IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v312y2024i2p653-667.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mental models of dynamic systems are different: Adjusting for heterogeneous granularity

Author

Listed:
  • Schaffernicht, Martin FG.
  • Groesser, Stefan N.

Abstract

This is a methodological contribution to mental model research. It is based on the fact that people emphasize different features of complex situations. Their mental models of the situation are complex because of the situation and of interpersonal diversity. Framed by prior knowledge, they contain elements of distinct detail or granularity levels. Established comparison methods assume that granularity is standardized before elicitation. But unelicited details cannot be analyzed later. However, if elicitation includes details, some of them will be at distinct granularity levels; this leads to unequal distances between some variables. Link-based comparison methods therefore produce exaggerated distance indicators. The method presented here avoids the apparent trade-off between not capturing relevant details and bias from heterogenous granularity. It first selects a subset of variables that are on a comparable level of detail in several mental models, accounting for the frequency of these variables in subgroups. Second, it replaces the sequences of links between each pair of selected variables with a compressed link that maintains the polarity and delay information provided in each mental model. All relevant structural information of the original models is preserved. Such compressed models are constructed for each set of original models to be compared using standard methods without risking to exaggerate distance indicators. Data from a recent study with nine participants illustrates the use.

Suggested Citation

  • Schaffernicht, Martin FG. & Groesser, Stefan N., 2024. "Mental models of dynamic systems are different: Adjusting for heterogeneous granularity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(2), pages 653-667.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:312:y:2024:i:2:p:653-667
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2023.07.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221723005416
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2023.07.003?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. 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.
    2. Howick, Susan & Eden, Colin & Ackermann, Fran & Williams, Terry, 2008. "Building confidence in models for multiple audiences: The modelling cascade," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(3), pages 1068-1083, May.
    3. Eden, Colin, 2004. "Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 673-686, December.
    4. Sondoss ElSawah & Alan Mclucas & Jason Mazanov, 2013. "Using a Cognitive Mapping Approach to Frame the Perceptions of Water Users About Managing Water Resources: A Case Study in the Australian Capital Territory," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(9), pages 3441-3456, July.
    5. Vennix, Jac A. M. & Gubbels, Jan W., 1992. "Knowledge elicitation in conceptual model building: A case study in modeling a regional Dutch health care system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 85-101, May.
    6. Eden, Colin & Ackermann, Fran, 2004. "Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 615-630, February.
    7. Williams, Terry & Ackermann, Fran & Eden, Colin, 2003. "Structuring a delay and disruption claim: An application of cause-mapping and system dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 192-204, July.
    8. Benjamin Saunders & Julius Sim & Tom Kingstone & Shula Baker & Jackie Waterfield & Bernadette Bartlam & Heather Burroughs & Clare Jinks, 2018. "Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1893-1907, July.
    9. Colin Eden, 1992. "On The Nature Of Cognitive Maps," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 261-265, May.
    10. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    11. Mauri Laukkanen, 1994. "Comparative Cause Mapping of Organizational Cognitions," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 322-343, August.
    12. Onur Özgün & Yaman Barlas, 2015. "Effects of systemic complexity factors on task difficulty in a stock management game," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(3), pages 115-146, July.
    13. Thompson, James P. & Howick, Susan & Belton, Valerie, 2016. "Critical Learning Incidents in system dynamics modelling engagements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 945-958.
    14. Georgiou, Ion, 2012. "Messing about in transformations: Structured systemic planning for systemic solutions to systemic problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 392-406.
    15. Schaffernicht, Martin & Groesser, Stefan N., 2011. "A comprehensive method for comparing mental models of dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 210(1), pages 57-67, April.
    16. Schaffernicht, Martin F.G. & Groesser, Stefan N., 2014. "The SEXTANT software: A tool for automating the comparative analysis of mental models of dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 566-578.
    17. Elsawah, Sondoss & McLucas, Alan & Mazanov, Jason, 2017. "An empirical investigation into the learning effects of management flight simulators: A mental models approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(1), pages 262-272.
    18. Torres, Juan Pablo & Kunc, Martin & O'Brien, Frances, 2017. "Supporting strategy using system dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(3), pages 1081-1094.
    19. Abuabara, Leila & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2021. "Surveying applications of Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1051-1065.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Abuabara, Leila & Paucar-Caceres, Alberto, 2021. "Surveying applications of Strategic Options Development and Analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(3), pages 1051-1065.
    2. Schaffernicht, Martin F.G. & Groesser, Stefan N., 2014. "The SEXTANT software: A tool for automating the comparative analysis of mental models of dynamic systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 566-578.
    3. Elsawah, Sondoss & McLucas, Alan & Mazanov, Jason, 2017. "An empirical investigation into the learning effects of management flight simulators: A mental models approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(1), pages 262-272.
    4. Maria Cleofe Giorgino & Federico Barnabè & Martin Kunc, 2020. "Integrating qualitative system dynamics with accounting practices: The case of integrated reporting and resource mapping," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 97-118, January.
    5. 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.
    6. Ion Georgiou & Joaquim Heck, 2021. "The emergence of problem structuring methods, 1950s–1989: An atlas of the journal literature," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 756-796, November.
    7. Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Montibeller, Gilberto & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2017. "Modelling multicriteria value interactions with Reasoning Maps," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(3), pages 1054-1071.
    8. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    9. Spanellis, Agnessa & MacBryde, Jillian & Dӧrfler, Viktor, 2021. "A dynamic model of knowledge management in innovative technology companies: A case from the energy sector," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(2), pages 784-797.
    10. Shaw, Duncan & Smith, Chris M. & Scully, Judy, 2017. "Why did Brexit happen? Using causal mapping to analyse secondary, longitudinal data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 263(3), pages 1019-1032.
    11. Marco Castellani & Linda Alengoz & Niccolò Casnici & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "A role-game laboratory experiment on the influence of country prospects reports on investment decisions in two artificial organizational settings," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 21(1), pages 121-149, June.
    12. 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.
    13. Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Spahr, Ronald W. & Sunderman, Mark A. & Govindan, Kannan & Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, Ieva, 2022. "Urban blight remediation strategies subject to seasonal constraints," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 296(1), pages 277-288.
    14. Wang, Yingli & Singgih, Meita & Wang, Jingyao & Rit, Mihaela, 2019. "Making sense of blockchain technology: How will it transform supply chains?," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 211(C), pages 221-236.
    15. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    16. Shaw, Duncan & Smith, Chris M. & Scully, Judy, 2019. "From Brexit to Article 50: Applying Critical Realism to the design and analysis of a longitudinal causal mapping study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 723-735.
    17. Pluchinotta, Irene & Salvia, Giuseppe & Zimmermann, Nici, 2022. "The importance of eliciting stakeholders’ system boundary perceptions for problem structuring and decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 280-293.
    18. Meri Duryan & Dragan Nikolik & Godefridus Merode & Leopold M. G. Curfs, 2015. "Reflecting on the efficacy of cognitive mapping for decision-making in intellectual disability care: a case study," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 127-144, April.
    19. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    20. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(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:eee:ejores:v:312:y:2024:i:2:p:653-667. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.