Loading…
On Evaluating the Performance of Problem Structuring Methods: An Attempt at Formulating a Conceptual Model
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 perspecti...
Saved in:
Published in: | Group decision and negotiation 2009-11, Vol.18 (6), p.567-587 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Citations: | Items that this one cites Items that cite this one |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-ffbe509c0cd5991f59c54f46dfaebd9fab91903a2039b0d18d998641e9235a823 |
---|---|
cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-ffbe509c0cd5991f59c54f46dfaebd9fab91903a2039b0d18d998641e9235a823 |
container_end_page | 587 |
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 567 |
container_title | Group decision and negotiation |
container_volume | 18 |
creator | Rouwette, Etiënne A. J. A. Vennix, Jac A. M. Felling, Albert J. A. |
description | 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. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10726-007-9100-z |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37243467</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1883471011</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-ffbe509c0cd5991f59c54f46dfaebd9fab91903a2039b0d18d998641e9235a823</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kN1LwzAUxYMoOKd_gG_BB9-q-WibxrcxNhU2NlCfQ9ombqNtaj4E99ebUkEQfLqHe3_ncDkAXGN0hxFi9w4jRvIkyoTHRXI8AROcMZJwjtgpmCAeryRP03Nw4dwBIUQyxCbgsOng4lM2Qfp99w79TsGtstrYVnaVgkbDrTVlo1r44m2ofLADtlZ-Z2r3AGcdnHmv2t5D6eEy2kIzJkk4NzGh90E2cG1q1VyCMy0bp65-5hS8LRev86dktXl8ns9WSUUZ84nWpcoQr1BVZ5xjnfEqS3Wa11qqsuZalhxzRCVBlJeoxkXNeZGnWHFCM1kQOgW3Y25vzUdQzot27yrVNLJTJjhBGUlpmrMI3vwBDybYLv4mCKEFydI8jxAeocoa56zSorf7VtovgZEYqhdj9WKQQ_XiGD1k9Lh-qEvZ3-D_Td_JC4eH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>223825466</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>On Evaluating the Performance of Problem Structuring Methods: An Attempt at Formulating a Conceptual Model</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Rouwette, Etiënne A. J. A. ; Vennix, Jac A. M. ; Felling, Albert J. A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Rouwette, Etiënne A. J. A. ; Vennix, Jac A. M. ; Felling, Albert J. A.</creatorcontrib><description>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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0926-2644</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1572-9907</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10726-007-9100-z</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands</publisher><subject>Biological and Physical Anthropology ; Business and Management ; Case studies ; Decision making ; Decision support systems ; Evaluation ; Experiments ; Group decision making ; Group theory ; Groups ; Methods ; Problem solving ; Questionnaires ; Studies ; Work stations</subject><ispartof>Group decision and negotiation, 2009-11, Vol.18 (6), p.567-587</ispartof><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007</rights><rights>Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-ffbe509c0cd5991f59c54f46dfaebd9fab91903a2039b0d18d998641e9235a823</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-ffbe509c0cd5991f59c54f46dfaebd9fab91903a2039b0d18d998641e9235a823</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/223825466/fulltextPDF?pq-origsite=primo$$EPDF$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.proquest.com/docview/223825466?pq-origsite=primo$$EHTML$$P50$$Gproquest$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,11688,12847,27924,27925,33223,33224,36060,36061,44363,74895</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Rouwette, Etiënne A. J. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vennix, Jac A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Felling, Albert J. A.</creatorcontrib><title>On Evaluating the Performance of Problem Structuring Methods: An Attempt at Formulating a Conceptual Model</title><title>Group decision and negotiation</title><addtitle>Group Decis Negot</addtitle><description>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.</description><subject>Biological and Physical Anthropology</subject><subject>Business and Management</subject><subject>Case studies</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Decision support systems</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Experiments</subject><subject>Group decision making</subject><subject>Group theory</subject><subject>Groups</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Problem solving</subject><subject>Questionnaires</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Work stations</subject><issn>0926-2644</issn><issn>1572-9907</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><sourceid>M0C</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kN1LwzAUxYMoOKd_gG_BB9-q-WibxrcxNhU2NlCfQ9ombqNtaj4E99ebUkEQfLqHe3_ncDkAXGN0hxFi9w4jRvIkyoTHRXI8AROcMZJwjtgpmCAeryRP03Nw4dwBIUQyxCbgsOng4lM2Qfp99w79TsGtstrYVnaVgkbDrTVlo1r44m2ofLADtlZ-Z2r3AGcdnHmv2t5D6eEy2kIzJkk4NzGh90E2cG1q1VyCMy0bp65-5hS8LRev86dktXl8ns9WSUUZ84nWpcoQr1BVZ5xjnfEqS3Wa11qqsuZalhxzRCVBlJeoxkXNeZGnWHFCM1kQOgW3Y25vzUdQzot27yrVNLJTJjhBGUlpmrMI3vwBDybYLv4mCKEFydI8jxAeocoa56zSorf7VtovgZEYqhdj9WKQQ_XiGD1k9Lh-qEvZ3-D_Td_JC4eH</recordid><startdate>20091101</startdate><enddate>20091101</enddate><creator>Rouwette, Etiënne A. J. A.</creator><creator>Vennix, Jac A. M.</creator><creator>Felling, Albert J. A.</creator><general>Springer Netherlands</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>K8~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091101</creationdate><title>On Evaluating the Performance of Problem Structuring Methods: An Attempt at Formulating a Conceptual Model</title><author>Rouwette, Etiënne A. J. A. ; Vennix, Jac A. M. ; Felling, Albert J. A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-ffbe509c0cd5991f59c54f46dfaebd9fab91903a2039b0d18d998641e9235a823</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Biological and Physical Anthropology</topic><topic>Business and Management</topic><topic>Case studies</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Decision support systems</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Experiments</topic><topic>Group decision making</topic><topic>Group theory</topic><topic>Groups</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Problem solving</topic><topic>Questionnaires</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Work stations</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Rouwette, Etiënne A. J. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vennix, Jac A. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Felling, Albert J. A.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>DELNET Management Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Group decision and negotiation</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Rouwette, Etiënne A. J. A.</au><au>Vennix, Jac A. M.</au><au>Felling, Albert J. A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>On Evaluating the Performance of Problem Structuring Methods: An Attempt at Formulating a Conceptual Model</atitle><jtitle>Group decision and negotiation</jtitle><stitle>Group Decis Negot</stitle><date>2009-11-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>18</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>567</spage><epage>587</epage><pages>567-587</pages><issn>0926-2644</issn><eissn>1572-9907</eissn><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.</abstract><cop>Dordrecht</cop><pub>Springer Netherlands</pub><doi>10.1007/s10726-007-9100-z</doi><tpages>21</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0926-2644 |
ispartof | Group decision and negotiation, 2009-11, Vol.18 (6), p.567-587 |
issn | 0926-2644 1572-9907 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37243467 |
source | EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); ABI/INFORM Global; Springer Nature |
subjects | Biological and Physical Anthropology Business and Management Case studies Decision making Decision support systems Evaluation Experiments Group decision making Group theory Groups Methods Problem solving Questionnaires Studies Work stations |
title | On Evaluating the Performance of Problem Structuring Methods: An Attempt at Formulating a Conceptual Model |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-04T12%3A19%3A10IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=On%20Evaluating%20the%20Performance%20of%20Problem%20Structuring%20Methods:%20An%20Attempt%20at%20Formulating%20a%20Conceptual%20Model&rft.jtitle=Group%20decision%20and%20negotiation&rft.au=Rouwette,%20Eti%C3%ABnne%20A.%20J.%20A.&rft.date=2009-11-01&rft.volume=18&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=567&rft.epage=587&rft.pages=567-587&rft.issn=0926-2644&rft.eissn=1572-9907&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10726-007-9100-z&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1883471011%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c377t-ffbe509c0cd5991f59c54f46dfaebd9fab91903a2039b0d18d998641e9235a823%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=223825466&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |