Advertisement

EURO Journal on Decision Processes

, Volume 3, Issue 3–4, pp 249–273 | Cite as

Collaborative problem structuring using MARVEL

  • Guido Arjan VeldhuisEmail author
  • Peter van Scheepstal
  • Etiënne Rouwette
  • Tom Logtens
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Problem structuring Group model building Wicked problems Messy problems Decision process Simulation 

Mathematics subject classification

90B50 

Notes

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).

References

  1. Ackoff RL (1979) Resurrecting the future of operational research. J Oper Res Soc 30:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguilar J (2005) A survey about fuzzy cognitive maps papers. J Comput Cogn 3:27–33Google Scholar
  3. Barlas Y (1996) Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 12(3):183–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  5. Checkland PB (1978) The origins and nature of “hard” systems thinking. J Appl Syst Anal 5(2):99–110Google Scholar
  6. Coyle G (2000) Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: some research questions. Syst Dyn Rev 16(3):225–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coyle G (2001) Rejoinder to Homer and Oliva. Syst Dyn Rev 17(4):357–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):145–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Delp P, Thesen A, Motiwalla J, Seshadri N (1977) System tools for project planning. PASITAM, BloomingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping. Eur J Oper Res 36(1):1–13MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eden C (2004) Analysing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159(3):673–686zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eden C, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Eden C, Jones S, Sims D (1983) Messing about in problems: an informal structured approach to their identification and management. Pergamon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. 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):558–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heesmans S (2008) Operationeel analisten combineren wetenschap en praktijk [operational analysts combine science and practise]. Carré 7/8:28–30Google Scholar
  17. Hengst den M, de Graaf B, van Scheepstal P (2014) Modelling intelligence-led policing to identify its potential. Eur J Polic Stud 1:171–191Google Scholar
  18. Homer J, Oliva R (2001) Maps and models in system dynamics: a response to Coyle. Syst Dyn Rev 17(4):347–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Kelly GA (1955) The psychology of personal constructs: a theory of personality. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Khan MS, Quaddus M (2004) Group decision support using fuzzy cognitive maps for causal reasoning. Group Decis Negot 13(5):463–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kok K (2009) The potential of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for semi-quantitative scenario development, with an example from Brazil. Glob Environ Change 19(1):122–133MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kosko B (1986) Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man Mach Stud 24(1):65–75zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kosko B (1988) Hidden patterns in combined and adaptive knowledge networks. Int J Approx Reason 2(4):377–393zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lane DC (2008) The emergence and use of diagramming in system dynamics: a critical account. Syst Res Behav Sci 25(1):3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Liddell WG, Powell JH (2004) Agreeing access policy in a general medical practice: a case study using QPID. Syst Dyn Rev 20(1):49–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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, PalermoGoogle Scholar
  28. Mingers J (2000) Variety is the spice of life: combining soft and hard OR/MS methods. Int Trans Oper Res 7:673–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mingers J (2003) A classification of the philosophical assumptions of management science methods. J Oper Res Soc 54(6):559–570zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):530–554zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morecroft JDW (1982) A critical review of diagramming tools for conceptualizing feedback system models. Dynamica 8(1):20–29Google Scholar
  32. Oral M, Kettani O (1993) The facets of the modeling and validation process in operations research. Eur J Oper Res 66(2):216–234MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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):518–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramaprasad A, Poon E (1985) A computerized interactive technique for mapping influence diagrams (MIND). Strateg Manag J 6(4):377–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Richardson GP (1999) Reflections for the future of system dynamics. J Oper Res Soc 50(4):440–449zbMATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  36. Richardson GP, Andersen DF (1997) Scripts for group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 13(2):107–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rittel HWJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4(2):155–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rosenhead J (1996) What’s the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces 26(6):117–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  40. Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, Mullekom TV (2002) Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. Syst Dyn Rev 18(1):5–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rouwette EAJA, Bastings I, Blokker H (2011) A comparison of group model building and strategic options development and analysis. Group Decis Negot 20(6):781–803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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):653–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline. Currency Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Shaw D (2006) Journey making group workshops as a research tool. J Oper Res Soc 57(7):830–841zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. The McGraw-Hill Companies, BostonGoogle Scholar
  46. Tsadiras AK (2008) Comparing the inference capabilities of binary, trivalent and sigmoid fuzzy cognitive maps. Inf Sci 178(20):3880–3894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 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, BostonGoogle Scholar
  48. Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building—facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  49. Vester F (1988) The biocybernetic approach as a basis for planning our environment. Syst Pract 1(4):399–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vester F (2007) The art of interconnected thinking: tools and concepts for a new approach to tackling complexity. MCB, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  51. Westcombe M, Franco LA, Shaw D (2006) Where next for PSMs: a grassroots revolution? J Oper Res Soc 57:776–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Wolstenholme EF (1982) System dynamics in perspective. J Oper Res Soc 33:547–556MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TNOThe HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Institute for Management ResearchRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations