IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v38y2022i1p41-80.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Rigorously interpreted quotation analysis for evaluating causal loop diagrams in late‐stage conceptualization

Author

Listed:
  • Andrada Tomoaia‐Cotisel
  • Samuel D. Allen
  • Hyunjung Kim
  • David Andersen
  • Zaid Chalabi

Abstract

As a field, system dynamics has made more progress in developing formal model evaluation methods that use quantitative data than ones that use qualitative data. This article describes a formal method for evaluating a causal loop diagram (CLD) in late‐stage conceptualization – referred to as rigorously interpreted quotation analysis – and illustrates its application in a case study. The method uses a systematic and explicit interpretive process to confirm or disconfirm all diagram elements in a CLD by comparing it to stakeholders’ verbatim descriptions of their experiences in a complex dynamic situation. In so doing, this method enables the resolution of discrepancies between a CLD and qualitative data, building confidence in the structural aspects of a dynamic hypothesis. It does so via a process that is approachable for experts and stakeholders alike. © 2022 System Dynamics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrada Tomoaia‐Cotisel & Samuel D. Allen & Hyunjung Kim & David Andersen & Zaid Chalabi, 2022. "Rigorously interpreted quotation analysis for evaluating causal loop diagrams in late‐stage conceptualization," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(1), pages 41-80, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:38:y:2022:i:1:p:41-80
    DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1701
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1701
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sdr.1701?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. Gary Burchill & Charles H. Fine, 1997. "Time Versus Market Orientation in Product Concept Development: Empirically-Based Theory Generation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 43(4), pages 465-478, April.
    2. David C. Lane & Özge Pala & Yaman Barlas & David C. Lane, 2015. "Validity is a Matter of Confidence—But Not Just in System Dynamics," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 450-458, July.
    3. Burchill, Gary & Fine, Charles H., 1994. "Time versus market orientation in product concept development : empirically-based theory generation," Working papers 3694-94. WP (Internationa, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    4. G P Richardson, 1999. "Reflections for the future of system dynamics," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 50(4), pages 440-449, April.
    5. Oral, Muhittin & Kettani, Ossama, 1993. "The facets of the modeling and validation process in operations research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 216-234, April.
    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. Ismail, Sharif A. & Tomoaia-Cotisel, Andrada & Noubani, Aya & Fouad, Fouad M. & Trogrlić, Robert Šakić & Bell, Sadie & Blanchet, Karl & Borghi, Josephine, 2024. "Identifying vulnerabilities in essential health services: Analysing the effects of system shocks on childhood vaccination delivery in Lebanon," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 358(C).

    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. Andrada Tomoaia‐Cotisel & Samuel D. Allen & Hyunjung Kim & David F. Andersen & Nabeel Qureshi & Zaid Chalabi, 2024. "Are we there yet? Saturation analysis as a foundation for confidence in system dynamics modeling, applied to a conceptualization process using qualitative data," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(4), October.
    2. repec:dgr:rugsom:02b13 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Kok, Robert A.W. & Hillebrand, Bas & Biemans, Wim G., 2002. "Market-oriented product development as an organizational learning capability: findings from two cases," Research Report 02B13, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    4. Jack R. Meredith, 2001. "Reconsidering the Philosophical Basis of OR/MS," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 325-333, June.
    5. Lopes, Rita & Videira, Nuno, 2017. "Modelling feedback processes underpinning management of ecosystem services: The role of participatory systems mapping," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PA), pages 28-42.
    6. Justin D. Connolly & Graeme J. Doole, 2024. "An analysis of participants' introductory experience with causal loop diagrams (CLDs) using group model building (GMB) scripts," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(4), October.
    7. Norese, Maria Franca & Viale, Susanna, 2002. "A multi-profile sorting procedure in the public administration," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 365-379, April.
    8. Camilo Olaya, 2015. "Cows, agency, and the significance of operational thinking," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(4), pages 183-219, October.
    9. 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.
    10. Antreas D. Athanassopoulos, 1998. "Decision Support for Target-Based Resource Allocation of Public Services in Multiunit and Multilevel Systems," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(2), pages 173-187, February.
    11. Anaely Aguiar, 2020. "The role of systematic reviews in the system dynamics modelling process," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 892-895, November.
    12. Ford, David N. & Sterman, John., 1997. "Expert knowledge elicitation to improve mental and formal models," Working papers WP 3953-97., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    13. Potter, Andrew & Yang, Biao & Lalwani, Chandra, 2007. "A simulation study of despatch bay performance in the steel processing industry," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 179(2), pages 567-578, June.
    14. Arnold Reisman & Muhittin Oral, 2005. "Soft Systems Methodology: A Context Within a 50-Year Retrospective of OR/MS," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(2), pages 164-178, April.
    15. Keshtkaran, Mahsa & Churilov, Leonid & Hearne, John & Abbasi, Babak & Meretoja, Atte, 2016. "Validation of a decision support model for investigation and improvement in stroke thrombolysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(1), pages 154-169.
    16. Kleijnen, Jack P. C., 1995. "Verification and validation of simulation models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(1), pages 145-162, April.
    17. Pagani, Margherita & Otto, Peter, 2013. "Integrating strategic thinking and simulation in marketing strategy: Seeing the whole system," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(9), pages 1568-1575.
    18. Timothy Clancy & Saeed P. Langarudi & Raafat Zaini, 2023. "Never the strongest: reconciling the four schools of thought in system dynamics in the debate on quality," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(3), pages 277-294, July.
    19. C W Olphert & J M Wilson, 2004. "Validation of decision-aiding spreadsheets: the influence of contingency factors," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(1), pages 12-22, January.
    20. Harper, Alison & Mustafee, Navonil & Yearworth, Mike, 2021. "Facets of trust in simulation studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 197-213.
    21. Pagani, Margherita & Fine, Charles H., 2008. "Value network dynamics in 3G-4G wireless communications: A systems thinking approach to strategic value assessment," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(11), pages 1102-1112, November.

    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:38:y:2022:i:1:p:41-80. 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.