Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Explanatory Mechanisms for Group Model Building

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Group Model Building

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Operations Research ((BRIEFSOPERAT))

  • 509 Accesses

Abstract

Group model building describes a variety of methods for involving clients or stakeholders in the creation of a system dynamics model. Group model building appears to support a range of cognitive and interpersonal effects among participants. The mechanisms behind these effects are still unclear, though several explanations have been proposed. This chapter collates and explains each of these explanations: operator logic; design logic; outcome feedback; cue selection; system archetypes; attitude formation; shared language; modelling as persuasion; boundary objects; and cognitive bias.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen DF, Maxwell TA, Richardson GP, Stewart TR (1994) Mental models and dynamic decision making in a simulation of welfare reform. In: Proceedings of the 1994 international system dynamics conference. Chestnut Hill, System Dynamics Society

    Google Scholar 

  • Aronson E, Mills J (1959) The effects of severity of initiation on liking for a group. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 59(2):177–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychol Rev 84(2):191–215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barbe WB, Swassing RH, Milone MN (1979) Teaching through modality strengths: concepts and practices. Zaner-Blosner, Columbus

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ Sci 14(3):312–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Bußwolder P (2015) The effect of a structured method on mental model accuracy and performance in a complex task. Syst 3(4):264–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cannon-Bowers JA, Salas E, Converse S (1993) Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In: Castellan NJ (ed) Individual and group decision making. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, pp 221–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlile PR (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organ Sci 13(4):442–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlile PR (2004) Transferring, translating, and transforming: an integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organ Sci 15(5):555–568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carmon Z, Wertenbroch K, Zeelenberg M (2003) Option attachment: when deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. J Consum Res 30(1):15–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (2000) The emergent properties of SSM in use: a symposium by reflective practitioners. Syst Pract Action Res 13(6):799–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesñevar C, Modgil S, Rahwan I, Reed C, Simari G, South M, Vreeswijk G, Willmott S (2006) Towards an argument interchange format. Knowl Eng Rev 21(4):293–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark RE, Sugrue BM (1988) Research on instructional media (1978–1988). In: Ely D (ed) Educational Media Yearbook (1987–1988). Libraries Unlimited, Denver, pp 19–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Daellenbach HG (2001) Hard OR, soft OR, problem structuring methods, critical systems thinking: a primer. In: Proceedings of the operational research society of New Zealand conference. New Zealand, Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manage Sci 9(3):458–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH, Gustafson DH (1975) Group techniques for program planning: a guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott Foresman

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Dohle S, Rall S, Siegrist M (2014) I cooked it myself: preparing food increases liking and consumption. Food Qual Prefer 33:14–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn R, Beaudry J, Klavas A (2002) Survey of research on learning styles. Calif J Sci Educ 2(2):75–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden CE (1992) On the nature of cognitive maps. J Manage Stud 29(3):261–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esser JK (1998) Alive and well after 25 years: a review of groupthink research. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 73(2):116–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franke N, Piller F (2004) Value creation by toolkits for user innovation and design: the case of the watch market. J Prod Innov Manage 21(6):401–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gary MS, Wood RE (2011) Mental models, decision rules, and performance heterogeneity. Strateg Manage J 32:560–594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottschall J (2012) The storytelling animal: how stories make us human. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffiths MD (1994) The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. Brit J Psychol 85(3):351–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson K (1998) The role of material objects in the design process: a comparison of two design cultures and how they contend with automation. Sci Technol Human Values 23(2):139–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hedström P, Ylikoski P (2010) Causal mechanisms in the social Sci. Annu Rev Sociology 36:49–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson K (1991) Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Sci Technol Human Values 16(4):448–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson K (1998) The role of material objects in the design process: a comparison of two design cultures and how they contend with automation. Sci Technol Human Values 23(2):139–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL (1971) Groupthink. Psychol Today 5(6):43–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones NA, Ross H, Lynam T, Perez P, Leitch A (2011) Mental models: An interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecol Soc 16(1):46

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler R (1990) Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. J Polit Econ 98(6):1325–1348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim H (2009) In search of a mental model-like concept for group-level modelling. Syst Dyn Rev 25(3):207–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim DH, Burchill G (1992) System archetypes as a diagnostic tool: a field-based study of TQM implementations. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the system dynamics society

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner P, Buckingham SS, Carr C (2003) Visualizing argumentation: software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making. Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Law J (1987) Technology, closure and heterogeneous engineering: the case of the Portuguese expansion. In: Bijker W, Pinch T, Hughes TP (eds) The social construction of technological systems. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 111–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Lujan HL, DiCarlo SE (2006) First-year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. Adv Physiol Educ 30(1):13–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maani KE, Cavana RY (2007) Systems thinking, system dynamics—managing change and complexity, 2nd edn. New Zealand, Pearson Education

    Google Scholar 

  • Maani KE, Maharaj V (2003) Links between systems thinking and complex decision making. Syst Dyn Rev 20(1):21–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw AP, Tetlock P, Kristel O (2003) The limits of fungibility: relational schemata and the value of things. J Consum Res 30(2):219–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mochon D, Norton MI, Ariely D (2012) Bolstering and restoring feelings of competence via the IKEA effect. Int J Res Mark 29(4):363–369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moray N (1998) Identifying mental models of complex human-machine systems. Int J Ind Ergon 22:293–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moray N (2004) Models of models of...mental models. In: Moray N (ed) Ergonomics: major writings. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 506–526

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadeau R, Cloutier E, Guay JH (1993) New evidence about the existence of a bandwagon effect in the opinion formation process. Int Polit Sci Rev 14(2):203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman S, Marshall C (1991) Pushing Toulmin too far: learning from an argument representation scheme. Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA, USA, Technical Report SSL-92:45

    Google Scholar 

  • Norton M, Mochon D, Ariely D (2012) The ‘IKEA effect’: when labor leads to love. J Consum Psychol 22(3):453–460

    Google Scholar 

  • Paich M (1985) Generic structures. Syst Dyn Rev 1:126–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peck J, Shu SB (2009) The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. J Consum Res 36(3):434–447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE, Cacioppo JT (1984) Source factors and the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. ACR North American Advances

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty R, Cacioppo J (1986) The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Adv Exp Social Psychol 19:123–205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petty RE, Unnava RH, Strathman AJ (1991) Theories of attitude change. Handbook of consumer behavior, pp 241–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro R (2007) The language barrier as an aid to communication. Social Stud Sci 37(4):561–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson GP (1997) Problems in causal loop diagrams revisited. Syst Dyn Rev 13:247–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson GP, Pugh AL (1981) Introduction to system dynamics modeling with DYNAMO. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson GP, Andersen DF, Maxwell TA, Stewart TR (1994) Foundations of mental model research. In: Proceedings of the 1994 international system dynamics conference. System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond B (1993) Systems thinking: critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond. Syst Dyn Rev 9(2):113–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richmond B (1997) The strategic forum aligning objectives, strategy and process. Syst Dyn Rev 13(2):131–148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J (1996) What's the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces 26(6):117–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouse WB, Morris NM (1986) On looking into the black box: prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychol Bull 100:349–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, Felling A (2009) On evaluating the performance of problem structuring methods: An attempt at formulating a conceptual model. Group Dec Negot 18:567–587

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sapsed J, Salter A (2004) Postcards from the edge: local communities, global programs and boundary objects. Organ Stud 25(9):1515–1534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffernicht M (2010) Causal loop diagrams between structure and behaviour: a critical analysis of the relationship between polarity, behaviour and events. Syst Res Behav Sci 27:653–666

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker PJH (1993) Multiple scenario development: its conceptual and behavioral foundation. Strateg Manage J 14(3):193–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schum DA (1993) Argument structuring and evidence evaluation. Inside the juror: the psychology of juror decision making, pp 175–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott RJ (2014a) Group model building and mental model change. Ph.d. dissertation, University of Queensland

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott RJ (2017) Explaining how group model building supports enduring agreement. J Manag Organisation. Accepted for publication, forthcoming

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott RJ, Cavana RY, Cameron D (2013a) 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 

  • Scott RJ, Cavana RY, Cameron D (2014) Group model building—do clients value reported outcomes? In: Proceedings of the 2014 international system dynamics conference, Delft, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott RJ, Cavana RY, Cameron D (2015) Group model building and strategy implementation. J Oper Res Soc 66(6):1023–1034

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott RJ, Cavana RY, Cameron D (2016a) Client perceptions of reported outcomes of group model building in the New Zealand public sector. Group Dec Negot 25(1):77–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seibold DR, Meyers RA (2007) Group argument: a structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Res 38(3):312–336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spee AP, Jarzabkowski P (2009) Strategy tools as boundary objects. Strat Organ 7(2):223–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Star SL, Griesemer JR (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Stud Sci 19(3):387–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modelling for a complex world. McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart TR, Lusk CM (1994) Seven components of judgmental forecasting skill: implications for research and the improvement of forecasts. J Forecast 13(7):579–599

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone-Jovicich SS, Lynam T, Leitch S, Jones NA (2011) Using consensus analysis to assess mental models about water use and management in the Crocodile River catchment, South Africa. Ecol Soc 16(1):45

    Google Scholar 

  • Sundberg M (2007) Parameterizations as boundary objects on the climate arena. Social Stud Sci 37(3):473–488

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Surowiecki J (2004) The wisdom of crowds. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson DV, Norton MI (2011) The social utility of feature creep. J Mark Res 48(3):555–565

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin SE (2003) The uses of argument. Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vennix JAM, Rouwette EAJA (2000) Group model building. What does the client think of it now? In: Proceedings of 2000 international system dynamics conference. System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill

    Google Scholar 

  • Vul E, Pashler H (2008) Measuring the Crowd Within: probabilistic representations within individuals. Psychol Sci 19(7):645–647

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White RW (1959) Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychol Rev 66(5):297–333

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolstenholme E (2004) Using generic system archetypes to support thinking and modelling. Syst Dyn Rev 20(4):341–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolley AW, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashmi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330(6004):686–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

    Rodney Scott

Authors
  1. Rodney Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodney Scott .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scott, R. (2018). Explanatory Mechanisms for Group Model Building. In: Group Model Building. SpringerBriefs in Operations Research. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8959-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation