E.A.J.A. Rouwette

Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support

The authors use the term, ‘Group Model Building’ (GMB) (Richardson and Andersen, 1995; Vennix, 1996, 1999) to refer to a bundle of techniques used to construct system dynamics models working direct...

Group Model-Building To Facilitate Organizational Change: An Exploratory Study

An important objective of most system dynamics modeling projects is to support strategic decision making. This paper describes a (qualitative) modeling project where the primary goal was to establish consensus regarding the problem situation and commitment to the action necessary for change. The project was conducted with a group of mid-level managers of a company at the beginning of a period of organizational change. This group of managers engaged in a series of group model-building sessions, facilitated by the authors. Extensive evaluation of the project results indicates that consensus and commitment with regard to the problem have been established, but that the project was not successful in creating a full consensus on the course of action.

Group model building: a decision room approach

In this article, the authors investigate the benefits and drawbacks of using group model building in a group decision room. An approach to group model building adapted for use in a group decision room is described. The authors then determine the feasibility of such an approach in a pilot study and compare the results of the traditional version with those of the electronic version used by a group of 32 graduate students. Specifically, the authors assess the effects on quality of communication, satisfaction, knowledge (of others’ opinions and of the problem), consensus, and commitment. The evaluation shows that the electronic version yields positive results similar to the nonelectronic version. This result strengthens the idea that electronic support can be used to avoid the direct costs of convening groups, as is necessary in the traditional form. A number of improvements to both the intervention and the evaluation procedure are discussed.

Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops

While the facilitated modelling literature recognises the importance of the group process within facilitated modelling workshops, published empirical research rarely examines their dynamic nature. In this paper, we address this gap in the literature in two ways. First, we propose to locate facilitated modelling workshops as the main focus of investigation, and adopt decision development as the analytical lens. Second, we provide guidance regarding how to implement a research strategy that is informed by such a focus. We start by mapping the different conceptualisations of decision development that seem embedded within the facilitated modelling tradition, and contrast them with theoretical models from the group communication field. Our analysis identifies a number of potentially useful areas for the study of facilitated modelling workshops from a decision development perspective, and articulates a number tentative research questions and testable propositions amenable to empirical research. Central to our proposal are research methods for the study of dynamic group processes. We thus discuss the steps required to extract group process data from facilitated modelling workshops that are usable and open to analysis. This includes a review of issues regarding research design, coding scheme development, data coding and choice of analytical techniques. Finally, we offer conclusions and briefly discuss some feasibility issues related to the implementation of our proposal.

The Role of Ecological Science in Environmental Policy Making: from a Pacification toward a Facilitation Strategy

Based on a Dutch case study on shellfish fishery policy making and a literature review, we expand existing guidelines for coastal zone management. We deduce constraints for handling societally contested and scientifically complex environmental issues. Our additions focus on problem structuring and handling of scientific uncertainties. Both are means to increase consensus about beliefs, ambitions, and directions for solutions. Before policy making can take place, complex environmental issues need to become more structured by reducing either scientific uncertainty or societal dissent: the “pacification strategy” and the “facilitation strategy,” respectively. We show that the use of a pacification strategy, in which science is expected to pacify stakeholders, is not an answer, as uncertainties are likely to remain high due to a different pacing of scientific progress and policy-making demands. Instead, we propose a facilitation strategy in which stakeholders formulate shared ambitions and directions for solutions at an early stage, and ecological scientists extend their participation in the process by scientifically assessing policy alternatives. With an eye to giving ecological science a significant role in policy making and management, we present an improved set of guidelines, incorporating the facilitation strategy by focusing on balancing economic and ecological interests and shared policy formulation by scientific inquiry instead of political opportunity.

Facilitated Modelling in Strategy Development: Measuring the Impact on Communication, Consensus and Commitment

Facilitated modelling is used in supporting the resolution of strategic issues mainly because it is expected to improve communication between decision makers, foster consensus and create commitment. Researchers in both the strategy and facilitated modelling fields call for more systematic research on how strategy development works in practice and how outcomes are created. In this paper, three facilitated modelling cases on strategic issues are studied using both written questionnaires, developed in the strategy and decision support fields, and semi-structured interviews. Results of both measurement approaches are compared to determine (a) to what extent outcomes in participants’ own terms are similar to concepts in the questionnaire and (b) whether changes measured by both methods are similar. Interview results are used to assess (c) which elements of the intervention contribute to outcomes. Findings suggest that questionnaires offer clear benefits as standardized measurement of facilitated modelling outcomes.

The added value of Planning Support Systems: A practitioner's perspective

Abstract Planning Support Systems (PSS) are geo-information based tools to support planning. Since the term PSS appeared for the first time in the late 1980s it has evolved into a serious academic subfield. In this debate, little systematic attention has been paid to the added value of PSS for planning practice. In particular the perspective of users requires more empirical attention. This paper attempts to fill this gap by answering the question: What is the practitioner’s perception of the added value of PSS? In doing so we first develop a conceptual framework including the most important added values of PSS observed in the literature. Next, we describe an empirical study of the MapTable PSS, a support tool that is relatively frequently used in the Netherlands. Fifteen interviews were conducted and a Group Decision Room workshop was organized in order to systematically gather perceptions of users about the added value of this PSS. Added values that particularly emphasized are improved collaboration and communication among stakeholders, something which resonates with recent trends in planning. The added value of a better informed outcome is, somewhat surprisingly, considered less important. In order to deepen our understanding, we recommend more research in different contexts and with different tools.

A dialogue game for analysing group model building: framing collaborative modelling and its facilitation

This paper concerns a specific approach to analysing and structuring operational situations in collaborative modelling. Collaborative modelling is viewed here as ‘the goal-driven creation and shaping of models that are based on the principles of rational description and reasoning’. Our long term goal is to use this analysis as a basis for improvement of collaborative modelling and the development of dedicated interactive support environments. We focus on a specific, established flavour of collaborative modelling called group model building (GMB), rooted in system dynamics. GMB is the collaborative modelling of causal relations and feedback loops, and aims for the understanding of the complex influences among system variables in some system. We discuss our theoretical approach to the systematic analysis and framing of collaborative modelling as dialogue games. We then present an evaluated prototype of a dialogue game for analysing GMB: an operational framing of constrained and guided GMB conversations.

Setting Rules of Play for Collaborative Modeling

A gaming approach to methods and tooling for operational modeling is proposed, emphasizing the interactive and creative collaborative modeling process rather than modeling languages or model representations. The approach builds on existing work in method engineering, but focuses on the creation of model-oriented interactive systems. Various game elements as defined in game design theory are discussed in relation to games-for-modeling. In addition, a number of possible game concepts (like competition, score systems, etc.) are considered and illustrated by means of two design sketches of multi-player games for collaborative modeling.

Different paths to consensus? The impact of need for closure on model-supported group conflict management

Empirical evidence on how cognitive factors impact the effectiveness of model-supported group decision making is lacking. This study reports on an experiment on the effects of need for closure, defined as a desire for definite knowledge on some issue and the eschewal of ambiguity. The study was conducted with over 40 postgraduate student groups. A quantitative analysis shows that compared to groups low in need for closure, groups high in need for closure experienced less conflict when using Value-Focused Thinking to make a budget allocation decision. Furthermore, low need for closure groups used the model to surface conflict and engaged in open discussions to come to an agreement. By contrast, high need for closure groups suppressed conflict and used the model to put boundaries on the discussion. Interestingly, both groups achieve similar levels of consensus, and high need for closure groups are more satisfied than low need for closure groups. A qualitative analysis of a subset of groups reveals that in high need for closure groups only a few participants control the model building process, and final decisions are not based on the model but on simpler tools. The findings highlight the need to account for the effects of cognitive factors when designing and deploying model-based support for practical interventions.