To Main Proceedings Document
Group Model Building for C onsensus Building and Team Learning
A Case Study
Kambiz Maani
Department of Management Science and Information Systems
Auckland Business School
The University of Auckland
Auckland
New Zealand
Phone: (64-9) 373 - 7599 voicemail 8813
Fax: (64-9) 373 - 7430
Email : k.maani@auckland.ac.nz
ABSTRACT
Routinely, so much well-intentioned effort is thwarted and morale is destroyed in
organisations because of the lack of commitment to decisions. The likelihood and
consequence of this is greatest where divergent groups, ie, different divisions, department
or units are involved. This paper discusses a Group Model Building case study using
qualitative system dynamics to create consensus, team learning and shared vision in a
public organisation. The case involves determining planning priorities for a division of the
Ministry of Health in New Zealand, leading to the creation of a business plan.
The methodology involves a three-step process starting with structured brainstorming
using the partial KJ (Jiro Kawakita) technique to identify priority areas and clustering
them into ‘affinity' groups. Next, the priority clusters are condensed into ‘variables' and
used by the participants to construct causal loop diagrams representing ‘systems of
priorities' (in contrast to list of priorities). Finally, through a group process, leverage
points or key priorities are identified and translated into a business plan. Strong group
resistance was encountered at this stage when attempting to reduce the number of priority
areas as suggested by the traditional priority matrix technique. Systems thinking approach
was used to alleviate this problem.
The approach offers significant promise in using qualitative system dynamics with non-
systems experts. The methodology can be applied to any change management initiative
and complex decisions such as restructuring, reengineering, and supply chain design. The
expected outcomes are greater commitment and shared vision.
Key Words: Group Model Building, Group Learning/Consensus Building,
Qualitative System Dynamics, C hange Management, Planning
Literature Review
Messy problems are defined as situations in which there are large differences of opinion about the problem
or even on the question of whether there is a problem (Ackoff, 1974; 1979). ‘Messy situations’ make it
difficult for a management team to reach agreement. System Dynamics (SD) modelling with groups
known as Group Model Building (GMB) is a powerful tool for dealing with messy problems. SD and
GMB are especially effective in dealing with semi-structured and ill-structured decision situations.
GMB offers an opportunity to align and share piecemeal mental models (Huz et al. 1997)
and create the possibility of assimilating and integrating partial mental models into a
holistic system description (Vennix 1995; 1996). GMB and SD can help uncover
‘illusions’ that may occur due to the fact that the definition of a problem may be a socially
constructed phenomenon that has not been put to test.
Vennix (1999) identifies two sources of messy problems, namely, the individual, and the group/team that
give rise to the existence of messy situations. Limited information processing capacity (Vennix 1990), and
perceptions and reality constructions (Schutz 1962) are the main contributors to the individual sources of
messy problems. Increasing the information processing capacity not only affects the dynamics of a system
but also it’s causal feedback structure (Dormer 1980). One of the implication of this individual source on
GMB is that both qualitative and quantitative modelling are important (Coyle 1999; Vennix et al. 1993).
The group sources of messy problems relate to deficiencies in group interaction, and the
self-fulfilling nature of reality construction in groups. People not only construct reality in
their minds, but their behaviour also causes their mental model to become reality in their
environment. Deficiencies in group interaction are in the form of mixing up of cognitive
tasks (Rogers & Roethlisberger 1988), lack of critical investigation (Janis & Mann 1977),
and the way team members communicate (Argyris, 1990).
The above points highlight the need for a group facilitator in the GMB process. A
facilitator is a person who acts as a ‘role model’ for the group, a person who can avoid the
common deficiencies in group interaction, which negatively affect the quality of the
decision (V ennix et al. 1993). Systems thinking interventions will be much more effective
if SD and MB tools are skilfully combined with adequate facilitation (Senge, 1990).
