IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v40y2024i4ne1758.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Techniques to enhance the public policy impact of qualitative system dynamics models

Author

Listed:
  • Guido A. Veldhuis
  • Eefje M. Smits‐Clijsen
  • Rob P.M. van Waas

Abstract

This article demonstrates techniques to enhance the public policy impact of qualitative system dynamics models. We focus on the effective use of a large causal loop diagram (CLD) to explore a multifaceted problem situation. We discuss the conditions that can lead to developing a large CLD, the challenges this presents, and techniques that can be used to overcome them. Several techniques are discussed related to an online group model‐building (GMB) process, the use of quantitative data, visual model analyses using a software tool and reporting. The techniques are demonstrated using an impactful case study on the social impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic. We reflect on the efficacy of the approach through the lens of systems thinking and conclude that the techniques made a positive contribution to all aspects of systems thinking. Several avenues for future work are discussed. © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:40:y:2024:i:4:n:e1758
    DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1758
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1758
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sdr.1758?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. Barry Richmond, 1993. "Systems thinking: Critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 9(2), pages 113-133, June.
    2. Scott, Rodney J & Cavana, Robert Y & Cameron, Donald, 2016. "Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 908-918.
    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. 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.
    5. Irene M. W. Niks & Guido A. Veldhuis & Marianne H. J. van Zwieten & Teun Sluijs & Noortje M. Wiezer & Heleen M. Wortelboer, 2022. "Individual Workplace Well-Being Captured into a Literature- and Stakeholders-Based Causal Loop Diagram," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(15), pages 1-20, July.
    6. Jack Homer, 2014. "Levels of evidence in system dynamics modeling," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(1-2), pages 75-80, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Nici Zimmermann & Irene Pluchinotta & Giuseppe Salvia & Marianne Touchie & Helen Stopps & Ian Hamilton & Ted Kesik & Kaveh Dianati & Ting Chen, 2021. "Moving online: reflections from conducting system dynamics workshops in virtual settings," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(1), pages 59-71, 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. 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. Camilo Olaya, 2015. "Cows, agency, and the significance of operational thinking," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(4), pages 183-219, October.
    2. 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.
    3. Edgar Mascarenhas & Mónica D. Oliveira, 2025. "Correction to: Leveraging Group Decision Aiding with Decision Conferencing: A Systematic Review and a Roadmap for Future Research," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 34(3), pages 435-438, June.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Martin Kunc & Federico Barnabè & Maria Cleofe Giorgino, 2023. "Uncovering dynamic complexity in annual reports: a methodological approach using resource mapping," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(4), pages 299-335, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Kyrah K. Brown & Michael Kenneth Lemke & Saeideh Fallah‐Fini & Ariel Hall & Mercy Obasanya, 2022. "Planning, implementing, and evaluating an online group‐model‐building workshop during the COVID‐19 pandemic: celebrating successes and learning from shortcomings," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(1), pages 93-112, January.
    9. Aguiar, Anaely & Rajah, Jefferson K. & Conway-Moore, Kaitlin & Savona, Natalie & Knai, Cécile & Vlad, Ioana & Samdal, Oddrun & Rutter, Harry & Lien, Nanna & Kopainsky, Birgit, 2025. "Converging perspectives on the processes exacerbating adolescent obesity: An integrative systems approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 367(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Hugo Herrera & Nuno Videira & Hubert P.L.M. Korzilius & Kathya Lorena Cordova‐Pozo & Marleen H.F. McCardle‐Keurentjes, 2022. "Reflecting on factors influencing long‐lasting organisational effects of group model‐building interventions," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(2), pages 190-209, April.
    12. 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.
    13. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    14. 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.
    15. Gürsan, C. & de Gooyert, V., 2021. "The systemic impact of a transition fuel: Does natural gas help or hinder the energy transition?," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    16. K. Lawler & T. Vlasova & A. Moscardini, 2019. "Using System Dynamics in Macroeconomics," Вестник Киевского национального университета имени Тараса Шевченко. Экономика., Socionet;Киевский национальный университет имени Тараса Шевченко, vol. 3(204), pages 34-40.
    17. 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.
    18. Rich, Karl M. & Rich, Magda & Dizyee, Kanar, 2018. "Participatory systems approaches for urban and peri-urban agriculture planning: The role of system dynamics and spatial group model building," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 160(C), pages 110-123.
    19. Bucaro, Anthony C., 2019. "Enhancing auditors' critical thinking in audits of complex estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 35-49.
    20. Giorgio Gallo, 2013. "Conflict Theory, Complexity and Systems Approach," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 156-175, March.

    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:e1758. 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.