战略问题解决方法的差距:系统文献综述

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT
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,&nbsp;Gregory S. Parnell,&nbsp;Ed Pohl,&nbsp;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":null,"pages":null},"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,&nbsp;Gregory S. Parnell,&nbsp;Ed Pohl,&nbsp;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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

战略性问题解决方案使组织能够积极主动地寻找机会和应对新出现的威胁。然而,传统的问题解决方法往往依赖于业务流程和组织程序,而这些在战略层面可能并不具备。本文通过系统性文献综述研究了战略问题解决方法中的潜在差距。研究分析了现有文献,这些文献涉及当前的问题解决方法在没有正式业务流程和程序的情况下识别和解决战略问题根源的潜力。在重点研究问题的指导下,通过严格的文献检索过程,对问题结构化方法、精益思维、六西格玛、约束理论、平衡计分卡、SWOT 分析和其他技术进行了研究。研究结果的综述揭示了战略根源分析的局限性。此外,研究还引入了一个辅助决策参考框架,以帮助在解决问题、决策和解决方案实施阶段选择适当的方法。该框架解决了决策者在驾驭组织复杂性和选择合适方法时面临的共同挑战,并根据内容、组织和分析复杂性维度将方法直观地映射到各个阶段。研究发现,使用单一方法可能不足以完成一个完整的决策过程,而该框架正是建立在这一研究结论的基础之上。建议的决策框架还为整合符合决策情况的各种方法提供了宝贵的指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
14
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信