Microcomputers and Strategic Decision Making

Milter, Richard G.; Rohrbaugh, John

doi:10.2307/3380001

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The brainchild of John Rohrbaugh, a social psychologist working in small group processes, DTG brought together a sophisticated understanding of social science research on small group process (Rohrbaugh 1979 and1981) with an appreciation for the need for facilitation (Quinn et al 1985) with a variety of OR modelling approaches (Milter and Rohrbaugh 1985;1988). (Richardson and Andersen 1995).…”

Section: A Short History Of Client Involvement In System Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Andersen

Vennix

Richardson

et al. 2007

Journal of the Operational Research Society

220

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

to refer to a bundle of techniques used to construct system dynamics models working directly with client groups on key strategic decisions. We use facilitated face-to-face meetings to elicit model structure and to engage client teams directly in the process of model conceptualization, formulation, analysis, and decision making."Group Model Building" (GMB) as we use the term has a cosy, narrow, some might say parochial ring to it. In this brief title, we fail to mention that the models our groups build are always system dynamics models. Furthermore as we discuss below, GMB has much in common with six other named techniques for gaining client involvement in strategic problem finding and problem resolving activities, all using system dynamics models, none of which use the term Group Model Building. We also see our work as sharing many common concerns with the viewpoints expressed in JORS' previous symposium on Problem Structuring Methods. Eden and Ackermann (2006) list four similarities between PSMs: (1) use of a model as a transitional object, (2) increasing the overall productivity of group process, (3) attention to facilitation and effective group process, and (4) appreciation of the significance of facilitation skills. If we were to use Eden and Ackermann's (2006) four points of similarity as a loose definition of PSMs we would have to conclude that GMB is another PSM.We are probably an example of Westcombe, Franco, and Shaw's (2006) fifth challenge "to design a new PSM that explicitly integrates with a certain approach to hard modelling" while trying to avoid working "simply as a bolt-on to hard modelling".

show abstract

Section: A Short History Of Client Involvement In System Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Andersen

Vennix

Richardson

et al. 2007

Journal of the Operational Research Society

220

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The approach has been used successfully to understand and tackle problems in areas as diverse as expert estimation and forecasting (Mumpower and Stewart, 1996), bargaining and negotiation (Mumpower et al, 1988), resource allocation (Milter and Rohrbaugh, 1985), investment decisions in information systems (Schuman and Rohrbaugh, 1991;Larsen and Bloniarz, 2000), and policy analysis using system dynamics (Reagan-Cirincione et al, 1991;Richardson et al, 1992;Richardson and Andersen, 1995;Kelly 1998;Rohrbaugh, 2000). The group has also developed an approach to evaluate group processes (Quinn and Rohrbaugh, 1983;McCartt andRohrbaugh, 1989, 1995).…”

Section: Previous Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anatomy of a group model‐building intervention: building dynamic theory from case study research

Luna‐Reyes

Martínez-Moyano

Pardo

et al. 2006

System Dynamics Review

136

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The system dynamics group at the Rockefeller College of the University at Albany has been developing techniques to create system dynamic models with groups of managers during the last 25 years. Building upon their tradition in decision conferencing, the group has developed a particular style that involves a facilitation team in which people play different roles. Throughout these years of experience, the group has also developed several "scripts" to elicit knowledge from experts based on small-groups research, and well-established practices in the development of system dynamics models. This paper constitutes a detailed documentation of a relatively small-scale modeling effort that took place in early 2001, offering a "soup to nuts" description of group model building at Albany. The paper describes in detail nine of the scripts that the group has developed, offering some reflections about their advantages and limitations. Copyright methods. This particular GMB effort was completed over a 4-month period in 2001, and it was designed following the procedures and methods developed at the University at Albany. In addition to presenting a detailed description of the process, and the products associated with the project, the paper also documents the effort needed to accomplish the objectives by both modeling and client teams. The paper extends the discussion about the use of scripts to develop system dynamic models with groups, as initiated by , presenting two new scripts and detailed descriptions and process products of seven scripts more.The case presentation constitutes a "soup to nuts" description of the Albany GMB approach. The description also includes some process-related products published for the first time. 2 These products illustrate the results obtained in the case and assist other system dynamics practitioners to replicate the experience. The perceived success of the experience reported in this paper encouraged continued effort in model building that has extended into 2005, including GMB to examine the dynamics of information integration in intergovernmental projects.Following this brief introduction, the paper is organized into four sections. The first of them consists of a review of previous research in GMB. The next section includes a description of the specific GMB effort documented in this paper. The following section contains a description of the eight scripts used in the GMB, and the final section includes a series of concluding remarks.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com)

show abstract

“…The director of the Center for Interactive Management at George Mason University also reports favourable results (Christakis, 1984(Christakis, , 1985. A few State agencies have also used decision conferences (see Milter and Rohrbaugh , 1985;Quinn, et al, 1985).…”

Section: The Decision Conference Technique Stands Out As a Reasonablymentioning

confidence: 99%

Advanced systems for program appraisal: prospects for General Systems Decision Support centres in the USA

Wood

1987

Project Appraisal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Microcomputers and Strategic Decision Making

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

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

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

Anatomy of a group model‐building intervention: building dynamic theory from case study research

Advanced systems for program appraisal: prospects for General Systems Decision Support centres in the USA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About