Group model building – facilitating team learning using system
dynamics by Vennix
Group decision support systems = GDSS
Group communications systems = GCS
Computer supported cooperative work = CSCW
Soft systems methodology = SSM
Strategic options development and analysis = SODA
Strategic assumption surfacing and testing = SAST
Messy problems: a typical characteristic of this type of problem is that different people hold
widely dissimilar views of the situation and as a result they define problems
differently
Underlying assumptions for GMB
- People’s mental models are limited by human information processing capabilities. SD can be
helpful to elicit and integrate mental models into a more holistic view of the problem and to
explore the dynamics of this holistic view
- People have strong tendency to think in terms of causal processes. Every proposed policy to
alleviate a problem contains one or more hidden causal assumptions about the effects of policy
interventions
o It is rare for people to see more than one cause of a problem
o People have difficulties in identifying interconnections and thinking in causal nets
The primary goal is not to build the model of the system, but rather to get a group engaged in
building a system dynamics model of a problem in order to see to what extent this process might
be helpful to increase problem understanding and to devise course of action to which team
members will feel committed
o Creating some kind of consensus (unanimous agreement about a decision) – not to be
confused with compromise!
o Effectiveness (E) of a decision is not only determined by its quality (Q) but also by its
acceptance (A) by the people who have to implement it (E=QxA)
Important characteristic of GMB is that fact is separated from value the primary focus is descriptive
and diagnostic: the way team members think a system works is separated form the question how
they would like a system to work!
In short:
1. Create climate in which team learning can take place in order to enhance understanding of
the problem
2. Foster consensus
3. The intervention should help to create acceptance of the ensuing decision and commitment
with the decision
Chapter 1 – Individual and organizational problem construction
One of the most pervasive characteristics of messy problems is that people hold entirely different
views on (1) whether there is a problem, and if they agree there is, (2) what the problem is.
In that sense messy problems are quite intangible and as a result various authors have suggested
that there are no objective problems, only situation defined as problems by people
Differences in previous information leads people to interpret the same information in markedly
different ways.
1
, Intersubjective knowledge: knowledge on which we agree rather than objective
knowledge
If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. Self-fulfilling prophecy will make
me act a certain way. Self-fulfilling prophecy refers to a situation in which an expectation leads to
behaviours, which in turn produces the situation the way I defined it.
Self-fulfilling prophecy is a ubiquitous phenomenon of social life
People tend to look for information which confirms their viewpoint rather than to look for
evidence which might refute it
In short: people build ‘mental models’ of their environment and in turn base their behaviour in
these mental models, thereby creating situations which are subsequently interpreted
as reality
Self-denying prophecy: people act in such ways as to refute the original definition of the
situation
Reality: distinguish between ‘true’ reality (objective world out there) and social reality (reality
created in the minds of people through active selection an perception. Real world =
social reality! (trail exam)
The most important goals in structuring messy problems is the creation of a shared reality and
problem definition among the group of problem owners.
Learning experience
Learned helplessness: lack of feeling of control might prevent learning in the future in similar
situations; when you know from past experience that acting in a certain
situation has no effect you won’t do it when you are in the same situation
again
- When decision making situation are complex and ambiguous, learning form experience might be
more exceptional than most of us would be inclined to assume.
- When confronted with messy problems we often lack any experience to guide us in the decision
making process
Two important issues in structuring messy problems:
1. People in general employ ill-defined concepts, which frequently leads to miscommunication
2. People also frequently employ tacit (causal) assumptions about a problem, which do not hold
even when constructing a causal loop diagram
When starting to build a CLD the first problem is to define concepts and find concrete variables.
Summary on page 40
Chapter 2 – System dynamics: problem identification and system conceptualization
Open-loop approach to decision making implies that decisions are seen as unaffected by the
decisions themselves. In closed loop thinking decisions are seen as a means to affect the
environment, and changes in the environment in turn provide input to decisions which aim to
influence the environment.
