IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v31y2015i1-2p28-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating group model building exercises: a method for comparing externalized mental models and group models

Author

Listed:
  • Geeske Scholz
  • Martina Austermann
  • Kai Kaldrack
  • Claudia Pahl-Wostl

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Geeske Scholz & Martina Austermann & Kai Kaldrack & Claudia Pahl-Wostl, 2015. "Evaluating group model building exercises: a method for comparing externalized mental models and group models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(1-2), pages 28-45, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:31:y:2015:i:1-2:p:28-45
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/sdr.1538
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne Massey & Danial Clapper & Jennifer Blue, 1997. "An interdisciplinary approach for exploring the impact of individual characteristics in the context of GSS research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 72(0), pages 75-101, January.
    2. Schaffernicht, Martin & Groesser, Stefan N., 2011. "A comprehensive method for comparing mental models of dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 57-67, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Nicholas Valcourt & Jeffrey Walters & Amy Javernick‐Will & Karl Linden, 2020. "Assessing the efficacy of group model building workshops in an applied setting through purposive text analysis," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 135-157, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Maria Cleofe Giorgino & Federico Barnabè & Martin Kunc, 2020. "Integrating qualitative system dynamics with accounting practices: The case of integrated reporting and resource mapping," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 97-118, January.
    2. Cassidy, Rachel & Tomoaia-Cotisel, Andrada & Semwanga, Agnes Rwashana & Binyaruka, Peter & Chalabi, Zaid & Blanchet, Karl & Singh, Neha S. & Maiba, John & Borghi, Josephine, 2021. "Understanding the maternal and child health system response to payment for performance in Tanzania using a causal loop diagram approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 285(C).
    3. Raffaele Giordano & Marcela Brugnach & Irene Pluchinotta, 2017. "Ambiguity in Problem Framing as a Barrier to Collective Actions: Some Hints from Groundwater Protection Policy in the Apulia Region," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(5), pages 911-932, September.
    4. Karlijn L. van den Broek & Sina A. Klein & Joseph Luomba & Helen Fischer, 2021. "Introducing M‐Tool: A standardised and inclusive mental model mapping tool," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(4), pages 353-362, October.
    5. Martin F. G. Schaffernicht & Stefan N. Groesser, 2016. "A competence development framework for learning and teaching system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(1), pages 52-81, January.
    6. Federico Cosenz & Guido Noto, 2016. "Applying System Dynamics Modelling to Strategic Management: A Literature Review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 703-741, November.
    7. Thompson, James P. & Howick, Susan & Belton, Valerie, 2016. "Critical Learning Incidents in system dynamics modelling engagements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 945-958.
    8. Schaffernicht, Martin FG. & Groesser, Stefan N., 2024. "Mental models of dynamic systems are different: Adjusting for heterogeneous granularity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(2), pages 653-667.
    9. Schaffernicht, Martin F.G. & Groesser, Stefan N., 2014. "The SEXTANT software: A tool for automating the comparative analysis of mental models of dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 566-578.
    10. Abuabara, Leila & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2021. "Surveying applications of Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1051-1065.
    11. Nicholas Valcourt & Jeffrey Walters & Amy Javernick‐Will & Karl Linden, 2020. "Assessing the efficacy of group model building workshops in an applied setting through purposive text analysis," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 135-157, April.
    12. Sumaiya Haque & Hesam Mahmoudi & Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Konstantinos Triantis, 2023. "Mental models, cognitive maps, and the challenge of quantitative analysis of their network representations," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(2), pages 152-170, April.
    13. Pluchinotta, Irene & Salvia, Giuseppe & Zimmermann, Nici, 2022. "The importance of eliciting stakeholders’ system boundary perceptions for problem structuring and decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 280-293.
    14. Federico Barnabè & Maria Cleofe Giorgino & Martin Kunc, 2019. "Visualizing and managing value creation through integrated reporting practices: a dynamic resource-based perspective," Journal of Management & Governance, Springer;Accademia Italiana di Economia Aziendale (AIDEA), vol. 23(2), pages 537-575, June.
    15. Elsawah, Sondoss & McLucas, Alan & Mazanov, Jason, 2017. "An empirical investigation into the learning effects of management flight simulators: A mental models approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(1), pages 262-272.
    16. Rossen Kazakov & Martin Kunc, 2016. "Foreseeing the Dynamics of Strategy: An Anticipatory Systems Perspective," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(1), pages 1-25, February.
    17. Hassan Abdelbari & Kamran Shafi, 2017. "A computational Intelligence-based Method to ‘Learn’ Causal Loop Diagram-like Structures from Observed Data," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 33(1), pages 3-33, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:31:y:2015:i:1-2:p:28-45. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0883-7066 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.