In dit document zitten de volgende artikelen die zijn samengevat:
- Vennix (1999) - Group model‐building tackling messy problems
- Sterman (2001) - System Dynamics Modeling
- Van der Zwet et al. (2022) - Promises and pitfalls of computational modelling for insurgency conflicts
- Van Engers et...
promises and pitfalls of computational modelling for insurgency conflicts
Written for
Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA)
Informatiekunde
Netwerkorganisaties (5072NEOR6Y)
All documents for this subject (6)
Seller
Follow
Henkpieter13
Content preview
Samenvattingen artikelen
Vennix (1999)
The evolution of group model building samenvatting
System dynamicists have involved the client in the model-building process for 3 reasons.
1. To capture the required knowledge in the mental models of the client group.
2. To increase the chances of implementation of model results.
3. To enhance the client's learning process.
System dynamics is used for different purposes. Some concentrated on how system
dynamics could be used to support strategic executive dialogue in management teams.
Others introduced “modelling as learning” as an alternative consultancy methodology for
system dynamicists. Still others focused on specific cases when working with groups, for
example knowledge elicitation from groups. The existing literature also produced
descriptions of methods and techniques to capture knowledge from a group
conceptualisation and formalisation and quantification of a system dynamics model.
Some designed standard procedures to build system dynamics models with groups
(Reference Group approach and Strategic Forum). The founding of Group Model-Building
(GMB) led to a more detailed description of the different roles in working with teams. It
refined pieces of small group processes, which chained together, direct the stream of group
activity in GMB sessions. GMB is also used to work with management teams on less
tangible, ill-defined strategic issues: Messy Problems.
Messy Problems: Situations in which there are large differences of opinion on the problem or
even on the question of whether there is a problem.
Research has convincingly demonstrated that our information processing capacity is limited
and that humans employ biases and heuristics in order to reduce mental effort. This is not
only limited to individuals. Groups display the same biases and will thus not make better
decisions that individuals.
Humans seem to experience difficulty thinking in terms of causal nets and are incapable of
entertaining imbalanced paths and feedback loops in their cognitive maps. In addition,
experiments in dynamic decision making have revealed that people tend to ignore feedback
processes, which produces detrimental results.
Research has pointed out that the human mind is not well equipped to trace the dynamic of
complex feedback structures. Sterman argues, simulation maybe the only effective way to
learn in and about complex systems. Many GMB and systems thinking interventions work on
this assumption and consider simulation to be the primary contribution to the improvement of
a group’s information processing capacity.
,There is another aspect in which system dynamics can increase a group’s information
processing capacity: through mapping or qualitative modelling. Qualitative modelling is still a
bit of a controversy. Proponents of quantitative modelling point out that it is dangerous to
draw conclusions on the dynamics of a system that are solely based on diagrams.
Advocates of the use of qualitative
modelling have argued that in a number of cases quantification may either decrease the
model's relevance for an audience or can even be dangerously misleading. This becomes
critical when confronted with messy problems. The choice for the interventionist is then to
either simply walk away from the management problem or to use the rigour of diagramming
to aid the debate and increase the group's information processing capacity. After all,
diagrams help to keep track of complex structures. Diagrams add rigor to the analysis and
group discussion, help to identify feedback loops and potentially understand behaviour.
Humans do not process information as if they were computers, they continuously make
selections, interpret information and perceive situations in different ways.
Psychologists have found that differential previous information may lead to quite different
interpretations of similar situations. People can easily be led to believe things and, even
when told in retrospect that they participated in an experiment, this may have no marked
influence on these beliefs. As well as the effect of previous information, selection and
interpretation are heavily affected by one’s professional background or position in an
organisation. Different people have different interests. These differences of interest are the
sole cause of differences of interpretation. Humans are social beings, and their
interpretations are thus influenced by what others think. Similar information will be
interpreted differently depending on the context in which we find ourselves. To complete the
picture, human memory is also often distorted, a phenomenon known as hindsight bias.
Memory is not a device that stores and retrieves information; rather it continuously
reconstructs the past to fit it in with current beliefs and opinions. It has been demonstrated
that memories can be deliberately created of events that never occurred.
GMD and system dynamics help to uncover illusions, because the rigour of mapping and
modelling forces participants to carefully and consistently make their mental models explicit
and put their problem definitions to the test, by surfacing implicit assumptions.
Secondly, people’s mental models are frequently only partial representations of a complex
situation. Managers tend to see parts rather than wholes, particularly when they are not
trained in system thinking. The result is departmental bias and potential deadlock situations,
which may jeopardise organised action and may even lead to the demise of the organisation.
GMB not only offers an opportunity to share and align mental models, but also creates the
possibility of assimilating and integrating partial mental models into a holistic system
description, making participants overcome their local views.
Group sources of messy problems
Deficiencies in group interaction
, Groups can have a variety of deficiencies. Mixing up cognitive tasks, in particular the
production and evaluation of information. Special group process techniques like
brainstorming, Delphi and the Nominal Group Technique can help bring more structure into
the discussion, which will increase the group’s performance as well as the commitment to a
decision. Another problem is the lack of critical investigation or the deliberate suppression of
it. Suppressing critique and avoiding differences of opinion has a negative impact on
decision quality. Special conflict-promoting group process techniques like Devil’s Advocate
and Dialectical Inquiry can be helpful in this regard. In messy managerial situations, the
biggest problem is the way team members communicate. Apart from our inclination to
evaluate and our inability to listen, a third inhibiting factor to effective communication is
defensiveness. This increases decision time, has a negative impact on decision quality and
inhibits creativity in groups. Humans use defensive routines as a way to protect themselves
from losing face when exposing their ideas to others.
Reality construction in groups: the reality of multiple realities
The Thomas theorem: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. If
people define situations as real, they will behave accordingly. This behaviour creates a
reality that is perceived by others and affects their thinking and behaviour. A person’s
behaviour is to a large degree affected by expectations, which are based on a person’s
model of reality. We anticipate certain expectations and then direct our behaviour in such a
way that these expectations actually become reality. Humans not only construct reality in
their minds; their behaviour also causes this reality in their minds to become reality in their
environments. There are 3 requirement to alter situations that are problematic.
1. We are slow learners. In many situations we are simply not aware of how and why we
interpret situations in a particular way. Humans are inclined to ignore information that is not
in accordance with their beliefs and to look for information that is in agreement with their
mental models. Being able to learn also presupposes that our memory works well, which is
questionable to say the least.
2. One has to be well aware of one’s own behaviour. However, what people say they do may
differ substantially from what they actually do. We are very capable of seeing a discrepancy
between another person’s verbal and non-verbal behaviour, but we are bad at seeing such a
discrepancy in ourselves.
3. If both these requirements are met, one should also be able to change one’s own
behaviour significantly in order to break through a self-fulfilling prophecy and change the
inevitable social reality.
Implications for GMB: the role of facilitation
An important ingredient of GMB is the group facilitator, a role that is of paramount
importance in turning GMB interventions into a success. The facilitator’s non-verbal
behaviour is significant: not what a facilitator says, but rather what this person otherwise
does is critical. A facilitator is primarily a person who acts as a role model for the group, a
person who avoids the common deficiencies in a group interaction, which negatively affect
the quality of the decision.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller Henkpieter13. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $7.00. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
