This document discusses and compares hard operations research (OR) and soft OR. Hard OR uses quantitative methods like linear programming for well-defined problems, while soft OR is used for more uncertain, complex problems with multiple decision-makers. Soft OR methods include strategic options development and analysis, soft systems methodology, theory of constraints, causal mapping, scenario planning, and benefits analysis. These are qualitative, facilitator-based approaches that account for different stakeholder perspectives.

1. Operations Research
Soft OR

2. Operations
Research
Hard OR
Soft OR
• Traditional Approach
• Methods used – Linear Programming, Simulation,
Queuing Theory etc.
• The real world problems are difficult to formulate using
Hard OR approach due to higher uncertainty in terms of
putting constraints, deliverables, variables in exact
mathematical terms .
• Methods used – Soft Systems Methodology, Strategic
Options Development and Analysis, Cognitive mapping

3. Differences between the two approaches
Dimension Hard OR Soft OR
Decision maker(s) Single decision making
authority ( individual or
group with consensus)
Large number of decision
makers or groups with
conflicting objectives
Problem/ Objective Well defined Not defined as large
number of decision making
authorities makes it
difficult to decide upon
Critical Factors Easily quantifiable Not quantifiable and thus
immeasurable
Mathematical Modeling Easy, frequently practiced Extremely infeasible
Role of OR specialist Analyst Facilitator between various
decision making authorities

4. METHODS USED IN SOFT OR
Soft OR
SODA
SSM
TOC
Causal Maps
Scenario Planning
Drama Theory
Benefits Analysis

5. Strategic Options Development Analysis (SODA)
• Developed in the 1970’s by Colin Eden
• Problem structuring method which helps one to understand
the various viewpoints of a problem area
• Tries to channel the cooperation of a variety of stakeholders
into addressing a problem
• Takes an individualistic approach i.e.
– it takes into account that people behave politically within
the organization and
– each individual may have different perspective to the
problem

6. Philosophy of SODA
• Main philosophy: To structure a problem through stakeholder
involvement
• Foundation: ‘subjectivism’ i.e. each member of the client
group can have his/her own subjective view of the real
problem
• Focuses on gathering diverse views about the problem,
helping people to refine their views and achieving consensus
• Simple to use, Facilitator dependent
• Used when face to face problem solving in group is essential

7. Framework of SODA
• Underlying assumption: organizations are made up
of the individuals with different perspectives
• Needs that group formation will ensure enough
diversity in the perspectives
• Cognitive mapping and facilitation are the two main
techniques used in carrying out SODA

8. General steps used in SODA
1. Identify problem/situation and all stakeholders and plan meetings
2. Conduct client interviews in a relaxed unstructured format to get
their individual views of the problem/situation
3. Develop the individual cognitive maps to represent each individual’s
perception of the problem or situation.
4. Check-back interviews To ensure correct interpretation in the causal
maps. If not, modifications are done in the map.
5. Merging the individual maps
6. Present all individual and combined maps and through facilitation
the merged map is modified to arrive at the consensus
7. Interpret the merged map in terms of High level goals, mid-level
strategies and Low level tactics and operational targets
8. Action selection, allocation and implementation

9. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
• Developed by Peter Checkland & colleagues in the late 60’s at
the University of Lancaster, UK
• Originally seen as modeling tool, but in later years used more
as learning and meaning development tool
• Logic: every problem is like a system and can be understood if
compared to reality in a model which can structure debate
based on the differences and accordingly necessary changes
can be identified

10. Philosophy of SSM
• Follows systems thinking as a means of learning and
understanding for complex problems
• Problem structuring method more aligned to human activity
systems
• Based on the understanding that process of human
interaction is equally important as data or the outcome itself
• Applicable to hard as well as soft problems
• Simply provides different method to deal with ‘problematic
situations’

11. Framework of SSM
• Key processes:
– Define systems of purposeful activity i.e. the root definition
– Build models of various relevant systems
– Compare models to the real world action so as to structure a
debate based on the differences
– Conduct the debate to help the participants involved to see
their way to possible changes
– Motivate them to carry out these changes

12. Classic SSM seven-stage model

13. Classic SSM seven-stage model
• Stages need not be carried out in particular sequential order
• Has a barrier in between to distinguish the stages that address real
world & others which address Systems thinking
• Stages 2 to 4 are iterative in nature
• Different stakeholders (clients, owners and actors) debate to arrive
at feasible, desirable changes
• Techniques used in SSM, which include Rich pictures, PQR formula,
CATWOE, conceptual/activity modeling
• doesn’t provide one correct answer, rather it helps one to learn
about the problem, design appropriate way forward and
understand how it should be delivered. SSM helps understand even
to the client the best way to proceed with the project and deliver
the required output

14. Drama Theory
• Involves application of theatrical models to
interactions in everyday life
• Actions of individuals in an episode impacts the
outcome of successive episodes
• Solution is said to have been reached when there
exist no better alternatives to the current state

15. Scenario Planning
Identification of the Issue at hand
Identification of the Primary driving Forces
Identification of the Pre determined elements
of the Driving Forces
Identification of the Critical Uncertainties
Flesh Out Scenarios

16. Theory of Constraints (TOC)
Identification of the Constraints
Decision on How to Exploit the Constraints
Subordinating everything else to the Above
Decision
Elevating the system’s constraints
If the constraint has been broken, repeat the
entire process without allowing inertia to cause a
constraint

17. Benefits Modeling/ Analysis
• Method used to formulate a problem
• Utilizes the idea of a Benefits’ Map, which represents
relationships between investment areas and value criteria
Causal Mapping
• Process of creating a causal map to display behaviors,
outcomes and interrelationships between them
• Specially preferred in cases where there are multiple paths to
specific outcomes

18. Thank You !