IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v203y2010i3p673-683.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comprehensive analytical approach for policy analysis of system dynamics models

Author

Listed:
  • Saleh, Mohamed
  • Oliva, Rogelio
  • Kampmann, Christian Erik
  • Davidsen, Pål I.

Abstract

Formal tools to link system dynamics model's structure to the system modes of behavior have recently become available. In this paper, we aim to expand the use of these tools to perform the model's policy analysis in a more structured and formal way than the exhaustive exploratory approaches used to date. We consider how a policy intervention (a parameter change) affects a particular behavior mode by affecting the gains of particular feedback loops as well as how it affects the presence of that mode in the variable of interest. The paper demonstrates the utility of considering both of these aspects since the analysis provides an assessment of the overall impact of a policy on a variable and explains why the impact occurs in terms of structural changes in the model. Particularly in the context of larger models, this method enables a much more efficient search for leverage policies, by ranking the influence of each model parameter without the need for multiple simulation experiments.

Suggested Citation

  • Saleh, Mohamed & Oliva, Rogelio & Kampmann, Christian Erik & Davidsen, Pål I., 2010. "A comprehensive analytical approach for policy analysis of system dynamics models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(3), pages 673-683, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:203:y:2010:i:3:p:673-683
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(09)00631-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kleijnen, J.P.C., 1995. "Sensitivity analysis and optimization of system dynamics models : Regression analysis and statistical design of experiments," Other publications TiSEM 87ee6ee0-592c-4204-ac50-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. 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.
    3. Chandra, Charu & Grabis, Janis, 2005. "Application of multi-steps forecasting for restraining the bullwhip effect and improving inventory performance under autoregressive demand," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(2), pages 337-350, October.
    4. Miser, Hugh J., 1993. "A foundational concept of science appropriate for validation in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 204-215, April.
    5. Donald L. Iglehart, 1963. "Optimality of (s, S) Policies in the Infinite Horizon Dynamic Inventory Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(2), pages 259-267, January.
    6. John D. Sterman, 1989. "Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 35(3), pages 321-339, March.
    7. Richard L. Van Horn, 1971. "Validation of Simulation Results," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(5), pages 247-258, January.
    8. Lane, David C. & Oliva, Rogelio, 1998. "The greater whole: Towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(1), pages 214-235, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Hoberg, Kai & Bradley, James R. & Thonemann, Ulrich W., 2007. "Analyzing the effect of the inventory policy on order and inventory variability with linear control theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(3), pages 1620-1642, February.
    11. Morecroft, John D. W., 1988. "System dynamics and microworlds for policymakers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 301-320, June.
    12. Smith, Jeffrey H., 1993. "Modeling muddles: Validation beyond the numbers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 235-249, April.
    13. Sterman, John D., 1989. "Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 43(3), pages 301-335, June.
    14. Ian I. Mitroff, 1972. "The Myth of Objectivity OR Why Science Needs a New Psychology of Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(10), pages 613-618, June.
    15. Roy, Bernard, 1993. "Decision science or decision-aid science?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 184-203, 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. William Schoenberg & John Hayward & Robert Eberlein, 2023. "Improving Loops that Matter," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(2), pages 140-151, April.
    2. Dace, Elina & Bazbauers, Gatis & Berzina, Alise & Davidsen, Pål I., 2014. "System dynamics model for analyzing effects of eco-design policy on packaging waste management system," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 175-190.
    3. Spiegler, Virginia L.M. & Naim, Mohamed M. & Towill, Denis R. & Wikner, Joakim, 2016. "A technique to develop simplified and linearised models of complex dynamic supply chain systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(3), pages 888-903.
    4. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-ming, 2012. "Prediction of China's coal production-environmental pollution based on a hybrid genetic algorithm-system dynamics model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 521-529.
    5. Steven E. Wallis, 2021. "Understanding and improving the usefulness of conceptual systems: An Integrative Propositional Analysis‐based perspective on levels of structure and emergence," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 426-447, August.
    6. Mustafa Hekimoğlu & Yaman Barlas & Luis Luna-Reyes, 2016. "Sensitivity analysis for models with multiple behavior modes: a method based on behavior pattern measures," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(3-4), pages 332-362, July.
    7. Goh, H.H. & Lee, S.W. & Chua, Q.S. & Goh, K.C. & Kok, B.C. & Teo, K.T.K., 2014. "Renewable energy project: Project management, challenges and risk," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 917-932.
    8. Mert Edali, 2022. "Pattern‐oriented analysis of system dynamics models via random forests," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(2), pages 135-166, April.
    9. Erling Moxnes & Pål I. Davidsen, 2016. "Intuitive understanding of steady-state and transient behaviors," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(2), pages 128-153, April.
    10. Filgueira, Ramón & Chica, Manuel & Palacios, Juan José & Strohmeier, Tore & Lavaud, Romain & Agüera, Antonio & Damas, Sergio & Strand, Øivind, 2020. "Embracing multimodal optimization to enhance Dynamic Energy Budget parameterization," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 431(C).
    11. Kennedy, Deanna M. & Sommer, S. Amy & Nguyen, Phuong Anh, 2017. "Optimizing multi-team system behaviors: Insights from modeling team communication," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 264-278.
    12. Spiegler, Virginia L.M. & Naim, Mohamed M., 2017. "Investigating sustained oscillations in nonlinear production and inventory control models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(2), pages 572-583.
    13. Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Richard C. Larson, 2018. "SD meets OR: a new synergy to address policy problems," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 327-353, January.
    14. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    15. Rogelio Oliva, 2016. "Structural dominance analysis of large and stochastic models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(1), pages 26-51, January.
    16. V.L.M. Spiegler & A.T. Potter & M.M. Naim & D.R. Towill, 2016. "The value of nonlinear control theory in investigating the underlying dynamics and resilience of a grocery supply chain," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(1), pages 265-286, January.
    17. Mert Edali & Gönenç Yücel, 2020. "Analysis of an individual‐based influenza epidemic model using random forest metamodels and adaptive sequential sampling," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(6), pages 936-958, November.
    18. William Schoenberg & Pål Davidsen & Robert Eberlein, 2020. "Understanding model behavior using the Loops that Matter method," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 158-190, April.
    19. Jair Andrade & Jim Duggan, 2021. "A Bayesian approach to calibrate system dynamics models using Hamiltonian Monte Carlo," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 37(4), pages 283-309, October.
    20. Hang, Wen & Li, Xuhong, 2010. "Application of system dynamics for evaluating truck weight regulations," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 240-250, August.
    21. Bowei Xu & Junjun Li & Yongsheng Yang & Huafeng Wu & Octavian Postolache, 2019. "Model and Resilience Analysis for Handling Chain Systems in Container Ports," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-12, July.
    22. Abram, Joseph J. & Dyke, James G., 2018. "Structural Loop Analysis of Complex Ecological Systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 333-342.
    23. Sujit De & Shib Sana, 2015. "Backlogging EOQ model for promotional effort and selling price sensitive demand- an intuitionistic fuzzy approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 233(1), pages 57-76, October.
    24. Rogelio Oliva, 2020. "On structural dominance analysis," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(1), pages 8-28, January.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    4. Turner, Benjamin L., 2020. "Model laboratories: A quick-start guide for design of simulation experiments for dynamic systems models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 434(C).
    5. Lane, David C., 1999. "Social theory and system dynamics practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 501-527, March.
    6. Rogelio Oliva & John D. Sterman, 2001. "Cutting Corners and Working Overtime: Quality Erosion in the Service Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(7), pages 894-914, July.
    7. Nicholas C. Georgantzas & Evangelos G. Katsamakas, 2008. "Information systems research with system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 24(3), pages 247-264, September.
    8. 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.
    9. Howick, Susan, 2005. "Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(1), pages 239-250, April.
    10. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    11. Ciancimino, Elena & Cannella, Salvatore & Bruccoleri, Manfredi & Framinan, Jose M., 2012. "On the Bullwhip Avoidance Phase: The Synchronised Supply Chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 221(1), pages 49-63.
    12. Chiang, Chung-Yean & Lin, Winston T. & Suresh, Nallan C., 2016. "An empirically-simulated investigation of the impact of demand forecasting on the bullwhip effect: Evidence from U.S. auto industry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 53-65.
    13. Chatfield, Dean C. & Pritchard, Alan M., 2013. "Returns and the bullwhip effect," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 159-175.
    14. Rashwan, Wael & Abo-Hamad, Waleed & Arisha, Amr, 2015. "A system dynamics view of the acute bed blockage problem in the Irish healthcare system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(1), pages 276-293.
    15. K. Devika & A. Jafarian & A. Hassanzadeh & R. Khodaverdi, 2016. "Optimizing of bullwhip effect and net stock amplification in three-echelon supply chains using evolutionary multi-objective metaheuristics," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 242(2), pages 457-487, July.
    16. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    17. Sodhi, ManMohan S. & Tang, Christopher S., 2011. "The incremental bullwhip effect of operational deviations in an arborescent supply chain with requirements planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(2), pages 374-382, December.
    18. Ponte, Borja & Puche, Julio & Rosillo, Rafael & de la Fuente, David, 2020. "The effects of quantity discounts on supply chain performance: Looking through the Bullwhip lens," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    19. Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Richard C. Larson, 2018. "SD meets OR: a new synergy to address policy problems," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 327-353, January.
    20. Đula, Ivan & Größler, Andreas, 2021. "Inequity aversion in dynamically complex supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(1), pages 309-322.

    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:eee:ejores:v:203:y:2010:i:3:p:673-683. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.