IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v18y2009i6d10.1007_s10726-007-9100-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On Evaluating the Performance of Problem Structuring Methods: An Attempt at Formulating a Conceptual Model

Author

Listed:
  • Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette
  • Jac A. M. Vennix
  • Albert J. A. Felling

Abstract

In the past decade there has been a discussion on the need for and degree of empirical evidence for the effectiveness of problem structuring methods (PSMs). Some authors propose that PSMs are used in unique situations which are difficult to study, both from a methodological and a practical perspective. In another view experimental validation is necessary and, if not obtained, PSMs remain substantially invalidated and thus ‘suspect’ with regard to their claims of effectiveness. Both views agree on one point: the necessity of being clear about the important factors in the context in which a method is used, the method’s aims and its essential elements through which these aims are achieved. A clear formulation of central variables is the core of a theoretical validation, without which empirical testing of effects is impossible. Since the process of PSMs is sometimes referred to as ‘more art than science’, increased clarity on the PSM process also supports the transfer of methods. In this article we consider goals important to most PSMs, such as consensus and commitment. We then focus on outcomes of group model building, and expectations on how context and group modeling process contributes to outcomes. Next we discuss the similarity of these central variables and relations to two sets of theories in social psychology: the theory of planned behavior and dual process theories of persuasion. On the basis of these theories we construct a preliminary conceptual model on group model building effectiveness and address its practical applicability for research on PSM.

Suggested Citation

  • Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette & Jac A. M. Vennix & Albert J. A. Felling, 2009. "On Evaluating the Performance of Problem Structuring Methods: An Attempt at Formulating a Conceptual Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 567-587, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:18:y:2009:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-007-9100-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-007-9100-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-007-9100-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-007-9100-z?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. Wolstenholme, Eric F., 1992. "The definition and application of a stepwise approach to model conceptualisation and analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 123-136, May.
    2. Randall, Donna M., 1993. "Cross-cultural research on organizational commitment: A review and application of Hofstede's Value Survey Module," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 91-110, January.
    3. Lane, David C., 1992. "Modelling as learning: A consultancy methodology for enhancing learning in management teams," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 64-84, May.
    4. Jonathan Rosenhead, 1996. "What's the Problem? An Introduction to Problem Structuring Methods," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 26(6), pages 117-131, December.
    5. P Checkland, 2006. "Reply to Eden and Ackermann: Any future for problem structuring methods?," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 769-771, July.
    6. F Delauzun & E Mollona, 1999. "Introducing system dynamics to the BBC World Service: an insider perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 50(4), pages 364-371, April.
    7. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    8. Morecroft, John D. W., 1992. "Executive knowledge, models and learning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 9-27, May.
    9. D F Andersen & J A M Vennix & G P Richardson & E A J A Rouwette, 2007. "Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 691-694, May.
    10. G. Pervan & L.F. Lewis & D.S. Bajwa, 2004. "Adoption and Use of Electronic Meeting Systems in Large Australian and New Zealand Organizations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(5), pages 403-414, September.
    11. Jay W. Forrester, 1968. "Industrial Dynamics--After the First Decade," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(7), pages 398-415, March.
    12. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    13. Sterman, John., 1994. "Learning in and about complex systems," Working papers 3660-94., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    14. C Eden & F Ackermann, 2006. "Where next for problem structuring methods," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(7), pages 766-768, July.
    15. Eden, Colin, 1995. "On evaluating the performance of `wide-band' GDSS's," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 302-311, March.
    16. Finlay, Paul N., 1998. "On evaluating the performance of GSS: Furthering the debate," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 193-201, May.
    17. Rowe, Gene & Wright, George, 1999. "The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 353-375, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. D F Andersen & J A M Vennix & G P Richardson & E A J A Rouwette, 2007. "Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 691-694, May.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Michael Yearworth & Gordon Edwards, 2014. "On the Desirability of Integrating Research Methods into Overall Systems Approaches in the Training of Engineers: Analysis Using SSM," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1), pages 47-66, January.
    5. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    6. L A Franco, 2007. "Assessing the impact of problem structuring methods in multi-organizational settings: an empirical investigation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(6), pages 760-768, June.
    7. 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.
    8. E A J A Rouwette, 2011. "Facilitated modelling in strategy development: measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 879-887, May.
    9. Lane, David C. & Munro, Eileen & Husemann, Elke, 2016. "Blending systems thinking approaches for organisational analysis: Reviewing child protection in England," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(2), pages 613-623.
    10. K N Papamichail & G Alves & S French & J B Yang & R Snowdon, 2007. "Facilitation practices in decision workshops," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 614-632, May.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Rodney J. Scott & Robert Y. Cavana & Donald Cameron, 2016. "Client Perceptions of Reported Outcomes of Group Model Building in the New Zealand Public Sector," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 77-101, January.
    14. Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Hujala, Teppo & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Vacik, Harald, 2013. "Problem structuring in participatory forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-11.
    15. Konsti-Laakso, Suvi & Rantala, Tero, 2018. "Managing community engagement: A process model for urban planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1040-1049.
    16. Peter S. Hovmand & David F. Andersen & Etiënne Rouwette & George P. Richardson & Krista Rux & Annaliese Calhoun, 2012. "Group Model‐Building ‘Scripts’ as a Collaborative Planning Tool," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 179-193, March.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Luke Houghton, 2013. "Why Can't We All Just Accommodate: A Soft Systems Methodology Application on Disagreeing Stakeholders," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(4), pages 430-443, July.
    20. Ion Georgiou & Joaquim Heck, 2021. "The emergence of problem structuring methods, 1950s–1989: An atlas of the journal literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 756-796, November.

    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:spr:grdene:v:18:y:2009:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-007-9100-z. 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.springer.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.