Content uploaded by Richard Ormerod
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Richard Ormerod on Oct 04, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2008) 59, 1435 --1448 ©2008 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved. 0160-5682/08
www.palgrave-journals.com/jors
The transformation competence perspective
RJ Ormerod∗
University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
Reflections on a number of participative projects have led to the conclusion that, when planning and con-
ducting OR interventions, particular attention should be paid to the transformation to be attempted and to
the competence of those who will be involved. The transformation required by a consulting project sets the
scope of the ambition that is to be met by the craft skills and expertise of people, supported if appropriate by
pre-defined methods. Competence refers to the skills, time and the ability to act of those involved in the inter-
vention. In designing an intervention, activities have to be planned in the light of the transformation required,
the competences of those involved and the pre-defined methods available. Pre-defined methods are character-
ized in terms of their transformation potential, the transformation that can be achieved by using the method
in a specific context. The paper elaborates the proposed transformation competence perspective drawing on
personal practical experience; its aim is to articulate an approach to the design of participative consulting
interventions and compare it with alternatives.
Journal of the Operational Research Society (2008) 59, 1435 –1448. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602482
Published online 5 September 2007
Keywords: process of OR; practice of OR
Introduction
During the 1990s I was engaged in a number of consultancy
projects, which set out to involve members of the client or-
ganization in developing strategy: I adopted a participative
approach and applied it in my practice. In doing so I made
use of a number of pre-defined methods and therefore had to
choose which ones to deploy in each particular circumstance.
On reflecting on this issue (Ormerod, 1997a, b) I came to the
conclusion that two important factors to be taken into account
when choosing pre-defined methods were the transformation
that the project aimed to achieve and the competence of the
participants (including the consultants) to bring about change.
To put it simply, the key question was: for project A, what
methods (in part, singly or together) would enable a particu-
lar set of people to achieve the aims of a project effectively in
a particular set of circumstances. I concluded that the answer
was to take a transformation competence perspective (TCP).
The paper sets out to put flesh on the bare bones of the TCP
concept and compare it with other approaches. To do so I will
draw mainly on my experience of designing and conducting
projects both large and small: the validation of the TCP thus
lies in experience not theory. Many of the personal experi-
ences that I am drawing on are accessible in the literature;
for instance, Ormerod (1995a, 1996a, d, 1998, 1999, 2005a)
and Pauley and Ormerod (1998) contain major case studies,
and brief accounts can also be found in Ormerod (1995b,
1997a, 2001, 2005b). The paper will identify some theoretical
∗Correspondence: RJ Ormerod, 26 Coulsdon Road, Sidmouth, Devon
EX10 9JP, UK.
E-mail: richard@rormerod.freeserve.co.uk
insights (philosophical pragmatism, Boothroyd’s articulate in-
tervention, and Ulrich’s critical systems heuristics) that can be
associated with the approach and will compare and contrast
the perspective with those of others interested in the process
of OR. Relying on experience rather than theory for validation
is an example of what Keys (1997) refers to as practice-led
research and Giddings et al (1994) call Mode 2 research.
The need for intervention design
In the early days OR interventions were mainly exploratory
in nature; the assumption was (to exaggerate only slightly)
that bright (young) people set to work on an important is-
sue would come up with something useful (and they usually
did). In those circumstances it was not always necessary to
declare at the outset exactly what was going to be involved.
Today the process of OR is usually more formal; consultancy
whether internal or external has to be contracted at a price;
detailed plans have to be submitted and approved; progress
has to be reported; deliverables have to be explicit. Clients are
now better informed; they are interested in what the OR con-
sultants have to offer in terms of process as well as outcome;
they want to tie the contract down; they want to make sure
that the consultants deliver against the contract. To achieve
a satisfactory project definition and subsequent control, the
intervention needs to be explicitly designed. Of course, flex-
ibility on both sides is both desirable and necessary, and
trust usually grows as the project progresses. In these re-
spects OR is no different from any other professional practice.
However, OR projects have become increasingly participative
and a wide range of pre-defined (public) methods are now
1436 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 59, No. 11
available. Thus the design process has become more complex
and at the same time more central to OR success.
The participative approach
In a conventional OR project (qualitative and quantitative)
information is gathered, analysis is carried out, conclusions
are drawn and recommendations made. This was basically
the routine I had become used to following while working
in the Operational Research Executive of the National Coal
Board in the 1970s. Due regard was paid to ensuring that
the intervention process was appropriate for the social set-
ting, the context and the culture, but wide participation was
seldom an explicit aim. However, as a corporate planner in
the late 1970s I became involved in three programmes con-
ducted on a very different basis: the Energy Programme run
by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
(H¨
afele, 1981); the World Coal Study run by MIT (Wilson,
1980); and an investigation into the information systems ac-
tivities of my own organization (then renamed as the British
Coal Corporation) by external consultants. Thus I was ex-
posed to a range of large programmes which involved vary-
ing degrees of consultation, collaboration and participation.
I was particularly impressed by what could be achieved by
people who often lacked great knowledge of the matter in
hand, but instead used their abilities to organize a process to
engage people seeped in the issues. Moreover, I noted that
the participants, when confronted by facts, analysis and the
views of others, adapted their views and often sought common
ground.
In 1987 when I moved into consultancy (at the PA Con-
sulting Group) I initially drew on my earlier operational
research experience to carry out assignments largely in an-
alytical mode. This changed when at the end of 1988 I
was called on to develop a proposal to carry out a major
information strategy development exercise for Sainsbury’s.
At the time Sainsbury’s was the UK’s largest supermarket
chain with a reputation for being well managed. To win the
business we had to offer something that was exciting, inno-
vative, and imaginative. Sainsbury’s wanted an approach that
involved users, so I needed to design a participative process.
Participation would be the key to eliciting an understanding
of the business and the role of IT; it would provide the ve-
hicle for generating innovative ideas and would ensure that
those involved would be committed to the strategy outcome.
I needed to specify what would happen during this participa-
tive process, the activities and events that would take place,
the outcomes that would be produced. I knew that those in-
volved would need to (i) consider the nature and direction of
the business, (ii) explore the opportunities that IT afforded,
and (iii) evaluate any proposals in business terms. So I had
an overall logic, but I was faced with the challenge of how
to engage up to 30–40 people in the process. I decided to
turn to ‘soft’ OR methods for support. The problem was to
determine which methods to use for what purpose. It is the
experience gained when addressing this issue at Sainsbury’s
and subsequent clients that gave rise to the TCP.
Mixing methods
In consultancy at this time there was much talk about learning
organizations, innovation, excellence and ‘creating visions’
and ‘making them happen’. Drawing on these ideas I derived
up some principles (criteria) to guide the choice of methods
(Ormerod, 1995a, p 285). These are shown in Table 1. I had
some familiarity with the concepts of the strategic choice ap-
proach (SCA) (Friend and Hickling, 2005) and I had read
about interactive planning (Ackoff, 1979), cognitive mapping
(Eden and Jones, 1980; Eden, 1985), soft systems methodol-
ogy (Checkland, 1981) and other approaches. When I looked
at how the methods could be deployed to meet the require-
ments of the project (engaging the participants in achieving
the required transformation), I found that I needed to mix the
methods. This arose because each of the methods considered
had a different focus, a different scope, a different transfor-
mation potential. By examining the transformation required
by the project logic, I designed the intervention process allo-
cating methods to support appropriate phases.
During the Sainsbury’s project I gained familiarity with the
use of certain soft methods and in subsequent projects I nat-
urally turned to them. Some of these methods did not meet
the requirements of the new circumstances so they had to be
dropped. Others were brought in to meet some purpose or
other not present in the previous project. In the meantime I
was continuously searching for new, potentially relevant ap-
proaches and was keen to try out those that seemed promis-
ing. In the terms of Corbett et al (1995), I was developing a
‘strand of practice’.
The mixing of methods in different circumstances was a
very personal process conducted intuitively. In order to un-
derstand better this particular craft skill I decided to treat it
as a choice process that is susceptible to formal OR analysis.
The results were reported in Ormerod (1997b). In attempt-
ing this formal analysis I discovered that, in my case at least,
(i) any intervention is likely to involve several phases, each
with a transformation that could be supported by one or more
methods, (ii) I had a large number of different methods or
part methods that I could potentially draw on, and (iii) as a
result, a large number of designs were possible each requir-
ing evaluation if a rational choice were to be made. In these
circumstances I found that the formal analysis becomes too
unwieldy to be useful. I therefore concluded that a more flex-
ible, ad hoc, heuristic process was required. It is the purpose
of this paper to flesh out such an approach.
The core elements of the TCP
The TCP draws on the experience of a number of major in-
terventions, particularly at Sainsbury’s supermarkets in 1989
(Ormerod, 1995a, 1996d), the Palabora copper mine in 1991
(Ormerod, 1998), the Richards Bay mineral operation in 1992
RJ Ormerod—Transformation competence perspective 1437
Tabl e 1 Principles (criteria) to guide the choice of methods
1. The learning principle: Strategy and planning is an organizational learning process.
2. The interpretive principle: It is management’s task to state and develop their interpretation of the company and its environment.
3. The participatory principle: The active participation of management is essential to give commitment and ownership.
4. The pluralist principle: Diverging interests between groups have to be accommodated.
5. The adaptive principle: Organizations are complex, open, adaptive systems.
Tabl e 2 The factors that need to be taken into account in an intervention design
1. The desired outcome: The required transformation in terms of the decision or change required and the need for consensus and
commitment.
2. The participants: Those who need to be involved in terms of different interests, competences and power.
3. The practical constraints: Time, location and willingness to participate.
4. The organizational agendas: Changes that are occurring in the organization and its environment, the internal and external context.
5. The organizational culture: Particularly the style of decision-making, intended and actual.
6. The approaches: The transformational potential of different approaches.
7. The resources: The level of input from both participants and consultants that can be afforded.
8. The competences: Primarily the ability of the consultants to implement different approaches, but also the ability of the participants
to contribute. (Ormerod, 1997b).
Competences
Transformation
Outer
Inner
Methods
Context
Figure 1 The transformation competence design issue.
(Ormerod, 1996a) and at the PowerGen electricity generating
company in 1994 (Ormerod, 1999), and some smaller ones
including projects at Severn Trent Water in 1993 (Ormerod,
1997a, pp 48–50), the Hamersley iron ore mining complex
in 1993 (Ormerod, 1996c), and again at Sainsbury’s in 1994
(Ormerod,1997a, pp 52–54). I concluded that intervention de-
sign should reflect the factors shown in Table 2 and that par-
ticular emphasis should be placed on the first and the last,
on the transformation required and the competence of those
involved. In this paper I will also pay attention to the char-
acteristics of the methods (approaches) that could be used;
these are referred to in Table 2 as the transformation poten-
tial of different approaches (sixth factor). The design issue
addressed by the TCP is shown in Figure 1.
Transformation
The concept of transformation is taken straightforwardly
from the engineering concept of input and output with what
happens in between as yet undefined (Checkland uses it the
same way: Checkland, 1981, p 317). The transformation sets
the ambition of the consulting engagement. Its definition is
crucial in aligning the expectations of clients and consultants
in a particular context. The context, however briefly, should
be stated at the same time. As a reminder of this point I
refer to the transformation as the intervention transformation
required and context (ITRC). An ITRC allows the clients to
assess the value of proceeding with the project; it allows the
consultant to assess the consulting cost. Articulating an ITRC
is seldom trivial. The process is best understood through an
example. Initially a raw materials stock control project could
be formulated by the client as:
ITRC1: [transformation: Stock control data +currently used
algorithms +analyst expertise →improved algorithms] [con-
text: the company needs to reduce costs; improved stock con-
trol for all raw materials used in all its European factories is
required]
Consultants are, of course, seeking business on the basis of
the transformation:
ITRC2: [transformation: Client’s needs +client with money
+consultant expertise →client’s needs met +consultants
with money +consultants with enhanced expertise +further
extensions] [context: the consultancy is looking to secure rev-
enues and enhance expertise and reputation in a competitive
market]
In discussions between the consultants and the clients dur-
ing the sales process, the consultants might observe that any
attempt at performance improvement should also look at the
overall stockholding strategy. At the same time the client
might consider the project too large, too costly and too risky;
1438 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 59, No. 11
the scope needs to be reduced. The client might also suggest
that the stock control manager should become part of the in-
vestigating team both to reduce the cost and to transfer some
of the expertise into the company. The jointly agreed trans-
formation might then be:
ITRC3: [transformation: Current stockholding strategy and
operations +analyst expertise +stock control manager in-
volvement →improved performance in the German factory
+plan to apply experience to all other European factories
+stock control manager with enhanced expertise] [context:
the company needs to reduce costs; improved stock control
for all raw materials used in all its German factories can act
as a pilot; the German experience can be used to assess the
feasibility and benefit of wider European application]
This would be accompanied by a commercial transforma-
tion of agreed payments against performance of the project:
ITRC4: [transformation: Agreed project +commercial terms
+client with money →project performed to client satis-
faction +consultants with money] [context: a formal con-
tractual relationship needs to be established to ensure that
claims for payment are properly made, payments are made
on time, grounds rules for intellectual and other property
rights are established, issue and dispute resolution defined
and so on]
For ITRC3 to be understood and ITRC4 to be defined, the
transformation will almost certainly be fleshed out into a
project plan with activities organized into phases with de-
fined deliverables to meet the requirements of project man-
agement introduced above. Both parties will be concerned to
ensure that the pragmatic consequences in terms of process
and outcomes are as they would wish. So we have ended up
with a pilot project of limited geographical scope involving
one of the managers in the project team.
In the language of Boothroyd (1978), the intervention trans-
formation required defines the primary proposal of the joint
action programme formed by the consultants and their clients
(transformation is not a term used by Boothroyd). Other pro-
posals and perhaps some theories held collectively by the
project team can then be articulated. These proposals and the-
ories may well be implicit. Thus if the perceived problem in
the example above is that the client company has too much
raw materials stock, both clients and consultants may explic-
itly share the theory that new stock re-order algorithms or
a wider look at stocking strategy will address the problem.
Implicitly they may be sharing the proposal that the current
product designs (and hence raw materials requirements) have
to be taken as given and that the ‘make or buy’ decisions are
outside the remit of this particular project. Examination of
these implicit proposals may lead to a further clarification of
the proposed transformation. In the case illustrated above the
project is also deliberately setting out to change the future
action programme of the stock control functions by involving
the manager. The agreed intervention programme (defined by
proposals and theories) can be seen as a negotiated outcome
of the client action programme and the consultant action pro-
gramme agreeing to combine forces.
What does a good ITRC look like? The pragmatic princi-
ple teaches us to judge an object in terms of its consequences
(Ormerod, 2006). The first desirable consequence is that the
ITRC does in fact define the project desired by all parties in
a way that they understand what is involved and what will be
demanded of them. This depends on the ITRC being explicit
and clear. Second, in the process of agreeing the ITRC a cer-
tain level of trust should have been built up. Third, the ITRC
needs to be cast sufficiently widely so as not to exclude rel-
evant aspects or people (for instance, wider aspects, knowl-
edgeable experts or concerned citizens). As this is somewhat
open ended it may be more realistic to be clear as to what will
be taken for granted and who will not be involved, so that
the downside of such decisions can be judged (Ulrich, 1983,
1987, 2003). Third, it needs to be achievable with a reason-
able degree of certitude. Finally, the ITRC needs to serve the
project as a point of reference, a continual reminder of the
aims of the projects, its limitations and its assumptions.
Competence
People and their competences are the essential raw materials
by means of which the agreed transformation will be achieved.
The word competence actually has three meanings in English:
(a) skill or ability, (b) an income large enough to live on,
and (c) the legal capacity to deal with a matter. What are
the skills and abilities of an OR consultant? In an attempt to
answer this question in a previous paper (Ormerod, 2002a) I
took a resource based view and applied the core competence
model of Prahalad and Hamel (1990). I concluded that the core
competences of OR are (i) conducting analysis, (ii) designing
and managing process, and (iii) appreciating context.
Even at this very summary level the set of competences
has to be widened when a project design is being considered.
First, we have to add the competences of the client’s staff, in
the sense of their skills and expertise. Their outstanding com-
petence is in understanding the internal and external context
of their organization. However, they will also have analyti-
cal and process skills which may or may not be relevant for
the project (for instance, the client may decide to design and
manage the project themselves, subcontracting sections of it
to consultants). Second, the clients have competence in the
legal sense of the capacity to decide what actions to take, a
competence consultants usually lack. It is in this sense that
Ulrich argues that the ‘affected’ should be considered com-
petent even if they lack knowledge and skills in the matters
under consideration (Ulrich, 1983). Those affected by but un-
involved in the decision-making may also be able to contribute
alternative perspectives leading to a more rounded analysis
and encouraging deeper self-reflection of those involved. The
RJ Ormerod—Transformation competence perspective 1439
Tabl e 3 A general set of competences relevant to intervention design
1. The analytical skills and personal methods of the proposed consultant(s).
2. The consultants’ ability to design and manage a relevant intervention process.
3. The consultants’ ability to understand the client organization’s inner and outer context.
4. The ability of members of the client organization to understand and articulate their inner and outer context.
5. The analytical skills of members of the client’s organization (potential participants).
6. The ability of members of the client organization to design and manage a relevant process.
7. The ability of members of the client organization to understand and articulate their operations, strategies and concerns.
8. The competence of members of the client organization to decide and act.
9. The skills and abilities of others outside the client organization.
10. The competence of others outside the client organization to decide and act in related decision areas.
11. The competence of the affected (human, animal and physical) and their surrogates to represent their interests.
affected may join together (for instance, in trade unions) to
represent their interests. Similarly, groups may be formed to
represent the ‘interests’ of animals or the environment. Third,
we need to recognize the possibility that the project may need
to involve others outside the client organization, customers,
suppliers, collaborators and representatives from related de-
cision areas, for instance, inspectors, regulators, government
officials and so on. We thus arrive at a set of potentially rele-
vant competences shown in Table 3. Even at this general level
there are plenty of sources of skills, expertise and interests to
be considered for inclusion in a project design. Nevertheless,
the list may not be comprehensive and it certainly does not
try to reflect the complexities of organizational life and the
different interests within it.
To address the issue some sort of characterization of peo-
ple’s skills and abilities could be helpful. For the consultants’
skills in the use of PSMs, Keys (2006, p 824), drawing on
Hoffman (1998), suggests: ‘A novice user of PSMs [prob-
lem structuring methods] will be taken as someone who has
no deep knowledge of the methods or how they are used
but is aware of their existence and able to relate them with
other management science methodologies they have used.
An expert user, in contrast, will be taken to have knowl-
edge that allows them to use some of the methods, reflect
upon that use, and modify their practice. That is they will
have knowledge and expertise that goes significantly beyond
that gained by understanding a “textbook” description of a
methodology. In between these categories lie two intermedi-
ate stages, apprentice and journeyman, that mark steps along
the path from novice towards expert status’ Using six cate-
gories of knowledge taken from Fleck (1998), Keys further
elaborates the difference between experts and novices (Keys,
2006, p 825).
Keys concludes that understanding one’s own strengths and
weaknesses ensures that experts take actions and make com-
mitments that are feasible and able to be realized (Keys, 2006,
p 826). However, as argued above consideration of compe-
tence should not be limited to the skills and expertise of the
consultant(s); it must also include all those involved and af-
fected by the project and it must interpret competence in terms
of ability to decide as well as expertise and knowledge. Con-
sultants or participants can be said to have their own personal
intervention competence model (PICM) by which I mean the
ability to deploy pre-defined methods. Actually a simple list
would do but I will retain the term ‘model’ to keep open
the possibility of using the concepts explained by Keys (see
above) in a more structured way. As well as focusing on lev-
els of expertise in the use of particular methods such a PICM
may include familiarity with, and thus competence in, work-
ing in particular contexts (for instance, finance, manufactur-
ing, health or local government).
A key dimension of competence is the ability of the con-
sultant to take a public method (or part thereof), or indeed a
private one, and adapt it to the particular circumstances of the
intervention being considered. Elements of public and private
methods (or methodologies) will need to be used together.
Judicious mixing and matching is required. Thus the TCP
does not envisage the method to be used in an intervention as
something to be taken off the shelf and applied. Rather the ap-
proach adopted is crafted for the particular intervention. This
crafting process is based on an understanding of the potential
each method (public or private) has for supporting some part
of an intervention, their transformation potential.
Transformation potential of methods
Methods (in whole or part) are deployed in an intervention
design to support all or some part of the activities envisaged.
Thus to design an intervention in terms of the ITRC and
the competences available (including constraints of time and
money) requires a clear understanding of the methods (pub-
lic and private) that can be deployed and to what effect; the
transformation potentials of these methods need to defined.
The transformation potential of a method or part thereof is
conceived straightforwardly in terms of the inputs and out-
puts. My general view of the transformation potential of a
sample of the possible (public) methods and part methods are
given in Table 4. These formulations are offered as charac-
terizations rather than definitive statements. They are simply
my understanding of what might be done with the methods
in general terms. Individual practitioners will have their own
view, their own personal list.
The characterizations in Table 4 are, of course, over-
simplifications; they are aide-m´
emoires. Pragmatically
1440 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 59, No. 11
Tabl e 4 The transformation potential of a sample of methods and part methods
1. Site visits: Client’s physical and human activity system +consultant →consultant with a better understanding of the client’s
operations in focus.
2. Data gathering: Dispersed data on computers and in records and reports +consultant analyst →data in the hands of the analyst.
3. Questionnaire: The views of those receiving the questionnaire →the views of those choosing to return the questionnaire captured
in the form of answers to a common set of questions.
4. Interviews: Thoughts and ideas (theories and proposals in Boothroyd’s terms) in an individual’s mind +questioning consultant
→expressed thoughts of the individual as heard and recorded by the consultant.
5. Meetings: Participants (with theories and proposals) +meeting purpose (agenda) →views (theories, proposals) expressed +
views (theories, proposals) heard +participants with altered views (theories and proposals).
6. Facilitated Workshops: Consultant facilitator +agenda +methods/techniques →participants’ enhanced understanding (of
theories and proposals) and agreement to act (proposals) +record of the event.
7. Mathematical modelling:Data+assumptions +consultant analyst →logical consequences deduced from the data and assump-
tions.
8. Statistical analysis: Context giving rise to numerical data +the data +statistical models +hypotheses +consultant analyst →
an analysis of the data.
9. Decision analysis: Some options to be compared +views of possible future development in the context +possible criteria +
consultant analyst →comparative evaluation of the options.
10. What ... if modelling: Assumptions about the relationship between variables through time +assumptions about future
events/decisions +consultant analyst →model of the consequences of the combination of assumptions, decisions and future
events.
11. Operational gaming: A situation where sequential decisions with repercussions have to be taken +gaming rules +a model to be
used to evaluate decisions taken in the game +participants +a consultant facilitator →participants with a better understanding
of the nature and consequences of the relevant decisions.
12. Metagame analysis: A situation involving conflict and cooperation between actors +an actor’s (the client) intuitive understanding
of the situation +metagame technique +consultant analyst →a clear understanding of the options available to the actors and
their likely consequences in different scenarios.
13. Scenario planning: Participants with knowledge about their organizations and its context +consultant facilitator →participant
with some relevant scenarios and some possible strategies.
14. Strategic choice approach (SCA): Participants faced with a number of linked strategic choices of varying importance and urgency
+uncertainty about many aspects of the decisions +facilitating consultant +SCA method →agreed action plan.
15. Soft systems methodology (SSM): The views of a group of individuals about a real problem situation +facilitating consultant +
SSM →an agreed list of actions, which seem culturally feasible and systemically desirable, for further discussion and evaluation.
16. Rich pictures: A context +an observer →a picture capturing some aspects of the context (human activity systems) observed.
17. Strategic options and development for analysis (SODA): Participants with a messy issue +facilitator of process +defined
cognitive mapping technique →(towards) consensus and commitment to action of participants.
18. Cognitive mapping: The disparate views in the heads of individuals +facilitating consultant +rules for mapping →a shared
map of linked concepts capturing the views of those involved.
speaking, a method is defined by the possible set of conse-
quences that might arise in its use. This is where the consul-
tant’s experience comes into play: he or she has to be able
to envisage the use to which a method (part, single or sev-
eral) can be put in the particular set of circumstances under
consideration. In contrast other authors concentrate on char-
acterizing the methods’ general theoretical underpinnings
(Jackson, 2000; Mingers, 2003). The TCP thus provides a
pragmatic, practice-based alternative utilizing the experience
and craft skills of the practitioner.
By including such basic methods as interviews and meet-
ings in the list in Table 4 it is made clear that even the simplest
interventions involve mixing several methods. In some cases
the mixing may be trivial and the design of the intervention
process (the project) can be, and usually is, handled entirely
intuitively. It can also be the case that the choice of the method
to be used is trivial because the consultants involved are dedi-
cated to a particular approach. The choice can also be trivial if
the method to be used is effectively determined by the trans-
formation required. However, the general case must assume
that the designed combination of transformation, competence
and methods involves a number of choices.
The longitudinal TCP model
The TCP considers any particular intervention to be embed-
ded in a longitudinal learning process as a consultant moves
from one project to the next developing his or her strand of
practice. At the same time, if the consultant belongs to a group
(internal or external), the group’s web of practice will also be
developing. This cyclical process is shown in Figure 2. The
model consists of four activities:
(1) Update: In the light of personal experience (recent inter-
ventions, reading and thinking about methods, bumping
into new ideas) update one’s PICM. Understand the up-
to-date PICMs of potential collaborators.
(2) Elicit: Establish the ITRC through discussions with the
client(s) and other potential actors, and from personal
knowledge of the industry and experience of similar
RJ Ormerod—Transformation competence perspective 1441
INTERVENE
• Stages
• Transformations
• Participation
• Methods
UPDATE
DESIGN
ELICIT
• Problem context
• Participant competences
• Required transformation
• Consultant competences
• Transformation potential of methods
• Reflections
Figure 2 The longitudinal TCP model.
interventions in other circumstances. Establish the com-
petence of potential participants. Consider the ‘compe-
tence’ of all the ‘involved’ and ‘affected’ to participate
in the decision to be taken.
(3) Design: Design the intervention (activities, sequencing
and methods) to achieve the transformation required tak-
ing into account the PICMs of the team members, the
ITRC of the client, the transformation potential of the
methods, the competences of the participants, and other
practical (including time and place), cultural (including
how decisions are made) and commercial (including cost,
risk and project management) constraints.
(4) Intervene: Conduct the intervention following the in-
tervention design, but adjusting the design (activities,
sequencing and methods) as the project team’s and the
participants’ competences develop, as the ITRC is bet-
ter understood through reflection-in-action and as new
issues and perspectives emerge.
The TCP thus envisages an ongoing (longitudinal) profes-
sional practice based on continuous learning rooted in the
experience of practice. Practitioners will always be inter-
ested in new theories (and methods) but these are to be used
to support practice rather than to control or justify it. The
focus of practice is on the specific intervention in the specific
context under consideration but always understood in terms
of the longitudinal context of the action programmes of both
consultants and clients. The craft of the practitioners lies in
drawing on their past experience (on their particular strand of
practice) and applying it, bringing together the relevant com-
petences, methods and understanding of context to provide a
transformation that has been agreed with a client.
Designing an intervention utilizing the TCP
To make these ideas more concrete I will now focus on the
way that the TCP envisages an intervention will be designed
(and redesigned). Prior to the interest in ‘soft’ OR methods,
the deployment of multiple methods was not usually consid-
ered problematic. The choice of method(s) to be deployed was
nevertheless crucial and was usually determined by the con-
sultant’s assessment of the situation in focus and the clients’
identification of the issue to be addressed. The design prob-
lem faced by the consultant was which OR technique(s) to use
in order to achieve the transformation required in the given
context with the competences available. In bringing the pos-
sibility of participative approaches and soft OR into the pic-
ture, the design challenge is made more complicated (more
choices, more competences) but the problem is essentially the
same (see Figure 1).
Risk, confidence and trust
In understanding how methods and people can be organized to
achieve a desired transformation, it is not so much a question
of what objectively can be said about competency and method;
it is more a question of what one feels can be achieved—it
is a judgement. The judgement reached depends on one’s
personal preferences in general and one’s attitude to risk in
particular. A project is after all a bet (pragmatically speaking).
The project may not work out for any number of reasons
and both clients and consultants will be risk averse. Clients
will be worried that the project will fail in some sense and
that their judgement in using consultants, and choosing these
consultants in particular (you), will be proved wrong. In order
to reduce the risk they will place considerable emphasis on
the track record of the particular consultants who will do the
job, their CVs, the recommendations of previous clients and
so on (some of these issues will be less significant in pro bono
work or student projects). However, they still find it difficult
to assess whether consultants will perform as expected (hiring
new staff is similarly fraught).
Meanwhile consultants will be trying to build up the client’s
confidence and trust. They will want to reassure the client
that they have relevant experience and that investment in their
services is low risk. Privately consultants will have their own
concerns about their own abilities and those of their col-
leagues, about the reception they will receive in the client’s
organization, about the time and resources allocated to do the
job, and about whether the methods proposed are appropriate
in the circumstances. What will undoubtedly help to build the
confidence of both sides is a process of communication about
the design of the intervention at the proposal stage. Misun-
derstandings need to be cleared up and in the process both
sides can reduce their perceived risks. The commercial terms
and the project management structure will provide some reas-
surance that residual risks can be managed. Further dialogue
during the intervention will help to maintain mutual confi-
dence in the light of events.
Prior to any design there will be expectations on both sides.
Presumably, the clients believe that the problem or issue falls
in the general practice domain of the consultants they have
1442 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 59, No. 11
approached. The consultants will be expecting to conduct the
type of assignment that is not too dissimilar from those that
they have conducted in the past. This is by no means always
the case but it is a reasonable starting point. It is helpful in this
respect to think of consultants’ activities in terms of a strand
(Corbett et al, 1995) or web (Ormerod, 2002a) of practice that
has developed over time. There will be expectations of both
continuity (which reduces risk) and innovation (with ensures
adaptability and survival).
The design considerations
Intervention design must start by trying to develop an under-
standing of the relevant ITRC. At one extreme the ITRC may
be given explicitly by the client in an invitation to tender;
at the other, one may be starting with practically no idea of
what the project is about. In either case one has to try to tap
into the clients’ world and their perceptions of that world. At
the same time the competences of the consultants who might
be involved in the intervention need to be assessed to de-
rive their (probably informal) PICMs. Collectively the PICMs
give an idea of which methods could be used to support the
intervention. If any competences are lacking, they can be
sought.
It is then necessary to reflect on the type of intervention
that will achieve the desired project transformation with the
competences available, to imagine the type of process that
would be effective. At the heart of the design task are difficult
issues about how to manage (orchestrate) the cognitive prob-
lems (of interpretation) and political problems (of action) in
an intervention. The cognitive problems arise because peo-
ple must work out what is happening to them, or what might
happen to them, and why. This means describing change, or
the possibility of change, in certain summary forms. The po-
litical problems arise because people must build commitment
to action based on those descriptions. (Morley and Ormerod,
1996, p 733). To think about such issues it is helpful to use
one or more metaphors for the intervention process. I have
found three in particular to be helpful:
(1) Theatre: Who is the audience? What is the plot? Who are
the main actors? What events are to take place? Where
are the events to be set? What props are required? How
does the play divide up into acts and scenes? Who writes
the script? At what point is the curtain brought down?
Bryant (1989) has placed theatre as a metaphor at the
centre of his approach.
(2) Learning: Many authors have suggested that an interven-
tion should be conceived as a learning cycle such as de-
scribed by Kolb (hands on experience, reflection, abstract
conceptualization, active experimentation) or Boisot
(scanning, knowledge creation, knowledge diffusion,
knowledge absorption). (Kolb, 1984; Boisot, 1987). The
Richards Bay case study illustrates the use of Boisot’s
learning cycle (Ormerod, 1996a, p 1094).
(3) Legal: As in a legal case, scientific analysis (factual ev-
idence), people’s views (witness evidence) and moral
argument (the law) come into play in an intervention.
The question this metaphor raises is: what is the na-
ture of the evidence that will persuade a particular au-
dience of the truth or falsity (or reasonableness or con-
venience) of a statement used in an argument (Majone,
1984, pp 154–155, 1985, p 61). The intervention de-
sign can be built on the provision of such evidence and
argumentation.
It is now possible to have a stab at an initial design. Very
likely this will be taken from a design that worked well on
some previous occasion for a broadly similar transformation
requirement. If no such experience exists one can start with
a generalized OR approach (Ormerod, 1996b, pp 11–15). Al-
ternatively one can start with one method that looks promis-
ing as an overall approach. For instance, the SCA contains a
useful model of cycling between technical activities (the is-
sue being complexity) and socio-political activities (the issue
is conflict) to bring about consensus (Friend and Hickling,
2005, pp 257–269).
The hard (mental) work starts here as the initial design is
adjusted and changed to take into account (i) the new clients’
perceptions and (inner and outer) context, (ii) the new trans-
formation requirement, (iii) the practical, cultural and com-
mercial constraints that existed previously but no longer exist,
(iv) new constraints that were not present before, (v) changes
in the methods available in the collective consultant PICM,
(vi) the new clients’ preferred decision-making process, (vii)
the participants’ competences, (viii) the degree to which the
client expects the consultants and other participants to be in-
volved as providers of expertise and knowledge or as decision-
takers (a useful diagram of the groups of people who might be
involved in an intervention can be found in Friend and Hick-
ling, 2005, p 224), and (ix) the position of the affected but
uninvolved, and the project management structure that would
fit the circumstances (for instance, the project team, the steer-
ing group, advisory groups and so on). All these issues need
to be addressed pragmatically: if this is changed what are the
consequences likely to be? The outcome is a draft project de-
sign, which should include the schedule of phases indicating
who is going to do what supported by which methods (if any)
to produce what deliverable in each phase. It is important to
highlight in this design the role and input expected from the
participants in the client organization (it is quite possible that
most of the effort is expected to be supplied by the partici-
pants rather than the consultants).
Armed with the draft project design discussions can now
be held with the client and within the host consulting or-
ganization. Both sides will want to assess the costs, risks
and rewards of the intervention. The draft project plan will
undoubtedly be flawed in some respects. It may be that the
transformation requirement has to change in the light of
the estimates or because of some change in circumstance in
RJ Ormerod—Transformation competence perspective 1443
the client organization. Perhaps the estimated cost exceeds
some budget limit. Perhaps the consultants conclude that the
risks of the current design are too high and some curtailment
of the ambition is required. As these issues become apparent
the project plan is revised, sometimes dramatically. At some
point the project plan will be put into a formal proposal and
the client may or may not decide to go ahead.
Some theories relevant to the TCP
I have emphasized that the TCP is rooted in experience; in
other words it is a practice-led approach. However, as well
as the obvious point that I am talking about deploying pre-
defined methods (with their theories) developed by others, in
my description of the TCP above I have made reference to the-
ories and I have undoubtedly been exposed to and influenced
by many others, explicit and implicit. Thus even a practice-
led approach will draw on theories. In this section I will
describe briefly some theoretical positions that are important
to the TCP. In the following section I will use a framework
developed by Keys (1997, 2000) to bring together practice
and these theories in a schema of the TCP.
Pragmatism—an overarching philosophy
At Sainsbury’s in 1989 Ackoff’s forward looking approach
to strategy development (design a desirable future and invent
ways of bringing it about) proved inspirational (Ackoff, 1979;
Ormerod, 1995a). His approach is rooted in the philosophy
of pragmatism, a fact I was uninterested in (and probably
unaware of) at the time. As a practitioner I have always found
philosophy to be remote from the experience of practice, dif-
ficult to understand, and impossible to validate. Many years
later, however, I believe I have found in the philosophy of
pragmatism a way of thinking which both reasonably fits
experience and allows new ideas to be explored and adopted
(Ormerod, 2006). At the centre of pragmatism is what is
referred to as the principal of pragmatism:
‘To obtain perfect clearness in our thoughts of an object, then,
we need only consider what conceivable effects of a practical
kind the object may involve—what sensations we are to expect
from it, what reactions we must prepare. Our conception of
these effects, whether immediate or remote, is then for us the
whole of our conception of the object, so far as that conception
has positive significance at all’ (James, 1907, p 26).
As a general approach to thinking, pragmatism was revolu-
tionary. Up to that point the emphasis in philosophy had been
on how to establish certainties: it looked to the past. Pragma-
tism places the emphasis on living with uncertainty, on the
changing nature of the world (evolution) and our understand-
ing of it (science and culture): it looks to the future. Because
of this flexible forward looking stance it is able to accommo-
date different points of view and new ideas, even those that
challenge pragmatism itself. Adopting a famous metaphor of
the literature of pragmatism (James, 1907, p 29), pragma-
tism can be described as occupying a hotel corridor. In rooms
off the corridor various inquiries (research programmes) are
going on. Whatever the conclusions in the rooms, to find
application in the external world they have to pass through
the corridor of pragmatism: what are the consequences of
adopting these conclusions? This ability to tolerate other per-
spectives is a crucial feature of pragmatism for my current
purpose; it allows pragmatism to act as an overarching phi-
losophy orchestrating the choice and deployment of methods
utilising other philosophies (Ormerod, 2002b, p 350).
Articulate intervention—a language to describe OR
When Boothroyd privately circulated his paper on the prac-
tice of OR many who read it believed it to be the nearest
description of what really happens in an OR project that had
been achieved to date. It helped, of course, that he had been a
practitioner for many years. An extended version of his paper
was eventually published as a book with the title, Articulate
Intervention (Boothroyd, 1978). There have been some ex-
cellent descriptions since, for instance, by Miser and Quade
(1985, 1988; Miser, 1995), and by Mitchell (1993). However,
Boothroyd’s language and insights have stood the test of time.
His starting point is that OR involves consultants being in-
vited by clients to intervene in their organization. The objec-
tive of the intervention is to articulate carefully and precisely
the issues faced by the client, to generate proposals for action
and to evaluate the consequences. In general, individuals and
groups (including the consultants and the clients) are seen as
participating in action programmes. Each action programme
is defined by the theories and proposals of its members, par-
ticularly the core theories and proposals, those which they
would be reluctant to change or abandon. A programme is
someone’s picture of (i) how things are and would behave un-
der various future conditions (theories), and (ii) what they and
others wish to see happen, or would wish to see happen under
a variety of possible circumstances that might occur (propos-
als). Any individual will belong to many action programmes
both socially (family, church, political party, clubs etc) and at
work (work group, department, enterprise, union, task force
etc). The world is not only theory-saturated but also proposal-
saturated. There is thus a forward momentum to Boothroyd’s
view of the world consistent with the pragmatism of Dewey
in particular.
According to Boothroyd, great ethical systems present pro-
posals (including commands) which like other proposals have
emotions attached to them. But these systems (despite claims
as to their benefit for the individual and strong commitments
to them) cannot be supported by theories. Boothroyd there-
fore prefers a direct line into ethics: it is about the quality
of present and intended relations between actors. He rejects
notions of value and utility preferring to start with relation-
ships between an interacting pair. He thus (in terms of con-
temporary ethical theory) adopts a procedural rather than a
1444 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 59, No. 11
substantial notion of ethics. He suggests that the great ethical
systems are variations on a proposal that may well be stated
in some such form as:
‘You should pay concerned and imaginative attention to the
other, so that by paying attention to all that he does, and by
imagining yourself in his place, you can cooperate with him to
your mutual benefit’ (Boothroyd, 1978, p 138).
Boothroyd’s ethics seem entirely consistent with pragmatism.
Critical systems heuristics—boundary conditions
The critical system approach CSH (Ulrich, 1983, 1987, 2003)
of Ulrich is encapsulated in boundary questions to be asked
in both the ‘is’ and ‘ought’ mode.
The boundary questions bring out the ethical dilemmas
in intervention design but do not prescribe a fixed ethical
position. They encourage reference back to the concerns of
citizens and thus support a democratic approach. They en-
courage dialogue consistent with freedom of speech. For all
these reasons they are compatible with the ethics embodied
in pragmatism. Ulrich refers to the combination of CSH and
pragmatism as critical pragmatism (Ulrich, 2006). What is at
issue here is the design of a joint action programme agreed
between the client, the consultant and all the others involved
or concerned. The roles of the various parties in the joint ac-
tion programmes need to be defined using the questions. The
consequences of the choices need to be imagined and judged
in terms of the values that all those involved and concerned
wish to apply. This will raise mismatches in expectations, in-
tentions and values. Generally the consultants will have to
adjust their position towards that of the client or they will not
get the assignment. However, they might want to persuade
the client to adjust his or her position; in extremis, if they fail
to do so, they can walk away before committing themselves
to perform the assignment under assumptions they find un-
acceptable. Ulrich’s work provides a way of operationalizing
ethical issues in professional practice while leaving it up to
the participants to determine how particular ethical issues (in
the design and conduct of interventions) are resolved.
The relationship between practice and theory in the TCP
According to Keys, the theory-led approach places the em-
phasis on the world of theory but also has a characteristic
perspective on the world of practice. The theory-led approach
(i) in the world of theory emphasizes the consultant’s an-
alytic paradigm (the type of analysis the consultant under-
takes, the nature and means of investigating the object of an
investigation) and the public methodologies (how the inves-
tigation should proceed using formalized approaches such as
mathematical programming, or strategic choice analysis, or
simulation) they use, and (ii) in the world of practice assumes
immediate situations (the intervention is considered in isola-
tion from what has gone before and what might happen the
World of theory
World of practice
Longitudinal
situations
Social
actions
Immediate
situations
Technical
actions
Analytic
paradigms
Role
paradigms
Private
methodologies
Public
Methodologies
Figure 3 Unified schema of practice-led and theory-led
approaches (Keys, 2000).
future) and focuses on technical actions (to be accomplished
to facilitate the implementation of the public methodologies)
(Keys, 2000).
In contrast, the practice-led approach seeks to explore how
practitioners undertake their work in a manner informed by
their experience and particular view of the world. The em-
phasis is placed on the world of practice, on the longitudinal
situations that consultants find themselves in and the social
actions that relate the consultant to the situation of concern.
Less emphasis is placed on the world of theory: the concerns
here are the role paradigm (that expresses how a consultant
presents him or herself during an intervention) and the pri-
vate methodologies (including the consultant’s own style of
operation). By placing the practitioner and the practice-led
concerns at the centre of the analysis Keys arrives at the com-
bined schema shown in Figure 3 which accommodates both
the theory-led and practice-led perspectives (Keys, 2000). The
areas of theory that are of particularly relevant to the TCP are
philosophical pragmatism, articulate intervention, and critical
systems heuristics.
In order to summarize the TCP I have mapped the main
elements of the TCP onto the Keys schema. The result is
shown in Figure 4. I have had to move some of the elements
about to accommodate the TCP elements and to make design
the focus. With the help of Figure 4 the elements of the TCP
can be restated. The object of the design effort is a project plan
of the anticipated intervention organized in steps and phases
indicating the activities, methods, resources and deliverables
through the life of the project. The intervention designer,
situated within his or her consultant strand or web of practice,
attempts to meet client perceptions.Fromtheworld of the-
ory he or she has public methodologies (each with a transfor-
mation potential) to draw on and an overarching philosophy,
critical pragmatism, provides the orientation of the design
RJ Ormerod—Transformation competence perspective 1445
World of theory
Intervention design
Consultant strand or web
of practice (theories and
proposals)
Craft skills (technical
and social) and private
methods
Intervention transformation
requirement and its context
(ITRC)
Client perceptions
(theories and proposals)
Critical
pragmatism
Roles: involved, expert,
decision-taker, affected
Personal intervention
competence models (PICMs)
Public Methods
(transformation potential)
Intervention design
World of practice
Object of design:
project plan of the
anticipated intervention
Design constraints:
Design metaphor:
• learning
• theatre
• legal
• practical
• cultural
• commercial
Figure 4 Schema of the transformation competence perspective.
process. To do this the designer needs to bring together the
PICM of each potential participant and the ITRC of the client
in the light of the craft skills (technical and social) and private
methods of the consultants and the roles they are expected to
fulfil. The designer (or more generally, several designers in
consultation with the client and other interested parties) has to
envisage a series of activities arranged in steps and phases that
will engage the skills and knowledge of the consultants and
the participants and other resources to meet the client’s per-
spectives. The design of a particular intervention is embedded
in a longitudinal learning process cycling between eliciting,
designing,intervening and adapting as consultants move from
one project to the next, as depicted in Figure 2.
I have concentrated on the initial design of the interven-
tion. Obviously, during the project all the issues highlighted
have to be reassessed in the light of what has transpired. What
are the likely (pragmatic) consequences of continuing with
the plan? Have we got something wrong? Have we misun-
derstood something? Have circumstances changed? Have new
issues emerged which could usefully be addressed within the
current project? Should some aspects of the overall ambition
be dropped? Do we need help from someone with additional
expertise (competences)? Should more (or fewer) people be
involved?
Validation of the TCP
I suggested at the beginning of the paper that the validation
of TCP lies in experience rather than theory. Any particular
intervention can be judged after the event in terms of the suc-
cess of the intervention from the perspective of the ‘users’: the
doers (the consultants); the done for (the clients); the done
with (the involved); and the done without (those not involved,
for instance, the affected or concerned). However, success in
one intervention is insufficient to validate a perspective such
as the TCP. Validation requires living with the perspective
over many interventions. Thus the importance of the lon-
gitudinal, doing-learning-adapting orientation of the TCP as
illustrated in Figure 2. In this sense the TCP transcends indi-
vidual interventions. In the last resort it is validated by a con-
sultant or group of consultants successfully developing and
maintaining their strand of practice using the TCP. My own
experience is a contribution to such a validation.
Comparison with other perspectives
The approach presented here is consistent with that of OR
commentators who view OR as social practice, as a craft, as
a group activity: for instance, Bryant (1989), Cropper (1990a,
b), Eden et al (1983), Majone (1984), Miser (1988), and
Mitchell (1993). However, this paper addresses the specific
problem of intervention design and choice of methods, a more
narrowly defined issue. I associate the initial interest in this
subject with the work of Cropper (1990a, b), Bennett (1985,
1990) and others who contributed to the book titled Tackling
Strategic Problems:the role of Group Decision Support edited
by Eden and Radford (1990). Cropper argued that it was es-
sential to take stock of the tools that we use in the analysis of
problems interactively with client groups and he examined the
factors involved in choosing which tool to use. He draws at-
tention to the ‘variation of practice across different situations
by the individual consultant’s practice’ and ‘the influence of
the individual consultant on the method-in-use’ concluding
that methods-in-use are highly individual creations (Cropper,
1990a, p 39). Cropper places people at the centre of his un-
derstanding of OR practice and distinguishes between the an-
alytical and facilitator role of consultants both of which are
deployed in an intervention.
Bennett suggested ways in which different methods can be
mixed together (1985, 1990). More recently, Multimethodol-
ogy:the Theory and Practice of Integrating Methodologies,
a book edited by Mingers and Gill (1997), included accounts
of different approaches to tackling this issue both in theory
and practice. One of the papers by White and Taket (1997)
provides a critique of, what Mingers and Gill refer to as,
‘multimethodology’. White and Taket advocate instead a
‘pragmatic pluralism’ approach based on a post-modern ori-
entation. Their general stance is quite similar to that presented
here except that I prefer pragmatism to post-modernism. For
instance, White and Taket say: ‘This means arguing for an
end to theory as providing an abstract yet foundational basis
for practice, but not an end to theorising as part of a process of
critically reflective practice’ (White and Taket, 1997, p 394).
The largest sustained effort in this area has developed from
the early work of Jackson, Flood and Keys (Jackson and
Keys, 1984; Flood and Jackson, 1991; Jackson, 2000). The
approach, total systems intervention (TSI), is based on a crit-
ical paradigm and is sometimes referred to as critical plu-
ralism. Comparing TSI with TCP (as depicted in Figure 4)
yields the following observations. First, in the TCP people,
their competence, craft skills and knowledge, sit at the cen-
tre of the schema whereas in TSI they barely warrant a men-
tion. Second, in TSI most of the emphasis is placed on the
1446 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 59, No. 11
philosophy adopted and the choice between public method-
ologies, the choice being made on the basis of a discussion
about organizational metaphors (not to be confused with the
intervention metaphors of TCP). In the TCP the emphasis is
placed on the design problem of producing an effective project
plan to meet the clients’ expectations and provide the basis
for monitoring and control. Third, TSI views human activi-
ties in terms of systems. The TCP prefers Boothroyd’s more
flexible concept of action programmes. Fourth, in the TCP
public methodologies (in whole or a part thereof) are con-
sidered in terms of their transformation potential rather than
their theoretical underpinnings; in other words, consultants
choose between methodologies on the basis of their conse-
quences rather than the theoretical principles they claim to
embody (a pragmatic approach is taken). Fifth, in the TCP
critical systems heuristics are considered to inform the de-
sign process (and the subsequent intervention) rather than as
an approach to be chosen only if the coercive aspects of the
situation are to be the focus of attention as is the case in TSI.
Sixth, TSI uses a six-cell grid (the SOSM) to guide the choice
of methodology. A method is taken to be an objectively given
object. The TCP only advises that methods (or part methods)
with the necessary transformation potential are chosen to sup-
port the transformations required for each phase of the project
plan. In the TCP a method is understood in terms of what the
consultant beliefs can be achieved by using it in a particular
context. Seventh, the TCP explicitly places emphasis on the
practical, cultural and commercial constraints faced in prac-
tice. Eighth, TSI involves the consultant(s) making a com-
mitment to achieving emancipation of the participants; this is
interpreted as counteracting imbalances of power to ensure a
level playing field. The TCP takes inequalities of power to
be a feature of the real world and concentrates on debating
the boundary conditions; what part should the various partic-
ipants (including the affected but uninvolved) play?
In summary, the emphasis of TSI is on the world of theory,
it is theory-led. The TCP is practice-led but draws on theory;
it tries to straddle the theory and practice divide, concentrat-
ing on design. In detail, practically every aspect is different
as the above comparison illustrates. However, not all of the
TCP’s characteristics are unique to the TCP. Mingers, for in-
stance, places emphasis on populating a phased intervention
(Mingers, 1997, pp 11–13) and Midgley utilizes Ulrich’s con-
cept of boundary conditions (Midgley, 1997, pp 282–284).
Both Mingers and Midgley emphasize using part as well as
whole methods. Gregory (1992) uses the idea of a ‘constella-
tion’ of methodologies which is not unlike the PICM in that it
is unstructured and changes over time. However, all of these
authors are theory-led adopting a ‘critical’ perspectives cit-
ing Habermas’ critical theory. Flood and Romm (1997) in a
variant of TSI (taking on board some postmodernist themes)
emphasize learning in the ‘triple loop learning’ approach.
Other authors are more practice-oriented. White and Taket
have adopted a postmodern philosophy which, like the
TCP rejects all-embracing methodologies, or metamethod-
ologies, to guide methodological choice (White and Taket,
1994, 1997). Although White and Taket are academics who
enjoy philosophizing, they describe their approach as hav-
ing developed in the context of their own practice (White
and Taket, 1997, p 382). In other words, their approach is
practice-led. Similarly, Bennett et al (1997) base their views
on their experience in practice. They say: ‘This experience
[of using a combined methodology to analyse litigation and
negotiation in practice], and others reported elsewhere, con-
firm our belief in the virtues of an adaptive, opportunistic
approach, rather than a metamethodology which prescribes
a “correct” combination of methods on one’s first serious
encounter with the problem to be tackled’ (Bennett et al,
1997, pp 85–86). They summarize their position thus: ‘In
conclusion, “multimethodology” is unlikely to become an
exact science—nor should it be. While some rules of thumb
about what works well may be evolving, choices of method
will continue to depend on idiosyncratic combinations of
factors to do with the personal styles and preferences of
analysts and clients, the time available, gross characteristics
of the perceived issues, past experiences of all concerned,
organizational cultures, financial and academic pressures in-
hibiting or encouraging collaborative working, and so on’
(Bennett et al, 1997, p 86). Many of these points find their
counterpart in the TCP. Similarly Bryant describes an inter-
vention as bringing together context and craftwork (Bryant,
1989, pp 174–175). The distinctive feature of Bryant’s ap-
proach is the use of drama as a metaphor to understand what
goes on during the intervention.
What emerges from these brief comparisons is that the
theory-led approaches pay more attention to orchestrating the
ideas, reasoning and ethics of the investigation whereas the
practice-led approaches concentrate on the activities of peo-
ple involved. However, this is a matter of emphasis rather than
an absolute divide. Nor do the two general approaches divide
neatly between academics and practitioners. Most of the peo-
ple involved are academics who have had varying amounts of
experience of practice. It is more a question of what the re-
searcher finds interesting or relevant. It is perfectly possible
for academics to develop intellectual frameworks based on
actual practice rather than on philosophical conceptions (of
how the world and actions in it can be understood) if they
place practice rather than philosophy at the centre of their
research.
Conclusions
A perspective derived from experience has been presented
and compared with other approaches. The TCP cannot be
taken as prescriptive and does not seek to tell practitioners
what to do. Rather, it sets out a possible approach against
which practitioners can compare their own practice. For many
the TCP will seem unnecessarily complicated, and perhaps
it is for their particular strand of practice—some strands of
practice do not rely on mixing several methods, or if they
RJ Ormerod—Transformation competence perspective 1447
do, the mix might be relatively stable from project to project.
Some practitioners might find that my description just does
not fit their experience. That in itself would be an interesting
outcome. Others may simply prefer to stick with intuition
based on experience, believing it is simply too difficult to
capture all the possible things one might do in all the many
different types of situations one could possibility face. Such
matters are not easily pinned down. I agree with White and
Taket when they say: ‘Instead of seeking a prescription we
will seek guidelines, examples, stories, metaphors for use in
planning an interaction, in carrying out the interaction, and
in reflecting on it afterwards’. In effect, this paper has been a
reflection on my experiences in order to derive some potential
guidelines or hints. My hope is that the TCP along with other
practice-led perspectives can provide both a counter balance
to the theory-led approaches and an articulation of experience
that can be used by other practitioners to reflect on their own
approach.
References
Ackoff RL (1979). Resurrecting the future of operational research.
J Opl Res Soc 30: 189–199.
Bennett PG (1985). On linking approaches to decision-aiding: Issues
and prospects. J Opl Res Soc 36: 659–670.
Bennett PG (1990). Mixing methods: Combining conflict analysis,
SODA, and strategic choice. In: Eden C and Radford J (eds).
Tackling Strategic Problems: The Role of Group Decision Support.
Sage: London. pp 99–109.
Bennett PG, Ackerman F, Eden C and Williams TM (1997). Analysing
litigation and negotiation: Using a combined methodology. In:
Mingers J and Gill A (eds). Multimethodology: The Theory
and Practice of Integrating Methodologies. Wiley: Chichester.
pp 59–88.
Boisot M (1987). Information and Organization: The Manager as
Anthropologist. Fontana: London.
Boothroyd H (1978). Articulate Intervention: The Interface of Science,
Mathematics and Administration. Taylor and Francis: London.
Bryant J (1989). Problem Management. Wiley: Chichester.
Checkland P (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley:
Chichester.
Corbett CJ, Overmeer WJAM and Van Wassenhove LN (1995).
Strands of practice in OR (the practitioner’s dilemma). Eur J Opl
Res 87: 484–499.
Cropper S (1990a). The complexity of decision support practice. In:
Eden C and Radford J (eds). Tackling Strategic Problems: The Role
of Group Decision Support. Sage: London. pp 29–39.
Cropper S (1990b). Variety formality and style: Choosing amongst
decision-support methods. In: Eden C and Radford J (eds). Tackling
Strategic Problems: The Role of Group Decision Support. Sage:
London. pp 92–98.
Eden C (1985). Perish the thought!. J Opl Res Soc 36: 809–820.
Eden C and Jones S (1980). Publish or Perish. J Opl Res Soc 31:
131–139.