2
dynamics by Vennix
Group decision support systems = GDSS
Group communications systems = GCS
Computer supported cooperative work = CSCW
Soft systems methodology = SSM
Strategic options development and analysis = SODA
Strategic assumption surfacing and testing = SAST
Messy problems: a typical characteristic of this type of problem is that different people hold
widely dissimilar views of the situation and as a result they define problems
differently
Underlying assumptions for GMB
- People’s mental models are limited by human information processing capabilities. SD can be
helpful to elicit and integrate mental models into a more holistic view of the problem and to
explore the dynamics of this holistic view
- People have strong tendency to think in terms of causal processes. Every proposed policy to
alleviate a problem contains one or more hidden causal assumptions about the effects of policy
interventions
o It is rare for people to see more than one cause of a problem
o People have difficulties in identifying interconnections and thinking in causal nets
The primary goal is not to build the model of the system, but rather to get a group engaged in
building a system dynamics model of a problem in order to see to what extent this process might
be helpful to increase problem understanding and to devise course of action to which team
members will feel committed
o Creating some kind of consensus (unanimous agreement about a decision) – not to be
confused with compromise!
o Effectiveness (E) of a decision is not only determined by its quality (Q) but also by its
acceptance (A) by the people who have to implement it (E=QxA)
Important characteristic of GMB is that fact is separated from value the primary focus is descriptive
and diagnostic: the way team members think a system works is separated form the question how
they would like a system to work!
In short:
1. Create climate in which team learning can take place in order to enhance understanding of
the problem
2. Foster consensus
3. The intervention should help to create acceptance of the ensuing decision and commitment
with the decision
Chapter 1 – Individual and organizational problem construction
One of the most pervasive characteristics of messy problems is that people hold entirely different
views on (1) whether there is a problem, and if they agree there is, (2) what the problem is.
In that sense messy problems are quite intangible and as a result various authors have suggested
that there are no objective problems, only situation defined as problems by people
Differences in previous information leads people to interpret the same information in markedly
different ways.
1
, Intersubjective knowledge: knowledge on which we agree rather than objective
knowledge
If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. Self-fulfilling prophecy will make
me act a certain way. Self-fulfilling prophecy refers to a situation in which an expectation leads to
behaviours, which in turn produces the situation the way I defined it.
Self-fulfilling prophecy is a ubiquitous phenomenon of social life
People tend to look for information which confirms their viewpoint rather than to look for
evidence which might refute it
In short: people build ‘mental models’ of their environment and in turn base their behaviour in
these mental models, thereby creating situations which are subsequently interpreted
as reality
Self-denying prophecy: people act in such ways as to refute the original definition of the
situation
Reality: distinguish between ‘true’ reality (objective world out there) and social reality (reality
created in the minds of people through active selection an perception. Real world =
social reality! (trail exam)
The most important goals in structuring messy problems is the creation of a shared reality and
problem definition among the group of problem owners.
Learning experience
Learned helplessness: lack of feeling of control might prevent learning in the future in similar
situations; when you know from past experience that acting in a certain
situation has no effect you won’t do it when you are in the same situation
again
- When decision making situation are complex and ambiguous, learning form experience might be
more exceptional than most of us would be inclined to assume.
- When confronted with messy problems we often lack any experience to guide us in the decision
making process
Two important issues in structuring messy problems:
1. People in general employ ill-defined concepts, which frequently leads to miscommunication
2. People also frequently employ tacit (causal) assumptions about a problem, which do not hold
even when constructing a causal loop diagram
When starting to build a CLD the first problem is to define concepts and find concrete variables.
Summary on page 40
Chapter 2 – System dynamics: problem identification and system conceptualization
Open-loop approach to decision making implies that decisions are seen as unaffected by the
decisions themselves. In closed loop thinking decisions are seen as a means to affect the
environment, and changes in the environment in turn provide input to decisions which aim to
influence the environment.
2
