2.3 Group Decision Making
2.3.3 Previous Responses to GDM Issues
2.3.3.3 Problem Structuring Methods PSMs
Around the same time as when GDSS were being developed, a different family of methods emerged bearing a similar focus on assisting groups in making better decisions and dealing with complex problems surrounded by uncertainty and conflict. The family of these participatory methods has been termed as Problem Structuring Methods (PSM’s) (Ackermann, 2012; Rosenhead & Mingers, 2001; Rosenhead, 1989).
PSM’s share similarities to GDSS in that they incorporate distinct FGPP’s, while some also share the technological element found in GDSS (Eden & Ackermann, 2001:27; Friend, 2001: 125). Moreover, the key difference of PSM’s to GDSS is their distinct focus in using qualitative, and sometimes diagrammatic, models as part (or even as the whole) of their FGPP’s (Rosenhead & Mingers. 2001; Ackermann, 2012). While certain strands of GDSS attempt to incorporate the use of diagrammatical models (i.e. Level 2 GDSS) (DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1988; Sambamurthy & Poole, 1991: 246; Poole, et al., 1991: 930), the theoretical and conceptual background offered by PSM model-building and analysis formal
12
For example, significant evidence was found for only one of the six conflict management related impacts that were hypothesised by Poole et al. (1991), with the remaining five hypotheses not supported.
43
procedures appear to be more advanced, offering a pluralism of theoretical and philosophical underpinnings (Rosenhead & Mingers, 2001; DeSanctis & Gallupe, 1987; Sambamurthy & Poole, 1991;).
Thus, the PSMs have incorporated in their FGPP’s clearly defined modelling languages, resulting in models amenable to formal analysis (Eden & Ackermann, 2001, p. 26-27). As such and while PSMs offer similar technological capabilities, the diagrams resulting from the model building process can be viewed as the very outputs of the group discussion and not merely as aids to the discussion. Scholars view the typical context in which PSMs operate as (Ackermann, 2012; Franco & Montibeller, 2010):
• dealing with messy, complex problems usually at the strategic level;
• operating in a group workshop fashion;
• group participants usually communicate via face-to-face group interaction;
• facilitation is required at different stages and to different extent according to the PSM used and the problematic situation the group is faced with.
A well established PSM is SODA (Rosenhead & Mingers, 2001). When SODA is explicitly combined with facilitation and computer support it can be classified as facilitated problem structuring thus belonging to the wider family of Facilitated Modelling explored in later sections. Before introducing Facilitated Modelling, I will introduce SODA since it is the method employed in the FM workshops this thesis explored.
44
2.3.3.3.1 SODA
SODA’s underlying philosophy was to find out using cognitive maps how people are continually striving to ‘make sense’ of their world in order to ‘manage and control’ that world. This thought was guided by the ‘Theory of Personal Constructs’ initially developed by Kelly (Adams-Weber & Kelly, 1979, Kelly, 1955) and has been also termed as Cognitive Theory. SODA’s approach essentially lies in ‘subjectivism’ meaning that the different worldviews and perceptions of individuals shall constitute different interpretation of ‘reality’ and the ‘real world’ (Rosenhead & Mingers, 2001).
A clear distinction is given by Pidd (2003), between what existed and how SODA developed through time. In its essence, Pidd (2003) indicates that when SODA technique was used to construct cognitive maps for individuals it was in its early stages and was named SODA 1. SODA 2, on the other hand, took SODA 1 a step further and indicated a clear methodology of constructing cognitive maps for groups (Figure 1) as a way of exploring the group’s as well as the consultant’s different subjective views (Eden & Ackermann, 2004).
45
Figure 1: SODA I Vs SODA II.
Adopted by Pidd (2003)
Developments by Eden and Ackermann (1998) suggested that SODA 1 and SODA 2 together form what they call JOURNEY Making. JOURNEY is the acronym for JOintly Understanding, Reflecting and NEgotiating strategy and it is used as a tool to reach an agreement towards the strategy to be followed. What JOURNEY Making actually is, as proposed by Eden and Ackermann (1998), is using cognitive mapping in order to gain as rich an appreciation as possible about what people believe about a situation, and how this situation can be improved in order to formulate a sound and feasible strategy.
The underlying intent of SODA applications is in the context of action orientation i.e. the aim being to move people toward some commitment to act. SODA aims to support negotiation and argument, stemming from different perceptions, and
46
essentially help people move to a joint commitment to action. Furthermore, for SODA to be applied it requires the analyst to work with what Pidd (2003) calls the ‘sense-making systems’ people use rather than with the world as the analyst sees it.
The fact that maps generated by large groups can get quite large in size making them hard to manage and manipulate, led to the development of specialised software13 to help consultants work through the SODA procedures more efficiently (Eden & Ackermann, 2010: 243). The twelve guidelines to cognitive mapping explicating the process can be viewed in appendix 1 (Eden, Ackermann & Cropper, 1992).
2.3.3.4 Summary
In this section I have highlighted the key responses, stemming from the field of Information Systems and Management Science that intend, among others, to improve the group communication processes causing ineffective conflict management. Formal Group Process Procedures (FGPPs) have been identified as offering participatory procedures for enhancing group communication processes. Group Decision Support Systems (GDSS) have been identified as systems that through computerisation intend to enhance the application of FGPPs. Problem Structuring Methods (PSMs) have been identified as a family of participatory methods that intend to enhance decision making and group communication procedures through the explicit development and appropriation of models. Furthermore, I have identified SODA to be the PSM utilised as part of the FM applications I examine in this thesis.
In the following section I explicate Facilitated Modelling and position it within the context of conflict management effectiveness. I further go on to describe the
13
47
claims made by FM scholars as to how the appropriation of model could enhance conflict management effectiveness.