In this paper we have sought to argue that there are ways of bringing public and private organizations together to deliver public value that derives from establishing ‘above-and-beyond’ goals, and that doing so is significantly dependent on the use of a facilitated GDSS supported designed conversations about strategic purpose.
The following, typical, unprompted comments from participants give a flavour of their view of the role of the GDSS with respect to anonymity, productivity, and causal mapping for structuring. In order to demonstrate that these comments are not a particular selection of only positive comments, those shown are from all of the randomly selected participants in one workshop:
the model helped catch people up and develop a sort of common understanding. We learnt a lot more about each other. …. the mapping was very successful in deciding what needs to be done.
structure of the [workshop] – the format – takes out the negative elements… very different from traditional meetings – it [the GDSS] provided a mechanism for honest discussion.
liked the spider diagrams [causal maps] as they were interesting and sparked a lot of discussion. It was a good way of surfacing a lot of issues and good to be able to link thoughts and be able to present the data… we could talk about topics that were sensitive – really get in to them – it allowed people to talk … good to get a balance between heads down and talking to one another’s.
really good in bringing the ideas of two different sides together.
felt both sides went away more positive about the future; it was a very productive session. The maps were road maps to go and do. People seemed more willing to engage on issues rather than sweep issues under the carpet – they were willing to talk about issues. … lots now on the table to go do that wouldn’t have got to otherwise. People went into the room with an intense dislike of each other … We were able to avoid dancing around things but get them out into the open.
the software [GDSS] was incredibly useful – setting preferences and getting everything out in the open. It would have been much slower if everyone had to speak (and we wouldn’t have got that much on paper). … good conflict resolution session with positive outcomes re attitudes and solid deliverables.
it [the GDSS] helped diffuse the tension (which was historically in existence). … a good cathartic experience – both sides were being honest and noting both organizations are imperfect. … helped avoid people getting bogged down … got through far more than I thought possible
process made us engage, we were able to compose stuff, prioritise, and it was well structured and encouraged people to reflect
common goals - we can sort it out and stop the bickering … Actions in place.
astonished by the capability of the system … would have taken us weeks to get where we got to … behaviours seem to have changed during the workshop: a more roundtable approach being taken, and joint things coming up by the end of the day
the system shows views for all to read – shows barriers and issues on the screen allowing for reflection and discussion rather than talking at each other. … System focuses the mind more effectively – everybody can put stuff in and then discuss … The system means we stand a chance of getting the strategy right
amazing way to get a lot done in a quick way …. Good to be able to say it anonymously and then work on it … Didn’t sense we lost any important input
The client for the Health workshop presented through figure 2 commented:
it would have taken us months to get to where we got to in 5 hours: difficult to get such a group together over the several sessions, whereas here we had them together for all of one session and achieved what we needed. Anyway, some of the participants would have continued to be too dominant – the democratization the system gave us meant there was none of the usual ‘out- gunning’.
it was interesting that, even though there were NHS consultants in the group, we were still able to tackle a big, and important, issue that was about them. The ‘uncontrollable’ and important issues became controllable. The ability for the system to build from one another’s contributions was particularly useful in achieving these outcomes.
A variety of different types of GDSS’s and Group Support Systems (Lewis (2010)) – such as Group Systems, Hi-View, MeetingWorks (Lewis et al. (2007)), Dialogue Mapping (Conklin (2006)) - have already demonstrated benefits to organizations through supporting strategy development, problem structuring, and risk management. This paper has sought to show, through examples, that they can also be used to great effect in helping collaborations, and ‘forced marriages’, work more efficiently and effectively.
Figure 1: The agreed Goals System for the multi-organisation (public-private collaboration among health sector organisations)
Figure 2: The goals system developed in a workshop exploring strategic problems in health delivery (goals in square boxes are core goals for different organisations, and the goals in ovals are meta-goals) – note that the material has been edited for reasons of confidentiality, but
the figure represents the spirit of the outcome
References
Ackermann, F., Andersen, D. F., Eden, C., and Richardson, G. P. (2011). 'ScriptsMap: a tool for designing strategy workshops', Omega 39, 427-434.
Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. (2010). "The Role of Group Support Systems: Negotiating Safe Energy", in Kilgour, D.
M. and Eden, C. (eds.), Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. (2011a). 'Negotiation in Strategy Making Teams: Group Support Systems and the Process of Cognitive Change', Group Decision and Negotiation 20, 293-314.
Ackermann, F. and Eden, C. (2011b). Making Strategy: Mapping Out Strategic Success. London: Sage.
Ackermann, F., Franco, L. A., Gallupe, B., and Parent, M. (2005). 'Group Support Systems for Multi-organizational Collaboration: reflections on process and content', Group Decision and Negotiation 14, 307-331.
Argyris, C. and Schon, D. A. (1974). Theories in Practice. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bowie, Norman E. (2012). 'Corporate Social Responsibility in Business', Creating Public Value in a Multi-sector, Shared Power World Foundation Paper,
Bozeman, B. (2002). 'Public-value failure: When efficient markets may not do', Public Administration Review 62, 145.
Bozeman, Barry. (2012). 'Public Values: Concepts and Criteria', Creating Public Value in a Multi-sector, Shared- Power World Foundation Paper,
Bryson, J. M. (1995). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C., and Stone, M. M. (2006). 'The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations: Propositions from the Literature', Public Administration Review 66, 44-55.
Carlisle, P. R. (2002). 'A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development ', Organizational Science 13, 442-455.
Carlisle, P. R. (2004). 'Transferring, Translating, and Transforming: An Integrative Framework for Managing Knowledge Across Boundaries', Organization Science 15, 555-568.
Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., and Scott, B. A. (2005). "Organizational Justice: Where Do We Stand?", in Colquitt, J.
A. and Greenberg, J. (eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue Mapping: Building Shared Understanding of Wicked Problems. Chichester: Wiley.
Connolly, T., Jessup, L. M., and Valacich, J. S. (1990). 'Effects of anonymity and evaluative tone on idea generation in computer-mediated groups', Management Science 36, 689-703.
de Geus, A. (1988). 'Planning as learning', Harvard Business Review March-April, 70-74.
Doran, G. T. (1981). 'There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives', Management Review (AMA Forum) 70, 35-36.
Eden, C and Ackermann, F. (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. London: Sage.
Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (2010). "Decision Making in Groups: theory and practice", in Nutt, P. and Wilson, D.
(eds.), Handbook of Decision Making. Oxford: Blackwell.
Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (2013). 'Problem structuring: on the nature of, and reaching agreement about, goals', EURO Journal of Decision Processes
Eden, C., Ackermann, F., Bryson, J., Richardson, G., Andersen, D., and Finn, C. (2009). 'Integrating Modes of Policy Analysis and Strategic Management Practice: Requisite Elements and Dilemmas', Journal of the Operational Research Society 60, 2-13.
Eden, C. and Huxham, C. (2001). 'The Negotiation of Purpose in Multi-Organizational Collaborative Groups', Journal of Management Studies 38, 351-369.
Fisher, Dean. (2012). 'Creating Public Value, A Design Perspective', Creating Public Value in a Multi-sector, Shared- Power World Foundation Paper,
Fisher, R. and Ury, W. (1982). Getting to Yes. London: Hutchinson.
Harvey, J. (1988). 'The Abilene Paradox: the management of agreement', Organizational Dynamics Summer, 17-34.
Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2005). Managing to Collaborate. London: Routledge.
Jacobs, Lawrence R. (2012). 'The Problem of the Public: Making Public Value in Contested Times' , Creating Public Value in a Multi-sector, Shared-Power World Foundation Paper,
Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of Group Think. Boston, MA.: Houghton Mifflin.
Janis, I. L. (1989). Crucial Decisions. New York: Free Press.
Jorgensen, Torben Beck and Bozeman, Barry. (2007). 'Public Values: an inventory', Administration & Society 39, 354-381.
Keeney, Ralph. (1988). 'Structuring Objectives for Problems of Public Interest', Operations Research 36, 396-405.
Kim, W. C. and Mauborgne, R. A. (1996). 'Procedural Justice and Managers' In-role and Extra-role Behavior: The Case of the Multinational', Management Science 42, 499-515.
Lewis, F., Bajwa, D., Pervan, G., King, V., and Munkvold, B. (2007). 'A cross-regional exploration of barriers to the adaption and use of electronic meeting systems', Group Decision and Negotiation 16, 381-398.
Lewis, L. F. (2010). "Group Support Systems: overview and guided tour", in Kilgour, D. M. and Eden, C. (eds.), Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Dordrecht: Springer.
Mintzberg, H. (1973). The Nature of Managerial Work. New York: HarperCollins.
Mintzberg, H. (1975). 'The Manager's Job: folklore and fact', Harvard Business Review July-Aug, 49-61.
Nunamaker, J. F., Dennis, A. R., Valacich, J. S., and Vogel, D. R. (1991). 'Electronic Meeting Systems to Support Group Work', Communications of the ACM 34, 40-61.
Sagawa, S. and Segal, E. (2000). 'Common Interest, Common Good: Creating Value Through Business and Social Sector Partnerships', California Management Review 42, 105-122.
Shaw, D., Eden, C., and Ackermann, F. (2009). 'Mapping Causal Knowledge: How managers consider their environment during meetings', International Journal of Management and Decision Making 10, 321-340.
Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989). 'Institutional Ecology, 'Translations,' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907 - 1939' , Social Studies of Science 19, 387-420.
Tyler, T. R. and Blader, S. L. (2003). 'The Group Engagement Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Cooperative Behavior', Personality & Social Psychology Review 7, 349-361.
Valacich, J., Vogel, D., and Nunamaker, J. (1992). 'Group size and anonymity effects on computer mediated idea generation', Small Group Research 23, 49-73.
Vangen, S. and Huxham C. (2011). 'The Tangled Web: Unraveling the Principle of Common Goals in Collaborations', Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 22, 731-760.
Winnicott, D. W. (1953). 'Transitional Objects and Transitional Phenomena: a study of the first not-me possession', The International Journal of Psych-Analysis XXXIV Part 2, 89-97.
Zagonel, A. A. (2002). 'Model Conceptualization in Group Model Building : A Review of the Literature Exploring the Tension Between Representing Reality and Negotiating a Social Order', Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Palermo, Italy, The System Dynamics Society