ارزیابی سیستماتیک روش مدلسازی گروهی در تحلیل مسائل پویایی شناسی کیفی سیستم ها

نویسندگان

1 دکتری، مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران.

2 استاد، گروه مدیریت، دانشکده مدیریت، دانشگاه مالک اشتر، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

در سال‌های اخیر در جامعه پویایی‌شناسی سیستم‌ها توجه به رویکردهای کیفی افزایش یافته است. یکی از روش‌های استخراج مدل‌های پویایی‌شناسی سیستم‌ها که در رویکرد کیفی استفاده فراوانی از آن شده است روش مدل‌سازی گروهی است که در این روش مشتریان در فرایند مدل‌سازی مشارکت داده می‌شوند. تاکنون مطالعه سیستماتیک زیادی برای ارزیابی اثربخشی مدل‌سازی گروهی صورت نگرفته است. ارزیابی سیستماتیک این روش به دلایل درک اثرات این روش بر مشتری‌ها و سازمان‌های هدف و بهبود اثربخشی فرایند مدل‌سازی گروهی اهمیت دارد. در این مقاله به ارزیابی مدل‌سازی گروهی که در فرایند طراحی پارک فناوری هوایی مورد استفاده قرار گرفت توسط پرسش‌نامه‌ایی که توسط مشارکت‌کنندگان بعد از جلسات مدل‌سازی تکمیل شد پرداخته‌ایم. نتایج حاصل از این پرسش‌نامه بیانگر این بود که مشارکت‌کنندگان به کارایی، اهمیت و مفید بودن این جلسات اذعان کردند، همچنین در مورد نحوه برگزاری جلسات، وجود بحث‌های باز، تسهیل‌گر بیرونی و برگزاری جلسات به صورت گروهی، استفاده از نمودارهای علت و معلولی، استفاده از تصاویر و نمودارهای گرافیکی جهت تجسم‌سازی، برگزاری جلسات بیرون از محیط اداری، استفاده از کتاب کار و وجود دستورالعمل مشخص در جلسات به ترتیب دارای اهمیت است. مشارکت‌کنندگان ساختار غیررسمی را برای جلسات مفید دانسته‌اند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Systematic Evaluation of Group Model Building in Qualitative System Dynamics Approach

نویسندگان [English]

  • Ali Haji Gholam Saryazdi 1
  • Manuchehr Manteghi 2
چکیده [English]

In recent years, in system dynamics society has increased attention to qualitative approaches. One method of extracting models of qualitative system dynamics has been many used is a Group Model Building. In this method, clients are involved in the modeling process. But it has not been systematically studied to assess the effectiveness of Group modeling. Systematically assess is important because the following reasons: 1) understand the impact of this approach on the customer and target organizations; 2) Enhance the effectiveness of a modeling process. In this paper we have evaluated a Group modeling that was used in the design of aviation Technology Park by a questionnaire was filled out by participants after modeling sessions. The results of this survey indicate that participants acknowledged the importance, usefulness and the efficiency of these sessions. Also in the regard of meetings, open discussion, external facilitator and meetings as a group, using cause and effect diagrams, images and graphics to visualize the process, meetings outside the office environment, using workbook and the clear instructions in the meetings are important. Participants Expressed the Informal meetings have been useful.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Group Model Building (GMB)
  • Qualitative System Dynamics Approach
  • Systematic Evaluation

مراجع

  1. 1. Forrester, J. W. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. 2. Roberts EB. (1978). Strategies for effective implementation of complex corporate models. In Managerial applications of System Dynamics, Roberts EB (ed). MIT Press: Cambridge; 77-85. 3. Weil HB. (1980). The evolution of an approach for achieving implemented results from system dynamic projects. In Elements of the system dynamics method, Randers J (ed). MIT Press: Cambridge, MA; 271-291. 4. Meadows, Donella H., and J. M. Robinson. (1985). The Electronic Oracle, Computer Models and Social Decision. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 5. Forrester, J. W. (1973). World Dynamics, MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. 6. Vennix, J.A.M., (1990). Mental models and computer models: design and evaluation of a computer based learning environment. Ph.D. dissertation., Catholic University of Nijmegen, 1990. 7. Verburgh, L., (1993). Evaluation of a participative model-building project, Ph.D. dissertation., Catholic University of Nijmegen, 1993. 8. Jac A.M. Vennix, Wim Scheper, Rob Willems, (1993), Group model-building: what does the client think of it?, system dynamics review,1993 . 9. Manteghi, Manuchehr, Haji Gholam Saryazdi, Ali, Zare Mehrjerdi, Yahya, (2013), System Dynamics, Almase Alborz publication, September 2013. 10. Maani, K. & Cavana, R. (2000), Systems Thinking and Modelling – Understanding Change and Complexity. New Zealand: Pearson Education. 11. Haji Gholam Saryazdi, Ali, (2013), Aviation Technology Park designing by using system dynamics approach, Master's Thesis in MBA, University of Science and culture, Tehran, (In Persian). 12. Forrest, Jay, (2010). Welcome to the Qualitative System Dynamics Web Site, Last updated - August 16, 2010, http://jayfor.site.aplus.net/qualsd. 13. Elias, Arun A., (2008). Group Model Building: Energy Efficiency in New Zealand's Residential Sector. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management Operations Management Symposium (Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia). 14. Vennix JAM, (1996).Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics. London: John Wiley & Sons, 1 edition (August 1996). 15. Vennix JAM, (1999). Group model-building: tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review. 15, 379-401, (1999). 16. Haji Gholam Saryazdi, Ali, Rajabzadeh Ghatari, Ali, Mashayekhi, Alinaghi, Hassanzadeh, Alireza (2017), The Dilemma of the Dynamic Problems: Provide a Framework for the Process of Problem Definition, The Modares Journal of Management Research in Iran, Volume 21, Issue 2, 2017, 1-26. 17. Zagonel, AA, and J. Rohrbaugh, (2008). Using group model building to inform public policy making and implementation. In Complex Decision Making, edited by H. Qudart-Ullah, J. M. Spector and P. I. Davidsen: Springer-Verlag. 18. Halbe, Johannes, (2010), “Potential of Group Model Building in Environmental Management“, 21st MIT-UAlbany-WPI System Dynamics Ph.D. Colloquium, Friday, October 29, 2010,University at Albany, State University of New York. 19. Ackoff RA. (1974). Redesigning the Future: a Systems Approach to Societal Problems. Wiley: New York. 20. Coyle R. G. (1999). Qualitative modelling in system dynamics or what are the wise limits of quantification? Keynote address to the conference of the System Dynamics Society. Wellington, New Zealand. 21. Forrester, J. W. (1987). Lessons from system dynamics modelling. System Dynamics Review 3(2): 136-149. 22. De Geus AP. (1988). Planning as learning. Harvard Business Review (March/April): 70-74. 23. Greenberger M, Crenson MA, Crissey BL. (1976). Models in the Policy Process: Public Decision Making in the Computer Era. Russell Sage Foundation: New York. 24. Lane DC. (1989). Modelling as learning: creating models to enhance learning amongst management decision makers. Paper presented at the European Simulation Conference, Edinburgh. 25. Morecroft JDW. (1992). Executive knowledge, models and learning. In Modelling for Learning, special issue of the European Journal of Operational Research (Morecroft JDW, Sterman JD (eds)) 59(1): 9-27. 26. Morecroft JDW, Sterman JD (eds). (1992/1994). Modelling for Learning. Special issue of the European Journal of Operational Research (Also published as: Morecroft JDW. 27. Javadian, Nikbakhsh, Khani, Mahdi, Mahdavi, Iraj, (2012), Identifying effective factors on supply chain performance and improving them by using system dynamics techniques, Case study in Darugar Company Case study in darugar company, The Modares Journal of Management Research in Iran, Volume 16, Issue 3, 2012, 39-58. 28. Andersen, David F., George P. Richardson, and Jac A. M. Vennix. (1997). Group Model Building: Adding More Science to the Craft. System Dynamics Review 13 (2):187-201. 29. Wolstenholme EF. (1982). System dynamics in perspective. Journal of the Operational Research Society 33: 547-556. 30. Wolstenholme EF. (1990). System Enquiry, A System Dynamics Approach. Wiley: Chichester. 31. Wolstenholme EF. (1999). Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: the evolving balance. Journal of the Operational Research Society 50: 422-428. 32. Lane DC. (1993). The road not taken: observing a process of issue selection and model conceptualization. System Dynamics Review 9(3): 239-264. 33. Quade, E.S., (1982). Analysis for public decisions, New York/Amsterdam/Oxford, 1982 (2nd edition). 34. Lane DC. (1992). Modelling as learning: A consultancy methodology for enhancing learning in management teams. In Modelling for learning, special issue of European Journal of Operational Research (Morecroft TDW, Sterman JD (eds)) 59(1): 64-84. 35. Morecroft, JDW, (1988). System Dynamics and microworlds for policymakers. In: European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 35, 1988, 301-320. 36. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. New York: Doubleday. 37. Spector, J.M., Christensen, D.L., Sioutine, A.V., and McCormack, D. (2001), Models and simulations for learning in complex domains: using causal loop diagrams for assessment and evaluation, Comp in Hum Beh. 2001, 17, 517-545. 38. Hodgson, A.M., (1992). Hexagons for system thinking, in: J.D.W. Morecroft and J.D. Sterman, Modeling for learning, special issue of European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 59, no. 1, may 26, 1992, 220-230. 39. McCart, Anne T., John Rohrnaugh, (1989). Evaluation Group Decision Support effectiveness: A performance study of decision conferencing, in: Decision Support Systems, vol. 5, 1989, 243-253. 40. Heydarpour, V., Zandieh, M., Farsijani, H., Rabieh, M. (2017), Proposing a Model for Forecasting Port Container Terminal Performance; System Dynamics Approach, Modern Researches in Decision Making, Volume 2, Issue 2, Summer 2017, Page 109-132. 41. Cook D.A., Beckman, T.J., (2006), Current concepts in validity and reliability for psychometric instruments: theory and application. The American j of Med, 2006, 119(2):166,7-16. 42. Mohammadbeigi, A., Mohammad Salehi, N., Ali Gul, M., (1393), Validity and Reliability of Different Measurement Tools and Methods in Applied Health Research, Journal of Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, 13 March, 2015, 1153 - 1170. 43. Helms, J.E., Henze, K.T., Sass, T.L., Mifsud, V.A. (2006). Treating Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients as data in counseling research. The Counseling Psychologist, 2006, 34(5):630-60. 44. DeVellis, R.F. (2011). Scale development: Theory and applications. Sage Publications, 2011. 45. Sijtsma, K., (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 2009, 74(1):107-20. 46. McCardle-Keurentjes, Marleen H.F., Etiënne A.J.A. Rouwette, Jac A.M. Vennix, Eric Jacobs, (2009), Is Group Model Building worthwile? Considering the effectiveness of GMB, The 27th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, July 26 – 30, 2009, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 47. Rouwette, E., Bleijenbergh, I., Vennix, J., (2014), Group Model-Building to Support Public Policy: Addressing a Conflicted Situation in a Problem Neighbourhood, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, (2014). 48. Scott, R. J., Robert Y. C., Cameron, D., (2016), Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building, European Journal of Operational Research, 249 (2016) 908–918. 49. McCardle‐Keurentjes, M. H., Rouwette, E. A., Vennix, J. A. and Jacobs, E. (2018), Potential benefits of model use in group model building: insights from an experimental investigation. Syst. Dyn. Rev., 34: 354-384. doi:10.1002/sdr.1603 50. Scott R. (2018) Communication Quality, Insight, Consensus and Commitment to Conclusions. In: Group Model Building. SpringerBriefs in Operations Research. Springer, Singapore. 51. Reno R. (2017). Using group model building to develop a culturally grounded model of breastfeeding for low‐income African American women in the USA. J Clin Nurs. 2018, 27, 3363–3376.
پژوهش های مدیریت در ایران
دوره 22، شماره 4
بهمن 1397
صفحه 203-224

فایل ها

اشتراک گذاری

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار