Accelerat ing t he world's research.

A methodology for supporting

strategy implementation based on
the VSM: A case study in a Latin-
American multi-na...
Angela Espinosa, Andrea C Martinez

Related papers Download a PDF Pack of t he best relat ed papers 

Complexit y management in pract ice: A Viable Syst em Model int ervent ion in an Irish eco-com…
Angela Espinosa

Problem st ruct uring met hods in act ion

Jonat han Rosenhead

Variet y is t he spice of life: combining soft and hard OR/MS met hods
John Mingers
 European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

European Journal of Operational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ejor

Innovative Applications of O.R.

A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based

on the VSM: A case study in a Latin-American multi-national
Angela Espinosa a,b,⇑, Ezequiel Reficco b,1, Andrea Martínez b,1, David Guzmán b,1
a
Hull Business School, Hull University, Cottingham Rd., Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom
b
Los Andes School of Management, Calle 21 # 1-20, Bogota, Colombia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Soft OR tools have increasingly been used to support the strategic development of companies at
Received 16 July 2013 operational and managerial levels. However, we still lack OR applications that can be useful in dealing
Accepted 17 June 2014 with the ‘‘implementation gap’’, understood as the scarcity of resources available to organizations seeking
Available online xxxx
to align their existing processes and structures with a new strategy. In this paper we contribute to
filling that gap, describing an action research case study where we supported strategy implementation
Keywords: in a Latin American multinational corporation through a soft OR methodology. We enhanced the
(I) OR in developing countries
‘Methodology to support organizational self-transformation’, inspired by the Viable System Model, with
(S) Complexity theory
Problem structuring (P)
substantive improvements in data collection and analyses. Those adjustments became necessary to
Viability theory facilitate second order learning and agreements on required structural changes among a large number
Organizational redesign of participants. This case study contributes to the soft OR and strategy literature with insights about
the promise and constraints of this soft OR methodology to collectively structure complex decisions that
support organizational redesign and strategy implementation.
Ó 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Dyson, Bryant, Morecroft, and O’Brien (2007) view the strategic
development process as one that explicitly incorporates reflective
engagement and analytical reasoning, supported by models to
help assess and rehearse strategic options. Systemic and soft OR
researchers have traditionally contributed to the development of
strategic management through the provision of methods and tools.
Nevertheless, there is still a pervasive scarcity of resources to assist
managers in dealing with what has been called in the strategy
literature the ‘‘implementation gap’’ (Atkinson, 2006). In particu-
lar, the difficult task of adapting structures to the requirements
of a newly agreed structure, has not been covered yet by any soft
OR researcher.
In this paper we present an example of a soft OR methodology,
the ‘‘Methodology to support organizational Self-Transformation’’
(Espinosa & Walker, 2013), adapted and used for such a purpose
in a Latin-American multinational corporation. In order to be fit
for this purpose, the intervening consultants had to further develop
the methodology. This was achieved through the use of mixed
methods in data gathering and analysis, and by the innovative
design of meetings and workshops to support strategic agree-
ments. These new tools, sought to: (a) investigate the structural
constraints that prevented effective strategy implementation in a
large organization and (b) facilitate the emergence of a political
consensus among members representing all levels of organization,
on cultural, structural and technological changes to mitigate such
existing constraints.
In the final section, we reflect on the way that the innovations
in methods and tools supported group learning, and provided
improved reliability and robustness to the analyses. We close with
a critical assessment of the experience, based on the feedback
received from organization members through different assess-
ments and suggest open paths for continued research in this field.
2. Literature review

According to Mingers and White (2010), systems thinking and

⇑ Corresponding author. at: Hull Business School, Hull University, Cottingham soft OR pioneers like Ackoff, Mintzberg, Pidd, Dyson and others have
Rd., Hull HU6 7RX, United Kingdom.Tel.: +44 1482 463814/+57 1 339 4949x2320.
importantly influenced strategy theory developments. Particularly
E-mail addresses: A.Espinosa@hull.ac.uk, am.espinosa240@uniandes.edu.co
(A. Espinosa), e.reficco@uniandes.edu.co (E. Reficco), ac.martinez430@uniandes.
relevant is the Strategy Development Process (SDP) model from
edu.co (A. Martínez), ar-guzma@uniandes.edu.co (D. Guzmán). Dyson, Bryant, Morecroft, and O’Brien (2007) and Tomlinson and
1
Tel.: + 57 1 339 4949x2320. Dyson (1983), which presents a systemic view of the strategy

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
0377-2217/Ó 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A., et al. A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a
Latin-American multi-national. European Journal of Operational Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
2 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
development process. O’Brien (2011) identifies a range of soft OR
applications in strategy as ‘strategic development support’, which
involves the use of systemic frameworks, models and methods to
support strategic development of an organization.
A review of the OR literature shows that tools based on OR/MS
approaches are strongly present, both at the strategy level and in
supporting operational issues which are important in creating stra-
tegic advantage (O’Brien, 2011). According to Stenfors, Tanner,
Syrjänenc, Seppäläb, and Haapalinnab (2007), while most OR tools
are used to achieve efficiency at the operational level, some of
them are also employed to support strategic management.
Mingers and White (2010) summarize the way soft OR methodol-
ogies have contributed to address issues of ‘strategy support’.
Tables 1 and 2 (see Appendix A present relevant applications from
soft OR approaches that aim to support different aspects of strate-
gic management. Table 1 presents a summary of key examples of
the soft OR approaches most commonly identified as offering con-
tributions to strategy support – namely SSM, critical systems, sys-
tems dynamics, and more recently complex adaptive systems.
From Table 1, we find that SSM has been perhaps the most used
soft OR for strategy support. In particular, Ormerod has used it
extensively to structure strategic information systems planning
(1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2009). His work includes
detailed guidelines on how to use this soft OR approach to support
IS strategy, but not organizational strategy. Eden and Ackermann
(2000), Gregory and Midgley (2000), Jacobs (2004), and Kocher,
Kaudela-Baum, and Wolf (2011) also offer insightful tools and
examples on how to develop strategic direction using SSM. How-
ever, none of these authors offer criteria to address issues of strat-
egy implementation, once such capabilities have been identified.
Some explain insights from critical systems to support strategy
development at a very generic level, but not specifically addressing
the implementation gap – e.g. Cao, Clarke, and Lehaney (2004),
Lyneis (1999), Lyneis, Cooper, and Els (2001). Also, there are a
few promising works on the combined use of the strategy develop-
ment process (SDP) and complex adaptive systems theory to sup-
port strategy, but not focused on implementation (Mason, 2007;
Hammer, Edwards, & Tapinos, 2011; Houchin & MacLean, 2005).
Even if the VSM has not been recognized widely as a tool for
strategy support, there is ample evidence of the potential of VSM
applications to support strategic management and organizational
changes, as shown in Table 2. Gregory (2007), Paucar-Caceres
(2009), and Preece, Shaw, and Hayashi (2013) all use VSM with
other soft or systemic approaches to support performance manage-
ment or strategic information management. Other authors have
used VSM to support strategy or policy formulation – i.e.
Clemens (2009), Devine (2005), Stephens and Haslett (2011) –
strategic relationships management (Golinelli, Pastore, Gatti,
Massaroni, & Vagnani, 2011), and operational planning (Kinloch,
Francis, Francis, & Taylor, 2009). While other authors in Table 2
offer examples of application of the VSM to support strategic
changes in organizations, none of them has explained in detail
the whole process and stages in a large systemic intervention aim-
ing to align strategy and structure. They offer evidence of interven-
tions to support organizational strategic developments that we
may call, following Yearworth and White (2014), ‘‘non-codified
uses’’ of Problem Structured Methods for strategic developments.
In summary, we could not find any application of a Problem
Structured Method, or more broadly, a soft OR approach, that sup-
ported alignment of the organizational strategy and structure in a
large company. The few available published applications of soft OR
methodologies to support strategy and organizational changes do
not present in detail the stages used for the analysis, the tools used
to gather and analyze the data collected, and to structure collective
decisions. This lack of detail makes it difficult to deal with the com-
plexity of dealing with a large organization, as it leaves a lot of
Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A., et al. A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a
Latin-American multi-national. European Journal of Operational Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
responsibility on the analyst’s judgment. This is acceptable for
experienced analysts, but difficult for the uninitiated. Moreover,
to our knowledge no study has explored the use of soft OR tools
to engage in organizational redesign as part of the implementation
of a newly crafted strategy.
We address this gap in the literature by presenting a complete
redesign of a large Latin American multinational company, using
an enhanced version of the ‘Methodology to support organizational
self-transformation,’ focused to address the implementation gap in
a large organization. The improved version of the methodology
provides far more detail in the tools for data collection (surveys,
interviews) and data analysis (VSM analysis combined with quali-
tative software and mind maps) than the original one. It also pro-
vides more structure in the interaction with customers, by
designing a better context for collective decision-making: namely,
workshops in which double loop learning is facilitated at different
stages during the intervention.
3. The intervention: Marval S.A
By early 2012, Marval S.A.2 (hereafter ‘‘Marval’’) was the largest
building company in Colombia, by revenue.3 The company was pres-
ent in all Colombian major cities (Bogotá, Bucaramanga, Barranquil-
la, Cartagena, and Cali), and had a nascent presence overseas, with
operations in Peru and Panama. It employed 1,050 people directly
and about 4,500 indirectly –it is common practice in the building
industry to outsource most labor at the building site. In some ways,
Marval epitomized the successful Colombian family business. It had
been founded and run by brothers, who managed to keep the com-
pany on a path of sustained growth throughout the years, despite
ups and downs of its business and the wider political context. How-
ever, these achievements had been the product of intuition and trial
and error;4 the company had never gone through the exercise of
crafting a deliberate course of action.
In early 2012, senior management approached one of this
paper’s co-authors to assist them in their first strategic planning
exercise. The initial consulting engagement developed between
January and April 2012, and its results can be summarized as fol-
lows. Environmental analysis by and large showed positive trends
in the short and mid-term. The industry as a whole would continue
to grow at robust rates. In the mid to long term, however, some
caution was advised. Within the building industry, various lines
of business showed relevant differences in terms of barriers to
entry or exposure to economic cycles. The analysis showed good
reasons to change company positioning, lowering exposure in
some sectors and moving decisively into others with a more attrac-
tive industry structure and less exposed to macro-economic risks.
Geographically, the company decided to expand into middle cities
and to boost its international expansion. In turn, such a decision
called for changes in the company value chain, addressing a num-
ber of weaknesses identified by the management team who took
part in the exercise.
This initial exercise in strategy formulation set the stage for the
authors’ 2nd engagement. In June 2012, company management
contacted us again asking if we could assist them in the implemen-
tation phase; by July both parties had reached an understanding on
the engagement’s terms of reference, and were ready to start
2
www.marval.com.co.
3
For tax related reasons, the organization is broken up nominally in two different
corporations, Marval S.A. and Urbanizadora Marin Valencia S.A., by revenue the 2nd
and 6th largest building companies in 2011, respectively. However, if both are
consolidated, they become Colombia’s largest building corporation, outstripping SFM
S.A, its main competitor, by 14%. Source: ‘‘Gestor Comercial y de Crédito’’. Database,
www.gestorcc.com, retrieved 3-on March 15–12, 2013.
4
A process that Professor Henry Mintzberg would label ‘‘emergent’’ strategy
(1994).
 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
working. The objectives were defined contractually as follows: (a)
To identify the structures, functions and roles that Marval needed
to consolidate its existing positioning and move into new lines of
business and geographic markets. (b) Develop an implementation
plan to carry out those changes, to be delivered by March 2013.
In our minds, we had an additional goal: to facilitate second
order learning. Argyris and Schon (1996) present second order
learning as a type of double-loop learning that allows organiza-
tional members to ‘learn to learn’ – that is, to discover and modify
the organizational learning system. The learning system is
described by rules that recreate patterns of organizational inquiry
in the organization, so as to make change possible; They consid-
ered that the role of academic consultants in an intervention
should be to enhance the capabilities to develop second order
learning: in this case regarding ways of organizing themselves.
As Gharajedaghi argues, as long as the organizing principles of an
organization remain unchanged, so will its members’ behavior.
To develop, ‘‘these systems [organizations] need to go through an
active process of unlearning and redesign. Unlearning is an itera-
tive and collective process of the second order learning that
demands freedom to question the sacred underlying assumptions’’
(2007). As explained in the next section, we decided to use the
Viable System Model as our framework to support the systemic
intervention. Although it has not been traditionally considered a
Problem Structuring Method, we considered its case one of
non-codified use (see Appendix B). We expected that the chosen
methodology and approach would encourage second order
learning.
4. The choice of research approach
In this particular systemic intervention, our intention was to
support our clients in their learning process on the required struc-
tural changes to implement the previously agreed strategy. They
had previous knowledge about our expertise in supporting strate-
gic management and organizational changes from a systemic per-
spective, and were keen to learn jointly with us on the use of soft
OR tools for their needs. The research context satisfied the charac-
teristics described by Checkland and Holwell (1998) for an action
research project.
We were aware of action research being ‘‘a potent tool for
intentional change, in a collaborative context,’’ and also aware of
its limitation in terms of validity and generalization – as described
by Reason and Bradbury (2006). This is related with the knowledge
specificity that characterizes the process, considering that a sole
organization offers limited observation opportunities. On the same
line, the researcher’s involvement with the observed events may
hinder the observation process (West, 2011). This author has also
expressed concerns about power relationships between facilitators
and participants, considering that the action research project’s ulti-
mate goal is to empower the organization. Nonetheless, this
approach draws on participants’ knowledge –considered expert
knowledge – on the issues considered problematic, recognizing that
those challenges will be better understood by the main actors.
We expected that participants, having to address strategic
issues of major impact for organizational development, would be
‘‘willing to act on what has been learned in the course of the
research’’ (Reason & Bradbury, 2006, p. 451). Previous experiences
had convinced us of the merits of working with a systemic
approach to management. As Flood (2010) has suggested, action
research carried out with a systemic perspective in mind promises
to construct meaning that resonates strongly with our experiences
within a profoundly systemic world.
Following these ideas, we framed our intervention on an action-
research approach, which allowed us to agree with the participants
on intended changes for the organization aiming to implement
Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A., et al. A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a
Latin-American multi-national. European Journal of Operational Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
3
their previously agreed strategy. In the next section we describe
the action research case study, following Checkland and Howell
suggested description of an action research project: the FMA:
Framework, Methodology and Area (Checkland, 1981; Checkland
& Holwell, 1998; West & Stansfield, 2001).
4.1. Framework (F): The viable systems model
Inspired by R Ashby’s pioneering theories of self-organization
and complexity management, as well as W Mc Culloch’s model
of the brain as a neural network, S Beer developed the Viable Sys-
tem Model (VSM) as the theory of viability in complex organiza-
tions, or the theory for effective management of complexity
(1979, 1981, 1985). The VSM offers a meta-language to describe
recurrent patterns of interaction, and the way different roles and
groups deal with complexity in an organizational context. It is
not the intention of this paper to provide a detailed description
of the VSM; for such purpose see Beer (1979, 1981, 1985),
Espinosa, Harnden, and Walker (2008), or Espinosa and Walker
(2011). Appendix C provides a brief summary of the core aspects
of the VSM as a meta-language for mapping organizational com-
plexity. As mentioned earlier, only a few VSM researchers have
offered methodologies that explain in detail the way that the struc-
ture may be adjusted to implement a particular strategy. We
explain below our methodological choices for this project.
4.2. Methodology (M): The methodology to support organizational
self-transformation, enhanced through a mixed methods convergent
parallel design
We choose to use the Methodology to support organizational
self-transformation, because we found that it was the best
systemic methodology offering systemic guidance to conduct such
a process of reorganization, and because we did have the expertise
to use it. Such methodology had been tested in a different context
(SMEs), so using it for the first time in a large multinational with a
focus on investigating the ‘implementation gap’ demanded some
adjustments. We needed new data collection and analysis tools
to cope with the complexity of interacting with a large organiza-
tion. More structured surveys and interviews were necessary to
assess the effectiveness of current structure, as well as new tools
for analyzing resulting large data sets.
We decided then to follow a mixed methods methodology
(Gharajedaghi, 2007; Molina-Azorin, 2010; Onwuegbuzie, Daley,
& Waytowich, 2008). From the outset, it was decided that our
research would follow a typology-based, fixed design (Creswell &
Clark, 2011), in which the overall methodology is predetermined
early in the process. The model chosen was the convergent parallel
design, whereby researchers carry out the quantitative and quali-
tative strands independently, and then bring together the results
with the goal of obtaining ‘‘different but complementary data on
the same topic’’ (Morse, 1991) to best understand the research
problem, assessing convergence or divergence. This is the ‘‘most
well-known’’ approach to mix methods (Creswell & Clark, 2011)
and the first used in the mixed methods literature (Jick, 1979).
Data collection was carried out in a concurrent, but separate
fashion. On the quantitative side, a broad-base online survey
inspired by the VSM was launched, using the paid version of the
Survey-Monkey software. The goal was to cast a wide net that
would allow us to capture valuable, quantifiable data. The survey
targeted 144 company personnel, assuring diversity on the func-
tional, hierarchical and geographical dimensions. The survey
sought to capture perceptions on a number of propositions using
a 7 points Likert scale, where 1 meant total disagreement and 7
meant complete agreement.
4 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
For analytical purposes, the group was disaggregated in three
levels of recursion: corporate headquarters, regional branches,
and local projects. At the national level, 15 people were targeted
with a response rate of 100%. At the regional level, 41 people
received the survey with a response rate of 83% (34 respondents).
At the local level, 120 people were targeted, of whom 91 (roughly
76%) actually took the survey. In total, 125 individuals were
surveyed. On the qualitative side, semi-structured interviews were
completed, targeting a smaller, yet diverse sample of 46 key
informants from diverse functional areas, hierarchical levels and
branches. In all, we interviewed 11 individuals from the national
levels, 15 from regional branches, 16 from local projects, 2
customers, and 2 suppliers.
Data analysis was also carried out independently, and through
analytic procedures firmly established on the quantitative and
qualitative traditions. Survey results were aggregated and the
resulting data was analyzed quantitatively for descriptive
purposes. The results of the interviews were processed using con-
tent analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). Data was coded, divided
into relevant phrases, and then clustered around themes using
specialized software (Dedoose). To make our analysis more
specific and nuanced, we looked into the frequency with which
some codes appeared in the interviews. This technique, called
quantitizing, is used in qualitative research ‘‘to facilitate pattern
recognition or otherwise to extract meaning from qualitative data’’
(Sandelowski, Voils, & Knafl, 2009). At the same time, as Maxwell
noted, ‘‘providing numerical data about the distribution of obser-
vations, or the number of instances of a particular type of event
or statement, helps to (. . .) counter claims that you have
simply cherry-picked your data’’ in order to support the authors’
interpretations (2010, p. 479).
Results were only compared and mixed in the final interpreta-
tion stage. During the workshops we used Tools used MindMaps
and prototypes to facilitate strategic decisions with the partici-
pants. Although our methodology was mixed, the overall design
gave priority to the qualitative method. Quantitative analysis was
limited, and carried out only for descriptive purposes. Moreover,
our study did not make any attempt to establish causal relations
between variables but rather sought to understand the processes
by which some events influence others, which is what really
defines qualitative research (Maxwell, 2010) and more broadly,
the ‘‘interpretive’’ approach to social sciences (Maxwell, 1996).
The reasons why the authors resorted to a mixed methodology
have been summed up by Greene, Caracelli, and Graham (1989).
First, the chosen methodology assured triangulation, seeking cor-
roboration and convergence of the results from different methods.
Second, combining the quantitative and qualitative offered com-
plementarities, as the results from one strand of research were
enhanced and clarified by the other method’s results. Finally, using
the results from one method helped develop the results from the
other. These synergies come across clearly when one considers
the relative strengths of each of the analytical tools used.
In surveys, data-capture is done through standardized pro-
cesses that measure how a given group stands vis-à-vis some clo-
sely formulated propositions, which allows the aggregation of
results transparently and objectively. The downside with surveys
is that ‘‘we don’t know what we don’t know’’. That is, the
researcher can only put to the test some propositions that appear
relevant a priori – which will be confirmed or falsified. Thus, its
transparency is coupled with rigidity.
Content analysis of semi-structured interviews, on the other
hand, has diametrically opposed characteristics. Coding offers a
highly flexible tool to organize large amounts of data and to extract
meaning from it to the very last drop. While good methodological
design using qualitative tools should enable the researcher to
‘‘deal with plausible validity threats’’ (Maxwell, 1996) the risk of
Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A., et al. A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a
Latin-American multi-national. European Journal of Operational Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
subjective bias is always present. In other words, qualitative
content analysis offers flexibility, coupled with higher subjectivity.
In sum, combining both can leverage their highly complementary
strengths.
4.3. Area (C): Enabling second order learning about improved
structures
Our Area of concern was defined according to our main objec-
tive: to facilitate second order learning (March (1991), Levinthal
and March (1993), Nonaka and Takeuchi (1995), Argyris and
Schon (1996), Gharajedaghi, (2007)), so as to enable them to rede-
sign their structures, functions and roles in a way that will create a
better context for strategy implementation. In the following para-
graphs the methodology used is described in detail, arguing that by
using this methodology it was possible to facilitate a process of
self-constructed solutions and redesign parameters. This method-
ology was framed in the Viable System Model, hoping that VSM
meta-questions led the participants to better understand the com-
plexity of the organization and build contextualized solutions. Par-
ticipants agreed on developing the project as an action research
process, in which changes proposed were going to be constructed
as a result of interaction between researchers and participants.
5. The improved methodology to support organizational self-
transformation
The main characteristic of the ‘Methodology to support self-
transformation’ is that it uses the VSM as a meta-language, as a
hermeneutical tool, to enable people to engage in a structured con-
versation about organizational viability and adaptability. In this
way, it helps actors to create the required organizational arrange-
ments to improve their own chances of long-term viability (i.e. by
creating a better structural context for strategy implementation).
Fig. 1 explains the stages of the methodology: (1) identify the
System-in-Focus, (2) map the relevant recursions, (3) look for
weaknesses in the system’s viability by reflecting on the
meta-questions, (4) reflect on strategy vs. structure gaps, (5) agree
and implement the required changes; and finally (6) monitor and
review the situation.
At the 1st stage, we facilitate debates about the organizational
identity (identity in use and espoused identity) and the boundaries
of the system in focus. At the 2nd stage we elaborate with the par-
ticipants representations of the levels of complexity inside their
organization. Once the system in focus is agreed, we start the
VSM Diagnosis: in a large company like Marval, this implied com-
plex processes of data collection and analyses, to make sure we had
a valid data sample. Next section explains in detail how we dealt
with this challenge. After producing a structured VSM diagnosis
based on data, we validated it with a sample of representatives
from all organizational levels.
The next stage is to identify the critical areas for strategic devel-
opment of the organization and to assess which of the core diag-
nostic issues would affect them. Based on this analysis, we
filtered out the most strategic changes required for effective strat-
egy implementation and design improvements for each of them.
Again, such generic change projects needed to be validated with
company representatives. Once agreement was secured, we sug-
gested an implementation plan, which included a comprehensive
review of (a) levels of organization and operational units, (b)
meta-systemic management changes at each level, (c) changes in
roles and structures, and (d) suggested technological innovations
to support strategy implementation. The last stage is monitoring
and assessment of changes.
 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Fig. 1. Methodology to facilitate organizational self-transformation. (Adapted from Espinosa & Walker, 2011, chap. 3.)
In the following sections we explain in detail the innovations
produced in this intervention, in order to cope with the complexity
of the interactions with the representatives of a large multina-
tional, at different levels.
6. The methodology in action
6.1. Organizational and learning context
We started the project in August 2012, and it finished in March
2013. The preliminary stage included developing the proposal,
with a detailed account of the project’s objectives, organization,
methodology, stages and expected outcomes. To facilitate collabo-
rative decision-making, two interlocutors were created on the
company side: an Executive Committee (hereafter, Exec-Comm)
and a Technical Committee (Tech-Comm), which functioned as
sounding boards to consultants’ proposals. The Exec-Comm vali-
dated all political decisions, such as workshops dates, agenda and
attendees. On the other hand, the Tech-Comm provided constant
feedback and detailed knowledge of company operations. What
follows is a detailed account of how each stage of the project
unfolded.
6.2. Preliminary stage
The initial meeting with the Exec-Comm took place through a
videoconference, as participants were based in different cities.
The academic consultants presented the project methodology,
phases and goals, and took questions from participants. It was
agreed that the company would organize the logistics and provide
administrative support for the two workshops. The consultants, on
the other hand, would design and run the surveys, interviews, vid-
eoconferences and workshops, working closely in tandem with a
project’s manager from the company, who would facilitate access
on a need-base to other authorities and staff inside the corporation.
6.3. Diagnostic stage
The diagnostic stage unfolded during the months of August and
September, and laid the ground for the 1st workshop, held in
Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A., et al. A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a
Latin-American multi-national. European Journal of Operational Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
5
November 2013 (see Appendix C). We started off by carefully
reviewing published data about the company and the industry
from secondary sources, and holding semi-structured interviews
with key informants – see details in the Methodology section.
Concurrently, we designed and ran the electronic survey (see
Appendix D).
The qualitative data was processed with specialized software, as
explained in the Methodology section, and quantitized – counting
the frequency of coding, and slicing it by level of recursion. The
combination of quantitative data from surveys and processed
qualitative data allowed us to triangulate (seeking corroboration
and convergence of the results emerging from both methods), to
capture complementarities (as the results from one strand of
research were enhanced and clarified by the other) and to further
develop our analysis and understanding (Greene et al., 1989). For
example, the anonymous survey showed considerable levels of
support behind the proposition ‘‘we do not have enough autonomy
to plan and develop services from our office’’ (see Fig. 2).
At the same time, data from interviews confirmed and specified
that point of diagnostic. However, as Fig. 3 shows, that problem
was not felt equally at all levels of the organization. On the con-
trary, the perceived bottleneck was particularly painful at the level
of regional branches, and almost invisible from national headquar-
ters. The convergence between the quantitative and qualitative
strands of analysis lent credence to that point of diagnostic, while
the specificity that came from the disaggregation of interview data
allowed us to pin point it with precision (see Fig. 3).
Similar complementarities between the quantitative and
qualitative data emerged at every step of the analysis, giving the
consulting team a robust diagnosis to share with company
managers in the first workshop. We were left with the challenge
of sharing our findings in a manner that (a) was clear and intuitive,
allowing the consulting team to share great amounts of data in a
friendly manner and (b) stimulated critical discussion, allowing
participants to validate or falsify (or at least to question) each of
the points of diagnostic.
To that end, we resorted to mind-maps, crafted with the assis-
tance of specialized software (MindManager v. 9). Results were
summarized, disaggregated by recursion level, and structured in
a mind map following the five systems that the VSM is based upon
(see Fig. 4 and Appendix E for an example). Those mind-maps were
6 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx

delivering a one-time report with proposals, the consulting team

Fig. 2. ‘Example 1: Triangulating answers from the survey’.
National headquarters 27.1%
Regional branches
Local projects 13.0%
Fig. 3. ‘Example 2: Triangulating answers from the survey’.
Fig. 4. The VSM.
printed in giant sheets (33 by 46 inches) and used as a heuristic
device to have structured discussions in small groups, which
gathered around those maps and considered point after point of our
preliminary diagnosis. Under the guidance of a facilitator, each
group constructed a shared vision of the most urgent problems
facing the organization. They also expressed their opinions through
the technique of ‘‘visual applause’’ attaching red or green dots to
each diagnostic point, showing agreement or disagreement.
Comments were also captured through post-it notes, attached to
the maps (see Appendix F for illustrative photos).
The 1st workshop encompassed about 40 employees, assuring
diversity from functional, geographical and operational perspec-
tives. A consulting team of four facilitators also took part. The
two senior members of the team facilitated group discussions dur-
ing plenary sessions, while the remaining two joined in the facili-
tation of small group discussions, as explained above. Participants
remained actively engaged throughout these intense two-days,
validating the external diagnosis and in the process building a
shared understanding of the problems at hand. Such a consensus
among company managers proved highly valuable later on, to pri-
oritise and detail the solutions outlined by the consulting team.
A few weeks after the workshop, we submitted the 1st report
with the complete VSM diagnosis of the company, as collectively
discussed, improved and validated by company members. Section 7
details the diagnostic tools and findings.
6.4. Redesign stage
The design stage took place between November 2012 and
February 2013, in the last 3 months of the project. Instead of
moved forward through successive iterations, where each step
built on the previous one. At each step, a number of key redesign
proposals were crafted – based on the agreed upon diagnosis – and
then validated through dialog with the Tech-Comm, who commented
on the relevance, desirability and feasibility of the proposed steps.
The first videoconference was focused on organizational changes at
the national and international levels; the second one dealt with
changes at the regional level, and the last one with changes at
the production level. At each videoconference, the suggested
changes were clarified and detailed, in preparation for the final
workshop.
Eventually, a clearer picture of the desired end-results emerged
from this dialog. To decide on a rollout process, setting priorities
65.2%
and phases, we went back to the strategic planning exercise. We
reviewed the organizational constraints that had emerged in the
value chain analysis, and the goals and action plans established
in the strategic map. Those elements were factored in, and as a
result a change plan was crafted, with clear priorities. This plan
was also discussed and validated with the Tech-Committee, mak-
ing sure that we had secured agreements from middle manage-
ment before the 2nd and final workshop was held.
At this point we had finished our detailed redesign proposal,
with a number of suggested changes at various levels of the orga-
nization (see Section 7). We summarized them through Mind-
Maps at each level of recursion, in order to share them with com-
pany management. The final workshop took place in early February
2013 (see Appendix C). During 2 days, the suggested changes were
discussed in detail, using the same tools that had worked so well in
the initial workshop.
A short case study, focused on a real company project, was writ-
ten as an additional tool to show and validate the diagnostic and
proposed change plan. The purpose was to take a deep view into
the way company activities flow, and to have participants see in
a direct and practical way (a) the bottlenecks that existing struc-
tures created and (b) how those obstacles would be removed with
the proposed change plan. Instead of delivering our prescriptions
‘‘top-down’’, expecting managers to ‘‘trust’’ our judgement, we cre-
ated an experience where the actors themselves built inductively a
recommended solution, based on VSM criteria. Following standard
case analysis practice (Gini, 1985; Greenhalgh, 2007; Herried,
2011), the consultants did not prescribe any a priori solution; on
the contrary, they limited themselves to presenting the facts and
challenged participants with questions.
Case preparation required ten additional interviews and the
development of a detailed flowchart of the project under analysis
(see Appendix G). The case was shared with the participants a
few days before the 2nd workshop, to give them time to analyse
it and prepare for discussion. They were asked to identify key roles,
main problems, and main causes in each of the phases of a project
development. Case discussion proved highly effective in building a
shared understanding of the problems at hand and of the projected
benefits of moving forward with change – including changes in
roles, structures and processes. This discussion provided the bases
for ensuing sessions, where we agreed on changes to the organiza-
tional chart, critical change projects, individual accountability in
change implementation, a broad rollout plan, and KPIs. After the
2nd workshop a new project flowchart was built in order to sup-
port the change plan implementation (see Appendix G).
In the three weeks that followed, we worked on the final report,
which included a summary of the whole learning process and the
agreements on organizational changes, implementation plan, pilot
projects and monitoring systems. There follows a detailed account
of the key findings at each stage, followed by our reflections on the
learning we got from this experience in using the methodology in
the described action research context.

Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A., et al. A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a
Latin-American multi-national. European Journal of Operational Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
7. Structuring VSM diagnosis
As explained before, the tasks of data collection and analyses
were quite demanding because of the size of the organization,
which required the team to handle a substantial amount of data.
Despite the challenges, the tools and methodologies described
earlier made possible a clear diagnosis based on the tenets of the
VSM. What follows is a summary of its main points, structured
according to the organization’s levels of recursion.
7.1. National level
The corporation lacked a clear division of roles between corpo-
rate headquarters and regional branches. Thus, relations between
these levels were not characterized by synergies and complemen-
tarities, but rather by duplicity and recurring frictions. The national
level needed to clarify what exactly it does – in VSM parlance, to
identify its system 1 – and how those operations related to the
work being done at each branch. For example, the CEO was doing
both general management of the company (recursion level 0) and
of one branch (recursion level 1), ending up overwhelmed by the
complexity of the branch’s operations and having not enough time
for attending strategic issues at the national level.
In addition, the organization as a whole lacked any effective
anti-oscillatory mechanisms to make possible the seamless coordi-
nation of its parts – what the VSM calls systems 2 functions (e.g.
oscillations between purchasing and engineering roles). It also
lacked an effective System 3 – its ‘‘internal eye’’ (e.g. clear
resources negotiations against agreed upon goals with lower recur-
sion levels, holding them accountable against those targets and
leaving them to decide autonomously on how to reach those
goals).
Because no such mechanism existed, the national level had to
descend systematically to micro-manage operational details in
regional branches. This, in turn, generated other dysfunctions. On
the one hand, since senior managers in headquarters took up tasks
that belonged elsewhere, they were systematically overwhelmed
and failed to deliver on some of the functions only they could per-
form. On the other hand, regional managers were systematically
bypassed in most significant decisions. Thus, a culture of strong
centralization and rigidity was created, which tended to create
bottlenecks and delays. Additionally, there was not much time left
for the national or regional managers to keep a close eye on the
changing business environment and to develop strategically – in
VSM language, it lacked effective system 4 (the ‘‘external eye’’)
and system 5 (‘‘policy and identity’’) functions and roles, at
national, regional and local levels, essential to develop organiza-
tional strategic capabilities.
7.2. Regional level
The analysis of the regional level (each of the company
branches), revealed important deficiencies in their basic and criti-
cal operations (system 1 functions), such as customer service –
which was fractionalized among different areas, with an approach
that was reactive, short-term and defensive in nature. Many of
those operational tasks were carried out on an ad-hoc basis, with
great variance from branch to branch, and even from project to
project, (lack of effective system 2 mechanisms). No one had the
responsibility for creating synergies and improving cost-quality
ratios among branches – the essence of system 3. There was also
a void when it came to picking up lessons, best practices and
innovations from company operations, and disseminating them
to other projects or branches. Externally, branches lacked a role
formally entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring the
Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A., et al. A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a
Latin-American multi-national. European Journal of Operational Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
7
regional environment, tracking changes in regulation, demand
trends or long-term supply of land – this is the ‘‘Outside and Then’’
focus that define system 4’s role. Finally, branches also lacked a
clear head with the legitimacy, power and means to set policy
and deliver on operational goals agreed with national headquarters
– a system 5’s duty.
7.3. Project level
At the project level, formally designed processes were so rigid
that – in order to meet deadlines – personnel had resorted to the
creation of ad-hoc ‘‘parallel practices’’ to gain flexibility in their
operations (system 1). In particular, many critical processes were
structured along vertical reporting lines, which went from the pro-
ject all the way up to national directors. This created the conditions
for recurrent deadlock in critical processes, as project managers
lacked the resources to absorb discontinuities.
Let us consider a project with a value chain of 3 linear roles: A, B
and C. An unforeseen event determines that A’s output is not in line
with B expectations (say, the originally planned door is out of
stock, and the engineer needs to authorize a different one affecting
costs, but the comptrollers will not authorize it). Because there is
not a strong authority with overall responsibility for the whole
project, ‘‘parallel logics’’ will develop. The engineer will report
the problem up to regional and national managers, and so will
the comptroller. Eventually, a decision will be made at the top
and then come back to the project. This is clearly a sub-optimal
way of operating. As long as A and B do not see others as members
of the same team, which succeeds or fails as a whole, and account-
able to the project leader, coordination problems will recur.
Finally, projects lacked mechanisms to systematically identify
and report innovations and best practices to be shared with other
projects and branches.
8. Some redesign proposals at the national level
This section offers a succinct account of the main redesign areas
that resulted from the intervention at the national level, structured
by the VSM systems. Due to space constraints, only a few ideas
were selected for mention here to provide examples.
In the last decade, the company transitioned from mono to
multi-business, but its structures had not evolved accordingly.
Some of the industries to which it had diversified had value chains
with little or nothing in common with its core building business –
e.g. facility management. Experience had shown that mixing
‘‘apples and oranges’’ under the same organizational umbrella con-
strained growth; thus, the creation of some dedicated structures
was in order.
Coordination problems between branches could be tackled by
putting in place nationwide operating standards, which would
bring uniformity to key roles and processes (system 2). In turn,
coordination among branches would be enhanced by the creation
of a collegiate decision-making body –the ‘‘Exec-Comm’’–, which
would bring together senior national management with regional
managers (System 3). In this body, branch managers would
negotiate resources with HQ against agreed upon goals. National
leaders would refrain from intervening in the lower recursion as
long as chosen essential variables (growth, sales, margins)
remained within predefined acceptable limits. Under these condi-
tions, branches would enjoy responsible autonomy, and would be
free to decide on how best to reach their goals. Should things go
wrong, however, regional managers would be accountable for
failure; eventually, recurring underperformance would trigger
intervention from HQ.
8 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
As national authorities had been embroiled in operational
details, some forward-looking functions had been overlooked;
chief among them was R&D and more broadly, innovation in gen-
eral. A number of dedicated structures were proposed, to capture
knowledge (both internal and external) that would help the orga-
nization deal with the future – a typical role of system 4. Among
these were a sub-direction of innovation (charged with scanning
relevant technological developments on a global basis), an ‘‘Obser-
vatory’’ of the PEST environment (which would report periodically
on regulatory issues, macro-economic conditions, market trends)
and an ‘‘alliance coordinator’’ (would seek to create strategic part-
nerships with universities and think-tanks to create proprietary
technologies).
Other functions that had suffered historically were those
related to policy and organizational identity (system 5). This void
would be filled through the creation of the Executive Committee,
which would monitor strategy implementation. Meetings would
not deal with operational details; instead, discussions should
analyse the evolution of essential variables (growth, sales,
margins), both at the national and branch level, and if necessary
analyse causes and remedies to deviations. Finally, it was proposed
that the Board of Directors would be reinvigorated with external
directors, in order to bring experience from the industry and
beyond – from relevant domains, such as government or academia.
9. Assessing second order learning from the intervention
As was said earlier, our intention was to support second order
learning from organizational members about their strategy and
their perceived needs for organizational changes to progress effec-
tively in the strategic direction agreed, we used different learning
tools to assess, and/or enable second order learning: at the begin-
ning of the project we used the surveys at each level of organiza-
tion to see members’ perceptions and learning constraints for
effective operations. The interviews allowed us to deepen our
understanding of the main learning constraints identified through
the statistical analysis of the surveys. Through the workshops (1st
and 2nd), we collectively identified, prioritised and agreed the
main directions for structural change.
After the first workshop, we assessed the participants’ percep-
tion of their on-going learning process, by asking each of the par-
ticipants to fill in an evaluation questionnaire (see results in
Appendix H). As shown in this diagram, a substantial majority
the participants considered the topics discussed to be relevant
(71%), valued very positively their learning about these topics
(71%), considered that workshop design gave them ample opportu-
nities to engage in meaningful debate (67%), and felt highly com-
mitted to the implementation of agreed upon changes (80%).
By the end of the final workshop we made a new assessment of
the participants’ learning throughout the entire project. Appendix
H summarizes the participants’ perceptions. Data shows that by
the end of the intervention, participants where highly engaged in
the learning process (64%), found it very inclusive (68%), discussed
highly relevant topics (72%), and felt very committed to imple-
menting the agreed changes in their structure and roles (84%).
10. Discussion
Through this action research case study, we have contributed by
presenting in detail a new application of a soft OR multi-method-
ology, aimed at facilitating second order learning in an organiza-
tion seeking to redesign its structure, to make it more adaptive
to the environment and aligned with its new strategic plan. The
‘‘Methodology to support self-transformation’’ was strengthened
in this application by designing and using VSM-based surveys
Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A., et al. A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a
Latin-American multi-national. European Journal of Operational Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
and interviews in the appreciative stage, as well as quantitative
and qualitative analytical tools at the appreciation and assessment
stages. This complements existing applied research in soft OR
using multi-methodology and mixed methods approaches; and
by further explaining the power of the VSM as a meta-language
to encourage 2nd order learning in the context of an organizational
change program.
10.1. On contributions to soft OR supporting strategy development
We have shown that the VSM is a soft OR and a non-codified
PSM approach that could be useful to support strategy
development. Through our action research case study we showed
an example of a VSM application based on the (improved)
Methodology for self-transformation, aimed at supporting the
alignment of strategy and structure in a large multinational.
This VSM methodology for supporting strategic organizational
changes has a good potential to contribute to enhance Dyson’s
identified ‘MS toolkit for strategic planning’ (2000), as it provides
robust ‘models of the organisation’ – see Fig. 1.7. ‘‘The Strategic
Development Process’’; in Dyson et al. (2007, p. 12). More
specifically, the VSM intervention facilitated agreement on collec-
tive mental models of the organization (VSM models), that were
built using mixed methods for data collection and analyses. The
VSM was used as a language for mapping and identifying learning
constraints that were blocking effective strategy implementation.
Business policy textbooks usually consider the alignment of
structure and strategy as implementation’s first logical step
(Andrews, 1971; Galbraith & Nathanson, 1978), followed by the
establishment of operating-level objectives, the design of operat-
ing structures and, finally, the creation of proper incentives and
control mechanisms that support the implementation (Hrebiniak
& Joyce, 1984; Lorange, 1982). Our (enhanced) Methodology for
self-transformation has offered a pathway to tackle all of those
issues in a holistic and integrated fashion, through bottom-up
dynamics that assure buy-in and commitment from participants.
By doing that, this paper has contributed to filling the so-called
implementation gap.
The VSM intervention helped the organization to realize the
main operational and managerial learning constraints that had to
be overcome to create a proper context for strategy implementa-
tion. It offered an innovative self-mapping and self-reflection pro-
cess, involving representatives from all areas. This process resulted
in the identification of critical bottlenecks that had to be addressed
– via the redesign of the organizational structure, key processes,
and a few roles – to implement the agreed strategy. Both the
diagnosis and the change plan were crafted through a VSM
participatory self-transformation process. Identified issues were
mapped and debated collectively by protagonists, facilitated by
the consultants. The decisions that came out of this exercise were
highly valued by the company’s senior management, as they
prepared the organization to deal with is strategic challenges.
The case study action contributes to OR practice (as in Ormerod,
2013) by providing further understanding on ways on which PSMs
can support the strategy development process in a systemic way.
Further development and testing of the contributions of this
methodology to fill the implementation gap in a systemic way
should encompass organizations operating in various industries,
in different cultural and geographic contexts.
10.1.1. On contributions to multi-methods approaches
The interest of the soft OR community in using multi-method
approaches have been growing since the first advocates suggested
the idea (Bennett, 1985, 1990; Busch, 2011; Flood & Zambuni,
1990; Mingers & Brocklesby, 1997; Mingers & Gill, 1997; Mingers
& White, 2010; Mintzberg, 1994; Ormerod, 1995; Ormerod, 1996;
 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Ormerod, 1997; Pauley & Ormerod, 1998). As Mingers and White
(2010) demonstrate, the number of applications of multi-methods
in soft OR has been increasing in the last decade. This research
contributes to such developments, by presenting more in-depth
descriptions of interventions using mixed methods in order to
develop our understanding, as Howick and Ackermann (2011)
recommended.
Specifically, the multi-method approach to action research pre-
sented here explains in more detail than similar publications had
done before the nature of the data collection and data analysis
required to manage the complexity of interactions with clients in
a large VSM intervention. While using the VSM as a meta-language
to frame the research questions and analyses, we simplified the
technical aspects of the model by framing a survey (inspired in
the conceptual framework but expressed in business terms) and
then using combined methods for the analyses. We found that by
combining the chosen quantitative and qualitative methods, the
results from one strand of research were enhanced and clarified
by the other method’s results: this provided increased robustness
of the research process and results.
On the other side, combining ‘‘hard’’ numbers with qualitative
data, serves to counter to some extent the criticisms levied on
qualitative research, which traditionalists regard as unscientific,
entirely personal and full of bias (Berkhout, Hertin, & Gann,
2006). Other soft OR critics have expressed concerns in general
about subjectivity and lack of structure in some soft OR applica-
tions. This case study is an insightful example of a multi-method
design of a systemic intervention to support a strategic develop-
ment process at a large scale. Our research approach offers possible
solutions and alternatives to provide more structured analysis and
less subjective interpretations of clients’ perceptions, relevant
when working at such a large scale. Moreover, our experience sug-
gests advantages in the combination that go beyond methodology
and ‘‘OR academic research’’, and becomes relevant to ‘‘OR
practice’’ (Ormerod, 2009). When it comes to sharing with man-
agement diagnostic points identified by the consultants, showing
that different methodological lenses give convergent results can
ease the socialization of research results, and facilitate internaliz-
ing the diagnosis in the organization. As Yearworth and White
(in press) would put it, this case study contributes to visualizing
the process of a PSM use and to our collective learning about
PSM practice.
10.2. On overcoming limitations of the VSM
Previous research on the VSM and its application to support
organizational transformations have criticized it by saying that
the VSM language is difficult to grasp and generates cognitive bar-
riers to users (Jackson, 2001; Ulrich, 1981). Aware that this may be
the case with non-experts, and considering that large interventions
grant fewer opportunities for one-on-one coaching – as was the
case in Espinosa and Walker (2013) – we took a number of steps.
 First, we decided to create a survey and a questionnaire, which
would give us the information we needed to do the VSM
analyses, without expecting users to fully understand the VSM
meta-language. This way we managed to collect a statistically
significant sample of responses to core VSM questions across
the organization.
 Then, to prevent cognitive tensions during discussions with
users, during the initial workshop we invested time in making
sure that participants had a clear understanding of basic VSM
principles. We kept theory to a minimum and sought to bring
out managerial relevance through ‘‘down-to-earth’’ examples.
As in Espinosa and Walker (2013), we aimed at making sure
that participants understood the systemic aspects of their
Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A., et al. A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a
Latin-American multi-national. European Journal of Operational Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
9
organization, so that they could challenge their existing struc-
tures. Absorbing VSM categories and concepts, would enable
participants to engage in second order learning about their
current structures and relational practices. This was enhanced
by the iterative and participative aspects of the methodology
(see Appendix B).
 We used Mind-Maps to visually represent the final diagnostic
points, grouping them into VSM categories (Systems 1–5 at
each level of recursive organization). This heuristic device
proved highly effective in bypassing the complexities of
traditional VSM diagrams, while communicating all relevant
concepts. Although workshop discussions were entirely based
on VMS meta-language and concepts, participants did not have
any problem communicating, as proved by their assessment of
workshops quality, the level of participation and commitment
shown in workshop evaluations.
 To ease the appropriation of proposed changes, we refrained
from ‘‘imposing’’ them top-down, and resorted to a case
discussion, from which a clear direction for change emerged
in a ‘‘bottom-up’’ fashion, through inductive reasoning. This
exercise proved effective in helping the group ‘‘visualize’’ in
concrete forms the promise of organizational change.
10.3. About the type of intervention and the engagement with the
clients
As said earlier, the purpose of this intervention was to enhance
second order learning of the organization, by helping people to
identify required changes in structures, functions and roles and
to develop an implementation plan to carry out those changes.
The initial encounters were smoothed by the experience of an ear-
lier and successful intervention led by one of the co-authors. Client
satisfaction with that experience built trust and credibility, which
facilitated the initial decisions on process. Setting up the Exec-
Comm and the Tech-Comm enabled the consultants to build a fluid
dialog with management, at various levels. Questionnaires, inter-
views, sample and workshops’ design were discussed and vali-
dated with these Committees, assuring on-going commitment
and political buy-in at different levels of the organization.
The highly participatory nature of the intervention, and the fact
that management were constantly fed with highly structured
appreciations of their organizational problems (resulting from
our VSM analyses based on their responses to surveys and
interviews) eliminated fears about us imposing any views.
Managers soon began to offer creative solutions aligned with VSM
criteria on their own, and felt all the way through that critical
decisions ‘emerged’ from them, rather than being ‘handed’ to them.
In summary, this intervention is another full example of using the
VSM as a Problem Structuring Method, as in Franco and
Montibeller (2010), but to the best of our knowledge this is the only
example presenting a fully detailed VSM intervention aimed at
structuring participant’s knowledge through facilitated modeling.
10.4. On the impact of the intervention
Mingers and Rosenhead (2004) reflect on the use and effective-
ness of PSM approaches and express concerns on the generic diffi-
culty practitioners face on how to assess the value of an
intervention; they suggest that what a particular PSM approach
offers is ‘a model of the situation’ that will enable participants to
clarify their predicaments. In this intervention – as the aim was
to help participants to question and redesign their organization –
we can only assess how effective they felt the intervention was
to help them appreciate their own learning and structural
constraints, and how much it helped them to question current
structures and co-design a new, more adaptive structure and roles.
10 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
What seems clear from this case study was that the participants
managed to develop a critical awareness about their organizational
problems, through a facilitated environment for agreeing on major
issues needing redesign, and main directions for change. Appendi-
ces G and H show that participants felt their perceptions did change
as a result of the workshops, and that these sessions were
instrumental in building consensus around the changes needed.
On reflection on the mixed method strategy used to produce the
inputs for discussion at the workshops, we consider that the partic-
ipants trusted the academic consultants’ proposals as they could
see ‘their own inputs as the basis of our proposals’. The statistical
reports on frequencies of diagnostic points at each level showed
them summaries of a large sample of people’s views on organiza-
tional constraints. What emerged from them was ‘common sense’,
with self-evident priorities. This is, in our view, a much better
approach to facilitate organizational learning – and second order
learning- than the traditional ‘expert mode’ of consultancy, as
learning is happening all the way through the intervention and it
is the result of this learning what remains in people’s attitudes
and behaviors after the intervention. As change becomes
embedded in participants through their interactions with the
action research team, it is more permanent than in traditional
consultancy engagements. At this level, this case study contributes
to deepen our understanding of OR interventions (Yearwoth &
White, 2014).
11. Conclusions
The research project presented in this paper contributes to on-
going research in soft OR by improving an existing soft OR method-
ology through the development of data collection and analyses
tools to support a large intervention, and VSM redesign processes
that structure even further the ways of engagement with the cus-
tomers. This is particularly useful when the intervention happens
in a large organization.
Our case study exemplifies the use of VSM as a ‘‘non-codified’’
use of PSM; that is, as a PSM that has been useful to structure col-
lective knowledge on organizational structure, processes and roles,
in a context of strategy development, and more specifically, strat-
egy implementation. It also explains in detail, and in a completely
different context from the ones published before, the way that the
VSM can be used as a meta-language to facilitate second order
learning in an organization going through a self-transformation
process. As Gharajedaghi would say, in order to achieve second
order learning ‘‘these systems need to go through an active process
of unlearning and redesign’’ (2007). Here we have experienced the
process of unlearning by collectively challenging existing roles and
structures, rethinking them using VSM distinctions, and challeng-
ing underlying assumptions about power structures and possible
new ways of relating between roles.
Acknowledgment
We would like to acknowledge the directives and all members
of MARVAL, who contributed to the VSM project.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014.
References
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. A. (1996). Organisational learning II. Theory, method and
practice. Reading, MA: Addisson-Wesley.
Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A., et al. A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a
Latin-American multi-national. European Journal of Operational Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
Andrews, K. R. (1971). The concept of corporate strategy. Homewood, Illinois: Dow
Jones-Irwin.
Atkinson, H. (2006). Strategy implementation: A role for the balanced scorecard?.
Management Decision, 44, 1441–1460.
Beer, S. (1979). The heart of enterprise. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Beer, S. (1981). Brain of the firm. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Beer, S. (1985). Diagnosing the system for organizations. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.
Bennett, P. G. (1985). On linking approaches to decision-aiding: Issues and
prospects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36, 659–670.
Bennett, P. G. (1990). Mixing methods: Combining conflict analysis, SODA, and
strategic choice. In C. Eden & J. Radford (Eds.), Tackling strategic problems: The
role of decision support. London: Sage.
Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., & Gann, D. M. (2006). Learning to adapt: Organisational
adaptation to climate change impacts. Climatic Change, 78, 135–156.
Busch, T. (2011). Organizational adaptation to disruptions in the natural
environment: The case of climate change. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 27, 389–404.
Cao, G., Clarke, S., & Lehaney, B. (2004). The need for a systemic approach to change
management – a case study. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17, 103–126.
Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.
Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1998). Action research: Its nature and validity. Systemic
Practice and Action Research, 11, 9–21.
Clemens, R. (2009). Environmental scanning and scenario planning: A 12 month
perspective on applying the viable systems model to developing public sector
foresight. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22, 249–274.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods
research. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications.
Devine, S. (2005). The viable systems model applied to a national system of
innovation to inform policy development. Systemic Practice and Action Research,
18, 491–517.
Dyson, R. G., Bryant, J., Morecroft, J., & O’Brien, F. (2007). The strategic development
process. In F. O’Brien & R. G. Dyson (Eds.), Supporting strategy: Frameworks,
methods and models (1st ed., pp. 3–24). Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2000). Mapping distinctive competencies: A systemic
approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 12–20.
Espinosa, A., Harnden, R., & Walker, J. (2008). A complexity approach to
sustainability – Stafford Beer revisited. European Journal of Operational
Research, 187, 636–651.
Espinosa, A., & Walker, J. (2011). A complexity approach to sustainability: Theory and
application. London: World Scientific Publishing Company.
Espinosa, A., & Walker, J. (2013). Complexity management in practice: A viable
system model intervention in an Irish eco-community. European Journal of
Operational Research.
Flood, R. (2010). The relationship of ‘systems thinking’ action research. Systemic
Practice and Action Research, 23, 269–284.
Flood, R., & Zambuni, S. (1990). Viable systems diagnosis. 1. Application with a
major tourism services group. Systems Practice, 3, 225–248.
Franco, A., & Montibeller, G. (2010). Facilitated modelling in operational research.
European Journal of Operational Research, 205, 489–500.
Galbraith, J. R., & Nathanson, D. A. (1978). Strategy implementation: The role of
structure and process. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co.
Gharajedaghi, J. (2007). Systems thinking: A case for second-order-learning.
Learning Organization, 14, 473–479.
Gini, A. (1985). The case method: A perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 4,
351–352.
Golinelli, G. M., Pastore, A., Gatti, M., Massaroni, E., & Vagnani, G. (2011). The firm as
a viable system: Managing inter-organisational relationships. Sinergie rivista di
studi e ricerche.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
11, 255–274.
Greenhalgh, A. M. (2007). Case method teaching as science and art: A metaphoric
approach and curricular application. Journal of Management Education, 31,
181–194.
Gregory, A. J. (2007). Target setting, lean systems and viable systems: A systems
perspective on control and performance measurement. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 58, 1503–1517.
Gregory, W. J., & Midgley, G. (2000). Planning for disaster: Developing a multi-
agency counselling service. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51,
278–290.
Hammer, R. J., Edwards, J. S., & Tapinos, E. (2011). Examining the strategy
development process through the lens of complex adaptive systems theory.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63, 909–919.
Herried, C. (2011). Case study teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning,
128, 31–40.
Houchin, K., & MacLean, D. (2005). Complexity theory and strategic change: An
empirically informed critique⁄. British Journal of Management, 16, 149–166.
Howick, S., & Ackermann, F. (2011). Mixing OR methods in practice. Past, present
and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 215, 503–511.
Hrebiniak, L. G., & Joyce, W. F. (1984). Implementing Strategy. New York: Macmillan.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content
analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15, 1277–1288.
Jackson, M. C. (2001). Critical systems thinking and practice. European Journal of
Operational Research, 128, 233–244.
 A. Espinosa et al. / European Journal of Operational Research xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Jacobs, B. (2004). Using soft systems methodology for performance improvement
and organisational change in the English National Health Service. Journal of
Contingencies and Crisis Management, 12, 138–149.
Jick, T. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in
action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602–611.
Kinloch, P., Francis, H., Francis, M., & Taylor, M. (2009). Supporting crime detection
and operational planning with soft systems methodology and viable systems
model. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26, 3–14.
Kocher, P.-Y., Kaudela-Baum, S., & Wolf, P. (2011). Enhancing organisational
innovation capability through systemic action research: A case of a Swiss
SME in the food industry. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 24, 17–44.
Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic Management
Journal, 14, 95–112.
Lorange, P. (1982). Implementation of strategic planning. Prentice Hall, p. 231.
Lyneis, J. M. (1999). System dynamics for business strategy: A phased approach.
System Dynamics Review, 15, 37–70.
Lyneis, J. M., Cooper, K. G., & Els, S. A. (2001). Strategic management of complex
projects: A case study using system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 17,
237–260.
March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning.
Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2.1.71.
Mason, R. B. (2007). The external environment’s effect on management and
strategy: A complexity theory approach. Management Decision, 45, 10–28.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An
interactive approach. SAGE Publications.
Maxwell, J. A. (2010). Using numbers in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16,
475–482.
Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: Towards a framework for
mixing methodologies. Omega, 25, 489–509.
Mingers, J., & Gill, A. (1997). Multimethodology: Towards theory and practice and
mixing and matching methodologies. Wiley.
Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. European
Journal of Operational Research, 152, 530–554.
Mingers, J., & White, L. (2010). A review of the recent contribution of systems
thinking to operational research and management science. European Journal of
Operational Research, 207, 1147–1161.
Mintzberg, H. (1994). Fall and Rise of Strategic Planning. Harvard Business Review,
107–114.
Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2010). The use and added value of mixed methods in
management research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 5, 7–24.
Morse, J. M. (1991). Approaches to qualitative–quantitative methodological
triangulation. Nursing Research, 40, 120–123.
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
O’Brien, F. (2011). Supporting the strategy process: A survey of UK OR/MS
practitioners. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 900–920.
Please cite this article in press as: Espinosa, A., et al. A methodology for supporting strategy implementation based on the VSM: A case study in a
Latin-American multi-national. European Journal of Operational Research (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.06.014
11
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Daley, C. E., & Waytowich, V. L. (2008). A mixed methods
investigation of male juvenile delinquents’ attributions toward violence. Journal
of At-Risk Issues, 14.
Ormerod, R. J. (1995). Putting soft OR methods to work: Information systems
strategy development at Sainsbury’s. Journal of the Operational Research Society,
277–293.
Ormerod, R. J. (1996). Putting soft OR methods to work: Information systems
strategy development at Richards Bay. Journal of the Operational Research
Society, 1083–1097.
Ormerod, R. J. (1997). The design of organisational intervention: Choosing the
approach. Omega, 25, 415–513.
Ormerod, R. J. (2009). Justifying the methods of OR. Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 61, 1694–1708.
Ormerod, R. J. (2013). The mangle of OR practice. Towards more informative case
studies of ‘technical’ projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 14, 1–16.
Paucar-Caceres, A. (2009). Measuring the performance of a research strategic plan
system using the soft systems methodology’s three ‘Es’ and the viable system
models indices of achievement. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22,
445–462.
Pauley, G. S., & Ormerod, R. J. (1998). The evolution of a performance measurement
project at RTZ. Interfaces, 28, 94–118.
Preece, G., Shaw, D., & Hayashi, H. (2013). Using the Viable System Model (VSM) to
structure information processing complexity in disaster response. European
Journal of Operational Research, 5, 67–78.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2006). Handbook of action research: Concise paperback
edition. SAGE Publications.
Sandelowski, M., Voils, C. I., & Knafl, G. (2009). On quantitizing. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 3, 208–222.
Stenfors, S., Tanner, L., Syrjänenc, M., Seppäläb, T., & Haapalinnab, I. (2007).
Executive views concerning decision support tools. European Journal of
Operational Research, 181, 929–938.
Stephens, J., & Haslett, T. (2011). A set of conventions, a model: An application of
Stafford Beer’s viable systems model to the strategic planning process. Systemic
Practice and Action Research, 24, 429–452.
Tomlinson, R., & Dyson, R. (1983). Some systems aspects of strategic planning.
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 765–778.
Ulrich, W. (1981). A critique of pure cybernetic reason: The Chilean experience with
cybernetics. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 8, 33–59.
West, C. (2011). Action research as a professional development activity. Arts
Education Policy Review, 112, 89–94.
West, D., & Stansfield, M. H. (2001). Structuring action and reflection in information
systems action research studies using Checkland’s FMA model. Systemic Practice
and Action Research, 14, 251–281.
Yearworth, M., & White, L. (2014). The non-codified use of Problem Structuring
Methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition. European Journal of
Operational Research, 237, 932–945.