Critical characteristics of an effective facilitator include a primary concern with procedure and process
and only indirectly with the content, i.e. with the how rather than what. Both attitudes and skills are
important characteristics of the ‘ideal’ facilitator (Vennix 1996,1999). Some of the facilitation attitudes
are a helping and inquiring attitude (asks questions rather than provide answers), which, at the same time
is neutral with regard to the content of discussion. A facilitator should be able to foster reflection and
learning in a team by discouraging defensive communication, while maintaining his/her own integrity and
authenticity.
Other important facilitation skills are a thorough knowledge of SD and MB as well as group process
techniques. The latter requires an awareness of the existence of various cognitive tasks that a group can
encounter. Conflict handling and efficient two-way communication are other important facilitation skills
(Vennix 1999).
Group model building need not lead to model quantification and simulation. Vennix (1999) argues that,
due to existence of persistent cognitive and social barriers to learning (Argyris 1990; 1994; Senge 1990),
simulations are not ultimate solutions. In fact, quantification will either add to understanding the issue or
will be dangerously misleading (Wolstenholme 1992; 1999; Coyle 1999). Active construction of the model
is just as important as playing it. Thus, it is important to recognise that in a number of cases it is not
always useful or even desirable to go through the whole model-building cycle.
In summary, when conducting interventions through GMB, one should be aware that cognitive
limitations, differences in perceptions (leading to multiple realities) and ineffective communication
patterns (which block productive discussion of these multiple realities) play a key role in the success of the
intervention. At the educational level, this requires teaching facilitation skills and group dynamics in SD
programmes to engender appropriate attitudes and skills for effective GMB facilitation (Haslett et al.
1999).
The following sections describe a case study using group model building and facilitation in
real life situation.
Introduction
The case study reported here arose out of a Ministry of Health (MoH) project involving
operational and business planning for one of its divisions. The division employs staff with
diverse professional and policy backgrounds and varying periods of tenure with the
division.
While the project brief required the use of systems thinking approach, it also specified that
this had to be conducted in an indirect and implicit manner. Given the short time periods
allotted for planning workshops and the lack of familiarity of the participants with systems
thinking, this posed a facilitation challenge. Therefore, in consultation with division
manager, a series of workshops were designed to accommodate division’s requirements.
The overriding question was to determine key priority areas (6-7) to focus the limited
resources and efforts of the division.
Identification of Issues
The first step was to establish a common ground for discussion and group dialogue. This
required a shared understanding of what the real and perceived barriers to progress were.
Using the KJ methodology or affinity technique (Maani and Cavana, 2000), the following
question was phrased for brainstorming.
“What is preventing us from making faster progress”
A total of fifty ‘raw’ statements were generated (five per participant). The participants
then, using the silent mode of KJ, clustered these statements into nineteen headings or key
issues as shown in Figure 1. This exercise served as a lead or mental preparation for the
next step, namely, identification of priority areas. The question of priority setting in
organisations is always a contentious issue as it implies that trade-offs have to be made,
hence creating winners and losers. Often, this results in open challenges and, even worst,
silent resentments that lead to loss of commitment in individuals and groups. It is therefore
critical that the issue of priority setting is managed in a holistic (systemic) manner.
In the next step, a second workshop was devoted to this question. The brainstorming
question was phrased as follows:
What are the priorities in health policy in terms of where the Division should be placing its greatest
efforts ?
Again the KJ methodology was used to identify ‘raw’ priorities by each individual
participant and then cluster these in fewer priority areas by the group. It is important to
note that the silent mode of KJ clustering is very beneficial in this process. Not only it
avoids awkward verbal disagreements and contradictions, the method converges very
quickly yielding visible group consensus. Furthermore, the participants often see the
process as ‘fun’, adding another impetus towards teambuilding. Again as the group was
diverse in terms of organisational hierarchies and professional backgrounds, it was
important that no priorities were missed or reduced early on and prematurely. The KJ
process thus ensured that all contributions were included. This process resulted in 42
‘raw’ priority statements, which were clustered into 19 priority areas as shown in Figure
Priority selection
As the management desired to have only a set of 6-7 priority areas, this seemed to be too
large for any practical purpose. Therefore, it was necessary to reduce the initial set of 19
to 6-7 areas. In order to proceed, a set of criteria was needed for priority selection. This
was achieved through a multi-pick method whereby participants contributed verbally to
constructing a list of criteria. These criteria were later defined more accurately by the
group. The resulting criteria list is shown below in Table 1.
Table 1 - Criteria for priority selection
1. Realistic - can we marshal the resources?
Is it reasonable and compatible with the Governments direction/
political environment ?
2. Impact - direct impact on Maori health
3. Quick visible results - within a few weeks or months (maximum 6
months)
Alignment - with Division's mission and other stakeholders
Fundamental cause - cause not symptom focus
Existing initiatives - capitalises on existing initiatives
SF S3) Sa
Planning Horizon - short, medium or long
In order to minimise subjectivity, it was deemed pertinent to apply the above criteria
objectively. It was suggested and agreed by the group to use a priority matrix to rank
order the priorities. However, it was decided that, initially, not to assign importance
ranking amongst the criteria. Thus, a scaled ordinal ranking of 1-5 was adopted where 1
indicated lowest priority and 5 denoted highest priority. The group then proceeded to rank
each of the 19 priority areas against the seven criteria stated above. The outcome of this
process, or the priority matrix, is shown in Table 2.
According to this priority matrix, a clear set of rank ordered priories emerged. As all the
participants had agreed to every step of the process to this point, it was expected that top
priority areas would be selected from the priority matrix. Contrary to this expectation,
strong resistance was encountered by most participants! This was both surprising and
enlightening. It is important to bear in mind that in groups where diversity of tasks and
purposes are present this resistance exists whether or not voiced. In this case no
individual participant was prepared to ‘let go’ of his or her area of work. Of course, at this
stage it was possible for the manager to intervene and use her authority to ‘force’ or
coerce the opposing ‘camps’ into acceptance. But it soon became apparent that any
‘reduction’ of priority areas would be counterproductive and damaging to the group's
integrity and unity.
System of Priorities
To break this impasse, it was agreed to adopt all priority areas. However, this was an
impracticable solution and contrary to management’s initial objective. At this stage, in
order to resolve this apparent conflict it was suggested to use the systems thinking
approach. The underlying philosophy of systems thinking is the primacy of relationships
rather than individual parts. In the context of this case, this was in contrast to treating
priorities as independent and conflicting, as they were originally perceived. Rather, the
group needed to view them as part of a priority system, where all priority areas were
regarded as indispensable elements of the system. In such a system, while all elements are
important for the working of the whole, relative importance of the parts are nevertheless
recognised and considered. This is done through the identification of ‘leverage’ points in
system. Thus, areas that were deemed to have a fundamental (or cause) effect on the rest
were identified as leverage points. In practical terms, the groups would tackle these
‘levers’ first, as any positive intervention in leverage points will introduce a chain of
influence in the system. In effect, this changed the priority selection from a reductionist
ordinal scale to a holistic time-based system. Having accepted this philosophy and
approach, the group converted the priority matrix into a CLD of priorities. This is shown
in Figure 3. In this CLD, variables identified by ‘L’ indicate leverage points in the systems,
where earlier attention and focus will be devoted.
Conclusion
This case illustrated the application of group model building using qualitative system
dynamics in a division of the Ministry of Health in New Zealand. Causal loop modelling
was employed as a tool for consensus building and team learning. A contentious issue,
namely, reducing priority areas, was overcome by converting a traditional priority
selection model (priority matrix) into a priority system represented by a causal loop
diagram. This approach helped to create, from ‘piecemeal mental models’, a shared
commitment to the issues and the challenges facing the organisation.
References
Ackoff RA. 1974. Redesigning the Future: a Systems Approach to Societal Problems.
Wiley: New Y ork.
Ackoff RA. 1979. The future f Operational Research is past. Journal of the Operational
Research Society 30(2): 93-104.
Argyris C. 1990. Overcoming Organizational Defenses, Facilitating Organizational
Learning. Allyn and Bacon: Boston.
Argyris C. 1994. Good communication that blocks learning: A Theory of Action
Perspective. Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA.
Coyle G. 1999. Qualitative modelling in system dynamics or what are the wise limits of
quantification? Keynote address to the conference of the System Dynamics Society,
Wellington, New Zealand.
Dormer D. 1980. On the difficulties people have in dealing with complexity. Simulation
and Games 11(1): 87-106.
Haslett T, Barton J, Sarah R. 1999. The use of group modelling techniques as a teaching
tool. In Proceedings of the 1999 International conference of the System Dynamics
Society. Wellington, New Zealand.
Huz S, Andersen DF, Richardson GP, Boothroyd R. 1997. A framework for evaluating
systems thinking interventions: an experimental approach to mental health system change.
System Dynamics Review 13(2): 149-169.
Janis IL & Mann L. 1977. Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict,
Choice and Commitment. The Free Press: New Y ork.
Maani K & Cavana R. 2000. Systems Thinking and Modelling - Understanding Change
and Complexity, Prentice Hall: Auckland.
Rogers CR, Roethlisberger FJ. 1988. Barriers and gateways to communication. In: John J.
Gabarro, People: Managing your most important asset. Harvard Business Review, Special
Edition of articles, 19-25.
Schutz A. 1962. Collected Papers I: The Problem of Social Reality. Martinus Nijhoff:
The Hague.
Senge P, 1990. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization.
Doubleday: New Y ork.
Vennix JAM. 1990. Mental models and computer models: design and evaluation of a
computer-based learning environment for policy making. Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Vennix JAM, Scheper W, Willems R. 1993. Group model-building: what does the client
think of it? In the Role of Strategic Modelling in International Competitiveness,
Proceedings of the 1993 International System Dynamics Conference, Sepada E., Machuca
J. (eds). Cancun: Mexico; 534-543.
Vennix JAM. 1995. Building consensus in strategic decision making: system dynamics as a
support system. Group Decision and Negotiation 4(4): 335-355.
Vennix JAM. 1996. Group Model-Building: Facilitating Team Learning using System
Dynamics. Wiley: Chichester. Chapter 5.
Vennix JAM. 1999. Group Model Building. System Dynamics Review 15(4): 379-401.
Wolstenholme EF. 1992. The definition and application of a stepwise approach to model
conceptualisation and analysis. European Journal of Operational Research 59: 123-136.
Wolstenholme EF. 1999. Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: the evolving balance.
Journal of the Operational Research Society 50: 422-428.
Figure 1: Issues Clusters
Other Health
Determinants
Maori Development
Maori Health
Public Health
Barriers with internal &
external relationships
Team work
Inability to capture team strengths & to
acknowledge & address weaknesses
Lack of staff & stablisation
Ability to influence
Lack of resource to support
Govt.'s priority for Maaori Health
Out of decision making loop
Get into decision making loop
Leadership
Lack of direction, leadership &
communication
Focus on making a difference
Make waves
Provide the leadership
Compass
Not leading many of our own
projects in power
Desire to share power
Reluctance to share power - those
Govt. process constraints
Turbulent environment
Turbulence
Change fatigue
Maaori Health or development
Maaori Health status can't be addressed
by health alone
No consensus re Maaori health gain
us Maaori Development
Are we captured by bureaucracy?
Public or Personal Health?
Too focused on personal health
intervention
Personal vs public health?
Vision of Maaori Health
Lack of follow through
Personal Health
Being too passive & not analytical
enough
Lack of clear definition of
Maori Health Status
Time pressure
Work pressure limitss ability for staff
MHB - Don't really believe we
can do it
Identify a common goal
development
Lack of time to develop as a team
Too much to deal with
Clear priorities
Not sure what to do
Lack of focus on priorities
Lack of shared focus
Lack of vision in direction
AD HOC work priorities
Unable to priotise work (lack of guidance)
MoH-Taking a problem (solving) approach
most of the time
Not enough attention & time given to big issues
or questions
Too reactive, not enough proactive
Lack of Effective collaboration
with key groups
Relationships with others
Health is part of other things
Responsibility of Health Status is
beyond the health sector
Failure to identify (Maaori) health
status-health sector responsibility
Failure to capture the complexities
of the health sector (first up)
Figure 2 - Priority Areas
Rural Health Disease
Maori Rural Health management -
needs Diabetes
Prevention - Public
Health Social
Prevention strategies Accountability Economical &
Project-Public Health Cycle Cultural
Approach Accountability Economic/Social
Information to better arrangement determinants
manage care (prevention| | documents Highlight how
& treatment) Incentives for health dependant
Role Models funders on education,
employment,
housing etc
Identify structural
factors causing
Whanau Capacity Evaluate ey Manni
Health information for monitoring &
consumers evaluation tools
Incentives for hapu,
whanau
Incentives on Increasing the
providers Maori Health
Capacity of all Integrated care Identify funding
providers development allocation
Treaty of Waitangi
Raise ideas/model for Clarify Maori Health
parallel Maori structures model/philosophy - Measures|
Maori Health Framework
Figure 2 - Priority Areas (con't)
Maori Provider Development
advocate funding (at least 5 years) for
Maori Health providers
Maori provider workforce development
High Priority Diseases
Biggest Killers
Most Common Morhidities
Diabetes
High Priority Health issues
affecting Maori
Child & Y outh
Y outh Health
Maori Y outh, Mental Health,
Suicide profile
Child Health
The Future - Nga Tamariki
Tamariki Ora focus yr 1
Maori Workforce Capacity
Maori Workforce
NZMC Rep-MoH
Establish Maori advisors in each
Branch of MoH
Health Service-A ccess Barriers,
$, cultural, geographical
-Research, Service utilisation by
income levels
Capacity & Capability of
MoH to respond
TPK review of MoH
Communication &
Relationship & Collaboration
Maintaining communication with
Providers
Support Maori Providers
Manage relationship with HFA - on
Maori Health
Regular MoH Publications - Health
sector developments
Collaborate with HFA, TPK,
Treasury, Social Services etc...
Stakeholder collaboration (effective)
10
11
Table 2: Priority Matrix
Priority Area |Realistic Impacton |Quick |Alignment |Fundamental |Capitalise on Planning |Score
Maori Visible Cause other initiatives |Time
Health Results
[Accountability Cycle 5 4 5 o 2 SIs 26)
Developing Maori
Models 4 3 3 5 5 Als 24)
Evaluate monitoring
& evaluation tools 4 4| 3 5 2 Als 22
Rural Health 3 4 2 3 3 All 19)
Maori Provider
Development 5 4 ae a 3 5]s,m,| 24
Maori workforce
capacity 4 4 2 5. 3 5}s,m,| 23
Communication,
relationship &
collaboration 5 3 5 5 2 5 25
Increase Maori
Health Putea 3 3 1 5 4 4| 20)
Disease Mngnt 2 5 2 a E 3 20)
High Priority
Diseases 2 5 2 5 4 3 21
Incentive on
Providers 3 2 2 2 3 3 15
Capacity &
capability of MoH to
Respond 3 2 3 4 2 3 17
Social, Cultural &
Economic 3 4 1 5 5 5 23
Child & Youth 4 5 4 5 5 4| 27
[Access Barriers 2 5 2 5 4 3 21
Whanau Capacity 3 2 2 a 5 3 21
Treaty of Waitangi 3 4 3 5. 5 3 23
Capacity of all
Providers 3 3 2 3) 3 3 17
Prevention, public
health 4 4 3 4 5 4 24
0
Scale s=short term
1sow 5=high m=medium term
1=no 5=yes I=long term ae
Figure 3 - Priorities CLD
Accountability Cycle Maori Development Impact on Maori Health
Treaty of
Waitangi
(L)
Developing
Maori Models
Accountability (a) ™,
Cycle
Communication, Maori Provider
Collaboration & development
relationships (L)
Maori Health
Putea The dtriver/map
Whanau Capacity
Rural Health
MoH Capacity Maori Workforce _/
to respond (L) mn
The Engine
Incentives on ; re A
R
providers
The Road Child & Youth
R
Evaluate &
Monitoring (L) Prevention
All providers
capacity si
isease
High Priority Management
er
Access Barriers
Social,
Cultural,
Economic
13
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0