Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 781–803 | Cite as

A Comparison of Group Model Building and Strategic Options Development and Analysis

  • Etienne RouwetteEmail author
  • Ingrid Bastings
  • Hans Blokker
Article

Abstract

A distinctive tradition within group decision support uses models to structure managerial problems. In this tradition, stakeholders jointly construct a model on their issue of concern in facilitated workshops. In the past decades a wide variety of theoretical insights into and techniques for model-based decision support have been proposed and tested in practical applications. Methods are designed and used by experts; guidelines on their use are not completely spelled out in the literature. This lack of transparency may lead to difficulties in showing the value of methods to researchers in other fields, limit transferability of methods and complicate recombining elements of methods into a multimethodology. In this paper we aim to contribute to transparency by contrasting two model-driven methods: group model building (GMB) and Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA). We first develop a framework for comparing methods on a theoretical and practical level. Second, we describe the separate use of each approach, on one and the same issue, with a similar group of participants. By contrasting the choices made in a practical application we clarify process and results in different phases of problem analysis. Our conclusion is that theoretical assumptions of both approaches are more similar than expected. Each method captures different aspects of the problem and in this sense methods may supplement one another: where SODA focuses on the future and identification of actions, GMB aims to create insight into the relation between (past) behavior and structure of the problem. In choosing which element of the methods to use, it is important to realize that each element strikes a particular balance between costs (e.g. time taken from participants or modelers) and benefits (e.g. level of involvement or model verification). For instance, some elements speed up the process but do so at the cost of lowering participants’ involvement. A practical combination of elements of GMB and SODA thus requires the user to assess the relative importance of insight and action as project deliverables, weigh costs and benefits of elements of either method and string these together in a logical sequence that creates the outcomes required.

Keywords

Problem structuring methods Group model building SODA Evaluation System dynamics Facilitation Facilitated modeling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackermann F, Eden C (1997) Contrasting GDSS and GSS in the context of strategic change: some implications for facilitation. J Decis Syst 6: 221–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackermann F, Eden C (2001) Contrasting single user and networked group decision support systems for strategy making. Group Decis Negot 10(1): 47–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackermann F, Eden C, Brown I (2005) The practice of making strategy. A step-by-step guide. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Ackermann F, Williams TW, Eden C, Tait AJ (1994) Using cognitive mapping to develop a large forensic system dynamics model. Paper presented at the Proceedings ISDC 1994: problem solving methodologiesGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen DF, Richardson GP (1997) Scripts for group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 13: 107–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersen DF, Richardson GP, Ackermann F, Eden C (2007a) Two group model building scripts that integrate systems thinking into strategy workshops facilitated with Group Explorer. Paper presented at the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston, MassGoogle Scholar
  7. Andersen DF, Vennix JAM, Richardson GP, Rouwette EAJA (2007b) Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. J Oper Res Soc 58(5): 691–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bennett PG, Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams TM (1997) Analyzing litigation and negotiation: using a combined methodology. In: Mingers J, Gill A (eds) Multimethodology: the theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. Wiley, Chichester, pp 59–88Google Scholar
  9. Brans J, Macharis C, Kunsch P, Chevalier A, Schwaninger M (1998) Combining multicriteria decision aid and system dynamics for the control of socio-economic processes. An iterative real-time procedure. Eur J Oper Res 109(2): 428–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Briggs R, Vreede GJd, Nunamaker J (2003) Collaboration engineering with thinkLets to pursue sustained success with group support systems. J Manage Inf Syst 19(4): 31–64Google Scholar
  11. Burrell G, Morgan G (1979) Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Heinemann, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Checkland P (2000) Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Syst Res Behav Sci 17: 11–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Checkland P (2006) Reply to Eden and Ackermann: any future for problem structuring methods? J Oper Res Soc 57(7): 769–771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coyle G (2000) Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: some research questions. Syst Dyn Rev 16(3): 225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coyle G (2001) Maps and models in system dynamics: rejoinder to Homer and Oliva. Syst Dyn Rev 17(4): 357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Leeuw ACJ (2001) Bedrijfskundige methodologie. Management van onderzoek. (Methodology for business administration. Management of research). Van Gorcum, AssenGoogle Scholar
  17. Delbecq A, Vande Ven A, Gustafson G (1975) Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and delphi processes. Scott Foresman and Co, GlenviewGoogle Scholar
  18. Dunn W (2004) Public policy analysis. An introduction, 3 edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  19. Eden C (1992) A framework for thinking about group decision support systems (GDSS). Group Decis Negot 1: 199–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eden C (1994) Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model-building. Syst Dyn Rev 10(2–3): 257–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eden C (1995) On evaluating the performance of ‘wide-band’ GDSS’s. Eur J Oper Res 81: 302–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eden C (2000) On evaluating the performance of GSS: furthering the debate, by Paul Finlay European Journal of Operational Research 107, pp 193–201. Eur J Oper Res 81(120): 218–222Google Scholar
  23. Eden C (2004) Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159(3): 673–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Eden C, Ackermann F (1996) “Horses for courses.” A stakeholder approach to the evaluation of GDSSs. Group Decis Negot 5: 501–519Google Scholar
  25. Eden C, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy. The journey of strategic management. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Eden C, Ackermann F (2001) SODA—the principles. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–42Google Scholar
  27. Eden C, Ackermann F (2006) Where next for problem structuring methods. J Oper Res Soc 57(7): 766–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eden C, Graham R (1983) Halfway to infinity: systems theorizing for the practitioners? J Oper Res Soc 34(8): 723–728Google Scholar
  29. Eden C, Jones S (1980) Publish or perish—a case study. J Oper Res Soc 31: 131–139Google Scholar
  30. Eden C, Jones S, Sims D (1979) Thinking in organisations. MacMillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Eden C, Radford J (1990) Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Eden C, Williams TM, Ackermann F, Howick S (2000) On the nature of disruption and delay (D&D) in major projects. J Oper Res Soc 51: 291–300Google Scholar
  33. Flood R, Jackson M (1991) Creative problem solving, total systems intervention. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  34. Forrester J (1961) Industrial dynamics: Pegasus CommunicationsGoogle Scholar
  35. Franco L (2009) Personal communicationGoogle Scholar
  36. Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modelling in operational research (invited review). Eur J Oper Res 205(3): 489–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Friend J (2001) The strategic choice approach. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers Jeds Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester pp 115–149Google Scholar
  38. Friend J, Hickling A (1987) Planning under pressure. The strategic choice approach. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action, vol I and II. Polity Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  40. Homer J, Oliva R (2001) Maps and models in system dynamics: a response to Coyle. Syst Dyn Rev 17(4): 347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Howick S, Ackermann F, Andersen DF (2006) Linking event thinking with structural thinking: methods to improve client value in projects. Syst Dyn Rev 22(2): 113–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Howick S, Eden C, Ackermann F, Williams TW (2008) Building confidence in models for multiple audiences: the modelling cascade. Eur J Oper Res 186: 1068–1083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jackson M (1990) Beyond a system of systems methodologies. J Oper Res Soc 41(8): 657–668Google Scholar
  44. Jackson M (1997) Pluralism in systems thinking and practice. In: Mingers J, Gill A (eds) Multimethodology: the theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. Wiley, Chichester, pp 347–378Google Scholar
  45. Jackson M, Keys P (1984) Towards a system of systems methodologies. J Oper Res Soc 35(6): 473–486Google Scholar
  46. Kelly G (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. A theory of personality. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  47. Lane DC (1994) With a little help from our friends. How system dynamics and soft OR can learn from each other. Syst Dyn Rev 10(2/3): 101–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lane DC (1999) Social theory and system dynamics practice. Eur J Oper Res 113(3): 501–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Lane DC (2000) Should system dynamics be described as a ‘hard’ or ‘deterministic’ systems approach? Syst Res Behav Sci 17(1): 3–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lane DC (2001a) Rerum Cognoscere Causas: Part I—how do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories and the voluntarism/determinism debate? Syst Dyn Rev 17(2): 97–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lane DC (2001b) Rerum Cognoscere Causas: Part II—opportunities generated by the agency/structure debate and suggestions for clarifying the social theoretic position of system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 17(4): 293–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lane DC, Husemann E (2009) What does the arrow mean? Observations on system dynamics mapping and the potential for experimentation with other methods. In: Strohhecker J, Größler A (eds) Strategisches und operatives Produktionsmanagement: empirie und simulation. Gabler Research, Wiesbaden, pp 327–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lane DC, Oliva R (1998) The greater whole: towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology. Eur J Oper Res 107: 214–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Liddell W, Powell J (2004) Agreeing access policy in a general medical practice: a case study using QPID. Syst Dyn Rev 20(1): 49–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Luna-Reyes L, Martinez-Moyano I, Pardo T, Cresswell A, Andersen DF, Richardson GP (2006) Anatomy of a group model-building intervention: building dynamic theory from case study research. Syst Dyn Rev 22(4): 291–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mingers J (2000) Variety is the spice of life. Combining soft and hard OR/MS methods. Int Trans Oper Res 7: 673–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mingers J, Brocklesby J (1997) Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega-Int J Manage Sci 25(5): 489–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152: 530–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Montibeller G, Belton V (2006) Causal maps and the evaluation of decision options—a review. J Oper Res Soc 57(7): 779–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Morton A, Ackermann F, Belton V (2003) Technology-driven and model-driven approaches to group decision support. Focus, research philosophy, and key concepts. Eur J Inf Syst 12: 110–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nunamaker J, Dennis A, Valacich J, Vogel D, George J (1991) Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Commun ACM 34(7): 40–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Pala O, Vennix JAM, Van Mullekom T (2003) Validity in SSM: neglected areas. J Oper Res Soc 54(7): 706–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Richardson G (2006) Concept models. Paper presented at the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Nijmegen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  64. Rodriguez-Ulloal R, Paucar-Caceres A (2005) Soft system dynamics methodology: combining soft system methodology (SSM) and system dynamics (SD). Syst Pract Action Res 18(3): 303–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rosenhead J (1989) Rational analysis for a problematic world. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  66. Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–42Google Scholar
  67. Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM (2006) System dynamics and organizational interventions. Syst Res Behav Sci 23(4): 451–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, Van Mullekom T (2002) Group model building effectiveness. A review of assessment studies. Syst Dyn Rev 18(1): 5–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Santos SP, Belton V, Howick S (2002) Adding value to performance measurement by using system dynamics and multicriteria analysis. Int J Oper Prod Manage 22(11): 1246–1272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Santos SP, Belton V, Howick S (2004) Using system dynamics and multicriteria analysis for performance management. A case study. In: Neely AK, Walters MA (Eds) Performance management and measurement: public and private. Performance measurement association, pp 1197–1204Google Scholar
  71. Schein E (1999) Process consultation revisited Building the helping relationship. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  72. Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learnign organization. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. Swanborn P (1987) Methoden van sociaal-wetenschappelijk onderzoek. (Method of social-scientific research). Boom, MeppelGoogle Scholar
  74. Ulrich W (2003) Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. J Oper Res Soc 54: 325–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Van Strien P (1986) Praktijk als wetenschap : methodologie van het sociaal-wetenschappelijk handelen. (Practice as science: methodology of social-scientific action). Assen: Van GorcumGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Zijderveld E (2007) MARVEL—principles of a method for semi-qualitative system behaviour and policy analysis. Paper presented at the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Boston, MassGoogle Scholar
  77. Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building. Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  78. Warren K (2004) Why has feedback systems thinking struggled to influence strategy and policy formulation? Suggestive evidence, explanations and solutions. Syst Res Behav Sci 21(4): 331–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Westcombe M, Franco L, Shaw D (2006) Where next for PSMs—a grassroots revolution? J Oper Res Soc 57(7): 776–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Williams TW, Ackermann F, Eden C (2003) Structuring a delay and disruption claim: an application of cause-mapping and system dynamics. Eur J Oper Res 148(1): 192–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Williams TW, Eden C, Tait AJ, Ackermann F (1994) Using cognitive mapping to develop a large forensic system dynamics model. Paper presented at the International System Dynamics Conference, Stirling, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  82. Zagonel AA (2002) Model conceptualization in group model building: a review of the literature exploring the tension between representing reality and negotiating a social order. Paper presented at the 20th International System Dynamics Conference, Palermo, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  83. Zagonel AA, Rohrbaugh J, Richardson GP, Andersen DF (2004) Using simulation models to address “what if” questions about welfare reform. J Policy Anal Manage 23(4): 890–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zock A, Rautenberg M (2004) A critical review of the use of System Dynamics for organizational consultation projects. Paper presented at the International System Dynamics Conference, Oxford, UKGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Etienne Rouwette
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ingrid Bastings
    • 2
  • Hans Blokker
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Management ResearchRadboud University NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.TNODelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations