negotiated project engagements: learning from experience

Negotiated Project Engagem ents: Learning

from Experience

Joh n Frien d,1,5 Don Bryant,2 Bart Cunningham,3 an d

Joh n Luckman4

How far is it possible to capture the lessons to be drawn from successive projects

that involve intervention by social scientists within or between organizations,

whether acting as researche rs, as consultants, as agents of change, or in some

combination of these roles? This paper outlines the way in which a frame work

was develope d, by staff and associates of The Tavistock Institute, for examining

the varie d and often subtle influence s of succe ssive “ne gotiate d proje ct

e ngage me nts” on the de ve lopme nt of wider pe rsonal, institutional, and

disciplinary programs. This frame work is designed to take into account the

contrasting perspectives of the investigators themselves, of their organizational

hosts, and of any external sponsors whose primary concern will normally be with

project outcomes at a more ge neralize d level. As an illustration, particular

reference is made to the expe rience of a pioneering project concerned with

policy-making in city gove rnment. This project was undertaken to advance the

understanding and practice of public planning, while also exploring the potential

for synergy between the perspectives of operational research and applied social

science. The paper concludes with some speculations about the potential for further

developing this kind of framework in supporting experiential learning.

KEY WORDS: action research; project management; negotiation; operational research.

INTRODUCTION

Over the last 50 years, there have been many and varied expe riences of

proje cts involving inte rventions by social scientists in organizations; some-

Hum an Relations, Vol. 51, No. 12, 1998

1509

0018-7267/98/1200-1509 $15.00/1 Ó 1998 The Tavistock Institute

1Centre for Applied De velopment Studies, Lincoln School of Manageme nt, Lincoln Unive rsityCampus, Brayford Pool, Lincoln LN6 7TS, U.K.

2Redhill Counselling Centre, 24 Warwick Road, Redhill, Surrey RH1 1BU, U.K.3Department of Public Administration, Unive rsity of Victoria, BC V8W 2YZ, Canada. (e-mail:

bcunning@ hsd.uvic.ca)43 Bolters Road, Horley, Surrey RH6 8QS, U.K.5Requests for reprints should be addressed to John Friend, Centre for Applied De velopmentStudies, Lincoln School of Manage ment, Lincoln University Campus, Brayford Pool, Lincoln

LN6 7TS, U.K. (e-mail: [email protected])

times acting as researchers, sometimes as consultants or change agents, and

sometimes in some combination of these role s. Through this body of experi-

ence, the concept of action research has evolve d (Lewin, 1946; Rapoport,

1970; Clark, 1976; Susman & Evered, 1978). Throughout this period, the staff

and associate s of The Tavistock Institute and Clinic in London have been

among the most promine nt expone nts of this approach.

The last decade has seen a significant increase in the range of proje cts

that aspire to combine action and research objectives, and also in the ir

complexity and scale. In particular, inte rnational age ncie s have come to

play an increasingly prominent role in sponsoring extensive research and

deve lopme nt proje cts with the aim of achieving closer coordination of poli-

cies. Such projects are often designed to bring together many partner or-

ganizations playing complementary role s, in orde r to stimulate collaborative

working across disciplinary and cultural boundarie s.

This paper draws on the expe rience of a set of 13 applie d projects—ten

of them involving Tavistock Institute staff—that called for the negotiation of

relationships with people in a wide range of host organizations. Most of these

proje cts include d significant aspects of action research, often described in

terms of a client/consultant relationship conducte d within a mutually accept-

able ethical framework (Rapoport, 1970) . However, it is here argue d that the

diversity of proje ct situations that may present themselves in practice de-

mands a model of relationships that is rich enough to encompass a wider

range of sources of varie ty than this classical bilate ral model.

SOURCES OF DIVERSITY

Among the most significant sources of varie ty that have been found

to present themselves in practice are :

1. A Distinction Between Project Sponsors and Protect Hosts. Many pro-

jects that involve the intervention of social scientists in organizations also

involve some form of sponsorship from partie s that stand outside the par-

ticular organizational domain within which the intervention is to be made .

Typically, these include gove rnment de partments, charitable foundations,

or research councils concerned with broade r research or policy outcomes.

Such sponsors often play a salie nt role in the negotiations leading up

to the project launch; sometimes, too, they may become involve d in con-

tinuing discussions about the management of the proje ct while it is in pro-

gress. Their influe nce makes it useful to extend the conventional dichotomy

between client and consultant/re searcher into a diffe rentiation of three

broad organizational domains. These will here be described as a host do-

main, a sponsor domain, and an age nt domain. In this context, the word“age nt” is intended simply as a means of identifying the primary “doe rs”

1510 Frien d, Bryan t, Cunningham , an d Luckm an

of the proje ct work, whether in research, consulting, or action research

roles; there is no implication of acting as agents for othe r partie s—leaving

this as one of the questions to be explore d.

2. Structural Complexity With in Each Domain. It has become common-

place in social research and in the management of organizational change

to recognize that there may be conside rable inte rnal comple xity within what

is here referred to as the host domain. One familiar way of recognizing

this is to refer not simply to a client but rathe r to a client system, within

which it is accepted that there may be considerable diffe rentiation of roles,

relationships and alle giances to be investigated.

Further, where the intervention is to be conducted by more than one

person, it becomes important to acknowle dge that a significant level of in-

ternal complexity may also exist within what is here called the age nt domain.

The conventional way of representing this is to talk of a research or consult-

ing team. However, this term tends to imply an intende d unity of purpose ,

and a shared structure of accountability, even while recognizing that there

may be internal differentiation in terms of roles, discipline s, and skills. Yet

experience has repeatedly shown that this mode l of the cohesive team may

provide a poor fit to the structural complexitie s to be found within the agent

domain—especially in situations where different workers on the proje ct may

be employe d by different research or consulting organizations.

Again, in the case of projects that are sponsored by partie s external to

the organizational milieu of the immediate proje ct hosts, it becomes important

to recognize that a degree of internal diffe rentiation may also exist within the

sponsor domain. This has become increasingly evident in recent years, because

of a prolife ration of extensive and ambitious re search or deve lopme nt proje cts

underpinned by elaborate multi-age ncy sponsorship structures.

3. Developm ental Influences With in Each Domain. A further important

source of varie ty lie s in the deve lopme ntal character of the complexity to

be found within any of the three domains. Within the host domain, the

conve ntional use of the term “client system” tends to imply at least some

degree of persistence through time in the forms of re lationships among

those who perform significant roles within the organization or organizations

that are acting as proje ct hosts.

This is indeed typically the case in manufacturing organizations of the

kind which, historically, have provide d the setting for many of the classical

social science action research projects. Yet many subseque nt proje cts (Trist,

Emery, & Murray, 1997) have involve d engaging with host domains within

which relationships take on a more fluid and transient form.

Likewise , the more ambitious the proje ct, the more like ly it becomes

that the research or consulting team—especially if it is designed to be mul-

tidisciplinary —will be formed on an ad hoc basis, with little or no prior ex-

Negotiated Project Engagem en ts 1511

perience of collaboration among its members. Furthe rmore, where a project

is intende d to explore new ground, Stringe r (1967) has argue d that it often

becomes ne cessary to construct an ad hoc sponsorship structure , within

which few of those involve d may have any prior expe rience in working to-

gether. This point has been further discusse d and exemplified by Cherns

and Bryant (1984) .

With so many sources of potential diversity and unpredictability to be

acknowle dge d, it is tempting to conclude that the scope for building on

cumulative experience in successive project engage ments is at best severely

limite d—or at worst virtually none xistent.

In this pape r, a case is presented for a less pessimistic view. At the

same time, it is argue d that the varie ty of expe rience in important fie lds

of social research and consultancy makes it important to introduce a care-

fully conceived strategy for extracting useful lessons from successive project

experiences. Such a learning strategy is especially important to those op-

erating in agent roles; yet it can also benefit people who engage in suc-

cessive projects in eithe r host or sponsor roles.

DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK FOR LEARNING

If any strategy for learning is to be successful, it is vital that it should

be underpinned by a coherent conceptual framework. The framework to

be offered here is one which began to deve lop in the early eightie s, in the

course of a brief Tavistock Institute project that had more limited objec-

tives—yet obje ctives that were neverthe less important in relation to the cir-

cumstance s of the time.

Subsequently, the framework has gradually been deve lope d into a

more generalize d and mature—if still evolving—form. Before describing

the structure of this framework in more depth, it is important to give at

least a sketch of the combination of circumstance s that led to its deve lop-

ment. These circumstance s came about through a conscious effort to pro-

mote collaborative working between scientists with different disciplinary

backgrounds; and the story is one that will be picked up again late r in

discussing opportunitie s for further deve lopme nt of the framework.

Origin s

In 1962, The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations—an inde pende nt

not-for-profit research institution base d in London—entered into a joint

commitment with the Council of the U.K. Operational Research Society

to establish a new Institute for Operational Research (Friend, Norris, &

Stringe r, 1988) . The aim of this initiative was to extend in new directions


the practice and theory of ope rational research (OR). This was an activity

which, having originate d during wartime in applie d research by interdisci-

plinary teams of scientists, had later shown a tende ncy to crystallize around

the application of a limite d range of mathematical mode ling methods to

the operations of large manufacturing organizations (Ackoff, 1979) .

One particular aspiration of the Society’s Council was to make OR

more relevant to major issues of public policy. In their early discussions

with The Institute , the prospect had emerged of achieving this through a

synthe sis between the insights of social scientists and the modeling skills

of operational research scientists, most of whom had backgrounds in the

mathematical or engine ering sciences.

The new Institute for Operational Research (IOR) came into existence

in 1963, as a semi-autonomous unit within the establishe d administrative

framework of The Tavistock Institute . Having virtually no start-up funding

of its own, IOR immediate ly became depende nt on the attraction of ex-

ternal funds for specific research or consulting projects. Two of its most

significant early projects were concerned, respectively, with communications

in the building industry (Higgin & Jessop, 1963; Crichton, 1966) and with

policy-making in city government (Friend & Jessop, 1969) . Both these pro-

jects involve d joint teams of IOR staff and social scientists from one of

the pre-existing Tavistock units—the Human Resource s Centre (HRC). So

it was that opportunitie s quickly presented themselves for working toward

the original aspiration of IOR’s founde rs to achie ve a creative synthesis

between the contributions of social scientists and ope rational research sci-

entists in the fie ld. Both of the pione er projects soon ran into difficul-

ties—inde ed the scale of the building communications proje ct had to be

severely cut back part way through its intended term, because of a crisis

within its carefully-constructe d joint sponsorship arrange ments. Yet, from

a longer-term perspective , both experiences were to be influential in sowing

seeds for a succession of subse quent applie d projects, and also in laying

foundations for the deve lopme nt of grounde d theory (Glaser & Strauss,

1967) . These early experiences of interdisciplinary working he lped to pro-

vide a foundation for furthe r collaboration som e ye ars late r— in

1972—when a proposal emerged for the merger of IOR and HRC to form

a new inte rdisciplinary unit within the Tavistock matrix, offering a synthesis

of ope rational research and social science skills. This merger became an

administrative reality in 1973, when the staff of IOR and a majority of the

staff of HRC agreed to come together to form a new Tavistock unit of over

25 scientific staff.

Yet it was not until 1979 that the staff of this merged unit adopte d a

new external identity as the Centre for Organizational and Operational Re-

search (COOR). As a means of promoting this identity, it was decided to


arrange a 1-day conference in London. This was held under the auspice s

of the Operational Research Society, and was entitled “Operational Re-

search, Social Science and Strategic Choice .” Some of the pape rs presented

by members of COOR staff at this conference reviewed specific experiences

of interdisciplinary working, as a basis from which to draw out wider les-

sons. Among these was a pape r by Bryant and Luckman (1980) , entitled“Organizational Change and Operational Research.” This reflected on one

recent applie d proje ct concerned with manage ment proble ms in a local am-

bulance service. As a point of departure , it took an earlier pape r by Bennis

(1966) which had offered a systematic comparison between the emphases

of operational research and those of planne d organizational change from

a behavioral science perspective.

A Project to Review Past Project Experiences

The staff of COOR now saw it as a priority to explore in more depth

the conditions for success in any applie d project that aimed for a synthesis

of ope rational research and social science perspectives. So a proposal was

submitted to the then Social Science Research Council—since renamed the

Economic and Social Research Council—for a 6-month pilot proje ct enti-

tled Organizational Change and Operational Research: Comple mentaritie s

in Application to Decision-Making Practice . The propose d research team

brought toge ther three senior members of COOR staff—Don Bryant, John

Friend, and John Luckman—each of whom had been involve d in one or

other of the two seminal IOR/HRC collaborative projects. It was agre ed

that Friend would act as principal applicant and coordinator of the team.

The proposal envisage d that the three team members would cross-

que stion e ach othe r in a structure d way about the ir e arlie r e xpe ri-

ences—each of them selecting for this purpose a set of three or four

completed proje cts on which he had worked, toge ther covering as wide a

range as possible . One of the broade r objectives of the project was to de-

velop a general framework which othe r scientists could in turn adopt to

review the ir own expe riences and thereby enhance the ir project manage -

ment skills. The proposal for this 6-month pilot project—which had by now

become known as the OROC proje ct, as an abbre viation for Operational

Research and Organizational Change—was approve d in due course. So in

May 1980, the three members of the team began their work, with advisory

support from other Tavistock colleague s. Not long afte rward, they were

joined by a visiting scientist—Bart Cunningham of the University of Vic-

toria in Canada—who had just arrive d to spend a sabbatical year in the

Institute . It was quickly agreed that Cunningham should become a fourth


full member of the team, contributing an important external perspective

to its work.

Each member of the expande d team then selected a set of three or four

completed proje cts in which he had playe d an active role. The three proje cts

selected by Bryant include d the seminal IOR/HRC building communication

proje ct (Higgin, 1965; Bryant, Jessop, Luckman, & Stringe r, 1965), together

with two shorte r applie d projects, both of them with an industrial relations

focus. One of these dealt with productivity and quality of working life at a

lead smelter site in Canada (Bryant, 1979, 1989) ; the other was the ambu-

lance proje ct already presented in the OR Socie ty confe rence paper (Bryant

& Luckman, 1977, 1980) . Luckman selected a sequence of three linked pro-

jects on which he had worked in the field of hospital manageme nt, each with

contrasting aims and intended outcomes (Luckman, Mackenzie, & Stringer,

1969; Wessex Regional Hospital Board, 1976).

Friend selected a set of four projects, all concerned with public plan-

ning processes at diffe rent levels. Starting with the pione ering city gove rn-

ment project already mentione d (Friend & Jessop, 1969) , he also selected

a briefer follow-on project that had used a multisite action research design

to test the imple mentation of the proposals for new planning methods de-

veloped during the Coventry work (Friend et al., 1970) . He then took two

late r projects concerned, respective ly, with local community deve lopme nt

(Carter, Edwards, & Friend, 1973) and with regional planning (Carter,

Friend, Pollard, & Yewlett, 1975) . To this sample , Cunningham adde d three

consulting projects in which he had been aske d to investigate the conse-

que nces of propose d change s in shiftwork patterns in Canadian police and

mining organizations (Cunningham, 1982, 1989) .

Reviewing the Projects : An In itial Generatin g Fram e

Three other Tavistock colleagues—Peter Spink, Lisl Klein, and Michae l

Norris—were invited to act as an internal advisory panel for the OROC pro-

ject. At an early stage, Spink volunte ered to develop some proposals for the

design of the process of cross-questioning within the team. After first airing

his ideas for discussion at an inte rnal meeting with the OROC team, he then

developed them further in an internal working paper (Spink, 1980).

Spink propose d that any major work on the construction of an ana-

lytical framework should be deferred until after the initial round of project

interviews had taken place ; but that in the meantime a simple “generating

frame” should be used as a basis for developing appropriate que stions. He

warne d in particular against atte mpting to identify commonalitie s of

method at a supe rficial leve l. For example , both ope rational researchers

and social scientists might claim to be influenced by systems theory—yet


this claim might turn out to mask significant differences in their inte rpre-

tations of this concept.

The initial generating frame propose d by Spink identifie d three broad

fields of choice in the manage ment of any project, all of which could be-

come inte rrelated in subtle ways. These fields he described as inquiry, re-

lationship, and strate gy about producing. Unde r inquiry, he include d all

que stions about choice of proble m focus, analytical method, and data ac-

quisition. Under relationship he include d all questions about the deve lop-

ment of role s and stakes in relation to the proje ct, and about patterns of

working relations at eithe r a formal or less formal level. Under strategy

about producing, he include d que stions about the production of both for-

mal and informal outputs from the proje ct, whether in relation to research

objectives or objective s of organizational change .

Conve ntionally, a process of inquiry is seen as settled in the early

stages of a project, with a strategy for producing assuming promine nce in

the late r stages. However, Spink argued that the mutual influe nces among

the three fields of choice could in practice become far more fluid and dy-

namic. Indeed, the manage ment of a project could be seen as an evolu-

tionary process, involving the repeated testing by e ach inve stigator of a

repertoire of skills, theorie s, and values against an appre ciation of the pro-

ject context—an appreciation which was itself subje ct to continuing adap-

tation through time. Furthermore, where several investigators were involve d

in a proje ct, it was to be expected that there would be differences in the ir

personal repertoires and in the ir appreciations of context—all contributing

to the comple xity of negotiations about the way in which the project should

be manage d.

While questions about inquiry, relationships, and strategy for produc-

ing might be seen as together providing a useful framework for describing

the course of events in the foreground of a project, Spink saw it as impor-

tant also to enquire into significant background influences. Among these

he recognize d that there might be all kinds of unconscious forces, bearing

on each inve stigator in a different way—for example , a motivation to dem-

onstrate eithe r academic credibility or practical consulting skills. He also

recognize d that the inve stigators might diffe r in the preferred models of

science they brought to the process of managing the project.

In applying this generating frame to the retrospective review of any

selected proje ct, Spink sugge sted an interactive strategy of cross-question-

ing within the OROC team. This should begin with a focus on readily ac-

ce ssible data of a de scriptive nature , be fore se e king to de lve into

interpretations at a deeper and therefore less accessible level. He propose d

that each team member should start by writing a quick descriptive account

of each of the proje cts that he had selected. Each such account would then


be treated as a starting point for further rounds of questioning by the other

team members. Through repeated iterations, important insights into choices

about inquiry, relations, and strategy of producing should gradually be un-

covered, and significant background influences progre ssive ly revealed.

Extendin g an d Testin g the Framework

The OROC project was intended as no more than a pilot study; and,

so as to ensure an early response from the funding age ncy, its budge t was

pitche d at a modest level, allowing part-time contributions only from the

three existing members of Tavistock staff. So it was not surprising that what

was achieved within the 6-month span of the project fe ll some way short

of the pote ntial. Yet a set of initial descriptive accounts was drafte d of the

13 comple ted proje cts selected for analysis, and these provide d the back-

ground to a limite d numbe r of structured cross-que stioning sessions.

Fortunate ly, the regulations of the project sponsors allowed a furthe r

6-month period before the submission of an end-of-grant report was re-

quired. During this further period, work on the project continue d intermit-

tently, without any additional funding. In the ir final proje ct report (Friend,

Bryant, Luckman, & Cunningham, 1982) , the team members were able to

present the elements of a more fully-de velope d framework of analysis, along

with some examples of the tentative general hypothe ses about project man-

agement to which it could lead. In this way, they set out to illustrate what

the more systematic use of such a structured framework of project review

might be expe cted to achieve in terms of broader scientific outcomes.

The Dimensions of the Framework

Figure 1 presents the basic dimensions of the framework of analysis

that was develope d by the OROC team—with a few change s in terminology

introduce d as a result of furthe r discussion since the proje ct report was

submitted. The vertical dimension represents the passage of time, while

the horizontal dimension reflects the distinction between agent, host, and

sponsor domains as already introduce d. This reflects the substantial evi-

dence that the distinction between project hosts and sponsors was inde ed

a significant one in a majority of the cases reviewed during the course of

the OROC proje ct.

Figure 1 presents the concept of a negotiate d proje ct engage ment as

a primary unit of analysis. This helps to distinguish any project involving

organizational intervention by social scientists from othe r types of project

that lack similar structural characte ristics: for example , a research or de-

ve lopment proje ct in some specialize d fie ld of technology. Inde ed, the


OROC proje ct itself is better described not as a negotiate d project engage -

ment but rathe r as a metaproject; for it was concerned with review of a

cross-section of completed projects and, while having a clear enough spon-

sor, involve d no negotiations with any direct organizational hosts.

Of course, negotiate d proje ct engage ments are to be found in contexts

other than that of social science enquiry. For example , Cherns and Bryant

(1984) have demonstrated that similar issues of temporary engage ment be-

tween project agents and the ir organizational hosts can often become sig-

nificant in the case of major engineering or building construction proje cts.

In simple terms, the story of a negotiate d project engage ment can be

described as involving three successive phase s:

Fig. 1. A basic analytical frame work.


· a pre -ne gotiation phase , within which acceptable contractual ar-

rangements for the engage ment are negotiate d—always recognizing

the possibility that these negotiations may be aborted at some stage;

· the course of the project itself, during which the project work has

to be active ly managed, even though the ongoing patte rns of involve -

ment and of relationships may change , whether in marginal or more

radical ways;

· a project aftermath, when the engage ment is brought to some kind

of conclusion; after which both planne d and unplanne d outcomes

may unfold, while relations among the contracting partie s may or

may not continue at some leve l.

In some cases, this separation into three broad phase s may become blurred.

Sometimes, major renegotiations may be conducted in mid-course ; or there

may be periods of disengage ment followed by re-engage ment. Overall, how-

ever, the mode l has been found to provide a robust framework for inquiry

if applie d in a flexible way. Figure 1 depicts the course of the proje ct itse lf

in terms of an enveloping coil which, while the project is in progre ss, binds

toge ther participants from the three domains in ongoing relationships with

each othe r. Such relationships may in some respects be tightly structured

yet in othe r respects remain more fluid, and may develop through time in

both intended and uninte nde d ways. Figure 1 also identifies, in more shad-

owy terms, a wider project penumbra of people —within any of the three

domains—who may be less directly involve d in the work of the proje ct, yet

may neverthe less exercise significant influe nces at critical stages.

To help in enquiring in more depth into the course of events within

the coil, it was found useful to introduce the tripartite distinction between

inquiry, relationship, and strategy about producing as propose d by Spink.

It was recognized that choice s in each of these three fie lds might contribute

to the shaping of developments within each of the others. Further, it was

recognize d that each might be influe nced in subtle ways not only by internal

negotiations within the project team, but also by their inte ractions with

other partie s in both the host and the sponsor domains.

In building a profile of a project, it was clearly important to inquire into

the source or sources of the initial proje ct impetus, recognizing that such

sources might be found in any one or more of the domains. Indeed, it was

important to inquire how far this impetus might have emanated from significant

prior relationships among the participants, both within and across domains.

Exploring Background Influences

In inquiring more deeply into background influe nces on the course of

any proje ct, the OROC team found it useful to introduce some additional


theoretical constructs. Here, an important source of inspiration was Hylton

Boothroyd, an ope rational research scientist whose interests had drawn him

toward contemporary discourse s in the philosophy of science. In his book

Articulate Intervention (1978) , Boothroyd drew in particular on a set of ideas

about the dynamics of scientific research programs recently put forward by

Lakatos (1972) , who had in turn been guided by the work of othe r promi-

nent philosophe rs of science such as Popper (1959) and Kuhn (1962) . From

Lakatos, Boothroyd picked up a set of ideas about the evolution of any

scientific research program, and propose d extending this into a wider con-

cept of an action program. This he saw as a means of describing any evolv-

ing body of theorie s and proposals for action—not all of them necessarily

explicit—which could be seen as influe ncing not only the behavior of re-

searchers or consultants working within organizations, but also the behavior

of their organizational hosts.

Boothroyd offered the case of operational research (OR) as one in-

stance of a relative ly clearly-de fine d action program, the core of which

could be found in the activitie s of national OR societies and in the policie s

of leading journals and provide rs of academic courses. Like any other such

program relating to an establishe d or emergent profe ssional discipline , the

OR program could be seen as gradually evolving unde r the influe nce of

various forces of controversy and change , contributing periodically to more

fundame ntal paradigm shifts in the sense discusse d by Kuhn (1962) .

Pursuing this example furthe r, Boothroyd was able to identify more

specific action programs nested within the broad OR program. These could

be detected in the differing styles of practicing ope rational research groups,

and in the personal style s of individual s within those groups. Inde ed,

through successive experiences of intervening in organizations in research

or consulting projects, any OR scientist was repeatedly brought into contact

with influe nces from othe r action programs. All these he saw as contrib-

uting in some degree to the progre ssive evolution and adaptation of the

action programs of the OR community.

Drawing on these insights, the OROC team found it helpful to intro-

duce a distinction be tween three broad type s of program matic influ-

ence—institutional, disciplinary, and personal. Each of these influe nces

could modify the course of any particular proje ct in significant ways; and

each could therefore offer an important line of deeper inquiry in the course

of any retrospe ctive analysis of a completed project.

Institutional programs could be seen as relating to the various pro-

grammatic influe nces acting on particular organizations or parts of organi-

zations, and contributing to the ir adaptations to a changing environme nt.

Disciplinary programs could be seen as relating to the deve lopme nt of par-

ticular professional or scientific discipline s and related codes of practice .


Personal programs could be seen as relating to the career paths and aspi-

rations of individuals, subje ct to all kinds of economic, social, political, and

psychological forces which might vary significantly from individual to indi-

vidual, and which might change ove r the course of their careers in subtle

and often unconscious ways.

It became appare nt to the OROC team that it should be possible to

apply such a framework not only to the analysis of background influe nces

on a specific project within the age nt domain, but also to the analysis of

background influe nces within the host domain. Inde ed it could also be ap-

plie d within the sponsor domain, insofar as that domain could be separate ly

identified for the proje ct in que stion.

Within any of the three domains, opportunitie s arise to enquire into

the influe nce both of broade r action programs, and of more specific pro-

grams nested within them. For example , any of the projects examine d by

the OROC team might have been influenced to some degree by the forces

guiding the evolution of the Institute for Operational Research or its suc-

cessor COOR, or by the many-strande d institutional program of The Tavis-

tock Institute . Other influences might be traced to the wider disciplinary

program of the ope rational research community, either within Britain or

on the broade r international stage . In turn, critical events during the course

of the proje ct might themselves have influenced the evolution of any of

these programs in either planne d or uninte nded ways.

To the extent that the members of a project team might have varied

disciplinary backgrounds and varie d personal programs—and in some cases

might also owe alle giance to diffe rent research or consulting organiza-

tions—the interplay of such programmatic forces could be expected to be-

come increasingly comple x. Sometimes, too, there might be a comparable

leve l of heteroge ne ity within the host or sponsor domain—recognizing,

however, that insights into these might not always be so accessible to those

approaching a project engage ment in an age nt role .

Stran ds of Continuity and Chan ge

Figure 2 builds on the broad framework of Fig. 1 in orde r to convey

some impression of this pote ntial for complexity in the inte rplay of back-

ground influences. The aim here is to indicate the many types of program-

matic strands of continuity and change which might contribute significantly

to the background influences bearing on the course of any negotiate d pro-

ject engage ment.

In order to simplify the graphics, Fig. 2 confine s itself to illustrating

only one strand of each type, within each of the age nt and host domains.


Where a separate sponsor domain can be identifie d, there may of course

also be a third set of inte rwoven strands to be explored.

The more ambitious and organizationally complex the project, the

more like ly it is that there will be multiple strands of each type to be ex-

plore d within any of the three domains. Variations must also be expe cted

in the degree to which these strands may have already become intertwined

before this particular engage ment begins. The evidence of the 13 proje cts

examine d during the course of the OROC metaproje ct confirme d that there

Fig. 2. Strands of continuity and change.


may inde ed be much variation in the extent to which the various types of

programmatic strands have already become inte rtwined before the project

itself begins. Such inte rweaving may occur either in the course of negotia-

tions about how this project should be conducte d, or through prior expe-

rience of collaboration in earlie r projects. Had the individual members of

this proje ct team ever worked toge ther before? How far did research or

consulting staff from these particular institutions, or from these particular

disciplin ary background s, share any prior expe rie nces of collaboratio n,

through which some measure of mutual understanding—or for that matter

mutual antipathy—might have grown?

Similar que stions about programmatic influe nces may be aske d not just

of those participating in a project in age nt role s; but also of those partici-

pating in host and sponsor role s—e spe cially where the programmatic

strands in these domains also appear to be inte rtwined in intricate ways.

Reviewing Project Outcomes

Just as the partially inte rwoven strands of continuity in the agent, host,

and sponsor domains may all exercise subtle influe nces on the course of a

proje ct, so the experience of each successive project may exercise significant

influences on the development of any of these contributory programs. In-

deed, one discipline d way of approaching the review of longer-term out-

comes of a project is to inquire systematically into its influences on all the

various programmatic strands which may have become interwoven during

its course .

How far, for example , did this particular project provide significant

learning experiences for this particular team member, influe ncing his or

her skills, values, or be lie fs? Did it lead to significant ope rational change s,

or change s of organizational culture , within the host domain? Did it con-

tribute in any significant way to the evolution of the social sciences as a

relative ly fluid and polyce ntric disciplinary program or to the evolution of

a more focused disciplinary program such as that of operational research?

Did it influe nce any external sponsors in their subse quent strategy for the

commissioning of further projects?

It will rarely be possible to answe r such questions with any degree of

clarity. Response s may vary from one responde nt to anothe r; while the pas-

sage of time may alte r the content of response s as longer-term influe nces

become more clear—or, conversely, as recolle ctions of the course of a pro-

ject become more blurred. Figure 3, again building on the basic framework

of Fig. 1, presents a structured framework of questioning that has gradually

been develope d, since the comple tion of the OROC project, to serve as a

practical guide to the retrospective review of any negotiate d proje ct en-


gage ment. From Fig. 1, the diagram take s the main structural dimensions

of any such engage ment; firstly, its locus in time, divide d into the broad

zones of pre-negotiation, proje ct course , and aftermath; and secondly, the

Fig. 3. A framework for cross-questioning.


broad distinction between an agent domain, a host domain and—at least

in some instances—also a separate ly identifiable sponsor domain.

This framework of questioning is intende d for use in an iterative and

cyclic way, as a means of gradually moving from initial perceptions to

deeper interpretations. For this reason, no specific questioning seque nce is

prescribed; accordingly, no arrows have been inserted to conne ct the vari-

ous boxe s in the diagram. However, Fig. 3 doe s introduce darker back-

ground tone s to pick out qu e stions of a re lative ly straightforward

descriptive nature . These are designed to he lp in recording an initial project

narrative and the names and organizational allegiance s of leading actors.

For example , from what direction or directions did the initial project

impetus come? What individuals and institutions were involve d in the initial

negotiations that led to the agreed terms of engage ment? Were these terms

formally agre ed or merely tacitly understood? What critical change s of di-

rection took place during the course of the project, and in what way was

it brought to a conclusion?

From such an initial proje ct profile , it becomes possible to move on

to que stions of a more probing kind. Referring to the three main fie lds of

proje ct management choice as expressed by Spink, what issues arose over

the process of inquiry, over working relations and over the strategy of pro-

ducing? How did developments in each of these fie lds of choice influe nce

what happe ned in any of the othe rs, or the involve ment of significant peo-

ple from each domain, or any major change s during the course of the pro-

ject? Then, what appeared to have been the direct outcome s of the project

within each of the agent, host and sponsor domains? What processes of

disengage ment or re-engage ment followe d? To what extent did any of the

direct outcomes become more broadly diffused over the course of time?

An initial review of the proje ct unde r such headings, broadly related

to the sequence of events through time, then provide s a starting point for

furthe r and even more searching questions about significant programmatic

influences. To what extent might the course of this proje ct have been in-

fluenced by institutional, disciplinary, or personal programs within any of

the three domains? How far had these programs already become inter-

woven, either through previous project engage ments, through pre-negotia-

tions or during earlier stage s of the project itself?

These que stions in turn provide a foundation from which the perspec-

tive can be switched from proje ct to program. How far, it may be asked,

might the experience of this particular project have exercised significant

influence over the subse quent course of any of the various institutional,

disciplinary, or pe rsonal program s that be came inte rtwine d during its

course ?


Similar questions may be posed not only in relation to a single project

but also in relation to a succession of negotiate d proje ct engage ments,

wherever there may have been some continuity of involve ment in agent,

host, or sponsor role s. The more deeply such questions are explored, the

more possible it becomes to consider whether any particular sequence of

negotiate d project engage ments offers a base from which broade r hypothe -

ses about the manage ment of research, consultancy, or action research pro-

jects can be ge nerate d, or e arlie r hypothe ses re futed or adapte d in

significant ways. The framework of questioning outline d in Fig. 3 is in-

tende d as a structure d yet flexible guide to a continuing learning process.

Even after several iterations, it is important that any extende d profile of

a project be viewed as a potential starting point for deeper explorations,

in which the validity of any insights generated can be tested in a critical

spirit—especially if new people become involve d in the que stioning process.

Of course, such an iterative process can soon become time consuming and,

if it is to yield significant insights, it may demand conside rable persistence

and commitment on the part of those involve d.

Because the framework did not take on the re lative ly mature form

shown in Fig. 3 until some time after the closure of the OROC project,

experience in applying it has so far been limited. However, one brie f ex-

ample will now be offered, illustrating how its structure has been used to

guide personal reflection on the experience of one of the more challe nging

of the 13 proje cts that were selected for review in the course of the OROC

metaproje ct. After briefer references to some of the other projects exam-

ined in the course of the OROC work, this pape r will then conclude with

a few speculations on ways in which the framework might be furthe r de-

veloped in future . How far, it will be aske d, might such an exploratory

framework be adapte d for wider use by social scientists to guide their proc-

esses of learning into the manage ment of successive field engage ments?

AN ILLUSTRATION: THE CITY GOVERNMENT PROJECT IN

COVENTRY

The 4 year project entitle d “Policy Research for Local Government”was one of the first two major fie ld assignme nts undertake n by staff of

IOR, with othe r Tavistock colle ague s, after its formation in 1963. The pro-

ject was funded by a 4-year research grant from the Nuffie ld Foundation—a

leading British charitable trust. Over this period, it involve d extensive lon-

gitudinal research in one field location—the city of Coventry in the English

Midlands.

This proje ct had ambitious aims and unusually open terms of refer-

ence , envisaging both organizational change in Coventry and wider out-


comes for local government and for the social sciences. The original im-

petus could be traced to exploratory discussions in which Neil Jessop, IOR’sfirst Director, had approache d the Nuffield Foundation for open-ended in-

stitutional funding—to be advised that they would look more sympathe ti-

cally on a more specific proje ct proposal. Jessop, who had recently worked

as manage r of an industrial OR group in Coventry, was able to draw on

recent informal discussions with the City Engineer—who, unusually, hap-

pened to have deve lope d personal inte re sts in cybernetics and systems

thinking. They had agre ed that local gove rnment could be seen as an es-

pecially rich context for interdisciplinary research, and in some respects at

least as “a microcosm of gove rnment as a whole .” It then transpire d that

the idea of a bold exploratory proje ct in Coventry had a wider appeal to

the city’s politicians and senior office rs, who at that time had establishe d

a proud reputation as innovators through the ir pione ering work in the plan-

ning of the city’s postwar reconstruction program.

John Friend, with an ope rational research background, was recruited

as one of two full-time members of the research team, alongside Paul

Spencer, a social anthropologist. The team was completed by the part-time

involve ment of two more senior researchers. Neil Jessop, IOR’s Director,

also with an operational research background, acted as proje ct leade r, with

support from Hugh Murray, a social psychologist who, like Spe ncer, was

at that time employed within IOR’s sister Tavistock unit, the Human Re-

source s Centre.

The course of the Coventry project was marked from the start by re-

current anxie ties, uncertaintie s, and disagre ements about the directions that

the team’s inquirie s should take; about the handling of working relation-

ships, both within the team and with the ir local government hosts; and

about the intende d strategy of producing. From the start, the team was

granted almost unimpe ded access to the Council’s various structures for

group decision-making—committee meetings; departmental and interde-

partmental meetings; and even the private meetings of the two opposing

party political groups. So Spe ncer and Friend both spent many hours in

obse rving the course of events from corner seats in committee rooms, and

in inte rviewing individual politicians and officials.

For Friend as an OR scientist, this was an unfamiliar way of working.

So, in order to manage his anxie ties and demonstrate the value of his ac-

quire d skills in building mathematical mode ls, he also spent much time in

the early stages of the project attempting to analyze whatever relative ly

hard quantifiable data he could find. So far as producing was concerned,

both Jessop and Friend, with the ir ope rational research backgrounds, fe lt

unde r a se lf-impose d pressure to propose early changes in management

practice s and structures in Coventry, so as to establish their credentials as


would-be advise rs to the ir organizational hosts. Meanwhile , Spe ncer saw

his role as a social scientist as directed more toward developing insights

that could be presented and discusse d through research pape rs, before con-

sidering whether or not it was appropriate to offer any kind of advisory or

change age nt role .

Not quite half-way through the project, some of the leading actors in

Cove ntry themselves decided to invite the team, as trusted outside observers,

to make recommendations on changes in coordinating structures within the

Council’s organization. After some brief hesitation, this challe nge was ac-

cepted. However, this shift of role was to generate an acute crisis not only in

relationships within the team but also in its relations with leading actors in

the host domain. For, as soon as they presented their ideas on coordina-

tion—even expressed in a de liberately abstract form—the researchers found

that they had suddenly lost the ir cherished status as dispassionate observers.

They now began to be seen by some of the main actors in Coventry as agents

of others to whom they were politically opposed.

After some weeks of acute crisis, the team came to the view that they

would have to make a reluctant withdrawal from any change age nt role . In-

stead, they resolve d to concentrate on their original unde rtaking to the Nuf-

fie ld Foundation, as project sponsors, to work toward the production of a

book offering the broader outcome s of the ir work to an external reade rship.

The project therefore ended with relative ly little direct impact on the

City Council itse lf. It did however result in the publication of a book en-

titled Local G overnment and Strategic Choice (Friend & Jessop, 1969) which

set out a general sociotechnical analysis of decision making in local gov-

ernment, followed by a set of large ly unte sted ideas for new planning meth-

ods and appropriate organizational structures. Two days before this book

was due to be publishe d, IOR held a reception in Coventry at which Jessop

thanke d the proje ct hosts and sponsors, with relationships by now success-

fully repaire d. Yet the project was to end on a note of une xpected trage dy;

for the following weekend, Jessop was to die sudde nly from a longstanding

illness of which none of his colle agues had been fully aware.

The City Government Project: Con sequences and Interpretation s

So, for much of the duration of the Coventry proje ct, it had appe ared

to be crisis-ridde n and heading for failure . Yet now, many years late r, it

can be seen to have had a range of significant influe nces on the further

evolution of the various programs that had contribute d to its course. Firstly,

the planning methods which were propose d in the resulting book, then in

untested form, soon began to influe nce members of the town planning pro-

fession. This was primarily as a result of a short action research project


launche d by IOR in 1970 in association with a consortium of local authori-

ties and staff of Birmingham Unive rsity’s Institute of Local Government

Studie s (Friend et al., 1970) . Within IOR itse lf, this in turn led to the for-

mation of a new planning processes program, and to a succession of gov-

ernment contracts on urban and regional planning issues within Britain.

Over the ensuing years, the so-called strategic choice approach to plan-

ning that resulted from the Cove ntry work—stressing a focus on decisions,

the planne d management of uncertainty, an incremental view of progre ss

and an inte ractive style of working—has come to exercise wider influe nces

on the evolution of urban planning theory and practice in several parts of

the world (Faludi, 1987) .

More gradually, the strategic choice approach also came to be seen

within the ope rational research community as one significant strand in an

alte rnative “soft OR” paradigm which advocate s interactive working with

client groups, in contrast with a more conventional backroom mode ling ap-

proach (Rosenhead, 1989) . Meanwhile , within The Tavistock Institute , the

IOR/COO R program of work on planning processes has now ceased to

exist after a life of over 20 eventful years; yet there have been some per-

sisting influe nces within othe r Tavistock program s (Neumann, Holti, &

Standing, 1995) .

Outside the Institute , the strategic choice approach has continue d to

evolve through applications by consultants to a range of policy issues in

facilitate d strategic choice workshops; through furthe r publications (Friend

& Hickling, 1987); through the developme nt of interactive decision support

software (Friend, 1996) ; through incorporation in acade mic course s; and

through sponsore d manage ment training program s in several countrie s.

More recently, the re have be en spe culations as to the place of this ap-

proach in re lation to paralle l currents of change in the deve lopme nt of

manage ment science theory (Friend, 1995) .

Yet the Coventry proje ct cannot be regarded as standing alone as an

influence on these deve lopme nts. Some significant elements of the strategic

choice approach—notably the design method of Analysis of Interconne cted

Decision Areas (AIDA) (Harary, Jessop, Luckman, & Stringe r, 1965; Luck-

man, 1967)—were shaped by the experience of the paralle l Tavistock build-

ing communications project, despite its curtailment before it had run its

full intended course . Also, the accrued wisdom of previous Tavistock pro-

jects could be seen as having had more subtle influences on the course of

the Coventry work. For example Friend, as an ope rational research scientist

sudde nly plunge d into an unaccustome d role as observer and inte rpreter

of group decision processes, eve ntually came to regard the insights he

gained through working alongside Spe ncer as especially influential, he lping


him to develop personal skills quite diffe rent to those he had acquired in

his earlier career.

Among the broade r propositions that can be formulate d from the ex-

perience of the Coventry proje ct is the hypothe sis that, in any pioneering

interdisciplinary proje ct, it is essential that the planne d time-frame be suf-

ficient, with enough protection from short-term action pressures, to enable

the inve stigators to test and if need be abandon cherished theorie s which

might turn out to be ill-matche d to the project experience. For it may be

only through such opportunit ie s to discard entrenched belie fs that the

ground can be cleared for engage ment in the stressful busine ss of con-

structing alte rnative theorie s alongside colle ague s with diffe rent frames of

reference. Without enough time for these stresses to be worked through,

it seems very like ly that the Coventry proje ct would have ende d in a sense

of failure , leaving little if any mark on subse quent events.

There was certainly much evidence to support this proposition as ap-

plie d to collaborative work between OR scientists and social scientists,

which was the specific research focus of the OROC project. However op-

portunitie s clearly exist to put it to the test in other fields of interdiscipli-

nary working. It is a deeply-he ld belief within The Tavistock Institute that

interdisciplinary work can be more successfully pursued through shared en-

gage ments in the fie ld than through more self-conscious backroom work.

The above hypothe sis may be seen as building on this wisdom, while he lping

to explain how even some of the best-resourced of interdisciplinary proje cts

can still fail because of inade quate opportunitie s for the painful process of

deconstructing and reshaping pre-existing research paradigms.

THE WIDER SAMPLE OF PROJECTS

The case of the Coventry city government proje ct has been presented

as one example of the way in which the organizing framework that has

been presented in Figs. 1¯3 can be used in reviewing the experience of any

negotiate d proje ct engage ment. Because the framework is intended for it-

erative use—and because it still continue s to evolve—it has been touched

on only lightly at various points in the presentation of this particular case ,

rathe r than followed in any more rigorous and discipline d way. While the

Coventry proje ct was rich in terms of learning opportunitie s, it is far from

typical of the set of 13 projects that the OROC team began to review dur-

ing the period of the metaproje ct. Most of the othe r 12 proje cts were

shorte r in duration and, with the notable exception of the building com-

munications project, had more focused consulting or action research aims.

Inde ed, the selected projects can be seen as no more than a selection from

the much large r number of negotiate d project engage ments—well over 50


large and small—in which the four members of the OROC team had played

roles over these two decades. Even these were only a fraction of the wider

range of projects unde rtaken by the staff of The Tavistock Institute during

that era.

It is important to acknowle dge that each of the four members of the

OROC team brought to his selected proje cts a different set of personal

program influences. Many of the main strands of programmatic continuity

and change relating to Friend have already been woven into the story of

the Cove ntry project and its aftermath. Cunningham ’s background differed

from that of the other three in that he was a unive rsity-base d social scientist

from North America, on temporary attachment to The Tavistock Institute

during the period of the OROC proje ct. Bryant and Luckman, meanwhile ,

had both joined IOR on the same day in 1964, both with expe rience in

manage ment consultancy and both with acade mic qualifications in statisti-

cal methods. Despite these paralle ls, it was recognize d that their scientific

perspectives and the ir contributions to projects differed in significant ways.

To draw out only one of the more significant points, Bryant joined

The Tavistock Institute with a deeper personal commitment than either

Friend or Luckman to the psychoanalytic strands in the Tavistock tradition.

His concern with the recognition of unconscious processes at work in the

creation of organizational culture (Sofer, 1961; Menzies Lyth, 1960, 1979) ,

and their influence on organizational change , was to affect significantly his

contributions to each of the three proje cts he offered for the OROC study.

It was to influence especially the project on industrial relations at the iso-

late d lead smelter site (Bryant, 1979, 1989) .

Bryant’s contributions to both the early building communications pro-

ject and the late r ambulance management project—in both of which Luck-

man was also involve d—were deeply influenced by his interest in pursuing

concepts such as the “double task” (Bridge r, 1980)—dual concern with both

content and proce ss in work organizations. Another important influe nce

for Bryant was his interest in psychodynamic approache s to organizations

as ope n sociote chnical systems interacting with complex and often turbule nt

environme nts (Trist & Murray, 1990) .

The three projects that Luckman offered for review within the OROC

framework were planne d as successive phase s of a 7-ye ar program relating

to the manage ment of an innovative design for 120-be d clinical nursing

units within new District General Hospitals that were soon to be built in

the Wessex region of England. Here was a sequence of proje cts that were

significant in having a single main theme, yet involve d a research team that

change d over time, bringing different skills and allegiance s to bear. They

also involve d a succession of different sponsors, ranging from regional man-

agers with relative ly parochial inte rests to a steering committee of opera-


tional research scientists at central gove rnment level. The three proje cts

were also significant in exhibiting progressive shifts in the ir orientation to-

ward research, action research, and organizational change .

The first proje ct, with the then Wessex Regional Hospital Board acting

in both host and sponsor roles, was designe d to quantify through statistical

and operational modeling the potential benefits of the propose d new clini-

cal nursing units (Luckman, Mackenzi, & Stringe r, 1969) . In the second

proje ct, the investigating team was reinforce d by the addition of in-house

researchers from the host organization, while sponsorship had passe d to

the department responsible for health in central gove rnment. The task had

now become seen as one of practical expe rimentation with existing hospital

wards as though they were of the ne w de sign ( Wessex Regional Health

Authority, 1976) . The third project, sponsore d by the newly-forme d Op-

erational Research Unit of the national Department of Health, dealt with

the implementation within the new hospitals of the findings from the earlier

studies (Wessex Regional Health Authority, 1976) .

The cumulative experience that Luckman gaine d from this sequence

of projects comple mented his earlie r experiences as a member of the build-

ing communications project team. It was then to provide foundations for

his subse quent career as a consultant, working with a varie ty of hosts and

sponsors in Britain and overseas on the planning, developme nt, and im-

plementation of manage ment systems for new hospitals, in paralle l with

the progress of the physical construction work.

In the case of Cunningham, his concern with the implications of in-

troducing new shift schedules first emerged at an early stage of his social

science career. The series of proje cts he conducte d for police organizations

and mining companie s in British Columbia and Alberta all involve d quasi-

experimental action research designs; in each case , pressures from workers

and manage rs led to change s during the course of the experiments, making

it impossible to establish rigorous controls. Despite these experimental bi-

ases, the impacts of a transition to extende d 10- or 12-hour shift schedules

were shown to be generally beneficial. In several cases, Cunningham re-

turned to the same organizations later in order to understand the longe r-

term effects (Cunningham, 1982, 1983, 1989) .

These shift scheduling proje cts were to play an influe ntial role in Cun-

ningham ’s subse quent growth as an action researcher. Becoming convince d

of the need for effective experimental research in settings where it was

impossible to introduce rigorous scientific controls, he became aware of

the dilemma of balancing evaluative research for policymake rs with the pro-

vision of formative feedback to those in host organizations to help them

to react more appropriate ly to changing circumstance s. His proposals on


ways of addre ssing this dile mma have now been presented in his book Ac-

tion Research and Organizational Developm ent (Cunningham, 1993) .

To draw toge ther some threads from this brief discussion of the wider

strands of experience that were to become inte rtwined within the work of

the OROC metaproje ct, one further example will be offered of a tentative

general hypothe sis suggested by a review of the set of 13 projects as a

whole . This hypothe sis—relating to the ge ne ral concept of action re-

search—is that the ideal of pursuing dual action and research objectives

doe s not necessarily have to lead to a fine balance in terms of these dual

aims. The ideal is one that may also be pursue d effectively through suc-

cessive projects in which the balance may fluctuate between a primary con-

cern with research and a primary concern with action. Indeed, the lessons

to be learne d from each type of engage ment can comple ment each other

in significant ways, resulting in a cumulative enrichme nt of the skills of the

scientists taking part.

THE METAPROJECT AND ITS AFTERMATH

As a prelude to discussion of the wider implications of the framework

presented in this pape r, it is pertinent at this point to return brie fly to the

story of the OROC proje ct itself, with particular reference to some signifi-

cant deve lopme nts since it came to an end in 1981. It has already been

argue d that the OROC assignme nt should be viewed as a metaproje ct

rathe r than a negotiate d proje ct engage ment, as it involve d no direct or-

ganizational hosts. Yet it can by no means be considered to have been a

megaproje ct—for the project was a modest one of 12 months duration, of

which only the first 6 were externally funded.

Furthermore, the work was done in a research environme nt very differ-

ent to that of an acade mic institution, geared to predictable annual teaching

cycle s. Bryant, Friend, and Luckman were all accustomed to a continually

shifting patte rn of work commitments governed by the negotiation, manage-

ment, and completion of projects of varying durations, all subje ct to many

sources of uncertainty. As it happe ned, the ir othe r paralle l commitments dur-

ing 1980 and 1981 involve d fie ldwork in Scotland, the Middle East, and Can-

ada; so the logistics of arranging the intended program of internal discussions

became highly problematic, and the opportunitie s to explore the 13 proje cts

in depth became few and far between. Indeed, in the late r stages of the pro-

ject period, it was Cunningham —as an acade mic social scientist temporarily

freed from his teaching schedule s in Canada—who came to provide the main

strand of continuity in the work of the OROC team.

Originally, it had been intended that OROC would serve as a pilot

for a more substantial project leading to a major publication. However,


this aspiration prove d to be unre alistic in the circumstances of the time.

For the funding environme nt for social research had become increasingly

competitive , and the Research Council’s procedure s for assessing large -

scale proposals had also become more attenuate d. So the probability of

success in any particular proje ct application could be viewed as by no means

high; and, in the face of more immediate prioritie s, it had become hard to

conside r the development and submission of a convincing longer-term pro-

posal as a promising investment of resource s.

However, throughout the eightie s the four members of the OROC

team continue d to re-examine and extend their framework, as and when

opportunitie s to discuss it with othe r scientists emerged. Among the most

important stimuli were opportunitie s to present and discuss the framework

at two internal Tavistock scientific meetings—one shortly after the project

ende d, the other several years late r. Also, in national and regional meetings

of the Operational Research Socie ty—including the Socie ty’s thirtie th an-

nual confe rence in She ffie ld in 1988—the framework was not only pre-

sented but also tested inte ractive ly, albe it brie fly, through dialogue with

other OR scientists about selected project experiences of the ir own.

By the onset of the nineties, none of the four team members remained

within The Tavistock Institute ; indeed, they were all were developing their re-

search, consulting, or teaching careers in quite different working environme nts.

So it was tempting to assume that the momentum of OROC work had finally

been lost; until, in 1996, Friend was invited to offer a contribution to the 50th

annive rsary commemorations of the Institute in this journal. This invitation ap-

peared to offer an opportunity to publish at least a brief paper on some of the

conclusions of the OROC project, taking into account various later develop-

ments. Seeing it as no longer practicable to aim for a co-authored paper, Friend

therefore submitted a draft based on his own learning from the OROC project,

indicating some of the ways in which it had influenced his subsequent work.

When Friend circulated his draft to the othe r team members for the ir

comments, the debate about the framework and its applications suddenly

sprang to life anew. In technological terms, a combination of fax links

within Britain and an e-mail link with Cunningham in Canada now afforde d

a freque ncy and immediacy of communication about draft material that

would have been inconce ivable in the early eightie s. So there followed a

renewed interchange of views on the long-te rm pote ntial for building on

the work of the original ORO C metaproje ct. In the course of this inter-

change , a range of insights, inte rpretations, and opportun itie s was to

emerge which had remained hidden during the brie f and seemingly chaotic

period of the project work itself, or indeed during the more sporadic in-

teractions during the decade that followed.


Promine nt among the factors that now came to the surface was Bry-

ant’s concern with the influe nce of unconscious processes at work in the

personal programs within the agent, host, and sponsor domains—a concern

which had been central to his own approach to his proje ct work. During

the main period of the OROC work, this aware ness had not been easy to

share with the othe r members of the team. For there had been only limited

opportunitie s for team inte raction, especially during the later months; so

there had been only limited foundations in terms of share d language and

experiential knowledge. No doubt too, the re had also been unconscious

influences at work.

There can be several explanations for any appare nt neglect in explor-

ing the role of unconscious processes in social science projects, even at an

ove rt, rational leve l. These include a concern for the confide ntiality of per-

sonal and indeed private agendas of clients and sponsors; and a sensitivity

to the risk of unwarrante d and unsanctione d intrusion into the inner world

of vulnerable people . Less overtly, but no less powerfully, there may be a

temptation to water down the more complex and challe nging ideas to ren-

der them more effortle ssly accessible or acceptable . Furthermore , political

expediency and practical credibility can both be important considerations

in obtaining clearance of material for publication.

Certainly, the actions and motives of those in agent roles—the present

authors include d—are always subject to the influe nce of at least partially un-

conscious factors operating in all phases of a project, from initiation through

inquiry, relationships, and production, to realization. Feelings such as envy,

competitiveness, desire for recognition, and power can be just as potent de-

terminants as the more creative and positive attribute s of the research and

consultancy professional. With more training in perception and self-aware-

ness, researchers and consultants can expect to become better able to recog-

nize the mirroring of the ir own transfe re nce s, counte rtransfe re nce s,

resistances, and other defences with those in host and sponsor roles.

The une xpected resumption of working relationships among the four

members of the OROC team was not only to make such dimensions more

explicit; it also enable d the authors to agre e on a more confide nt and wide-

ranging set of conclusions. These will now be offered, in the form of a

brie f review of some of the opportunitie s for othe r scientists to build further

on the concepts presented here.

PROSPECTS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE

FRAMEWORK

In what ways then might other social scientists—including operational re-

search scientists—be able to take forward the use of an enquiring framework


such as that offered in this paper? Five broad areas of further development

can be identified.

Wider Use in Peer Review of Applied Social Scien ce Projects

The first and most obvious prospect to be considere d is that other social

scientists may be able to make use of the framework of Fig. 3 in reviewing

the ir own project experiences—either using the framework as it stands or in-

troducing further adaptations of their own. Such a review can be initiate d not

only after a proje ct has run its course, but also—perhaps even more use-

fully—while it is still in progress. As the experience of the four authors indi-

cates, it is never easy for researchers, consultants, or teachers with multiple

responsibilitie s to set aside time for such reviews while working under the

ever-shifting pressures of their day-to-day work. However, the depth of any

such review may always be adjuste d to circumstances; and it remains to be

tested in any specific context whether successive iterations of any such struc-

tured enquiring procedure are like ly to yield commensurate results.

Deeper Exploration s into Background Influences

While it is ope n to any student of manage ment and organizational life

to make use of this kind of inquiring framework, the experience of Tavistock

staff indicate s that any interpretations can be much enriche d by cultivating

an aware ness of unconscious influe nces affecting the behavior of those in-

volve d in a project in host, sponsor, and indeed agent roles.

Although the idea that there is a coherent “Tavistock mode l” may be

large ly a myth, there are ways of trying to unde rstand what goe s on in

organizational life—and also in the management of proje cts—which can

neverthe less be regarde d as “more Tavistock than othe rwise” (Obholzer &

Roberts, 1994) . As Staple y (1996) has indicate d, working with conce pts

from psychoanalysis to he lp in explaining organizational behavior is by no

means a perfect art. Indeed, it has been argued (Sutherland, 1985) that

“the precise inte rpretation is not as important as long as enough of the

unde rlying dynamics of the total situation are articulate d.”

It remains a matter of judgment for those using any inquiring framework

how far any of its dimensions, and in particular those concerned with uncon-

scious processes, should be introduce d explicitly into the communication with

responde nts, as against playing a more unobtrusive background role. How-

ever, opportunitie s clearly exist to extend and enrich the framework of Fig.

3 so that the role of unconscious processes is less like ly to be ignored.


On-Line Cou nseling to Project Teams

The idea of appointing an external counse lor to act as a constructive

critic to a research or consulting team has been frequently advocate d and

discussed in the applie d social sciences—not least within The Tavistock In-

stitute. There is an analogy with the role of external supervisor in a clinical

relationship, which involve s both challenging and supporting the counse lor

in order to raise personal and professional awareness of what constitute s a

healthy dyadic relationship between counse lor and client. By cultivating a de-

libe rate strategy of exploring unconscious processes affecting agents, hosts,

and sponsors at all stages from the start to the closure of a project, a climate

of authe ntic communication can be created wherein the influence of hidden

agendas, power politics, and interpersonal dynamics can be explore d.

Such a discipline d approach is practice d less often than it is discussed,

because it can be time-consuming, demanding, and initially stressful for all

involve d. Yet, as already mentioned, there has recently been a prolife ration

of large and complex proje cts, involving multiorganizational hosts, sponsors,

and project teams, which are designe d to work on issues of such wide im-

portance that an inve stment in on-line counse ling by scientists with appro-

priate expe rience and skills should be amply justifie d. In megaproje cts of

this kind, those in counse ling or supe rvision role s should be able to make

effective use of a framework such as that presented here in keeping track

of all the rich strands of inte raction as they unfold.

Use of the Fram ework by Students

Another opportunity that presents itself within the academic world is

that of adapting the type of framework presented here to serve as a pow-

erful tool for postgraduate students to use in exploring the project experi-

ences of more mature scientists. Full-time research stude nts in particular

do not normally work unde r the same multiplicity of organizational pres-

sures as those in more senior consulting or acade mic roles. Of course, it

is like ly to be only the more mature research students who are able to call

on the depth of life experience to use such a framework in a sensitive ,

flexible , and balance d way. On the other hand, experience in using the

framework to enquire into the project experiences of others should provide

younge r research stude nts with valuable preparation for the management

of negotiate d proje ct engage ments in the ir future careers.

Developing Appropriate Methods of Data Capture and Analys is

Recognizing the rich tapestry of cross-re ferences among proje ct and

program influences that may be uncove red when inquiring into any nego-


tiated project engage ment, the developme nt of appropriate methods of data

recording, analysis, and retrieval must pose a substantial challe nge . How-

ever, this is an area where younge r generations of scientists can claim an

advantage over their predecessors. For they tend to have greater familiarity

with relevant deve lopments in information technology—among which the

technology of introducing hypertext links between text files is potentially

of particular significance .

Already, such nonhie rarchical principle s of information linkage have

been widely used: for example , in the construction of he lp systems for fa-

miliar software package s, and in the design of crosslinks between sites on

the World Wide Web. These same hype rtext principle s could play a pow-

erful role in keeping track of the answe rs give n to the more searching ques-

tions posed while using an inquiring framework such as that of Fig. 3. For

some of the questions can be aske d again and again, leading to responses

of progressive ly increasing inte rpretative value ; while patte rns of linkage

between one response and anothe r may become progressive ly more com-

plex. Furthe r, where there may be several responde nts to be interviewed,

there may be intricate patterns of similarity and difference to be explored.

In principle , it is not hard to envisage the development of an inte rac-

tive software package based on the layout of Fig. 3, serving as a powerful

aid to data capture and retrieval. If installe d on a laptop computer, this

could be used by an inte rviewer to build up a richly structure d record of

the crosslinks between response s as they are offered. Furthermore, in ap-

propriate circumstance s the interviewee might be offered a chance to play

an active role in the data capture process. For, if he or she can keep track

of what is entered as it appears on the screen, this may well trigge r further

suggestions and comments, adding new dimensions to the record.

Once a view is recorded via a hypertext link that a particular project

outcome is associate d with a particular background influence , with any ad-

ditional comments from the responde nt, then this information will remain

available as a basis for deeper analysis after the interview. This also lays

foundations for a comparative dimension in so far as it can be relate d to

similar data from othe r interviews or other relate d projects.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pape r, a strategy for learning has been outline d which has the

potential to he lp all those associate d with the work of negotiate d project

engage ments to capture as much as possible of the steadily growing dive r-

sity of expe rience in the field. This could be of particular value in the man-

age me nt of ambitious multistrande d proje cts, of the kind that are

increasingly be ing sponsore d through international channe ls in response to


a growing aware ness of the global dimensions of emergent social, environ-

mental, and economic policy concerns.

The aim of the framework presented here is to support an iterative

and flexible approach to proje ct review, which is amenable to inte ractive

use. Among the users could be colle ague s que stioning each othe r about

the ir own expe riences; stude nts enquiring into the action research experi-

ences of others at a formative stage of their social science careers; or inde ed

any practitione rs concerned with the role of unconscious processes and

other background influe nces in organizational life . In so far as reade rs may

feel inspired to embark on this kind of structure d enquiry process for them-

selve s, this paper will have served its intended purpose ; and the OROC

proje ct on which it draws will have repaid the investment made in it by all

concerned.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors are indebted to those other former staff of The Tavistock

Institute who contribute d directly to the ideas presented here—Lisl Kle in,

Michae l Norris, Peter Spink, and John Stringe r. Acknowledgments are also

due to the Economic and Social Research Council which, in its earlier guise

as the Social Science Research Council, provide d the 6-month research

grant that enabled this work to begin; and to the Operational Research

Society and those of its regional groups that hoste d discussions at various

times before, during, and after the proje ct period.

REFERENCES

ACKOFF, R. L. The future of operational research is past. Journal of the Operational Rearch

Society, 1979, 30, 93-104.

BENNIS, W. G. Theory and method in applying behavioural science to planned organizational

change . In J. R. Lawrence (Ed.), Operational Research and the Social Sciences. London:Tavistock Publications, 1966.

BOOTHROYD, H. Articulate Intervention . London: Taylor and Francis, 1978.

BRIDGER, H. In K. Trebesch (Ed.), Organisation Developm ent in Europe. Proceedings of the

First European Forum on Organisation Developm ent (Aachen, 1978). Bern: Haupt, 1980,pp. 515-540.

BRYANT, D. T., JESSOP, W, N., LUCKMAN, J., and STRINGER, J. The present situation

and approaches to improvement (An operational rese arch analysis of the building proc-ess) . In Realisation Report: Building Industry Communications Research Project (Part

II). Tavistock Institute of Human Relations Doc T.538/592A, 1965.

BRYANT, D. T. “Work Plus”: An Account of an Expe riment to Improve the Quality of Work-

life in a Canadian Lead Smelter. Tavistock Institute of Human Relations Doc 2T 304(COOR/52), 1979.

BRYANT, D. T. Project (A): Organizational change in a Canadian lead smelte r plant. In R.

McLennan (Ed.), Managing Organizational Change. Prentice-Hall, 1989.

BRYANT, D. T., & LUCKMAN, J. Exploratory study of the Hampshire Ambulance Service—A

Brief Report. Tavistock Institute of Human Relations Doc. 2T113(MU/943) , 1977.


BRYANT, D. T., & LUCKMAN, J. Organisational change and operational research. In O. R.,

Social Science and Strategic Choice: Tavistock Institute Inte rnal Docume nt, 2T305(COOR/53), 1980.

CARTER, K. R., EDWARDS, P. J., & FRIEND, J. K. Community Influence in Town CentreRenewal. Tavistock Institute Internal Docume nt IOR/749, 1973.

CARTER, K. R., FRIEND, J. K., POLLARD, J., de B., & YEWLETT, C. J. L. Organisational

Influence s in the Re gional Strategy Process. Tavistock Institute Internal Docume ntIOR/846, 1975.

CHERNS, A. B., BRYANT, D. T. Studying the client’s role in construction managemen t. Con-struction Managem ent and Econom ics, 1984, 2, 177-184.

CLARK, A. W. (Ed.). Experim enting with Organizational Life: The Action Research Approach.New York: Plenum, 1976.

CRICHTON. C. (Ed.). Interdependence and Uncertainty: A Study of the Building Industry. Lon-don: Tavistock Publications, 1966.

CUNNINGHAM, J. B. Compressed shift schedules: Altering the relationship between workand non-work. Public Administration Review , 1982, 42, 438-447.

CUNNINGHAM, J. B. Gathering data in a changing organization. Hum an Relations, 1983,36, 403-42.

CUNNINGHAM, J. B. De aling with some of the problems of shift work. Journ al of Organ-izational Behaviour, 1989, 10(3), 231-246.

CUNNINGHA M, J. B. Action Research an d Organ izational Developm en t. Westport, CT:

Praeger, 1993.

FALUDI, A. A Decision-Centred View of Environm ental Planning. Oxford: Pergamon, 1987.

FRIEND, J. K. Supporting deve lopmental decision processes: The evolution of an OR ap-proach. Intern ational Transactions in Operational Research , 1995, 2, 225-232.

FRIEND, J. K. Strategy on the run: Decision support for hard-pressed managers. In J. Chap-man (Ed.), IT Support in the Productive Workplace. Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes, 1996.

FRIEND, J. K., BRYANT, D. T., LUCKMAN, J., & CUNNINGHAM, J. B. OrganisationalChange and Operational Research: Complementarities in Application to Decision-Making

Practice. End-of-Grant Report to the Social Science Research Council, London (COOR88) , reproduced as Tavistock Institute of Human Relations Document 2T417, 1982.

FRIEND, J. K., & HICKLING, A. Planning Under Pressure: The Strategic Choice Approach .Oxford: Pergamon, 1987 (2nd ed., Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997).

FRIEND, J. K., & JESSOP, W. N. Local G overnm ent and Strategic Choice: An Operational

Research Approach to the Processes of Public Planning. London: Tavistock Publications,1969 (2nd ed., Oxford: Pergamon, 1977) .

FRIEND, J. K., NORRIS, M. E., & STRINGER, J. The Institute for Operational Research:An initiative to extend the scope of OR. Journal of the Operational Research Sociey, 1988,

39, 705-713.

FRIEND, J., WEDGWOOD-OPPENHE IM, F., et al. The LOG IMP Experim ent: A Collabo-rative Exercise in the Application of a New Local Planning Problem s. Centre for Environ-

me ntal Studies, 1970.

GLASER, B., & STRAUSS, A. L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.

HARARY, F., JESSOP, W. N., LUCKMAN, J., & STRINGER, J. Analysis of interconnected

decision areas: An algorithm for project developme nt. Nature, 1965, 206(4979) , 118.

HIGGIN, G. W. An Interpretive Analysis (A Sociological Analysis of the Building Proce ss.

Realisation Report: Building Industry Communications Research Project (Part I), Tavis-tock Institute of Human Relations Doc. T. 592, 1965.

HIGGIN, G. W., & JESSOP, W. N. Comunication s in the Building Industry. London: NationalJoint Consultative Committee of Architects, Quantity Surveyors and Builders/Tavistock

Institute of Human Relations, 1963 (2nd ed.). London: Tavistock Publications, 1965.

KUHN, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Unive rsity of Chicago Press,1962.

LAKATOS, I. Falsification and the me thodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lak-otos, and A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the G rowth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press, 1972.


LEWIN, K. Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 1946, 2, 34-46.

LUCKMAN, J. An approach to the manageme nt of design. Operational Research Quarterly,1967, 18, 345-358.

LUCKMAN, J., MacKENZIE, M., & STRINGER, J. Management Policies for Large WardUnits. IOR Health Report No. 1, Tavistock Institute, 1969.

MENZ IES, I. E. P. A case study in the functioning of social systems as a defence againstanxiety: A report on a study of the nursing service of a ge neral hospital. Hum an Relations

1960, 13, 95-121.

MENZ IES LYTH, I. E. P. Staff support systems: Task and anti-task in adolescent institutions.

In R. D. Hinshelwood, and N. Manning (Eds.), Therapeutic Com munities: Reflections andProgress. London: Routledge Kegan Paul, 1979, pp. 197-207.

NEUMANN, J. E., HOLTI, R., & STANDING, H. Change Everything at Once! Didcot: Man-

agement Books 2000, 1995.

OBHO LZER, A., & ROBERTS, V. Z. The Unconsciou s at Work. London: Routledge, 1994,

p. 9.

POPPE R, K. R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson, 1959.

RAPOPORT, R. N. Three dilemmas in action research. Hum an Relations, 1970, 23, 499-513.

ROSENHEAD, J. V. (Ed.), Rational Analysis for a Problem atic World. Chichester: Wiley, 1989.

SOFER, C. The Organization from Within: A Com parative Study of Social Institutions Based

on a Sociotherapeutic Approach. London: Tavistock Publications, 1961.

SPINK, P. K. Organisational Change and Operational Research: An Initial Basis for Triangu-lation. Tavistock Institute Internal Paper, 1980.

STAPLEY, L. F. The Person ality of the Organisation: A Psycho-dynam ic Explanation of Cultureand Chan ge. London: Free Association Books, 1996.

STRINGER, J. Operational research for multi-organisations. Operational Research Ouarterly,1967, 18, 105-120.

SUSMAN, G. L., & EV ERED, R. D. An assessment of the scientific me rits of action research.

Adm itnistrative Science Quarkerly, 1978, 3, 582-603.

SUTHERLAND. Bion revisited: Group dynamics and group psychotherapy. In M. Pines (Ed.),Bion and G roup Psychotherapy. London: Routledge and Ke gan Paul, 1985, pp. 47-86.

TRIST, E. L., & MURRAY, H. (Eds.). The Social Engagem ent of Social Science, Vol. 1: TheSocio-Psychological Perspective. Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press; Lon-

don: Free Association Books, 1990.

TRIST, E. L., & MURRAY, H. (Eds.). The Social Engagem ent of Social Science. Vol. 2: TheSocio-Technical Perspective. Philadelphia: the University of Pennsylvania Press; London:

Free Association Books, 1993.

TRIST, E. L., EMERY, F. E., & MURRAY, H. (Eds.). The Social Engagem ent of Social Science.

Vol. 3: The Socio-Ecologica l Perspective. Philadelphia: the University of Pennsylvania Press,1997.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

JOHN FRIEND is Research Professor in the Centre for Applied Deve lopment Studies at theLincoln campus of the University of Lincolnshire and Humberside. He is also Managing Di-

rector of Stradspan Limited, a small consulting and software company. After graduating inmathematics in 1952, he spent 10 years as an operational research scientist in manufacturing

industry and civil aviation. In 1964, he joined The Tavistock Institute’s new Institute for Op-erational Research (IOR), where he deve loped and led a program of action research in public

planning, before setting up his own consultancy in 1986. In 1998, he was awarded an honorarydoctorate from the Unive rsity of Amsterdam in recognition of his pioneering contributions

to practice and theory in the field of collaborative planning under uncertainty.

DON BRYANT is in private practice as an organization consultant and counselor. His earlybackground was in industry, first as a research chemist, then as a statistician and operational

researche r. He later moved into management consultancy, specializing in OR. He was a pro-


fessional me mber of The Tavistock Institute from 1964 to 1989, working first in the newly

formed Institute for Operational Research and transferring later to the Human ResourcesCentre, whlch eventually merged with the IOR to become the Centre for Organisational and

Operational Research. He is particularly interested in consulting to organizations and groupsfrom a psychodynamic perspective and has done so for clients in the private, public, and

voluntary sectors.

BART CUNNINGHAM, a Professor of Manage ment at the Unive rsity of Victoria in Canada,

was a Visiting Scientist at The Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in 1980 and 1981. Heis a Director in the Center for Organizatlonal Research and Effectiveness. From 1991 to 1994,

he was at the Nanyang Business School at Nanyang Technological Unive rsity in Singaporewhere he was the Research Director of the Enterprise De velopment Center. Most recently,

he taught at the Czech Manage ment Center. In addition to his corporate expertise, he haspublished over 50 internationally recognize d articles. Dr. Cunningham’s published books in-

clude The Stress Managem ent Sourcebook (Lowell House) , Action Research and OrganizationalDevelopm ent (Prae ge r), and Quality of Working Life (Labour Canada).

JOHN LUCKMAN graduated with a MSc in statistics in 1959. He spent 4 years in industry

and as operational research consultant before joining the Institute for Operational Researchin January 1964. At IOR, he contributed to diverse projects with the majority being concerned

with operational research in the field of health services. He also served as Secretary of TheTavistock Institute frorn 1979 to 1980. On leaving the Institute in 1981, he was involved in

health care consultancy in Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia; in manage ment of nursing and resi-dential care homes in England and Wales and in the management of Patient Services in aU.K. Hospital and Community Healthcare NHS Trust. He is now retired.


negotiated project engagements: learning from experience

Documents