Interpretive structural modelling: a methodology for structuring complex issues

Abstract

This paper discusses the nature of Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) as methodology for dealing with complex issues. Aspects of managing complexity relating particularly to the use of ISM with a group of participants are explored. These include the interrelations between the issue, group and methodology, and between content, context, process and product. Languages for modelling structure are briefly examined, and ISM is presented as a computer-assisted modelling approach incorporating words, graphics and mathematics. The steps of using ISM in practice are considered in the context of group work. Each step is elaborated upon and important features discussed. The use of Nominal Group Technique as an idea-generation method which may be used in conjunction with ISM is outlined. An example of an application is given concerning the structuring of a set of objectives to produce an Intent Structure.

Keywords

Complexity structure modelling digraph process group work.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Delbecq, A.L. et al. 1975. Group techniques for program planning, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, Illinois, USA.

Flood, R.L. 1988. 'Situational complexity, systems modelling and methodology' , Trans Inst Meas & Cont, 10 (3),122-129.

Jackson, M.C. 1988. 'Systems methodologies as complementary tools for managing situational complexity', Trans Inst Meas & Cont, 10 (3), 155-160.

Janes, F.R. 1987. 'Applications of interactive management in planning for engineering education'. In: Problems of constancy and change, Vol 1, 31st Ann Meet Int Soc for Gen Syst Res, Budapest, June, 520-525.

Mihram, G.A. 1972. 'The modelling process'. IEEE Trans on Syst, Man and Cybern, SMC 2 (5), 621-629.

Miller, G.A. 1956. 'The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information', Psych Rev, 63 (2), 81-97.

Moore, C.M. 1987. Group techniques for idea building. Sage Publications, London.

Simon, H.A. 1974. 'How big is a chunk?', Science, 183 (8), 482-488.

Waller, R.J. 1982. 'Complexity and the boundaries of human policy making' , Int J Gen Syst, 9, 1-11.

10.

Waller, R.J. 1983. 'Knowledge for producing useful knowledge'. In: Kilman, R.H. et al (eds), Producing useful knowledge for organisations: Vols I and II, Praeger, New York, USA.

11.

Warfield, J.N. 1973a. An assault on complexity, Battelle Monograph No 3, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

12.

Warfield, J.N. 1973b. 'Intent structures'. IEEE Trans on Syst, Man and Cybern, SMC3 (2), 133-140.

13.

Warfield, J.N. 1973c. 'Binary matrices in systems modelling', IEEE Trans Syst, Man and Cybern, SMC3 (5), 441-449.

14.

Warfield, J.N. 1974a. Structuring complex systems, Battelle Monograph No 4, Battelle Memorial Institute, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

15.

Warfield, J.N. 1974b. 'Developing subsystems matrices in structural modelling ', IEEE Trans Syst, Man and Cybern, SMC4 (1), 18-24.

16.

Warfield, J.N. 1976. Societal systems: planning, policy and complexity, John Wiley & Sons Inc, New York, USA.

17.

Warfield, J.N. 1982a. 'Interpretive structural modelling'. In: Olsen, S. A. (ed), Group planning and problem solving methods in engineering management, John Wiley and Sons, Inc, New York, USA.

18.

Warfield, J.N. 1982b. 'Organisations and systems learning', Gen Syst, 27, 5-74.

19.

Warfield, J.N. 1984. 'Principles of interactive management', Proc Int Conf on Cybern and Soc, IEEE, New York , USA,

20.

Wood, W.C. and Christakis, A.N. 1984. 'A methodology for conducting futures-orientated workshops', Technol Forecasting and Social Change, 26, 281-297.