Advertisement

Conceptual Foundation for the Usage of System Dynamics

Abstract

The description of the conceptual foundation for the usage of system dynamics involves a journey through a variety of disciplines: although it is based in mathematics, physics and engineering, system dynamics also draws on cognitive and social psychology, economics and other social sciences.86 According to Martinez and Richardson, conceptual differences in research designs can be discussed in terms of theory, method and procedure elements.87 The theories underlying the usage of system dynamics (why use system dynamics) are discussed in chapter B.II: Cognitive and Behavioral Rationale for the Usage of System Dynamics. The methods and procedures for the usage of system dynamics in organizational interventions (how system dynamics is used) are described in chapter B.III: The Development Process of System Dynamics Models in Corporations. Before the theory, method and procedure discussions, however, chapter B.I seeks to place the usage of system dynamics within the overall context of decision-making.

Keywords

Mental Model System Thinking Conceptual Foundation Soft System Methodology Participative Modeling 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 86.
    Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  2. 87.
    Martinez, Ignacio J and George P. Richardson: “An Expert View on the System Dynamics Modeling Process: Concurrences and Divergences Searching for Best Practices in System Dynamics Modeling”, at CD-ROM of Proceedings, System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, 2002, p. 25.Google Scholar
  3. 88.
    Baron, Jonathan: Thinking and Deciding, 3rd edition, Cambridge, UK, 2000, pp. 223–243.Google Scholar
  4. 89.
    See Baron, Jonathan: Thinking and Deciding, Cambridge, UK, 2000, p. 227, for a discussion on using game theory to examine expected-utility decision-making. Expected-utility is also a cornerstone in the expected-monetary-value method; see e.g. Tversky, Amos: “Additivity, utility and subjective probability”, in Edwards, Ward and Amos Tversky (eds.): Decision Making, 1967, pp. 208–238.Google Scholar
  5. 90.
    In Simon, Herbert A.: The Science of the Artificial, 3rd edition, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 169–181, an overall discussion is offered on the major scientific trends in this field.Google Scholar
  6. 91.
    Simon, Herbert A.: The Science of the Artificial, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 183–184.Google Scholar
  7. 92.
    Senge, Peter M.: The Fifth Discipline, New York, 1994, p. 71; Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, p. 21.Google Scholar
  8. 93.
    Milling, Peter: “Kybernetische überlegungen beim Entscheiden in komplexen Systemen”, in Entscheiden in komplexen Systemen, Wirtschaftskybernetik und Systemanalyse, Band 20, Berlin, 2002, p. 12.Google Scholar
  9. 94.
    Herbert Simons view was expressed in the 1950’s, and discussed in Hogarth, Robin: Judgement and Choice — The Psychology of Decision, 2nd edition, Chicago, 1987, p. 63.Google Scholar
  10. 95.
    Simon, Herbert A.: The Science of the Artificial, 3rd edition, Cambridge, 1996, p. 39.Google Scholar
  11. 96.
    Miller, George A.: “The Magical Number Seven, Plus Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information”, The Psychological Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, March 1956, p. 95; Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 97.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems”, in Collected Papers of Jay W. Forrester, Cambridge, 1975, p. 216. In Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, pp. 5–9, a larger number of examples of policy resistance are described. In Dörner, Dietrich: The Logic of Failure, New York, 1996, a few, but more detailed examples are discussed throughout the book; including failures in Third World efforts and the Chernobyl disaster.Google Scholar
  13. 98.
    See Rouweette, Etiënne: Group model building as mutual persuasion, Nijmegen, 2003, pp. 19–29, for a description of descriptive and prescriptive view-points in decision-making.Google Scholar
  14. 99.
    Kampmann, Christian P. E.: Feedback complexity and market adjustment, Boston, 1992, p. 28.Google Scholar
  15. 100.
    Keough, Mark and Andrew Doman: “The CEO as organization designer — An interview with Professor Jay W. Forrester, the founder of system dynamics”, The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 2, 1992, p. 5; Kim, Daniel H. and Peter M. Senge: “Putting systems thinking into practice”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, Nos. 2–4, Summer–Fall 1997, p. 280.Google Scholar
  16. 101.
    In Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  17. 102.
    Maani, Kambiz E. and Robert Y. Cavana: Systems Thinking and Modelling — Understanding Change and Complexity, Auckland, 2000, p. 21.Google Scholar
