ARCHIVE PAPER: Micro worlds versus boundary objects in group model building: evidence from the literature on problem definition and model conceptualization (2007)

Foreword by David AndersenWhen I saw the call for papers for the Special Issue on Qualitative Aspects of System Dynamics Modeling, I immediately thought of the unpublished work completed by my graduate student Aldo Zagonel. I nominated it for consideration as an Archives paper. I believe this 2007 working paper (originally posted on the Sandia website) may be one of the best unpublished pieces of early work on the qualitative nature of our client‐based modeling efforts. (Although Dr. Zagonel included me as an author of the 2007 working paper, my involvement was simply that of a graduate advisor. He deserves all the credit for this work and manuscript.) Zagonel developed this work in his doctoral program and presented an earlier version at the 2002 International System Dynamics Conference (Zagonel 2002). That version of the paper won the Dana Meadows Award for the best student paper.Zagonel's doctoral work was part of our early efforts at UAlbany to develop group model building (GMB) as a technique in system dynamics. These approaches to model conceptualization and formulation blend quantitative and qualitative methods with strong scripted facilitation techniques. Zagonel was the first to note how this combination of approaches creates the ideal‐type dichotomy between “micro worlds” and “boundary objects” that he describes in this paper. His suggestion that much of the good work in system dynamics draws on both of these ideal types was prescient. The ideas discussed here have influenced many others over the years. I am pleased they will now be more easily accessible for our field.I am especially pleased that this paper is being published in the same issue as Laura Black's (2024) thoughtful reflection on Dr. Zagonel's paper and extension of the ideal‐type dichotomy he presents. Her paper offers an update on the idea of Zagonel's “straw man” comparison of micro worlds and boundary objects, suggesting that these are two points on a continuum of models that contribute to decision making and stakeholder interaction. She shows how this aspect of our field has developed in the last few decades and provides a clear framework for how to think about our work.Black, LJ. 2024. Reflecting on Zagonel's Dichotomy of Microworlds and Boundary Objects. System Dynamics Review.Zagonel AA. 2002. Model conceptualization in Group Model Building: A review of the literature exploring the tension between representing reality and negotiating a social order. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Palermo, Italy (July 28‐August 1).AbstractBased upon participant observation in group model building and content analysis of the system dynamics literature, I postulate that modeling efforts have a dual nature. On one hand, the modeling process aims to create a useful representation of a real‐world system. This must be done, however, while aligning the clients' mental models around a shared view of the system. There is significant overlap and confusion between these two goals and how they play out on a practical level. This research clarifies these distinctions by establishing an ideal‐type dichotomy. To highlight the differences, I created two straw men: “micro world” characterizes a model that represents reality and “boundary object” represents a socially negotiated model. Using this framework, the literature was examined, revealing evidence for several competing views on problem definition and model conceptualization. The results are summarized in the text of this article, substantiated with strikingly polarized citations, often from the same authors. I also introduce hypotheses for the duality across the remaining phases of the modeling process. Understanding and appreciation of the differences between these ideal types can promote constructive debate on their balance in system dynamics theory and practice. © 2024 System Dynamics Society.