A framework for evaluating systems thinking interventions: an experimental approach to mental health system change

Huz, Steven; Andersen, David F.; Richardson, George P.; Boothroyd, Roger A.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1727(199722)13:2<149::aid-sdr122>3.0.co;2-s

Cited by 101 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Group model building has become an accepted way of achieving active stakeholder participation in model construction (Huz, Andersen, Richardson, & Boothroyd, 1997;Vennix, 1996;Vennix, Richardson, & Andersen, 1997). A similar trend toward more participation in the design phase can be observed in software engineering (e.g., Robey & Newman, 1996;Trigg & Anderson, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Group Model Building: A Decision Room Approach

Rouwette¹,

Vennix²,

Thijssen

2000

Simulation & Gaming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Group Model Building: A Decision Room Approach

Rouwette¹,

Vennix²,

Thijssen

2000

Simulation & Gaming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Field experiments are less feasible as it would be quite difficult to manipulate FM workshop designs and record decision development processes for large numbers of groups within or between organisations (although see Huz et al, 1997).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops

Franco

Rouwette

2011

European Journal of Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Netherlands ABSTRACT 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.

show abstract

“…These questions have been used before in evaluating group model building interventions (Akkermans et al, 1993Vennix and Rouwette, 2000;Rouwette, 2011). Other studies have used similar questions (McCartt and Rohrbaugh, 1989;Huz et al, 1997) or a subset of the questionnaire (Dwyer and Stave, 2008). When this survey was previously used in combination with semi-structured interviews, the interviews revealed no significant new information (Rouwette and Vennix, 2006).…”

Section: Survey Questionnairementioning

confidence: 99%

Interpersonal success factors for strategy implementation: a case study using group model building

Scott

Cavana

Cameron

2015

Journal of the Operational Research Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Strategy implementation has been identified as an area of system dynamics literature requiring greater attention. Most strategies fail to be implemented successfully, and processes for effectively implementing strategy are yet to be fully explained and explored. The reported interpersonal success factors for strategy implementation are reported outcomes for group model building, suggesting potential applicability. A case study using validated survey methods yielded promising results, and suggests that further study is needed. This application of group model building may be a manifestation of the IKEA affect, where individuals value more highly solutions that they have partially assembled, and competency motivation, where individuals have positive affect to the successful completion of a complex task.

show abstract

A framework for evaluating systems thinking interventions: an experimental approach to mental health system change

Cited by 101 publications

References 17 publications

Group Model Building: A Decision Room Approach

Group Model Building: A Decision Room Approach

Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops

Interpersonal success factors for strategy implementation: a case study using group model building

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About