Document Type : Original Article


1 Associate Professor, University of Tehran.

2 Associate Professor, Tehran University.

3 PhD Student, Tehran University.


Recently, the combinations of modeling methods to overcome the complexity of the socio-technical systems are prevalent. However, these combinations have done without considering the compatibility of them in theoretical and tool level. Therefore, the current study proposes a guide framework to synthesize the modeling methods of socio-technical systems. To achieve this aim, a critical interpretive meta-synthesis has been developed. As a result, 12 descriptive themes are identified and categorized in five synthetic constructs. Then, positions of the methods in these constructs are specified and five analytic constructs are determined. In addition, to show that how the framework works, the possibility of synthesis of strategic choice approach as a modeling method with other methods is investigated.


1. Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2010). Strategic options development and analysis. In Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide: 135-190. London. U.K.: Springer.
2. Ashby, W. R. (1957). An introduction to cybernetics. Chapman and Hall, London.
3. Baxter, G., & Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with computers, 23(1), 4-17.
4. Bench, S., & Day, T. (2010). The user experience of critical care discharge: a meta-synthesis of qualitative research. International journal of nursing studies, 47(4), 487-499.
5. Bennet, P., Bryant, J. & Howard, N. (2001). Drama theory and confrontation analysis. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. New York, John Wiley and Sons.
6. Bennett, P. (1985). On linking approaches to decision-aiding: issues and prospects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36(8), 659-669.
7. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., Pinch, T., & Douglas, D. G. (2012). The social construction of technological systems: New directions in the sociology and history of technology. London, U.K.: MIT press.
8. Boardman, J., & Sauser, B. (2006). System of Systems-the meaning of of. In System of Systems Engineering, 2006 IEEE/SMC International Conference on: 6, Los Angeles, USA.
9. Borshchev, A., & Filippov, A. (2004). From system dynamics and discrete event to practical agent based modeling: reasons, techniques, tools. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference of the system dynamics society. Oxford, U.K.
10. Bukowski, L. (2016). System of systems dependability–Theoretical models and applications examples. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 151, 76-92.
11. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: a short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use, for practitioners, teachers and students. New York, U.S.A.: John Wiley and Sons.
12. Creswell, J. (2002). Qualitative, Quantitative, and MixedMethods Approaches (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13. Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., & Riley, R. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC medical research methodology, 6(35), 1-13.
14. Edwards, J., & Kaimal, G. (2016). Using meta-synthesis to support application of qualitative methods findings in practice: A discussion of meta-ethnography, narrative synthesis, and critical interpretive synthesis. The Arts in Psychotherapy, 51, 30-35.
15. Epstein, J. M., & Axtell, R. (1996). Growing artificial societies: social science from the bottom up. , Washington D.C., U.S.A.: Brookings Institution Press.
16. Eusgeld, I., Nan, C., & Dietz, S. (2011). System-of-systems, approach for interdependent critical infrastructures. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 96(6), 679-686.
17. Flood, R. L., & Jackson, M. C. (1991). Total systems intervention: a practical face to critical systems thinking. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 4(3), 197-213.
18. Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. (1995). Enhancing the process of methodology choice in total systems intervention (TSI) and improving chances of tackling coercion. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 8(4), 377-408.
19. Friend, J. (2001). The Strategic Choice approach. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. New York, U.S.A: John Wiley and Sons.
20. Friend, J. K., & Hickling, A. (2005). Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach. Third edition. Oxford, U.K.: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
21. Gregoriades, A., & Sutcliffe, A. (2008). A socio-technical approach to business process simulation. Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 1017-1030.
22. Gu, J., & Tang, X. (2005). Meta-synthesis approach to complex system modeling. European Journal of Operational Research, 166(3), 597-614.
23. Hashem Zadeh, G. & Bahrami, M. R. (2016). Simulation near Field Communication technology adoption using system dynamics approach, Industrial Management Perspective, 24, 181-204 (In Persian).
24. Herrmann, T., & Loser, K. U. (1999). Vagueness in models of socio-technical systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(5), 313-323.
25. Herrmann, T., Hoffmann, M., Kunau, G., & Loser, K. U. (2004). A modelling method for the development of groupware applications as socio-technical systems. Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(2), 119-135.
26. Hickling, A. (2001). Gambling with frozen fire. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. New York, U.S.A: John Wiley and Sons.
27. HosseinZadeh, M. & Mehregan, M. R. & Amiri, M. (2013). Designing a Multi-Methodology Framework for Operations Research using General Morphological Analysis. Industrial Management Perspective, 11, 63-87 (In Persian).  
28. HosseinZadeh, M. & Mehregan, M. R. )2016). Designing a Multi-Methodology Framework for Operations Research using Social Network Analysis. Modern research in decision making, 1(1), 1-26 (In Persian).
29. Howick, S., & Ackermann, F. (2011). Mixing OR methods in practice: Past, present and future directions. European Journal of Operational Research, 215(3): 503-511.
30. Jackson, M. C. (1999). Towards coherent pluralism in management science. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(1), 12-22.
31. Jackson, M. C. (2003). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers: 378. Chichester, U.K: Wiley.
32. Keating, C. B. (2005). Research foundations for system of systems engineering. In Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 2005 IEEE International Conference on, 3, 2720-2725). IEEE. Waikoloa, USA.
33. Keating, C. B., Padilla, J. J., & Adams, K. (2008). System of systems engineering requirements: challenges and guidelines. Engineering Management Journal, 20(4), 24-31.
34. Keating, C. B. (2014). Governance implications for meeting challenges in the system of systems engineering field. In 2014 9th International Conference on System of Systems Engineering (SOSE), 154-159. Adelaide, Australia.
35. Kotiadis, K., & Mingers, J. (2006). Combining PSMs with hard OR methods: the philosophical and practical challenges. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7), 856-867
36. Kowalczyk, R. (2004). The effectiveness of high-dependency care. In Systems modelling: Theory and practice. New York, John Wiley and Sons.
37. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd enl. ed. Chicago, U.S.A.: University of Chicago Press.
38. Mayer, M. W. (1998). Architecting principles for system of systems. Syst. Eng, 1(4), 267-274.
39. Meyers, T. J., Hester, P. T., & Pyne, J. C. (2014). Toward a Watershed-and System of Systems–Oriented Perspective of Stormwater Management Enterprise Performance. Public Works Management & Policy, 19(3), 235-254.
40. Midgley, G. (1997). Developing the methodology of TSI: From the oblique use of methods to creative design. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 10(3), 305-319.
41. Mingers, J. (2001). Multimethodology-mixing and matching methods. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. New York, John Wiley and Sons.
42. Mohaghar, A. Hashemi Petrodi, S. H. & Talaei, H. R. (2016). Modeling the dynamics in supply chain of a new prodeuct based on system dynamics approach. Industrial Management Perspective, 24, 9-36 (In Persian).  
43. Mosleh Shirazi, A. N., Raenie, H., Iman, M. T. & Tajik, M. (2016). The Multi systemic methodology: new approach in management research. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities Journal, 22(87): 7-32 (In Persian).  
44. Mostafavi, A., Abraham, D. M., DeLaurentis, D., & Sinfield, J. (2011). Exploring the dimensions of systems of innovation analysis: A system of systems framework. IEEE Systems Journal, 5(2), 256-265.
45. Mumford, E. (2000). A socio-technical approach to systems design. Requirements Engineering, 5(2): 125-133.
46. Nikolic, I. & Kasmire, J. (2013). Agent-Based Social Systems. New York, U.S.A.: Springer.
47. Noblit, G.W., Hare, R.D. (1988). Meta-Ethnography: synthesizingqualitative studies. Los Angeles, U.S.A.: Sage Publications.
48. Paterson, B. L., & Canam, C. (2001). Meta-study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta-analysis and meta-synthesis. , Los Angeles, U.S.A: Sage Publications.
49. Pidd, M. (2004). Complementarity in systems modelling.  In Systems modelling: Theory and practice., New York, U.S.A.: John Wiley and Sons.
50. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., Britten, N., Roen, K., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews, a Report from the ESRC methods programme Version, 1. Retrieved from
51. Pound, P., Britten, N., Morgan, M., Yardley, L., Pope, C., Daker-White, G., & Campbell, R. (2005). Resisting medicines: a synthesis of qualitative studies of medicine taking. Social science & medicine, 61(1), 133-155.
52. Qian, X., Jingyuan, Y., & Ruwei, D. A. I. (1993). A new discipline of science—the study of open complex giant system and its methodology. Journal of Systems Engineering and Electronics, 4(2), 2-12.
53. Rosenhead, J. & Mingers, J. (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.
54. Rosenhead, J. (2001). Robustness Analysis: keeping your options open. In Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. New York, U.S.A.: John Wiley and Sons.
55. Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2006). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York, U.S.A.: Springer.
56. Saunders, M., Philip, L., & Adrian, T. (2009). Research methods for business students. Harlow: Prentice Hall.
57. Schultz, M., & Hatch, M. J. (1996). Living with multiple paradigms the case of paradigm interplay in organizational culture studies. Academy of management review, 21(2), 529-557.
58. Sørensen, L., Vidal, R. V. V., & Engström, E. (2004). Using soft OR in a small company––The case of Kirby. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 555-570.
59. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York, U.S.A.: McGraw-Hill.
60. Suchman, L. A. (1987). Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge university press.
61. Swinerd, C., & McNaught, K. R. (2012). Design classes for hybrid simulations involving agent-based and system dynamics models. Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 25, 118-133.
62. Taket, A., & White, L. (1998). Experience in the practice of one tradition of multimethodology. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 11(2), 153-168.
63. Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of Mixed Methods in Social and Behavioural Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
64. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8(1), 45.
65. Trist, E., & Emery, F. (1960). Socio-technical systems theory. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon.
66. Wu, P. P. Y., Fookes, C., Pitchforth, J., & Mengersen, K. (2015). A framework for model integration and holistic modelling of socio-technical systems. Decision Support Systems, 71, 14-27.