1
Marjut Partanen-Hertell
M.Sc. (Tech), Senior Coordinator at the Finnish Environment Institute SYKE
Psychodrama Trainer (TEP) at the Finnish Moreno Institute SMI
Chairperson of the Association of Finnish Trainers in Moreno Psychodrama MOPSI
arua@welho.com , marjut.partanen-hertell@ymparisto.fi
MORENIAN TOOLS SAVE TIME AND DEEPEN ENVIRONMENTAL
COLLABORATION PROCESSES
Keywords: Moreno, relationmetry, sociodrama, mental model, systems intelligence
Abstract: Environmental issues bring together people from various backgrounds for collaboration. They may
have the same explicit aims but their immaterial cultural conserves e.g. mental models, rules and values their tacit knowledge - often diverge. Morenian tools such as sociodrama as part of the work process may
concretize systems and mental models, associated attitudes and values, thus helping create a collective
perception and free time for real problem-solving.
1. Introduction
To take part in an international environmental planning and decision-making processes is demanding. The
participants are in the middle of interactive and interpersonal communication, where pure expertise is not
enough. Skills to express your self and listen to others are crucial when using multiple professional and
national languages. The process is also intrapersonal, because to gain successful results the participant has to
be ready for change and modify his earlier opinions and attitudes, even accept new facts according to the
information that is flooding over him. Processes in these kinds of circumstances take a lot of time and
energy, and it is not always easy to keep the working atmosphere open and positive.
My paper will focus on ways to enrich and speed up multinational collaboration connected to environmental,
social and economical themes. Great interest lies in the possibility to unite explicit planning methods
including computerized models with Morenian tools, which reach the subconscious wisdom and increase
internalized knowing thus
 enhancing systems intelligence and common mental models for creating collective perceptions of
environmental issues
 distributing tacit knowledge
 building a foundation for sustainable collaboration required for reaching successful outcomes for
transnational and trans-cultural time consuming processes
 resolving conflicts during the preparation and implementation of the decisions
2

saving time by helping participants move from disorientation and confusion to realization and
innovation.
Systems intelligence involves the ability to use the human sensibilities of systems and reasoning about
systems in order to adaptively carry out productive actions within and with respect to systems (Saarinen &
Hämäläinen 2010). It is thus scaling up a person's problem solving capabilities and invoking performance
and productivity in everyday situations. (Hämäläinen & others 2004). It could be simply said that systems
intelligence connects systemic awareness and sensitivity to the concept of emotional intelligence that
Salovey and Mayer presented in 1990. It is obvious systems intelligence is needed, when environmental
issues nowadays bind together various interest groups in a very complicated way.
A mental model is a representation of a material or immaterial real-world system in the mind of a person.
Our mental models define the way we see the world around us and how we act in it (Senge 1990). Mental
models help a person shape her behaviour in a sensible way and may save time and energy in decisionmaking. In this way they come close to Moreno's concept of cultural conserves in their immaterial form
(Moreno 1946, Partanen-Hertell 2005). New knowledge of environmental problems demands us to recreate
and expand our mental models defining these problems.
Tacit knowledge is known by an individual, but difficult to communicate to the others, thus “we can know
more than we can tell“(Polanyi 1983). This kind of knowledge often consists of culture and habits or is
bound to using equipment. It produces almost automatic thinking and behaviour. People may not be aware of
their knowledge or its usefulness to others. The transfer of tacit knowledge usually requires besides training
or personal experience the personal contact, trust and a special place (Nonaka & others 2000, Nonaka &
Takeuchi 1995). Tacit knowledge can both expand and restrict our possibilities to solve problems – the
ability to examine it interactively is essential.
Morenian methods include for example sociometry, sociodrama, role-playing and role-training. Sociometry
(Moreno 1953) has inspired the use and development of tools that I call relationmetry. Relationmetry
explores interactive systems such as connections, interdependencies, feedback, attitudes, roles and other
interaction dynamics between issues. Relationmetry helps concretize and externalize mental models or
insights that people consciously or un-consciously have in their minds concerning various material or
immaterial issues (Partanen-Hertell 2005, 2002) such as “environmental awareness”, “mining industry and
the environment” or “Sao Paulo”. In warming up, supervision and consultation psychodramatists use means
such as symbol work, collages, card techniques, and the diamond of polarities and time lines that can also be
used as relationmetric tools. Organization and process consultants use a lot of tools for participatory
processes that I connect to relationmetry as well. These tools may be purely qualitative or semi-quantitative
also assigning numerical values to variables.
2. Themes, participants and processes of environmental collaboration
Environmental issues and problems are often urgent. They tangle multi-scale scientific, economic and social
viewpoints together, not to mention national and cultural attitudes and interests (Figure 1). Good sustainable
decisions are based on common understanding and goals which may not be identical but which are at least
pulling towards the same direction.
The themes and topics of a collaboration where Morenian methods could be used vary from the analysis of
earlier environmental accidents to the exploration of communicative ways to influence water protection
(Partanen-Hertell 2010), and from developing a good basis for a present concrete project (Partanen-Hertell
2009 c) to creating scenarios for future pan-European water resources. These tools may also help in
comprehending and visualizing the system of activities in an organization (Partanen-Hertell 2009 d). The
collaboration process concerning a particular theme may need just one workshop (Figure 2, a), or it might
last for several years (Figure 2, d). Therefore, it is important to select, motivate and invite the relevant
3
interest groups to collaboration according to the purpose and objectives of the process. The use of the tools
of relationmetry and sociodrama may help identification of interest groups or analysis of future challenges.
4
Planners:
Governmental
Municipal
Private…
Lobbyist:
Industry
NGOs
Transport…
Local stakeholders:
Land owners
Businesses
Residents…
Creating
together
collaboration
knowledge &
solutions
Experts:
Universities
Local experts
Research institutes…
Decision makers:
Authorities
CEOs
Politicians
The judiciary...
Figure 1. Parties and goals of transnational environmental planning; a system of interest groups and their
cultures, countries, languages, hierarchies, motives and knowledge.
The Finnish Environmental Institute co-coordinates a four year project SCENES (2006-2010) funded by the
European Union, that covers the European Union member states and the neighbouring countries. It aims to
address the complex questions about the future of Europe's water resources. In the first phase largely extant
scenarios were selected and readily available information on drivers and policies assembled and run through
an existing quantitative computer model of pan-European water availability (WaterGap). In the second phase
using an iterative approach more refined scenarios (storylines) up to 2025 and 2050 were developed at both
the pan-European and regional scales, with highly participatory scenario panels. The third phase involves a
synthesis of the information and dissemination of the project outputs to external stakeholders and end-users.
An evaluation of the participatory scenario processes gives new information on the functioning of the
science-policy interface, and on challenges the European water management may confront in the future.
(Kämäri & others 2008)
The SCENES considers inter alia existing scenario development methods and innovates to improve them in a
'learning-by doing' participatory process. The starting point was the Storyline-And-Simulation (SAS) method
which involved the development of narrative storylines during a series of stakeholder scenario workshops.
These qualitative scenarios were subsequently translated to a set of quantified parameters, which were the
input for a quantitative model (WaterGap). Participatory scenario workshops used qualitative and semiquantitative methods to create the qualitative scenarios (storylines), which promote a way to communicate
complex information and can incorporate a wide range of views about the future. The storylines explore, for
example, how social, financial, economic and cultural changes will modify the future demand for water in
Europe and how the coping capacity of people in various parts of Europe to drought can be increased over
time. The quantitative scenarios were used to check the consistency of the qualitative scenarios, to provide
needed numerical information and to 'enrich' the qualitative scenarios by showing trends and dynamics not
5
anticipated by the storylines. Qualitative and quantitative scenarios provide a powerful combination and
compensate for each others deficits. (Kämäri & others 2008)
The SCENES serves well as an example of a complex long-term collaboration process in an environmental
context, which explores the views, values and mental models of stakeholders from pan-European, regional
and pilot area levels, and strives to connect them to each other and to quantified data (Figure 2, e).
Special attention was paid to the description of the methodology used for scenario development (Vliet &
others 2007) and to the design of the participatory scenario-building process (Kaljonen and Varjopuro 2007).
In order to make the facilitators of the participatory scenario workshops familiar with the selected methods
the SCENES arranged a scenario development training seminar for them. In the SCENES eleven separate
sets of panels were formed, all of which produced their own set of scenarios. The panels met three to four
times at half a year intervals. At each level panels were formed consisting of a meaningful mix of
stakeholders (Kaljonen and Varjopuro 2010).
In 2010 before the end of the SCENES, there will be an evaluation of the used participatory methods which
included Talking Pictures, card techniques, spider-grams, Collages of Future, Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping
(FCM) and timelines from storyline development and scenarios to back-casting. Experiences so far show that
the people who have participated in SCENES panel workshops value the process and the networks build
highly. Building up visions of divergent futures in a qualitative manner encourages a deliberative and
experimental spirit; whereas building one single FCM of the system spurs participants towards a consensual
view. Using individual post-its and spider-grams sees the variety in views as a necessity; whereas the social
dynamics of group work seeks compromises. The usage and sequencing of the methods will have a
qualitative impact on the outcome. Also time devoted to exercises and group work plays a decisive role as
does the ways the work has been facilitated. It seems that developing the participatory scenario-making as a
method for forming tangible and robust social choices requires special care and devotion. Commitment does
not appear automatically; quite the opposite and it is dependent on the mobilisation of linkages that the
process of knowledge production has or is able to build to actual decision making. (Kaljonen and Varjopuro
2010)
In an overview of available participatory methods collected by the SCENES there are several methods that I
would connect to relationmetry but only one (role-playing) that is a pure psychodrama technique. Roleplaying, however, was not used in the project. Successful and safe applications of sociodrama, as well as
many of the tools of relationmetry require the director to have throughout training in Morenian methods. On
the other hand a wider use of Morenian methods could save time, enrich the process and deepen the results
by giving the participants more insight emerging from unconscious and co-unconscious levels. However,
Moreno (1977 p. vii) considered that co-conscious and co-unconscious states are by definition, such states
which the partners have experienced and produced jointly and which can, therefore be only jointly
reproduced or re-enacted. Therefore, the challenge is how to tie the outcome to the reality outside the group.
3. Connecting the Morenian tools to environmental collaboration
The Morenian methods may be used in environmental collaboration in the form of a workshop or a cluster of
interlinked workshops (Figure 2, a, b and c), as a part of a single process (Figure 2, d) or in connection to a
complex process such as SCENES (Figure 2, e). The goal is to get a picture of various interpretations of
'facts' and causalities or of human behaviour connected to them – usually in qualified or semi-quantified
terms. Frequently, there are hidden agendas and different understanding of the key points, which include a
human set of attitudes and emotions. The aim may also be a learning process for participants or an attempt to
produce semi quantified or quantified factors for further analysis, like the participatory methods were used in
SCENES.
6
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Figure 2. Various structures of participatory processes. The blue ellipses symbolise Morenian or other
participatory workshops, the boxes the use of explicit planning methods and the stars the use of
computerized models.
In participatory workshops the process may be a mixture of collaborative dialogue and Morenian exercises
(Partanen-Hertell 2009 a). Below I describe the main steps of the work in a manner that is familiar to
psychodramatists (Partanen-Hertell 2010, 2009 b):

Background preparation, connecting the Morenian tools to the collaboration process and
warming up the facilitator or director of the workshop:
The focus is on gathering information on the task and theme of the collaboration as a whole,
identifying and analysing the stakeholders and a possible combination of them to build up a
participatory group, and analysing the conceivable goal and available Morenian methods. Also an
analysis of the directors own set of values and goals is needed (Wiener 1997). The main concern is
which specific issues in these contexts could be explored and worked out with of Morenian
approaches.

Creating trust and tele among the participants:
Most important in the beginning is forming a group from the participants, getting to know its
members and creating enough trust for the next step. This awakens questions that have to be
answered such as: What kind of group is this? What are the goals of the gathering? Which
stakeholders are present? How are the participants connected to the collaboration and to each other?
Who has power? How is the theme linked to me and to my individual concerns? What worries do the
other participants have about the theme?
Tools: Discussion, storytelling, symbols etc.
7

Warming up the group:
It is important to warm the group up to the actual task or theme and to the issues around it, and to
avoid working at too intimate a level. Questions linked to this step are: Which issues are connected
to the theme? How are the questions or the participants connected to each other? What kind of
mental models or cultural conserves around the theme exist in the group? What kind of resistance
and defences are present?
Tools: Discussion, short narrative examples, relationmetry such as Talking Pictures and card
techniques.
The
case?
Figure 3. Individual mental models and values connected to the case; relationmetry and symbol-work unveil
individual tacit knowledge.
The case
Figure 4. A common mental model and values connected to the case; relationmetry and symbol-work
combine individual knowledge unveil new issues and create new values.

Setting up the stage and deciding upon a scene:
8
In this kind of work the stage is set up by creating common mental models of the theme. This is done
by unifying the mental models of the participants (Figure 3 and 4). The concrete common mental
model or stage can be set up on a blackboard, table or on the floor. The 'issues' may be factories,
lakes, organizations, forests, shops etc. and the links between them. The goal is not consensus but
visualising different views and studying how they are connected. When the 'big picture' is ready it is
possible with the help of it to focus on a real or imaginary case.
Related questions are: What kind of material or immaterial issues is bound to the topics in the real
world? What kind of relations and effects do they have on each other? What kind of dynamics
connects the issues together? What kind of attitudes and emotions are bound to them? Is something
missing? What is really important here? Where could we focus? What kind of scene, time, roles and
script could illustrate this 'world'?
Tools: Relationmetry with symbol work, scoring

Taking roles and acting:
The next step is to wake the scene to life and to deepen the level worked at by personal actions. The
methods of sociodrama are used at this step and it is possible that the whole group is creating a real
scene and building up a sociodramatic stage. Using this creative group process the participants
explore goals, values, attitudes and problems that tend to arise in teams, networks or collective
relationships by taking assigned roles in dramatic acts. The participants are asked to take some role
from the stage – maybe a role that they have earlier been talking about. This role is usually human,
preferably not their own, but can also be an institution or animal or any other object found on the
stage. The role of the facilitator changes into the role of a sociodrama director. It is important to
know with diverse sociodramatic techniques help the participants get insight in what kinds of goals,
connections, attitudes, emotions, and hidden agendas are bound to various roles. (Figure 5).
Tools: Sociodrama vignette or the first act of a long sociodrama with role-taking, role reverses etc.

Changing and developing the roles and scenes:
It may be possible to further explore the stage together from various standpoints linked to the theme
by helping the roles to develop and the scenes to change. There may be different gatherings of
people or the timeline may be shifted backwards or forwards. The focus is on questions: What are
the main concerns from different positions? What are the trends for the future? What in the past has
led to the current situation? What is unfolding from the unconscious and co-unconscious of the
participants, when examining the case / the created common example?
Tools: Sociodrama with multiple acts and scenes, and various sociodrama techniques.

Catharses of intellect, attitudes and emotions:
There usually occur experiences among the participants that could be named catharses of intellect,
attitudes or emotions. This often happens when the participants are gathering the experiences and
views from the roles, actions and storylines of the sociodrama and integrating them. The director
may help the process along with questions such as: When really looking inside the roles you have
taken; what do you find?
Tools: Monologues, letters, writing on colourful tags, symbol work, relational and social atoms,
sociometry.
9
Figure 5. Sociodrama and role-play; the participants may explore goals, values, attitudes, connections and
problems by taking assigned roles.

Sharing:
As always when working with powerful Morenian methods sharing is essential. On a personal level
it means expressing emotions, experiences and views connected to the roles, storyline and to real
life: What touched and impressed me here? What have I experienced here which reminds me of my
real life?
Tools: Discussion in pairs or small groups, connected also to the group as a whole.

Processing:
Some time after the sharing the processing of the sociodrama and relationmetry is done to deepen the
understanding of the theme and the issues connected to it. Natural questions in this step are these:
What did we understand and learn about the case? How is the systems intelligence of a person
activated when stepping in multiple other shoes? What is important to bear in mind or do when
proceeding? What kinds of commitments are needed among the stakeholders?
Tools: Discussions in small groups and with the whole group, relationmetry, spider-grams, matrix.

Documenting:
In order to connect the outcomes of Morenian work to the overall process, good documentation and
rendering the outcome to fit the formal communication and decision making of the overall process is
essential. The group and the director ought to decide how it is best to communicate the result to
others and how is it possible to consolidate the commitments needed.
Tools: Collecting material produced, observers taking notes and transcribing discussions, video, tape
recorders, photos.

Follow up:
There is a need for follow up and evaluation especially when the work with Morenian tools is a part
of a complicated collaboration. The follow up process in long term collaboration also gives the
opportunity to make adjustments to the Morenian working process. The focus here is on questions
such as: What kind of impacts the work had on the whole collaboration? Were the outcomes useful
in the long haul? What could be modified to get better results? How to disseminate experiences to a
wider audience?
10
4. Relationmetry
Relationmetry is a context in which to examine dynamic systems that may be interlinked with other systems
and factors or 'drivers'. The characteristics and dynamics of the systems may be explored qualitatively and
semi-quantitatively and in many different depths using facts, tacit knowledge, intuition and emotions.
The tool-box of relationmetry includes card techniques, symbol work, role-taking, scores and weights etc.
used in many different ways. The outcomes may be analysed and described with tools such as:
 Relation matrix
 Relation atoms
 Relation-grams
 Relation maps
 Miniature of a "world".
Work with relationmetry may strive at a common mental model for a group which gathers together diverse
viewpoints. It may not be aiming at a consensus but at a common understanding of similarities and
differences in views, values and goals of the participants. At the same time relationmetry helps create a
common language among the participants. It may also serve as a basis for a sociodrama or role training and
especially for future collaboration. With relationmetry it also is rather easy to find out the 'hot pots' where
new or ongoing crisis are steaming or the 'cool spots' where all development has stagnated. These are often
the focus areas of further work.
The level of relationmetry may vary from intellectual clarification to a deep intimate and personal
exploration. The tools used impact this level. Discussion may keep the work on surface level. Writing on a
blackboard makes the dialogue more 'serious'. Tags and post-it cards on the wall are less emotionally
activating than the same tools in colours on the table or on the floor. Simple symbols like buttons often
activate the unconscious less than complicated symbols such as picture magnets, Lego bricks, puppets,
scarves, stones and flowers. Taking a role in a relation atom already demands trust and personal courage and
developing this role or creating a new one demands even more so. At the same time it makes it possible to
reach some essential elements of the theme which dwell in the depths of the unconscious.
5. Discussion
This paper leaves many points of interest and questions open especially in connection to the following three
areas: the collaboration process, Morenian tools and relationmetry. Below I present some viewpoints of
them:
Aiming at consensus may kill the various views of the participants and at the same time the richness of
reality. The participants should see themselves as individuals and not as representatives of an interest group.
On the other hand it usually improves the outcome if all the stakeholders are represented in the group in
order to get all the relevant views into the process. How does the selecting and forming of the group impact
the participants' willingness to bring forth their own opinions?
The need for time in the various stages of the process is significantly different when using Morenian methods
compared to traditional workshops and seminars. A lot more time needs to be reserved on the warm up and
group formation and on building trust. The real pay back of the using these methods usually come from their
efficiency and from the depth of the results.
The skilfulness of the facilitator to make use of the natural stages of the group, such as 'forming, storming,
norming and performing', contributes to the whole collaboration process. An interesting future point of
research is the impact that the open communication of each participants mental models concerning the topic
at hand has on lessening future problems stemming from hidden agendas etc. Can it be proved that a lot of
time and throw backs can be saved in the continued work after the Morenian part especially in the
11
implementation process due to the hidden agendas and different mental models having been unveiled already
during the earlier stages?
Relationmetry seems to be able to unveil individual tacit knowledge and mental models and combine them to
a common model that often also contains conflicts. This outcome represents more or less the reality of the
participants. Is it possible to analyse and utilize the potential increase in systems intelligence while using
Morenian tools during the collaboration process? Could a method be found for researching how much the
Morenian methods can increase the transfer of tacit knowledge between the participants and further from the
participants to their peer groups, during and after the collaboration process?
It is important to document well common understandings and consolidate the commitments reached. Also the
significance, relevance and character of the outcome should be realized. It can be misleading, when some
semi-quantitative results of Morenian workshops are used as input data 'facts' for computerized models
which might not be able to understand the 'here and now' momentary character of Morenian work.
Connected to this also some other questions rise such as:
- Which specific issues could be worked out by way of Morenian approaches and what could be the benefits
or the pitfalls?
- How should we handle the invisible power and the level of intimacy in the process?
- How to read experts´ vocabularies, cultures, languages and values accurately enough?
References
Hämäläinen, Raimo P. and Esa Saarinen (eds.). 2004. Systems Intelligence – Discovering a Hidden
Competence in Human Action and Organizational Life, Helsinki University of Technology: Systems
Analysis Laboratory, Research Reports, A88. (Freely downloadable at www.systemsintelligence.tkk.fi)
Kaljonen, M., Varjopuro, R., 2010. Experiences gained from the participatory scenario-making workshops.
Water Scenarios for Europe and Neighbouring States, SCENES Newsletter 5, January 2010. (Freely
downloadable at http://www.environment.fi/syke/scenes)
Kaljonen, M., Varjopuro, R., 2007. Design of participatory scenario-building process and their linking to
dissemination activities, SCENES Deliverable 5.2., Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki, Finland
Kämäri, J., Alcamo, J., Bärlund, I., Duel, H., Farquharson, F., Flörke, M., Fry, M., Houghton-Carr, H.,
Kabat, P., Kaljonen, M., Kok, K., Meijer, K.S., Rekolainen, S., Sendzimir, J., Varjopuro, R., Villars, N.
2008. Envisioning the future of water in Europe – The SCENES project. E-Water 2008, Official Publication
of the European Water Association (EWA). The article and further information of the SCENES project is
available through the project web-site at: http://www.environment.fi/syke/scenes
Moreno, J. L. 1977. Psychodrama. Vol. I, New York: Beacon House
Moreno, J. L. 1946. Psychodrama. Vol. I, New York: Beacon House
Moreno, J. L. 1953. Who Shall Survive? Foundations of Sociometry, Group Psychotherapy and Sociodrama.
Beacon, NY: Beacon House Inc.
Nonaka, I., Toyama, R. & Konno, N. 2000. SECI, Ba, and Leadership: a Unified Model of Dynamic
Knowledge Creation. Long Range Planning, Vol. 33.
Nonaka, I. & Takeuchi, H. 1995. The knowledge creating company. N.Y.: Oxford University Press.
Partanen-Hertell, Marjut. (In press, probably 2010). Sociodrama in Finland - an environmental context. In
Sociodrama in a changing world: An anthology of international developments. R. Wiener, D. Adderly and K.
Kirk eds.). Www.lulu.com
12
Partanen-Hertell M. 2009 d. Kansainvälinen toiminta vesivaratehtävissä (English Summary: International
activities in water resources management). Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 32/2009. Helsinki:
FEI (SYKE) http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?contentid=352629&lan=fi
Partanen-Hertell, M. 2009 c. The application of the tools of sociometry, sociodrama and other action
methods in the planning process for dealing with environmental issues. Unpublished paper. Abstract in 17th
Congress of IAGP. Rome 24.-29.8.2009.
Partanen-Hertell, M. 2009 b. In search of different perceptions, hidden agendas, veiled attitude and a
common language in the setting up of a trans-boundary planning process. Abstract in 17th Congress of IAGP.
Rome 24.-29.8.2009.
Partanen-Hertell Marjut. 2009 a. A Cross-cultural Encounter with Environmental Problems, in the
compendium of articles from the Second International Sociodrama conference, March 6 – 7, 2009, Helsinki,
Finland
Partanen-Hertell, M. 2005. Systeemiälyn ja mentaalimallien kehittäminen morenolaisilla keinoilla
(Developing systems intelligence and mental models by Morenian means). In: Miten käytän toiminnallisia
menetelmiä? Psykodraaman ohjaajat kertovat, Tarja Janhunen & Sirkka Sura (eds.) : pp. 137-150. Resurssi,
Tampere, Finland
Partanen-Hertell, M. 2002. Luova työyhteisö. Morenolainen lähestymistapa organisaation kehittämiseen. (A
creative working community, the Morenian approach to organizational development). Arua, Helsinki.
Polanyi, Michael.1983. The Tacit Dimension. First published Doubleday & Co, 1966. Reprinted Peter Smith,
Gloucester, Mass.
Saarinen, Esa and Raimo Hämäläinen. 2010. The Originality of Systems Intelligence. In Essays on Systems
Intelligence. Hämäläinen, R. and Saarinen, E. (eds.). Systems Analysis Laboratory. Aalto University, School
of Science and Technology. Espoo, Finland. (Freely downloadable at http://www.systemsintelligence.tkk.fi )
Salovey, Peter and John D. Mayer. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition and Personality,
vol. 9, pp. 185-211.
Senge, P. M. 1990. The Fifth Discipline; The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization. Doubleday
Currency, New York.
Vliet, M., Kok, K., Lasut, A., Sendzimir, J., 2007, Report describing methodology for scenario development
at pan-European and pilot Area scales, SCENES Deliverable 2.1, Wageningen University, Wageningen,
Netherlands
Wiener, R. 1997. Creative Training: Sociodrama and Team-building. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.