IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v37y2020i1p128-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systems Modeling Language viewpoint utilization to facilitate shared mental models among system stakeholders

Author

Listed:
  • L. Dale Thomas
  • Elizabeth Patterson

Abstract

Mental models are a vital part of complex engineered system design and operations and contribute to either success or failure in both system development and operations. This paper examines the Systems Modeling Language (SysML) viewpoints and views to determine whether they can illustrate elements of mental models and serve to increase communication and foster a common system understanding between individual stakeholders holding different perspectives. Two models were created in SysML, the first comparing SysML with established conceptual graphs of mental models and the second was the Lynx X‐ray Observatory, a project in concept development at National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This research revealed that shared SysML viewpoints and views can serve as conceptual graphs of shared mental models. It was also found that illustrating Lynx viewpoints and views was a valuable aid in eliciting concerns and desires of stakeholders, leading to a project more in line with desires of the stakeholders.

Suggested Citation

  • L. Dale Thomas & Elizabeth Patterson, 2020. "Systems Modeling Language viewpoint utilization to facilitate shared mental models among system stakeholders," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 128-140, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:128-140
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2610
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2610
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2610?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. Eden, Colin, 2004. "Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 673-686, December.
    2. Azad M. Madni & Michael Sievers, 2018. "Model‐based systems engineering: Motivation, current status, and research opportunities," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 21(3), pages 172-190, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Sébastien Damart, 2010. "A Cognitive Mapping Approach to Organizing the Participation of Multiple Actors in a Problem Structuring Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(5), pages 505-526, September.
    2. Etienne Rouwette & Ingrid Bastings & Hans Blokker, 2011. "A Comparison of Group Model Building and Strategic Options Development and Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(6), pages 781-803, November.
    3. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    4. Carayannis, Elias G. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Bento, Paulo & Ferreira, João J.M. & Jalali, Marjan S. & Fernandes, Bernardo M.Q., 2018. "Developing a socio-technical evaluation index for tourist destination competitiveness using cognitive mapping and MCDA," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 147-158.
    5. Meri Duryan & Dragan Nikolik & Godefridus Merode & Leopold M. G. Curfs, 2015. "Reflecting on the efficacy of cognitive mapping for decision-making in intellectual disability care: a case study," International Journal of Health Planning and Management, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 127-144, April.
    6. Gomes, Luís S. & Santos, Sérgio P. & Coelho, Luís Serra & Rebelo, Efigénio L., 2023. "Using MCDA to assist an Intermunicipal community develop a resilience strategy in face of the pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PB).
    7. Sonia Adam-Ledunois & Sébastien Damart, 2016. "The art of collective "making do"... When silos are gone!," Post-Print hal-01362382, HAL.
    8. Roy D. Johnson & Astrid Lipp, 2007. "Cognitive Mapping: A Process to Support Strategic Planning in an Academic Department," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 43-60, January.
    9. Bruno M. B. Pinto & Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Ronald W. Spahr & Mark A. Sunderman & Leandro F. Pereira, 2023. "Analyzing causes of urban blight using cognitive mapping and DEMATEL," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 1083-1110, June.
    10. Hicham El Hadraoui & Mourad Zegrari & Fatima-Ezzahra Hammouch & Nasr Guennouni & Oussama Laayati & Ahmed Chebak, 2022. "Design of a Customizable Test Bench of an Electric Vehicle Powertrain for Learning Purposes Using Model-Based System Engineering," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-22, September.
    11. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    12. Vieira, Fabiana C. & Ferreira, Fernando A.F. & Govindan, Kannan & Ferreira, Neuza C.M.Q.F. & Banaitis, Audrius, 2022. "Measuring urban digitalization using cognitive mapping and the best worst method (BWM)," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    13. Fabien Eymas & Faouzi Bensebaa, 2021. "Competitive strategies of entrepreneurs in the traditional service sector [Comportement concurrentiel des entrepreneurs du secteur des services traditionnels]," Post-Print hal-03960025, HAL.
    14. Khelil, Nabil, 2016. "The many faces of entrepreneurial failure: Insights from an empirical taxonomy," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 72-94.
    15. Dariusz Banaś & Jerzy Michnik, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Strategic Offers on the Financial and Strategic Health of the Company—A Soft System Dynamics Approach," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-20, February.
    16. Marco Castellani & Linda Alengoz & Niccolò Casnici & Flaminio Squazzoni, 2022. "A role-game laboratory experiment on the influence of country prospects reports on investment decisions in two artificial organizational settings," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 21(1), pages 121-149, June.
    17. van Winsen, Frankwin & de Mey, Yann & Lauwers, Ludwig & Van Passel, Steven & Vancauteren, Mark & Wauters, Erwin, 2013. "Cognitive mapping: A method to elucidate and present farmers’ risk perception," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 42-52.
    18. Eden, Colin & Ackermann, Fran, 2018. "Theory into practice, practice to theory: Action research in method development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(3), pages 1145-1155.
    19. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    20. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Fernandez, Tania G. & Correia, Paulo V. D., 2005. "Prioritisation of public investments in social infra-structures using multicriteria value analysis and decision conferencing: a case-study," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22740, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    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:srbeha:v:37:y:2020:i:1:p:128-140. 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/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    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.