Research, 225(1), 118-129.

Eusgeld, I., Nan, C., & Dietz, S. (2011). “System-of-systems” approach for interdependent critical infrastructures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 96(6), 679-686.

Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Total systems intervention: a practical face to critical systems thinking. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 4(3), 197-213.

Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. (1995). Enhancing the process of methodology choice in total systems intervention (TSI) and improving chances of tackling coercion. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 8(4), 377-408.

Friend, J. (2001). The Strategic Choice approach. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Friend, J. K., & Hickling, A. (2005). Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach. Third edition, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann. Oxford.

Gu, J. F., & Tang, X. J. (2003). A test on meta-synthesis system approach to forecasting the GDP growth rate in China. In Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Hersonissos, Crete (pp. 6-11).

Gu, J., & Tang, X. (2005). Meta-synthesis approach to complex system modeling. European Journal of Operational Research, 166(3), 597-614.

Haftor, D. M. (2011). An Evaluation of RL Ackoff’s Interactive Planning: A case-based approach. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 24(4), 355-377.

Herrmann, T., & Loser, K. U. (1999). Vagueness in models of socio-technical systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(5), 313-323.

Herrmann, T., Hoffmann, M., Kunau, G., & Loser, K. U. (2004). A modelling method for the development of groupware applications as socio-technical systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(2), 119-135.

Hickling, A. (2001). Gambling with frozen fire. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

HosseinZadeh, M. & Mehregan, M. R.)2016). Designing a Multi-Methodology Framework for Operations Research using Social Network Analysis. Modern research in decision making, 1 (1), 1-26. (in Persian)

Hosseinzadeh, M., Mehregan, M. R. & Amiri, M. (2016). Investigating the methodological foundations of Operations Research in the form of the categorical syllogism. Industrial management Journal of university of Tehran, 8 (4), 575-600. (in Persian)

Howard, N., Bennett, P., Bryant, J., & Bradley, M. (1993). Manifesto for a theory of drama and irrational choice. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 6(4), 429-434.

Howick, S., & Ackermann, F. (2011). Mixing OR methods in practice: Past, present and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 215(3), 503-511.

Howick, S., Ackermann, F., Walls, L., Quigley, J. & Houghton, T. (2016). Learning from mixed OR method practice: the nine case study. Omega, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.omega.2016.08.003.

Hughes, T. P. (1987). The evolution of large technological systems. The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology, 51-82.

Jackson, M. C. (1999). Towards coherent pluralism in management science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(1), 12-22.

Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers (p. 378). Chichester: Wiley.

Jackson, M. C., & Keys, P. (1984). Towards a system of systems methodologies. Journal of the operational research society, 473-486.

Keating, C. B., Padilla, J. J., & Adams, K. (2008). System of systems engineering requirements: challenges and guidelines. Engineering Management Journal, 20(4), 24-31.

Kotiadis, K., & Mingers, J. (2006). Combining PSMs with hard OR methods: the philosophical and practical challenges. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7), 856-867.

Mayer, M. W. (1998). Architecting principles for system of systems. Syst. Eng, 1(4), 267-274.

McDermott, T., Rouse, W., Goodman, S., & Loper, M. (2013). Multi-level modeling of complex socio-technical systems. Procedia Computer Science, 16, 1132-1141.

Meyers, T. J., Hester, P. T., & Pyne, J. C. (2014). Toward a Watershed-and System of Systems–Oriented Perspective of Stormwater Management Enterprise Performance. Public Works Management & Policy, 19(3), 235-254.

Midgley, G. (1997). Developing the methodology of TSI: From the oblique use of methods to creative design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 10(3), 305-319.

Midgley, G., Cavana, R. Y., Brocklesby, J., Foote, J. L., Wood, D. R., & Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. (2013). Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 229(1), 143-154.

Mingers, J. & Rosenhead, J. (2001). Diversity Unity: looking inward and outward. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Mingers, J. & White, L. (2009) A Review of the Recent Contribution of Systems Thinking to Operational Research and Management Science. Working paper. Kent Business School, Canterbury.

Mingers, J. (2001). Multimethodology-mixing and matching methods. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Mingers, J. (2003). A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods. Journal of the operational research society, 54(6), 559-570.

Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega, 25(5), 489-509.

Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 530-554.

Mosleh Shirazi, A. N., Raenie, H., Iman, M. T. & Tajik, M. (2016). The Multi systemic methodology: new approach in management research. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities Journal, 22 (87), 7-32. (in Persian)

Mostafavi, A., Abraham, D. M., & Lee, J. (2012). System-of-systems approach for assessment of financial innovations in infrastructure. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 2(2), 250-265.

