Assumptions and Theory behind SODA/Cognitive Mapping When defining what is SODA method, Eden (1989) described it as an approach

that is basically a set of techniques and tools, known as cognitive mapping, oval mapping and so on. By using this, consultants are able to help their clients deal with difficult issues. SODA method is also designed to provide a load of skills and a constructive map for designing problem solving interventions. In the principles of SODA, there two skills SODA aims to encourage the consultant to generate. On one hand, skills, when teamwork efficiency and effectiveness are required, of a facilitator of a problem solving process in reaching workable - politically feasible agreements. Secondly, skills concerned with dressing the true face of a problem by modeling and appropriately analyzing the content of the issue, then providing strategies and options that are agreed by team members (Eden & Ackermann, 2001).

Four theoretical perspectives consists of SODA methodology, that includes the individual, the nature of organization, the consulting practice and the role of technology and technique (Eden & Ackermann 1998).

In addition, Westcombe (2002) outlined the SODA as, "SODA (Strategic Options Development and Analysis) is one of a number of approaches developed in the UK Operational Research (OR) community over the past 30 years to assist strategic decision-making. The aim of these different approaches is neatly captured in the title of Rosenheads book 'Rational Analysis for a Problematic World'3, which brought together theoretical and practical chapters written on some of these Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs)."

He also displayed Pidd's assumption. Pidd (1996) argued that, "soft OR modeling is distinguished by the different assumptions the approaches make regarding problem definition, the nature of organizations, the use of models and the emphasis placed on organizational and individual learning. All of these PSMs take

a process-orientated

approach to modeling 'messy' problems and have been

developed through Mode 2 (Gibbons, Limoges, Nowotny, Schwartzman, Scott & Trow, 1994) or action research." Cognitive mapping is generally used as a important framework or a formal modeling technique, Downs and Stea (1973) defined it as "a process composed of a series of psychological transformations by which an individual acquires, codes, stores, recalls, and decodes information about the relative locations and attributes of phenomena in their everyday spatial environment." It is a technique designed to capture an individuals values and embedded wisdom in a diagrammatic format (Ackermann, Eden & Brown 2004)

Cognitive mapping, oval mapping and causal mapping Cognitive mapping is the label that is generally used for mapping a person's thinking process, which as known as a part of the field of psychological research on perception. It is important to note that cognitive mapping is not just a simple "word and arrow" diagram, or a "brain-map" (Eden & Ackermann, 2001). More importantly, it is a formal modeling method with unbreakable rules for its development. As a modeling system, is founded on the belief that language is a basic currency of organizational problem solving. In 2005, McKay and Marshall quoted Bryson's (2004) description, they said that a typical cognitive maps as a network of ideas (nodes). Arrows represent relationships between thoughts, that are generated as chunks of text, linked to each other.

Cognitive mapping is designed to provide: an instrument to help negotiation towards best solution; a way of capturing several people's perspectives at once by setting the views of one person in the context of the ideas of others; a method for providing structure to multiple and conflicting aspects of argumentation; a method which is designed to suggest action to resolve issues (Eden, 1988).

Eden added more goals in his paper of 1990, he outlined cognitive mapping is aimed to developing a consensus about a goal's system; produce systems that does not violate the natural role of discussion; avoid group-think and bounded vision in a effective way; attend to both the content of issues and to the need of recognition that people change organizations; ensure effective decision-making in certain environments (Eden 1990).

Oval Mapping Technique (OMT) has been described as a statement that make up the map derive from individual members of the group, but the map itself is not the thinking of any person, and so it is usually called a Cause Map, Group Map or Strategy Map (Eden & Ackermann, 2001). Therefore, obviously, there are few different things between SODA ad OMT. Using the Oval Mapping Technique would allow the work to be "collapsed" into a single session and, whilst not eliciting the depth and richness normally associated with individual interviews using mapping, the technique has other benefits(Eden & Ackermann, 2001).

Cognitive mapping is an important tool in a representation of thoughts as it is able to reflect different views of team members, aide to structure a problem, facilitate mutual understanding (Bouzdine-Chameeva, Durrieu, & Mandjk, 2000). Siau, Keng, Tan and Xin outlined the advantages of cognitive mapping techniques The produced maps using these cognitive mapping techniques are only a reconstruction of subjective beliefs that people use to solve the problem domain and take actions accordingly. Generally, they are formed by the certain pathway to create the map or process. For example, a causal map will be from an individual's thought and presenting a person's cause-effect ideas. Eden (1992) indicates two general use of cognitive mapping techniques: * Representing subjective statistics more meaningfully than other models, thus

acknowledging a utility for investigators interested in subjective opinions. * Serving as a tool to facilitate decision-making, problem-solving, and negotiation within the context of organizational problems.

What's more, Fiol and Huff (1992) concluded a load of imperative benefits of using cognitive mapping techniques within organizations. (i) Cognitive maps are able to focus attention and trigger memory; (ii) Cognitive maps can help highlight priorities and key factors; (iii) Cognitive maps may supply missing information; (iv) Cognitive maps can reveal gaps in information or reasoning that need more direct attention.

Advantages of Oval Mapping Technique (OMT) 1. The oval mapping technique is designed to be used within groups, therefore it is possible to involve about 6 to 12 participants, which enables more people to be involved. 2. A map is meant to be created to the ideas of the group, resulting in good understanding of different contributions and how they fit together. They can get results faster on key issues. 3. Being involved in the process, participants share the understanding and work as a team. Its is based on an interview-based process, which increases the likelihood of any actions that are forthcoming being implemented.

Problem addressing in using SODA methodology 1. Does the body of theory and the concepts that have been outlined here make sense? If we draw upon our own experience of organizations and consulting, does the view of organizational life and the nature of problems presented here fit with that experience? 2. Does the emphasis on the design and analysis of process fit our own personal style and capabilities?

3. Do we believe that the SODA approach, and cognitive mapping, adequately relate to the theory, concepts, and declared aims? 4. Does the application of t he analytical techniques designed into the software seem to be a useful and powerful addition to the package of tools available to us? (Eden & Ackermann, 2001).

Strategy formulation and organizational problem solving The strategic problems an organization may come to could possibly encompass members concerns upon ongoing threats to the organizations, at the same time the realization of potential opportunities. Apart from which complexion they tale, where the issues stand, where we should freshly start. However, the research results upon these issues involved learning to use sophisticated communications and analysis techniques (mapping) and required the deployment of leadership skills by the consultant/facilitator responsible. Therefore the whole emphasis has changed to enable issues to emerge with the intention to build a strategic future, that is based on these realities but not any abstraction of the future.

"Grounding the strategic future in the context of the issues facing managers not only will ensure that organizational members are able to determine how the strategic intent supports the concerns they are currently wrestling with, but will also ensure a more robust strategic future" (Ackermann, Eden & Brown, 2004).

Applications for cognitive maps Cognitive Mapping techniques achieve eliciting from an individual's main concepts and the relationships among them by different ways, constructing a map for that individual. By these means, diversities among person to person can be revealed and, hopefully and more importantly, understood. There are other techniques that go further than this, combining maps from other single individuals into a more wide map that reflects the core of a group (e.g. Bougon, Weick & Binkhorst, 1977; Eden, 1992). As a decision-making group have more potential abilities to influence the strategic

plan and process of one company (Schwenk, 1988).

In their paper, Fleck, Scarbrough and Swan (2000) concluded, " Cognitive mapping techniques for organizational analysis include: simple content analysis of text (Birnhaum-More and Weiss, 1990); the use of repertory grid techniques (Reger, 1990); the systematic coding of cause and effect relationships (Bougon, Weick 7 Binkhorst, 1977; Axelrod, 1976); special interviewing techniques (Bougon, 1983); computer software analyses of interview data (Eden, 1989); and argument mapping (Fletcher and Huff, 1990). many of these techniques and their applications are reviewed in an edited book by Huff (1990) and in journal articles (see (e.g. Eden, 1992; Swan & Newell, 1994; Swan, 1995). "

In different complexity and depth of information we are trying to elicit, these mapping techniques vary significantly. Some are quite complicated and time-consuming, however reveal a big amount of specific information while others (e.g. content analysis) can be done fairly faster but provide much less detailed statistics. As we are, a multinational company, decisions on what methods we are focusing on, apparently lies on what scenarios we are facing.

Reference list Ackermann, F., Eden, C., and with Brown, I. (2004) The Practice of Making Strategy , London: Sage.

Axelrod, R. (1976). Structure of Decision: the Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press

Bougon, M., Weick, K. & Binkhorst, D. (1977). Cognition in organizations: an analysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 606639.

Bouzdine-Chameeva, T,. Durrieu F, & Mandjk,T., 2000, Cognitive Mapping Methodology for Understanding of Business Relationship Value, Bordeaux Business School and Budapest University of Economic Sciences and Public Administration, France.

Downs, RM & Stea, D 1973, Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behaviour, Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

Eden C and Ackermann F (2001). SODA The Principles. In: Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited 2001. Wiley: Chichester

Eden, C 1988, Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development and Analysis, in J.Rosenhead, Participatpry Methods for handling complexity, Wiley, London.

Eden, C 1990, Using Cognitive Mapping for Strategic Options Development and

Analysis, in J.Rosenhead Eden, C. & Ackermann, F. (1998) Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic.

Eden, C. (1989). Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA). In J. Rosenhead (Ed.), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World. Chichester: Wiley.

Eden, C. (1992). On the Nature of Cognitive Maps. Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 261-265.

Fiol, C. M., & Huff, A. S. (1992). Maps for managers: where are we? where do we go from here? Journal of Management Studies, 29(3), 267-285. Fleck. J, Scarbrough, H. & Swan,J.2000. Instructor's Guide, Innovation Training Materials Initiative. Fletcher, K.E. & Huff, A. (1990). Argument mapping. In A.Huff (Ed.), Mapping Strategic Thought. Chichester: Wiley. John M. Bryson, Fran Ackermann, Colin Eden, and Charles B. Finn, Visible Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results. Chichester, England: John Wiley, 2004.

M. Gibbons, C. Limoges, H. Nowotny, S. Schwartzman, P.Scott and M. Trow (1994) The new production of knowledge: the dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London.

McKay, J, & Marshall, P, 2005, A Review of Design Science in Information Systems. Proceedings of the 16th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, Sydney, 29th November . 2nd December.

Reger, R.K. (1990). Managerial thought, structures and competitive positioning. In A. Huff (Ed.), Mapping Strategic Thought. Chichester, Wiley

Siau, Keng, Tan & Xin, 2008, The Journal of Computer Information Systems.

Bougon, M., Weick, K. & Binkhorst, D. (1977). Cognition in organizations: an analysis of the Utrecht Jazz Orchestra. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22, 606639.

Westcombe, M 2002, Problem Structuring: The Process of SODA Modeling, ACM Hypertext 2002.