nach oben

Group Decision and Negotiation

Erschienen in:

16.04.2016

Evaluating Facilitated Modelling Processes and Outcomes: An Experiment Comparing a Single and a Multimethod Approach in Group Model Building

verfasst von: Hugo J. Herrera, Marleen H. F. McCardle-Keurentjes, Nuno Videira

Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation | Ausgabe 6/2016

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Facilitated modelling approaches have been suggested as helpful tools to support negotiation in strategic analysis processes due to their potential to facilitate cognitive change and enhance consensus and commitment with final decisions. In the present research, we developed an experimental framework to compare what two of these approaches, that is, group model building and a multimethod approach, contribute to the process and outcomes in the negotiation of strategies. In the multimethod approach, we combined strategic options development and analysis with computer simulations of the group model building approach. We explored the differences between these two modelling approaches in facilitating cognitive change, consensus and commitment by building an experimental research design with real clients, working on their organisation’s problem. Furthermore, we compared the type and content of participants’ contributions in the strategic conversation. The lessons from the experiment conducted are twofold. On one hand, the multimethod approach encouraged more divergent contributions and produced a higher degree of cognitive change than group model building (i.e., the single approach). On the other hand, group model building encouraged more contributions about content related to causes of the problem and enhanced more commitment to the final solution than the multimethod approach. Hence, the conducted experiment brings new insights into the benefits of using multimethods and possible losses resulting from such combinations. Accordingly, we have presented opportunities for further research regarding the combination of facilitated modelling approaches.

Vorheriger Artikel Multiple Attribute Group Decision Making Method Based on Utility Theory Under Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Environment

Nächster Artikel In Memoriam

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

In addition to the types mentioned above, the coders identified the contributions with content related to mission and process (MP) and the type asking for clarification (AC). Given the purpose and scope of this study, those contributions are not reported here.

\({ PA }_{0}=2A/(n_{A}+n_{B})\) (Neuendorf 2002, p. 149); \({ PA }_{0}\): percentage of agreement; A: number of agreements between two coders (In the present study the numbers of agreements between recorders were calculated using the tools of the software Observer XT-12) \(n_{A},n_{B}\): number of units coded by coder A and B respectively.

The aim of presenting the models in Figs. 2 and 3 is only to illustrate the iconography used in the different approaches and to give the reader an idea of the tangible outcomes of the first workshop. The figures do not aim to offer a detailed description of the analysis by the groups related to their respective strategic issue.

Ackermann F (1996) Participants’ perceptions on the role of facilitators using group decision support systems. Group Decis Negot 5:93–112CrossRef

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

Ackermann F, Eden C (2005) Using causal mapping with group support systems to elicit an understanding of failure in complex projects: some implications for organizational research. Group Decis Negot 14(5):355–376CrossRef

Ackermann F, Eden C (2010a) Strategic options development and analysis. In: Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. Springer, London, pp 135–190CrossRef

Ackermann F, Eden C (2010b) The role of group support systems: negotiating safe energy. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 285–299CrossRef

Ackermann F, Eden C (2011) Making strategy, mapping out strategic success, 2nd edn. SAGE Publications Ltd, London

Ackermann F, Andersen DF, Eden C, Richardson GP (2010) Using a group decision support system to add value to group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 26(4):335–346CrossRef

Ackermann F, Andersen DF, Eden C, Richardson GP (2011) ScriptsMap: a tool for designing multi-method policy-making workshops. Omega 39(4):427–434CrossRef

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

Ackermann F, Eden C, Williams T (1997) Modelling for litigation: mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27(2):48–65CrossRef

Akkermans HA, Vennix J (1997) Clients’ opinions on group model-building: an exploratory study. Syst Dyn Rev 13(1):3–31CrossRef

Andersen D, Richardson G (1997) Scripts for group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 13(2):107–129CrossRef

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. In: The International conference of the system dynamics society, Boston, MA

Andersen DF, Rouwette EAJA, Richardson GP, Vennix JAM (2007b) Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. J Oper Res Soc 58(5):691–694CrossRef

Bérad C (2010) Group model building using system dynamics: an analysis of methodological frameworks. Electron J Bus Res Methods 8(1):35–46

Black LJ, Andersen DF (2012) Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflict in collaborative model-building approaches. Syst Res Behav Sci 29(2):194–208CrossRef

Boiney LG (1998) Reaping the benefits of information technology in organisations a framework guiding appropriation of group support systems. J Appl Behav Sci 34(3):327–346CrossRef

Brown SM (1992) Cognitive mapping and repertory grids for qualitative survey research—some comparative observations. J Manag Stud 29(3):287–307CrossRef

Calori R, Johnson G, Sarnin P (1994) CEOs’ cognitive maps and the scope of the organisation. Strateg Manag J 15(6):437–457CrossRef

Dwyer M, Stave K (2008) Group model building wins: the results of a comparative analysis. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference of the system dynamics society

Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping: a review. Eur J Oper Res 36:1–13CrossRef

Eden C, Ackermann F (2004) Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):615–630CrossRef

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

Eden C, Ackermann F (2001) Group decision and negotiation in strategy making. Group Decis Negot 10:119–140CrossRef

Eden C, Ackermann F (2013) Problem structuring: on the nature of, and reaching agreement about, goals. EURO J Decis Process 1:7–28CrossRef

Edkins AJ, Kurul E, Maytorena-Sanchez E, Rintala K (2007) The application of cognitive mapping methodologies in project management research. Int J Proj Manag 25(8):762–772CrossRef

Fleisher C, Bensoussan B (2007) Strategic and competitive analysis: methods and techniques for analysing business competition. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

Folger JP, Hewes DE, Poole MS (1984) Coding social interaction. In: Voight M, Dervin B (eds) Progress in the communication sciences, vol 4. Ablex, Northwood, pp 115–161

Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge

Franco LA (2007) Assessing the impact of problem structuring methods in multi-organisational settings: an empirical investigation. J Oper Res Soc 58:760–768CrossRef

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

Franco LA, Rouwette EAJA (2011) Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops. Eur J Oper Res 212:164–178CrossRef

Hovmand PS, Andersen DF, Rouwette E, Richardson GP, Rux K, Calhoun A (2012) Group model-building ‘scripts’ as a collaborative planning tool. Syst Res Behav Sci 29(2):179–193CrossRef

Howick S, Ackermann F (2011) Mixing OR methods in practice: past, present and future directions. Eur J Oper Res 215:503–511CrossRef

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):113–140CrossRef

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

Johnson-Laird PN (2013) Mental models in cognitive change. J Cogn Psychol 25(2):131–138CrossRef

Korsgaard MA, Schweiger DM, Sapienza HJ (1995) Building commitment, attachment, and trust in strategic decision-making teams: the role of procedural justice. Acad Manag J 38(1):60–84CrossRef

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

Luna Reyes LF, Mojtahedzadeh M, Andersen DF, Richardson GP, Pardo TA, Burke B, Burke B, Wu YJ, Cresswell AM, Bodor T, Canestraro DS, Dawes S, Demircivi F, Schneider C, Thompson F (2004) Scripts for interrupted group model building: lessons from modelling the emergence of governance structures for information integration across governmental agencies. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international system dynamics conference

McCardle-Keurentjes MHF, Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM (2008) Effectiveness of group model building in discovering hidden profiles in strategic decision-making. In: Proceedings of the 26th international conference of the system dynamics society, Athens, Greece, pp 1-13

Meadows DH (1976) The unavoidable a priori. In: Proceedings of the international conference of the system dynamics society, pp 166–238

Midgley G, Cavana RY, Brocklesby J, Foote FL, Wood D, Ahurri-Driscoll A (2013) Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. Eur J Oper Res 229(1):143–154CrossRef

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

Neuendorf KA (2002) The content analysis guidebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks

Paucar-Caceres A, Rodriguez-Ulloa R (2007) An application of soft systems dynamics methodology (SSDM). J Oper Res Soc 58:701–713CrossRef

Petkov D, Petkova O, Andrew T, Nepal T (2007) Mixing Multiple criteria decision making with soft systems thinking techniques for decision support in complex situations. Decis Support Syst 43:1615–1629CrossRef

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

Richardson G, Andersen D (2010) System thinking, mapping, and modelling in group decision and negotiation. In: Advances in group decision and negotiation: handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Berlin, pp 313–324

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

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

Rouwette EAJA, Bastings I, Blokker H (2011a) A comparison of group model building and strategic options development and analysis. Group Decis Negot 20(6):781–803CrossRef

Rouwette EAJA, Korzilius H, Vennix JAM, Jacobs E (2011b) Modelling as persuasion: the impact of group model building on attitudes and behaviour. Syst Dyn Rev 27(1):1–21

Rouwette EAJA, van Hooff P, Vennix JAM, Jongebreur W (2007) Modelling crime control in the Netherlands: insights on process. In 25th international conference of the system dynamics society, Boston, MA

Saunders MNK, Lewis P, Thornhill A (2006) Research methods for business students, 4th edn. Financial Times/Prentice Hall, Harlow

Scriptapedia. (2015). Wikibooks, the free textbook project. Retrieved 21:03, March 22, 2016 from https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Scriptapedia&oldid=2979763

Tavella E, Franco LA (2015) Dynamics of group knowledge production in facilitated modelling workshops: an exploratory study. Group Decis Negot 24(3):451–475CrossRef

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

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

Vennix JAM, Akkermans H, Rouwette EAJA (1996) Group model-building to facilitate organisational change: an exploratory study. Syst Dyn Rev 12(1):39–58CrossRef

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, pp 534–543

Videira N, Lopes R, Antunes P, Santos R, Cassanova J (2012) Mapping maritime sustainability issues with stakeholder groups. Syst Res Behav Sci 29:596–619CrossRef

Warren K (2009) Strategic management dynamics. Willey, Chichester

Warren K (2005) Improving strategic management with the fundamental principles of system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 21(4):329–350CrossRef

Webster M Jr, Sell J (2007) Laboratory experiments in the social science. Elsevier, California

Titel: Evaluating Facilitated Modelling Processes and Outcomes: An Experiment Comparing a Single and a Multimethod Approach in Group Model Building
verfasst von: Hugo J. Herrera
Marleen H. F. McCardle-Keurentjes
Nuno Videira
Publikationsdatum: 16.04.2016
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation / Ausgabe 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0926-2644
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9907
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-016-9480-z

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 6/2016

Using Bids, Arguments and Preferences in Sensitive Multi-unit Assignments: A p-Equitable Process and a Course Allocation Case Study

Negotiation and Collaborative Technologies in Organisations and Supply Chains: Introduction to the Special Issue

Analyzing the Multiple Dimensions of Negotiation Processes

A DSS-Based Framework for Enhancing Collaborative Web-Based Operations Management in Manufacturing SME Supply Chains

The Effects of Personalised Negotiation Training on Learning and Performance in Electronic Negotiations

Integrating Time-Preferences into E-Negotiation Systems: A Model, Elicitation Approach and Experimental Implications