<p>The Systems Dynamics literature demonstrates that individuals have difficulty understanding and working with systems concepts. To model Systems Dynamics (SD), researchers suggest that clients contract with a modeling team to formulate the problem, elicit the mental models of employees at the client, and use software-based simulation tools. This approach is both time-intensive and costly, limiting its use by organizations. This two-part study piloted the Independent Systems Dynamics Elicitation Method (ISDEM), a new method that may be self-administered by teams to reveal individuals' mental models. The first study, a between-subjects design, compared undergraduate participants' responses on the Systems-Based Inquiry Protocol (S-BI) to the ISDEM. Participants reported more relationships and feedback loops using the ISDEM, and obtained significantly higher Systemic Reasoning Level scores. In Study 2, groups of undergraduate participants were asked to brainstorm and develop a collective model of an issue of university interest, using either their typical brainstorming methods, or the ISDEM. Independent coders rated the ISDEM significantly more informative, clear and useful than the control models. In sum, the ISDEM did a significantly better job eliciting individuals' mental models of systems dynamics than traditional measures, and is a valuable new tool for organizations to use to map systemic phenomenon.</p> / Dissertation

published_or_final_version / abstract / Architecture / Master / Master of Philosophy

One employs the mathematical analysis of decision making when the state of nature is uncertain but further information about it can be obtained by experimentation. Bayesian Decision Theory concerns practical problems of decision making under conditions of uncertainty and also requires the use of statistical and mathematical methods.In this thesis, some basic risk sharing and group decision concepts are provided. Risk is the expected value of the Loss Function of Bayesian Estimators. Group decisions consider situations in which the individuals need to agree both on utilities for consequences and on conditional probability assessments for different experimental outcomes. / Department of Mathematical Sciences

Savo tyrime siekėme patikrinti sprendimo priėmimo grupėje struktūros modelį, kuris padėtų pagerinti sprendimų priėmimo grupėje proceso kokybę bei sprendimo priimtinumą grupės nariams. Siūlomas sprendimų priėmimo grupėje struktūros modelis remiasi procedūrinio racionalumo principais (Simon, 2003), Galotti (2002) siūlomu individualaus sprendimo struktūravimo modeliu bei multiatributinės naudos teorija. Sprendimo priėmimo proceso kokybę matavome atsižvelgdami į Deal ir Stroebe (1987, cit. pgl. Furnham) išskirtus trūkumus, būdingus sprendimų priėmimui grupėje, t.y. socialinio dykinėjimo efektą, vertinimo baimę bei produktyvumo blokavimo efektą. Tyrimo metu nustatėme, kad: • Tiriamiesiems, kurie priimdami sprendimą taikė struktūros modelį, priimtas sprendimas priimtinesnis nei tiems, kurie šio modelio netaikė. • Tiriamieji, kurie priimdami sprendimą grupėje taikė struktūros modelį, buvo labiau linkę bendradarbiauti nei tie, kurie šio modelio netaikė. • Bendra sprendimo priėmimo grupėje kokybė, lyginat struktūruoto ir nestruktūruoto sprendimų priėmimo grupes, nesiskyrė. / In this paper we wanted to offer such group decision making structure, which could improve the decision making process quality and decision acceptance. The structured decision making is based upon procedural rationality principles (Simon, 2003), Galotti (2002) individual decision structuring and Multi-attribute utility theory. In decision making process quality assessment we paid attention to presence of social loafing, evaluation apprehension and production blocking effects. Results of this study shows, that: • There is a significant difference in decision acceptance between structured and unstructured decision making groups. • There is no significant difference in total decision making process quality between structured and unstructured decision making groups. • There is a significant difference in cooperation activity between structured and unstructured decision making.

According to the IPCC (2007) fourth assessment report, small islands and coastal communities have a set of characteristics that makes them very vulnerable to climate change impacts, mainly sea-level rise and storm surges. Coastal hazards including inundation, salinisation of the water supply, and erosion threaten vital infrastructure that support coastal communities. Although Canada has the longest coastline in the world, little work has been done on impacts of climate change and adaptation to these impacts in the Canadian coastal zones. This research is part of an International Community-University Research Alliance (ICURA) C-Change, project to develop a multicriteria decision evaluation and support for the systems analysis of adaptation options for coastal communities toward adapting to environmental changes. This study estimates the vulnerability of coastal communities with respect to their environmental, economic, social, and cultural dimensions. It also applies a group version of the Analytical Hierarchy Process for identifying decisions that various stakeholders make on suggested adaptation strategies. This study develops a methodological framework that is applicable to various coastal and small island contexts. The application of the proposed framework is further discussed in a case study conducted on the communities of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island (PEI), and Little Anse on Isle Madame, Nova Scotia. Specifically, the state of the Little Anse breakwater is analyzed and new adaptation options are presented and evaluated. This research has illustrated and applied a process of decision evaluation and support that explicitly engages multiple participants and critieria in complex problems situations involving environmental change in coastal communities.

This study examines the impact of organisational culture and GSS (Group Support Systems) on small group decision-making as measured by group decision outcomes. Laboratory experiments were designed to investigate how two types of groups selected on the basis of having apparently different organisational cultures make decisions on a preference task, in situations where they were given one of two different means of support (face-to-face GSS support or manually structured support) to aid their decision-making. Organisational culture and GSS are the independent variables, whilst the dependent outcome variables were perceived decision quality, decision process satisfaction, decision satisfaction, unified commitment, collaborative climate, and group cohesiveness. The research results showed that manually-supported groups, those who were given simple physical decision-support aids and worked face-to-face, had higher perceived decision quality and decision process satisfaction but no significant differences in unified commitment, decision satisfaction, collaborative climate, and group cohesiveness were found when compared to face-to-face GSS???supported groups who were given electronic aids. One of the two groups drawn from environments where organisational culture was expected to be quite different, that is the Kensington Campus group had higher perceived decision quality, decision process satisfaction, unified commitment, and group cohesiveness but no significant differences in decision satisfaction and collaborative climate when compared with groups drawn from a campus of the same university, ADFA (Australian Defence Force Academy) Campus, one which is attended only by military students. Whilst compared with those of manually structured support on group outcomes, the impacts of GSS on group outcomes weakened when they performed a preference task, organisational culture was found to have a significant impact on group outcomes when both face-to-face GSS and manual settings were considered.

Thesis (M.A. Ed.)--Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 1994. / Vita. Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 72-73). Also available via the Internet.

Thesis (D. Min.)--Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, 1994. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 69-83).

Thesis (M.A.)--Carleton University, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 65-68). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Michigan State University. Dept. of Telecommunications, Information Studies and Media, 2006. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on June 19, 2009) Includes bibliographical references (p. 62-68). Also issued in print.