mdh.sePublikationer
Ändra sökning
Avgränsa sökresultatet
1 - 8 av 8
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Träffar per sida
  • 5
  • 10
  • 20
  • 50
  • 100
  • 250
Sortering
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
  • Standard (Relevans)
  • Författare A-Ö
  • Författare Ö-A
  • Titel A-Ö
  • Titel Ö-A
  • Publikationstyp A-Ö
  • Publikationstyp Ö-A
  • Äldst först
  • Nyast först
  • Skapad (Äldst först)
  • Skapad (Nyast först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Äldst först)
  • Senast uppdaterad (Nyast först)
  • Disputationsdatum (tidigaste först)
  • Disputationsdatum (senaste först)
Markera
Maxantalet träffar du kan exportera från sökgränssnittet är 250. Vid större uttag använd dig av utsökningar.
  • 1.
    Cronin, K.
    et al.
    Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research New Zealand Ltd..
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering.
    Jackson, L. S.
    University of Victoria, Canada.
    Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts2014Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 233, nr 1, s. 145-158Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    There are new opportunities for the application of problem structuring methods to address science and technology risk conflicts through stakeholder dialogue. Most previous approaches to addressing risk conflicts have been developed from a traditional risk communication perspective, which tends to construct engagement between stakeholders based on the assumption that scientists evaluate technologies using facts, and lay participants do so based on their values. 'Understanding the facts' is generally privileged, so the value framings of experts often remain unexposed, and the perspectives of lay participants are marginalized. When this happens, risk communication methodologies fail to achieve authentic dialogue and can exacerbate conflict. This paper introduces 'Issues Mapping', a problem structuring method that enables dialogue by using visual modelling techniques to clarify issues and develop mutual understanding between stakeholders. A case study of the first application of Issues Mapping is presented, which engaged science and community protagonists in the genetic engineering debate in New Zealand. Participant and researcher evaluations suggest that Issues Mapping helped to break down stereotypes of both scientists and environmental activists; increased mutual understanding; reduced conflict; identified common ground; started building trust; and supported the emergence of policy options that all stakeholders in the room could live with. The paper ends with some reflections and priorities for further research.

  • 2.
    Johnson, M. P.
    et al.
    Department of Public Policy and Public Affairs, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, United States.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. Centre for Systems Studies, Business School, University of Hull, Hull, United Kingdom.
    Wright, J.
    Department of Public Policy and Public Affairs, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, United States.
    Chichirau, G.
    Department of Public Policy and Public Affairs, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, United States.
    Community Operational Research: Innovations, internationalization and agenda-setting applications2018Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, nr 3, s. 761-770Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
  • 3.
    Johnson, Michael P.
    et al.
    Univ Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. Univ Hull, England.;Victoria Univ Wellington, New Zealand.;Univ Canterbury, Sch Polit & Social Sci, Christchurch, New Zealand.;Univ Queensland, Sch Agr & Food Sci, Brisbane, Qld, Australia..
    Chichirau, George
    Univ Massachusetts Boston, Boston, USA..
    Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research2018Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, nr 3, s. 1178-1191Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Community Operational Research (Community OR), and its disciplinary relation, Community-Based Operations Research, has an increasingly high profile within multiple domains that benefit from empirical and analytical approaches to problem solving. These domains are primarily concentrated within nonprofit services and local development. However, there are many other disciplines and application areas for which novel applications and extensions of Community OR could generate valuable insights. This paper identifies a number of these, distinguishing between 'emerging trends' (mostly in well-studied areas of operational research, management science and analytics) and 'new frontiers', which can be found in traditions not commonly oriented towards empirical and analytical methods for problem solving, where community-engaged decision modeling represents new ways of generating knowledge, policies and prescriptions. This paper will show how the exploration of emerging trends and new frontiers in Community OR can provide a basis for the development of innovative research agendas that can broaden the scope and impact of the decision sciences. D .

  • 4.
    Kocjan, Waldemar
    et al.
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik.
    Holmström, Kenneth
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik.
    Computing stable loads for pallets2010Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 207, nr 2, s. 980-985Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper describes an Integer Programming model for generating stable loading patterns for the Pallet Loading Problem under several stability criteria. The results obtained during evaluation show great improvement in the number of stable patterns in comparison with results reported earlier. Moreover, most of the solved cases also ensure optimality in terms of utilization of a pallet.

  • 5.
    Midgley, Gerald
    et al.
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering.
    Cavana, R. Y.
    Victoria Business School, Victoria University of Wellington.
    Brocklesby, J.
    Victoria Business School, Victoria University of Wellington.
    Foote, J. L.
    Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd.
    Wood, D. R. R.
    Institute of Environmental Science and Research Ltd.
    Ahuriri-Driscoll, A.
    School of Health Sciences, University of Canterbury.
    Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods2013Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 229, nr 1, s. 143-154Artikel i tidskrift (Övrigt vetenskapligt)
    Abstract [en]

    Operational researchers and social scientists often make significant claims for the value of systemic problem structuring and other participative methods. However, when they present evidence to support these claims, it is usually based on single case studies of intervention. There have been very few attempts at evaluating across methods and across interventions undertaken by different people. This is because, in any local intervention, contextual factors, the skills of the researcher and the purposes being pursued by stakeholders affect the perceived success or failure of a method. The use of standard criteria for comparing methods is therefore made problematic by the need to consider what is unique in each intervention. So, is it possible to develop a single evaluation approach that can support both locally meaningful evaluations and longer-term comparisons between methods? This paper outlines a methodological framework for the evaluation of systemic problem structuring methods that seeks to do just this.

  • 6.
    Midgley, Gerald
    et al.
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. Univ Hull, Business Sch, Ctr Syst Studies, Cottingham Rd, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England.;Malardalen Univ, Sch Innovat Design & Engn, Eskilstuna, Sweden.;Victoria Univ Wellington, Victoria Business Sch, Wellington, New Zealand.;Univ Canterbury, Sch Polit & Social Sci, Christchurch, New Zealand.;Univ Queensland, Sch Agr & Food Sci, Brisbane, Qld, Australia..
    Johnson, Michael P.
    Univ Massachusetts, Dept Publ Policy & Publ Affairs, Boston, MA 02125 USA..
    Chichirau, George
    Univ Massachusetts, Dept Publ Policy & Publ Affairs, Boston, MA 02125 USA..
    What is Community Operational Research?2018Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, nr 3, s. 771-783Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    Community Operational Research (Community OR) has been an explicit sub-domain of OR for more than 30 years. In this paper, we tackle the controversial issue of how it can be differentiated from other forms of OR. While it has been persuasively argued that Community OR cannot be defined by its clients, practitioners or methods, we argue that the common concern of all Community OR practice is the meaningful engagement of communities, whatever form that may take - and the legitimacy of different forms of engagement may be open to debate. We then move on to discuss four other controversies that have implications for the future development of Community OR and its relationship with its parent discipline: the desire for Community OR to be more explicitly political; claims that it should be grounded in the theory, methodology and practice of systems thinking; the similarities and differences between the UK and US traditions; and the extent to which Community OR offers an enhanced understanding of practice that could be useful to OR more generally. Our positions on these controversies all follow from our identification of 'meaningful engagement' as a central feature of Community OR. 

  • 7.
    Ufua, Daniel E.
    et al.
    Covenant Univ, Dept Business Management, Coll Business & Social Sci, Idiroko Rd, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria..
    Papadopoulos, Thanos
    Univ Kent, Kent Business Sch, Chatham ME4 4TE, Kent, England..
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. Univ Hull, Ctr Syst Studies, Sch Business, Cottingham Rd, Kingston Upon Hull HU6 7RX, N Humberside, England.;Malardalen Univ, Sch Innovat Design & Engn, Box 325, S-63105 Eskilstuna, Sweden.;Victoria Univ Wellington, Victoria Business Sch, POB 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand.;Univ Canterbury, Sch Polit & Social Sci, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand.;Univ Queensland, Sch Agr & Food Sci, Brisbane, Qld 4072, Australia..
    Systemic Lean Intervention: Enhancing Lean with Community Operational Research2018Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 268, nr 3, s. 1134-1148Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    This paper explores how theory and methodology from Community Operational Research (Community OR) can enhance Lean initiatives. We are driven by the paucity of the literature discussing the involvement of non-obvious stakeholders, particularly local communities, in the adoption of Lean. We present a project undertaken with a food production company in the Niger Delta Region of Nigeria, where we employed a Systemic Intervention methodology to integrate theory and methods from Community OR with those from Lean. Based on this example, we argue that the inclusion of community representatives is necessary if Lean waste-reduction initiatives are to benefit both organizations and their local communities. Our only proviso is that, in the spirit of Community OR, the involvement of community representatives must be meaningful, so change is agreed through stakeholder engagements that respect their inputs and framings, and do not result in organizations imposing unwanted 'solutions' on communities. The paper ends with some reflections on the added value that Community OR can offer Lean practitioners. 

  • 8.
    Velez-Castiblanco, Jorge
    et al.
    Univ EAFIT, Medellin, Colombia.
    Brocklesby, John
    Victoria Univ Wellington,Wellington, New Zealand.
    Midgley, Gerald
    Mälardalens högskola, Akademin för innovation, design och teknik, Innovation och produktrealisering. Victoria Univ Wellington,Wellington, New Zealand; Univ Hull, UK; Univ Canterbury, Zew Zealand; Univ Queensland, Brisbane, Australia .
    Boundary games: How teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of intervention2016Ingår i: European Journal of Operational Research, ISSN 0377-2217, E-ISSN 1872-6860, Vol. 249, nr 3, s. 968-982Artikel i tidskrift (Refereegranskat)
    Abstract [en]

    An operational research (OR) practitioner designing an intervention needs to engage in a practical process for choosing methods and implementing them. When a team of OR practitioners does this, and/or clients and stakeholders are involved, the social dynamics of designing the approach can be complex. So far, hardly any theory has been provided to support our understanding of these social dynamics. To this end, our paper offers a theory of 'boundary games'. It is proposed that decision making on the configuration of the OR approach is shaped by communications concerning boundary judgements. These communications involve the OR practitioners in the team (and other participants, when relevant) 'setting', 'following', 'enhancing', 'wandering outside', 'challenging' and 'probing' boundaries concerning the nature of the context and the methods to be used. Empirical vignettes are provided of a project where three OR practitioners with different forms of methodological expertise collaborated on an intervention to support a Regional Council in New Zealand. In deciding how to approach a problem structuring workshop where the Regional Council employees would be participants, the OR team had to negotiate their methodological boundaries in some detail. The paper demonstrates that the theory of boundary games helps to analyse and describe the shifts in thinking that take place in this kind of team decision making. A number of implications for OR practitioners are discussed, including how this theory can contribute to reflective practice and improve awareness of what is happening during communications with OR colleagues, clients and participants. 

1 - 8 av 8
RefereraExporteraLänk till träfflistan
Permanent länk
Referera
Referensformat
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Annat format
Fler format
Språk
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Annat språk
Fler språk
Utmatningsformat
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf