Improvising Around Roles and Scripts
in Group Model Building
Group Decision and Negotiation
INFORMS, Mt. Tremblant, Quebec, May 2007
David F. Andersen and George P. Richardson
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany, SUNY
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 1
Outline of Remarks
• What is System Dynamics Group Model Building?
• Improvisational Jazz as an Organizing Metaphor
• Initial Agreements— Who is paying for the gig?
• Roles and Teamwork— Getting the players together
• Scripts—Learning the Basic Rhythms and Melodies.
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 2
Outline of Remarks (continued)
• Improvisation with Roles and Scripts
• Understanding the Improvisational Playfield
• Two Principles that guide improvisation
• A catalogue of Improvisational Behaviors
• Improvisation that Ignores Roles and Breaks
Scripts
• Role Reversals and other dangerous moves
• Working “on the fly” (to create new scripts)
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 3
What is Group Modeling?
• A form of group decision support, involving a
group of stakeholders with a complex problem
•
•
•
•
•
Group facilitation
Model building and refinement in public
Simulation of scenarios and options
Extensive facilitated discussion and analysis
Facilitated policy design and decisions
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 4
What is Group Modeling?
• Management team (10-20) with a
Modeling/Facilitation team (2-4)
• Four full days over 3-to-4 months
• Extensive between meeting work
• Rapid prototyping of model with finished
simulation product
• Facilitation of implementation plans
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 5
Why System Dynamics Modeling?
Perceptions of
System Structure
System
Conceptualization
Representation of
Model Structure
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 6
Why System Dynamics Modeling?
Perceptions of
System Structure
System
Conceptualization
Comparison and
Reconcilation
Model
Formulation
Representation of
Model Structure
Diagramming and
Description Tools
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 7
Why System Dynamics Modeling?
Alternative Models,
Experience, Literature
Empirical Evidence
Perceptions of
System Structure
System
Conceptualization
Comparison and
Reconcilation
Model
Formulation
Representation of
Model Structure
Diagramming and
Description Tools
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 8
Why System Dynamics Modeling?
Alternative Models,
Experience, Literature
Literature
Empirical Evidence
Perceptions of
System Structure
System
Conceptualization
Empirical and
Inferred Time
Series
Comparison and
Reconciliation.
Comparison and
Reconcilation
Model
Formulation
Representation of
Model Structure
Deduction Of
Model Behavior
Diagramming and
Description Tools
Computing Aids
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 9
Why System Dynamics Modeling?
Alternative Models,
Experience, Literature
Literature
Empirical Evidence
Empirical and
Inferred Time
Series
Perceptions of
System Structure
System
Conceptualization
Comparison and
Reconcilation
Behavior
Validating
Processes
Structure
Validating
Processes
Comparison and
Reconciliation.
Model
Formulation
Representation of
Model Structure
Deduction Of
Model Behavior
Diagramming and
Description Tools
Computing Aids
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 10
The Albany Teamwork Approach
•
•
•
•
•
Facilitator / Elicitor
Modeler / Reflector
Process coach
Recorder
Gatekeeper
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 11
Components of the Process
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Problem definition meeting
Group modeling meeting
Formal model formulation
Reviewing model with model building team
Rolling out model with the community
Working with flight simulator
Making change happen
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 12
A Typical Room GMB Session
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 13
Typical First Group Model Building Meeting
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introductions: Hopes and Fears
Stakeholders
Introduction to simulation: Concept models
Client flow elicitation
Policy resources and clusters
Mapping policy influences
Next steps for client group and modeling team
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 14
Introduction to Simulation
• Concept models
• Introduce the stock, flow, and causal link icons used
throughout the workshop
• Demonstrate there are links between feedback
structure and dynamic behavior
• Initiate discussion about the structure and behavior of
the real system
• Less than 30 minutes
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 15
Concept Model Progression:
“Models are ours to change and improve.”
Job loss rate
On
assistance
Job finding
rate
At risk
employed
Fraction losing job
per year
Avg length of stay
on assistance Job loss rate
On
assistance
Loss of
assistance rate
Unemployed
and
unassisted
Job finding
rate
Avg length of stay
on assistance
At risk
employed
Job loss rate
On
assistance
Fraction losing job
per year
Job finding
rate
Avg length of stay
on assistance
At risk
employed
Fraction losing job
per year
Employment
ratio
Jobs
Employment
ratio
Avg total time on
assistance
Jobs
Fraction losing
assistance per year
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 16
Concept Model Progression:
“Behavior is a Consequence of Structure”
At Risk Populations
At Risk Populations
4,000
4,000
3,000
3,000
2,000
2,000
1,000
1,000
0
0
0
2
4
Time (Year)
6
8
On assistance : welf1
At risk employed : welf1
0
At Risk Populations
2
4
Time (Year)
6
8
On assistance : welf2
At risk employed : welf2
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0
Rockefeller College of
University at Albany
2
On assistance : welf3
At risk employed : welf3
Public
Affairs
and Policy
Unemployed
and unassisted
: welf3
4
Time (Year)
6
8
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 17
Typical First Group Model Building Meeting
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Introductions: Hopes and Fears
Stakeholders
Introduction to simulation: Concept models
Client flow elicitation
Policy resources and clusters
How do these
conversations
Mapping policy influences
take place?
Next steps for client group
and modeling team
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 18
Facilitating Group Modeling Conversations
• Scripted routines
• Richmond, The Strategic Forum
• Vennix, Group Model Building
• Andersen & Richardson, Scripts for Group Model
Building
• Improvisation
• Varying scripts “on the fly”
• Creating new GMB processes “on the fly”
• Reflecting on improvisations to create new scripts
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 19
Improvisation as a Key Activity in Group Modelling
Scripts
Initial
Agreements
Group Modelling
Improvisational
Playing Field
Formal
Modelling
Activities
Client
Agreements
about
Strategies
and Policies
Roles
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 20
Understanding the Improvisational Playfield
• Four Dimensions of Tension in GMB Communications
Processes
• Using Boundary Objects to Manage Communication
Tensions—three uses
• Remembering
• Facilitating
• Modeling
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 21
Understanding the Improvisational Playfield
• Four Dimensions of Tension in GMB Communications
Processes
• Using Boundary Objects to Manage Communication
Tensions—three uses
• Remembering
• Facilitating
• Modeling
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 22
Tensions in Group Model Building
• Client Mental
Models
• SD Modeling
Principles
• Natural Language
• Model Equations
• High Semantic
Requirements
• High Syntax
Requirements
• Coherence
• Cohesion
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 23
Examples of Boundary Objects in SD GMB
• Client-Authored such as…
• Variable Graphs Over Time
• Stakeholder Power X Interest Grid
• Facilitator-Authored such as…
• Sketches of Model Feedback
• Structure on the White Board
• Modeler-Authored such as…
• Refined Sketches of Model
Structure in Modeler Feedback
Script
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 24
Boundary Objects Manage Tensions Between
Mental Models and Good Modeling Principles
Modeling Zone
Client
Group’s
Mental
Models
Facilitation
Zone
Current
GMB
Boundary
Object
Already
Completed
Boundary
Objects
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
SD
Modeling
Principles
Remembering and
Displaying
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 25
First Improvisational Principle:
LERT
Listen, Edit, and Report with Transformations
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 26
LERT has two parts…
• Listen and Report Back
• Use exact words, concepts, and phrases that client group uses
• Faithfully record and display their thoughts and words
• Edit with Transformations
• Find ways to “filter” clients’ speech — “less is more”
• Add value by structuring speech around modeling principles
• These two components of LERT are at odds with
themselves
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 27
Second Improvisational Principle:
Unobtrusive Teaching
• About SD Modeling Syntax and Principles, e.g.
• Concept Models
• Modeler Feedback
• About Insights into the System Under Study, e.g.
• Feedback while working in small groups
• Modeler Feedback
• Plenary Events that “ring a bell” for a potentially big idea
within the project
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 28
Toward a Taxonomy of Improvisational Behaviors
Live “On the Fly”
Behaviors
• Transform cause-andeffect to feedback
• Propose “cleaned up”
model geometry
Mostly Modeler
Behavior
Mostly Facilitator
Behavior
Joint Modeler &
Facilitator Behavior
“Off Line”
Behaviors
• Select next concept to
discuss
• Move Ideas to the
Parking lot
• “Banter” with the group
in structured ways
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
• Propose Seed Structures
to discuss
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 29
Key Modeler Improvisational Behaviors
• On the Fly
• Off Line
• Challenge “Group Think”
causal assertions
• Transform cause-and-effect to
feedback
• Provide “Expert Opinion” on
aggregation or other modeling
issues
• Clean Up Diagram Geometry
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
• Add Operational Logic
• Propose formulation-based
restatements of key effects
under discussion by group
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 30
Key Facilitator Improvisational Behaviors
• On the Fly
• Off Line
• Select next key concept of
variable to discuss
• Add insights, comments to
small working groups
• Do not record on the board
aspects of discussion
• Rehearse key variables and
dynamic mechanisms from
earlier boundary objects
• Park aspects of discussion for
future use
• Select words that create
variables from verb phrases
• Be alert to and draw out
feedback loops
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 31
Key Joint Improvisational Behaviors
• On the Fly
• Off Line
• Call out for help
• Live “banter” to exchange
insights in front of the client
group
• Design “seed” structures or
dynamics mechanisms to
structure next phase of
discussion
• Share insights about key
variables or dynamic
mechanisms
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
• Plan or refine sequence of
scripts
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 32
Improvisation that Ignores Roles
and Breaks Scripts
• Role Reversals and Other Unplanned Moves
• Can lead to sudden break-throughs
• Can have dangerous consequences
• We have rules to constrain these behaviors!
• Creating New Scripts in “Real Time”
• To resolve a current problem facing the group
• ***Often to create a new script
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 33
Role Reversals and Other Unplanned Moves
• Improvised Conversations Between Modeling Team
Members
• Four Basic Types:
• Facilitator Seeks Assistance
• Facilitator Steps Down
• Modeler Steps Up to Offer Insight
• Modeler Steps Up to Take Over the Meeting
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 34
Even Improvised Conversations Have Rules
• Rule #1: The person “holding the chalk” calls the
shots
• Rule #2: Always know who is “holding the chalk”
• Rule #3: Always seek permission for improvised
conversations
• 3A: Facilitator initiates conversations with public requests
• 3B: Modeler initiates conversations with a private
signal
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 35
Facilitator Seeks Assistance
• What and When:
At an unplanned time, facilitator requests
specific support from modeling team in handling group process or
content.
• Why:
Facilitator senses that current task is not working well or
there is an opportunity that needs to be structured
• How:
Facilitator sends public signal with an advance request for
help. There may be a public discussion of what is needed. When
the modeler is ready to help, he or she sends a private signal back
that it is OK now to call for help.
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 36
Facilitator Steps Down
• What and When:
This is usually an extreme case of
facilitator requesting assistance.
• Why:
Facilitator senses that current task is not working well or
facilitator is tired or confused for some reason.
• How:
Facilitator sends public signal with an advance request for
help. There may be a public discussion of what is needed. When
the modeler is ready to help, he or she sends a private signal back
that it is OK now to call for help.
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 37
Modeler Steps Up to Comment
• What and When:
At an unplanned time, modeler gains
permission to interrupt to add value around some specific task.
• Why:
Modeler sees an opportunity to clarify a specific task
or insight being worked by the group (that the facilitator seems
to be missing)
• How:
Modeler uses a private signal indicating he or she has
a new direction to pursue. If a break is not near, a public
discussion may follow. When the facilitator is ready, the
modeler comments to add value. The modeler should be
prepared to “take the chalk” if necessary.
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 38
Modeler Steps Up to Take Over Session
• What and When:
At an unplanned time, modeler gains permission
to interrupt to move the group in a new direction —We consider this to be
a very risky move.
• Why:
Modeler sees an opportunity to move the group in a new (often
breakthrough) direction, timing is important, and it seems prudent (to the
modeler) to not wait until a break.
• How:
Modeler uses a private signal indicating he or she has a new
direction to pursue. If a break is not near, a public discussion may follow.
When the facilitator is ready, the modeler steps up to manage the
conversation, agreeing to stay in control until the next break or “pass back”
time can be arranged.
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 39
Creating New Scripts in “Real Time”
• Driven by a specific need or opportunity presented by
current work
• Never done “on the fly”
• Usually completed over a long break, before the start
of a new day, or late at night (those early morning
surprises!)
• Initially “crap detected” using small group working
principles
• Extensive critique and re-design at end of session.
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 40
Small Group Principles in a Nutshell
• Divergent, brainstorming tasks
• Individuals to pairs to small groups
• Nominal group collection
• Ranking tasks
• Sticky dots or software support
• Convergent, design tasks
• Hardest – need most thought
• Most risk.
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 41
Borrow or Steal Scripts from
other Problem Structuring Approaches…
• Rohrbaugh
• Decision Techtronics approaches
• Vennix
• Workbook ideas and approaches
• Bryson
• Stakeholder mapping
• Leadership principles
• Eden and Ackermann
• Decision and Group Explorer techniques
• New direct software linkages
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 42
Several Examples of Scripts-to-Order
• Group elicitation of model parameters
• Vermont Medicaid project
• Needed numbers for over-night modeling
• Proved to be powerful alignment and discussion tool
• Ratio elicitation of feedback loops
• Office of Mental Health Project
• Original intent to decompose too complex stock and flow picture
• Use of ratio of two key stocks seems a “natural” way to generate feedback
thinking by client groups
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 43
More Examples of Scripts-to-Order
• Using Group Explorer Pack of Key Variables to “Seed” Feedback
elicitation
• Airport Security Modeling Project
• Seeking linkages between Group Explorer and Vensim modeling
• Techniques still under development
• Extended Concept Model Approach
• Project on Security in Norwegian Oil Fields
• Initial intent was to transfer model ownership
to new group
• Discovered fast way to engage clients early
in discussion of dynamics.
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 44
References
• Reagan-Cirincione et al., Decision modeling: Tools for Strategic Thinking,
Interfaces 21,6 (Nov-Dec 1991).
• Andersen & Richardson, Teamwork in Group Model Building, System Dynamics
Review 1995.
• Richardson & Andersen, Scripts in Group Model Building, System Dynamics
Review 1997.
• Richmond, The Strategic Forum: Aligning Objectives Strategy and Process.
System Dynamics Review, 13(2), 1997.
• Vennix, Andersen, & Richardson, Special issue of the System Dynamics Review
on Group Model Building, 1997.
• Eden and Ackermann, Strategy Making: the Journey of Strategic Management.
Sage: London, 1998.
• Bryson, Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2004
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany
D. F. Andersen & G. P. Richardson
GDN, INFORMS, May 2007 45