Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ajzen I (1991) The theory of planned behavior. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 50(2):179–211

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen DF, Richardson GP, Vennix JAM (1997) Group model building: adding more science to the craft. Syst Dyn Rev 13(2):187–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):691–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(4):543–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayley C, French S (2008) Designing a participatory process for stakeholder involvement in a societal decision. Gr Decis Negot 17(3):195–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Albany

  • Black LJ (2013) When visuals are boundary objects in system dynamics work. Syst Dyn Rev 29(2):70–86

  • Black LJ, Andersen DF (2012) Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflicts in collaborative model-building approaches. Syst Res Behav Sci 29:194–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie N (1993) Approaches to social enquiry. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):270–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Albany

  • Cavana RY, Delahaye BL, Sekaran U (2001) Applied business research: qualitative and quantitative methods. Wiley, Brisbane

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):201–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle RG (2000) Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: some research questions. Syst Dyn Rev 16(3):225–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle JK (1997) The cognitive psychology of systems thinking. Syst Dyn Rev 13:253–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle DK, Ford DN (1998) Mental model concepts for system dynamics research. Syst Dyn Rev 14(1):3–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Albany

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2006) Where next for problem structuring methods. J Oper Res Soc 57(7):766–768

  • Eden CE, Ackermann F (2013) ‘Joined-up’ policy-making: group decision and negotiation practice. Gr Decis Negot. doi:10.1007/s10726-013-9375-1

  • 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 146–163

  • Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S (2012) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J Publ Adm Res Theory 22(1):1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppel E (2013) Collaborative governance: framing New Zealand practice. Institute for governance and policy studies working paper, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

  • Eskinasi M, Rouwette E, Vennix J (2009) Simulating urban transformation in Haaglanden, the Netherlands. Syst Dyn Rev 25(3):182–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Albany

  • 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):1229–1245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA (2013) Rethinking soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects. Eur J Oper Res 231(3):720–733

  • Green J, Thorogood N (2009) Qualitative methods for health research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberger M, Crenson MA, Crissey BL (1976) Models in the policy process: public decision making in the computer era. Russell Sage Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Guest G, Bunce A, Johnson L (2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1):59–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsti OR (1969) Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):149–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huz S (1999) Alignment from group model building for systems thinking: measurement and evaluation from a public policy setting. State University New York, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim J (2008) A model and case for supporting participatory public decision making in e-democracy. Gr Decis Negot 17(3):179–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 35–44

  • Kvale S, Brinkman S (2008) Interviews, 2nd edn. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):291–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Moyano IJ, Richardson GP (2013) Best practices in system dynamics modeling. Syst Dyn Rev 29(2):102–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason M (2010) Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. In: Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research 11(3). http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027

  • 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, Albany

  • McCartt A, Rohrbaugh J (1989) Evaluating group decision support effectiveness: a performance study of decision conferencing. Decis Support Syst 5:243–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCartt AT, Rohrbaugh J (1995) Managerial openness to change and the introduction of GDSS. Organ Sci 6:569–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, White L (2010) A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science. Eur J Oper Res 207:1147–1161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman J, Barnes M, Sullivan H, Knops A (2004) Public participation and collaborative governance. J Soc Policy 33(2):203–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett R, Wilson T (1977) Telling more than we can know: verbal reports on mental processes. Psychol Rev 84(3):231–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble CH (1999) The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. J Bus Res 45:119–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orne M (1962) On the social psychology of the psychology experiment. Am Psychol 17:776–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plottu B, Plottu E (2011) Participatory evaluation: the virtues for public governance, the constraints on implementation. Gr Decis Negot 20(6):805–824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson GP, Andersen DF (1995) Teamwork in group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 11(2):113–137

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 77–108

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 251–267

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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):199–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM (2011) Group model building. In: Complex systems in finance and econometrics. Springer, New York, pp. 484–496

  • Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, Van Mullekom T (2002) Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. Syst Dyn Rev 18(1):5–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA (2003) Group model building as mutual persuasion. Wolf Legal Publishers, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  • 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):567–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA (2011) Facilitated modelling in strategy development: measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment. J Oper Res Soc 62:879–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson P (1938) A note on the pure theory of consumers’ behaviour. Economica 5(17):61–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • Scott RJ (2014) Group model building and mental model change. PhD Thesis, University of Queensland

  • 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):216–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT (2001) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference, 2nd edn. Cengage Learning, Wadsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Albany

  • Skivington JE, Daft RL (1991) A study of organizational “framework” and “process” modalities for the implementation of business-level strategic decisions. J Manag Stud 28:45–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):243–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):77–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • State Services Commission (2011) Better Public Services Advisory Group Report, New Zealand Government

  • Stephens MA (1974) EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 69(347):730–737

  • Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics—systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin / McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A, Corbin J (1990) Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas P, Carswell L (2000) Learning through collaboration in a distributed education environment. Educ Technol Soc 3(3):1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson JP (2009) How and under what conditions client learn in system dynamics consulting engagements. PhD Thesis, Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow

  • Treisman D (2007) The architecture of government. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Albany

  • 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, Albany

  • 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, Albany

  • Vennix JAM (1995) Building consensus in strategic decision making: system dynamics as a group support system. Gr Decis Negot 4(4):335–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • White L (2002) Size matters: large group methods and the process of operational research. J Oper Res Soc 53(2):149–160

  • 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, Albany

  • 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):890–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Agriculture and Food Sciences, University of Queensland, St Lucia QLD, Brisbane, Australia

    Rodney J. Scott & Donald Cameron

  2. Victoria Business School, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Robert Y. Cavana

Authors
  1. Rodney J. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Y. Cavana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donald Cameron
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodney J. Scott.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (doc 68 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Scott, R.J., Cavana, R.Y. & Cameron, D. Client Perceptions of Reported Outcomes of Group Model Building in the New Zealand Public Sector. Group Decis Negot 25, 77–101 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9433-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9433-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation