The agency role of simulation models in model-building groups

References

• Abolafia, M. Y. (2010). Narrative construction as sensemaking: How a Central Bank thinks. Organization Studies, 31(3), 349–367. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840609357380
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alderman, N., Ivory, C., McLoughlin, I., & Vaughan, R. (2005). Sense-making as a process within complex service projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(5), 380–385. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.01.004
   Google Scholar
• Andersen, D. F., Richardson, G. P., & Vennix, J. A. (1997). Group model building: Adding more science to the craft. System Dynamics Review: The Journal of the System Dynamics Society, 13(2), 187–201. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199722)13:2<187::AID-SDR124>3.0.CO;2-O
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andersen, D. F., Vennix, J. A., Richardson, G. P., & Rouwette, E. A. (2007). Group model building: Problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(5), 691–694. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602339
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barad, K. (2003). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 28(3), 801–831. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/345321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Duke University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Barrett, M., & Oborn, E. (2010). Boundary object use in cross-cultural software development teams. Human Relations, 63(8), 1199–1221. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709355657
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black, L. J. (2013). When visuals are boundary objects in system dynamics work. System Dynamics Review, 29(2), 70–86. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1496
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bluhm, D. J., Harman, W., Lee, T. W., & Mitchell, T. R. (2011). Qualitative research in management: A decade of progress. Journal of Management Studies, 48(8), 1866–1891. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00972.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Prentice-Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Boje, D. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office - supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 106–126. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.2307/2393432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolt, T., Bayer, S., Kapsali, M., & Brailsford, S. (2020). An analytical framework for group simulation model building. Health Systems, 1–14. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/20476965.2020.1740613
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H., & Swan, J. (2003). Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 157–166. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00090-X
   Google Scholar
• Brey, P. (2006). The social agency of technological artifacts. In User behavior and technology development (pp. 71–80). Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Burger, K., White, L., & Yearworth, M. (2019). Developing a smart operational research with hybrid practice theories. European Journal of Operational Research, 277(3), 1137–1150. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.03.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Callon, M. (2006). The role of hybrid communities and socio-technical arrangements in the participatory design Kagakuteki jissen no fieldwork: Hybrid no design [Fieldwork in science practice: Design of hybrid]. Serika Shobou.
   Google Scholar
• Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.13.4.442.2953
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chongthammakun, R., Jackson, S. J. (2012). Boundary objects, agents, and organizations: Lessons from e-document system development in Thailand. 2012 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2249–2258), IEEE.
   Google Scholar
• Cochran, J. K., Mackulak, G. T., & Savory, P. A. (1995). Simulation project characteristics in industrial settings. Interfaces, 25(4), 104–113. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.25.4.104
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunliffe, A., & Coupland, C. (2012). From hero to villain to hero: Making experience sensible through embodied narrative sensemaking. Human Relations, 65(1), 63–88. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711424321
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Adderio, L. (2008). The performativity of routines: Theorising the influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines dynamics. Research Policy, 37(5), 769–789. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Gooyert, V., Rouwette, E., van Kranenburg, H., & Freeman, E. (2017). Reviewing the role of stakeholders in Operational Research: A stakeholder theory perspective. European Journal of Operational Research, 262(2), 402–410. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2017.03.079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Develaki, M. (2017a). Using computer simulations for promoting model-based reasoning. Science & Education, 26(7–9), 1001–1027. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9944-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Develaki, M. (2017b). Addressing science educational issues and goals from a modelling-based perspective—An integrating account. Science & Education, 26(6), 719–734. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9911-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2007). The impact of modelling and simulation on engineering problem solving. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 19(4), 471–489. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320701403425
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eriksson-Zetterquist, U., Lindberg, K., & Styhre, A. (2009). When the good times are over: Professionals encountering new technology. Human Relations, 62(8), 1145–1170. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709334879
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eskinasi, M., & Fokkema, E. (2006). Lessons learned from unsuccessful modelling interventions. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 23(4), 483–492. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.774
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewenstein, B., & Whyte, J. (2009). Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘Epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 07–30. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840608083014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco, A. (2013). Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects. European Journal of Operational Research, 231, 720–733.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco, A., & Montibeller, G. (2010). Facilitated modelling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(3), 489–500. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.09.030
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Franco, L. A., Rouwette, E. A. J. A., & Korzilius, H. (2016). Different paths to consensus? The impact of need for closure on model-supported group conflict management. European Journal of Operational Research, 249(3), 878–889. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.06.056
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gabriel, Y. (1991). On organizational stories and myths: Why it is easier to slay a dragon than to kill a myth. International Sociology, 6(4), 427–442. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/026858091006004004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrety, K., Robertson, P. L., & Badham, R. (2004). Integrating communities of practice in technology development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 22(5), 351–358. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2003.08.003
   Google Scholar
• Gibson, J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology, ed. R. Shaw and J. Bransfor (pp. 67–82). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Gilbert, J. K., & Justi, R. (2016). Modelling-based teaching in science education (p. 264). Springer. ISBN: 978-3-319-29038-6.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies of qualitative research. Aldine.
   Google Scholar
• González, C., Burguillo, J. C., Llamas, M., & Laza, R. (2013). Designing intelligent tutoring systems: A personalization strategy using case-based reasoning and multi-agent systems. ADCAIJ: Advances in Distributed Computing and Artificial Intelligence Journal, 2(1), 41–54. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.14201/ADCAIJ2013244154
   Google Scholar
• Graham, D., Smith, S. D., & Crapper, M. (2004). Improving concrete placement simulation with a casebased reasoning input. Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10286600410001688937
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hernes, T., & Maitlis, S. (2010). Process, sensemaking, and organizing. OUP.
   Google Scholar
• Hoegl, M., Weinkauf, K., & Gemuenden, H. G. (2004). Inter-team coordination, project commitment, and teamwork in multi-team R&D projects: A longitudinal study. Organization Science, 15(1), 38–55. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1030.0053
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hovmand, P. (2014). Community based system dynamics. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Howick, S., Ackermann, F., & Andersen, D. (2006). Linking event thinking with structural thinking: Methods to improve client value in projects. System Dynamics Review, 22(2), 113–140. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.332
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humle, D. M., & Pedersen, A. R. (2015). Fragmented work stories: Developing an antenarrative approach by discontinuity, tensions and editing. Management Learning, 46(5), 582–597. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507614553547
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarrahi, M. H., & Nelson, S. B. (2018). Agency, sociomateriality, and configuration work. The Information Society, 34(4), 244–260. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2018.1463335
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarzabkowski, P., & Kaplan, S. (2015). Strategy tools‐in‐use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice. Strategic Management Journal, 36(4), 537–558. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.2270
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jensen, C., Johansson, S., & Lofstrom, M. (2006). Project relationships – A model for analyzing interactional uncertainty. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.004
   Google Scholar
• Johansson, A. W. (2004a). Consulting as story-making. Journal of Management Development, 23(4), 339–354. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710410529794
   Google Scholar
• Johansson, A. W. (2004b). Narrating the entrepreneur. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 22(3), 273–293. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242604042379
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kallinikos, J. (2005). The order of technology: Complexity and control in a connected world. Information and Organization, 15(3), 185–202. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2005.02.001
   Google Scholar
• Knouf, N. A. (2007). Syngva: An object that raises questions of agency, relationship, and control. Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI Conference on Creativity & Cognition (C&C '07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 288pp.
   Google Scholar
• Knuuttila, T., & Voutilainen, A. (2003). A parser as an epistemic artefact: A material view on models. Philosophy of Science, 70(5), 1484–1495. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/377424
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koskinen, K. U., & Makinen, S. (2009). Role of boundary objects in negotiations of project contracts. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.10.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krummheuer, A. (2015). Technical Agency in Practice: The enactment of artefacts as conversation partners, actants and opponents. PsychNology Journal, 13(2–3), 179–202.
   Google Scholar
• Kwon, Y.-J., Jeong, J.-S., & Park, Y.-B. (2006). Roles of abductive reasoning and prior belief in children’s generation of hypotheses about pendulum motion. Science & Education, 15(6), 643–656. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-004-6407-x
   Google Scholar
• Laasch, O., Moosmayer, D. C., & Arp, F. (2020). Responsible Practices in the Wild: An actor network perspective on mobile apps in learning as translation(s). Journal of Business Ethics, 161(2), 253–277. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04214-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, A. E. (2003). The nature and development of hypothetico-predictive argumentation with implications for science teaching. International Journal of Science Education, 25(11), 1387–1408. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069032000052117
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lawson, A. E. (2009). Basic inferences of scientific reasoning, argumentation, and discovery. Science Education, 94(2), 336–364. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20357
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonardi, P. M., & Barley, S. R. (2008). Materiality and change: Challenges to building better theory about technology and organizing. Information and Organization, 18(3), 159–176. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2008.03.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maitlis, S. (2005). The social processes of organizational sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 21–49. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.15993111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meadows, D., & Robinson, J. M. (1985). The electronic oracle: Computer models and social decisions. John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Mingers, J. (2007). Operational research: The science of better? Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(5), 683–686. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602333
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435–1448. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840607081138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). 10 sociomateriality: Challenging the separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520802211644
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. (2014). The mangle of OR practice: Towards more informative case studies of ‘technical’ projects. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 65(8), 1245–1260. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.78
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. (2017). Writing practitioner case studies to help behavioural OR researchers ground their theories: Application of the mangle perspective. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 68(5), 507–520. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/s41274-016-0011-8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. (2020). The history and ideas of sociological functionalism: Talcott Parsons, modern sociological theory, and the relevance for OR. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 71(12), 1873–1899. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2019.1640590
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ormerod, R. J. (2010). Articulate intervention revisited. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 61(7), 1078–1094. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2009.47
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papadimitriou, K., & Pellegrin, C. (2007). Dynamics of a project through Intermediary Objects of Design (IODs): A sensemaking perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 437–445. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006.11.002
   Google Scholar
• Parnafes, O., & Disessa, A. (2004). Relations between types of reasoning and computational representations. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 9(3), 251–280. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-004-3794-7
   Google Scholar
• Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations, 11, 47–87.
   Google Scholar
• Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. Hutchinson.
   Google Scholar
• Richardson, G. P. (2006). Concept models. Proceedings of the 2006 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. System Dynamics Society: Albany, NY.
   Google Scholar
• Ricoeur, P. (1984). Time and narrative. University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenberger, R. (2014). Multistability and the agency of mundane artifacts: From speed bumps to subway benches. Human Studies, 37(3), 369–392. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-014-9317-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rouwette, E. A. J. A., Vennix, J. A. M., & Mullekom, T. V. (2002). Group model building effectiveness: A review of assessment studies. System Dynamics Review, 18(1), 5–45. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2–9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020003002
   Google Scholar
• Scarbrough, H., Swan, J., Laurent, S., Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., & Newell, S. (2004). Project-based learning and the role of learning boundaries. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1579–1600. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840604048001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, D. L., & Black, J. B. (1996a). Shuttling between depictive models and abstract rules: Induction and fallback. Cognitive Science, 20(4), 457–497. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2004_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwartz, D. L., & Black, J. B. (1996b). Analog imagery in mental model reasoning: Depictive models. Cognitive Psychology, 30(2), 154–219. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1996.0006
   PubMed Web of Science ®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. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1978). Rationality as process and as product of thought. The American Economic Review, 68, 1–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slife, B. D. (2004). Taking practice seriously: Toward a relational ontology. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 24(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/h0091239
   Google Scholar
• Swan, J., Bresnen, M., Newell, S., & Robertson, M. (2007). The object of knowledge: The role of objects in biomedical innovation. Human Relations, 60(12), 1809–1837. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707084915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tako, A. A. (2008). Development and use of simulation models in Operational Research: A comparison of discrete-event simulation and system dynamics (Doctor of Philosophy). University of Warwick. http://go.warwick.ac.uk/wrap/2984
   Google Scholar
• Tako, A. A., & Kotiadis, K. (2015). PartiSim: A multi-methodology framework to support facilitated simulation modelling in healthcare. European Journal of Operational Research, 244(2), 555–564. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.01.046
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tako, A. A., & Robinson, S. (2010). Model development in discrete-event simulation and system dynamics: An empirical study of expert modellers. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(2), 784–794. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2010.05.011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tavella, E., & Lami, I. (2019). Negotiating perspectives and values through soft OR in the context of urban renewal. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 70(1), 136–161. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2018.1427433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tully, P., White, L., & Yearworth, M. (2019). The value paradox of problem structuring methods. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 36(4), 424–444. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2557
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ueno, N., Sawyer, R., & Moro, Y. (2017). Reconstitution of sociotechnical arrangements: Agency and the design of artifacts. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 24(2), 95–109. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2017.1296467
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urban, G. L. (1974). Building models for decision makers. Interfaces, 4(3), 1–11. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.4.3.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vennix, J. (1996). Group model building: Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Vennix, J. A. M. (1990). Mental models and computer models. Design and evaluation of a computer-based learning environment for policy making [Ph.D. Dissertation]. University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• Verburgh, L. D. (1994). Participative policy modelling: Applied to the health care insurance industry. Linschoten, Den Haag, the Netherlands: L.D. Verburgh. ISBN: 9090069534.
   Google Scholar
• Wachowski, W. M. (2018). Commentary: Distributed cognition and distributed morality: Agency, artifacts and systems. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(April), 490–491. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00490
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weick, K. E. (2012). Organized sensemaking: A commentary on processes of interpretive work. Human Relations, 65(1), 141–153. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726711424235
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wiberg, M., Ishii, H., Dourish, P., Vallgårda, A., Kerridge, T., Sundström, P., Rosner, D., & Rolston, M. (2013). Materiality matters–experience materials. Interactions, 20(2), 54–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1145/2427076.2427087
   Google Scholar
• Yakura, E. K. (2002). Charting time: Timelines as temporal boundary objects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 956–970.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zammuto, R. F., Griffith, T. L., Majchrzak, A., Dougherty, D. J., & Faraj, S. (2007). Information technology and the changing fabric of organization. Organization Science, 18(5), 749–762. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1070.0307
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang, D. M., & Alem, L. (1996). Using case-based reasoning for exercise design in simulation-based training. In C. Frasson, G. Gauthier, and A. Lesgold (Eds.), Proceedings of the third international conference, ITS'96. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, Z. (2011). After paradigm: Why mixing-methodology theorising fails and how to make it work again. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(4), 784–798. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2010.31
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar