IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v25y2016i1d10.1007_s10726-015-9433-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Client Perceptions of Reported Outcomes of Group Model Building in the New Zealand Public Sector

Author

Listed:
  • Rodney J. Scott

    (University of Queensland)

  • Robert Y. Cavana

    (Victoria University of Wellington)

  • Donald Cameron

    (University of Queensland)

Abstract

System dynamics modellers sometimes involve decision-makers in the modelling process, a method known as “group model building”. Group model building has been associated with a number of different outcomes, and it is not clear which of these outcomes are important to clients. The public sector is a significant audience for group model building interventions; this paper reports on what outcomes are most valued by potential clients in the New Zealand public sector. Senior management within four government agencies identified the employees who were most likely to commission and conduct group decision processes. These individuals participated in detailed semi-structured interviews, and completed a written questionnaire, exploring the contexts in which group model building may be useful and the outcomes sought in each situation. The results suggest that, even within the public sector, the importance of a particular outcome will depend upon context. However, public servants generally appear to value trust and agreement over policy quality when conducting group-decision processes. Knowledge of the outcomes sought by potential clients helps guide the outcomes measured by researchers, and helps practitioners to tailor communication messages to clients.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:25:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9433-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-015-9433-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-015-9433-y
    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/s10726-015-9433-y?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. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    2. Laura J. Black & David F. Andersen, 2012. "Using Visual Representations as Boundary Objects to Resolve Conflict in Collaborative Model‐Building Approaches," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 194-208, March.
    3. 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.
    4. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    5. 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.
    6. Andrej Škraba & Miroljub Kljajić & Mirjana Kljajić Borštnar, 2007. "The Role of Information Feedback in the Management Group Decision-Making Process Applying System Dynamics Models," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 77-95, January.
    7. 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.
    8. L White, 2002. "Size matters: large group methods and the process of operational research," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 53(2), pages 149-160, February.
    9. Noble, Charles H., 1999. "The Eclectic Roots of Strategy Implementation Research," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 45(2), pages 119-134, June.
    10. A.A. Zagonel & J. Rohrbaugh & G.P. Richardson & D.F. Andersen, 2004. "Using simulation models to address “what if” questions about welfare reform," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(4), pages 890-901.
    11. 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.
    12. Mingers, John & White, Leroy, 2010. "A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1147-1161, December.
    13. Jinbaek Kim, 2008. "A model and case for supporting participatory public decision making in e-democracy," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 179-193, May.
    14. Béatrice Plottu & Eric Plottu, 2011. "Participatory Evaluation: The Virtues for Public Governance, the Constraints on Implementation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 805-824, November.
    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. A. Sardi & E. Sorano, 2021. "Dynamic Performance Management: An Approach for Managing the Common Goods," Papers 2102.04090, arXiv.org.
    2. 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.
    3. Alberto Sardi & Enrico Sorano, 2019. "Dynamic Performance Management: An Approach for Managing the Common Goods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-22, November.

    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. 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.
    2. Rodney J. Scott & Robert Y. Cavana & Donald Cameron, 2016. "Mechanisms for Understanding Mental Model Change in Group Model Building," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 100-118, January.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    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. Elena Tavella & L. Alberto Franco, 2015. "Dynamics of Group Knowledge Production in Facilitated Modelling Workshops: An Exploratory Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 451-475, May.
    8. Hugo J. Herrera & Marleen H. F. McCardle-Keurentjes & Nuno Videira, 2016. "Evaluating Facilitated Modelling Processes and Outcomes: An Experiment Comparing a Single and a Multimethod Approach in Group Model Building," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1277-1318, November.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Marleen McCardle-Keurentjes & Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette, 2018. "Asking Questions: A Sine Qua Non of Facilitation in Decision Support?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 757-788, October.
    14. Tako, Antuela A. & Kotiadis, Kathy, 2015. "PartiSim: A multi-methodology framework to support facilitated simulation modelling in healthcare," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(2), pages 555-564.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. Gürsan, C. & de Gooyert, V., 2021. "The systemic impact of a transition fuel: Does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Scholz, Roland W. & Czichos, Reiner & Parycek, Peter & Lampoltshammer, Thomas J., 2020. "Organizational vulnerability of digital threats: A first validation of an assessment method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 282(2), pages 627-643.

    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:25:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-015-9433-y. 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.