Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Collaboration Governance and System Dynamics Modelling: What Do Clients Want?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Enabling Collaborative Governance through Systems Modeling Methods

Part of the book series: System Dynamics for Performance Management & Governance ((SDPM,volume 4))

  • 740 Accesses

Abstract

System dynamics modellers sometimes involve decision makers in the modelling process, a method known as “group model building”. Group model building has been used to support group decision making and collaborative governance. Group model building has been associated with several different outcomes; it is not clear which of these outcomes are important to the clients that choose to engage with system dynamics modellers to provide group model building solutions. This chapter reports on group decision making in the context of public policy design and implementation and explores which outcomes are important to potential clients in the New Zealand public sector.

Senior management within four government agencies identified the employees who were most likely to commission and conduct group decision processes. These individuals participated in detailed semi-structured interviews, and completed a written questionnaire, exploring the contexts in which group model building may be useful and the outcomes sought in each situation. The results suggest that, even within the public sector, the importance of a particular outcome will depend upon context. However, public servants generally appear to value trust and agreement over policy quality when conducting group-decision processes. Knowledge of the outcomes sought by potential clients helps guide the outcomes measured by researchers and helps practitioners to tailor communication messages to clients.

This chapter is an update on the previously published article: Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y., & Cameron, D. (2016). Client perceptions of reported outcomes of group model building in the New Zealand public sector. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(1), 77–101.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Ackermann, F., Eden, C., & Brown, I. (2005). The practice of making strategy. A step-by-step guide. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, D. F., Richardson, G. P., & Vennix, J. A. M. (1997). Group model building: Adding more science to the craft. System Dynamics Review, 13(2), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andersen, D. F., Vennix, J. A. M., Richardson, G. P., & Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (2007). Group model building: Problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(5), 691–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayley, C., & French, S. (2008). Designing a participatory process for stakeholder involvement in a societal decision. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(3), 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentham, J. B., & de Visscher, A. G. (1994). Systems thinking and its influence on operational culture. In Proceedings of the 1994 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society. Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, L. J., & Andersen, D. F. (2012). Using visual representations as boundary objects to resolve conflicts in collaborative model-building approaches. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29, 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie, N. (1993). Approaches to social enquiry. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borštnar, M. K., Kljajić, M., Škraba, A., Kofjač, D., & Rajkovič, V. (2011). The relevance of facilitation in group decision making supported by a simulation model. System Dynamics Review, 27(3), 270–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, L. J. (2013). When visuals are boundary objects in system dynamics work. System Dynamics Review 29 (2):70–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carey, G., & Harris, P. (2016). Developing management practices to support joined-up governance. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 75(1), 112–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavana, R. Y., Boyd, D. M., & Taylor, R. J. (2007). A systems thinking study of retention and recruitment issues for the New Zealand army electronic technician trade group. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 24(2), 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavana, R. Y., & Clifford, L. V. (2006). Demonstrating the utility of system dynamics for public policy analysis in New Zealand: The case of excise tax policy on tobacco. System Dynamics Review, 22(4), 321–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavana, R. Y., Davies, P. K., Robson, R. M., & Wilson, K. J. (1999). Drivers of quality in health services: Different worldviews of clinicians and policy managers revealed. System Dynamics Review, 15(3), 331–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavana, R. Y., Delahaye, B. L., & Sekaran, U. (2001). Applied business research: Qualitative and quantitative methods. Brisbane: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavana, R. Y., Smith, T., Scott, R. J., & O’Connor, S. (2014). Causal mapping of the New Zealand natural resources sector system. In Proceedings of the 2014 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavana, R. Y., & Tobias, M. (2008). Integrative system dynamics: Analysis of policy options for tobacco control in New Zealand. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25(5), 675–694.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, R. G. (2000). Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: Some research questions. System Dynamics Review, 16(3), 225–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craik, K. J. W. (1943). The nature of explanation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, J. K. (1997). The cognitive psychology of systems thinking. System Dynamics Review, 13, 253–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doyle, D. K., & Ford, D. N. (1998). Mental model concepts for system dynamics research. System Dynamics Review, 14(1), 3–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, M., & Stave, K. (2008). Group model building wins: The results of a comparative analysis. In Proceedings of the 2012 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. E., & Ackermann, F. (2004). Use of “soft OR” models by clients—What do they want from them? In M. Pidd (Ed.), Systems modelling theory and practice (pp. 146–163). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. E., & Ackermann, F. (2013). ‘Joined-up’ policy-making: Group decision and negotiation practice. Group Decision and Negotiation, 23(6), 1385–1401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-013-9375-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A. (1957). The social desirability variable in personality assessment and research. New York: The Dryden Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012). An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(1), 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppel, E. (2013). Collaborative governance: Framing New Zealand practice. Institute for Governance and Policy Studies Working Paper. Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eskinasi, M., Rouwette, E., & Vennix, J. (2009). Simulating urban transformation in Haaglanden, the Netherlands. System Dynamics Review, 25(3), 182–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fokkinga, B., Bleijenbergh, I., & Vennix, J. (2009). Group model building evaluation in single cases: A method to assess changes in mental models. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, J. J., Johnston, M., Robertson, C., Glidewell, L., Entwistle, V., Eccles, M. P., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology and Health, 25(10), 1229–1245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco, L., A. (2013). Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects. European Journal of Operational Research, 231(3), 720–733.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gittelman, S., Lange, V., Cook, W. A., Frede, S. M., Lavrakas, P. J., Pierce, C., & Thomas, R. K. (2015). Accounting for social-desirability bias in survey sampling: A model for predicting and calibrating the direction and magnitude of social-desirability bias. Journal of Advertising Research, 55(3), 242–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J., & Thorogood, N. (2009). Qualitative methods for health research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenberger, M., Crenson, M. A., & Crissey, B. L. (1976). Models in the policy process: Public decision making in the computer era. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, P. (2010). Social desirability bias. In: Sheth JN, Malhotra NK, eds. Wiley international encyclopedia of marketing. John Wiley and Sons Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02057.

  • Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holsti, O. R. (1969). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hovmand, P. S., Andersen, D. F., Rouwette, E., Richardson, G. P., Rux, K., & Calhoun, A. (2012). Group model-building ‘scripts’ as a collaborative planning tool. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(2), 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huz, S. (1999). Alignment from group model building for systems thinking: Measurement and evaluation from a public policy setting. New York: State University New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huz, S., Andersen, D. F., Richardson, G. P., & Boothroyd, R. (1997). A framework for evaluating systems thinking interventions; an experimental approach to mental health system change. System Dynamics Review, 13(2), 149–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, N. A., Ross, H., Lynam, T., Perez, P., & Leitch, A. (2011). Mental models: An interdisciplinary synthesis of theory and methods. Ecology and Society, 16(1), 46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, J. (2008). A model and case for supporting participatory public decision making in e-democracy. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(3), 179–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolfschoten, G. L., & Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (2006). Choice criteria for facilitation techniques. In R. O. Briggs & J. F. Nunamaker (Eds.), Monograph of the HICSS-39 symposium on case and field studies of collaboration (pp. 35–44). Hawaii: Hawaii International Conference of System Sciences.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale, S., & Brinkman, S. (2008). InterViews (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luna-Reyes, L. F., Martinez-Moyano, I. J., Pardo, T. A., Cresswell, A. M., Andersen, D. F., & Richardson, G. P. (2006). Anatomy of a group model-building intervention: Building dynamic theory from case study research. System Dynamics Review, 22(4), 291–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinez-Moyano, I. J., & Richardson, G. P. (2013). Best practices in system dynamics modeling. System Dynamics Review, 29(2), 102–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027

  • McCardle-Keurentjes, M. H., Rouwette, E. A. J. A., & Vennix, J. A. M. (2008). Effectiveness of group model building in discovering hidden profiles in strategic decision-making. In Proceedings of the 2008 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCartt, A., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1989). Evaluating group decision support effectiveness: A performance study of decision conferencing. Decision Support Systems, 5, 243–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCartt, A. T., & Rohrbaugh, J. (1995). Managerial openness to change and the introduction of GDSS. Organizational Science, 6, 569–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & White, L. (2010). A review of the recent contribution of systems thinking to operational research and management science. European Journal of Operational Research, 207, 1147–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moray, N. (1998). Identifying mental models of complex human-machine systems. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22, 293–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munro, A. (2009). Bounded rationality and public policy: A perspective from behavioural economics. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nederhof, A. J. (1985). Methods of coping with social desirability bias: A review. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15(3), 263–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J., Barnes, M., Sullivan, H., & Knops, A. (2004). Public participation and collaborative governance. Journal of Social Policy, 33(2), 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noble, C. H. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. Journal of Business Research, 45, 119–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orne, M. (1962). On the social psychology of the psychology experiment. American Psychologist, 17, 776–783.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plottu, B., & Plottu, E. (2011). Participatory evaluation: The virtues for public governance, the constraints on implementation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 20(6), 805–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rees, D., Cavana, R. Y., & Cumming, J. (2017). Using cognitive and causal modelling to develop a theoretical framework for implementing innovative practices in primary healthcare management in New Zealand. Health Syst (Basingstoke), 7(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41306-017-0029-4. (On-line first).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, G. P., & Andersen, D. F. (1995). Teamwork in group model building. System Dynamics Review, 11(2), 113–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, G. P., Andersen, D. F., Maxwell, T. A., & Stewart, T. R. (1994). Foundations of mental model research. In Proceedings of the 1994 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, Chestnut Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Elam, G. (2003). Designing and selecting samples. In J. Ritchie & J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice. A guide for social science students and researchers (pp. 77–108). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohrbaugh, J. (1987). Assessing the effectiveness of expert teams. In J. L. Munpower, L. D. Phillips, O. Renn, & V. R. R. Uppuluri (Eds.), Expert judgment and expert systems (Vol. 35, pp. 251–267). Berlin: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rose, J., & Haynes, M. (1999). A soft systems approach to the evaluation of complex interventions in the public sector. Journal of Applied Management Studies, 8(2), 199–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (2003). Group model building as mutual persuasion. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (2011). Facilitated modelling in strategy development: Measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 879–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, E. A., Korzilius, H., Vennix, J. A., & Jacobs, E. (2011). Modeling as persuasion: The impact of group model building on attitudes and behavior. System Dynamics Review, 27(1), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, E. A. J. A., & Vennix, J. A. M. (2006). System dynamics and organizational interventions. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(4), 451–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, E. A. J. A., & Vennix, J. A. M. (2011). Group model building. In Complex systems in finance and econometrics (pp. 484–496). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, E. A., Vennix, J. A., & Felling, A. J. (2009). On evaluating the performance of problem structuring methods: An attempt at formulating a conceptual model. Group Decision and Negotiation, 18(6), 567–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vennix, J. A. M., & Van Mullekom, T. (2002). Group model building effectiveness: A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review, 18(1), 5–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. (1938). A note on the pure theory of consumers’ behaviour. Economica, 5(17), 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. J. (2014). Group model building and mental model change. PhD Thesis. University of Queensland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. J. (2017). Explaining how group model building supports enduring agreement. Journal of Management & Organization, 25(6), 783–806. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. J. (2018). Group model building: Using systems dynamics modelling to achieve enduring agreement. Melbourne: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. J., & Bardach, E. A. (2018). Comparison of management adaptations for joined-up government: Lessons from New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 78(2), 191–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. J., & Boyd, R. (2017a). Interagency performance targets: A case study of New Zealand’s results programme. New York: Business of Government Series, IBM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. J., & Boyd, R. (2017b). Joined-up for what? Response to Carey and Harris on adaptive collaboration. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 76(1), 138–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. J., & Boyd, R. (2019). Determined to succeed: Can goal commitment sustain interagency collaboration? Public Policy and Administration. Accepted for publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076720905002.

  • Scott, R. J., Cameron, D., & Cavana, R. Y. (2015). A meta-analysis of quantitative evidence for group model building. European Journal of Operations Research, 249(3), 908–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y., & Cameron, D. (2013). Evaluating immediate and long-term impacts of qualitative group model building workshops on participants’ mental models. System Dynamics Review, 29(4), 216–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y., & Cameron, D. (2016a). Group model building and strategy implementation. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66(6), 1023–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y., & Cameron, D. (2016b). Mental model change among group model building participants. Systems Research and Behavioural Science, 33(1), 100–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, R. J., Cavana, R. Y., & Cameron, D. (2016c). Client perceptions of reported outcomes of group model building in the New Zealand public sector. Group Decision and Negotiation, 25(1), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (2nd ed.). Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields, M. (2001). An experimental investigation comparing the effects of case study, management flight simulator and facilitation of these methods on mental model development in a group setting. In Proceedings of the 2001 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skivington, J. E., & Daft, R. L. (1991). A study of organizational “framework” and “process” modalities for the implementation of business-level strategic decisions. Journal of Management Studies, 28, 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • State Services Commission. (2011) Better public services advisory group report. New Zealand Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, M. A. (1974). EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69(347), 730–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business dynamics–systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Škraba, A., Kljajić, M., & Borštnar, M. K. (2007). The role of information feedback in the management group decision-making process applying system dynamics models. Group Decision and Negotiation, 16(1), 77–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Škraba, A., Kljajić, M., & Leskovar, R. (2003). Group exploration of system dynamics models—Is there a place for a feedback loop in the decision process? System Dynamics Review, 19(3), 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, P., & Carswell, L. (2000). Learning through collaboration in a distributed education environment. Educational Technology and Society, 3(3), 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J. P. (2009). How and under what conditions client learn in system dynamics consulting engagements. PhD Thesis, Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, M., Cavana, R. Y., & Bloomfield, A. (2010). Application of a system dynamics model to inform investment in smoking cessation services in New Zealand. American Journal of Public Health, 100(7), 1274–1281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treisman, D. (2007). The architecture of government. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Nistelrooij, L. P. J., Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vestijnen, I., & Vennix, J. A. M. (2012). Power-levelling as an effect of group model building. In Proceedings of the 2012 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix, J. A. M. (1995). Building consensus in strategic decision making: System dynamics as a group support system. Group Decision and Negotiation, 4(4), 335–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group model building: Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix, J. A. M., & Rouwette, E. A. J. A. (2000). Group model building. What does the client think of it now? In Proceedings of the 2000 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix, J. A. M., Scheper, W., & Willems, R. (1993). Group model building. What does the client think of it? In Proceedings of the 1993 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, L. (2002). Size matters: Large group methods and the process of operational research. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 53(2), 149–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. In Proceedings of the 2002 International System Dynamics Conference. System Dynamics Society, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zagonel, A. A., Rohrbaugh, J., Richardson, G. P., & Andersen, D. F. (2004). Using simulation models to address “what if” questions about welfare reform. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(4), 890–901.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Business, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Rodney J. Scott

  2. Victoria Business School, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

    Robert Y. Cavana

Authors
  1. Rodney J. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert Y. Cavana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rodney J. Scott .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Sciences CED4 – System Dynamics Group, University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Carmine Bianchi

  2. Department of Public Administration & Policy, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, USA

    Luis F. Luna-Reyes

  3. Department of IS & Business Analytics, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY, USA

    Eliot Rich

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Scott, R.J., Cavana, R.Y. (2020). Collaboration Governance and System Dynamics Modelling: What Do Clients Want?. In: Bianchi, C., Luna-Reyes, L.F., Rich, E. (eds) Enabling Collaborative Governance through Systems Modeling Methods. System Dynamics for Performance Management & Governance, vol 4. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42970-6_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation