IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v40y2024i4ne1752.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capturing the science behind the craft: a reporting framework to improve quality and confidence in nonsimulated models

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin L. Turner
  • Michael Goodman

Abstract

Qualitative nonsimulated models (causal loop diagrams, stock‐flow diagrams, or hybrids of both) have been used since within a decade after the inception of system dynamics (SD). In this article, we assert that the well‐known weaknesses of nonsimulated models need to be balanced against the contexts, purposes, and strengths that nonsimulated models provide. We propose a framework consisting of a set of best practices for model reporting and documentation that would improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of nonsimulated models. Several high‐quality examples are described and referenced in the framework to illustrate support of each criterion. The framework's purpose is help improve the transparency around the creation and evaluation of nonsimulated models, thereby enhancing their confidence and legitimate use in SD practice. Ultimately, high‐quality nonsimulated models can offer broader access to the powerful body of SD knowledge to audiences likely never to have access to formal SD simulation models. © 2023 System Dynamics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin L. Turner & Michael Goodman, 2024. "Capturing the science behind the craft: a reporting framework to improve quality and confidence in nonsimulated models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(4), October.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:40:y:2024:i:4:n:e1752
    DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1752
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1752
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sdr.1752?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. Barlas, Yaman, 1989. "Multiple tests for validation of system dynamics type of simulation models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 59-87, September.
    2. David C Lane, 2000. "Diagramming conventions in system dynamics," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(2), pages 241-245, February.
    3. E F Wolstenholme, 1999. "Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: the evolving balance," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 50(4), pages 422-428, April.
    4. Keating, Elizabeth & Oliva, Rogelio & Repenning, Nelson & Rockart, Scott & Sterman, John, 1999. "Overcoming the improvement paradox," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 120-134, April.
    5. Warren W. Farr & Samuel D. Allen & Andrada Tomoaia‐Cotisel & Peter S. Hovmand, 2022. "Documenting the modeling process with a standardized data structure described and implemented in DynamicVu," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(3), pages 264-291, July.
    6. Jack Homer, 2019. "Best practices in system dynamics modeling, revisited: a practitioner's view," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 35(2), pages 177-181, April.
    7. Juliette N. Rooney-Varga & Florian Kapmeier & John D. Sterman & Andrew P. Jones & Michele Putko & Kenneth Rath, 2020. "The Climate Action Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 114-140, 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. Krystyna Stave & Nici Zimmermann & Hyunjung Kim, 2024. "Qualitative Aspects of System Dynamics Modeling," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(4), October.

    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. Howick, Susan & Eden, Colin & Ackermann, Fran & Williams, Terry, 2008. "Building confidence in models for multiple audiences: The modelling cascade," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(3), pages 1068-1083, May.
    2. Guido A. Veldhuis & Eefje M. Smits‐Clijsen & Rob P.M. van Waas, 2024. "Techniques to enhance the public policy impact of qualitative system dynamics models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(4), October.
    3. 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.
    4. Torres, Juan Pablo & Barrera, Jose Ignacio & Kunc, Martin & Charters, Steve, 2021. "The dynamics of wine tourism adoption in Chile," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 474-485.
    5. Walters, Jeffrey P. & Archer, David W. & Sassenrath, Gretchen F. & Hendrickson, John R. & Hanson, Jon D. & Halloran, John M. & Vadas, Peter & Alarcon, Vladimir J., 2016. "Exploring agricultural production systems and their fundamental components with system dynamics modelling," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 333(C), pages 51-65.
    6. Poot-López, Gaspar Román & Hernández, Juan M. & Gasca-Leyva, Eucario, 2010. "Input management in integrated agriculture-aquaculture systems in Yucatan: Tree spinach leaves as a dietary supplement in tilapia culture," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 98-104, February.
    7. K Saeed & O V Pavlov, 2008. "Dynastic cycle: a generic structure describing resource allocation in political economies, markets and firms," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(10), pages 1289-1298, October.
    8. Ajjima Jiravichai & Ruth Banomyong, 2022. "A Proposed Methodology for Literature Review on Operational Risk Management in Banks," Risks, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Jan H. Kwakkel & Erik Pruyt, 2015. "Using System Dynamics for Grand Challenges: The ESDMA Approach," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 358-375, May.
    10. Hawwin Mardhiana & Erma Suryani & Ully Asfari & Muhammad Nasrullah, 2021. "System Dynamic Framework: Increasing Productivity Of Sugarcane To Support Sustainable Cultivation," Sustainability in Food and Agriculture (SFNA), Zibeline International Publishing, vol. 2(2), pages 105-109, June.
    11. Udeke Huiskamp & Bauke ten Brinke & Gert Jan Kramer, 2022. "The climate resilience cycle: Using scenario analysis to inform climate‐resilient business strategies," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(4), pages 1763-1775, May.
    12. Ye, Rui-Ke & Gao, Zhuang-Fei & Fang, Kai & Liu, Kang-Li & Chen, Jia-Wei, 2021. "Moving from subsidy stimulation to endogenous development: A system dynamics analysis of China's NEVs in the post-subsidy era," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    13. Enzo Bivona, 2021. "Il dynamic business modelling per lo sviluppo e la prevenzione delle crisi delle piattaforme multi-sided," MANAGEMENT CONTROL, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2021(suppl. 2), pages 91-113.
    14. Qudrat-Ullah, Hassan, 2014. "Green power in Ontario: A dynamic model-based analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 859-870.
    15. Aima Khan & Muhammad Azeem Qureshi, 2023. "Modelling the dynamics of firm valuation: An assessment of impact of exchange rate fluctuations on firm value using system dynamics," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(6), pages 890-900, November.
    16. Laimon, Mohamd & Mai, Thanh & Goh, Steven & Yusaf, Talal, 2022. "System dynamics modelling to assess the impact of renewable energy systems and energy efficiency on the performance of the energy sector," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 1041-1048.
    17. Giorgio Gallo, 2013. "Conflict Theory, Complexity and Systems Approach," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 156-175, March.
    18. Apostolos Vetsikas & Yeoryios Stamboulis & Vasiliki Georgatzi, 2024. "Exploring the coevolution of heterogeneous actors in national innovation systems: a system dynamics analysis of Finland," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 581-610, October.
    19. Philipp Wunderlich & Andreas Größler & Nicole Zimmermann & Jac A. M. Vennix, 2014. "Managerial influence on the diffusion of innovations within intra-organizational networks," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(3), pages 161-185, July.
    20. Emily Ryan & Matthew Pepper & Albert Munoz, 2021. "Causal Loop Diagram Aggregation Towards Model Completeness," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 34(1), pages 37-51, February.

    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:40:y:2024:i:4:n:e1752. 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.