Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 77–101 | Cite as

Client Perceptions of Reported Outcomes of Group Model Building in the New Zealand Public Sector

  • Rodney J. ScottEmail author
  • Robert Y. Cavana
  • Donald Cameron


System dynamics modellers sometimes involve decision-makers in the modelling process, a method known as “group model building”. Group model building has been associated with a number of different outcomes, and it is not clear which of these outcomes are important to clients. The public sector is a significant audience for group model building interventions; this paper reports on what outcomes are most valued by potential clients in the New Zealand public sector. Senior management within four government agencies identified the employees who were most likely to commission and conduct group decision processes. These individuals participated in detailed semi-structured interviews, and completed a written questionnaire, exploring the contexts in which group model building may be useful and the outcomes sought in each situation. The results suggest that, even within the public sector, the importance of a particular outcome will depend upon context. However, public servants generally appear to value trust and agreement over policy quality when conducting group-decision processes. Knowledge of the outcomes sought by potential clients helps guide the outcomes measured by researchers, and helps practitioners to tailor communication messages to clients.


Group model building Group decision making System dynamics Clients Outcomes Public sector 

Supplementary material

10726_2015_9433_MOESM1_ESM.doc (68 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (doc 68 KB)


  1. Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen DF, Richardson GP, Vennix JAM (1997) Group model building: adding more science to the craft. Syst Dyn Rev 13(2):187–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen DF, Vennix JAM, Richardson GP, Rouwette EAJA (2007) Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. J Oper Res Soc 58(5):691–694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(4):543–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayley C, French S (2008) Designing a participatory process for stakeholder involvement in a societal decision. Gr Decis Negot 17(3):195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bentham JB, de Visscher AG (1994) Systems thinking and its influence on operational culture. In: Proceedings of the 1994 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  7. Black LJ (2013) When visuals are boundary objects in system dynamics work. Syst Dyn Rev 29(2):70–86Google Scholar
  8. Black LJ, Andersen DF (2012) Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflicts in collaborative model-building approaches. Syst Res Behav Sci 29:194–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blaikie N (1993) Approaches to social enquiry. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  10. Borštnar MK, Kljajić M, Škraba A, Kofjač D, Rajkovič V (2011) The relevance of facilitation in group decision making supported by a simulation model. Syst Dyn Rev 27(3):270–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cavana, RY, Smith T, Scott RJ, O’Connor S (2014) Causal mapping of the New Zealand natural resources sector system. In: Proceedings of the 2014 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  12. Cavana RY, Delahaye BL, Sekaran U (2001) Applied business research: qualitative and quantitative methods. Wiley, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  13. Cavana RY, Boyd DM, Taylor RJ (2007) A systems thinking study of retention and recruitment issues for the New Zealand army electronic technician trade group. Syst Res Behav Sci 24(2):201–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  15. Coyle RG (2000) Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: some research questions. Syst Dyn Rev 16(3):225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Doyle JK (1997) The cognitive psychology of systems thinking. Syst Dyn Rev 13:253–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Doyle DK, Ford DN (1998) Mental model concepts for system dynamics research. Syst Dyn Rev 14(1):3–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dwyer M, Stave K (2008) Group model building wins: the results of a comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  19. Eden C, Ackermann F (2006) Where next for problem structuring methods. J Oper Res Soc 57(7):766–768Google Scholar
  20. Eden CE, Ackermann F (2013) ‘Joined-up’ policy-making: group decision and negotiation practice. Gr Decis Negot. doi: 10.1007/s10726-013-9375-1
  21. Eden CE, Ackermann F (2004) Use of “soft OR” models by clients—what do they want from them? In: Pidd M (ed) Systems modelling theory and practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 146–163Google Scholar
  22. Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S (2012) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J Publ Adm Res Theory 22(1):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eppel E (2013) Collaborative governance: framing New Zealand practice. Institute for governance and policy studies working paper, Victoria University of Wellington, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  24. Eskinasi M, Rouwette E, Vennix J (2009) Simulating urban transformation in Haaglanden, the Netherlands. Syst Dyn Rev 25(3):182–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fokkinga B, Bleijenbergh I, Vennix J (2009) Group model building evaluation in single cases: a method to assess changes in mental models. In: Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. System Dynamics Society, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  26. Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM (2010) What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health 25(10):1229–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Franco LA (2013) Rethinking soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects. Eur J Oper Res 231(3):720–733Google Scholar
  28. Green J, Thorogood N (2009) Qualitative methods for health research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenberger M, Crenson MA, Crissey BL (1976) Models in the policy process: public decision making in the computer era. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1):59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holsti OR (1969) Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  32. Huz S, Andersen DF, Richardson GP, Boothroyd R (1997) A framework for evaluating systems thinking interventions; an experimental approach to mental health system change. Syst Dyn Rev 13(2):149–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Huz S (1999) Alignment from group model building for systems thinking: measurement and evaluation from a public policy setting. State University New York, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim J (2008) A model and case for supporting participatory public decision making in e-democracy. Gr Decis Negot 17(3):179–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kolfschoten GL, Rouwette EAJA (2006) Choice criteria for facilitation techniques. In: Briggs RO, Nunamaker JF (Eds). Monograph of the HICSS-39 Symposium on Case and Field Studies of Collaboration, Hawaii International Conference of System Sciences, Hawaii, 35–44Google Scholar
  36. Kvale S, Brinkman S (2008) Interviews, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  37. Luna-Reyes LF, Martinez-Moyano IJ, Pardo TA, Cresswell AM, 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
  38. Martinez-Moyano IJ, Richardson GP (2013) Best practices in system dynamics modeling. Syst Dyn Rev 29(2):102–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mason M (2010) Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 11(3).
  40. McCardle-Keurentjes MH, Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM (2008) Effectiveness of group model building in discovering hidden profiles in strategic decision-making. In: Proceedings of the 2008 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  41. McCartt A, Rohrbaugh J (1989) Evaluating group decision support effectiveness: a performance study of decision conferencing. Decis Support Syst 5:243–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCartt AT, Rohrbaugh J (1995) Managerial openness to change and the introduction of GDSS. Organ Sci 6:569–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mingers J, White L (2010) A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science. Eur J Oper Res 207:1147–1161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Newman J, Barnes M, Sullivan H, Knops A (2004) Public participation and collaborative governance. J Soc Policy 33(2):203–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nisbett R, Wilson T (1977) Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 84(3):231–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Noble CH (1999) The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. J Bus Res 45:119–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Orne M (1962) On the social psychology of the psychology experiment. Am Psychol 17:776–783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plottu B, Plottu E (2011) Participatory evaluation: the virtues for public governance, the constraints on implementation. Gr Decis Negot 20(6):805–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Richardson GP, Andersen DF (1995) Teamwork in group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 11(2):113–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ritchie J, Lewis J, Elam G (2003) Designing and selecting samples. In: Ritchie Jane, Lewis Jane (eds) Qualitative research practice. A guide for social science students and researchers. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 77–108Google Scholar
  51. Rohrbaugh J (1987) Assessing the effectiveness of expert teams. In: Munpower JL, Phillips LD, Renn O, Uppuluri VRR (eds) Expert judgment and expert systems, vol 35. Springer, Berlin, pp 251–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rose J, Haynes M (1999) A soft systems approach to the evaluation of complex interventions in the public sector. J Appl Manag Stud 8(2):199–216Google Scholar
  53. Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM (2011) Group model building. In: Complex systems in finance and econometrics. Springer, New York, pp. 484–496Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Rouwette EAJA (2003) Group model building as mutual persuasion. Wolf Legal Publishers, NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  56. Rouwette EA, Vennix JA, Felling AJ (2009) On evaluating the performance of problem structuring methods: an attempt at formulating a conceptual model. Gr Decis Negot 18(6):567–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rouwette EAJA (2011) Facilitated modelling in strategy development: measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment. J Oper Res Soc 62:879–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rouwette EA, Korzilius H, Vennix JA, Jacobs E (2011) Modeling as persuasion: the impact of group model building on attitudes and behavior. Syst Dyn Rev 27(1):1–21Google Scholar
  59. Samuelson P (1938) A note on the pure theory of consumers’ behaviour. Economica 5(17):61–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Scott RJ, Cavana RY, Cameron D (2014) Interpersonal success factors for strategy implementation: a case study using group model building. J Oper Res Soc. doi: 10.1057/jors.2014.70
  61. Scott RJ, Cavana RY, Cameron D (2014b) Mechanisms for understanding mental model change in group model building. Syst Res Behav Sci. doi: 10.1002/sres.2303
  62. Scott RJ (2014) Group model building and mental model change. PhD Thesis, University of QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  63. Scott RJ, Cavana RY, Cameron D (2013) Evaluating immediate and long-term impacts of qualitative group model building workshops on participants’ mental models. Syst Dyn Rev 29(4):216–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2001) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference, 2nd edn. Cengage Learning, WadsworthGoogle Scholar
  65. Shields M (2001) An experimental investigation comparing the effects of case study, management flight simulator and facilitation of these methods on mental model development in a group setting. In: Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. System Dynamics Society, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  66. Skivington JE, Daft RL (1991) A study of organizational “framework” and “process” modalities for the implementation of business-level strategic decisions. J Manag Stud 28:45–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Škraba A, Kljajić M, Leskovar R (2003) Group exploration of system dynamics models—is there a place for a feedback loop in the decision process? Syst Dyn Rev 19(3):243–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Škraba A, Kljajić M, Borštnar MK (2007) The role of information feedback in the management group decision-making process applying system dynamics models. Gr Decis Negot 16(1):77–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. State Services Commission (2011) Better Public Services Advisory Group Report, New Zealand GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  70. Stephens MA (1974) EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 69(347):730–737Google Scholar
  71. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics—systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin / McGraw-Hill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  72. Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  73. Thomas P, Carswell L (2000) Learning through collaboration in a distributed education environment. Educ Technol Soc 3(3):1–15Google Scholar
  74. Thompson JP (2009) How and under what conditions client learn in system dynamics consulting engagements. PhD Thesis, Strathclyde Business School, GlasgowGoogle Scholar
  75. Treisman D (2007) The architecture of government. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Nistelrooij LPJ, Rouwette EAJA, Vestijnen I, Vennix JAM (2012) Power-levelling as an effect of group model building. In: Proceedings of the 2012 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  77. Vennix JAM, Rouwette EAJA (2000) Group model building. What does the client think of it now?. In: Proceedings of the 2000 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  78. Vennix JAM, Scheper W, Willems R (1993) Group model building. What does the client think of it? In: Proceedings of the 1993 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  79. Vennix JAM (1995) Building consensus in strategic decision making: system dynamics as a group support system. Gr Decis Negot 4(4):335–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  81. White L (2002) Size matters: large group methods and the process of operational research. J Oper Res Soc 53(2):149–160Google 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. In: Proceedings of the 2002 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, AlbanyGoogle 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 Manag 23(4):890–901CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodney J. Scott
    • 1
    Email author
  • Robert Y. Cavana
    • 2
  • Donald Cameron
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Agriculture and Food SciencesUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.Victoria Business SchoolVictoria University of WellingtonWellingtonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations