IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v36y2020i1p8-28.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On structural dominance analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Rogelio Oliva

Abstract

This article is based on my talk at the 2019 International System Dynamics Conference on the occasion of receiving the Jay. W. Forrester Award for the article, “Structural dominance analysis of large and stochastic models” (System Dynamics Review 2016, 32(1): 26–51). I summarize here the history of the research project that led to the award‐winning article. I present the evolution of the ideas in a non‐technical way that develops the intuition for how eigenvalue elasticity analysis works and highlights the power of its explanations. I discuss what I believe to be the main benefits of structural dominance analysis and address the major criticisms that have been raised against it, and I close by reflecting on why I believe the capability to formally establish links between structure and behavior will become more salient in a context that pushes for larger models and demands higher standards of evidence. © 2020 System Dynamics Society

Suggested Citation

  • Rogelio Oliva, 2020. "On structural dominance analysis," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(1), pages 8-28, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:36:y:2020:i:1:p:8-28
    DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1647
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1647
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sdr.1647?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rogelio Oliva, 2016. "Structural dominance analysis of large and stochastic models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(1), pages 26-51, January.
    2. Saleh, Mohamed & Oliva, Rogelio & Kampmann, Christian Erik & Davidsen, Pål I., 2010. "A comprehensive analytical approach for policy analysis of system dynamics models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(3), pages 673-683, June.
    3. Oliva, Rogelio, 2003. "Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(3), pages 552-568, December.
    4. Poole, Marshall Scott & Van de Ven, Andrew H. & Dooley, Kevin & Holmes, Michael E., 2000. "Organizational Change and Innovation Processes: Theory and Methods for Research," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195131987.
    5. Peter R. Monge, 1990. "Theoretical and Analytical Issues in Studying Organizational Processes," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 1(4), pages 406-430, November.
    6. Rogelio Oliva & John D. Sterman, 2001. "Cutting Corners and Working Overtime: Quality Erosion in the Service Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(7), pages 894-914, July.
    7. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. William Schoenberg & John Hayward & Robert Eberlein, 2023. "Improving Loops that Matter," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(2), pages 140-151, April.
    2. William Schoenberg & Pål Davidsen & Robert Eberlein, 2020. "Understanding model behavior using the Loops that Matter method," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 158-190, April.
    3. Turner, Benjamin L., 2020. "Model laboratories: A quick-start guide for design of simulation experiments for dynamic systems models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 434(C).
    4. Edward G. Anderson & David R. Keith & Jose Lopez, 2023. "Opportunities for system dynamics research in operations management for public policy," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(6), pages 1895-1920, June.
    5. Xu, Ran & Baghaei Lakeh, Arash & Ghaffarzadegan, Navid, 2021. "Examining the characteristics of impactful research topics: A case of three decades of HIV-AIDS research," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    6. John Hayward & Paul A. Roach, 2022. "The concept of energy in the analysis of system dynamics models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(1), pages 5-40, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jair Andrade & Jim Duggan, 2021. "A Bayesian approach to calibrate system dynamics models using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(4), pages 283-309, October.
    2. Rogelio Oliva, 2016. "Structural dominance analysis of large and stochastic models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(1), pages 26-51, January.
    3. Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Richard C. Larson, 2018. "SD meets OR: a new synergy to address policy problems," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 327-353, January.
    4. Negar Darabi & Niyousha Hosseinichimeh, 2020. "System dynamics modeling in health and medicine: a systematic literature review," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(1), pages 29-73, January.
    5. Federico Cosenz & Guido Noto, 2016. "Applying System Dynamics Modelling to Strategic Management: A Literature Review," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(6), pages 703-741, November.
    6. William Schoenberg & John Hayward & Robert Eberlein, 2023. "Improving Loops that Matter," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(2), pages 140-151, April.
    7. Turner, Benjamin L., 2020. "Model laboratories: A quick-start guide for design of simulation experiments for dynamic systems models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 434(C).
    8. Deuten, Sebastiaan & Gómez Vilchez, Jonatan J. & Thiel, Christian, 2020. "Analysis and testing of electric car incentive scenarios in the Netherlands and Norway," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    9. Edward G. Anderson & David R. Keith & Jose Lopez, 2023. "Opportunities for system dynamics research in operations management for public policy," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(6), pages 1895-1920, June.
    10. Metsola, Jaakko & Leppäaho, Tanja & Paavilainen-Mäntymäki, Eriikka & Plakoyiannaki, Emmanuella, 2020. "Process in family business internationalisation: The state of the art and ways forward," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(2).
    11. Udenio, Maximiliano & Fransoo, Jan C. & Peels, Robert, 2015. "Destocking, the bullwhip effect, and the credit crisis: Empirical modeling of supply chain dynamics," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 34-46.
    12. William Schoenberg & Pål Davidsen & Robert Eberlein, 2020. "Understanding model behavior using the Loops that Matter method," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 158-190, April.
    13. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    14. Abram, Joseph J. & Dyke, James G., 2018. "Structural Loop Analysis of Complex Ecological Systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 333-342.
    15. Tamer Khraisha & Keren Arthur, 2018. "Can we have a general theory of financial innovation processes? A conceptual review," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 4(1), pages 1-27, December.
    16. Oliva, Rogelio, 2003. "Model calibration as a testing strategy for system dynamics models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 151(3), pages 552-568, December.
    17. Jeffery S. McMullen & Dimo Dimov, 2013. "Time and the Entrepreneurial Journey: The Problems and Promise of Studying Entrepreneurship as a Process," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(8), pages 1481-1512, December.
    18. Hazhir Rahmandad & Nelson Repenning, 2016. "Capability erosion dynamics," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(4), pages 649-672, April.
    19. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-ming, 2012. "Prediction of China's coal production-environmental pollution based on a hybrid genetic algorithm-system dynamics model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 521-529.
    20. Masha Shunko & Julie Niederhoff & Yaroslav Rosokha, 2018. "Humans Are Not Machines: The Behavioral Impact of Queueing Design on Service Time," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 453-473, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:36:y:2020:i:1:p:8-28. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0883-7066 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.