IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/jorsoc/v67y2016i12d10.1057_jors.2016.19.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysing the use of cognitive maps in an experiment on a group decision process

Author

Listed:
  • Annielli A R Cunha

    (Federal University of Pernambuco)

  • Danielle C Morais

    (Federal University of Pernambuco)

Abstract

Identifying the practical benefits of theoretical methods is a challenge in several fields. The operational research approach, known as Soft, has achieved a field of study status and, from that, Problem Structuring Methods (PSM) have been consolidated as support tools in the group decision process. Thus, aiming to contribute to the improvement of the group decision process, this paper presents the results of an experiment involving 42 students of the Management Engineering major in a general decision process. Strategic Options Development and Analysis is a PSM that uses cognitive maps to express the group’s understanding of a problem. Some practical implications on the use of cognitive maps are evaluated by establishing hypotheses. Such implications were drawn from the comparison of each participant’s personal evaluation of the decision-making process to the final decision taken by the group along with observations and analysis of the groups that employed, and the ones that did not employ the cognitive mapping technique.

Suggested Citation

  • Annielli A R Cunha & Danielle C Morais, 2016. "Analysing the use of cognitive maps in an experiment on a group decision process," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(12), pages 1459-1468, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:67:y:2016:i:12:d:10.1057_jors.2016.19
    DOI: 10.1057/jors.2016.19
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/jors.2016.19
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/jors.2016.19?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    2. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Burdon, Daryl & Elliott, Michael, 2013. "A problem structuring method for ecosystem-based management: The DPSIR modelling process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 227(3), pages 558-569.
    3. Jackson, Mike C., 2001. "Critical systems thinking and practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(2), pages 233-244, January.
    4. A Morton & F Ackermann & V Belton, 2007. "Problem structuring without workshops? Experiences with distributed interaction within a PSM process," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 547-556, May.
    5. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    6. Kato, Hironori & Shiroyama, Hideaki & Nakagawa, Yoshinori, 2014. "Public policy structuring incorporating reciprocal expectation analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 171-183.
    7. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    8. L White, 2006. "Evaluating problem-structuring methods: developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSMs," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 842-855, July.
    9. D Champion & J M Wilson, 2010. "The impact of contingency factors on validation of problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(9), pages 1420-1431, September.
    10. Jonathan Levin & Barry Nalebuff, 1995. "An Introduction to Vote-Counting Schemes," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(1), pages 3-26, Winter.
    11. Mingers, John, 2011. "Soft OR comes of age--but not everywhere!," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 729-741, December.
    12. Joldersma, Cisca & Roelofs, Ellie, 2004. "The impact of soft OR-methods on problem structuring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 696-708, February.
    13. Etienne Rouwette & Ingrid Bastings & Hans Blokker, 2011. "A Comparison of Group Model Building and Strategic Options Development and Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 781-803, November.
    14. Phi, Giang & Dredge, Dianne & Whitford, Michelle, 2014. "Understanding conflicting perspectives in event planning and management using Q method," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 406-415.
    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. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    2. Lucas Miguel Alencar Correia & Jonhatan Magno Norte Silva & Wilza Karla Leite & Ruan Eduardo Carneiro Lucas & Geraldo Alves Colaço, 2022. "A multicriteria decision model to rank workstations in a footwear industry based on a FITradeoff-ranking method for ergonomics interventions," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 3335-3371, September.
    3. de Gooyert, Vincent & Rouwette, Etiënne & van Kranenburg, Hans & Freeman, Edward & van Breen, Harry, 2022. "Cognitive change and consensus forming in facilitated modelling: A comparison of experienced and observed outcomes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 589-599.
    4. Annielli Cunha & Danielle Morais, 2019. "Problem structuring methods in group decision making: a comparative study of their application," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1081-1100, December.
    5. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    6. Marco Castellani & Linda Alengoz & Niccolò Casnici & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "A role-game laboratory experiment on the influence of country prospects reports on investment decisions in two artificial organizational settings," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 21(1), pages 121-149, June.

    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. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    2. David Lowe & Louise Martingale & Mike Yearworth, 2016. "Guiding interventions in a multi-organisational context: combining the Viable System Model and Hierarchical Process Modelling for use as a Problem Structuring Method," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(12), pages 1481-1495, December.
    3. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    4. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    5. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    6. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    7. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Midgley, Gerald & Hodgson, Anthony M., 2020. "Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 321-340.
    8. White, Leroy & Burger, Katharina & Yearworth, Mike, 2016. "Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 983-1004.
    9. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    10. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    11. Small, Adrian & Wainwright, David, 2018. "Privacy and security of electronic patient records – Tailoring multimethodology to explore the socio-political problems associated with Role Based Access Control systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 344-360.
    12. Simon Bell & Sami Mahroum & Nasser Yassin, 2017. "Towards understanding problem structuring and groups with triple task methodology ‘e’," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 68(2), pages 192-206, February.
    13. Durugbo, Christopher M., 2020. "Affordance-based problem structuring for workplace innovation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(2), pages 617-631.
    14. Cronin, Karen & Midgley, Gerald & Jackson, Laurie Skuba, 2014. "Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 145-158.
    15. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P., 2018. "Community Operational Research and Citizen Science: Two icons in need of each other?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1111-1124.
    16. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Luoma, Jukka & Saarinen, Esa, 2013. "On the importance of behavioral operational research: The case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(3), pages 623-634.
    17. Laouris, Yiannis & Michaelides, Marios, 2018. "Structured Democratic Dialogue: An application of a mathematical problem structuring method to facilitate reforms with local authorities in Cyprus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 918-931.
    18. Bekius, Femke & Gomes, Sharlene L., 2023. "A framework to design game theory-based interventions for strategic analysis of real-world problems with stakeholders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 309(2), pages 925-938.
    19. Scott, Rodney J & Cavana, Robert Y & Cameron, Donald, 2016. "Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 908-918.
    20. Mahmoud Dehghan Nayeri & Moein Khazaei & Fatemeh Alinasab-Imani, 2020. "The Critical Heuristics of Iranian Banking Credit System: Analysis of the Antithetical Opinions of the Beneficiaries," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 363-392, June.

    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:pal:jorsoc:v:67:y:2016:i:12:d:10.1057_jors.2016.19. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .

    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.