Improving the goals and process (GAP) matrix for groups: Incorporating feedback from the field

Abstract

The authors respond to issues raised by commentators about the goals and process (GAP) matrix. They discuss themes apparent in several commentaries, including the choice of nomenclature, the need for anew model, the level of complexity of the model, the difficulty of capturing dynamic groups in a rigid/reductionist model, the omission of task/work groups from the original model, and the revision of the Association for Specialists in Group Work model suggested by Conyne and Wilson. A revised version of the GAP matrix that attempts to address these issues is presented.