Journal of the Operational Research Society (2007) 58, 614--632  2007 Operational Research Society Ltd. All rights reserved. 0160-5682/07 $30.00 www.palgrave-journals.com/jors Facilitation practices in decision workshops KN Papamichail 1 * , G Alves 1 , S French 1 , JB Yang 1 and R Snowdon 2 1 Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester, UK; and 2 School of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK Decision workshops, sometimes called decision conferences, help a group of decision makers gain a shared understanding of a decision problem, analyse issues and commit to an action plan under the guidance of an experienced facilitator. This work seeks to identify best practice in the early stages of the facilitation of such workshops when the emphasis is placed on problem structuring and the main issues of a complex decision problem are identified and explored. Four decision workshops, based on the same hypothetical scenario but facilitated by a different person, were organized. Video material of the simulated workshops was analysed to compare and contrast the facilitated meetings including the problem structuring methods used. A framework for studying facilitation practices emerged. The effect of a facilitator on the structuring of the problem, the group decision process and the outcome of the workshop was studied. The results of the work indicate that a facilitator’s style and approach to the workshop may have an impact on the action plan devised. Further research is required to generalize the findings of our work. Journal of the Operational Research Society (2007) 58, 614 – 632. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602373 Published online 21 February 2007 Keywords: decision workshops; facilitation; problem structuring methods; soft OR Introduction Over the past 30 years, there has been wealth of develop- ment of creative brainstorming and problem structuring meth- ods (PSMs), often dubbed soft systems/methods/OR. The UK has led the development of PSMs, see for example Bennett (1977), Checkland (2001), Eden (1988), Eden and Ackermann (1998), Friend and Hickling (1997), Jackson (1991), Pidd (1996, 2004), Rosenhead (1980a,b), and Beer (1994). Until the last decade, the developments have largely been within si- los, with each proponent claiming explicitly or implicitly that their methods are sufficient to explore and define perspec- tives on issues. However, recently there has been a more open acknowledgement of the complementary uses of these meth- ods (Pidd, 1996, 2004; Rosenhead and Mingers, 2001; French et al, 2005; Eden and Ackermann, 2006). The recent special issue of the Journal of the Operational Research Society on PSMs (see Shaw et al, 2006) presents a collection of papers that provide a historical overview of the field, reflect on recent, past and future developments and propose new methods or new roles for PSMs. A set of articles in the special issue highlight important issues, including a paper by Keys (2006) that emphasizes the need for developing new insights into the way that PSMs are used and expertise is accumulated so as to ensure the further development of PSMs. * Correspondence: KN Papamichail, Manchester Business School, Booth Street West, Manchester, M15 6PB, UK. E-mail: nadia.papamichail@mbs.ac.uk In this study, we seek to generate new insights into the way that PSMs are used in facilitated group settings. PSMs have maximum benefits in facilitated meetings or workshops where, under the guidance of a facilitator, a group of stake- holders (or their representatives) discuss and structure com- plex problems involving multiple actors, uncertainties and conflicting objectives (Mingers and Rosenhead, 2004). Thus, it would be of considerable interest to explore how facilita- tors use PSMs in group meetings. As Shaw (2006) points out, PSM workshops can act as sources for generating rich re- search data. We therefore use decision workshops as a vehicle for studying facilitation practices in PSM interventions. Several studies provide facilitation guidelines in a vari- ety of settings (Lane, 1992; Huxham and Cropper, 1994, Niederman et al, 1996; Griffith et al, 1998). It is clear that a facilitator should be able to use a range of techniques to support and understand the social and cognitive needs of the decision makers as well as lead the decision process while remaining neutral (Schuman, 1996). But how does he or she do this? There is a paucity of studies on how to generate the initial soft models within a group, or rather the studies that exist are focused on particular PSMs rather than how a facil- itator with a bag full of soft modelling tools selects them in particular problems. This paper studies how facilitators choose and use one or more PSMs/soft OR tools in order to help a group of decision makers explore and make sense of a complex problem. Our main objective is to compare problem struc- turing approaches, identify complementarities and fit with