×

Taking stock of behavioural OR: a review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus. (English) Zbl 1487.90472

Summary: This review maps the body of behavioural OR studies that focus on interventions. The term ‘intervention’ is used here to refer to a designed problem-solving system in which individuals or groups engage with OR methods, processes and tools in order to complete a set task or address a real-world problem. We surveyed the relevant OR literature covering a 30-year period, and develop a typology to organise our corpus of reviewed studies. The typology is comprised of four types of studies, each type representing a distinctive approach in terms of its assumptions about behaviour (determinist or voluntarist) and the research methodologies they use (variance or process), and each type is concerned with different research questions that do not cut across other approaches. By categorising studies in this way, and drawing on research in associated cognate areas where relevant, eight empirically-generated knowledge themes emerge: intervention configurations, individual differences, model-driven support impacts, (un)intended use, model building process, engagement paths and strategies, facilitated modelling practice, and sociomaterial dynamics. Each of these knowledge themes provides important insights into the behavioural factors that affect, or are affected by, OR-supported activity. We conclude our review with ten suggestions for further developing the behavioural OR agenda concerned with interventions.

MSC:

90B99 Operations research and management science
90B50 Management decision making, including multiple objectives
91B06 Decision theory
90-02 Research exposition (monographs, survey articles) pertaining to operations research and mathematical programming
PDFBibTeX XMLCite
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Ackermann, F.; Eden, C., Negotiation in strategy making teams: group support systems and the process of cognitive change, Group Decision and Negotiation, 20, 3, 293-314 (2011)
[2] Ackermann, F.; Eden, C.; Pyrko, I., Accelerated multi-organization conflict resolution, Group Decision and Negotiation, 1, 25, 901-922 (2016)
[3] Ackermann, F.; Yearworth, M.; White, L., Micro-processes in group decision and negotiation: practices and routines for supporting decision making, Group Decision and Negotiation, 27, 5, 709-713 (2018)
[4] Ackoff, R. L., Dangerous dichotomies, Systems practice, 2, 2, 155-157 (1989)
[5] Akkermans, H. A.; Vennix, J. A.M., Client’s opinions on group model building: an exploratory study, System Dynamics Review, 13, 1, 3-31 (1997)
[6] Akpan, I. J.; Brooks, R. J., Experimental evaluation of user performance on two-dimensional and three-dimensional perspective displays in discrete-event simulation, Decision Support Systems, 64, 14-30 (2014)
[7] Alessi, S., Building versus using simulations, Integrated and holistic perspectives on learning, instruction and technology, 175-196 (2000), Springer
[8] Arvan, M.; Fahimnia, B.; Reisi, M.; Siemsen, E., Integrating human judgement into quantitative forecasting methods: a review, Omega (Westport), 86, 237-252 (2019)
[9] Atkins, P. W.; Wood, R. E.; Rutgers, P. J., The effects of feedback format on dynamic decision making, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88, 2, 587-604 (2002)
[10] Baldassarri, D.; Abascal, M., Field experiments across the social sciences, Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 41-73 (2017)
[11] Barkhi, R.; Jacob, V. S.; Pipino, L.; Pirkul, H., A study of the effect of communication channel and authority on group decision processes and outcomes, Decision Support Systems, 23, 3, 205-226 (1998)
[12] Barkhi, R.; Jacob, V. S.; Pirkul, H., The influence of communication mode and incentive structure on GDSS process and outcomes, Decision Support Systems, 37, 2, 287-305 (2004)
[13] Barkhi, R.; Pirkul, H., An experimental analysis of face to face versus computer mediated communication channels, Group Decision and Negotiation, 8, 4, 325-347 (1999)
[14] Barley, S. R., Technology as an occasion for structuring: evidence from observations of CT scanners and the social order of radiology departments, Administrative science quarterly, 78-108 (1986)
[15] Barr, S. H.; Sharda, R., Effectiveness of decision support systems: development or reliance effect?, Decision Support Systems, 21, 2, 133-146 (1997)
[16] Bell, P. C.; O’Keefe, R. M., An experimental investigation into the efficacy of visual interactive simulation, Manage Sci, 41, 6, 1018-1038 (1995)
[17] Benbasat, I.; Dexter, A. S., Individual differences in the use of decision support aids, Journal of Accounting Research, 1-11 (1982)
[18] Beroggi, G. E., An experimental investigation of virtual negotiations with dynamic plots, Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 5, 415-429 (2000)
[19] Bhandari, G.; Hassanein, K.; Deaves, R., Debiasing investors with decision support systems: an experimental investigation, Decision Support Systems, 46, 1, 399-410 (2008)
[20] Borcherding, K.; Eppel, T.; Von Winterfeldt, D., Comparison of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility measurement, Manage Sci, 37, 12, 1603-1619 (1991) · Zbl 0729.91012
[21] Borštnar, M. K.; Kljajić, M.; Škraba, A.; Kofjač, D.; Rajkovič, V., The relevance of facilitation in group decision making supported by a simulation model, System Dynamics Review, 27, 3, 270-293 (2011)
[22] Bottomley, P. A.; Doyle, J. R., A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best, Omega (Westport), 29, 6, 553-560 (2001)
[23] Brocklesby, J., Ethics beyond the model: how social dynamics can interfere with ethical practice in operational research/management science, Omega (Westport), 37, 6, 1073-1082 (2009)
[24] Brocklesby, J., The what, the why and the how of behavioural operational research: an invitation to potential sceptics, European Journal of Operational Research, 249, 3, 796-805 (2016) · Zbl 1346.91193
[25] Bryson, J. M.; Ackermann, F.; Eden, C.; Finn, C. B., Visible Thinking: Unlocking causal mapping for practical business results (2004), Wiley: Wiley Chichester
[26] Buchanan, J. T., An experimental evaluation of interactive MCDM methods and the decision making process, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45, 9, 1050-1059 (1994) · Zbl 0815.90100
[27] Burger, K.; White, L.; Yearworth, M., Why so Serious? Theorising Playful Model-Driven Group Decision Support with Situated Affectivity, Group Decision and Negotiation, 27, 5, 789-810 (2018)
[28] Butler, A. B.; Scherer, L. L., The effects of elicitation aids, knowledge, and problem content on option quantity and quality, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72, 2, 184-202 (1997)
[29] Cavallo, B.; Ishizaka, A.; Olivieri, M. G.; Squillante, M., Comparing inconsistency of pairwise comparison matrices depending on entries, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 1-9 (2018)
[30] (Chaiken, S.; Trope, Y., Dual-process Theories in Social Psychology (1999), Guilford: Guilford New York)
[31] Chau, P. Y.K.; Bell, P. C., Designing effective simulation-based decision Support Systems: an empirical assessment of three types of Decision Support Systems, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46, 3, 315-331 (1995) · Zbl 0822.90086
[32] Chung, Q.; Willemain, T.; O’Keefe, R., Influence of model management systems on decision making: empirical evidence and implications, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 936-948 (2000) · Zbl 1107.90367
[33] Connolly, T.; Dean, D., Decomposed versus holistic estimates of effort required for software writing tasks, Management Science, 43, 7, 1029-1045 (1997) · Zbl 0890.90128
[34] Cunha, A. A.; Morais, D. C., Analysing the use of cognitive maps in an experiment on a group decision process, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 67, 12, 1459-1468 (2016)
[35] De Waele, M., Managerial style and the design of decision aids, Omega (Westport), 6, 1, 5-13 (1978)
[36] DeSanctis, G.; Poole, M. S., Capturing the complexity in advanced technology use: adaptive structuration theory, Organization Science, 5, 2, 121-147 (1994)
[37] Eden, C., The unfolding nature of group decision support: two dimensions of skill, (Eden, C.; Radford, J., Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support (1990), Sage: Sage London), 48-52
[38] Eden, C., On evaluating the performance of ‘wide-band’ GDSS’s, European Journal of Operational Research, 81, 302-311 (1995) · Zbl 0927.90059
[39] Eden, C.; Huxham, C., Action Research for Management Research, British Journal of Management, 7, 1, 75-86 (1996)
[40] Ellis, D. G.; Fisher, B. A., Small group decision making (1993), McGraw Hill: McGraw Hill New York
[41] Epstein, S.; Pacini, R.; Denes-Raj, V.; Heier, H., Individual Differences in Intuitive-Experiential and Analytical-Rational Thinking Styles, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 2, 390-405 (1996)
[42] Fasolo, B.; Bana e. Costa, C. A., Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers’ numeracy and fluency: expressing value judgments in numbers or words, Omega (Westport), 44, 83-90 (2014)
[43] Filzmoser, M.; Hippmann, P.; Vetschera, R., Analyzing the multiple dimensions of negotiation processes, Group Decision and Negotiation, 25, 6, 1169-1188 (2016)
[44] Finlay, P., On evaluating the performance of GSS: furthering the debate, European Journal of Operational Research, 107, 1, 193-201 (1998) · Zbl 0943.90046
[45] Franco, L. A., Rethinking Soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects, European Journal of Operational Research, 231, 3, 720-733 (2013)
[46] Franco, L. A.; Greiffenhagen, C., Making OR practice visible: using ethnomethodology to analyse facilitated modelling workshops, European Journal of Operational Research, 265, 2, 673-684 (2018)
[47] Franco, L. A.; Hämäläinen, R. P., Behavioural operational research: returning to the roots of the OR profession, Journal of Operational Research, 249, 3, 791-795 (2016) · Zbl 1351.00025
[48] Franco, L. A.; Lord, E., Understanding multi-methodology: evaluating the perceived impact of mixing methods for group budgetary decisions, Omega (Westport), 39, 3, 362-372 (2011)
[49] Franco, L. A.; Meadows, M., Exploring new directions in problem structuring methods research: on the role of cognitive style, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 12, 1621-1629 (2007)
[50] Franco, L. A.; Nielsen, M. F., Examining group facilitation in situ: the use of formulations in facilitation practice, Group Decision and Negotiation, 27, 5, 735-756 (2018)
[51] Franco, L. A.; Rouwette, E. A., Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops, European Journal of Operational Research, 212, 1, 164-178 (2011)
[52] Franco, L. A.; Rouwette, E. A.; Korzilius, H., Different paths to consensus? The impact of need for closure on model-supported group conflict management, European Journal of Operational Research, 249, 3, 878-889 (2016) · Zbl 1346.91044
[53] Gary, M. S.; Wood, R. E., Unpacking mental models through laboratory experiments, System Dynamics Review, 2, 32, 101-129 (2016)
[54] Gettinger, J.; Kiesling, E.; Stummer, C.; Vetschera, R., A comparison of representations for discrete multi-criteria decision problems, Decision Support Systems, 54, 2, 976-985 (2013)
[55] Gogi, A.; Tako, A. A.; Robinson, S., An experimental investigation into the role of simulation models in generating insights, European Journal of Operational Research, 249, 3, 931-944 (2016) · Zbl 1346.91036
[56] Griessmair, M., Ups and downs: emotional dynamics in negotiations and their effects on (in)equity, Group Decision and Negotiation, 26, 6, 1061-1090 (2017)
[57] Guo, X.; Lim, J., Decision support for online group negotiation: design, implementation, and efficacy, Decision Support Systems, 54, 1, 362-371 (2012)
[58] Hämäläinen, R. P.; Luoma, J.; Saarinen, E., On the importance of behavioral operational research: the case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems, European Journal of Operational Research, 228, 3, 623-634 (2013) · Zbl 1317.90143
[59] Herrera, H. J.; McCardle-Keurentjes, M. H.F.; Videira, N., Evaluating Facilitated Modelling processes and outcomes: an experiment comparing a single and a multimethod approach in Group Model Building, Group Decision and Negotiation, 25, 6, 1277-1318 (2016)
[60] Hine, M. J.; Murphy, S. A.; Weber, M.; Kersten, G., The role of emotion and language in dyadic e-negotiations, Group Decision and Negotiation, 18, 3, 193-211 (2009)
[61] Howie, E.; Sy, S.; Ford, L.; Vicente, K. J., Human – computer interface design can reduce misperceptions of feedback, System Dynamics Review, 16, 3, 151-171 (2000)
[62] Huang, H.-. H.; Hsu, J. S.-C.; Ku, C.-. Y., Understanding the role of computer-mediated counter-argument in countering confirmation bias, Decision Support Systems, 53, 3, 438-447 (2012)
[63] Huxham, C.; Cropper, S., From many to one—And back. An exploration of some components of facilitation, Omega (Westport), 22, 1, 1-11 (1994)
[64] Huxham, C.; Vangen, S., Researching organizational practice through action research: case studies and design choices, Organizational Research Methods, 6, 3, 383-403 (2003)
[65] Huysmans, J.; Dejaeger, K.; Mues, C.; Vanthienen, J.; Baesens, B., An empirical evaluation of the comprehensibility of decision table, tree and rule based predictive models, Decision Support Systems, 51, 1, 141-154 (2011)
[66] Ishizaka, A.; Balkenborg, D.; Kaplan, T., Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 10, 1801-1812 (2011)
[67] Ishizaka, A.; Siraj, S., Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods, European Journal of Operational Research, 264, 2, 462-471 (2018) · Zbl 1376.91054
[68] Jackson, M. C.; Keys, P., Towards a system of systems methodologies, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35, 6, 473-486 (1984)
[69] Joldersma, C.; Roelofs, E., The impact of Soft OR on problem structuring, European Journal of Operational Research Res, 152, 696-708 (2004) · Zbl 1043.90514
[70] Kamenica, E., Behavioral economics and psychology of incentives, Annu. Rev. Econ., 4, 1, 427-452 (2012)
[71] Kaufmann, C.; Weber, M.; Haisley, E., The role of experience sampling and graphical displays on one’s investment risk appetite, Management Science, 59, 2, 323-340 (2013)
[72] Keys, P., OR as technology: some issues and implications, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 40, 9, 753-759 (1989)
[73] Keys, P., Approaches to understanding the process of OR: review, critique and extension, Omega (Westport), 25, 1, 1-13 (1997)
[74] Keys, P., OR as technology revisited, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49, 2, 99-108 (1998) · Zbl 1111.90339
[75] Keys, P., Reducing the process lacuna in operational research by taking a knowledge work perspective, Systems Research and Behavioral Science Sci, 24, 285-296 (2007)
[76] Kopainsky, B.; Sawicka, A., Simulator‐supported descriptions of complex dynamic problems: experimental results on task performance and system understanding, System Dynamics Review, 27, 2, 142-172 (2011)
[77] Krishnaswamy, V.; Pahuja, A.; Sundarraj, R., Integrating Time-Preferences into E-Negotiation Systems: a model, elicitation approach and experimental implications, Group Decision and Negotiation, 25, 6, 1137-1167 (2016)
[78] Kruglanski, A., The psychology of closed-mindedness (2004), Psychology Press: Psychology Press New York
[79] Kumar, M.; Dutt, V., Alleviating misconceptions about Earth’s climate: evidence of behavioral learning in stock‐and‐flow simulations, System Dynamics Review, 34, 4, 503-526 (2018)
[80] Lahtinen, T. J.; Hämäläinen, R. P., Path dependence and biases in the Even Swaps decision analysis method, European Journal of Operational Research, 249, 3, 890-898 (2016) · Zbl 1346.91053
[81] Lahtinen, T. J.; Hämäläinen, R. P.; Jenytin, C., On preference elicitation processes which mitigate the accumulation of biases in multi-criteria decision analysis, European Journal of Operational Research (2019) · Zbl 1431.91112
[82] Lane, D. C., Behavioural System Dynamics’: a Very Tentative and Slightly Sceptical Map of the Territory, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 34, 4, 414-423 (2017)
[83] Leppänen, I.; Hämäläinen, R. P.; Saarinen, E.; Viinikainen, M., Intrapersonal emotional responses to the inquiry and advocacy modes of interaction: a psychophysiological study, Group Decision and Negotiation, 27, 6, 933-948 (2018)
[84] Lienert, J.; Duygan, M.; Zheng, J., Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making, European Journal of Operational Research, 253, 3, 746-760 (2016)
[85] Limayem, M.; Banerjee, P.; Ma, L., Impact of GDSS: opening the black box, Decision Support Systems, 42, 2, 945-957 (2006)
[86] Linares, P., Are inconsistent decisions better? An experiment with pairwise comparisons, European Journal of Operational Research, 193, 2, 492-498 (2009) · Zbl 1180.90155
[87] Liu, Y.; Lee, Y.; Chen, A. N., Evaluating the effects of task-individual-technology fit in multi-DSS models context: a two-phase view, Decision Support Systems, 51, 3, 688-700 (2011)
[88] Lu, H.-. P.; Yu, H.-. J.; Lu, S., The effects of cognitive style and model type on DSS acceptance: an empirical study, European Journal of Operational Research, 131, 3, 649-663 (2001) · Zbl 0994.90506
[89] Massey, A. P.; Wallace, W. A., Understanding and facilitating group problem structuring and formulation: mental representations, interaction, and representation aids, Decision Support Systems, 17, 253-274 (1996)
[90] McCardle-Keurentjes, M.; Rouwette, E. A., Asking questions: a sine qua non of facilitation in decision support?, Group Decision and Negotiation, 27, 5, 757-788 (2018)
[91] McCardle‐Keurentjes, M. H.; Rouwette, E. A.; Vennix, J. A.; Jacobs, E., Potential benefits of model use in group model building: insights from an experimental investigation, System Dynamics Review, 34, 1-2, 354-384 (2018)
[92] McHaney, R.; Tako, A.; Robinson, S., Using LIWC to choose simulation approaches: a feasibility study, Decision Support Systems, 111, 1-12 (2018)
[93] Melzer, P.; Schoop, M., The effects of personalised negotiation training on learning and performance in electronic negotiations, Group Decision and Negotiation, 25, 6, 1189-1210 (2016)
[94] Midgley, G., Systemic intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice (2000), Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum Publishers New York
[95] Mingers, J., The contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for OR/MS and systems, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 11, 1256-1270 (2000) · Zbl 1107.90300
[96] Mingers, J., Abduction: the missing link between deduction and induction. A comment on Ormerod’s ’rational inference: deductive, inductive and probabilistic thinking’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 63, 6, 860-861 (2012)
[97] Mingers, J.; Brocklesby, J., Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing methodologies, Omega (Westport), 25, 5, 489-509 (1997)
[98] Monks, T.; Robinson, S.; Kotiadis, K., Learning from discrete-event simulation: exploring the high involvement hypothesis, European Journal of Operational Research, 235, 1, 195-205 (2014)
[99] Monks, T.; Robinson, S.; Kotiadis, K., Can involving clients in simulation studies help them solve their future problems? A transfer of learning experiment, European Journal of Operational Research, 249, 3, 919-930 (2016) · Zbl 1346.90438
[100] Montibeller, G.; Von Winterfeldt, D., Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis, Risk analysis, 35, 7, 1230-1251 (2015)
[101] Morton, A.; Ackermann, F.; Belton, V., Technology-driven and model-driven approaches to group decision support: focus, research philosophy, and key concepts, European Journal of Information Systems, 12, 2, 110-126 (2003)
[102] Moxnes, E., Misperceptions of basic dynamics: the case of renewable resource management, System Dynamics Review, 20, 2, 139-162 (2004)
[103] O’Keefe, R. M., The implications of cognitive-style findings for operational research, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 40, 5, 415-422 (1989)
[104] O’Keefe, R. M., Experimental behavioural research in operational research: what we know and what we might come to know, European Journal of Operational Research, 249, 3, 899-907 (2016) · Zbl 1346.90439
[105] O’Keefe, R. M.; Pitt, I. L., Interaction with a visual interactive simulation, and the effect of cognitive style, European Journal of Operational Research, 54, 3, 339-348 (1991)
[106] Ofir, C., Ease of recall vs recalled evidence in judgment: experts vs laymen, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 1, 28-42 (2000)
[107] Orlikowski, W. J., The duality of technology: rethinking the concept of technology in organizations, Organization Science, 3, 2, 398-427 (1992)
[108] Ormerod, R., Writing practitioner case studies to help behavioural OR researchers ground their theories: application of the mangle perspective, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68, 5, 507-520 (2017)
[109] Ormerod, R. J., The design of organisational intervention: choosing the approach, Omega (Westport), 25, 4, 415-435 (1997)
[110] Ormerod, R. J., The mangle of OR practice: towards more informative case studies of ‘technical’ projects, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 65, 8, 1245-1260 (2014)
[111] Overmeer, W. J.; Corbett, C. J.; Van Wassenhove, L. N., Cooperation between strands of practice: challenges and opportunities for the renewal of OR, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 49, 4, 369-380 (1998) · Zbl 1111.90343
[112] Paich, M.; Sterman, J. D., Boom, bust, and failures to learn in experimental markets, Management Science, 39, 12, 1439-1458 (1993)
[113] Pala, Ö.; Vriens, D. J.; Vennix, J. A., Causal loop diagrams as a de-escalation technique, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66, 4, 593-601 (2015)
[114] Panko, R. R.; Sprague, R. H., Hitting the wall: errors in developing and code inspecting a simple’spreadsheet model, Decision Support Systems, 22, 4, 337-353 (1998)
[115] Papamichail, K. N.; Alves, G.; French, S.; Yang, J. B.; Snowdon, R., Facilitation practices in decision workshops, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 5, 614-632 (2007)
[116] Phillips, L., Decision Conferencing, (Edwards, W.; Miles Jr, R.; von Winterfeldt, D., Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications (2007), Cambridge University Press: Cambridge University Press New York), 375-399
[117] Phillips, L. D.; Phillips, M. C., Facilitated work groups: theory and practice, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44, 6, 533-549 (1993)
[118] Poole, M. S., Central issues in the study of change and innovation, (Poole, M. S.; Van de Ven, A. H., Handbook of organizational change and innovation (2004), Oxford University Press: Oxford University Press New York), 3-31
[119] Poole, M. S., Generalization in process theories of communication, Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 3, 181-190 (2007)
[120] Poole, M. S.; Holmes, M.; DeSanctis, G., Conflict management in a computer-supported meeting environment, Management Science, 37, 926-953 (1991)
[121] (Poole, M. S.; Van de Ven, A. H., Handbook of organizational change and innovation (2004), Oxford University Press: Oxford University Press New York)
[122] Poole, M. S., Van de Ven, A. H., Dooley, K., & Holmes, M. E. ((2000).Eds.). Organizational change and innovation processes: theory and methods for research. New York: Oxford University Press.
[123] Powell, S. G.; Willemain, T. R., How novices formulate models. Part I: qualitative insights and implications for teaching, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 8, 983-995 (2007) · Zbl 1154.00322
[124] Power, D. J.; Sharda, R., Model-driven decision support systems: concepts and research directions, Decision Support Systems, 43, 3, 1044-1061 (2007)
[125] Pöyhönen, M.; Hämäläinen, R. P., On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods, Eur J Oper Res, 129, 3, 569-585 (2001) · Zbl 1125.90368
[126] Poyhonen, M.; Vrolijk, H.; Hamalainen, R. P., Behavioral and procedural consequences of structural variation in value trees, European Journal of Operational Research, 134, 1, 216-227 (2001) · Zbl 0993.90070
[127] Qudrat-Ullah, H., Yes we can: improving performance in dynamic tasks, Decision Support Systems, 61, 23-33 (2014)
[128] Richardson, G.; Andersen, D., Teamwork in Group Model Building, System Dynamics Review, 11, 2, 113-137 (1995)
[129] Robinson, S. (2004). SImulation: the practice of model development and use: john Wiley & Sons.
[130] Robinson, S.; Davies, R., An investigation of the effect of educational background on performance in simulation studies, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 61, 12, 1685-1693 (2010)
[131] (Rosenhead, J.; Mingers, J., Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict (2001), Wiley: Wiley Chichester)
[132] Rouwette, E. A.J. A.; Korzilius, H.; Vennix, J. A.M.; Jacobs, E., Modeling as persuasion: the impact of group model building on attitudes and behavior, System Dynamics Review, 27, 1, 1-21 (2011)
[133] Rouwette, E. A.J. A.; Vennix, J. A.M.; Van Mullekom, T., Group model building effectiveness. A review of assessment studies, System Dynamics Review, 18, 1, 5-45 (2002)
[134] Royston, G., The Past, Present and Futures of Behavioral Operational Research, (Kunc, M.; Malpass, J.; White, L., Behavioral Operational Research: Theory, Methodology and Practice (2016), Palgrave Macmillan: Palgrave Macmillan LondonUK), 359-381
[135] Scholz, M.; Franz, M.; Hinz, O., Effects of decision space information on MAUT-based systems that support purchase decision processes, Decision Support Systems, 97, 43-57 (2017)
[136] Scott, R. J.; Cavana, R. Y.; Cameron, D., Evaluating immediate and long‐term impacts of qualitative group model building workshops on participants’ mental models, System Dynamics Review, 29, 4, 216-236 (2013)
[137] Sengupta, K.; Abdel-Hamid, T. K., Alternative conceptions of feedback in dynamic decision environments: an experimental investigation, Management Science, 39, 4, 411-428 (1993)
[138] Shaw, D., Evaluating electronic workshops through analysing the ’brainstormed’ ideas, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 7, 692-705 (2003) · Zbl 1060.90674
[139] Shaw, D.; Ackermann, F.; Eden, C., Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 9, 936-948 (2003) · Zbl 1095.90502
[140] Sia, C.-. L.; Tan, B. C.; Wei, K.-. K., Effects of GSS interface and task type on group interaction: an empirical study, Decision Support Systems, 19, 4, 289-299 (1997)
[141] Siebert, J.; Keeney, R. L., Creating more and better alternatives for decisions using objectives, Operations Research, 63, 5, 1144-1158 (2015) · Zbl 1347.91118
[142] Singh, D. T., Incorporating cognitive aids into decision support systems: the case of the strategy execution process, Decision Support Systems, 24, 2, 145-163 (1998)
[143] Škraba, A.; Kljajić, M.; Borštnar, M. K., The role of information feedback in the management group decision-making process applying System Dynamics models, Group Decision and Negotiation, 16, 1, 77-95 (2007)
[144] Škraba, A.; Kljajić, M.; Leskovar, R., Group exploration of system dynamics models —Is there a place for a feedback loop in the decision process?, System Dynamics Review, 19, 3, 243-263 (2003)
[145] Sniezek, J. A.; Paese, P. W.; Switzer, F. S., The effect of choosing on confidence in choice, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 2, 264-282 (1990)
[146] Sterman, J. D., Modeling managerial behavior: misperceptions of feedback in a dynamic decision-making experiment, Management Science, 35, 3, 321-339 (1989)
[147] Sterman, J. D., Learning in and about complex systems, System Dynamics Review, 10, 2-3, 291-330 (1994)
[148] Sterman, J. D., Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world (2000), McGraw-Hill: McGraw-Hill Boston, MAIrwin
[149] Tako, A. A., Exploring the model development process in discrete-event simulation: insights from six expert modellers, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66, 5, 747-760 (2015)
[150] Tako, A. A.; Robinson, S., Model development in Discrete-Event Simulation and System Dynamics: an empirical study of expert modellers, European Journal of Operational Research, 207, 2, 784-794 (2010)
[151] Tan, W.-. K.; Tan, C.-. H.; Teo, H.-. H., Consumer-based decision aid that explains which to buy: decision confirmation or overconfidence bias?, Decision Support Systems, 53, 1, 127-141 (2012)
[152] Tavella, E.; Franco, L. A., Dynamics of group knowledge production in facilitated modelling workshops: an exploratory study, Group Decision and Negotiation, 24, 3, 451-475 (2015)
[153] Tavella, E.; Papadopoulos, T., Expert and novice facilitated modelling: a case of a Viable System Model workshop in a local food network, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66, 2, 247-264 (2015)
[154] Tavella, E.; Papadopoulos, T., Novice facilitators and the use of scripts for managing facilitated modelling workshops, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66, 12, 1967-1988 (2015)
[155] Thaler, R. H.; Sunstein, C. R., Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness (2008), Yale University Press: Yale University Press New Haven, CT
[156] Van Bruggen, G. H.; Smidts, A.; Wierenga, B., Improving decision making by means of a marketing decision support system, Management Science, 44, 5, 645-658 (1998) · Zbl 0989.90100
[157] Van de Ven, A. H.; Poole, M. S., Explaining Development and Change in Organizations, Academy of Management Review, 20, 3, 510-540 (1995)
[158] Van de Ven, A. H.; Poole, M. S., Alternative approaches for studying organizational change, Organization Studies, 26, 9, 1377-1404 (2005)
[159] Velez-Castiblanco, J.; Brocklesby, J.; Midgley, G., Boundary games: how teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of intervention, European Journal of Operational Research, 249, 3, 968-982 (2016) · Zbl 1346.91034
[160] Velez-Castiblanco, J.; Londono-Correa, D.; Naranjo-Rivera, O., The structure of problem structuring conversations: a boundary games approach, Group Decision and Negotiation, 27, 5, 853-884 (2018)
[161] Vennix, J. A.M., Group model building. Facilitating team learning using system dynamics (1996), Wiley: Wiley Chichester
[162] Vennix, J. A.M.; Akkermans, H. A.; Rouwette, E. A.J. A., Group model building to facilitate organisational change: an exploratory study, System Dynamics Review, 12, 1, 39-58 (1996)
[163] Vessey, I., Cognitive fit: a theory‐based analysis of the graphs versus tables literature, Decision Sciences, 22, 2, 219-240 (1991)
[164] von Nitzsch, R.; Weber, M., The effect of attribute ranges on weights in multiattribute utility measurements, Management Science, 39, 8, 937-943 (1993) · Zbl 0800.90071
[165] Von Winterfeldt, D.; Fasolo, B., Structuring decision problems: a case study and reflections for practitioners, European Journal of Operational Research, 199, 3, 857-866 (2009) · Zbl 1176.90334
[166] Waisel, L.; Wallace, W.; Willemain, T., Visualization and model formulation: an analysis of the sketches of expert modellers, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59, 3, 353-361 (2008) · Zbl 1145.90422
[167] Webber, S. A.; Apostolou, B.; Hassell, J. M., The sensitivity of the analytic hierarchy process to alternative scale and cue presentations, European Journal of Operational Research, 96, 2, 351-362 (1996) · Zbl 0924.90002
[168] White, L., Understanding Problem Structuring Methods Interventions, European Journal of Operational Research, 99, 3, 823-833 (2009) · Zbl 1176.90329
[169] White, L., Behavioural operational research: towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions, European Journal of Operational Research, 249, 3, 827-841 (2016) · Zbl 1346.91194
[170] White, L.; Burger, K.; Yearworth, M., Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory, European Journal of Operational Research, 249, 3, 983-1004 (2016) · Zbl 1346.91196
[171] Wijnen, F. M.; Mulder, Y. G.; Alessi, S. M.; Bollen, L., The potential of learning from erroneous models: comparing three types of model instruction, System Dynamics Review, 31, 4, 250-270 (2015)
[172] Willemain, T. R., Model formulation: what experts think about and when, Operations Research, 43, 6, 916-932 (1995)
[173] Willemain, T. R.; Powell, S. G., How novices formulate models. Part II: a quantitative description of behaviour, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 10, 1271-1283 (2007) · Zbl 1154.00323
[174] Willemain, T. R.; Wallace, W. A.; Fleischmann, K. R.; Waisel, L. B.; Ganaway, S., Bad numbers: coping with flawed decision support, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 9, 949-957 (2003) · Zbl 1097.90532
[175] Wolstenholme, E. F., Towards the definition and use of a core set of archetypal structures in system dynamics, Syst Dyn Rev, 19, 1, 7-26 (2003)
[176] Yang, M. M.; Jiang, H.; Gary, M. S., Challenging learning goals improve performance in dynamically complex microworld simulations, System Dynamics Review, 32, 3-4, 204-232 (2016)
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.