Group model building: a decision room approach
Jac A.M. Vennix
Cécile M. Thijssen
Etiénne A.J.A. Rouwette
University of Nijmegen, Dept. of Methodology
PO Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen
The Netherlands
fax: *31-24 3612351
tel: **31-24 3615568
e-mail: J.Vennix@MAW.KUN.NL
Introduction
Increasingly system dynamicists involve stakeholders in building a model. Group model building has become an
accepted way of doing this (Vennix, 1996; Vennix, Richardson and Anderson, 1997). In group model building a
group of stakeholders develops the model in one or more structured meetings, with the aid of a facilitator. In this
paper a novel approach to group model building is discussed in which a decision room is used. We will describe the
implementation of this approach with a group of students, expected results and the research design used for
assessing results. The analysis of results is described in a full paper that will be handed out at the conference and
be made available through the virtual proceedings.
Group model building in a decision room
The group decision room at Nijmegen University consists of thirteen computers in a network, twelve of which can be
used for a maximum of twenty-four participants and one for the chauffeur. On all computers software such as
GroupSystems (Ventana, 1994), Vensim and Powersim is installed. The participants sit opposite a video screen on
which each computer screen can be projected. There are a number of reasons to explore the possibilities this room
offers to support group model building. First of all, it offers the possibility for all participants to give and evaluate data
simultaneously (avoiding the waiting time involved in a freely interacting group), to have subgroups working on
different tasks and to make plenary presentations of results. This offers a way to expand the number of people
involved in a group model building session. Finally, it is often maintainted that new technology puts distributed non-
synchronous decision making within reach. As a first step in exploring this claim with regards to system dynamics
modeling, we will assess the advances and drawbacks of model building in a decision room in a pilot study.
The participants in this study were thirty graduate students in policy sciences, age 20 to 27, in their 3"" to 6"" year of
study and most of them with no experience in the problem to be modeled. Students’ enrollment in this system
dynamics course was voluntary. After enrollment it was made clear to them that the grade for the course was
dependent on preparation for and participation in all stages of the modeling process.
The course consisted of nine meetings held once every week and some preparation in between, to be done
individually or in small groups. In the first meeting an introduction to system dynamics was given, in addition to
information about the course and what was expected from participants. The second meeting focused on principles of
system dynamics; following an introduction students completed a number of exercises around key concepts. At the
end of the second meeting the problem to be modeled was addressed. In order to make the course as realistic as
possible, it was decided beforehand to model a problem in a ‘real’ organization. A regional Dutch hospital proved to
be both large enough to allow modeling at an abstract level as well as accessible to both staff and students. The
central problem was defined as: how can hospital management keep occupation of hospital beds at the desired
level without increasing waiting lists too much? Given the limitations of the network in the decision room, the
students worked in two groups of fifteen people from the third session on. In both of these groups model building
started by clearly stating the problem to be studied. Participants were then asked to identify concepts in the problem
using electronic brainstorming: everybody types concepts individually on their computer which are then immediately
added to a plenary list that is visible for the whole group.
In order to make it possible to work simultaneously on different parts of the model, students were asked to categorize
variables in a few groups, each to be addressed by a subgroup of three or four participants. The ensuing discussion
resulted in four groups of variables: patients; personnel; and two financial categories: costs/benefits and
assets/liabilities. In the two following sessions subgroups worked on their model with the aid of three facilitators.
They used information about the hospital such as annual accounts. In addition a financial manager of the hospital
was available for additional information throughout the course. The sixth meeting consisted of a plenary
presentation of structure and dynamics of submodels, after which the rest of the group had the opportunity to criticize
and complement the submodel by using devil's advocate. In the rest of session six and in session seven the group
connected the submodels two by two in one overall model. In the eight session the overall model was analyzed and
policy experiments were conducted. Students wrote a report about the model and, in the final session, presented
their conclusions to the hospital management.
