IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v15y2006i6d10.1007_s10726-006-9030-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Common Ground, Complex Problems and Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Pieter J. Beers

    (Open University of the Netherlands)

  • Henny P. A. Boshuizen

    (Open University of the Netherlands)

  • Paul A. Kirschner

    (Open University of the Netherlands)

  • Wim H. Gijselaers

    (Maastricht University)

Abstract

Organisations increasingly have to deal with complex problems. They often use multidisciplinary teams to cope with such problems where different team members have different perspectives on the problem, different individual knowledge and skills, and different approaches on how to solve the problem. In order to solve those problems, team members have to share their existing knowledge and construct new knowledge. Theory suggests that negotiation of common ground can positively affect team decision making on the solution of complex problems, by facilitating knowledge sharing across perspectives. In a small scale study with student groups, external representations supported by a specific negotiation ontology were used to facilitate negotiation by encouraging participants to make their beliefs and values explicit. Results showed that the external representations supported clarifying contributions to group members and increased group participation in discussions.

Suggested Citation

  • Pieter J. Beers & Henny P. A. Boshuizen & Paul A. Kirschner & Wim H. Gijselaers, 2006. "Common Ground, Complex Problems and Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 529-556, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:15:y:2006:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-006-9030-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-006-9030-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-006-9030-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-006-9030-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Woltjer, G.B., 2003. "Decisions and macroeconomics: development and implementation of a simulation game," Research Memorandum 002, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    2. Eden, Colin, 1995. "On evaluating the performance of `wide-band' GDSS's," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 302-311, March.
    3. Rowe, Gene & Wright, George, 1999. "The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 15(4), pages 353-375, October.
    4. Geert B. Woltjer, 2005. "Decisions and Macroeconomics: Development and Implementation of a Simulation Game," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(2), pages 139-144, April.
    5. Michel G. Bougon, 1992. "Congregate Cognitive Maps: A Unified Dynamic Theory Of Organization And Strategy," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 369-387, May.
    6. Finlay, Paul N., 1998. "On evaluating the performance of GSS: Furthering the debate," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 193-201, May.
    7. Beth A. Bechky, 2003. "Sharing Meaning Across Occupational Communities: The Transformation of Understanding on a Production Floor," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 14(3), pages 312-330, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Melvin F. Shakun, 2013. "The Connectedness Decision Paradigm: Group Decision, Negotiation and Leadership in World Problems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 599-615, July.
    2. Mitter, Hermine & Kirchner, Mathias & Schmid, Erwin & Schönhart, Martin, 2013. "Knowledge integration of stakeholders into bio-physical process modelling for regional vulnerability assessment," Discussion Papers DP-54-2013, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Institute for Sustainable Economic Development.
    3. Gulikers, Judith T.M. & Baartman, Liesbeth K.J. & Biemans, Harm J.A., 2010. "Facilitating evaluations of innovative, competence-based assessments: Creating understanding and involving multiple stakeholders," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 120-127, May.
    4. Patricia Alexander & Johan Loggerenberg & Hugo Lotriet & Jackie Phahlamohlaka, 2010. "The Use of the Repertory Grid for Collaboration and Reflection in a Research Context," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 479-504, September.
    5. Beers, Pieter J. & Turner, James A. & Rijswijk, Kelly & Williams, Tracy & Barnard, Tim & Beechener, Sam, 2019. "Learning or evaluating? Towards a negotiation-of-meaning approach to learning in transition governance," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 229-239.
    6. Adams, Renée B. & Akyol, Ali C. & Verwijmeren, Patrick, 2018. "Director skill sets," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(3), pages 641-662.
    7. Céline Bérard & L.M., Cloutier & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print hal-02128255, HAL.
    8. Céline Bérard, 2010. "Complexité et décision participative : le cas du système de la propriété intellectuelle des innovations biotechnologiques," Post-Print halshs-00519036, HAL.
    9. Hartnett, Elizabeth J. & Daniel, Elizabeth M. & Holti, Richard, 2012. "Client and consultant engagement in public sector IS projects," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 307-317.
    10. Daniel Ebakoleaneh Ufua, 2020. "Exploring the Effectiveness of Boundary Critique in an Intervention: a Case in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 33(5), pages 485-499, October.
    11. Melvin F. Shakun, 2009. "Connectedness Problem Solving and Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(2), pages 89-117, March.
    12. Cecilia Rossignoli & Francesca Ricciardi & Sabrina Bonomi, 2018. "Organizing for Commons-Enabling Decision-Making Under Conflicting Institutional Logics in Social Entrepreneurship," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 417-443, June.
    13. Tavana, Madjid & Di Caprio, Debora, 2016. "Modeling synergies in multi-criteria supplier selection and order allocation: An application to commodity tradingAuthor-Name: Sodenkamp, Mariya A," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 859-874.
    14. Céline Bérard & Martin Cloutier L. & Luc Cassivi, 2017. "The effects of using system dynamics-based decision support models: testing policy-makers’ boundaries in a complex situation," Post-Print halshs-01666605, HAL.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette & Jac A. M. Vennix & Albert J. A. Felling, 2009. "On Evaluating the Performance of Problem Structuring Methods: An Attempt at Formulating a Conceptual Model," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 567-587, November.
    2. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    3. Elena Tavella & L. Alberto Franco, 2015. "Dynamics of Group Knowledge Production in Facilitated Modelling Workshops: An Exploratory Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 451-475, May.
    4. Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Hujala, Teppo & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Vacik, Harald, 2013. "Problem structuring in participatory forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-11.
    5. L A Franco, 2007. "Assessing the impact of problem structuring methods in multi-organizational settings: an empirical investigation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(6), pages 760-768, June.
    6. Marleen McCardle-Keurentjes & Etiënne A. J. A. Rouwette, 2018. "Asking Questions: A Sine Qua Non of Facilitation in Decision Support?," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 757-788, October.
    7. Franco, L. Alberto & Rouwette, Etienne A.J.A., 2011. "Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 164-178, July.
    8. Montibeller, Gilberto & Gummer, Haidee & Tumidei, Daniele, 2007. "Combining scenario planning and multi-criteria decision analysis in practice," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22709, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    10. D Shaw, 2003. "Evaluating electronic workshops through analysing the ‘brainstormed’ ideas," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(7), pages 692-705, July.
    11. Prommer, Lisa & Tiberius, Victor & Kraus, Sascha, 2020. "Exploring the future of startup leadership development," Journal of Business Venturing Insights, Elsevier, vol. 14(C).
    12. Bas Kolen & Matthijs Kok & Ira Helsloot & Bob Maaskant, 2013. "EvacuAid: A Probabilistic Model to Determine the Expected Loss of Life for Different Mass Evacuation Strategies During Flood Threats," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(7), pages 1312-1333, July.
    13. Meissner, Philip & Brands, Christian & Wulf, Torsten, 2017. "Quantifiying blind spots and weak signals in executive judgment: A structured integration of expert judgment into the scenario development process," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 244-253.
    14. Kertcher, Zack & Venkatraman, Rohan & Coslor, Erica, 2020. "Pleasingly parallel: Early cross-disciplinary work for innovation diffusion across boundaries in grid computing," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 581-594.
    15. Fabio Salamanca-Buentello & Mary V Seeman & Abdallah S Daar & Ross E G Upshur, 2020. "The ethical, social, and cultural dimensions of screening for mental health in children and adolescents of the developing world," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-25, August.
    16. Prianto Budi Saptono & Gustofan Mahmud & Intan Pratiwi & Dwi Purwanto & Ismail Khozen & Muhamad Akbar Aditama & Siti Khodijah & Maria Eurelia Wayan & Rina Yuliastuty Asmara & Ferry Jie, 2023. "Development of Climate-Related Disclosure Indicators for Application in Indonesia: A Delphi Method Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-25, July.
    17. Marchant, Thierry, 1999. "Cognitive maps and fuzzy implications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 626-637, May.
    18. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    19. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    20. Heiskanen, Aleksi & Hurmekoski, Elias & Toppinen, Anne & Näyhä, Annukka, 2022. "Exploring the unknowns – State of the art in qualitative forest-based sector foresight research," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:15:y:2006:i:6:d:10.1007_s10726-006-9030-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.