Chapter VI

К оглавлению
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 

An Empirical

Comparison of

Collective Causal

Mapping Approaches

Huy V. Vo

Ho Chi Minh City University of Technology, Vietnam

Marshall Scott Poole

Texas A&M University, USA

James F. Courtney

University of Central Florida, USA

Abstract

Recently, capturing and evaluating group causal maps has come to attention of IS

researchers (Tegarden and Sheetz, 2003; Lee, Courtney & O’Keefe, 1992; Vennix,

1996; Kwahk and Kim, 1999). This chapter summarizes two studies that formally

compare three approaches to building collective maps: aggregate mapping, congregate

mapping, and workshop mapping. We first provide a conceptual comparison of the

three methods. Then we empirically compare models derived with the three methods

using both objective and subjective measures. The results suggest that the aggregate

method performs best at the group level, whereas the congregate method performs best

at the organizational level. The results also indicate that the workshop method was best

at promoting knowledge sharing. These studies suggest that the workshop method can

be used in combination with aggregate mapping or congregate mapping methods to

improve the collective mapping process.