Daniel F. Manso, Gregory S. Parnell, Ed Pohl, Mischel Carmen N. Belderrain
{"title":"战略问题解决方法的差距:系统文献综述","authors":"Daniel F. Manso, Gregory S. Parnell, Ed Pohl, Mischel Carmen N. Belderrain","doi":"10.1002/mcda.1828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Strategic problem-solving enables organizations to pursue opportunities and address emerging threats proactively. However, traditional problem-solving methods often rely on business processes and organizational procedures, which may not be available at the strategic level. This article investigates potential gaps in strategic problem-solving methods through a Systematic Literature Review. The study analyses the existing literature on the potential of current problem-solving methods to identify and resolve root causes of strategic problems when formal business processes and procedures are unavailable. A rigorous literature search process guided by focused research questions examines Problem Structuring Methods, Lean Thinking, Six Sigma, Theory of Constraints, Balanced Scorecard, SWOT Analysis, and other techniques. The synthesis of findings reveals limitations in strategic root cause analysis. In addition, the study introduces a supplementary decision-making frame of reference to aid the selection of appropriate methods across problem-solving, decision-making, and solution implementation stages. This framework addresses the common challenges decision-makers face in navigating organizational complexity and choosing suitable approaches, as well as visually maps methods to stages based on Content, Organizational, and Analytical complexity dimensions. The framework builds on the study's findings that using a single methodology may be insufficient for a complete decision process. The proposed decision-making framework also offers valuable guidance for integrating diverse methods aligned to decision situations.</p>","PeriodicalId":45876,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis","volume":"31 1-2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Gaps in strategic problem-solving methods: A systematic literature review\",\"authors\":\"Daniel F. Manso, Gregory S. Parnell, Ed Pohl, Mischel Carmen N. Belderrain\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mcda.1828\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Strategic problem-solving enables organizations to pursue opportunities and address emerging threats proactively. However, traditional problem-solving methods often rely on business processes and organizational procedures, which may not be available at the strategic level. This article investigates potential gaps in strategic problem-solving methods through a Systematic Literature Review. The study analyses the existing literature on the potential of current problem-solving methods to identify and resolve root causes of strategic problems when formal business processes and procedures are unavailable. A rigorous literature search process guided by focused research questions examines Problem Structuring Methods, Lean Thinking, Six Sigma, Theory of Constraints, Balanced Scorecard, SWOT Analysis, and other techniques. The synthesis of findings reveals limitations in strategic root cause analysis. In addition, the study introduces a supplementary decision-making frame of reference to aid the selection of appropriate methods across problem-solving, decision-making, and solution implementation stages. This framework addresses the common challenges decision-makers face in navigating organizational complexity and choosing suitable approaches, as well as visually maps methods to stages based on Content, Organizational, and Analytical complexity dimensions. The framework builds on the study's findings that using a single methodology may be insufficient for a complete decision process. The proposed decision-making framework also offers valuable guidance for integrating diverse methods aligned to decision situations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45876,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis\",\"volume\":\"31 1-2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mcda.1828\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mcda.1828","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
Gaps in strategic problem-solving methods: A systematic literature review
Strategic problem-solving enables organizations to pursue opportunities and address emerging threats proactively. However, traditional problem-solving methods often rely on business processes and organizational procedures, which may not be available at the strategic level. This article investigates potential gaps in strategic problem-solving methods through a Systematic Literature Review. The study analyses the existing literature on the potential of current problem-solving methods to identify and resolve root causes of strategic problems when formal business processes and procedures are unavailable. A rigorous literature search process guided by focused research questions examines Problem Structuring Methods, Lean Thinking, Six Sigma, Theory of Constraints, Balanced Scorecard, SWOT Analysis, and other techniques. The synthesis of findings reveals limitations in strategic root cause analysis. In addition, the study introduces a supplementary decision-making frame of reference to aid the selection of appropriate methods across problem-solving, decision-making, and solution implementation stages. This framework addresses the common challenges decision-makers face in navigating organizational complexity and choosing suitable approaches, as well as visually maps methods to stages based on Content, Organizational, and Analytical complexity dimensions. The framework builds on the study's findings that using a single methodology may be insufficient for a complete decision process. The proposed decision-making framework also offers valuable guidance for integrating diverse methods aligned to decision situations.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis was launched in 1992, and from the outset has aimed to be the repository of choice for papers covering all aspects of MCDA/MCDM. The journal provides an international forum for the presentation and discussion of all aspects of research, application and evaluation of multi-criteria decision analysis, and publishes material from a variety of disciplines and all schools of thought. Papers addressing mathematical, theoretical, and behavioural aspects are welcome, as are case studies, applications and evaluation of techniques and methodologies.