IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/comaot/v13y2007i4d10.1007_s10588-007-9017-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling factions for “effects based operations”: part I—leaders and followers

Author

Listed:
  • Barry G. Silverman

    (University of Pennsylvania)

  • Gnana Bharathy

    (University of Pennsylvania)

  • Benjamin Nye

    (University of Pennsylvania)

  • Roy J. Eidelson

    (University of Pennsylvania)

Abstract

This paper presents a synthetic approach for generating role playing simulation games intended to support analysts (and trainees) interested in testing alternative competing courses of action (operations) and discovering what effects they are likely to precipitate in potential ethno-political conflict situations. Simulated leaders and followers capable of playing these games are implemented in a cognitive modeling framework, called PMFserv, which covers value systems, personality and cultural factors, emotions, relationships, perception, stress/coping style and decision making. Of direct interest, as Sect. 1.1 explains, is mathematical representation and synthesis of best-of-breed behavioral science models within this framework to reduce dimensionality and to improve the realism and internal validity of the agent implementations. Sections 2 and 3 present this for leader profiling instruments and group membership decision-making, respectively. Section 4 serves as an existence proof that the framework has generated several training and analysis tools, and Sect. 5 concludes with lessons learned. Part II turns to the question of assessment of the synthesis and its usage in course of action studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Barry G. Silverman & Gnana Bharathy & Benjamin Nye & Roy J. Eidelson, 2007. "Modeling factions for “effects based operations”: part I—leaders and followers," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 379-406, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:comaot:v:13:y:2007:i:4:d:10.1007_s10588-007-9017-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10588-007-9017-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10588-007-9017-8
    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/s10588-007-9017-8?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. Green, Kesten C., 2002. "Forecasting decisions in conflict situations: a comparison of game theory, role-playing, and unaided judgement," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 321-344.
    2. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2002. "Assessing game theory, role playing, and unaided judgment," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 345-352.
    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. Barry G. Silverman & Daniel M. Silverman & Gnana Bharathy & Nathan Weyer & William R. Tam, 2021. "StateSim: lessons learned from 20 years of a country modeling and simulation toolset," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 231-263, September.

    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. Anita Williams Woolley, 2011. "Playing Offense vs. Defense: The Effects of Team Strategic Orientation on Team Process in Competitive Environments," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 1384-1398, December.
    2. Ilukor, John & Birner, Regina, 2015. "Do Veterinary Paraprofessionals Provide Quality Clinical Veterinary Services for Cattle? Results from a Role Play Experiment in Rural Uganda," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 211781, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    3. Barry G. Silverman & Gnana Bharathy & Benjamin Nye & Tony Smith, 2008. "Modeling factions for ‘effects based operations’, part II: behavioral game theory," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 120-155, June.
    4. Önkal, Dilek & Zeynep Sayım, K. & Lawrence, Michael, 2012. "Wisdom of group forecasts: Does role-playing play a role?," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 693-702.
    5. Litsiou, Konstantia & Polychronakis, Yiannis & Karami, Azhdar & Nikolopoulos, Konstantinos, 2022. "Relative performance of judgmental methods for forecasting the success of megaprojects," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 38(3), pages 1185-1196.
    6. Green, Kesten C., 2005. "Game theory, simulated interaction, and unaided judgement for forecasting decisions in conflicts: Further evidence," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 463-472.
    7. Mike Metcalfe & Saras Sastrowardoyo, 2016. "Sense-making Innovative Systems: Prestigious MOOCs," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(3), pages 437-451, May.
    8. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2007. "Structured analogies for forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 365-376.
    9. Konstantinos Nikolopoulos, 2010. "Forecasting with quantitative methods: the impact of special events in time series," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(8), pages 947-955.
    10. Stekler, H. O., 2003. "Improving our ability to predict the unusual event," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 161-163.
    11. Goodwin, Paul, 2002. "Forecasting games: can game theory win?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 369-374.
    12. Green, Kesten C. & Armstrong, J. Scott, 2011. "Role thinking: Standing in other people's shoes to forecast decisions in conflicts," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 69-80, January.
    13. Wright, George & Rowe, Gene, 2011. "Group-based judgmental forecasting: An integration of extant knowledge and the development of priorities for a new research agenda," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 1-13, January.
    14. Akrivi LITSA & Fotios PETROPOULOS & Konstantinos NIKOLOPOULOS, 2012. "Forecasting the Success of Governmental "Incentivized" Initiatives: Case Study of a New Policy Promoting the Replacement of Old Household; Air-conditioners," Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, ScientificPapers.org, vol. 2(1), pages 1-15, February.
    15. J. Scott Armstrong & Kesten C. Green, 2005. "Demand Forecasting: Evidence-based Methods," Monash Econometrics and Business Statistics Working Papers 24/05, Monash University, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics.
    16. Armstrong, J. Scott, 2002. "Assessing game theory, role playing, and unaided judgment," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 345-352.
    17. Martin Hrubý & Petr Čambala & Jan Toufar, 2010. "Game-Theoretic Modeling of Electricity Markets in Central Europe," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 4(1), pages 032-061, March.
    18. Green, Kesten C., 2002. "Embroiled in a conflict: who do you call?," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 389-395.
    19. Erev, Ido & Roth, Alvin E. & Slonim, Robert L. & Barron, Greg, 2002. "Predictive value and the usefulness of game theoretic models," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 359-368.
    20. T E van der Lei & W A H Thissen, 2009. "Quantitative problem structuring methods for multi-actor problems: an analysis of reported applications," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1198-1206, September.

    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:comaot:v:13:y:2007:i:4:d:10.1007_s10588-007-9017-8. 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.