nach oben

Group Decision and Negotiation

Erschienen in:

11.02.2015

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

verfasst von: Rodney J. Scott, Robert Y. Cavana, Donald Cameron

Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation | Ausgabe 1/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

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.

Vorheriger Artikel Assessing Personality Patterns of Functioning in a Decision-Making Ambiguous Task: The Rorschach Reality–Fantasy Scale (RFS-2)

Nächster Artikel Generalized Hybrid Aggregation Operators Based on the 2-Dimension Uncertain Linguistic Information for Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

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

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

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):691–694CrossRef

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

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

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 29:194–208CrossRef

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

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):270–293CrossRef

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

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):201–216CrossRef

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

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

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

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

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):1–29CrossRef

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):182–206CrossRef

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):1229–1245CrossRef

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

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

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

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

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):149–169CrossRef

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

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

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

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):291–320CrossRef

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

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 5:243–253CrossRef

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 251–267CrossRef

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

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):5–45CrossRef

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

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):567–587CrossRef

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

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

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

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):216–236CrossRef

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

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 28:45–68CrossRef

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):243–263CrossRef

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):77–95CrossRef

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

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

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

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, CambridgeCrossRef

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):335–355CrossRef

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

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):890–901CrossRef

Titel: Client Perceptions of Reported Outcomes of Group Model Building in the New Zealand Public Sector
verfasst von: Rodney J. Scott
Robert Y. Cavana
Donald Cameron
Publikationsdatum: 11.02.2015
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation / Ausgabe 1/2016
Print ISSN: 0926-2644
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9907
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9433-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2016

An Acceptable Consistency-Based Framework for Group Decision Making with Intuitionistic Preference Relations

De-Fusing Organizational Power Using Anonymity and Cognitive Factions in a Participative Strategic Planning Setting

(Un)expected Bidder Behavior in Spectrum Auctions: About Inconsistent Bidding and Its Impact on Efficiency in the Combinatorial Clock Auction

Application of Fuzzy Risk Analysis for Selecting Critical Processes in Implementation of SPC with a Case Study

Generalized Hybrid Aggregation Operators Based on the 2-Dimension Uncertain Linguistic Information for Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making

Assessing Personality Patterns of Functioning in a Decision-Making Ambiguous Task: The Rorschach Reality–Fantasy Scale (RFS-2)