Skip to main content

The Value of System Dynamics Modeling in Policy Analytics and Planning

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Policy Analytics, Modelling, and Informatics

Abstract

An efficacious policy and planning process must be focused on enhancing the ability of decision makers to make sense of an uncertain and complex environment. One tool that could prove useful in this process is system dynamics modeling, created by Jay Forrester at MIT. Use of small system dynamics models (with each module containing ten stocks or less) as a decision support tool has recently been explored in three areas of regional planning: modeling a regional economic and education strategy for Central Coast California; the modeling of U.S.-China relations; and, the modeling of violent extremist activity. In each case, an integrated system dynamics model was created or planned that included multiple modules that comprise a strategic system. The models allowed decision-makers to use a “flight control simulator” or “dashboard” to better understand potential, non-linear, behavioral outcomes over time. When used in concert with other methods and tools of evaluation, system dynamics may provide enhanced understanding and key insights into problems previously thought too complex for this level of analysis and may encourage decision makers to examine a longer time horizon in overcoming policy resistance and establishing system stability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Sections of this chapter have borrowed from the author’s unpublished dissertation, The Effects of System Dynamics Modeling on Systems Thinking in The Context of Regional Strategic Planning, (Porter <CitationRef CitationID="CR18" >2014</Citation Ref>) that was approved for publication by the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, Ca. The views and opinions expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Navy.

Abbreviations

CLD:

Causal loop diagram

K-12:

Kindergarten through twelfth grade

MIT:

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

NPS:

Naval postgraduate school

S/I:

Susceptibility and infectivity

U.S.:

United States

USN:

United States Navy

Yr:

Year

References

  • Ackermann F, Andersen DF, Eden C, Richardson GP (2010) Using a group decision support system to add value to group model building. Syst Dyn Rev 26(4):335–346

    Google Scholar 

  • Boland RJ, Jr., Tenkasi RV (1993) Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. CEO Publication, Los Angeles, T 93-18(238)

    Google Scholar 

  • Booz-Allen H (1999) Measuring the effects of network-centric warfare, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Net Assessment, Washington, D: OMB No. 074−0188

    Google Scholar 

  • Bracken P (2006) Net assessment: a practical guide. Parameters Spring 2006:90–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradbury R, Reason P (2003) Action research, an opportunity for revitalizing research purpose and practices. Qual Soc Work 2(2):155–175

    Google Scholar 

  • Bresnahan T, Gambardella A (2004) Building high-tech clusters: Silicon Valley and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cioffi-Revilla C (2014) Introduction to computational social science: principles and applications. Springer, London

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dooley LM (2016) Case study research and theory building. Adv Dev Hum Resour 4(3):335–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle JK, Radzicki MJ, Trees WS (1998) Measuring change in mental models of dynamic systems: an exploratory study. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Social Science and Policy Studies. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester

    Google Scholar 

  • Gartner S (2015) Introduction to the special issue. CTX J 5(3):11–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghaffarzadegan N, Lyneis J, Richardson GP (2011) How small system dynamics models can help the public policy process. Syst Dyn Rev 27(1):22–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction, Piscataway

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon IR, McCann P (2000) Industrial clusters: complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks? Urban Stud 37(3):513–532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant RM (2003) Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors. Strateg Manag J 24(6):491–517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iammarino S, McCann P (2006) The structure and evolution of industrial clusters; transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers. Res Policy 35:1018–1036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz CF, Snowden DJ (2003) The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM Syst J 42(3):462−483

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meadows D (1982) Whole earth models & systems. Coevolution Q:153–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter ME (2003) The economic performance of regions. Reg Stud (37.6&7):549−578

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter NW (2014) The effects of system dynamics modeling on systems thinking in the context of regional strategic planning. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Korzilius H, Vennix JAM, Jacobs E (2011) Modeling as persuasion: the impact of group model building on attitudes and behavior. Syst Dyn Rev 27(1):1–−21

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, van Mullekom T (2002) Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. Syst Dyn Rev 18(1):5−45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaffernicht M, Groesser SN (2011) A comprehensive method for comparing mental models of dynamic systems. Eur J Oper Res 210:57−67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senge PM (1990, 2006) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Skypek TM (2010) Evaluating military balances through the lens of net assessment: history and application. J Mil Strateg Stud 12(2):1–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Snabe B (2007) The usage of system dynamics in organizational interventions. Deutscher Universitats-Verlag/GWV Fachverl, Wiesbaden

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Sci New Series 185(4157):1124–1131

    Google Scholar 

  • Veazie TG (2015) Preface to the special edition. CTX J 5(3):1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitcomb CA, Abdel-Hamid T, CAPT Wayne Porter, USN (Ret), Beery PT, Wolfgeher CA, Parker GW, CDR Michael Szczerbinski, USN, and Major Chike Robertson, USA (2015) A systems approach to modeling drivers of conflict and convergence in the asia-pacific region in the next 5–25 years. NPS Technical Report SE-15-001, May 2015. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

Gary Parker, a faculty member of Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), contributed to this chapter by providing his first-hand insights and technical expertise regarding the modeling that was done at NPS for US-China relations in the Asia-Pacific region. His assistance was greatly appreciated and his work is cited as (Whitcomb et al. 2015).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Norman Wayne Porter PhD, CAPT, USN (Ret) .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Porter, N.W. (2018). The Value of System Dynamics Modeling in Policy Analytics and Planning. In: Gil-Garcia, J., Pardo, T., Luna-Reyes, L. (eds) Policy Analytics, Modelling, and Informatics. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 25. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61762-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics