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

Herrera, Hugo; McCardle-Keurentjes, M.H.F.; Videira, Nuno

doi:10.1007/s10726-016-9480-z

Cited by 26 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…At the same time, a laboratory or classroom research setting is more constrained and limited than a real‐world problem situation would be (Saunders et al, ); this lowers the external validity of experimental results. So far, relatively few experimental studies on group model building have been conducted (Herrera et al, ; Scott et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential benefits of model use in group model building: insights from an experimental investigation

McCardle-Keurentjes

Rouwette

Vennix

et al. 2018

System Dynamics Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do individuals discover the feedback structure of a situation? Does such knowledge help people design and select better decisions? Do decision aids such as causal loop diagrams help? These questions have so far received limited research attention in controlled studies in system dynamics. Here we test the effectiveness of different methods commonly used in group decision settings such as group model building workshops. We employed a hidden profile experimental design in which each individual in a group possessed private information that must be shared to arrive at a good solution-in this case, policies to improve performance. The task placed participants in the role of a manager in a department at the Saturday Evening Post. Processing of department-specific information will be needed to discover the full feedback structure. We compare decision quality and structural understanding across four conditions: (i) a control setting in which participants only receive minutes of a meeting; (ii) a setting in which participants are actively engaged in qualitative modeling (developing a causal loop diagram); (iii) a setting in which participants receive a causal loop diagram as a decision aid; and (iv) setting (iii) but with all participants given full information. Model use had no effect on the importance participants attached to critical information, understanding of model structure, or confidence in their decisions. However, for participants actively engaged in modeling, we found a substantial correlation between importance attached to critical information, understanding, and confidence. The results have implications for group model building research and practice.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Potential benefits of model use in group model building: insights from an experimental investigation

McCardle-Keurentjes

Rouwette

Vennix

et al. 2018

System Dynamics Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In our study we used one version of facilitated modelling: group model building resulting in qualitative causal loop diagrams. Although there are indications of similarities between the process followed in different approaches focused on qualitative causal modelling (see Herrera et al 2016;Rouwette et al 2011), this assumption remains to be tested.…”

Section: Conclusion and Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asking Questions: A Sine Qua Non of Facilitation in Decision Support?

McCardle-Keurentjes

Rouwette

2018

Group Decis Negot

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reflects our ongoing interest in discovering essential elements of facilitation in decision support for groups with members having different perspectives on a strategic problem. We investigated questioning behaviour, a critical aspect of microlevel behaviour, of the facilitator in a classroom experiment with five-person groups (N 26). The supported groups used a facilitated modelling approach, that is, group model building, which is based on system dynamics. In the control condition, one of the participants led the group discussion in the role of chairperson. As expected, we found that the facilitator asked more questions than the chairperson. Subsequently, based on proposed functions of questions by discussion leaders in group decision making, we distinguished three categories of questions; related to (a) rational and social validation, (b) reflection, and (c) information management. Analysis of question type frequencies revealed that facilitators mainly ask questions from the rational and social validation category, and that this question type declines over the course of the discussion process. Questions prompting reflection increased over time. Information management questions were mostly used in the beginning and middle part of the session. In the groups led by a chairperson, a less clear picture emerged. There was a great variety between groups with respect to type of questions and sequence in which the chairperson asked questions. The only consistent result for unsupported meetings is that information management primarily took place at the end of the sessions.

show abstract

“…Drawing from critical ecological economics and sustainability science frameworks, Ecological Economics and Environmental Management researchers at CENSE collaborate since the late 90s in the development of participatory SD approaches to promote engagement of inter-organizational stakeholder groups in problem scoping and policy analysis processes. Highlights from the group's work on participatory SD related topics include (a) development of systems mapping approaches (e.g., Videira, Lopes, Antunes, & Santos, 2012) and integrated sustainability assessment frameworks (e.g., Videira, Antunes, Santos, & Lopes, 2010); (b) mixedmethod approaches combining participatory modelling with other assessment tools (e.g., Antunes, Santos, & Videira, 2006;Herrera, McCardle-Keurentjes, & Videira, 2016;Meinherz & Videira, 2018;Videira, Schneider, Sekulova, & Kallis, 2014); (c) applications to several environmental and sustainability themes, such as water governance (e.g., Antunes, Kallis, Videira, & Santos, 2009;), ecosystem services (e.g., Lopes & Videira, 2017), and sustainable consumption (e.g., Sedlacko, Martinuzzi, Røpke, Videira, & Antunes, 2014); and (d) stock-taking of contributions to research methods and applications in environmental and sustainability studies (e.g., Antunes, Stave, Videira, & Santos, 2015;Videira, Antunes, & Santos, 2017;Videira, van den Belt, Antunes, Santos, & Boumans, 2011).…”

Section: Modelling Sustainability Pathwaysmentioning

confidence: 99%