Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 505–526 | Cite as

A Cognitive Mapping Approach to Organizing the Participation of Multiple Actors in a Problem Structuring Process

Article

Abstract

Problem structuring methods lead to a better understanding of problems by proposing that individuals engage in a structured process of investigation of such elements as causal relationships, connected problems, and possible solutions. This paper first examines possible ways of organizing the participation of multiple decision-makers in the varying contexts of the problem structuring process. The paper presents an original methodology based on investigating the participants’ contributions with respect to the problem explored. This methodology uses cognitive mapping techniques and offers two kinds of support, the first justifying a specific division of the participant set into thematic subgroups and the second providing a basis for further exploration using different problem structuring methods.

Keywords

Problem structuring methods Participation Cognitive mapping Facilitation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackoff RL (1962). Scientific method. Wiley, New York Google Scholar
  2. Antunes P, Ho T, Carriqo L (1999) A GDSS agenda builder for inexperienced facilitators. In: Proceedings of the 10th EuroGDSS workshop, pp 1–15Google Scholar
  3. Belton V and Pictet J (1997). A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information. Rev Systemes Decis 6(3): 283–303 Google Scholar
  4. Bennett P (1990). Mixing methods: combining conflict analysis, SODA and strategic approach. In: Eden, C and Radford, J (eds) Tackling strategic problems, The role of Group Decision Support, Sage Google Scholar
  5. Borroi M, Minoja M, Sinatra A (1998) The relationship between cognitive maps, industry complexity and strategies implemented: the case of the carpi textile-clothing industrial system. J Manage Gov 2(3):233–266. doi:10.1023/A:1009981205229 Google Scholar
  6. Bostrom RP, Anson R, Clawson VK (1993) Group facilitation and Group Support Systems. In: Group Support Systems: new perspectives. Macmillan (ed), New York, pp 146–148Google Scholar
  7. Bougon MG (1983). Uncovering cognitive maps: the Self-Q technique. In: Morgan, G (eds) Beyond method: strategies for social research, Sage, Beverly Hills, CA Google Scholar
  8. Bougon MG, Komocar JM (1990) Directing strategic change: a dynamic wholistic approach. In: Huff AS (ed) Mapping strategic thought. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Briggs RO, de Vreede GJ and Nunamaker JF Jr (2003). Collaboration engineering with ThinkLets to pursue sustained success with Group Support Systems. J Manage Inf Syst 19(4): 31–63 Google Scholar
  10. Carley K (1986). An approach for relating social structure to cognitive structure. J Math Sociol 12(2): 137–189 Google Scholar
  11. Carlsson C, Walden P (1997) Cognitive maps and a hyperknowledge support system in strategic management. Group Decis Negot 6(1):23–44. doi:10.1023/A:1008631007927
  12. Cecil EA, Cummings LL and Chertkoff JM (1973). Group composition and choice shift: implications for administration. Acad Manage J 16(3): 412–422 doi:10.2307/255002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chidambaram L, Jones B (1993) Impact of communication medium and computer support on group perceptions and performance: a comparison of face-to-face and dispersed meetings. MIS Q 17(4):465–491. doi:10.2307/249588 Google Scholar
  14. Coban O, Secme G (2005) Prediction of socio-economical consequences of privatization at the firm level with fuzzy cognitive mapping. Inf Sci 169:131–154. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2004.02.009 Google Scholar
  15. Cropper S (1990). Variety, formality and style: choosing amongst decision-support methods. In: Eden, C and Radford, J (eds) Tackling strategic problems, The role of Group Decision Support, Sage Google Scholar
  16. Dickson GW, Partridge J-EL, Robinson LH (1993) Exploring modes of facilitative support for GDSS technology. MIS Q 17(2):173–194. doi:10.2307/249800 Google Scholar
  17. Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping: a review. Eur J Oper Res 36:1–13. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(88)90002-1 Google Scholar
  18. Eden C (1989) Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA). In: Rosenhead J (ed) Rational analysis for a problematic world. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Eden C (2004). Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159: 673–686 doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00431-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eden C, Ackermann F (2004) Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res 152:615–630. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00061-4 Google Scholar
  21. Eden C, Simpson P (1989) SODA and cognitive mapping in practice. In: Rosenhead J (ed) Rational analysis for a problematic world. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Eden C, Jones S, Sims D, Smithin T (1981) The intersubjectivity of issues and issues of intersubjectivity. J Manage Stud 18:37–47. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6486.1981.tb00090.x Google Scholar
  23. Fiol CM and Huff AS (1992). Maps for managers: Where are we? Where do we go from here?. J Manage Stud 29(3): 267–285 Google Scholar
  24. Fjermestad J (2004). An analysis of communication mode in group support systems research. Decis Support Syst 37(2): 239–263 Google Scholar
  25. Franco LA (2009) Problem structuring methods as intervention tools: reflections from their use with multi-organisational teams. Omega 37(1):193–203. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2006.08.001 Google Scholar
  26. Friend J (1989) The strategic choice approach. In: Rosenhead J (ed) Rational analysis for a problematic world. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Griffith TL, Fuller MA and Northcraft GB (1998). Facilitator influence in group support systems: intended and unintended effects. Inf Syst Res 9(1): 20–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grinyer PH (2000). A cognitive approach to group strategic decision taking: a discussion of evolved practice in the light of received research results. J Oper Res Soc 51(1): 21–35 Google Scholar
  29. Hart S, Boroush M, Hornick W (1985) Managing complexity through consensus mapping technology for the structuring of group decisions. Acad Manage Rev 10(3):587–600. doi:10.2307/258139 Google Scholar
  30. Hinds PJ, Carley K, Krackhardt D, Wholey D (2000) Choosing work group members: balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 81(2):226–251. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2875 Google Scholar
  31. Huxham C and Cropper S (1994). From many to one- and back: an exploration of some components of facilitation Omega. Int J Manage Sci 22(1): 1–11 Google Scholar
  32. Jackson MC, Keys P (1984) Toward a system of systems methodologies. J Oper Res Soc 35(6):473–486. doi:10.2307/2581795 Google Scholar
  33. Kelly GA (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. Norton, New York Google Scholar
  34. Kolfschoten GL, Briggs RO, de Vreede G-J, Jacobs PHM, Appelman JH (2006) A conceptual foundation of the ThinkLet concept for collaboration engineering. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(7):611–621. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.02.002 Google Scholar
  35. Kwahk K-Y, Kim Y-G (1999) Supporting business process redesign using cognitive maps. Decis Support Syst 25:155–178 doi:10.1016/S0167-9236(99)00003-2
  36. Langfield-Smith K (1992). Exploring the need for a shared cognitive map. J Manage Stud 29(3): 349–368 Google Scholar
  37. Lee S, Courtney JF, O’Keefe RM (1992) A system for organizational learning using cognitive maps. Omega 20(1):23–36. doi:10.1016/0305-0483(92)90053-A Google Scholar
  38. Markoczy L, Goldberg J (1995) A method for eliciting and comparing causal maps. J Manage 21(2): 305–333. doi:10.1016/0149-2063(95)90060-8 Google Scholar
  39. Massey AP, Wallace WA (1996) Understanding and facilitating group problem structuring and formulation: mental representations, interaction and representation aids. Decis Support Syst 17:253–274. doi:10.1016/0167-9236(96)00004-8
  40. Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152:530–554. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00056-0 Google Scholar
  41. Nunamaker JF, Applegate LM and Konsynski BR (1988). Computer-aided deliberation: model management and Group Decision Support. Oper Res 36(6): 826–848 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nutt PC (2002). Why decisions fail: avoiding the blunders and traps that lead to debacles. Berrett-Koehler Inc., San Francisco Google Scholar
  43. Ozesmi U, Ozesmi SL (2004) Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive approach. Ecol Model 176:43–64. doi:10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.027 Google Scholar
  44. Phillips L D, Phillips MC (1993) Facilitated work groups: theory and practice. J Oper Res Soc 44(6): 533–549 (Interface between OR and the Social Sciences)Google Scholar
  45. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169Google Scholar
  46. Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Roy B (1993). Decision science or decision-aid science. Eur J Oper Res 66(2): 184–203 doi:10.1016/0377-2217(93)90312-B CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sahin SO, Ulengin F, Ulengin B (2004) Using neural networks and cognitive mapping in scenarios analysis: the case of turkey’s inflation dynamics. Eur J Oper Res 158:124–145. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00275-3 Google Scholar
  49. Shaw ME (1981) Group dynamics: the psychology of small group behavior. MacGraw Hill (ed), NYGoogle Scholar
  50. Shaw D, Westcombe M, Hodgkin J, Montibeller G (2004) Problem structuring methods for large group interventions. J Oper Res Soc 55(5):453–463. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601712 Google Scholar
  51. Stumpf S, Zand DE, Freedman RD (1979) Designing groups for judgmental decisions. Acad Manage Rev 4(4):589–600. doi:10.2307/257858 Google Scholar
  52. Swan J (1997). Using cognitive mapping in management research. Br J Manage 8(2): 183–198 doi:10.1111/1467-8551.0050 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taket A (2002) Facilitation: some contributions to theorising the practice of operational research. J Oper Res Soc 53(2):126–136 (Part Special Issue: The Process of OR)Google Scholar
  54. Tegarden DP, Sheetz SD (2003) Group cognitive mapping: a methodology and system for capturing and evaluating managerial and organizational cognition. Omega 31:113–125. doi:10.1016/S0305-0483(03)00018-5 Google Scholar
  55. Verstraete T (1996) La cartographie cognitive : outil pour une demarche d’essence heuristique d’identification des Facteurs Clés de Succès. Vème Conférence de l’Association Internationale de Management Stratégique, 13–15 mai 1996, LilleGoogle Scholar
  56. Wanous JP and Youtz MA (1986). Solution diversity and the quality of group decisions. Acad Manage J 29(1): 149–159 doi:10.2307/255866 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weick KE, Bougon MG (1986) Organizations as cognitive maps: charting ways to success and failure. In: Sims HP, Gioia DA (ed) The Thinking Organization: dynamics of organizational social cognition. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  58. White L (2002). Size matters: large group methods and the process of operational research. J Oper Res Soc 53(2): 149–160 Part Special Issue: The Process of ORCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Whyte W (1956). The organization man. Doubleday, Anchor Book, New York Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.M-Lab, DRM (UMR CNRS 7088), ENS de CachanCachanFrance

Personalised recommendations