IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v40y2024i4ne1781.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are we there yet? Saturation analysis as a foundation for confidence in system dynamics modeling, applied to a conceptualization process using qualitative data

Author

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

Abstract

Saturation is a useful concept for system dynamics, yet it has not been widely explored or integrated into the modeling process. In this article, we describe saturation as a metaphor describing the point at which a conceptual representation of a system meets the study purpose and no longer requires modification. When saturation is reached, additional data about the problem would not offer added information, thus indicating that additional data gathering and analysis would likely be redundant. We discuss two visualization techniques, “saturation curves” and “shared understanding diagrams,” for assessing saturation when conceptualizing with causal loop diagrams and show their application in a case example. Using saturation analysis during a system dynamics research process has many advantages, including: (i) identifying model structures potentially needing revisions, (ii) observing the extent to which evidence supports the current conceptualization, (iii) reflecting extensively, (iv) documenting important modeling decisions, and (v) potentially improving the problem statement. © 2024 The Author(s). System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:40:y:2024:i:4:n:e1781
    DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1781
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1781
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sdr.1781?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. Eduard Romanenko & Jack Homer & Nanna Lien, 2023. "As simple as possible but not simpler: structural sensitivity testing of a dynamic model of adolescent overweight and obesity," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(2), pages 125-139, April.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    5. Isaacs, Williams & Senge, Peter, 1992. "Overcoming limits to learning in computer-based learning environments," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 183-196, May.
    6. Morecroft, John DW, 1983. "System dynamics: Portraying bounded rationality," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 131-142.
    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.
    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. 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.
    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. Stefano Armenia & Sergio Barile & Francesca Iandolo & Alessandro Pompei & Luigi Maria Sicca, 2024. "Organisational ambidexterity and knowledge management: A systems perspective towards Smart Model‐based Governance," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(3), pages 439-452, May.
    4. 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.
    5. Chen, Junjie & Liu, Pei & Lin, Borong & Zhou, Hao & Papachristos, George, 2025. "The diffusion of prefabrication technology and its potential for CO2 emissions reduction in China: A combined system dynamics and agent-based study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 210(C).
    6. Jiangbo Yu, 2022. "An elementary mechanism for simultaneously modeling discrete decisions and decision times," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(3), pages 215-245, July.
    7. Florian Kapmeier, 2020. "Reflections on developing a simulation model on sustainable and healthy diets for decision makers: Comment on the paper by Kopainsky," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 928-935, November.
    8. Sterman, John., 1986. "Testing behavioral simulation models by direct experiment," Working papers 1752-86., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    9. Guido A. Veldhuis & Dominique Blok & Maaike H.T. de Boer & Gino J. Kalkman & Roos M. Bakker & Rob P.M. van Waas, 2024. "From text to model: Leveraging natural language processing for system dynamics model development," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(3), July.
    10. Claire F. Brereton & Paul Jagals, 2021. "Applications of Systems Science to Understand and Manage Multiple Influences within Children’s Environmental Health in Least Developed Countries: A Causal Loop Diagram Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(6), pages 1-23, March.
    11. Santosh Kumar Prusty & Pratap K. J. Mohapatra & C. K. Mukherjee, 2017. "Using Generic Structures in System Dynamics Model Building: Reflection from Modeling for Indian Shrimp Industry," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 19-44, February.
    12. Igor Krejčí & Pavel Moulis & Jana Pitrová & Ivana Tichá & Ladislav Pilař & Jan Rydval, 2019. "Traps and Opportunities of Czech Small-Scale Beef Cattle Farming," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(15), pages 1-26, August.
    13. Benjamin L. Turner & Melissa Wuellner & Erin Cortus & Steven Boot Chumbley, 2022. "A multi‐university cohort model for teaching complex and interdisciplinary problem‐solving using system dynamics," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(2), pages 185-199, March.
    14. Wang, Fengquan & Jiang, Jihai & Cosenz, Federico, 2025. "Understanding data-driven business model innovation in complexity: A system dynamics approach," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    15. 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.
    16. Hines, James H., 1987. "A behavioral theory of interest rate behavior," Working papers 1951-87., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    17. John Hayward & Graeme P. Boswell, 2014. "Model behaviour and the concept of loop impact: A practical method," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(1-2), pages 29-57, January.
    18. George P. Richardson, 2024. "Building confidence in exploratory models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(4), October.
    19. Yun, JinHyo Joseph & Ahn, Heung Ju & Lee, Doo Seok & Park, Kyung Bae & Zhao, Xiaofei, 2022. "Inter-rationality; Modeling of bounded rationality in open innovation dynamics," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    20. 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.

    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:e1781. 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.