Expectations about results
Group model building in a decision room is expected to differ from the traditional approach in a number of ways. In
working with subgroups the role of the facilitator(s) is less dominant and more work is done by the members of the
subgroup themselves. In subgroups members will interact with only a few others and therefore have more
opportunity to make a contribution, so we expect task oriented communication to increase. The smaller group is
expected to yield more satisfaction with the process. However, there is a possible downside that more time is spent
in smaller groups. Compared to the traditional approach, people might not get as much knowledge of the
assumptions of participants outside of their own subgroup. We expect the discussions in the plenary group and the
use of devil's advocate to be sufficient to counteract this. The same argument can be made with regard to knowledge
about the problem; as students participate only in discussions about one small part of the problem, and learn about
the rest only after it has been modeled, wouldn't their learning be limited to part of the problem? Again, we expect
plenary discussions about the connection of the submodels and the analysis of the overall model to counteract this.
The expectations about learning as a result of participation in model building can be further specified. Following
Vennix (1990), learning is taken to be an increase in the number of concepts, relationships and dynamic
characteristics associated with a problem. Apart from the content of what is learned, Verburgh (1994) views an
increase in system dynamics-format of knowledge as a potential gain of participation in model building. In addition to
these measures of design logic, Richardson et al. (1994) propose a measure of operator logic should be included to
determine the amount of learning. Operator knowledge is used in controlling a systems' behavior and consists of
knowledge about ends (goals to be reached), means (policy lever and tactics) and heuristics linking means and
ends (chunks of strategic insights). Learning in itself is expected to have two additional consequences. First, as a
result of activating and structuring a person's knowledge in modeling, Vennix (1990) expects interest in the subject
matter to increase. Second, because participants discuss and share their views of the problem and jointly build a
system dynamics model, participants' knowledge is expected to grow more aligned; participants are expected to
reach more consensus about the problem and commitment to actions to alleviate the problem (although in this study
participants are not expected to undertake any action themselves).
Some remarks about research design and data gathering
To explore the consequences of this novel approach to group model building, the classical pretest posttest control
group design is best suited (Cook and Campbell, 1979). However, this design was not feasible in this study,
because the number of subjects is already quite small and because it was not considered appropriate to have
students take two different courses. Instead we chose to employ a one-group pretest posttest design, which also
plausibly rules out threats to a valid measurement of the effects of decision room group model building. Results will
be compared to the studies of Vennix (1990), Verburgh (1994) and Huz et al. (1996). As much as possible, variables
will be operationalised and measured in a way comparable to these studies.
As noted in the introduction, results of the study will be reported in a full paper to be handed out at the conference
and made available through the virtual proceedings.
References
Cook, Th.D. and D.T. Campbell. 1979. Quasi-experimentation: Design and Analysis for Field Settings. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Huz, S., Richardson, G.P, Anderson, D.F. and R. Boothroyd. 1996. Evaluating group model building in mental health
and vocational rehabilitation service delivery. In System Dynamics 1996. eds. G.P. Richardson and J.D. Sterman.
233-236.
Richardson, G.P, Anderson, D.F., Maxwell, T.A., and T.R. Stewart. 1994. Foundations of Mental Model Research. In
System Dynamics 1994, ed. E.F. Wolstenholme. 181-192. System Dynamics Society, 49 Bedford Rd., Lincoln, MA
01773, U.S.A.
Vennix, J.A.M. 1990. Mental Models and Computer Models. Design and Evaluation Of A Computer-Based Learning
Environment For Policy Making. University of Nijmegen.
Vennix, J.A.M. 1996. Group Model-Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Vennix, J.A.M., Richardson, G.P, Anderson, D.F. 1997. Group Model Building. Special issue of System Dynamics
Review. Vol. 13 No. 2.
Ventana Corporation. 1994. GroupSystems for Windows reference manual. Tucson, Arizona.
Verburgh, L.D. 1994. Participative Policy Modelling Applied to the Health Care Insurance Industry. University of
Nijmegen.
ISDC'97 CD Sponsor fl igs Ol abe
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0