System Dynamics Review最新文献

{"title":"Using causal loop diagrams to develop evaluative research propositions: opportunities and challenges in applications to nature-based solutions","authors":"Miriam Alvarado, Jo Garrett, James Fullam, Rebecca Lovell, Cornelia Guell, Tim Taylor, Ruth Garside, Marianne Zandersen, Benedict W. Wheeler","doi":"10.1002/sdr.1756","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1756","url":null,"abstract":"Causal loop diagrams (CLDs) are often used to provide an overview of important systemic elements related to an issue, rather than to inform empirical evaluations (studies which assess changes following an intervention using observed data). We suggest that empirical evaluations may benefit from the development of systems-informed research propositions (specific testable causal assumptions with an emphasis on feedback loops) used to guide subsequent data collection, hypothesis testing and interpretation. We describe a qualitative systems-thinking informed approach building on preexisting CLDs, published evidence, and expert/stakeholder consultation and reflect on our experience applying this to the early stages of two nature-based solution (NBS) evaluations. We reflect on our experience and suggest that CLDs can be usefully employed to develop systems-informed research propositions to inform subsequent empirical evaluation. This may lead to novel policy-relevant research propositions which differ substantially from effectiveness-oriented (“did it work?”) research questions. © 2023 The Authors. <i>System Dynamics Review</i> published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.","PeriodicalId":51500,"journal":{"name":"System Dynamics Review","volume":"178 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138631204","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Ethical considerations of using system dynamics in participatory settings: a social-ecological-systems perspective","authors":"Henry Amorocho-Daza, Pieter van der Zaag, Janez Sušnik","doi":"10.1002/sdr.1755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1755","url":null,"abstract":"The social-ecological systems (SES) approach elicits a broad understanding of some of the most pressing socionatural challenges (e.g. resource scarcity, biodiversity loss, and climate change) and the responsibility that humans have in addressing them. System dynamics has proven a powerful paradigm for dealing with complex SES-related issues. Here we discuss some ethical considerations of using system dynamics (SD) to model SES, something that is often either overlooked or discussed as an isolated issue. Sustainable development and human rights are used as ethical standpoints across the modelling cycle, opening the discussion around guiding principles that need to be considered when modelling SES. Based on these, a set of guiding ethical questions are identified and classified across a participatory SD modelling cycle. This structured approach is a simple yet potentially useful tool for SD practitioners to examine the ethical implications of their modelling endeavours in the context of grand societal challenges. © 2023 The Authors. <i>System Dynamics Review</i> published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.","PeriodicalId":51500,"journal":{"name":"System Dynamics Review","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138536061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Measuring the change in behavior of a system with a single metric","authors":"William Schoenberg, Robert Eberlein, Pål Davidsen","doi":"10.1002/sdr.1754","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1754","url":null,"abstract":"Loops that Matter (LTM) provides a practical and comprehensive way to understand which feedback loops are driving model behavior at different points in time. LTM describes from which loops the observed change in behavior across all stocks in the model originate. In this paper we present a method to measure the magnitude of the change in behavior of all stocks in the model based on net flow values, relative to the magnitude of change taking place across an entire observation (simulation) period. We call this new metric the “system change”. We then demonstrate how our system change metric can be visualized using loop scores to highlight those loops that are predominantly responsible for the changes in behavior exhibited by the model. This helps analysts focus in on the feedback loops that are prime candidates for interventions to change the model behavior. © 2023 The Authors. <i>System Dynamics Review</i> published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.","PeriodicalId":51500,"journal":{"name":"System Dynamics Review","volume":"3 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8,"publicationDate":"2023-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138536060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Strengthening a weak link: transparency of causal loop diagrams — current state and recommendations","authors":"Mohammad S. Jalali, Elizabeth Beaulieu","doi":"10.1002/sdr.1753","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1753","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Transparency is a critical aspect of systems science. While transparency of quantitative models has been assessed, transparency of their qualitative structures has been less scrutinized. We assess the transparency of causal loop diagrams (CLDs), a key qualitative visualization tool in system dynamics. We evaluate System Dynamics Review ( SDR ) publications and a sample of most‐cited comparable articles in other journals. We assess the inclusion of a plain‐language methods statement, overall discernibility of the methods, and identification of causal link sources. Reviewing 72 articles ( SDR : 36; other journals: 36), only 44%, 38%, and 25% fully satisfy each criterion, respectively. SDR articles are characterized by higher transparency in the clarity of CLD development method and communication of causal link sources, yet the potential for enhancement is evident. We provide specific recommendations to increase the transparency of CLDs. Transparent reporting benefits original research authors, future expansion of CLDs, and the systems science community. © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.","PeriodicalId":51500,"journal":{"name":"System Dynamics Review","volume":"27 