Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building

Abstract

Group model building (GMB) is a participatory approach to using system dynamics in group decision-making and problem structuring. This paper considers the published quantitative evidence base for GMB since the earlier literature review by Rouwette et al. (2002), to consider the level of understanding on three basic questions: what does it achieve, when should it be applied, and how should it be applied or improved? There have now been at least 45 such studies since 1987, utilising controlled experiments, field experiments, pretest/posttest, and observational research designs. There is evidence of GMB achieving a range of outcomes, particularly with regard to the behaviour of participants and their learning through the process. There is some evidence that GMB is more effective at supporting communication and consensus than traditional facilitation, however GMB has not been compared to other problem structuring methods. GMB has been successfully applied in a range of contexts, but there is little evidence on which to select between different GMB tools, or to understand when certain tools may be more appropriate. There is improving evidence on how GMB works, but this has not yet been translated into changing practice. Overall the evidence base for GMB has continued to improve, supporting its use for improving communication and agreement between participants in group decision processes. This paper argues that future research in group model building would benefit from three main shifts: from single cases to multiple cases; from controlled settings to applied settings; and by augmenting survey results with more objective measures.

Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession

“…O'Keefe then suggests three particular areas for further research: experiments where the provision of data is varied, experiments that show how the use of models can help users overcome cognitive biases, and experiment with groups engaged in model creation and use. The review by Scott, Cavana and Cameron (2015) goes beyond experimental evidence but only focuses on the case of group model building (GMB). They found that there is some evidence that GMB is more effective at supporting communication and consensus than traditional facilitation in a range of contexts.…”

An Integrated Participatory Systems Modelling Approach: Application to Construction Innovation

“…Group model building (GMB): GMB is a process of building visual qualitative conceptual models (i.e., causal loop diagrams (CLDs)) and quantitative dynamic models (i.e., SD) jointly with stakeholders [16][17][18]. Different GMB sessions can have different purposes such as identification of a dynamic hypothesis, discussion around the system boundary, examination of potential scenarios of policy implementation, to name a few.…”

Asking Questions: A Sine Qua Non of Facilitation in Decision Support?

“…The direct examination of microlevel behaviour allowed us to come to conclusions based on observations of characteristics for which objective measures can be found. This can be seen as complementary to research that-although valuable-hinges on subjective (self) evaluations of decision making support (Rosenhead and Mingers 2001; Rouwette et al 2002;Scott et al 2016).…”

“…Numerous studies, mainly executed in natural settings, have reported positive outcomes supporting the value of facilitated modelling approaches in these settings (see e.g., Phillips 2007;Rouwette et al 2002;Scott et al 2016). It is difficult, however, to clearly establish the link between context, process and outcomes of decision support (Schilling et al 2007).…”

“…For studies in natural settings, it has proven to be difficult to separate the effect of context from process factors (Rosenhead and Mingers 2001; Rouwette et al 2002). More systematic research is needed to identify effective process elements at work in facilitated modelling (Andersen et al 2007;Midgley et al 2013;Rouwette et al 2002;Scott et al 2016). The present study responds to this need by addressing a process element, that is, asking questions by the facilitator, in a classroom experiment.…”