IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/simgam/v31y2000i3p309-330.html

Effects of Time Scale Focus on System Understanding in Decision Support Systems

Author

Listed:
  • David N. Ford

    (Texas A&M University)

  • Dalton E. M. McCormack

    (University of Bergen)

Abstract

Successfully managing dynamic complex systems requires an understanding of how structure influences both short-and long-term behavior. Therefore, decision support systems designed to improve performance by increasing user understanding require features that address both short and long time scales. The authors report the results of empirical research on the effects of features that facilitate different time scale focuses by users of management flight simulators on system understanding. System understanding was measured in two ways: with questions about structural relationships and by performance measures pertaining to the management of a complex system. Participants were divided into two time scale groups. Results were disaggregated based on causal distance and the timing of impacts to relate time scale focus and system understanding. A second experiment evaluated and improved the hypothesis to include the interaction of the time scale of system control and the time scale focus on improving system understanding and performance in managing dynamic systems .

Suggested Citation

  • David N. Ford & Dalton E. M. McCormack, 2000. "Effects of Time Scale Focus on System Understanding in Decision Support Systems," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 31(3), pages 309-330, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:simgam:v:31:y:2000:i:3:p:309-330
    DOI: 10.1177/104687810003100301
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/104687810003100301
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/104687810003100301?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. Bakken, Bent & Gould, Janet & Kim, Daniel, 1992. "Experimentation in learning organizations: A management flight simulator approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 167-182, May.
    2. Mark Paich & John D. Sterman, 1993. "Boom, Bust, and Failures to Learn in Experimental Markets," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(12), pages 1439-1458, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Herbert A. Simon, 1996. "The Sciences of the Artificial, 3rd Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262691914, December.
    5. Kishore Sengupta & Tarek K. Abdel-Hamid, 1993. "Alternative Conceptions of Feedback in Dynamic Decision Environments: An Experimental Investigation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(4), pages 411-428, 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. Gibson, Faison P., 2000. "Feedback Delays: How Can Decision Makers Learn Not to Buy a New Car Every Time the Garage Is Empty?," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 141-166, September.
    2. Atun, Rifat A. & Lebcir, Reda M. & McKee, Martin & Habicht, Jarno & Coker, Richard J., 2007. "Impact of joined-up HIV harm reduction and multidrug resistant tuberculosis control programmes in Estonia: System dynamics simulation model," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(2-3), pages 207-217, May.
    3. Langley, Paul A. & Morecroft, John D. W., 2004. "Performance and learning in a simulation of oil industry dynamics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 155(3), pages 715-732, June.
    4. Lane, David C., 1999. "Social theory and system dynamics practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 501-527, March.
    5. Miles M. Yang & Hong Jiang & Michael Shayne Gary, 2016. "Challenging learning goals improve performance in dynamically complex microworld simulations," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(3-4), pages 204-232, July.
    6. Faison P. Gibson, 2007. "Learning and transfer in dynamic decision environments," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 39-61, March.
    7. Lurie, Nicholas H. & Swaminathan, Jayashankar M., 2009. "Is timely information always better? The effect of feedback frequency on decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 108(2), pages 315-329, March.
    8. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    9. Onur Özgün & Yaman Barlas, 2015. "Effects of systemic complexity factors on task difficulty in a stock management game," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 31(3), pages 115-146, July.
    10. 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.
    11. Pingle, Mark, 1997. "Submitting to authority: Its effect on decision-making," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 45-68, February.
    12. Thomke, Stefan H., 1998. "Simulation, learning and R&D performance: Evidence from automotive development," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 55-74, May.
    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. Strohhecker, Jürgen & Leyer, Michael, 2019. "How stock-flow failure and general cognitive ability impact performance in operational dynamic control tasks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1044-1055.
    15. David C. Lane & Birgit Kopainsky & Ali Kerem Saysel, 2017. "Role of Information Feedback in Soil Nitrogen Management: Results from a Dynamic Simulation Game," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(4), pages 424-439, July.
    16. Michael Shayne Gary & Robert E. Wood, 2016. "Unpacking mental models through laboratory experiments," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(2), pages 99-127, April.
    17. Hassan Qudrat-Ullah, 2007. "Debriefing can reduce misperceptions of feedback: The case of renewable resource management," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 38(3), pages 382-397, September.
    18. Gogi, Anastasia & Tako, Antuela A. & Robinson, Stewart, 2016. "An experimental investigation into the role of simulation models in generating insights," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 931-944.
    19. Evanschitzky, Heiner & Wangenheim, Florian v. & Wünderlich, Nancy V., 2012. "Perils of Managing the Service Profit Chain: The Role of Time Lags and Feedback Loops," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 88(3), pages 356-366.
    20. Jürgen Strohhecker & Andreas Größler, 2012. "Implementing Sustainable Business Strategies," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(6), pages 547-570, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:simgam:v:31:y:2000:i:3:p:309-330. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.