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135038483","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In response to: “Never the strongest: reconciling the four schools of thought in system dynamics in the debate on quality.” — System Dynamicists versus problems, not versus fellow System Dynamicists!","authors":"William Schoenberg","doi":"10.1002/sdr.1750","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1750","url":null,"abstract":"The recent article published in this journal by Clancy et al. (2023) presents a very troubling view of the System Dynamics community as a group of warring successor states led by powerful generals, instead of the largely unified and community-led field that it is. I believe that it is wrong to amplify or encourage (even if inadvertently) the formation of “political parties” within the field based largely on an appeal to the authority of specific individuals. Individuals who express their opinions and make calls to action derived from their unique experiences do so as part of a process that is necessary to nourish the underlying democratic nature of the field. To me, the field of System Dynamics is a living community of individuals, guided by the experiences of each other and who are seeking understanding through the great lens of what I refer to as feedback-oriented thinking. Within this community, ideas and practice thrive or die based on their usefulness to those who call themselves System Dynamicists. It is the community, along with the people who use and act upon the work products of the individuals within the community, that determines what the bar for quality truly is. Through this lens, the debate about quality, or what I would prefer to call the evolution of the standards for fitness for purpose, is one where individuals express their views and perspectives on what has either made them successful, or in the case of failure, what would have made them successful or has led them to failure. Ideas on quality are not conceived in a vacuum, but instead are forged through the hard-earned experiences of individuals within the community. For the sake of this community, I appeal to this journal to please not enable the development of political parties or gate-keeping in System Dynamics. Instead, the journal should function as the mechanism through which System Dynamicists share what has made their work succeed or fail, and through that exercise let those authors help the rest of us be successful in our future work. To my fellow System Dynamicists, I believe that quality within our field does not fall neatly into any of the categories presented by Clancy et al. (2023): quality in the general sense, as hard as it is to define at that level of abstraction, crosses the boundaries drawn in the article. I believe that if, as a field, we want to find growth and future relevance, then we are going to have to embrace the living and therefore evolving nature of the community that we are all so lucky to have a small place within. We need to cultivate a System Dynamics community of critical thinkers who can take the advice and experiences gifted to them by any of their fellow community members and turn it into actions and work products that create successes, and sometimes failures, that as a group we can use to form and shape future practice. Therefore, to all my fellow System Dynamicists, I ask that you reframe this debate on quality as System Dynamicists ver","PeriodicalId":51500,"journal":{"name":"System Dynamics Review","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135391498","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Capturing the science behind the craft: a reporting framework to improve quality and confidence in nonsimulated models","authors":"Benjamin L. Turner, Michael Goodman","doi":"10.1002/sdr.1752","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1752","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Qualitative nonsimulated models (causal loop diagrams, stock‐flow diagrams, or hybrids of both) have been used since within a decade after the inception of system dynamics (SD). In this article, we assert that the well‐known weaknesses of nonsimulated models need to be balanced against the contexts, purposes, and strengths that nonsimulated models provide. We propose a framework consisting of a set of best practices for model reporting and documentation that would improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of nonsimulated models. Several high‐quality examples are described and referenced in the framework to illustrate support of each criterion. The framework's purpose is help improve the transparency around the creation and evaluation of nonsimulated models, thereby enhancing their confidence and legitimate use in SD practice. Ultimately, high‐quality nonsimulated models can offer broader access to the powerful body of SD knowledge to audiences likely never to have access to formal SD simulation models. © 2023 System Dynamics Society.","PeriodicalId":51500,"journal":{"name":"System Dynamics Review","volume":"86 2","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135540418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"In response to: “Never the strongest: reconciling the four schools of thought in system dynamics in the debate on quality” —Strengthening the field through shared tools and techniques","authors":"Robert Eberlein","doi":"10.1002/sdr.1751","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1751","url":null,"abstract":"System Dynamics ReviewEarly View Letter to the Editor In response to: “Never the strongest: reconciling the four schools of thought in system dynamics in the debate on quality” —Strengthening the field through shared tools and techniques Robert Eberlein, Corresponding Author Robert Eberlein [email protected] orcid.org/0009-0001-8444-3030 isee systems, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA Correspondence to: Robert Eberlein, isee systems, 24 Hanover Street Suite 8A, Lebanon, NH 03766, USA. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author Robert Eberlein, Corresponding Author Robert Eberlein [email protected] orcid.org/0009-0001-8444-3030 isee systems, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA Correspondence to: Robert Eberlein, isee systems, 24 Hanover Street Suite 8A, Lebanon, NH 03766, USA. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this author First published: 24 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1751 Accepted by Andreas Größler Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. References Eberlein R, Chichakly K, Größler A, King-Beall A, Moyano IM, Armenia S 2017. “Recommendations for the Conference Submission and Review Process” a Report to the System Dynamics Society Policy Council. https://proceedings.systemdynamics.org/PolicyCouncil/2017/summer/papers/P1019.pdf. Forrester JW. 2007. System dynamics—The next fifty years. System Dynamics Review 23(2–3): 359–370. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.381. Peterson DW, Eberlein R. 1994. Reality check: A bridge between systems thinking and system dynamics. System Dynamics Review 10(2–3): 159–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.4260100205. Richardson G. 2017. Confidence in Exploratory Models. In System Dynamics Society Winter Camp: Albuquerque, NM. Richardson G 2023. “Building Confidence in Exploratory Models,” in Proceedings of the 2023 System Dynamics Conference. https://proceedings.systemdynamics.org/2023/papers/P1002.pdf. Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue ReferencesRelatedInformation","PeriodicalId":51500,"journal":{"name":"System Dynamics Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135266654","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Root causes of radicalization: the terror‐contagion hypothesis","authors":"Timothy Clancy, Bland Addison, Oleg Pavlov, Khalid Saeed","doi":"10.1002/sdr.1749","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1749","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What are the root causes of mass violence terrorism? Examining this question led to a novel hypothesis that violent radicalization leading to terrorism operates as a system of social contagion. A terror contagion exploits existing grievances and moral outrage well suited for radicalizing within a high‐risk population. After a terrorist incident, media broadcasts of cultural scripts convey both a template violent ideology and a template method for mass violence. Radicalization can result when high‐risk people receive these cultural scripts sharing self‐similarity and notoriety bias to the perpetrator and their template ideology of grievance and outrage. Following the template method results in subsequent completed terror incidents creating their own media broadcasts, perpetuating the contagion. In this article, we share our methods, findings, and discuss the implications of a terror‐contagion hypothesis. We describe experiments and testable predictions to build confidence in the terror‐contagion hypothesis and our progress in them. © 2023 System Dynamics Society.","PeriodicalId":51500,"journal":{"name":"System Dynamics Review","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136142247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Call for submissions to the 2024 <scp>ISDC</scp>","authors":"Hazhir Rahmandad, Mohammad S. Jalali, Susan Howick","doi":"10.1002/sdr.1748","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1748","url":null,"abstract":"System Dynamics ReviewEarly View Call for Papers Call for submissions to the 2024 ISDC Hazhir Rahmandad, Corresponding Author Hazhir Rahmandad [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-2784-9042 MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Correspondence to: Hazhir Rahmandad, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorMohammad S. Jalali, Mohammad S. Jalali orcid.org/0000-0001-6769-2732 Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USASearch for more papers by this authorSusan Howick, Susan Howick orcid.org/0000-0002-0796-7981 Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UKSearch for more papers by this author Hazhir Rahmandad, Corresponding Author Hazhir Rahmandad [email protected] orcid.org/0000-0002-2784-9042 MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA Correspondence to: Hazhir Rahmandad, MIT Sloan School of Management, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. E-mail: [email protected]Search for more papers by this authorMohammad S. Jalali, Mohammad S. Jalali orcid.org/0000-0001-6769-2732 Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USASearch for more papers by this authorSusan Howick, Susan Howick orcid.org/0000-0002-0796-7981 Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UKSearch for more papers by this author First published: 08 October 2023 https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1748Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat No abstract is available for this article. Early ViewOnline Version of Record before inclusion in an issue RelatedInformation","PeriodicalId":51500,"journal":{"name":"System Dynamics Review","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135197474","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Analysis of dynamic models by optimization","authors":"Erling Moxnes, Sergey Naumov","doi":"10.1002/sdr.1747","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1747","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Decision‐makers use system dynamics models to understand how model structure causes problematic behaviors, and how the structure should be changed to improve performance. However, understanding problem behavior and designing policies can be complicated without analytical tools. Existing methods focus on feedback loops that drive dynamic behavior. We propose a new method, Analysis of Dynamic Models by Optimization (ADMO), which focuses on understanding the causes of well‐defined problems and on guiding system and policy design. Unlike existing methods, ADMO can evaluate the influence of exogenous variables and nonlinearities, leading to new understandings of endogenous behavior and providing insights for policy design. ADMO can be employed with any model, including differential equation, agent‐based, discrete event, or hybrid, requiring minimal effort. Two cases demonstrate the application of ADMO to analyze problems and improve both system design and policies. © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley &amp; Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.","PeriodicalId":51500,"journal":{"name":"System Dynamics Review","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135458676","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}