Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dynamics of Group Knowledge Production in Facilitated Modelling Workshops: An Exploratory Study

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The term ‘facilitated modelling’ is used in the literature to characterise an approach to structuring problems, developing options and evaluating decisions by groups working in a model-supported workshop environment, and assisted by a facilitator. The approach involves an interactive process by which models are jointly developed with group members interacting face-to-face, with or without computer support. The models produced are used to inform negotiations about the nature of the issues faced by the group, and how to address them. While the facilitated modelling literature is impressive, published empirical research rarely examines what actually happens in a facilitated modelling environment. The present study addresses this gap by reporting on exploratory empirical research undertaken to closely examine the conduct of facilitated modelling within its actual context of immediate use, namely, the workshop. Drawing on the knowledge-perspective of group communication, we conducted a micro-level analysis of a transcript of a facilitated modelling workshop held with the management team of an Alternative Food Network in the UK. Our analysis suggests that facilitated modelling interactions can take the form of three distinct group knowledge production patterns: generative, collaborative and assertive. Further, each pattern is characterised by a particular mix of communicative behaviours and model-supported interactions that has implications for the creation of new knowledge within the workshop. Our findings contribute to increasing our understanding of the nature of facilitated modelling within its context of use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann F (1996) Participant’s perceptions on the role of facilitators using group decision support systems. Group Decis Negot 5(1):93–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Andersen DF, Eden C, Richardson GP (2011) Scriptsmap: a tool for designing multi-method policy-making workshops. OMEGA Int J Manag Sci 39(4):427–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (1994) Issues in computer and non-computer supported GDSSs. Decis Support Syst 12(4–5):381–390

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (2001) Contrasting single user and networked group decision support systems for strategy making. Group Decis Negot 10(1):47–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (2005) Using causal mapping with group support systems to elicit an understanding of failure in complex projects: some implications for organizational research. Group Decis Negot 14(5):355–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (2010) Strategic options development and analysis. In: Reynolds M, Holwell S (eds) Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. Springer, London, pp 135–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (2011a) Making strategy: mapping out strategic success, 2nd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (2011b) Negotiation in strategy making teams: group support systems and the process of cognitive change. Group Decis Negot 20(3):293–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann F, Franco LA, Gallupe B, Parent M (2005) Group support systems for multi-organizational collaboration: reflections on process and content. Group Decis Negot 14(4):307–331

    Google Scholar 

  • Andersen SM, Chen S (2002) The relational self: an interpersonal social-cognitive theory. Psychol Rev 109:619–645

    Google Scholar 

  • Azadeh A, Darivandi K, Fathi E (2012) Diagnosing, simulating and improving business process using cybernetic laws and the viable system model: the case of a purchasing process. Syst Res Behav Sci 29(1):66–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa C, Lourenço J, Oliveira M, Bana e Costa J (2013) A socio-technical approach for group decision support in public strategic planning: the Pernambuco PPA case. Group Decis Negot 23:1–25

  • Barrett FJ (1999) Knowledge creating as dialogic accomplishment: a constructionist perspective. In: Montuori A, Purser RE (eds) Social creativity, vol 1. Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ, pp 133–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartunek JM (1988) The dynamics of personal and organizational reframing. In: Quinn RE, Cameron KS (eds) Paradox and transformation. Ballinger, Cambridge, MA, pp 137–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateson G (1972) Steps to an ecology of mind. Jason Aronson, Northvale, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechky BA (2003) Sharing meaning across occupational communities: the transformation of understanding on a production floor. Organ Sci 14(3):312–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1979) The heart of enterprise. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1981) Brain of the firm. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1984) The viable system model: its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. J Oper Res Soc 35(1):7–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1985a) Designing the system for organizations. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Beer S (1985b) Diagnosing the system. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Benner P (1994) The role of articulation in understanding practice and experience as sources of knowledge in clinical nursing. In: Tully J, Weinstock DM (eds) Philosophy in an age of pluralism: the Philosophy of Charles Taylor in question. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 136–156

  • Bohm D (1996) On dialogue. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Cronin K, Midgley G, Jackson L (2014) Issues mapping: a problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts. Eur J Oper Res 233(1):145–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross SE, Morris MAL, Gore JS (2002) Thinking about oneself and others: the relational-interdependent self-construal and social cognition. J Personal Soc Psychol 82(3):399–418

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushman M, Rosenhead J (2004) Planning in the face of politics: reshaping children’s health services in inner London. In: Sainfort F, Brandeau M, Pierskalla W (eds) Handbook of OR/MS applications in health care. Kluwer, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling T, Mumpower J, Rohrbaugh J, Vari A (1999) Negotiation support for multi-party resource allocation: developing recommendation for decreasing transportation-related air pollution in Budapest. Group Decis Negot 8(1):51–75

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vreede GJ, Briggs RO, Kolfschoten GL (2006) ThinkLets: a pattern language for facilitated and practitioner-guided collaboration processes. Int J Comput Appl Technol 25(2/3):140–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1990) The unfolding nature of group decision support: two dimensions of skill. In: Eden C, Radford J (eds) Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. Sage, London, pp 48–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1992) A framework for thinking about group decision support systems. Group Decis Negot 1:199–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1995) On evaluating the performance of “wide-band” GDSS’s. Eur J Oper Res 81(2):302–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2001) SODA: the principles. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester, pp 21–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2013) ‘Joined-up’ policy-making: group decision and negotiation practice. Group Decis Negot October:1–17

  • Eden C, Sims D (1979) On the nature of problems in consulting practice. OMEGA Int J Manag Sci 7(2):119–127

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson AC (2002) The local and variegated nature of learning in organizations: a group-level perspective. Organ Sci 13(2):128–146

    Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa A, Harnden R, Walker J (2008) A complexity approach to sustainability—Stafford Beer revisited. Eur J Oper Res 187(2):636–651

    Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa A, Jackson MC (2002) A systemic look at educational development programs: two perspectives on a recent Colombian experience. Kybernetes 31(9/10):1324–1335

    Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa A, Walker J (2011) A complexity approach to sustainability: theory and application. Imperial College Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa A, Walker J (2013) Managing Complexity in practice: a viable system model intervention in an Irish eco-community. Eur J Oper Res 225(1):118–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA (2006) Forms of conversation and problem structuring methods: a conceptual development. J Oper Res Soc 57(7):813–821

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA (2008) Facilitating collaboration with problem structuring methods: a case of an inter-organisational construction partnership. Group Decis Negot 17(4):267–286

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA (2013) Rethinking soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects. Eur J Oper Res 231(3):720–733

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modelling in operational research (invited review). Eur J Oper Res 205(3):489–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Montibeller G (2011) ’On-the-Spot’ modelling and analysis: the facilitated modelling approach. In: Cochran JJ, Cox LA Jr, Keskinocak P, Kharoufeh JP, Smith JC (eds) Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Rouwette EAJA (2011) Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops. Eur J Oper Res 212(1):164–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend J (2001) The strategic choice approach. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester, pp 115–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend J, Hickling A (2005) Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Garfinkel H (1967) Studies in ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Gratton L, Ghoshal S (2002) Improving the quality of conversations. Organ Dyn 31(3):209–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Hampton JA (1997) Emergent attributes in combined concepts. In: Ward TN, Smith SM, Vaid J (eds) Creative thought. American Psychological Association, Washington DC, pp 83–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon AB (2003) How breakthroughs happen. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Hargadon AB, Sutton RI (1997) Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Adm Sci Q 42:716–749

    Google Scholar 

  • Harnden R (1989) Outside and then: an interpretive approach to the VSM. In: Espejo R, Harnden R (eds) The viable system model. Wiley, Chichester, pp 383–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Heritage J (1984) Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Polity, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Horlick-Jones T, Rosenhead J (2007) The uses of observation: combining problem structuring methods and ethnography. J Oper Res Soc 58(5):588–601

    Google Scholar 

  • Huxham C, Cropper S (1994) From many to one and back: an exploration of the components of facilitation. OMEGA 22(1):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilbery B, Maye D (2005) Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22:331–344

    Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs W (1999) Dialogue and the art of thinking together. Currency, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson M (2000) Systems approaches to management. Kluwer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarosz L (2000) Understanding agri-food networks as social relations. Agric Hum Values 17:279–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones P, Comfort D, Hillier D (2004) A case study of local food and its routes to market in the UK. Br Food J 106:328–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Keys P (2007a) Knowledge work, design science and problem structuring methodologies. Syst Res Behav Sci 24:523–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Keys P (2007b) Reducing the process lacuna in operational research by taking a knowledge work perspective. Syst Res Behav Sci 24:285–296

    Google Scholar 

  • King CA (2008) Community resilience and contemporary agri-ecological systems: reconnecting people and food, and people with people. Syst Res Behav Sci 25:11–224

    Google Scholar 

  • Kogler HH (1996) The power of dialogue. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten G, Hengst-Bruggeling M, Vreede G-J (2007) Issues in the design of facilitated collaboration processes. Group Decis Negot 16(4):347–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten GL, Briggs RO, de Vreede GJ, Jacobs PHM, Appelman JH (2006) Conceptual foundation of the ThinkLet concept for collaboration engineering. Int J Hum Comput Stud 64(7):611–621

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten GL, Grünbacher P, Briggs RO (2011) Modifiers for quality assurance in group facilitation. Group Decis Negot 20:685–705

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu F, Maitlis S (2014) Emotional dynamics and strategizing processes: a study of strategic conversations in top team meetings. J Manag Stud 51(2):202–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckmann T (1990) Social communication, dialogue and conversation. In: Markova I, Foppa K (eds) The dynamics of dialogue. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hemel Hempstead, pp 45–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsden T, Banks J, Bristow G (2000) Food supply chain approaches: exploring their role in rural development. Sociologia Ruralis 40(4):424–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Mengis J, Eppler MJ (2008) Understanding and managing conversations from a knowledge perspective: an analysis of the roles and rules of face-to-face conversations in organizations. Organ Stud 29(10):1287–1313

    Google Scholar 

  • Merleau-Ponty M (1962) Phenomenology of perception [Translated by C. Smith]. Routledge, London

  • Midgley G, Cavana R, Brocklesby J, Foote J, Ahuriri-Drscoll A, Wood D (2012) Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. Eur J Oper Res 229(1):143–154

  • Milestad R, Bartel-Kratochvil R, Leitner H, Axmann P (2010) Being close: the quality of social relationships in a local organic cereal and bread network in Lower Austria. J Rural Stud 26:228–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Möllering G (2006) Trust: reason, routine, reflexivity. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Morton A, Ackermann F, Belton V (2003) Technology-driven and model-driven approaches to group decision support: focus, research philosophy and key concepts. Eur J Inf Syst 12(2):110–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy GL (1997) Polysemy and the creation of novel meanings. In: Ward TN, Smith SM, Vaid J (eds) Creative thought. American Psychological Association, Washington DC, pp 235–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka IG, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka IG, Toyama R, Byosiere P (2001) A theory of organizational knowledge creation: understanding the dynamic process of creating knowledge. In: Dierkes MD, Antal AB, Child J, Nonaka IG (eds) Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 491–517

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips L (2007) Decision conferencing. In: Edwards W, Miles R Jr, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 375–399

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips L, Bana e Costa CA (2007) Transparent prioritisation, budgeting, and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Ann Oper Res 154(1):51–68

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips L, Phillips M (1993) Facilitated Work groups: theory and practice. J Oper Res Soc 44(6):533–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Preece G, Shaw D, Hayashi H (2013) Using the Viable System Model (VSM) to structure information processing complexity in disaster response. Eur J Oper Res 224:209–218

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA (2011) Facilitated modelling in strategy development: measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment. J Oper Res Soc 62(5):879–887

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Bastings I, Blokker H (2011a) A comparison of group model building and strategic options development and analysis. Group Decis Negot 20(6):781–803

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Korzilius H, Vennix JAM, Jacobs E (2011b) Modeling as persuasion: the impact of group model building on attitudes and behavior. Syst Dyn Rev 27(1):1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM (2009) Group model building. In: Meyers RE (ed) Encyclopedia of complexity and systems science. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 4474–4486

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, Felling AJA (2009) On evaluating the performance of problem structuring methods: an attempt at formulating a conceptual model. Group Decis Negot 18(6):567–587

    Google Scholar 

  • Sage C (2003) Social embeddedness and relations of regard: alternative ‘good food’ networks in south-west Ireland. J Rural Stud 19:47–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawyer RK (2007) Group genius. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw D, Ackermann F, Eden C (2003) Approaches to sharing knowledge in group problem structuring. J Oper Res Soc 54(9):936–948

    Google Scholar 

  • Taket A (2002) Facilitation: some contributions to theorising the practice of operational research. J Oper Res Soc 53(2):126–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas R, Sargent LD, Hardy C (2011) Managing organizational change: negotiating meaning and power-resistance relations. Organ Sci 22(1):22–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Tschang FT (2007) Balancing the tensions between rationalization and creativity in the video games industry. Organ Sci 18:989–1005

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas H (2003) Do we really understand tacit knowledge? In: Easterby-Smith M, Lyles MA (eds) Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 410–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas H (2009) A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organ Sci 20(6):941–957

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas H, Chia R (2002) On organizational becoming: rethinking organizational change. Organ Sci 13(5):567–582

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix JAM (1995) Building consensus in strategic decision making. Insights from the process of group model building. Group Decis Negot 4:335–355

    Google Scholar 

  • Visser M (2007) System dynamics and group facilitation: contributions from communication theory. Syst Dyn Rev 23(4):453–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (1998) The new dialectic: conversational contexts of argument. University of Toronto Press, Toronto

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (2000) The place of dialogue theory in logic, computer science and communication studies. Synthese 123:327–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton DN (2006) Fundamentals of critical argumentation. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • White L (2009) Understanding problem structuring methods interventions. Eur J Oper Res 99(3):823–833

    Google Scholar 

  • Yankelovich D (1999) The magic of dialogue: turning conflict into cooperation. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Food and Resources Economics, University of Copenhagen, 1958 , Frederiksberg C, Denmark

    Elena Tavella

  2. School of Business and Economics, Loughborough University, Leicestershire , LE11 3TU, UK

    L. Alberto Franco

Authors
  1. Elena Tavella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. L. Alberto Franco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Tavella.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tavella, E., Franco, L.A. Dynamics of Group Knowledge Production in Facilitated Modelling Workshops: An Exploratory Study. Group Decis Negot 24, 451–475 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9398-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9398-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation