IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v29y2012i2p194-208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Visual Representations as Boundary Objects to Resolve Conflict in Collaborative Model‐Building Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Laura J. Black
  • David F. Andersen

Abstract

In the context of facilitated, technology‐supported efforts to resolve complex problems, we recognize the critical role that visual representations can play in both the content and process of collaboration. How these representations are wielded by facilitators and interpreted by participants determines whether they help resolve conflicts or close down conversations. We identify three key attributes of scripted problem‐solving facilitation, as well as three key attributes of visual representations that function as boundary objects, to gain insights into pivotal experiences when group problem‐solving efforts turned from collaboration to conflict and vice versa. We draw on three vignettes from facilitated group problem solving to illustrate how these attributes can be deployed to move conflict‐mired conversations into collaborative discussions. This paper contributes to collaborative problem solving by using the formal sociological theory of boundary objects to offer a deeper, richer understanding of successes and shortcomings of visual representations as drivers of conflict resolution in model‐building approaches. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura J. Black & David F. Andersen, 2012. "Using Visual Representations as Boundary Objects to Resolve Conflict in Collaborative Model‐Building Approaches," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(2), pages 194-208, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:29:y:2012:i:2:p:194-208
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2106
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2106?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann, 2001. "Group Decision and Negotiation in Strategy Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 119-140, March.
    2. C Eden & F Ackermann & J M Bryson & G P Richardson & D F Andersen & C B Finn, 2009. "Integrating modes of policy analysis and strategic management practice: requisite elements and dilemmas," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(1), pages 2-13, January.
    3. Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden, 2001. "Contrasting Single User and Networked Group Decision Support Systems for Strategy Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 47-66, January.
    4. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    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. Ellis Ballard & Kelsey Werner & Pratiti Priyadarshini, 2021. "Boundary objects in translation: the role of language in participatory system dynamics modeling," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(4), pages 310-332, October.
    2. Hugo Herrera & Nuno Videira & Hubert P.L.M. Korzilius & Kathya Lorena Cordova‐Pozo & Marleen H.F. McCardle‐Keurentjes, 2022. "Reflecting on factors influencing long‐lasting organisational effects of group model‐building interventions," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(2), pages 190-209, April.
    3. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann, 2021. "Modelling Stakeholder Dynamics for Supporting Group Decision and Negotiation: Theory to Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1001-1025, October.
    4. de Gooyert, Vincent & Rouwette, Etiënne & van Kranenburg, Hans & Freeman, Edward & van Breen, Harry, 2022. "Cognitive change and consensus forming in facilitated modelling: A comparison of experienced and observed outcomes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(2), pages 589-599.
    5. Kenny, Daniel C. & Bakhanova, Elena & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Voinov, Alexey, 2022. "Participatory modelling and systems intelligence: A systems-based and transdisciplinary partnership," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    6. Anne van Bruggen & Igor Nikolic & Jan Kwakkel, 2019. "Modeling with Stakeholders for Transformative Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-21, February.
    7. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    8. Stefan N. Groesser & Niklas Jovy, 2016. "Business model analysis using computational modeling: a strategy tool for exploration and decision-making," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-88, February.
    9. Scott, Rodney J & Cavana, Robert Y & Cameron, Donald, 2016. "Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 908-918.
    10. Kopainsky, Birgit & Hager, Gerid & Herrera, Hugo & Nyanga, Progress H., 2017. "Transforming food systems at local levels: Using participatory system dynamics in an interactive manner to refine small-scale farmers’ mental models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 362(C), pages 101-110.
    11. Stefan Groesser & Niklas Jovy, 2016. "Business model analysis using computational modeling: a strategy tool for exploration and decision-making," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-88, February.
    12. Hugo J. Herrera & Marleen H. F. McCardle-Keurentjes & Nuno Videira, 2016. "Evaluating Facilitated Modelling Processes and Outcomes: An Experiment Comparing a Single and a Multimethod Approach in Group Model Building," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1277-1318, November.
    13. 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.
    14. Carmine Bianchi, 2021. "“System Dynamics. Theory and Applications” ‐ Edited by Brian Dangerfield," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(2-3), pages 241-244, April.
    15. Rodrigo Valencia Cotera & Sabine Egerer & María Máñez Costa, 2022. "Identifying Strengths and Obstacles to Climate Change Adaptation in the German Agricultural Sector: A Group Model Building Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-19, February.
    16. Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden & Igor Pyrko, 2016. "Accelerated Multi-Organization Conflict Resolution," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 901-922, September.
    17. Rodney J. Scott & Robert Y. Cavana & Donald Cameron, 2016. "Client Perceptions of Reported Outcomes of Group Model Building in the New Zealand Public Sector," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 77-101, January.

    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. Ackermann, Fran & Andersen, David F. & Eden, Colin & Richardson, George P., 2011. "ScriptsMap: A tool for designing multi-method policy-making workshops," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 427-434, August.
    2. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    3. 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.
    4. Roy D. Johnson & Astrid Lipp, 2007. "Cognitive Mapping: A Process to Support Strategic Planning in an Academic Department," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 43-60, January.
    5. F. Ackermann & M. Yearworth & L. White, 2018. "Micro-processes in Group Decision and Negotiation: Practices and Routines for Supporting Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 709-713, October.
    6. G A Hindle & L A Franco, 2009. "Combining problem structuring methods to conduct applied research: a mixed methods approach to studying fitness-to-drive in the UK," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(12), pages 1637-1648, December.
    7. Igor Pyrko & Colin Eden & Susan Howick, 2019. "Knowledge Acquisition Using Group Support Systems," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 233-253, April.
    8. Fran Ackermann & L. Alberto Franco & Brent Gallupe & Michael Parent, 2005. "GSS for Multi-Organizational Collaboration: Reflections on Process and Content," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 307-331, July.
    9. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann, 2021. "Modelling Stakeholder Dynamics for Supporting Group Decision and Negotiation: Theory to Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1001-1025, October.
    10. Fran Ackermann & Colin Eden, 2005. "Using Causal Mapping with Group Support Systems to Elicit an Understanding of Failure in Complex Projects: Some Implications for Organizational Research," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(5), pages 355-376, September.
    11. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    12. Jaco Appelman & Etiënne Rouwette & Sajda Qureshi, 2002. "The Dynamics of Negotiation in a Global Inter-Organizational Network: Findings from the Air Transport and Travel Industry," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 11(2), pages 145-164, March.
    13. Meinel, Martin & Eismann, Tobias T. & Baccarella, Christian V. & Fixson, Sebastian K. & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2020. "Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 661-671.
    14. Michael Kaethler, 2019. "Curating creative communities of practice: the role of ambiguity," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Petru Lucian Curşeu & Sandra Schruijer, 2008. "The Effects of Framing on Inter-group Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 347-362, July.
    16. Andersson, Ulf & Dasí, Àngels & Mudambi, Ram & Pedersen, Torben, 2016. "Technology, innovation and knowledge: The importance of ideas and international connectivity," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 153-162.
    17. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    18. Matthijs J. Verhulst & Anne-Françoise Rutkowski, 2018. "Decision-Making in the Police Work Force: Affordances Explained in Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 827-852, October.
    19. Daniele T. P. Souza & Eugenia A. Kuhn & Arjen E. J. Wals & Pedro R. Jacobi, 2020. "Learning in, with, and through the Territory: Territory-Based Learning as a Catalyst for Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, April.
    20. Swan, Jacky & Goussevskaia, Anna & Newell, Sue & Robertson, Maxine & Bresnen, Mike & Obembe, Ademola, 2007. "Modes of organizing biomedical innovation in the UK and US and the role of integrative and relational capabilities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 529-547, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:srbeha:v:29:y:2012:i:2:p:194-208. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    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.