Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T09:18:34.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explaining how group model building supports enduring agreement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

Rodney James Scott
Rodney James Scott*
Affiliation:
Adjunct Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia
*
Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

System dynamics models are typically used to simulate the behaviour of the problem system under discussion environment, to help understand and solve complex problems. Group model building is a social process for including client groups in the system dynamics modelling process. Recent evidence suggests group model building is useful in supporting durable group decisions by supporting the mental models of participants to become more aligned. There have been several mechanisms proposed to explain these effects. This paper creates a combined model that links the five best-supported mechanisms. The combined model suggests five core conditions of group model building that contributes to its success: completing a structured task, producing a tangible artefact, representing system complexity, the portrayal of causal links, and easy modification or transformation of the artefact by participants. Practitioners are encouraged to use group decision approaches that integrate these conditions.

Keywords

group model buildingsystem dynamicsgroup decisionmental modelconceptual model
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Management & Organization , Volume 25 , Issue 6 , November 2019 , pp. 783 - 806
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akkermans, H., & Vennix, J. (1997). Clients’ opinions on group model building: An exploratory study. System Dynamics Review, 13(1), 3–31.Google Scholar
Akkermans, H., Vennix, J. A. M., & Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (1993). Participative modelling to facilitate organizational change: A case study. Proceedings of the 1993 International System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill.Google Scholar
Andersen, D. A., Maxwell, T. A., Richardson, G. P., & Stewart, T. R. (1994). Mental models and dynamic decision making in a simulation of welfare reform. Proceedings of the 1994 International System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill.Google Scholar
Andersen, D. F., & Richardson, G. (1997). Scripts for group model building. System Dynamics Review, 13(2), 107–129.Google Scholar
Andersen, D. F., Richardson, G. P., & Vennix, J. A. M. (1997). Group model building: Adding more science to the craft. System Dynamics Review, 13(2), 187–203.Google Scholar
Andersen, D. F., Vennix, J. A. M., Richardson, G. P., & Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (2007). Group model building: Problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(5), 691–694.Google Scholar
Antunes, P., Santos, R., & Videira, N. (2006). Participatory decision making for sustainable development – the use of mediated modelling techniques. Land Use Policy, 23(1), 44–52.Google Scholar
Areni, C. S., & Lutz, R. J. (1988). The role of argument quality in the elaboration likelihood model. Advances in Consumer Research, 15(1), 197–203.Google Scholar
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effects of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(2), 177–181.Google Scholar
Atladóttir, K. (2011). The endowment effect and other biases in creative goods transactions. Reykjavik: University of Iceland.Google Scholar
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 50(2), 179–211.Google Scholar
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215.Google Scholar
Barbe, W. B., Swassing, R. H., & Milone, M. N. (1979). Teaching through modality strengths: Concepts and practices. Columbus: Zaner-Blosner.Google Scholar
Behn, R. D. (2014). The PerformanceStat potential: A leadership strategy for producing results. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Black, L. J. (2013). When visuals are boundary objects in system dynamics work. System Dynamics Review, 29(2), 70–86.Google Scholar
Black, L. J., & Andersen, D. F. (2012). Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflicts in collaborative model-building approaches. System Research and Behavioural Science, 29(2), 194–208.Google Scholar
Braun, W. (2002). The system archetypes. The systems modeling workbook. Retrieved 20 March 2017 from www.albany.edu/faculty/gpr/PAD724/724WebArticles/sys_archetypes.pdf.Google Scholar
Bunge, M. (2004). How does it work? The search for explanatory mechanisms. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 34(2), 182–210.Google Scholar
Bußwolder, P. (2015). The effect of a structured method on mental model accuracy and performance in a complex task. Systems, 3(4), 264–286.Google Scholar
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.Google Scholar
Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, MI: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455.Google Scholar
Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568.Google Scholar
Carmon, Z., Wertenbroch, K., & Zeelenberg, M. (2003). Option attachment: When deliberating makes choosing feel like losing. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(1), 15–29.Google Scholar
Cavana, R. Y., Boyd, D., & Taylor, R. (2007). A systems thinking study of retention and recruitment issues for the New Zealand Army electronic technician trade group. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 24(2), 201–216.Google Scholar
Cavana, R. Y., Davies, P. K., Robson, R. M., & Wilson, K. J. (1999). Drivers of quality in health services: different worldviews of clinicians and policy managers revealed. System Dynamics Review, 15(3), 331–340.Google Scholar
Cavana, R. Y., Smith, T., Scott, R. J., & O’Connor, S. (2014). Causal mapping of the New Zealand natural resources sector system: A preliminary analysis. Proceedings of the 2014 International System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752.Google Scholar
Chaiken, S., Giner-Sorolla, R., & Chen, S. (1996). Beyond accuracy: defense and impression motives in heuristic and systematic information processing. In P. Gollwitzer, & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to action (pp. 553–578). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Chesñevar, C., Modgil, S., Rahwan, I., Reed, C., Simari, G., South, M., & Willmott, S. (2006). Towards an argument interchange format. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 21(4), 293–316.Google Scholar
Clark, R. E., & Sugrue, B. M. (1988). Research on instructional media, 1978–1988. In D. Ely (Ed.), Educational media yearbook, 1987–1988 (pp. 19–36). Denver, CO: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13(3), 471–482.Google Scholar
Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crook, C. (1998). Children as computer users: the case of collaborative learning. Computers Education, 30(3), 237–247.Google Scholar
Dohle, S., Rall, S., & Siegrist, M. (2014). I cooked it myself: preparing food increases liking and consumption. Food Quality and Preference, 33, 14–16.Google Scholar
Doyle, J. K. (1997). The cognitive psychology of systems thinking. System Dynamics Review, 13, 263–265.Google Scholar
Doyle, J. K., & Ford, D. N. (1998). Mental model concepts for system dynamics research. System Dynamics Review, 14, 3–29.Google Scholar
Dunn, R., Beaudry, J., & Klavas, A. (2002). Survey of research on learning styles. California Journal of Science Education, 2(2), 75–98.Google Scholar
Elias, A. A. (2008). Towards a shared systems model of stakeholders in environmental conflict. International Transactions in Operational Research, 15(2), 239–253.Google Scholar
Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial dynamics. Cambridge: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
Forsyth, D. R. (2006). Decision making. In D. R. Forsyth (Ed.), Group dynamics (pp. 317–349). Wadsworth, OH: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
Franco, L. A. (2013). Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects. European Journal of Operational Research, 231(3), 720–733.Google Scholar
Franke, N., & Piller, F. (2004). Value creation by toolkits for user innovation and design: The case of the watch market. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(6), 401–415.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1974). Positivism and sociology. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Glicken, J. (2000). Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: A discussion of participatory processes and possible pitfalls. Environmental Science & Policy, 3(6), 305–310.Google Scholar
Gottschall, J. (2012). The storytelling animal: How stories make us human. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.Google Scholar
Greenberger, M., Crenson, M. A., & Crissey, B. L. (1976). Models in the policy process: Public decision making in the computer era. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274.Google Scholar
Griffiths, M. D. (1994). The role of cognitive bias and skill in fruit machine gambling. British Journal of Psychology, 85(3), 351–369.Google Scholar
Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1998). Social mechanisms: An analytical approach to social theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hedström, P., & Ylikoski, P. (2010). Causal mechanisms in the social sciences. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 49–67.Google Scholar
Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 16(4), 448–473.Google Scholar
Hovmand, P. S., Andersen, D. F., Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Richardson, G. P., Rux, K., & Calhoun, A. (2012). Group model building ‘scripts’ as a collaborative planning tool. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29, 179–193.Google Scholar
Howick, S., Ackermann, F., & Andersen, D. F. (2006). Linking event thinking with structural thinking: Methods to improve client value in projects. System Dynamics Review, 22, 113–140.Google Scholar
Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, N. A., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P., & Leitch, A. (2011). Mental models: An interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 46.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. (1990). Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the Coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348.Google Scholar
Kettl, D. F. (2015). The transformation of governance: Public administration for the twenty-first century. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Killing, P. (2012). Strategies for joint venture success (RLE International Business) (Vol. 22) London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kim, D. H., & Burchill, G. (1992). System archetypes as a diagnositc tool: A field-based study of TQM implementations. Proceedings of the 1992 International System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill.Google Scholar
Kim, H. (2009). In search of a mental model-like concept for group-level modeling. System Dynamics Review, 25(3), 207–223.Google Scholar
Law, J. (1987). Technology, closure and heterogeneous engineering: The case of the portuguese expansion. In W. Bijker, T. Pinch, & T.P. Hughes (Eds.), The social construction of technological systems (pp. 111–113). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Lujan, H. L., & DiCarlo, S. E. (2006). First-year medical students prefer multiple learning styles. Advances in Physiology Education, 30(1), 13–16.Google Scholar
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Martinez-Moyano, I. J., Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Andersen, D. F., & Richardson, G. P. (2006). Anatomy of a group model‐building intervention: Building dynamic theory from case study research. System Dynamics Review, 22(4), 291–320.Google Scholar
Maani, K. E., & Cavana, R. Y. (2007). Systems thinking, system dynamics – managing change and complexity (2nd ed.), New Zealand: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Maani, K. E., & Maharaj, V. (2003). Links between systems thinking and complex decision making. System Dynamics Review, 20(1), 21–48.Google Scholar
Mather, M., & Johnson, M. K. (2000). Choice-supportive source monitoring: Do our decisions seem better to us as we age? Psychology and Aging, 15, 596–606.Google Scholar
Mather, M., Shafir, E., & Johnson, M. K. (2000). Misremembrance of options past: Source monitoring and choice. Psychological Science, 11(2), 132–138.Google Scholar
McCardle-Keurentjes, M. H., Rouwette, E. A. J. A., & Vennix, J. A. M. (2008). Effectiveness of group model building in discovering hidden profiles in strategic decision-making. Proceedings of the 2008 International System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill.Google Scholar
McGraw, A. P., Tetlock, P., & Kristel, O. (2003). The limits of fungibility: Relational schemata and the value of things. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 219–229.Google Scholar
Mochon, D., Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2012). Bolstering and restoring feelings of competence via the IKEA effect. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 29(4), 363–369.Google Scholar
Moray, N. (1998). Identifying mental models of complex human - machine systems. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22(4), 293–297.Google Scholar
Moray, N. (2004). Models of models of…mental models. In N. Moray (Ed.), Ergonomics: Major writings (pp. 506–526). London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Murphy, K. R., Jako, R. A., & Anhalt, R. L. (1993). Nature and consequences of halo error: A critical analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 218–225.Google Scholar
Newman, S., & Marshall, C. (1991). Pushing Toulmin too far: Learning from an argument representation scheme. Technical Report SSL-92-45, Xerox PARC, Palo Alto, CA.Google Scholar
Norton, M., Mochon, D., & Ariely, D. (2012). The ‘IKEA effect’: When labor leads to love. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 22(3), 453–460.Google Scholar
Peck, J., & Shu, S. B. (2009). The effect of mere touch on perceived ownership. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(3), 434–447.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(5), 847.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 323–390). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (2014). Thought systems, argument quality, and persuasion. Advances in Social Cognition, 4, 147–161.Google Scholar
Platow, M. J., Grace, D. M., & Smithson, M. J. (2011). Examining the preconditions for psychological group membership: Perceived social interdependence as the outcome of self-categorization. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(1), 5–13.Google Scholar
Richardson, G. P. (2013). Concept models in group model building. System Dynamics Review, 29(1), 42–55.Google Scholar
Richardson, G. P., & Andersen, D. F. (1995). Teamwork in group model building. System Dynamics Review, 11(2), 113–137.Google Scholar
Richardson, G. P., Andersen, D. F., Maxwell, T. A., & Stewart, T. R. (1994). Foundations of mental model research. Proceedings of the 1994 International System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill.Google Scholar
Richardson, G. P., Andersen, D. F., Rohrbaugh, J., & Steinhurst, W. (1992). Group model building. Proceedings of the 1992 International System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill.Google Scholar
Richardson, G. P., & Pugh, A. L. (1981). Introduction to system dynamics modeling with DYNAMO. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richmond, B. (1997). The strategic forum aligning objectives, strategy and process. System Dynamics Review, 13(2), 131–148.Google Scholar
Rosenhead, J. (2013). Problem structuring methods. In S. I. Gass & M. C. Fu (Eds.), Encyclopedia of operations research and management science (pp. 1162–1172). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Rossman, G. B., & Wilson, B. L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9, 627–643.Google Scholar
Roth, W., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30, 503–534.Google Scholar
Rouse, W. B., & Morris, N. M. (1986). On looking into the black box: Prospects and limits in the search for mental models. Psychological Bulletin, 100, 349–363.Google Scholar
Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (2003). Group model building as mutual persuasion. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
Rouwette, E. A. (2011). Facilitated modelling in strategy development: measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(5), 879–887.Google Scholar
Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Korzilius, H., Vennix, J. A. M., & Jacobs, E. (2011). Modeling as persuasion: The impact of group model building on attitudes and behaviour. System Dynamics Review, 27(1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Rouwette, E. A. J. A., & Vennix, J. A. M. (2006). System dynamics and organizational interventions. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(4), 451–466.Google Scholar
Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vennix, J. A. M., & Felling, A. J. A. (2009). On evaluating the performance of problem structuring methods: an attempt at formulating a conceptual model. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18(6), 567–587.Google Scholar
Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vennix, J. A. M., & van Mullekom, T. (2002). Group model building effectiveness: A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review, 18(1), 5–45.Google Scholar
Saaty, T. L., & Peniwati, K. (2013). Group decision making: Drawing out and reconciling differences. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS.Google Scholar
Schaffernicht, M. (2010). Causal loop diagrams between structure and behaviour: A critical analysis of the relationship between polarity, behaviour and events. System Research and Behavioural Science, 27, 653–666.Google Scholar
Schum, D. A. (1993). Argument structuring and evidence evaluation. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 175–191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwaninger, M., & Groesser, S. (2008). System dynamics as model‐based theory building. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(4), 447–465.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J. (2014a). A systems perspective on the Natural Resources Framework: comment on Hearnshaw et al. Policy Quarterly, 10(4), 59–62.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J. (2014b). Group model building and mental model change, Doctoral thesis. University of Queensland, QLD, Australia.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y., & Cameron, D. (2013). Evaluating immediate and long-term impacts of qualitative group model building workshops on participants’ mental models. System Dynamics Review, 29(4), 216–236.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y., & Cameron, D. (2014). Interpersonal success factors for strategy implementation: A case study using group model building. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66(6), 1023–1034.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y., & Cameron, D. (2016a). Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building. European Journal of Operations Research, 249(3), 908–918.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y., & Cameron, D. (2016b). Mechanisms for understanding mental model change in group model building. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 33(1), 100–118.Google Scholar
Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y., & Cameron, D. (2016c). Client perceptions of reported outcomes of group model building in the New Zealand Public Sector. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(1), 77–101.Google Scholar
Seibold, D. R., & Meyers, R. A. (2007). Group argument: A structuration perspective and research program. Small Group Research, 38(3), 312–336.Google Scholar
Spee, A. P., & Jarzabkowski, P. (2009). Strategy tools as boundary objects. Strategic Organization, 7(2), 223–232.Google Scholar
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.Google Scholar
Stave, K. A. (2003). A system dynamics model to facilitate public understanding of water management options in Las Vegas, Nevada. Journal of Environmental Management, 67(4), 303–313.Google Scholar
Stenberg, L. (1980). A modelling procedure for public policy. In J. Randers. (Ed.), Elements of the system dynamics method (pp. 292–312). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Sterman, J. D. (2002). Systems dynamics modeling: tools for learning in a complex world. Engineering Management Review IEEE, 30(1), 42–42.Google Scholar
Thompson, D. V., & Norton, M. I. (2011). The social utility of feature creep. Journal of Marketing Research, 48(3), 555–565.Google Scholar
Todeva, E., & Knoke, D. (2005). Strategic alliances and models of collaboration. Management Decision, 43(1), 123–148.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15–40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Nistelrooij, L. P. J., Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vestijnen, I., & Vennix, J. A. M. (2012). Power-levelling as an effect of group model building. Proceedings of the 2012 International System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill.Google Scholar
Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group model building: Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Vennix, J. A. M. (1999). Group model-building: Tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review, 15(4), 379.Google Scholar
Vennix, J. A. M., Akkermans, H. A., & Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (1996). Group model-building to facilitate organizational change: an exploratory study. System Dynamics Review, 12(1), 39–58.Google Scholar
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297–333.Google Scholar
Wiener, J. L., & Mowen, J. C. (1986). Source credibility: On the independent effects of trust and expertise. Advances in consumer research, 13(1), 306–310.Google Scholar
Winz, I., Brierley, G., & Trowsdale, S. (2009). The use of system dynamics simulation in water resources management. Water Resources Management, 23(7), 1301–1323.Google Scholar
Wolstenholme, E. F. (1990). System enquiry – A system dynamics approach. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Wolstenholme, E. F. (2004). Using generic system archetypes to support thinking and modelling. System Dynamics Review, 20(4), 341–356.Google Scholar
Zagonel, A. A. (2002). Model conceptualization in group model building: A review of the literature exploring the tension between representing reality and negotiating a social order. Proceedings of the 2002 International System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill.Google Scholar