View source for DDS Related Publications




Galvao, A. et al (2019). Triple helix and its evolution: a systematic literature review. JSTPM. 10 (3): 812–833.

Laan, A., Madirolas, G., & De Polavieja, G. G. (2017). Rescuing collective wisdom when the average group opinion is wrong. Frontiers in Robotics and AI, 4, 56.

Malone, T. (2006). The MIT Center of Collective Intelligence. http://cci.mit.edu

Albrecht, K. (2003). Albrect’s law. In: The power of minds at work: Organizational intelligence in action (pp. 3–16). NY: AMACOM

Whyte, W. H. J. (1952). Group think. Fortune, 45, 145–146.

Warfield, J. N. (1995). Spreadthink; explaining ineffective groups. Systems Research, 12(1), 5–14.

Warfield, J. N., & Teigen, C. (1993). Groupthink, clanthink, spreadthink, and linkthink: Decision-making on complex issues in organizations. Fairfax: Institute for Advanced Study of the Integrative Sciences, George Mason University

Miller, G.A. (1956) ‘The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limitations on our capacity for processing information’, Psychology Review, Vol. 63, pp.81–97.

Christakis, A.N. & Bausch, K.B. (2006). How people harness their collective wisdom…, Greenwich CT, Information Age Publishers.

Flanagan, T. R., & Christakis, A. N. (2010). The talking point: Creating an environment for exploring complex meaning. IAP.

Laouris et al (2014). Co-laboratories of Democracy: Best Choices for Designing Sustainable Futures. In Social Systems and Design(pp. 167-183). Springer, Tokyo.

Dye, K. M., & Conaway, D. S. (1999). Lessons learned from five years of application of the CogniScope. Approach to the food and drug administration. Pennsylvania: CWA Ltd.

Banathy, B. H. (1996). Designing Social Systems in a Changing World. NY: Plenum Press.

Warfield, J. N., & Cardenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of interactive management. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Floridi, L. (2015). The Online Manifesto: Being Human in a Hyperconnected Era. Springer Cham Heidelberg New York Dordrecht London. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/onlife-original-outcome

Sage, A. (1977). Methodology for large-scale systems. New York: McGraw Hill.

Warfield, J. N. (1973). Participative methodology for public system planning. Computers & Electrical Engineering, 1(2), 187–210.

Özbekhan, H. (1969). Towards a general theory of planning. In E. Jantsch (Ed.), Per- spectives of planning (pp. 47–155). Paris: OECD Publications.

Özbekhan, H. (1970). On some of the fundamental problems in planning. Technological Forecasting, 1(3), 235–240.

Club of Rome. (1970). The predicament of mankind: quest for structured responses to growing world-wide complexities and uncertainties. A proposal. Geneva: Club of Rome. Retrieved 15 Mar 2020. https://www.futureworlds.eu/wiki/The_Predicament_of_Mankind

Özbekhan, Hasan, 2019. The Engagement Axiom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Özbekhan#Work

Laouris, Y., Laouri, R., & Christakis, A. N. (2008). Communication praxis for ethical accountability: The ethics of the tree of action: Dialogue and breaking down the wall in Cyprus. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25, 331–348.

Christakis, A. N. (1996). A people science: The CogniScope system approach, Systems. Journal of Transdisciplinary Systems Sciences, 1(1), 16–19.

Christakis, A. N., & Bausch, K. C. (Eds.). (2006). CoLaboratories of Democracy: How People Harness Their Collective Wisdom to Create the Future. IAP.

Laouris, Y., & Christakis, A. N. (2007). Harnessing collective wisdom at a fraction of the time using structured dialogic design process in a virtual communication context. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 1, 131–153.

Schreibman, V., & Christakis, A. N. (2007). New agora: new geometry of languaging and new technology of democracy: the structured design dialogue process. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 1(1), 15-31.

Flanagan, T. R., & Christakis, A. N. (2009). The talking point: creating an environment for exploring complex meaning. IAP.

Laouris, Y. (2012). The ABCs of the science of structured dialogic design. International Journal of Applied Systemic Studies, 4(4), 239–257.

Laouris, Y., & Michaelides, M. (2018). Structured Democratic Dialogue: An application of a mathematical problem structuring method to facilitate reforms with local authorities in Cyprus. European Journal of Operational Research, 268(3), 918-931.

Laouris Y., Dye K.M.C., Michaelides M., Christakis A.N. (2014) Co-laboratories of Democracy: Best Choices for Designing Sustainable Futures. In: Metcalf G. (eds) Social Systems and Design. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 1. Springer, Tokyo

Ashby, W.R. 1956, An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall, 1956, ISBN 0-416-68300-2 p207. Available online: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/ASHBBOOK.html Retrieved 15 Mar 2019.

George A. Miller, "The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two", Psych. Rev. 63(2), March, 1956, 81-97.

Herbert A. Simon, "How Big is a Chunk?", Science, 183, February 8, 1974, 482-488.

John N. Warfield, "The Magical Number Three plus Minus Zero", ISGSR meeting, Budapest, June 1987.

Hester, P. T., & Adams, K. M. (2014). Systemic thinking: Fundamentals for understanding problems and messes (Vol. 26). Springer. p.70

Boulding, K. E. (1966). The impact of the social sciences (No. 316). Vakils, Feffer and Simons Private.

Warfield, J. N. (1999). Twenty laws of complexity: Science applicable in organizations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science: The Official Journal of the International Federation for Systems Research, 16(1), 3-40. pg34

Similarity Matrix https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/similarity-matrix

Whyte, W. H. J. (1952). Group think. Fortune, 45, 145–146.

Janis, I. (1983). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Warfield, J. N., & Teigen, C. (1993). Groupthink, clanthink, spreadthink, and linkthink: Decision-making on complex issues in organizations. Fairfax: Institute for Advanced Study of the Integrative Sciences, George Mason University.

Tsivacou, I. (1997) ‘The rationality of distinctions and the emergence of power: a critical systems perspective of power in organizations’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 14, pp.21–34.

Turrisi, P.A., Ed.,1997. Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking,State University of New York Press, New York.

Dye, K. (1999). Dye’s law of requisite evolution of observations. In A. N. Christakis, & K. Bausch (Eds.), How people harness their collective wisdom and power(pp. 166–169). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Dye, K. M., & Conaway, D. S. (1999). Lessons learned from five years of application of the CogniScope. Approach to the food and drug administration. Pennsylvania: CWA Ltd.

Laouris, Y., & Dye, K. (2017). “Democratic” voting without prior exploration of relationships between alternatives favors ineffective actions. Systems Research (submitted)

Özbekhan, Hasan, 2019. The Engagement Axiom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasan_Özbekhan#Work

Laouris, Y., Laouri, R., & Christakis, A. N. (2008). Communication praxis for ethical accountability: The ethics of the tree of action: Dialogue and breaking down the wall in Cyprus. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25, 331–348.

Warfield, J. N. (1974a). Developing interconnection matrices in structural modelling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man & Cybernetics, 4(1), 81–87.

Warfield, J. N. (1974b). Toward interpretation of complex structural models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man & Cybernetics, 4(5), 405–417.

Warfield, J. N., & Staley, S. M. (1996). Structural thinking: Organizing complexity through disciplined activity. Systems Research, 13(1), 47-67.
Warfield, J. N. (1976). Societal systems: Planning, policy and complexity. New York: Wiley.

Warfield, J. N. (1982). Interpretive structural modeling (ISM). In S. A. Olsen (Ed.), Group planning & problem solving methods in engineering (pp. 155–201). New York: Wiley.

Kayo, M. M., & Ohkami, Y. (2009, July). 5.3. 3 A Method for Analyzing Fundamental Kinesiological Motions of Human Body by Applying Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM). In INCOSE International Symposium (Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 853-864).

Luthra, S., Kumar, V., Kumar, S., & Haleem, A. (2011). Barriers to implement green supply chain management in automobile industry using interpretive structural modeling technique: An Indian perspective. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management (JIEM), 4(2), 231-257.

Singh, M. D., Shankar, R., Narain, R., & Agarwal, A. (2003). An interpretive structural modeling of knowledge management in engineering industries. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 1(1), 28-40.

Kumar, S., Luthra, S., & Haleem, A. (2013). Customer involvement in greening the supply chain: an interpretive structural modeling methodology. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 9(1), 6.

Laouris, Y., & Michaelides, M. (2018). Structured Democratic Dialogue: An application of a mathematical problem structuring method to facilitate reforms with local authorities in Cyprus. European Journal of Operational Research, 268(3), 918-931.

Chronological List of SDDPs by Future Worlds Center and Associates, (2019). www.futureworlds.eu/wiki/Chronological_List_of_SDDPs_by_Future_Worlds_Center_and_Associates

Warfield, J. N. (1973). Binary matrices in system modeling. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, (5), 441-449.

ISM Software, (2019). Software that supports the Structured Dialogic Design Process.
futureworlds.eu/wiki/Software_that_supports_the_Structured_Dialogic_Design_Process Last accessed 20 Feb 2019

Galton, F. (1907), “Vox Populi”, Nature, Vol. 75 No. 1949, pp. 450-451.

Dye, K. (2006). Dye’s law of requisite evolution of observations. In A. N. Christakis, & K. Bausch (Eds.), How people harness their collective wisdom and power (pp. 166–169). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.

Laouris, Y., & Dye, K. (2019). “Democratic” voting without prior exploration of relationships between alternatives favors ineffective actions. Systems Research & Behavioral Science (submitted for publication).

Entwistle, V., Buchan, H., Coulter, A., Jadad, A., 1999. Towards constructive innovation and rigorous evaluation: a new series on methods for promoting and evaluating participation. Health Expectations 2, 75–77.

Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2004. Evaluating public participation exercises: a research agenda. Science, Technology & Human Values 29, 512–556.

Sieber, R., 2006. Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96, 491–507.

Midgley, G., Cavana, R. Y., Brocklesby, J., Foote, J. L., Wood, D. R., & Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. (2013). Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 229(1), 143-154.

Boyd A, Geerling T, Gregory W, Kagan C, Midgley G, Murray P and Walsh M. (2007). Systemic Evaluation: A Participative, Multi-Method Approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58, 1306-1320.

Shadish W.R., Cook T.D. & Leviton L.C. (1991). 'Foundations of Program Evaluation: Theories of Practice'. Sage, London.

Quinn Patton M. (2010). 'Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use'. Guilford Press, New York.

Checkland P. & Scholes J. (1990). 'Soft Systems Methodology in Action'. Wiley, Chichester.

Nov, O., Arazy, O., & Anderson, D. (2011, February). Dusting for science: motivation and participation of digital citizen science volunteers. In Proceedings of the 2011 iConference (pp. 68-74). ACM.

Rotman, D., Preece, J., Hammock, J., Procita, K., Hansen, D., Parr, C., ... & Jacobs, D. (2012, February). Dynamic changes in motivation in collaborative citizen-science projects. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 217-226). ACM.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American psychologist, 55(1), 68.

https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/collective-awareness

Garland, Jr., Theodore (20 March 2015). "The Scientific Method as an Ongoing Process". UC Riverside. Archived from the original on 19 August 2016.

Scientific Method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Trefethen, F. (1954). A history of operations research. Operations research for management, 1.

Ackermann, F., Bawden, R., Bosch, O., Brocklesby, J., Bryant, J., Buede, D., et al. (2009). Letters to the editor: The case for soft O.R. Operations Research Management Science Today, 36(2), 20–21.

Mingers, J. (2009). Taming hard problems with soft O.R.: "Soft" methodologies tackle messy problems that traditional operations research/management science can’t touch, so why isn’t it promoted in the U.S.? Operations Research Management Science Today, 36(2).

Cronin K, Midgley G and Skuba Jackson L (2014). Issues Mapping: A Problem Structuring Method for Addressing Science and Technology Conflicts. European Journal of Operational Research, 233, 145-158.

Laouris talk at the European parliament on the occasion of launching the ONLIFE Manifesto (Dec 13, 2014). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWRW2sSqVGU