Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 355–376 | Cite as

Using Causal Mapping with Group Support Systems to Elicit an Understanding of Failure in Complex Projects: Some Implications for Organizational Research



This paper reflects upon the use of causal mapping supported by a Group Support System (GSS) in a particular legal setting. The mapping method and GSS tool was used for the forensic analysis of eight major engineering and construction projects where the contractor intended to claim significant compensation (typically in excess of $20m). Necessarily detailed records were kept of every aspect of the analyses and processes adopted. This paper is an examination and reflection upon analysis of these records, with particular attention to the process. The task of capturing the way in which participants (witnesses) in a project ‘make sense’ of a cost and time overrun is an important aspect of forensic analysis as they have an experience based perspective, that has often involved dealing with high levels of complexity as projects move from planned order through to what they describe as “absolute chaos”. In addition the requirement to account for, and be held responsible for, behaviors that that may in retrospect be seen as incompetent raises interesting issues in determining the validity of the data capture and analyses. Moreover, participants’ views regarding the complex causality of outcomes, reflected in the causal map, are tested through the use of a simulation model replicating the causal map. The implications of this approach as a research method for undertaking organizational research are thus considered by drawing upon experiences of using the approach to develop the case for litigation in several disruption and delay claims. In particular the paper addresses the issues related to defensiveness of participants, anonymity, accessing multiple perspectives in a group setting, organizational learning and the ‘changing of mind’ of participants, and developing an organizational memory.


causal mapping GSS research methods 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abdel-Hamid, T. K. and S. E. Madnick. (1983). “The Dynamics of Software Project Scheduling,” Communications of the ACM 26, 340–346.Google Scholar
  2. Ackermann, F. and C. Eden. (2001). “Contrasting Single User and Networked Group Decision Support Systems for Strategy Making,” Group Decision and Negotiation 10, 47–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackermann, F., C. Eden, and T. Williams. (1997). “Modeling for Litigation: Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches,” Interfaces 27, 48–65.Google Scholar
  4. Ackermann, F., C. Eden and I. with Brown. (2004). The Practice of Making Strategy, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  5. Ackermann, F. and C. Eden. (2004). “Using Causal mapping: individual and group; traditional and new,” in M. Pidd (ed.), Systems Modelling: Theory and Practice. Chichester: Wiley; pp. 127–145.Google Scholar
  6. Argyris, C. (1982). Reasoning, Learning, and Action, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Argyris, C. and D. Schon. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  8. Axelrod, R. (1976). Structure of Decision, Princeton: University of Princeton Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bougon, M. G. (1983). “Uncovering Cognitive Maps: The Self Q Technique,” in G. Morgan (ed.), Beyond Method. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Bougon, M. G. (1992). “Congregate cognitive maps: A Unified Dynamic Theory of Organization and Strategy,” Journal of Management Studies 29, 369–389.Google Scholar
  11. Bryson, J., F. Ackermann, C. Eden, and C. Finn. (2004). Visible Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results, Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Chan, D. W. M. and M. M. Kumaraswamy. (1997). “A comparative study of causes of time overruns in Hong Kong construction projects,” International Journal of Project Management 15, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connolly, T., L. M. Jessup and J. S. Valacich. (1990). “Effects of Anonymity and Evaluative Tone on Idea Generation in Computer-Mediated Groups,” Management Science 36, 689–703.Google Scholar
  14. Cooper, K. G. (March 1994). “The $2,000 Hour: How Managers Influence Project Performance Through the Rework Cycle,” Project Management Journal 25, 11–24.Google Scholar
  15. Cooper, K. G. (1998). “System Dynamics Methods in Complex Project Management,” in T. W. Williams (ed.), Managing and Modelling Complex projects, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced research Workshop, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. Dalkey, N. and O. Helmer. (1963). “An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts,” Management Science 9, 458–467.Google Scholar
  17. Delbecq, A. L., A. H. van de Ven, and D. H. Gustafson. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning, Glenview, Illinois: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
  18. Dennis, A. R. (1996). “Information Exchange and Use in Group Decision Making: You can Lead a Group to Information but you can’t Make it Think,” MIS Quarterly 20, 433–467.Google Scholar
  19. DeSanctis, G. and B. Gallupe. (1985). “Group Decision Support Systems: A New Frontier,” Database Winter, 3–9.Google Scholar
  20. DeVreede, G. J. (1998). “Group Modelling for Understanding,” Journal of Decision Systems 6, 197–220.Google Scholar
  21. Eden, C. (1988). “Cognitive Mapping: A Review,” European Journal of Operational Research 36, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eden, C. and F. Ackermann. (2001). “Strategic Options Development and Analysis – SODA,” in J. Rosenhead and J. Mingers (eds.), Rational Analysis in a Problematic World Revisited. London: Wiley. pp. 21–42.Google Scholar
  23. Eden, C. (1992). “On the Nature of Cognitive Maps,” Journal of Management Studies 29, 261–265.Google Scholar
  24. Eden, C. (1994). “Cognitive Mapping and Problem Structuring for System Dynamics Model Building,” System Dynamics Review 10, 257–276.Google Scholar
  25. Eden, C. (2004). “Analyzing Cognitive Maps to Help Structure Issues or Problems,” European Journal of Operational Research 159, 673–686.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Eden, C. and F. Ackermann. (1992). “Strategy Development and Implementation – the role of a Group Decision Support System,” in S. Kinney, R. P. Bostrom, and R. Watson (eds.), Computer Augmented Teamwork: A Guided Tour. New York: Van Nostrand and Reinhold.Google Scholar
  27. Eden, C. and F. Ackermann. (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management, London: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Eden, C. and F. Ackermann. (2001). “Group Decision and Negotiation in Strategy Making,” Group Decision and Negotiation 10, 119–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Eden, C., F. Ackermann and S. Cropper. (1992). “The Analysis of Cause Maps,” Journal of Management Studies 29, 309–324.Google Scholar
  30. Eden, C. and C. Huxham. (1996). “Action Research for the Study of Organizations,” in S. Clegg, C. Hardy, and W. Nord (eds.), Handbook of Organization Studies. Beverly Hills: Sage. pp. 526–542.Google Scholar
  31. Eden, C., S. Jones, and D. Sims. (1979). Thinking in Organisations, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  32. Eden, C., S. Jones, and D. Sims. (1983). Messing About in Problems, Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  33. Eden, C., T. M. Williams, F. Ackermann, and S. Howick. (2000). “On the Nature of Disruption and Delay,” Journal of the Operational Research Society 51, 291–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Flyvberg, B., N. Bruzelius, and W. Rothengatter. (2003). Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Flyvberg, B., M. K. Holm, and S. L. Buhl. (2002). “Understanding Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?,” Journal of the American Planning Association 68, 279–295 .Google Scholar
  36. Ford, D. N. (1995). The Dynamics of Project Management: An Investigation of the Impacts of Project Process and Coordination on Performance, Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  37. Forrester, J. (1961). Industrial Dynamics, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  38. Fraser, D. C. (1984). An Approach to Major Projects. Templeton College, Oxford: Major Projects Association.Google Scholar
  39. Harvey, N. and C. Harries. (1998). “Using Advice and Assessing its Usefulness,” in Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  40. Hodgson, A. M. (1994). “Hexagons for Systems Thinking,” in J. D. W. Morecroft and J. Sterman (eds.), Modeling for Learning Organizations. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  41. Howick, S. (2003). “Using System Dynamics to Analyse Disruption and Delay in Complex Projects for Litigation: Can the Modelling Purposes be Met?,” Journal of the Operational Research Society 54, 222–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Howick, S. and C. Eden. (2001). “The Impact of Disruption and Delay when Compressing Large Projects: Going for Incentives?,” Journal of the Operational Research Society 52, 26–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Howick, S., F. Ackermann, and D. F. Andersen. (2004). “Stirling Revisited: Practical Approaches to Merging Two Systems Thinking Streams,” Proceedings of the System Dynamics Conference, Oxford.Google Scholar
  44. Huff, A. and M. Jenkins (eds.) (2001). Mapping Strategy. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  45. Huff, A. S. (ed.) (1990). Mapping Strategic Thought. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Group Think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  47. Janis, I. L. (1989). Crucial Decisions. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  48. Jessup, L. M. and D. A. Tansik. (1991). “Decision Making in an Automated Environment: The Effects of Anonymity and Proximity with a Group Decision Support System,” Decision Sciences 22, 266–279.Google Scholar
  49. Johnson, P. and J. Johnson. (2002). “Facilitating Group Cognitive Mapping of Core Competences,” in A. S. Huff and M. Jenkins (eds.), Mapping Strategic Knowledge. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  50. Kwak, K.-Y. and Y.-G. Kim. (1999). “Supporting Business Process Redesign Using Cognitive Maps,” Decision Support Systems 25, 155–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lane, D. (1992). “Modelling as Learning,” European Journal of Operational Research 59, 64–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Laukkanen, M. (1996). “Comparative Cause Mapping of Organizational Cognitions,” in J. R. Meindl, C. Subbart, and J. F. Porac (eds.), Cognition Within and Between Organizations, Sage, CA pp. 3–44.Google Scholar
  53. Lee, S., J. F. Courtney, and R. M. O’Keefe. (1992). “A System for Organizational Learning Using Cognitive Maps,” Omega 20, 22–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lyneis, J. M., K. G. Cooper, and S. A. Els. (2001). “Strategic Management of Complex Projects: A Case Study Using System Dynamics,” System Dynamics Review 17, 237–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Mittleman, D. D., R. O. Briggs, J. Nunamaker, and N. C. Romano. (1998). “Lessons Learned from Synchronous Distributed GSS Sessions: Action Research at the US Navy Third Fleet,” Proceedings of the 10th EuroGDSS Workshop.Google Scholar
  56. Morris, P. W. G. and G. H. Hough. (1987). The Anatomy of Major Projects. A study of the Reality of Project Management. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  57. Nahmias, S. (1980). “The Use of Management Science to Support a Multimillion Dollar Precedent-Setting Government Contact Litigation,” Interfaces 10, 1–11.Google Scholar
  58. Nunamaker, J. F., A. R. Dennis, J. S. Valacich, and D.R. Vogel. (1991). “Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work,” Communications of the ACM 34, 40–61.Google Scholar
  59. Pettigrew, A. (1987). “Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm,” Journal of Management Studies 24, 649–670.Google Scholar
  60. Rantilla, A. K. and D. V. Budescu. (1998). “Aggregation of Expert Opinions,” Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii Conference on System Sciences, Institute of Electrical and Electronic EngineersGoogle Scholar
  61. Reason, P. and J. Rowan. (1981). “Issues of Validity in New Paradigm Research,” in Reason, P. and Rowan, J., (eds,), Human Inquiry. London: Wiley, pp. 239–250.Google Scholar
  62. Richardson, G. and D. F. Andersen. (1995). “Teamwork in Group Model Building,” System Dynamics Review 11, 113–137.Google Scholar
  63. Sheetz, S. D., D. P. Tegarden, I. Zigurs and K. A. Kozar. (1994). “A Group Support Systems Approach to Cognitive Mapping,” Journal of Management Information Systems 11, 31–57.Google Scholar
  64. Sniezek, J. A. (1998). “Judge Advisory Systems Theory and Research and Applications to Collaborative Systems and Technology,” Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Hawaii Conference on System Sciences.Google Scholar
  65. Szyliowicz, J. S. and A. R. Goetz. (1995). “Getting Realistic About Megaproject Planning: The Case of the New Denver International Airport,” Policy Sciences 28, 347–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tegarden, D. P. and S. D. Sheetz. (2003). “Group Cognitive Mapping: A Methodology and System for Capturing and Evaluating Managerial and Organizational Cognition,” Omega 31, 113–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Vennix, J. (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  68. Walsh, J. P. (1995). “Managerial and Organizational Cognition: Notes from a Trip Down Memory Lane,” Organization Science 6, 280–321.Google Scholar
  69. Weick, K. E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  70. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  71. Williams, T. M., F. Ackermann, and C. Eden. (1997). “Project Risk: Systemicity, Cause Mapping and a Scenario Approach,” in K. Kahkonen and K. A. Artto (eds.), Managing Risks in Projects. London: E&FN Spon.Google Scholar
  72. Williams, T., F. Ackermann, and C. Eden. (2003). “Structuring a Delay and Disruption Claim: An Application of Cause-Mapping and System Dynamics,” European Journal of Operational Research 148(1), 192–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Williams, T. M., F. Ackermann, C. Eden, and S. Howick. (2004). “Learning from Project Failure,” in P. Love, Z. Irani, and P. Fong (eds.), Knowledge Management in Project Environments. Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  74. Williams, T. M., C. Eden, F. Ackermann, and A. Tait. (1995). “The Effects of Design Changes and Delays on Project Costs,” Journal of the Operational Research Society 46, 809–818.Google Scholar
  75. Wolstenholme, E. (1993). “A Case Study in Community Care using Systems Thinking,” Journal of the Operational Research Society 44, 925–934.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of management Science, Strathclyde Business SchoolUniversity of StrathclydeGlasgow

Personalised recommendations