Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

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

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.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (1997) Contrasting GDSS and GSS in the context of strategic change: some implications for facilitation. J Decis Syst 6: 221–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (2001) Contrasting single user and networked group decision support systems for strategy making. Group Decis Negot 10(1): 47–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C, Brown I (2005) The practice of making strategy. A step-by-step guide. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 methodologies

  • Andersen DF, Richardson GP (1997) Scripts for group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 13: 107–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Mass

  • 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): 691–694

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 59–88

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 428–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 31–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrell G, Morgan G (1979) Sociological paradigms and organisational analysis. Heinemann, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (2000) Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Syst Res Behav Sci 17: 11–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (2006) Reply to Eden and Ackermann: any future for problem structuring methods? J Oper Res Soc 57(7): 769–771

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coyle G (2001) Maps and models in system dynamics: rejoinder to Homer and Oliva. Syst Dyn Rev 17(4): 357–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Leeuw ACJ (2001) Bedrijfskundige methodologie. Management van onderzoek. (Methodology for business administration. Management of research). Van Gorcum, Assen

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Glenview

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunn W (2004) Public policy analysis. An introduction, 3 edn. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1992) A framework for thinking about group decision support systems (GDSS). Group Decis Negot 1: 199–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1994) Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model-building. Syst Dyn Rev 10(2–3): 257–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1995) On evaluating the performance of ‘wide-band’ GDSS’s. Eur J Oper Res 81: 302–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 218–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (2004) Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159(3): 673–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (1996) “Horses for courses.” A stakeholder approach to the evaluation of GDSSs. Group Decis Negot 5: 501–519

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy. The journey of strategic management. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 21–42

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Graham R (1983) Halfway to infinity: systems theorizing for the practitioners? J Oper Res Soc 34(8): 723–728

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Jones S (1980) Publish or perish—a case study. J Oper Res Soc 31: 131–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Jones S, Sims D (1979) Thinking in organisations. MacMillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Radford J (1990) Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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: 291–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood R, Jackson M (1991) Creative problem solving, total systems intervention. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester J (1961) Industrial dynamics: Pegasus Communications

  • Franco L (2009) Personal communication

  • Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modelling in operational research (invited review). Eur J Oper Res 205(3): 489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 115–149

  • Friend J, Hickling A (1987) Planning under pressure. The strategic choice approach. Pergamon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1984) The theory of communicative action, vol I and II. Polity Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer J, Oliva R (2001) Maps and models in system dynamics: a response to Coyle. Syst Dyn Rev 17(4): 347–355

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 113–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howick S, Eden C, Ackermann F, Williams TW (2008) Building confidence in models for multiple audiences: the modelling cascade. Eur J Oper Res 186: 1068–1083

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson M (1990) Beyond a system of systems methodologies. J Oper Res Soc 41(8): 657–668

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 347–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson M, Keys P (1984) Towards a system of systems methodologies. J Oper Res Soc 35(6): 473–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly G (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. A theory of personality. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 101–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane DC (1999) Social theory and system dynamics practice. Eur J Oper Res 113(3): 501–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane DC (2000) Should system dynamics be described as a ‘hard’ or ‘deterministic’ systems approach? Syst Res Behav Sci 17(1): 3–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 97–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 293–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 327–350

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lane DC, Oliva R (1998) The greater whole: towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology. Eur J Oper Res 107: 214–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liddell W, Powell J (2004) Agreeing access policy in a general medical practice: a case study using QPID. Syst Dyn Rev 20(1): 49–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 291–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (2000) Variety is the spice of life. Combining soft and hard OR/MS methods. Int Trans Oper Res 7: 673–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, Brocklesby J (1997) Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega-Int J Manage Sci 25(5): 489–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152: 530–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller G, Belton V (2006) Causal maps and the evaluation of decision options—a review. J Oper Res Soc 57(7): 779–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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: 110–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker J, Dennis A, Valacich J, Vogel D, George J (1991) Electronic meeting systems to support group work. Commun ACM 34(7): 40–61

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pala O, Vennix JAM, Van Mullekom T (2003) Validity in SSM: neglected areas. J Oper Res Soc 54(7): 706–712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson G (2006) Concept models. Paper presented at the International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

  • 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): 303–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J (1989) Rational analysis for a problematic world. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–42

  • Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM (2006) System dynamics and organizational interventions. Syst Res Behav Sci 23(4): 451–466

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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): 1246–1272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1197–1204

  • Schein E (1999) Process consultation revisited Building the helping relationship. Addison-Wesley, Reading

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge P (1990) The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learnign organization. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Swanborn P (1987) Methoden van sociaal-wetenschappelijk onderzoek. (Method of social-scientific research). Boom, Meppel

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich W (2003) Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse. J Oper Res Soc 54: 325–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Strien P (1986) Praktijk als wetenschap : methodologie van het sociaal-wetenschappelijk handelen. (Practice as science: methodology of social-scientific action). Assen: Van Gorcum

  • 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, Mass

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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): 331–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westcombe M, Franco L, Shaw D (2006) Where next for PSMs—a grassroots revolution? J Oper Res Soc 57(7): 776–778

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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): 192–204

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Scotland

  • 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, Italy

  • 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): 890–901

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, UK

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Management Research, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Etienne Rouwette

  2. TNO, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ingrid Bastings & Hans Blokker

Authors
  1. Etienne Rouwette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ingrid Bastings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hans Blokker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Etienne Rouwette.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rouwette, E., Bastings, I. & Blokker, H. A Comparison of Group Model Building and Strategic Options Development and Analysis. Group Decis Negot 20, 781–803 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-010-9207-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-010-9207-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation