Managing Complexity Through Consensus Mapping: Technology for the Structuring of Group Decisions

Writers on group decision making stress the importance of interaction during the evaluation and synthesis of ideas, but pay little attention to the structuring of ideas into organized and interrelated sets, despite the importance of such structuring for reducing the complexity group members must handle. A tool for structuring ideas, consensus mapping, is described, using a case application/or illustration. The limits of the technique's applicability and its practical and research implications are discussed.

[1]  Robert R. Blake,et al.  Group Problem Solving Effectiveness under Conditions of Pooling vs. Interaction , 1963 .

[2]  L. R. Anderson,et al.  Effect of perceived expertness upon creativity of members of brainstorming groups. , 1969, The Journal of applied psychology.

[3]  A. V. D. Ven,et al.  Group Techniques for Program Planning , 1975 .

[4]  Richard D. Duke,et al.  Principles and practices of gaming-simulation , 1981 .

[5]  Henry Mintzberg,et al.  The Structure of "Unstructured" Decision Processes , 1976 .

[6]  Ilan Vertinsky,et al.  KSIM: A methodology for interactive resource policy simulation , 1973 .

[7]  Paul C. Nutt,et al.  Hybrid Planning Methods , 1982 .

[8]  André L. Delbecq,et al.  A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning , 1971 .

[9]  Frederick C. Miner,et al.  Group versus individual decision making: An investigation of performance measures, decision strategies, and process losses/gains , 1984 .

[10]  G. W. Hill.  Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?" psychological bulletin , 1982 .

[11]  Mauk Mulder,et al.  Participation and power equalization , 1970 .

[12]  John P. Campbell,et al.  Individual versus group problem solving in an industrial sample. , 1968, The Journal of applied psychology.

[13]  I. Mitroff,et al.  On Strategic Assumption-Making: A Dialectical Approach to Policy and Planning , 1979 .

[14]  A. Delbecq,et al.  Nominal Versus Interacting Group Processes for Committee Decision-Making Effectiveness , 1971 .

[15]  Thomas J. Bouchard,et al.  Personality, problem-solving procedure, and performance in small groups. , 1969 .

[16]  John Rohrbaugh,et al.  Improving the quality of group judgment: Social judgment analysis and the nominal group technique , 1981 .

[17]  G. William Walster,et al.  A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and nominal groups☆ , 1973 .

[18]  Maynard Martin Baldwin,et al.  Portraits of complexity : applications of systems methodologies to societal problems , 1975 .

[19]  John N. Warfield,et al.  SOCIETAL SYSTEMS Planning, Policy and Complexity , 1978 .

[20]  Thomas J. Bouchard,et al.  A comparison of two group brainstorming procedures. , 1972 .

[21]  Victor H. Vroom,et al.  The consequences of social interaction in group problem solving , 1969 .

[22]  Donald C. Pelz,et al.  Originality level and the innovating process in organizations , 1982 .

[23]  Kan Chen,et al.  Value Oriented Social Decision Analysis: Enhancing Mutual Understanding to Resolve Public Policy Issues , 1979, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[24]  G. Graen,et al.  Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization , 1982 .

[25]  T. R. Stewart,et al.  Analysis of Judgment Policy: A New Approach for Citizen Participation in Planning , 1976 .