ISM interprets only the nodes, whereas TISM interprets both nodes and links in the diagraph. Moreover, in ISM all transitive links are eliminated, whereas TISM can have sme important transitive links giving better explanatory framework. It answers all the three key questions of theory building, i.e. what, how, and why.
The interpretation of the interactive relationships represented by directed links for the identified factors/variables relatively lacks in the ISM approach, and thus may distort the process of decision making. In that case, Total Interpretive Structural Modeling (TISM) may be a very useful approach to overcome these issues in interpreting the directed links in the structural model for considered factors/variables.
ISM interprets only the nodes, whereas TISM interprets both nodes and links in the diagraph. Moreover, in ISM all transitive links are eliminated, whereas TISM can have sme important transitive links giving better explanatory framework. It answers all the three key questions of theory building, i.e. what, how, and why.
An interesting question and a very interesting set of answers.
Interpretive Structural Modeling as presented by John N. Warfield was developed over a period of many years.
Some of Warfield's work from the late 1980's is directly focused on the area of dependent, changing relationships. This work is addressed in a number of Warfield's papers. Some of this work is summarized in the technical report located at:
The quad inclusion hierarchies can be 'knitted together" to form tapestries of system analytical systems. This approach is well documented in "A Science of Generic Design," by John N. Warfield.
I would suggest that ISM has a much larger set of methods and application techniques than suggested by the view presented here.
ISM techniques were developed by a number of researchers over a period of time.