Advertisement

Emergent Consequences: Unexpected Behaviors in a Simple Model to Support Innovation Adoption, Planning, and Evaluation

  • H. Van Dyke Parunak
  • Jonathan A. Morell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8393)

Abstract

Many proven clinical interventions that have been tested in carefully controlled field settings have not been widely adopted. We study an agent-based model of innovation adoption. Traditional statistical models average out individual variation in a population. In contrast, agent-based models focus on individual behavior. Because of this difference in perspective, an agent based model can yield insight into emergent system behavior that would not otherwise be visible. We begin with a traditional logic of innovation, and cast it in an agent-based form. The model shows behavior that is relevant to successful implementation, but that is not predictable using the traditional perspective. In particular, users move continuously in a space defined by degree of adoption and confidence. High adopters bifurcate between high and low confidence in the innovation, and move between these groups over time without converging. Based on these observations, we suggest a research agenda to integrate this approach into traditional evaluation methods.

Keywords

Agent-based models emergent behavior innovation adoption clinical evaluation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berwick, D.M.: Disseminating Innovations in Health Care. Journal of the American Medical Assoiation 289(15), 1969–1975 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mabry, P.L., Milstein, B., et al.: Opening a Window on Systems Science Research in Health Promotion and Public Health. Health Education and Behavior 40(1S), 5S–8S (2013)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morell, J.A.: Evaluation in the Face of Uncertainty: Anticipating Surprise and Responding to the Inevitable. Guilford Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morell, J.A., Hilscher, R., et al.: Integrating Evaluation and Agent-Based Modeling: Rationale and an Example for Adopting Evidence-Based Practices. Journal of Multi Disciplinary Evaluation 6(14), 35–37 (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Dyke Parunak, H., Savit, R., Riolo, R.L.: Agent-Based Modeling vs. Equation-Based Modeling: A Case Study and Users’ Guide. In: Sichman, J.S., Conte, R., Gilbert, N. (eds.) MABS 1998. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1534, pp. 10–25. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rogers, E.M.: Diffusion of Innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wilensky, U.: NetLogo. Center for Connected Learning and Computer-Based Modeling, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL (1999), http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo
  8. 8.
    Wisdom, J.P., Chor, K.H.B., et al.: Innovation Adoption: A Review of Theories and Constructs. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research (2013) (in press)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. Van Dyke Parunak
    • 1
  • Jonathan A. Morell
    • 2
  1. 1.Soar Technology, Inc.Ann ArborUSA
  2. 2.Fulcrum CorporationArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations