VIKALPA • VOLUME 36 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2011 33

R E S E A R C H

includes research articles thatfocus on the analysis and

resolution of managerial andacademic issues based on

analytical and empirical or caseresearch

ExecutiveSummary

Application of Soft OperationsResearch for Enhancing theServicescape as a Facilitator

Masood H Siddiqui and Shalini N Tripathi

KEY WORDS

Servicescape

Multiple Perceptions

Group Decision-making

Conceptual Model

Commitment Package

Servicescape provides a visual metaphor for an organization’s total offering. It can also actas a facilitator by either adding or hindering the abilities of employees and customers inperforming their activities. Repatronage of the service provider is assumed to be dependenton consumers’ level of satisfaction with the service rendered.

This paper discusses the use of Soft Operations Research in dealing with the issues of design-ing, improving, and managing the Servicescape for organizations delivering high contactservices like shopping malls.

Cross-functional co-operation in planning and management of Servicescape is of paramountimportance because of participation of many actors having different perceptions, conflict-ing interests, etc. So, analytical approaches to decision-making must take into account thehuman dimensions like wider consultation with different stakeholders. This emerging trendin business strategy research is reflected in the growing application of Soft OR because itapplies models to help group decision-making. A selective mixing of two Soft OR method-ologies — Soft System Methodology and Strategic Choice Approach — has been applied forenhancing the Servicescape as a facilitator. This mixing can enhance and enrich the processof decision-making because each methodology can adequately emphasize only a particularaspect of the problem. Root definition and CATWOE (from SSM) are used for understandingand defining the business (Servicescape) model while uncertainty space and commitment pack-age (from SCA) are used for handling risk and uncertainty inherent in it. AHP has been usedto prioritize the major dimensions of the Servicescape, which gives general interiors as themost important dimension, followed by social dimension, internal display facilities, and thenexterior facilities.

While comparing the conceptual model with the real world, AHP indicated intangibilityelement and capital cost as the major concerns. Further, AHP prioritized various uncertaintyareas in the process of development and management of Servicescape, with uncertainty aboutworking environment as the most important problematic area. To reduce it, technical responsehas been used in the form of research investigation and analytical analysis (using optimiza-tion tools).

Finally, a conceptual model for the project was developed after a number of detailed andstructured discussion rounds, using the participative bottom-up Soft OR modeling process.Traditional OR tools were also deployed to decide upon three desirable and culturallyfeasible decision packages. These were compared using DEA with respect to their relativeperformance efficiencies and finally the most efficient decision package (commitment pack-age) was decided upon. Throughout the action-research process, the emphasis has been ongroup decision-making, consensus building, and extracting cognitive commitment for theprocess of change.

Thus, wider consultation and channelizing the discussion towards a common goal usingSoft OR techniques may significantly contribute towards the success of developing andmanaging the service environment of shopping malls.

34

Service environments relate to the style andappearance of the physical surroundings andother experiential elements encountered by cus-

tomers at service delivery sites. Bitner (1992) coined theterm ‘Servicescape’ in reference to the physical surround-ings as fashioned by service organizations to facilitatethe provision of service offerings to customers, i.e., thephysical facilities of a service company. The physical serv-ice environment plays an important role in shaping theservice experience and delivering customer satisfaction.Servicescape could support positioning and segmenta-tion strategies, secure strategic advantage, and thus en-hance strategic marketing objectives. Service environmentsare complex and have many design elements. In particu-lar, if we consider design elements of a shopping mall/retail store Servicescape, then major dimensions will beexterior facilities, general interior, interior displays, andsocial dimensions (attitude, behaviour of staff, etc).

There is a need for cross-functional co-operation in deci-sion-making about Servicescape. Facility planning andmanagement is a problem solving activity that lies on theboundaries between architecture, interior space planningand product design, organization (consumer) behaviour,and planning and environmental psychology. Design-ing, improving, and managing Servicescape will have animpact on human resource goals, operations goals, andmarketing goals. So, the planning should involve inputsfrom managers in these three areas along with inputsfrom actual users, i.e., customers and employees. Everygroup has a different interpretation, opinion, priority,perception about the nature and level of the problem situ-ation; and due to the different socioeconomic background,incompatible objectives and level of commitment towardsorganization. Hence, the larger the number of actors andstakeholders involved in planning, the more is the scopefor conflicting agenda.

These types of decision-making have to take place in con-ditions of uncertainty and complexity, because of partici-pation of many actors having different perceptions aboutthe ‘problem situation’, conflicting interests, different con-ventions and expectations and different nature of socialinteractions. It is not certain how many variables can havean impact on the situation; moreover, the linking anddegree of interrelationship between these variables is alsonot certain.

PROBLEM STRUCTURING METHODS

In the previous generation, the emphasis of decision-mak-ing was on analytic modeling, where the factors/alterna-tives and relationships among them in a decisionsituation were represented mathematically and compu-ter/software packages were used to solve them. The clas-sical approaches to both planning and decision-makinghave proved inadequate in practice for managing suchambiguous risks, which may fall apart in real life situa-tions. Problem situations in these areas are generally ill-structured. There are too many factors; many of therelationships are unclear or in dispute; different stake-holders/players have different priorities, etc.

To be able to adequately handle such situations, analyti-cal approaches to decision-making must take into accountthe differences of perception and conflict between multi-ple actors. Hence, the time has come for alternative tech-niques and methodologies known as Problem StructuringMethods (PSMs), which belong to a new and emergingbranch of Operations Research known as Soft OR.

PSMs use models to help group decision-making. Theprincipal PSMs for assisting strategic decision-makingare Soft System Methodology (SSM), Strategic ChoiceApproach (SCA), Strategic Options Development andAnalysis (SODA), Drama Theory, etc..

All of the above PSMs take a process-oriented approachto model complex problems and have been actually de-veloped through action research. These types of modelingtechniques incorporate human dimensions and supporttransparency in conflict situations and therefore promotea ‘beneficial’ climate of conflict and confrontation. Someof the select works in the area of development of PSMs arepresented in Table 1.

In this paper, a selective mixing of two Soft OR method-ologies — Soft System Methodology and Strategic ChoiceApproach — has been applied for enhancing theServicescape as a facilitator.

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

SSM, developed by Peter Checkland (1981; 1995; 2000), isa qualitative technique that can be used for applying sys-tems thinking to non-systemic situations, which attemptsto take a holistic view of the interrelations of componentparts, i.e., the wider picture of the situation. The stress isupon encouraging the involvement of different

APPLICATION OF SOFT OPERATIONS RESEARCH FOR ENHANCING THE SERVICESCAPE AS A FACILITATOR

VIKALPA • VOLUME 36 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2011 35

stakeholders, collaborating with the analyst or consult-ant, in the process of situation improvement.

SSM operates by defining systems of purposeful activity,building models of a number of relevant systems, andcomparing these models to the real-world action goingon, in order to structure a debate focusing on the differ-ences.

There are basically seven stages in the SSM process:

Stages 1 and 2: Finding out - This stage consists of ananalyst performing basic research of the organization, itskey players, the present working procedures and peo-ple’s view of the problem areas.

Stage 3: Developing root definitions - This stage, consistsof developing root definitions of associated purposeful ac-tivity systems, which will address the problem situationat the conceptual level. These are the sentences that de-scribe the ideal system or sub-system within it, according

to different perceptions of stakeholders.

Stage 4: Building conceptual models - At this stage, a modelwhich is actually a diagram of activities with links con-necting them, according to logical dependencies, is de-veloped from the root definitions.

Stage 5: Comparing - This stage involves comparing theconceptual models with the real world situation; to find outdifferences, similarities, and gaps. The model may bemodified to make it optimum for improving situation.

Stage 6: Identifying changes - Here, systematically desirableand culturally feasible changes are identified, that can bemade to the real-world system, for its improvement.

Stage 7: Taking action - This stage involves putting intopractice the most appropriate changes identified in theprevious stage.

The above seven stages of the SSM process are summa-rized in Figure 1.

Table 1: Select Works on Problem Structuring Methods/Soft OR

No. Author, Year Field of Study Key Findings

1. Rosenhead and Problem Structuring Inadequacy of analytic modeling in managing risks and uncertainty in real lifeMingers, 2001 Methods situations.

2. Rosenhead and Problem Structuring Applicability of PSMs to real life situations; so, more useful than classical ORMingers, 2001 Methods models.

3. Fortune and Problem Structuring ‘Complex discursive’ networks providing contending interpretations of thePeters, 1995 Methods system, problems and solutions to problems in real life situations.

4. Liebl, 2002 Problem Structuring Management of conflict and confrontation - an important feature of Soft ORMethods/Soft OR process.

5. Cutterbuck, 2001 Problem Structuring Division of different types of problems and issues in an organization to theMethods/Soft OR corresponding schools of Operations Research.

6. Holt and Problem Structuring Both PSMs and analytic modeling behave complementarily to each otherPickburn, 2001 Methods/Soft OR rather than in conflict in dealing with organizational issues and problems.

Figure 1: Representation of a Mature Soft System Methodology (SSM)

Real-worldproblem situation

Action to improve Comparison

Structured debate about change andthe accommodations, which

make changes possible

Models of selectedconcepts of

purposeful activity

Understanding of theculture of the situation

including its politics

Informs

Informs

Source: Checkland, 2000.

36

Strategic Choice Approach (SCA)

SCA, developed by Friend and Hickling (1997), deals withthe interconnectedness of the decision problems in anexplicit yet selective way. The most distinctive feature ofthis approach is that it helps people working together tomake more confident progress towards decisions by fo-cusing their attention on possible ways of managing un-certainty as to what they should do next. It works on thephilosophy of managing uncertainty in a strategic way.SCA identifies four modes of decision-making activities:

• Shaping - considering the structure of the decisionproblems

• Designing - considering possible courses of action• Comparing - comparing possible courses of action• Choosing - choosing the most appropriate course of

action.

A key theme underlying SCA is identifying uncertaintyareas, having broad categories as:

• UE: Uncertainty about working environment can bereduced by technical response.

• UV: Uncertainty about guiding values can be reducedby political response.

• UR: Uncertainty about related decision fields can bereduced by exploring structural relationship betweendifferent departments/ areas (Figure 2).

Some of the important theoretical observations regardingdevelopment of SSM and SCA are presented in Table 2.

ROLE OF ‘SOFT OR’ IN STRATEGIC INTERVENTIONIN SERVICESCAPE DEVELOPMENT

Conventional OR methods usually begin with a problemstatement -- there is a desired state ‘Y’ and a present state‘X’, and alternative ways of getting from ‘X’ to ‘Y’. Prob-lem solving consists of defining ‘Y’ and ‘X’ and selectingthe best means of reducing the difference between them,i.e., reaching ‘Y’ from ‘X’. Such approaches give higherpriority to the purity of models and mathematical correct-ness in decision-making than to organizational relevance.The success of these methods depend upon clear defini-tion of the objective functions, decision alternatives -- theirlevel of contribution and measures of performances andtheir functional relationship, constraints, and physicallimitations imposed. In situations, like Servicescape plan-ning and management, these methods can be employedonly after we have clarity about these parameters andtheir functional relationship. The service providers lackan in-depth insight into customer preferences. There isoften a disconnect between what customers want andwhat service providers offer. At the other end, we canhardly assume that all organizational members share acommon goal in alignment with the top management.Personnel involved in implementation often considerplanning done at the top as an imposition. They do notidentify themselves as part of any change. Using conven-tional OR models at the start itself, tends to conceal thereal problems and may give some unrealistic and imprac-tical solutions because these problems involve human

Figure 2: Uncertainty Areas in Decision-making (SCA)

“What should we do nowabout this choice/option?”

“We need clearer policies”

“We need broaderprospective”

“We need furtherinformation”

Source: Friend and Hickling, 1997.

UV

UR UE

Figure 3 depicts a process, consisting of four decisionmodes of SCA. In the process, there exist opportunities toswitch from working in any one of the four modes to work-ing in any of the others for a while; with feedback loops itallows for possible recursion to earlier stages in a morefluid and adaptive way.

Figure 3: Four Modes of Strategic Choice ApproachProcess (SCA)

PRO

BLEM

FO

CUS

PREF

EREC

ES &

UN

CERT

AIN

TIES

SHAPE

DESIGN

CHOOSE

COMPARE

RANGE OFPOSSIBLE STRATEGIES

ISSUESPROCESSPACKAGE

DECISIONS

Source: Friend and Hickling, 1997.

APPLICATION OF SOFT OPERATIONS RESEARCH FOR ENHANCING THE SERVICESCAPE AS A FACILITATOR

VIKALPA • VOLUME 36 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2011 37

dimension. These optimizing models do not have an in-depth understanding of organizational culture, feelings,perceptions, and confidence of the staff and differentstakeholders. That is why, we have used Soft OR meth-ods first to structure the problem through group decision-making, incorporating diverse views and then, at a laterstage, used conventional OR techniques to arrive at thedesirable solutions. Moreover, the success and effective-ness of plans for a change depends not only on the planitself or the final recommendations, but also on the proc-ess by which these plans are finalized, because this de-termines stakeholders’ commitment and ownership ofrecommended outcomes and decisions. These were thereasons for adopting the proposed framework of deci-sion-making comprising Soft OR methodologies for im-proving the Servicescape.

Here, we have applied selective mixing of two Soft ORmethodologies, SSM and SCA (multi-methodology), sup-plemented with traditional optimization models, for en-hancing Servicescapes as a facilitator because this mixingcan enhance and enrich the process of strategic decision-making in these types of complex problems. Any method-

ology which is appropriate and effective in one dimen-sion/area may not prove so efficient in others. Real-worldproblem situations are highly complex and multidimen-sional. Different methodologies focus on different aspectsof the situation and so by combining them, the full rich-ness of the real world can be dealt with effectively. Anumber of researchers and consultants have attemptedand recommended multi-methodology or selective mix-ing of appropriate Soft OR methodologies as illustratedin Table 3.

We have adopted multi-methodology for the project, whichconsists of using a component of a particular Soft ORmethodology that best emphasizes the particular aspectof the problem in that given situation only. Root definitionand CATWOE from SSM provides all the base compo-nents to complete the understanding and definition ofthe business (Servicescape) model. Uncertainty space andcommitment package tools from SCA are especially usefulfor handling risk and uncertainty inherent in it. With re-spect to dealing with conflict situations, in the businessmodel, both SSM and SCA may be equally useful (Gondal,2004) (Table 4).

Table 2: Select Works on SSM and SCA

No. Author, Year Field of Study Key Findings

1. Checkland, Soft System Application of Systems Thinking to non-systemic situations1981 Methodology

2. Checkland, 1995 Soft System Development of SSM and identification of seven stages in SSM processMethodology

3. Checkland, Soft System Development of mature SSM process. Improved explanation of various stages2000 Methodology in solving real-life problems

4. Fortune and Soft System Applicability of SSM in problem situations in which there is a high social,Peters, 1995 Methodology political, and human activity component

5. Checkland and Soft System SSM provides a coherent approach to group and individual thinking aboutScholes, 1999 Methodology context, complexity, and ambiguities of such organizations, which have high

level of human intervention

6. Checkland and Soft System Wider involvement is a crucial prerequisite for effective and sustainableHolwell, 1998 Methodology improvement initiatives

7. Eden and Soft System Development of conceptual model from root definition using logicalAckermann, 2004 Methodology dependencies

8. Howard, 1993 Soft System Conceptual Model should focus more on ‘softer’ aspects than ‘hard’Methodology technical details

9. Pidd, 2003 Soft System Identified changes for solving the problem need to be systematically desirableMethodology and culturally feasible

10. Friend and Strategic Choice Development of SCA and identification of four modes of decision-makingHickling, 1997 Approach activities and three uncertainty areas in SCA

11. Rosenhead and Strategic Choice Role of SCA in managing uncertainties in a strategic wayMingers, 2001 Approach

12. Hickling, 2001 Strategic Choice Interconnectedness of four modes of decision-making activities in SCAApproach

38

PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH STUDYOF SERVICESCAPE USING SOFT OPERATIONSRESEARCH

Servicescape planning is a comprehensive and ongoingmanagement process aimed at formulating and imple-menting an effective comprehensive plan for accomplish-ing the management goal of increased customersatisfaction and repatronage. We have applied selectivemixing of two Soft OR methodologies, SSM and SCA,along with the ‘hard’ optimization tools of operationsresearch for designing, improving, and managingServicescape of shopping malls/retail stores. Here thefocus is also on people rather than on process alone. Asdiscussed above, SSM is the main methodology used be-cause it is capable of understanding and defining theServicescape model incorporating most of the diverse view-points, perceptions, expectations, requirements related tothe Servicescape model. The synergistic relationship of

SSM with its focus on human system, consensus build-ing, and comparison is very suitable for an intangibleconcept like service environment. The main objective ofusing SCA is that, it is the best Soft OR technique thatidentifies the uncertainties associated with each stage ofthe decision-process. The detailed research methodologyadopted for the participatory action research study isgiven in Figure 4.

Empirical Research

First Phase: Analysing the Client

In this phase, investigators were asked to do a prelimi-nary survey of shopping malls situated in Lucknow. Adetailed survey of customers was carried out to knowand measure the level of satisfaction with the currentServicescape of the shopping malls, expectations fromthem and relative importance of different macro-dimen-

Table3: Select Applications of Multi-Methodology/Mixing of Soft OR Methodologies

No. Author, Year Field of Study/Project Key Findings

1. Lane, 1994 System Dynamics and Each Soft OR methodology has something to offer to one of theSoft OR identified challenges; it will equally prove inadequate on others

2. Ormerod, 1995 Use of multi-methodology in Value of multi-methodology approach in complex problemsdeveloping informationstrategy for Sainsburys

3. Bennett and Using Soft OR in Value of multi-methodology approach in complex problemsMatthews, 1986 course planning

4. Bennett, 1990 Group decision support and Categorizes three forms of linkages: comparison, enrichment andmulti-methodology integration in mixing methodologies

5 Gondal, 2004 Selective mixing of Soft OR Development of a new approach by integration linkagemethodologies for internetand technology new venturedevelopment

6. Pauley and Mixing of SSM, SODA, and Structured approach to multi-method design that incorporates theOrmerod,1998 queuing models in mining various frameworks

performance evaluation

7. Mingers and Complexities of Relationship among problem-content system, intervention system,Brocklesby,1997 multi-methodology and intellectual resources system in the context of multi-methodology

8. Kinloch et al., Crime detection and Formation of new problem-solving approach by combining SSM and2009 operational planning VSM (Viable System Model)

Table 4: Rationale for Selective Mixing of Soft OR Methodologies vis-à-vis Challenges in Model Building

Defining the Business Model Handling Risk/Uncertainty Dealing with Conflict Challenging Mental Model

SCA

SSM

Low/None Medium High/Large

Source: Gondal, 2004.

APPLICATION OF SOFT OPERATIONS RESEARCH FOR ENHANCING THE SERVICESCAPE AS A FACILITATOR

VIKALPA • VOLUME 36 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2011 39

Problem Expressing Stage:• Discussing with different actors and stakeholders (total number being 25, by dividing them into 6 groups)• Using oval mapping technique to depict the structure and processes of Servicescape• Incorporating multi-perspectives views of problem situation

Developing Individual Root Definitions & Rich Picture:• Summarizing the findings• Using cognitive maps and cluster maps to depict problem-situation for in-depth analysis

Workshop:• Developing merged cluster maps, root definition & rich picture, analysis of content & structure.• Specification of CATWOE• Identifying of emerging themes and core concepts• Prioritizing of the major dimensions of Servicescape using AHP

Building Conceptual Model:• Conceptually constructing a Servicescape that represents stakeholders’ perspectives from Root Definition using action

statements• Constituting of Monitoring and Control sub-system for monitoring:

o Effectiveness of the systemo Efficacy of the systemo Efficiency of the system

Comparing Conceptual Model with the Real World:• Revealing the differences between the models and the present reality by reflecting on the attitudinal, intangibility, cultural

and organizational barriers• Identying broad comparison areas through workshop and interviews• Prioritizing comparison areas by AHP• Prioritizing 3 uncertainty areas by AHP• Finding ways for the reduction of uncertainty areas:

o UE: Technical response (Research Investigation, Analytical Analysis by Optimization Tools)o UR: Exploring structural relationship (adopting broader planning perspective)o UV: Political response

Identification of Desirable and Feasible Changes:• Proposing changes in structure, procedures, and attitudes• Comparing and identifying of most efficient Decision Package by DEA

Commitment Package (Choosing Mode):• Decisions taken now• Exploration to reduce levels of uncertainty, estimates of resources needed, and timescales• Decisions deferred until later

Survey of customers (using quota sampling) in theform of structured questionnaire, unstructured

informal interviews, etc.

Survey of managers, executives, employees by focusgroups and semi-structured interviews using

repertory grid procedure technique

Client Analysis Strategic Analysis Facility Analysis

Figure 4: Research Methodology Adopted for Participatory Action Research Study of the Shopping MallsServicescape

40

sions and micro-aspects of these dimensions. The survey(for both ‘hard’ and ‘soft data’) was in the form of a struc-tured questionnaire, unstructured informal interviews,and direct observations and the information was collectedfrom about 500 customers using quota sampling so as tomake the sample representative. Quotas were constructedon various socio-economic demographic profiles. Thisstage, labeled as client analysis, sought to achieve an un-derstanding of the social and aesthetic aspect of the cus-tomers in terms of culture, values, style, behaviour,priorities, requirement and expectations, etc. This surveyformed the basis of identifying and studying customers’perceptions and expectations from a Servicescape. Simul-taneously, the survey of all the other actors andstakeholders like managers, floor managers, executives,front-line staff, and other employees was also carried outin the form of focus groups and semi-structured inter-views using repertory grid procedure technique; a total of20 such interviews were performed. A considerableamount of information was gathered from them, a part ofthe information was used for the stage labeled as strategicanalysis which sought to identify how business and deci-sion activities were organized by drawing corporate goals,objectives, strategies and procedures vis-à-vis Service-scape. It also identified different types of stakeholdersand their perspectives, assumptions, concerns, and diffi-culties vis-à-vis Servicescape and its development. Thesecond part was meant for the stage termed as facilityanalysis which was more technical in nature and focusedon built facilities. It should be kept in mind that both SSMand SCA were implemented as a participative process(application of action research) where the facilitator(modeler) worked with the problem stakeholders. Thepurpose of this analysis phase was to get an elementaryidea so that a range of plausible decision-choices couldbe made.

Second Phase: Stating the Problem

A stakeholders’ group was then constituted, comprisingfour to five representatives from different departments/units along with customers. This group contained twentyfive members; comprising managers, floor managers, ex-ecutives, front-line staff, employees, and some selectedcustomers belonging to different socio-economic back-ground. This group was formed to implement the deci-sion-making process. The purpose of this problem expressingstage was to depict the problem situation of theServicescape planning and management.

Detailed discussions were being carried out among themembers of stakeholders’ group. The broad considera-tions under discussion were:

• structure of the shopping mall (physical and organi-zational lay-out): some of these factors may not changeeasily but in some change is possible.

• processes (organizational basic activities): many ofthese are changing constantly.

• issues that are expressed or felt by the stakeholders(complaints, criticisms, suggestions, endorsements etc).

In this phase, as the formal approach, rich pictures (iconic/pictorial models) were drawn to depict the problem situ-ation of the Servicescape, according to perceptions ofstakeholders (Weltanschauung) (Figure 5).

Participants were subdivided into sub-groups of sizesfour to six, so as to allow comparable data between thesub-groups to be collected and being in a small group,each participant was more likely to be able to make amore relevant contribution. Each sub-group was asked toexamine the core purpose, activities, and information-needs of functions involved in a shopping mall. The pro-cess used was Oval Mapping Technique (OMT), whereovals are used to express and present differentstakeholders’ perspectives and are then linked by arrows(according to logical dependencies).

Structured questions were posed to the participants tobring out responses (options) that directly addressed theproblem. This discussion generated some options alongwith arguments for or against the same. These were addedto the map and linked to the ideas as pros and cons. Par-ticipants raised issues that challenge each others’ op-tions. These were further phrased as more questions andideas were added (that might resolve them). This tech-nique relied on the stakeholders’ group to eliminate irrel-evant options as consensus developed and sharedunderstanding emerged. Here, the two consultantsworked both as ‘process facilitator’ (helping and guidingthe participants on ‘how to run the processes’) as well as‘content facilitator’ (helping in structuring and captur-ing the content) for each sub-group.

Each member of the sub-group was asked to draw his/her own rich picture. These pictures were pasted on theflipchart papers attached to the wall of the discussionroom so that participants were able to see different contri-butions and explore how they fit together, resulting in

APPLICATION OF SOFT OPERATIONS RESEARCH FOR ENHANCING THE SERVICESCAPE AS A FACILITATOR

VIKALPA • VOLUME 36 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2011 41

maps being built together. Participants were able to gaugeothers’ opinions of their options, thus increasing theirunderstanding of differing point of views and alternativeoptions. Then these individual rich pictures were mergedto produce a sub-group rich picture. Taking into cognizancethe various considerations through a merged rich picture,the sub-group produced a root definition that expressesthe activities and purpose of the relevant system deemeduseful in addressing the problem situation. Root defini-tions (along with the specification of CATWOE) were usedas a step towards conceptual modeling for exploring thereal-world situation. At this stage, the emphasis was on

exploration of the problem and understanding the proc-ess.

As an example, we are providing one of the root defini-tions and mnemonic CATWOE for the problem.

Root definitions: Servicescape can be used as a facilitatorby providing an appropriate ambience to improve theoverall shopping experience of customers in particularand visitors in general hence ensuring repatronage of theshopping mall. At the same time it can also ensure greateremployee productivity by providing them a sense of com-fort, belonging, and overall satisfaction (Table 5).

Figure 5: Rich Picture depicting the Problem Situation of Servicescape

ServicescapeDevelopment &Management

Strategies

Shopping Mall

Pressureon Services& Problem ofBudgeting

Managers & Employees

Feedback from Customers,Employees & Managers

Conflict of Management& Employees

Conflict of Customers & Employees

EnvironmentalConditions

Organizational Communication

Service Environment should respondto Needs & Likes of Customers

Employees &Customers

Customers Need-• Quality Service• Pleasant Atmosphere• Feeling of Comfort & Satisfaction

CompatibilityDilemmas,IntangibilityElements

Table 5: CATWOE Analysis on the Root definitions

C (Customers) Shoppers, visitors, mall staff, shop owners

A (Actors) Mall owner, shop owners, mall staff

T (Transformation Process) Unsatisfied customers � Satisfied customersOrdinary shopping experience � Exciting shopping experienceLow level of repatronage � High level of repatronageDemotivated employees � Motivated employeesDifficulty in administration � Ease of administration

W (Weltanschauung/Worldview) Rational and optimum actions by all stakeholders for improving the system

O (Owner) Mall owners, retail-store owner

E (Environmental constraints) Prevalent work culture and value system, facility-layout limitations, unruly behaviour.

42

After detailed discussions, the groups were asked to‘draw’ a picture that would delineate the problem situa-tion according to the themes developed in discussions,incorporating the points/issues on which there were con-sensus. These causal maps are known as cognitive maps.This mapping was done by working with the concernedgroup to reach consensus about how to deal with strate-gic issues.

Once individual sub-group cognitive maps were produced,they needed to be merged into cluster maps, where similarconcepts were merged into clusters; concepts were dis-cussed and negotiated in case of divergence of views.Merged overview cognitive maps and individual clustermaps served as a focus for discussion at workshops involv-ing analysis of its content and structure and identifica-tion of any ‘emerging themes’ and ‘core concepts’.Participants invited to the workshop were drawn fromstakeholders’ group representing all sub-groups. In theworkshops, structured process of debate and questioningwas used, with a purpose of reaching consensus on vari-ous issues. In the discussion process thereafter, interact-ing clusters (interacting problem areas) were identifiedand linked. So, structuring was obtained by the processof clustering and linking, with active contribution fromthe consultants. Two workshops were organized. The firstworkshop addressed the issues of structure, budget, andtechnology of the proposed changes related to shoppingmall and the second emphasized on the service aspect.At this stage, areas of conflict surfaced, reflecting differ-ence of opinions, attitudes, concerns, etc. These conflictsand differences were both inter- and intra-group.

The structured process adopted above was basicallymeant for resolving these issues so as to achieve under-standing and agreement among different stakeholders.Use of OMT helped in clustering of issues and problemareas. It also enabled the participants to recognize thecommon and overlapping areas along with their causalrelationship. Here, our role as facilitators was importantin helping the group in identifying the areas of agree-ment (obviously from stakeholders’ knowledge) throughnarrowing of problem areas and thus identifying coreissues. All the models (from different groups) and themodifications during the workshops were displayed ona large flip screen. Having the entire process in front ofthem allowed the members to rapidly gain not only anoverview of the issues being discussed but also of theirdetails. This resulted in building up of shared views and

common understanding of key issues and so increasedconsensus among the participants.

Responses of the stakeholders’ group were analysed bythe group decision-making technique, Analytic Hierar-chy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1990; 2001), designed for situ-ations in which ideas, feelings, and emotions are to bequantified and decision alternatives based on them areprioritized. With respect to prioritization of the major di-mensions of Servicescape, AHP (Using Expert-Choice 11.0Software), told us that General Interiors was the most im-portant dimension (weight 38%), followed by Social Di-mension (weight 26%), Internal Display Facilities (weight20%), and then Exterior Facilities (with a weight of 16%)(Figure 6). Micro aspects of these major dimensions werealso prioritized as per the consensual perceptions ofstakeholders.

Figure 6: Prioritization of Major Dimensions of theServicescape(Overall inconsistency index 0.08)

ExteriorFacilities

InternalDisplay

SocialDimensions

GeneralInteriors

0.16

0.2

0.26

0.38

Third Phase: Building Conceptual Model

In the next phase, a conceptual model of the problem situ-ation was developed (Figure 7). It was an attempt to un-derstand the activities needed to bring about necessarychanges, and to conceptually construct a Servicescapethat represents stakeholders’ perspectives about the de-sired Servicescape and associated human activities. Amodel was developed directly from root definition usingaction statements describing the activities. The idea wasto better demonstrate and understand the activities (andtheir linkages) needed in the transformation process,thereafter, to debate different perspectives held aboutthem, and finally, to develop a shared understanding ofthese perspectives.

This planning phase consisted of a number of stages. Itstarted with defining broad problem areas concerningimprovement of the Servicescape. Then ‘core issues’ wereidentified. It led to the prioritization of objectives at thestrategic level. It also showed the interdependent and

APPLICATION OF SOFT OPERATIONS RESEARCH FOR ENHANCING THE SERVICESCAPE AS A FACILITATOR

VIKALPA • VOLUME 36 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2011 43

Figure 7: Conceptual Model of Development and Management of Servicescape of Shopping Malls

Appreciate What Constitutes a Satisfying Servicescape

Identify Current Status of Servicescape of Shopping Malls

Identify Desired Level ofSatisfaction of Customer

Identify Level ofSatisfaction of Customers

Compare the Current Level & Desired Level of Satisfaction

Find out Areas of Improvement in Various Dimensions of Servicecape (infrastructure, environment, behavioural aspect)

Exterior General Interior Internal Display Behaviour of Staff & Social Dimension

Managers andEmployees

IdentifyTrainingNeeds

Identify Levelof Satisfaction& Concerns of

Employees

BudgetRequirement Prioritization

Negotiation and Discussion

Budget SanctionDevelop Optimal Operational Activities related to

Servicescape

Better Management of Resources

Provide Appropriate Training andCounseling to Employees

Establish andRecognize theLimitations ofShopping Mall

Benchmarking of ServiceOperations

Appreciate ChangingCommercialEnvironment

Keen Observation of Customer’s Behaviour &Responses to Servicescape by Management,

Superiors & Frontline Staff

IntangibleNature ofServices

Monitor

Compatibility Dilemmas

Negotiate & Discuss

Define Criteria for Effectiveness,Efficiency & Efficacy

Improve Attitude TowardsService Environment

Negotiate for a Common, Feasible &Desirable Action Plan

Develop Soft-skills among Employees

Develop Effective Complaint &Redressal Mechanism

Feedback from Customers &other Stakeholders

Develop Proper Monitoring Facilities

CompareIdentification of

Uncertainties

Develop Control Mechanism

Commitment Package

44

multi-dimensional nature of underlying causes of theproblems.

To explore the precise nature of these inter-relationships,identified problem responses were aggregated into dif-ferent groups (strategy areas). The actions/options deal-ing with the related problems in a group were discussedkeeping in mind the fact that if two actions are closelyrelated, developing the two together may lead to an im-proved outcome. The next step consisted of prioritizingthese strategy areas and the related options so as to de-cide which area should be dealt first. To achieve discrimi-nation among the strategy areas and their options, a‘ranking exercise’ was undertaken. This provided us thebroad strategy about the sequence in which these areasshould be tackled. At this stage, efforts were also made todevise plans for managing and resolving the conflictsidentified earlier.

The next stage was the development of detailed strategy,consisting of prioritizing and objective setting at an op-erational level. It followed the same procedure that wasadopted above. Several options and the levels at whichthey should be executed, were identified. Different op-tions might have different implications; so, factors suchas cost, budget constraints, operational difficulties, atti-tude of different levels of employees, etc., were taken intocognizance while prioritizing the options.

At this stage, a monitoring and control sub-system was con-stituted which would monitor:

• Efficiency of the proposed system: Here the cost man-agement issues of the proposed changes were consid-ered. After identifying the activities (agreed upon bythe decision group), we identified and estimated thevarious parameters. Then using cost-optimizationmodeling, an optimum solution-mix was obtained.

• Efficacy of the system: In order to test whether the sug-gestions that emerged in the conceptual model wouldgive the desired improvement, we used discussion-process (brainstorming sessions) focusing on differ-ent aspects of the proposed changes.

• Effectiveness of the system: Effectiveness is concernedwith the performance of the whole system. Here, wehad a number of discussion rounds with the authori-ties and managers at the higher level, regarding theworkability and effectiveness of the proposed changes.Their perceptions were also taken into consideration.

Fourth Phase: Comparing Conceptual Model with RealWorld

The next phase incorporated all the elements of compar-ing mode of SCA. At this stage, all the stakeholders wereinvited and a number of discussion rounds were per-formed by the two consultants. This stage was designedto provide structure and substance to an organized de-bate about improving the current situation. The processused was workshops. Stakeholders were asked to comparethe derived conceptual model with the real-world situa-tion. This comparison revealed the differences betweenthe models and the present reality by reflecting on theattitude, intangibility, cultural, and organizational barri-ers that needed to be cleared for the betterment ofServicescape. Here, models were used to initiate and struc-ture debate by asking activity related ordered questionsto the participants. For comparison purpose, both quali-tative as well as quantitative tools (simulation experi-ments) were used.

The broad comparison areas vis-à-vis Servicescape devel-opment and management were identified in the first work-shop as: compatibility dilemmas, the intangibility elementassociated with services, expansion potential (short-term),expansion potential (long-term), flexibility (different typesof customers) and capital costs involved (both fixed andvariable). AHP prioritized these comparison areas, thusindicating that intangibility element (weight 24%) and capi-tal costs (weight 23%) were the major concerns in the pro-cess of Servicescape improvement, as perceived by thegroup (Figure 8).

In the second workshop, uncertainties in Servicescapeimprovement were identified and prioritized. AHP wasused to find out the relative importance of three types of

Figure 8: Prioritization of Comparison Areas inServicescape Development and Management(Overall inconsistency index 0.11)

Capital Cost

Flexibility

Long-termExpansion Potential

Short-termExpansion Potential

Intangibility Element

CompatibilityDilemmas

0.23

0.13

0.17

0.14

0.24

0.09

APPLICATION OF SOFT OPERATIONS RESEARCH FOR ENHANCING THE SERVICESCAPE AS A FACILITATOR

VIKALPA • VOLUME 36 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2011 45

uncertainties. Here, decision-group perceived UE (uncer-tainty about working environment) to be the most importantwith a weight of 61 per cent, followed by UR (uncertaintyabout related decision fields) with a weight of 33 per cent,UV ( uncertainty about guiding values) came distant thirdwith a weight of just 6 per cent (Figure 9). To reduce UE,technical response was used. It consisted of a number ofmeasures, ranging from informal conversations and dis-cussions to research investigation and mathematicalmodeling (using different optimization tools like networkoptimization, non-linear optimization, and multi-objec-tive multi-criteria optimization). To reduce UR, structuralrelationships with other sectors/areas were explored byadopting broader planning perspective, and negotiating/collaborating with other decision makers of the shoppingmall.

Figure 9: Relative Importance of Three Types ofUncertainty Areas(Overall inconsistency index 0.08)

ages were found to be relatively inefficient (E < 1) and thethird decision package, emerged as efficient (E =1) andacceptable.

The mathematical programming aspect of CCR-DEAModel is as follows:

CCR DEA Model: CCR DEA Model:

In the matrix form-

4

Max.E = 3 Vjm * Yjm Max E = VmT * Ym

j=1

Subject to constraints- Subject to constraints-

6

3 Uim * Xim = 1 UmT * Xm = 1

i=1

4 6

3 Vjm * Yjn -3 Uim * Xin # 0 VmT * Y - Um

T *X # 0j=1 i=1

Vim , Uim $ VmT, Um

T $

n = 1, 2, 3 (number of alternative decision packages)i = 1, 2….6 (number of inputs in each decision pack-

age)j = 1, 2….4 (number of outputs from each decision

package)where,Yjm = jth of the mth decision package.Vjm = weight assigned to that output (by DEA).Xim = ith input of the mth decision package.Uim = Weight assigned to that input (by DEA).Yjn = jth output of the nth decision package.Xin = ith input of the nth decision package.

Thereafter, a commitment package (choosing mode), guidedby a preferred feasible decision scheme was decided upon.It consisted of:

• Current decisions• Exploration to reduce levels of uncertainty, estimates

of resources needed, and timescales• Decisions deferred for later.

Areas included in the final commitment package were:

• Revamping and modification of some of the internalfacilities, display facilities, etc.

• Modification in some existing ambient and design fac-tors along with addition of some new facilities

UR

UE

UV

0.33

0.61

0.06

Fifth Phase: Identifying Changes

In the next phase, desirable and feasible changes that couldbe made for the betterment were identified. The processused was again workshop, supplemented with quantita-tive optimization tools. A total of three workshops wereorganized in this phase. The participants of the workshopswere asked to discuss feasible improvements as the basisfor an action plan for the change with reference to externaland internal environmental constraints and uncertain-ties. Here, the conceptual model was revised through a pro-cess of iterations, to make it practically realizable andimplementable.

At this stage, the decision-group identified three consen-sual desirable and culturally feasible decision-packages forenhancing Servicescape as a facilitator, having almostidentical inputs and outputs. Now the issue was to findout the most efficient decision package to be used forServicescape development and improvement. Here, DataEnvelopment Analysis (DEA) Model (Charnes, Cooperand Rhodes, 1978), a performance efficiency measurementtool, was used to compare the performance efficiencies ofthe three decision packages. Finally, two decision pack-

46

• Certain modifications in parking facility• Human Resource Management: Revised job descrip-

tion, new performance appraisal policy and incentivescheme, training and skill-development programmesfor better services.

In the decision process, reasonable time was taken to con-sider the implications of the conceptual model and the oppo-rtunities available to make realistic changes to processes,structures, and resource commitments for Servicescapebetterment. The exact content of decisions and strategiesthat emerged as the result of the empirical research studycan not be divulged because of the confidentiality prom-ised to the management of the shopping mall.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Soft OR approaches, SSM and SCA, supplemented by clas-sical optimization models, were used as bottom-up groupdecision-making process for Servicescape developmentof the shopping malls. Different phases of the Soft ORapproaches resulted in identification of core issues relatedto planning and management of an effective Servicescapeand their inter-relationships. More comprehensive in-volvement and participation of all stakeholders with apeople-centric problem-solving approach provided abroader and more acceptable picture of the problem-situ-ation, which would not have been possible if the groupdecision-making process was not used. Further, the struc-tured process adopted, helped in resolving the conflict-ing issues and areas so as to achieve understanding andagreement among different stakeholders associated withthe Servicescape management problem.

Participative workshops also proposed the hierarchicalframework of the major dimensions of Servicescape. Theresults as analysed by AHP suggested that stakeholders’groups assigned the greatest relative importance to Gen-eral Interiors and Social Dimensions followed by InternalDisplay and then Exterior Facility. The groups thus recog-nized that every service encounter is a Moment of Truthfor the customers, wherein all explicit and implicit pro-mises made by service provider in the interior-settings(tangible and intangible) are delivered, establishing thecredibility of that outlet in the psyche of the customers.

Within the purview of General Interiors, the stakeholders’group accorded the highest priority to comfort and con-venience related factors like: cleanliness, walking space,goods and price points, use of technology, etc. In case of

Social Dimensions, the stakeholders identified attitude andbehaviour of the staff as the most important factors. Thebehaviour and attitude of service personnel in the mallalso have a substantial impact on customers’ perceptionabout the shopping mall along with the impression cre-ated by the physical service environment.

With respect to Internal Display of the shopping mall,signages related to point-of-purchase material, indicators,symbols, and artifacts, which guide the customers aboutvarious aspects of service delivery were given the highestpriority. All the stakeholders shared the concern that cus-tomers tend to become confused when they fail to get cleardirections from a Servicescape, resulting in anxiety anduncertainty about how to proceed, in order to obtain thedesired service. Lastly, in relation with Exterior Facilities,proper parking facility was accorded the highest impor-tance. This reflects that in determining the overall accept-ance/affinity with the shopping mall, convenience ofapproach is a preferred attribute. The stakeholders’ grouphad a varied representation from the front-line staff, serv-ice personnel, and floor managers. This provided sharedunderstanding and commitment for the desired actionsin this aspect.

The consensual hierarchical framework of the shoppingmall was followed by understanding and finalizing theactivities and their linkages needed for the transforma-tion process and establishing a conflict-resolution mecha-nism. These decisions contained relevant, quality inputs,and contributions from all the stakeholders making themmore implementable and sustainable. Since the group hadvaried representation, planning of servicescape improve-ment activities was far simpler and problems areas wereeasily unearthed and resolved effectively.

While comparing the model for improvement, the Soft ORprocess identified (through AHP) intangible service elementsand capital cost (required for these improvements) as themajor concerns. The decision-group identified UE (uncer-tainty about working environment) to be the most importantproblematic area followed by UR (uncertainty about relateddecision fields) in the process of Servicescape development.Accordingly, strategies were identified by shared exper-tise of the different stakeholders so as to manage the iden-tified uncertainties in an effective and efficient way. Theobjective was to develop a preventive mechanism insteadof a reactive one so as to minimize the possibilities offuture uncertainties and conflicts.

APPLICATION OF SOFT OPERATIONS RESEARCH FOR ENHANCING THE SERVICESCAPE AS A FACILITATOR

VIKALPA • VOLUME 36 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2011 47

MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

The soft OR modeling, being transparent and group-based, provide the stakeholders (employees and the man-agers the shopping mall) an understanding of thesituational complexities related to Servicescape develop-ment and in the longer term provide them with a founda-tion for developing proactive strategies for improving thesituation. Here, stakeholders become an active part of thedecision-making process rather than remaining just aneutral observer. It recognizes and integrates the partici-pants’ subjective perspectives, the importance of mutuallearning, iterative process design, and adaptive decision-making. This synergistic relationship allows the manag-ers and other stakeholders to become reflective practi-tioners. It also enables them to consider the interrelation-ships between the shopping mall’s objectives, context ofthe situation, activities, processes and structures, thusadding substantial value for the policy makers by pro-viding them a wider and coherent view that would proveuseful in Servicescape development. It purports the sug-gestions that different perceptions of the stakeholders beregarded as positive contributions towards the bettermentof Servicescape, and not as threats or voices of dissent.The soft OR approach, being truly iterative, improves de-cision-making with each round of workshop and recon-sideration of cross-functional relationships and definesan acceptable and improved path of action. This approachhas used different perceptions along with their interac-tions and interconnections with other systems of shop-ping malls to enable the decision-makers to modelorganizations, processes, and partnerships along withthe transformations and outputs desired by customersand other stakeholders.

The Soft OR process has also allowed the managers andstakeholders to monitor the direction of change andachievement of results vis-à-vis Servicescape development.This enables managers and authorities to take an abstrac-tion of reality, implicit in the decision-process. It also helpsthem to link coherently the resources, policies, and meansof change with the objective of enhancing Servicescapeas a facilitator.

CONCLUSION

For organizations delivering high contact services or lei-sure services like shopping malls, Servicescape forms anintegral part of the service experience and value proposi-tion. Servicescape should be so designed and managed

that they facilitate service encounters, consequentiallyincreasing productivity.

Designing and managing a shopping mall Servicescapeis an unstructured problem having multiple stakeholdersand actors having differing perspectives and conflictinginterests. A combination of two Soft OR approaches, sup-plemented by hard optimization tools, was used for thispurpose. They use cross-functional co-operation andwider consultations among different interest groups fordecision-making and focus on group decision-making soas to have a more acceptable and broad-based solution.The solution so obtained will be a more satisfying andcommitted one, in terms of implementation andsustainability.

The outputs of the proposed decision-process can be two-fold. First, on the outcome front, there is a commitmentpackage, comprising various implementable suggestionsand blue-prints of actionables for improving the situa-tion related to designing and managing the Servicescapeof the shopping malls. On the process front, the achieve-ments are:

• Increased information flow between differentstakeholders, hence enhanced transparency in the de-cision process.

• Improved quality and quantity of the stakeholders’input and their perception of ‘being involved’ in theplanning and management process.

• Identification of areas of potential conflict in the man-agement process and development of a conflict-reso-lution mechanism.

So, success of the group-decision making process inServicescape development cannot be measured by theoptimality of the actions in terms of content alone, butalso by the involvement and cognitive commitment amongstakeholders for the process of change.

Although on an experimental basis, this methodology,involving group decision-making, has been applied forshopping-mall Servicescape development, the same canbe extended to other systems and problem-domains also,where there is a large number of stakeholders and a highhuman activity system.

This paper serves as a starting point for the developmentof more specific research on the problem of Servicescapedevelopment and management. The conceptual model

48

and the results from the workshop can be seen as ‘docu-ments of present and future’ as they represent a dynamicindustry and cover a range of long- and short-term issuesfor effective management of Servicescape. Future researchwork may also investigate the extent and type of Soft ORmethodology useful for different types of organizationsand problems.

The field of Soft OR multi-methodology should also befurther explored so that the research may contribute to-

wards greater practical utility. The emphasis should beon empirical and theoretical analyses of how particularSoft OR methods can best be decomposed at differentstages, and which combinations are most fruitfully linkedin different problem and organizational situations. An-other area of future research could be the impact of con-figuration of stakeholders group on application andsuccess of multi-methodology in different problem situa-tions.

REFERENCES

Bennett, P G (1990). “Mixing Methods. Combining ConflictAnalysis, SODA and Strategic Choice,” in Eden, C andRadford, J (Eds.), Tackling Strategic Problems, London: Sage,99-109.

Bennett, P G and Matthews, L M (1986). “The Art of CoursePlanning: Soft O R in Action,” Journal of Operational Re-search Society, 37(6), 579-590.

Bitner, M J (1992). “Service Environment: The Impact of Physi-cal Surroundings on Customers and Employees,” Jour-nal of Marketing, 56(2), 57-71.

Charnes, A; Cooper, W W and Rhodes, E (1978). “Measuringthe Efficiency of Decision Making Units,” European Jour-nal of Operations Research, 2, 429-444.

Checkland, P (1981). System Thinking: System Practice,Chichester: Wiley.

Checkland, P (1995). “Soft System Methodology and its Rel-evance to the Development of Information Systems,” inStowell, F A (Ed.), Information System Provision: the Con-tribution of Soft System Methodology, London: McGraw-Hill, 1-17.

Checkland, P (2000). “Soft System Methodology: A Thirty-Year Retrospective,” System Research and Behavioral Sci-ence, 17(1), S11-S58.

Checkland, P and Holwell, S (1998). Information, Systems andInformation Systems: Making Sense of the Field, Chichester:Wiley.

Checkland, P and Scholes, J (1999). Soft System Methodology inAction, London: John Wiley and Sons.

Cutterbuck, J (2001). “Is Complementary Strategy the WayForward?” Keynote Address at The OA Techniques forFuture Workshop, DERA and UK Operational ResearchSociety, January 31.

Eden, C and Ackermann, F (2004). “Cognitive Mapping Ex-pert Views for Policy Analysis in the Public Sector,”European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 615-630.

Expert Choice Software (1990). Produced by Expert Choice Inc.,4922 Ellsworth Avenue, Pittsburgh, P A.

Fortune, J and Peters, G (1995). Learning from Failures: The Sys-tem Approach, Chichester: Wiley.

Friend, J K and Hickling, A (1997). Planning under Pressure:The Strategic Choice Approach, Second Edition, Oxford:Butterworth-Heinemann.

Gondal, S (2004). “Internet and Technology New VentureDevelopment using Soft OR,” European Journal of Opera-tional Research, 152(3), 571-585.

Hickling, A (2001). “Gambling with Frozen Fire?” inRosenhead, J and Mingers, J (Eds.), Rational Analysis for aProblematic World Revisited, Chichester, UK: John Wileyand Sons, 151-180.

Holt, J and Pickburn, G (2001). OA Techniques for the Future,DERA/CDA/SEA/AIR/ CR000141.

Howard, N (1993). “The Role of Emotions in Multi-Organiza-tional Decision-Making,” Journal of the Operational Re-search Society, 44(6), 613-623.

Kinloch, P; Francis, H; Francis, M and Taylor, M (2009). “Sup-porting Crime Detection and Operational Planning withSoft Systems Methodology and Viable Systems Model,”Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 26(1), 3-14.

Lane, D C (1994). “With a Little Help from our Friends: HowSystem Dynamics and Soft O R can Learn from EachOther,” System Dynamics Review, 10(2/3), 101-134.

Liebl, F (2002). “The Anatomy of Complex Societal Problemsand its Implications for O R,” Journal of the OperationalResearch Society, 53(2),161-184.

Mingers, J and Brocklesby, J (1997). “Multimethodology: To-wards a Framework for Mixing Methodologies,” Omega,25(5), 489-509.

Ormerod, R (1995). “Putting Soft OR Methods: InformationSystems Strategy Development at Sainsbury,” Journal ofthe Operational Research Society, 46, 277-293.

Pauley, G and Ormerod, R (1998). “The Evolution of a Perfor-mance Measurement Project at Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ),”Interfaces, 28(4), 94-118.

Pidd, M (2003). “Tools for Thinking,” Modeling in ManagementScience, Chichester: John Wiley.

APPLICATION OF SOFT OPERATIONS RESEARCH FOR ENHANCING THE SERVICESCAPE AS A FACILITATOR

VIKALPA • VOLUME 36 • NO 1 • JANUARY - MARCH 2011 49

Rosenhead, J and Mingers, J (2001). Rational Analysis for a Prob-lematic World Revisited, Chichester: Wiley.

Saaty, T L (1990). The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Pittsburgh,PA: McGraw-Hill, RWS Publications.

Saaty, T L (2001). Decision Making with Dependence and Feedbackthe Analytic Network Process, Second Edition, Pittsburgh,PA: RWS Publications.

Masood H Siddiqui is currently associated with Jaipuria In-stitute of Management, Lucknow. A Ph.D. in Operations Re-search, he was also a CSIR-UGC Fellow-Scholar. He has anoverall experience of more than fifteen years, including anadministrative experience of three years as a Statistical Of-ficer in the Department of Horticulture & Food Processing.With a specialization in Decision Sciences, the areas of hisresearch interest are Optimization Models, Soft OperationsResearch and Performance Measurement and Comparison.He has sixteen publications in various refereed internationaland national journals.

email: mhsiddiqui@gmail.com

Shalini Nath Tripathi is currently associated with JaipuriaInstitute of Management, Lucknow, teaching courses likeMarketing Management, Marketing Research and ServicesMarketing. A Ph.D. in Marketing and Advertising, she has anoverall experience of more than fourteen years. She also hasto her credit six years of corporate experience as CustomerRelations Manager with Modi Korea TelecommunicationsLtd. Her research interests include Strategic Marketing andServices Marketing and has sixteen publications in variousreferred international and national journals.

email: shalsnath@gmail.com

STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP OF VIKALPA

The following statement about ownership and other particulars of Vikalpa: The Journal for DecisionMakers is published in accordance with Rule 8 of Newspaper (Central) Rules, 1956.

FORM IV

1. Place of Publication Indian Institute of ManagementAhmedabad 380 015

2. Periodicity Quarterly

3. Name of Printer Revathi SrinivasanNationality IndianAddress Indian Institute of Management

Ahmedabad 380 015

4. Name of Publisher Revathi SrinivasanNationality IndianAddress Indian Institute of Management

Ahmedabad 380 015

5. Name of Editor Professor Neharika VohraNationality IndianAddress Indian Institute of Management

Ahmedabad 380 015

6. Name and addresses of individuals Indian Institute of Managementwho own the newspaper and partners Ahmedabador shareholders holding more than one Indian Institute of Managementper cent of the total capital Campus, Ahmedabad 380 015

I, Revathi Srinivasan, hereby declare that the particulars given above are true to the best of myknowledge and belief.

(sd.)March 1, 2011 Revathi Srinivasan

Publisher