Problem structuring: on the nature of, and reaching agreement about, goals

Eden, Colin; Ackermann, Fran

doi:10.1007/s40070-013-0005-6

Cited by 47 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…An objective is considered a means objective if it helps better achieve some other high level objective. If the objective represents something important in its own right, then it is a fundamental objective (see also discussion of the notion of 'goals' in Eden and Ackermann, 2013). The main output of the modelling process is a map of linked objectives, which can then be used to inform the group's decision.…”

Section: Model-based Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Franco

Rouwette

Korzilius

2016

European Journal of Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 modelbased support for practical interventions.

show abstract

Section: Model-based Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Franco

Rouwette

Korzilius

2016

European Journal of Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Core goals are those goals that are at the core of, or central to, the organization doing what it must do to succeed. In other words, if the organization does not do reasonably well in achieving these goals, it very likely will face serious consequences and, indeed, may cease to exist (Eden and Ackermann ). For public organizations, many or most of the core goals may be mandated.…”

Section: Understanding Collaborative Advantage In Terms Of Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The concept of a negative‐avoidance goal may strike readers as odd, perhaps even oxymoronic. At the extreme, negative‐avoidance goals are disaster‐avoidance goals (Eden and Ackermann ). The need for recognizing negative‐avoidance goals occurs for two reasons.…”

Section: Understanding Collaborative Advantage In Terms Of Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Jørgensen and Bozeman comment that “if there is any single item for a public values research agenda, it is developing approaches to sorting out values and making sense of their relationships” (2007, 354). Usually a system of goals (or values) portrays broadly based and fairly generic goals at the top of a hierarchy (Eden and Ackermann , ). In businesses, these generic goals will be statements such as “increase revenue,” “better control costs,” or “increase motivation of all staff.” The ultimate top of the hierarchy is likely have goals such as “increase profitability,” “increase profit,” or “increase shareholder value”—goals common to all for‐profit organizations.…”

Section: An Illustrative Casementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Discovering Collaborative Advantage: The Contributions of Goal Categories and Visual Strategy Mapping

Bryson

Ackermann

Eden

2016

Public Administration Review

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration can make sense when there is some sort of “collaborative advantage” to be gained, meaning organizations can achieve something together that they cannot easily achieve by themselves. However, the literature is essentially silent on how to identify collaborative advantage. This article addresses this shortcoming in the theory of collaborative advantage for public purposes by proposing a set of goal categories that may be used to help articulate collaborative advantage and introducing the use of visual strategy mapping as part of a facilitated group process to figure out what the collaborative advantage might be. Collaborative advantage, as it is normally understood, consists of shared core goals. Collaborative advantage for public purposes should take into account public values beyond shared core goals.

show abstract

“…For instance, “technical peculiarities of unit operations are often over‐simplified or are even neglected” (Schultmann et al. , 737) or the central process of goal formation and defining an objective function is widely under developed (Eden and Ackermann ). Furthermore, assumptions are not realistic (Jayant et al.…”

Section: Shortcomings Of or In Sscmmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Transdisciplinarity Can Help to Improve Operations Research on Sustainable Supply Chains—A Transdisciplinary Modeling Framework

Stindt

Sahamie

Nuss

et al. 2016

J of Business Logistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W e present a transdisciplinary modeling framework that enhances collaborative research on sustainable supply chain management (SSCM).Decision support concerning such systems is commonly provided using operations research (OR) methodologies. The quality of respective models depends on the appropriateness of both mathematical representation of the focal system and data input. Concerning this matter, OR faces severe criticism as groundwork is commonly neglected. This results in a lack of holistic understanding and in insufficient modeling of real-world problems. Crucial characteristics of the underlying system are often over simplified due to single-discipline assessments. Particularly, in the context of complex sustainability challenges, multiple nonacademic competencies and expertise are required. Although latest research indicates that collaborative research settings are highly beneficial regarding SSCM, a dearth of integration between disciplines exists. Therefore, we develop a conceptual framework that helps to overcome these shortcomings based on the paradigm of transdisciplinary research (TDR), which needs substantiation to enhance collaboration and to ensure applicability. Accordingly, we propose appropriate methodologies for each step within the framework. Overall, the framework enables holistic analysis of a focal system by providing a sound approach for SSCMoriented TDR projects. The value of the framework is eventually demonstrated by two cases that deal with SSCM issues.

show abstract

Problem structuring: on the nature of, and reaching agreement about, goals

Cited by 47 publications

References 49 publications

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

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

Discovering Collaborative Advantage: The Contributions of Goal Categories and Visual Strategy Mapping

How Transdisciplinarity Can Help to Improve Operations Research on Sustainable Supply Chains—A Transdisciplinary Modeling Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About