IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/syspar/v34y2021i1d10.1007_s11213-019-09507-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Causal Loop Diagram Aggregation Towards Model Completeness

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Ryan

    (University of Wollongong)

  • Matthew Pepper

    (University of Wollongong)

  • Albert Munoz

    (University of Wollongong)

Abstract

Experienced system dynamicists commonly conceptualise causal relationships and feedback loops using Causal Loop Diagrams (CLDs). In adhering to best practice, multiple data collection activities may be required (e.g. multiple group model building sessions), resulting in multiple CLDs. To achieve covariation that correctly attributes cause and effect from multiple data sets, aggregation of CLDs may be necessary. Such aggregation must adequately account for attribution variations across constructed CLDs to produce a coherent view of a phenomenon of interest in a ‘complete’ model. Discourse concerning model completeness should account for the potential for method bias. The data collection method chosen for CLD development will influence the ability to create a model that is fit for the purposes of the study and influence the likelihood of achieving model completeness. So too does the method chosen for model aggregation. Little processual guidance exists on a method for data aggregation in system dynamics studies. This paper examines three data aggregation approaches, based on existing qualitative analysis methods, to determine the suitability of each method. The approaches considered include triangulation, includes all data in the aggregation process; grounded theory, bases aggregation on frequency of occurrence; and synthesis, extends aggregation to include variables based on magnitude of occurrence. Comments are made regarding the relevance of each method for different study types, with final remarks reiterating the consideration of equifinality and multifinality in research and their impact on method selection. This paper enhances the rigour of research aiming at facilitating greater success in studies utilising CLDs.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:syspar:v:34:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11213-019-09507-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11213-019-09507-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11213-019-09507-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11213-019-09507-7?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
    ---><---

    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. Lane, David C., 1992. "Modelling as learning: A consultancy methodology for enhancing learning in management teams," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 64-84, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Colin Eden & Fran Ackermann & Steve Cropper, 1992. "The Analysis Of Cause Maps," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 309-324, May.
    4. Merry-Jo D. Levers, 2013. "Philosophical Paradigms, Grounded Theory, and Perspectives on Emergence," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, December.
    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. 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.
    2. Marchant, Thierry, 1999. "Cognitive maps and fuzzy implications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(3), pages 626-637, May.
    3. Elias Hartvigsson & Erik Oscar Ahlgren & Sverker Molander, 2020. "Tackling complexity and problem formulation in rural electrification through conceptual modelling in system dynamics," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 141-153, January.
    4. 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.
    5. H A Akkermans & K E van Oorschot, 2005. "Relevance assumed: a case study of balanced scorecard development using system dynamics," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(8), pages 931-941, August.
    6. 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.
    7. Karnani, Fritjof & Schulte, Reinhard, 2010. "Screening von Gründungspotenzialen - Kompetenz-Ausgründungen aus Hochschulen und Forschungseinrichtungen. Oder: Wie man Innovationspotenziale kartographiert," Lüneburger Beiträge zur Gründungsforschung 7, Leuphana University of Lüneburg, Department of Entrepreneurship & Start-up Management.
    8. Stefan N. Groesser & Niklas Jovy, 2016. "Business model analysis using computational modeling: a strategy tool for exploration and decision-making," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 27(1), pages 61-88, February.
    9. David C. Lane, 2022. "Fons et origo: reflections on the 60th anniversary of Industrial Dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(3), pages 292-324, July.
    10. Kunc, Martin & O'Brien, Frances A., 2017. "Exploring the development of a methodology for scenario use: Combining scenario and resource mapping approaches," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 150-159.
    11. D F Andersen & J A M Vennix & G P Richardson & E A J A Rouwette, 2007. "Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 58(5), pages 691-694, May.
    12. Maria Cleofe Giorgino & Federico Barnabè & Martin Kunc, 2020. "Integrating qualitative system dynamics with accounting practices: The case of integrated reporting and resource mapping," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 37(1), pages 97-118, January.
    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. Eden, Colin & Ackermann, Fran, 2018. "Theory into practice, practice to theory: Action research in method development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(3), pages 1145-1155.
    15. Pasaoglu, Guzay & Harrison, Gillian & Jones, Lee & Hill, Andrew & Beaudet, Alexandre & Thiel, Christian, 2016. "A system dynamics based market agent model simulating future powertrain technology transition: Scenarios in the EU light duty vehicle road transport sector," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 133-146.
    16. Mohajan, Devajit & Mohajan, Haradhan, 2023. "Families of Grounded Theory: A Theoretical Structure for Novel Researchers," MPRA Paper 116752, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 24 Jan 2023.
    17. Carlo Giupponi & R. Camera & A. Fassio & A. Lasut & J. Mysiak & A. Sgobbi, 2006. "Network Analysis, Creative System Modelling and Decision Support: The NetSyMoD Approach," Working Papers 2006.46, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    18. van Rekom, Johan & Wierenga, Berend, 2007. "On the hierarchical nature of means-end relationships in laddering data," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 60(4), pages 401-410, April.
    19. Giorgio Gallo, 2013. "Conflict Theory, Complexity and Systems Approach," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 156-175, March.
    20. Parmjit Kaur & Ashley L. Carreras, 2021. "Hearing the Participants’ Voice: Recognizing the Dimensions of Procedural and Interactional Justice by Enabling Their Determinants," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(4), pages 743-773, August.

    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:spr:syspar:v:34:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1007_s11213-019-09507-7. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.