Eden C and Radford J (eds). (1990). Tackling Strategic Problems:
The role of Group Decision Support. Sage: London.
Eden C, Jones S and Sims D (1983). Messing About in Problems.
Pergamon: Oxford.
Fleck J (1998). Expertise: Knowledge power and tradeability. In:
Williams R, Faulkner W and Fleck J (eds). Exploring Expertise.
Macmillan: Basingstoke. pp 143–171.
Flood RL and Jackson MC (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total
Systems Intervention. Wiley: Chichester.
Flood RL and Romm NRA (1997). From metatheory to ‘multi-
methodology’. In: Mingers J and Gill A (eds). Multimethodology:
The Theory and Practice of Integrating Methodologies. Wiley:
Chichester. pp 291–322.
Friend J and Hickling A (2005). Planning Under Pressure:
The Strategic Choice Approach, 3rd ed. Elsevier Butterworth-
Heinemann: Oxford.
Giddings M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P and
Trow M (1994). The Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of
Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. Sage: London.
Gregory WJ (1992). Critical systems thinking and pluralism: A new
constellation. PhD thesis, City University, London.
H¨
afele W (1981). Energy in a Finite World: A Global Systems
Analysis. Ballinger: Cambridge, MA.
Hoffman RR (1998). How can expertise be defined? Implications of
research from cognitive psychology. In: Williams R, Faulkner W
and Fleck J (eds). Exploring Expertise. Macmillan: Basingstoke.
pp 81–100.
Jackson MC (2000). Systems Approaches to Management. Kluwer:
New York.
Jackson MC and Keys P (1984). Towards a system of systems
methodologies. J Opl Res Soc 35: 473–486.
James W (1907). Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of
Thinking. Hackett: Indianapolis (edited with an introduction by
Kuklich B in 1981).
Keys P (1997). Approaches to understanding the process of OR:
Review, critique and extension. Omega 25: 1–23.
Keys P (2000). Creativity, design and style in MS/OR. Omega 28:
303–312.
Keys P (2006). On becoming expert in the use of problem structuring
methods. J Opl Res Soc 57: 822–829.
Kolb DA (1984). Experimental Learning—Experience as the Source of
Learning and Development. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Majone G (1984). The craft of applied systems analysis. In: Tomlinson
RandKissJ(eds).Rethinking the Process of Operational Research.
Pergamon: Oxford. pp 143–157.
Majone G (1985). Systems analysis: A genetic approach. In:
Miser HJ and Quade ES (eds). Handbook of Systems Analysis:
Volume One—Overview of Uses Procedures and Practice. Wiley:
Chichester. pp 33–66.
Midgley G (1997). Mixing methods: Developing systemic
intervention. In: Mingers J and Gill A (eds). Multimethodology:
The Theory and Practice of Integrating Methodologies. Wiley:
Chichester. pp 249–290.
Mingers J (1997). Multi-paradigm multimethodology. In: Mingers J
and Gill A (eds). Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of
Integrating Methodologies. Wiley: Chichester. pp 1–20.
Mingers J (2003). A classification of the philosophical assumptions
of management science methods. J Opl Res Soc 54: 559–570.
Mingers J and Gill A (eds). (1997). Multimethodology: The Theory
and Practice of Integrating Methodologies. Wiley: Chichester.
Miser HJ (1988). Underlying concepts for systems and policy analysis.
In: Miser HJ and Quade ES (eds). Handbook of Systems Analysis.
Wiley: Chichester: Volume Two—Craft Issues and Procedural
Choices. pp 467–525.
Miser HJ (1995). Handbook of Systems Analysis: Volume
Three—Cases. Wiley: Chichester.
Miser HJ and Quade ES (1985). Handbook of Systems Analysis:
Volume One—Overview of Uses, Procedures and Practice. Wiley:
Chichester.
Miser HJ and Quade ES (1988). Handbook of Systems Analysis:
Volume Two—Craft Issues and Procedural Choices. Wiley:
Chichester.
1448 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 59, No. 11
Mitchell GH (1993). The Practice of Operational Research. Wiley:
Chichester.
Morley IE and Ormerod RJ (1996). A language-action approach to
operational research. J Opl Res Soc 47: 731–740.
Ormerod RJ (1995a). Putting soft OR methods to work—Information
systems strategy development at Sainsbury’s. J Opl Res Soc 46:
277–293.
Ormerod RJ (1995b). The role of methodologies in systems strategy
development: Reflections on experience. In: Stowell FA (ed).
Information Systems Provision: The Contribution of Soft Systems
Methodology. McGraw-Hill: Maidenhead. pp 75–101.
Ormerod RJ (1996a). Putting soft OR methods to work—Information
systems strategy development at Richards Bay. J Opl Res Soc 47:
1083–1097.
Ormerod RJ (1996b). On the nature of OR—Entering the fray. JOpl
Res Soc 47: 1–17.
Ormerod RJ (1996c). Combining management consultancy and
research. Omega 24: 1–12.
Ormerod RJ (1996d). Information systems strategy development at
Sainsbury’s supermarkets using ‘soft’ OR. Interfaces 26(1): 102–
130.
Ormerod RJ (1997a). Mixing methods in practice: A transformation-
competence perspective. In: Mingers J and Gill A (eds).
Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of Integrating
Methodologies. Wiley: Chichester. pp 29 –58.
Ormerod RJ (1997b). The design of organizational intervention:
Choosing the approach. Omega 25: 415–513.
Ormerod RJ (1998). Putting soft OR methods to work—Information
systems strategy development at Palabora. Omega 26: 75–98.
Ormerod RJ (1999). Putting soft OR methods to work—the case of
the business improvement project at PowerGen. Eur J Opl Res
118(4): 1–29.
Ormerod RJ (2001). Mixing methods in practice. In: Rosenhead
J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic
World Revisited: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity,
Uncertainty and Conflict. Wiley: Chichester. pp 311–336.
Ormerod RJ (2002a). On the nature of OR: Taking stock. J Opl Res
Soc 53: 475–491.
Ormerod RJ (2002b). Should critical realism really be critical for
OR?. J Opl Res Soc 53: 347–359.
Ormerod RJ (2005a). Putting soft OR methods to work—The case of
IS strategy development for the UK Parliament. J Opl Res Soc 56:
1379–1398.
Ormerod RJ (2005b). Less is more: Controlling decision complexity
when using strategic choice. In: Friend J and Hickling A (eds).
Planning Under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach. Elsevier
Butterworth Heineman: Oxford. pp 312–314.
Ormerod RJ (2006). The history and ideas of pragmatism. J Opl Res
Soc 57: 892–909.
Pauley GS and Ormerod RJ (1998). The evolution of a performance
measurement project at RTZ. Interfaces 28(4): 94–118.
Prahalad CK and Hamel G (1990). The core competence of the
corporation Harvard Bus Rev.68 (May–June): 79–91.
Ulrich W (1983). Critical Heuristics of Social Planning: A New
Approach to Practical Philosophy. Haupt: Bern (The 1994 edition,
published by Wiley, Chichester, is referred to here).
Ulrich W (1987). Critical heuristics of social systems design. Eur J
Opl Res 31: 276–283 reprinted in Flood RL and Jackson MC (eds).
(1991). Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings. Wiley: New
York, pp 103–115.
Ulrich W (2003). Beyond methodology choice: Critical systems
thinking as critically systemic discourse. J Opl Res Soc 54:
325–342.
Ulrich W (2006). Critical pragmatism: A new approach to professional
and business ethics. In: Zsolnai L (ed). Interdisciplinary Yearbook
of Business Ethics, Vol. 1. Peter Lang Academic Publishers: Oxford.
pp 53–85.
White L and Taket A (1994). The death of the expert. J Opl Res Soc
45: 733–748.
White L and Taket A (1997). Critiquing multimethodology as
metamethodology: Working towards pragmatic pluralism. In:
Mingers J and Gill A (eds). Multimethodology: The Theory
and Practice of Integrating Methodologies. Wiley: Chichester.
pp 379–405.
Wilson CL (1980). Coal—Bridge to the Future. Ballinger: Cambridge,
MA.
Received December 2006;
accepted May 2007 after two revisions