Munro, I., & Mingers, J. (2002). The use of multimethodology in practice—results of a survey of practitioners. Journal of the operational research society, 53(4), 369-378.

Najmaei, A. (2016). Using Mixed-Methods Designs to Capture the Essence of Complexity in the Entrepreneurship Research: An Introductory Essay and a Research Agenda. In Complexity in Entrepreneurship, Innovation and Technology Research (pp. 13-36). Springer International Publishing.

Nikolic, I. & Kasmire, J. (2013). Agent-Based Social Systems. H.Deguchi(Ed.). Springer, New York.

Nikolic, I. (2009). Co-evolutionary method for modelling large scale socio-technical systems evolution. TU Delft, Delft University of Technology. Next Generation Infrastructures Foundation.

Nikolic, I. Van Dam, K.H. & Kasmire, J. (2013). Agent-Based Social Systems. H.Deguchi(Ed.). Springer, New York.

Noblit, G.W., & Hare, R.D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies, Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

Ottens, M., Franssen, M., Kroes, P., & Van De Poel, I. (2006). Modelling infrastructures as socio-technical systems. International journal of critical infrastructures, 2(2-3), 133-145.

Paterson, B. L., Dubouloz, C. J., Chevrier, J., Ashe, B., King, J., & Moldoveanu, M. (2009). Conducting qualitative metasynthesis research: Insights from a metasynthesis project. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 22-33.

Pidd, M. (2004). Complementarity in systems modelling. In Systems modelling: Theory and practice, 1-19. New York, John Wiley and Sons.

Preece, G., Shaw, D., & Hayashi, H. (2015). Application of the Viable System Model to analyse communications structures: A case study of disaster response in Japan. European Journal of Operational Research, 243(1), 312-322.

Ranyard, J. C., Fildes, R., & Hu, T. I. (2015). Reassessing the scope of OR practice: The influences of problem structuring methods and the analytics movement. European Journal of Operational Research, 245(1), 1-13.

Reynolds, M. (2007). Evaluation based on critical systems heuristics. In: Williams, B. and Imam, I. eds. Using Systems Concepts in Evaluation: An Expert Anthology. Point Reyes CA, USA: Edge Press, 101–122.

Sadeghi Moghadam, A. A., Khatami, A. & Rabbani, Y. (2011). Using Combined Method of SD and SSM for Solving Unstructured Social Problems. Industrial management Journal of university of Tehran, 3 (7), 55-76. (in Persian)

Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms the case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of management review, 21(2), 529-557.

Sørensen, L., Vidal, R. V. V., & Engström, E. (2004). Using soft OR in a small company––The case of Kirby. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 555-570.

Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill. New York.

Sushil, S. (1993). System dynamics: A practical approach for managerial problems, Wiley Eastern publication, New Delhi, India.

Swinerd, C., & McNaught, K. R. (2012). Design classes for hybrid simulations involving agent-based and system dynamics models. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 25, 118-133.

Taket, A., & White, L. (1998). Experience in the practice of one tradition of multimethodology. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(2), 153-168.

Taket, A., & White, L. (2004). Playing with PANDA: The CybOrg and the rhizome. In Community Operational Research, 253-272. Springer US.

Tako, A. A., & Kotiadis, K. (2015). PartiSim: A multi-methodology framework to support facilitated simulation modelling in healthcare. European Journal of Operational Research, 244(2), 555-564.

Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8(1), 45.

Trist, E. R. I. C., & Emery, F. R. E. D. (1960). Socio-technical systems theory. vol. 2, Pergamon, Oxford, U.K.

Ulrich, W. & Reynolds, M. (2010). Critical systems heuristics. In: Reynolds, Martin and Holwell, Sue eds. Systems Approaches to Managing Change: A Practical Guide. London: Springer, 243–292.

Ulrich, W. (1993). Some difficulties of ecological thinking, considered from a critical systems perspective: a plea for critical holism. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 6(6), 583-611.

Ulrich, W. (2005). A brief introduction to critical systems heuristics (CSH). ECOSENSUS project website, The Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.

White, L. (2006). Evaluating problem-structuring methods: Developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSMs. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 842-855.

White, L., & Taket, A. (1997). Beyond appraisal: Participatory appraisal of needs and the development of action (PANDA). Omega, 25(5), 523-534.

Wu, P. P. Y., Fookes, C., Pitchforth, J., & Mengersen, K. (2015). A framework for model integration and holistic modelling of socio-technical systems. Decision Support Systems, 71, 14-27.

Yearworth, M., & White, L. (2014). The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition. European Journal of Operational Research, 237(3), 932-945.