Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaborative problem structuring using MARVEL

  • Original Article
  • Published:
EURO Journal on Decision Processes

Abstract

When faced with wicked and messy problems, practitioners can rely on a variety of problem structuring methods (PSMs). Although previous efforts have been made to combine such methods with simulation, currently, few exist that integrate a simulation capability within problem structuring. Our integrated approach named MARVEL (method to analyse relations between variables using enriched loops) shares some techniques with established methods such as the PSM SODA (strategic options development and analysis), system dynamics, and fuzzy cognitive maps. In addition, MARVEL uses causal loop diagrams that are enriched with qualitatively labelled values and standardized equations. This makes analyses of both model structure and behaviour possible. MARVEL also maintains the benefits of a PSM, such as being cognitively accessible for a wide variety of actors. The current paper presents MARVEL in technical terms, and discusses the similarities and differences it has with the aforementioned methods. We then present a case study that discusses how MARVEL was used in a collaborative setting to facilitate stakeholders’ assessment of tactical military actions during stabilization operations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The arithmetic function was added for use in some special cases in which the negative exponential function (‘the influence relation’) would not be able to correctly express a relation. It uses the value of the cause variables at t − 1 to calculate the value of the affected variable at t by addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. For instance, multiplication can be used to build a model that includes cars, emission per car, and total emissions from cars (cars multiplied by emission per car). The conditional functionality is occasionally used to model certain effects that only occur after a threshold of the system is reached.

  2. Change can also be initialized at t = 0 by a disequilibrium occurring in a variable that uses an arithmetic function, this is, however, not the normal mode of operation.

  3. Being undertaken for Dstl’s Land Environment Decision Support Program.

References

  • Ackoff RL (1979) Resurrecting the future of operational research. J Oper Res Soc 30:189–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar J (2005) A survey about fuzzy cognitive maps papers. J Comput Cogn 3:27–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlas Y (1996) Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 12(3):183–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho JP, Tomè JA (2001) Rule based fuzzy cognitive maps—expressing time in qualitative system dynamics. Paper presented at the 10th IEEE Conference on Fuzzy Systems, Melbourne

  • Checkland PB (1978) The origins and nature of “hard” systems thinking. J Appl Syst Anal 5(2):99–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle G (2000) Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: some research questions. Syst Dyn Rev 16(3):225–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle G (2001) Rejoinder to Homer and Oliva. Syst Dyn Rev 17(4):357–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronin K, Midgley G, Jackson LS (2014) Issues mapping: a problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts. Eur J Oper Res 233(1):145–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delp P, Thesen A, Motiwalla J, Seshadri N (1977) System tools for project planning. PASITAM, Bloomington

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping. Eur J Oper Res 36(1):1–13

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (2004) Analysing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159(3):673–686

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Jones S, Sims D (1983) Messing about in problems: an informal structured approach to their identification and management. Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory A, Atkins J, Burdon D, Elliott M (2012) A problem structuring method for ecosystem-based management: the DPSIR modelling process. Eur J Oper Res 227(3):558–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heesmans S (2008) Operationeel analisten combineren wetenschap en praktijk [operational analysts combine science and practise]. Carré 7/8:28–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Hengst den M, de Graaf B, van Scheepstal P (2014) Modelling intelligence-led policing to identify its potential. Eur J Polic Stud 1:171–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer J, Oliva R (2001) Maps and models in system dynamics: a response to Coyle. Syst Dyn Rev 17(4):347–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hovmand PS, Rouwette EAJA, Andersen DF, Richardson GP, Kraus A (2013) Scriptapedia 4.0.6. Retrieved from: http://www.systemdynamics.org/web.portal?P1405+0 on 22 Oct 2013

  • Kelly GA (1955) The psychology of personal constructs: a theory of personality. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan MS, Quaddus M (2004) Group decision support using fuzzy cognitive maps for causal reasoning. Group Decis Negot 13(5):463–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kok K (2009) The potential of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for semi-quantitative scenario development, with an example from Brazil. Glob Environ Change 19(1):122–133

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Kosko B (1986) Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man Mach Stud 24(1):65–75

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kosko B (1988) Hidden patterns in combined and adaptive knowledge networks. Int J Approx Reason 2(4):377–393

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Lane DC (2008) The emergence and use of diagramming in system dynamics: a critical account. Syst Res Behav Sci 25(1):3–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liddell WG, Powell JH (2004) Agreeing access policy in a general medical practice: a case study using QPID. Syst Dyn Rev 20(1):49–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLucas AC (2002) Improving causal mapping practice using the system dynamics ‘front-end’ tool. Paper presented at the 20th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Palermo

  • Mingers J (2000) Variety is the spice of life: combining soft and hard OR/MS methods. Int Trans Oper Res 7:673–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2003) A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods. J Oper Res Soc 54(6):559–570

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):530–554

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Morecroft JDW (1982) A critical review of diagramming tools for conceptualizing feedback system models. Dynamica 8(1):20–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Oral M, Kettani O (1993) The facets of the modeling and validation process in operations research. Eur J Oper Res 66(2):216–234

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Özesmi U, Özesmi S (2003) A participatory approach to ecosystem conservation: fuzzy cognitive maps and stakeholder group analysis in Uluabat Lake, Turkey. Environ Manag 31(4):518–531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaprasad A, Poon E (1985) A computerized interactive technique for mapping influence diagrams (MIND). Strateg Manag J 6(4):377–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson GP (1999) Reflections for the future of system dynamics. J Oper Res Soc 50(4):440–449

    Article  MATH  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson GP, Andersen DF (1997) Scripts for group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 13(2):107–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J (1996) What’s the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces 26(6):117–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, Mullekom TV (2002) Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. Syst Dyn Rev 18(1):5–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Bastings I, Blokker H (2011) A comparison of group model building and strategic options development and analysis. Group Decis Negot 20(6):781–803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffernicht M (2010) Causal loop diagrams between structure and behaviour: a critical analysis of the relationship between polarity, behaviour and events. Syst Res Behav Sci 27(6):653–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline. Currency Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D (2006) Journey making group workshops as a research tool. J Oper Res Soc 57(7):830–841

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsadiras AK (2008) Comparing the inference capabilities of binary, trivalent and sigmoid fuzzy cognitive maps. Inf Sci 178(20):3880–3894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Zijderveld EJA (2007) MARVEL—principles of a method for semi-qualitative system behaviour and policy analysis. Paper presented at the 23th International conference of the system dynamics society, Boston

  • Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building—facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Vester F (1988) The biocybernetic approach as a basis for planning our environment. Syst Pract 1(4):399–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vester F (2007) The art of interconnected thinking: tools and concepts for a new approach to tackling complexity. MCB, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Westcombe M, Franco LA, Shaw D (2006) Where next for PSMs: a grassroots revolution? J Oper Res Soc 57:776–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolstenholme EF (1982) System dynamics in perspective. J Oper Res Soc 33:547–556

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the anonymous referees for their valuable comments that helped improving the exposition of this paper. Furthermore, we would like to thank the following individuals for their valuable contribution to the project discussed in this paper: Hannah Blackford (BAE Systems ATC), Dr Stephanie Blair (Opimian Ltd), Noel Corrigan (BAE Systems: CORDA), Lorraine Dodd (Cranfield University), Aletta Eikelboom (TNO), Jonathan P. Hinchliffe (UK MoD), Andrew Legatt (BAE Systems: ATC), Colin Mason (BAE Systems: CORDA), Rob Palfrey (Minerva SRM ltd), Andrew Rathmell (Aktis Strategy Ltd), Amanda Sibanda (BAE Systems: CORDA), and four participants from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (DSTL).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. TNO, P.O. Box 96864, 2509 JG, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Guido Arjan Veldhuis, Peter van Scheepstal & Tom Logtens

  2. Institute for Management Research, Radboud University, P.O. Box 9108, 6500 HK, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Etiënne Rouwette

Authors
  1. Guido Arjan Veldhuis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter van Scheepstal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Etiënne Rouwette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tom Logtens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Guido Arjan Veldhuis.

Additional information

This paper is dedicated to the memory of Erik van Zijderveld.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Veldhuis, G.A., van Scheepstal, P., Rouwette, E. et al. Collaborative problem structuring using MARVEL. EURO J Decis Process 3, 249–273 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-015-0045-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-015-0045-1

Keywords

Mathematics subject classification

Search

Navigation