  18. 103.
    In Forrester, Jay W.: “System dynamics, system thinking, and soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994, p. 226, it is stated: “Understanding comes first, but the goal is improvement;” in Fey, Willard and John Trimble: “The Evaluation and Development of Knowledge Acquisition in System Dynamics Studies”, in Proceedings, System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, 1992, p. 174, the process orientation of system dynamics is compared to the product (being a model) orientation among hard system developers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 104.
    Groessler, Andreas, Peter Milling and Graham Winch: “Perspectives on rationality in system dynamics: a workshop report and open research questions”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2004, p. 84.Google Scholar
  20. 105.
    Checkland, Peter: “Soft System Methodology”, in Rational Analysis, Jonathan Rosenhead (ed.): Chichester, 1989, pp. 71–100; Eden, Colin: “Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis”, also in Rosenhead (ed.): Rational Analysis, Chichester, 1989, pp. 21–42; Senge, Peter M.: The Fifth Discipline, New York, 1994. Though it should be noted, that in Forrester, Jay W.: “System Dynamics, System Thinking, and Soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994, p. 253 it is argued that Senge’s system archetypes and behavioral descriptions are based upon extensively explored system dynamics models.Google Scholar
  21. 106.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “System Dynamics, System Thinking, and Soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, Summer 1994, p. 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 107.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “System Dynamics, System Thinking, and Soft OR”, p. 240.Google Scholar
  23. 109.
    Milling, Peter: “Kybernetische Überlegungen beim Entscheiden in komplexen Systemen”, in Entscheiden in komplexen Systemen, Wirtschaftskybernetik und Systemanalyse, Band 20, Berlin, 2002, pp. 12–16.Google Scholar
  24. 110.
    Sterman, John D.: “Misperceptions of Feedback in Dynamic Decision Making”, in Milling, Peter M. and Erich O.K. Zahn (eds.): Computer-Based Management of Complex Systems, Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, 1989, p. 30.Google Scholar
  25. 111.
    In Mintzberg, Henry: The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, New York, 1994, pp. 298–299 and pp. 326–328, system dynamics is criticized for being shallow in depth and not embracing creativity and intuition, although on pp. 376–378 in the same book, credits are given to a number of system dynamics case stories.Google Scholar
  26. 112.
    The whole article of Lane, David C.: “Should System Dynamics be Described as a ‘Hard’ or ‘Deterministic’ System Approach?”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 17, 2000, pp. 3–22, is a discussion of the misinterpretations of system dynamics, and also holds the quote “It may seem paradoxical but the results of a quantitative system dynamics study are qualitative insights” (p. 17).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 113.
    De Geus, Arie P.: The Living Company, Boston, 1997, p. 71.Google Scholar
  28. 114.
    Luna-Reyes, L.F. and D. L. Andersen: “Collecting and analyzing qualitative data for system dynamics: methods and models”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2003, pp. 271–296 give an overview of many qualitative data collections methods to be used not only in the beginning of a modeling process but also in the later stages. Furthermore, Hodgson, A. M.: “Hexagons for system thinking”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, 1992, pp. 123–136, introduces a soft modeling technique that is incorporated in many modeling approaches; e.g. in Group Model Building.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 115.
    De Geus, Arie P.: The Living Company, Boston, 1997, p. 72.Google Scholar
  30. 116.
    See Bakken, Bent E.: Learning and Transfer of Understanding in Dynamics Decision Environments, Boston, 1993, p. 31; Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, pp. 97–99.Google Scholar
  31. 117.
    Akkermans, Henk: Modelling With Managers, Breda, 1995, p. 116.Google Scholar
  32. 118.
    These three levels for impacts of interventions are widely used in the system dynamics literature, see Rouwette, Etiënne: Group model building as mutual persuasion, Nijmegen, 2003, pp. 21–27 for a discussion on the three levels in the literature of decision-making. In Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A Behavioural Science View, Reading, Massachusetts, 1970, p. 38, the three levels are listed together with an additional level; called intergroups (formal and informal).Google Scholar
  33. 119.
    In Dörner, Dietrich: The Logic of Failure, New York, 1996, p. 6 cognitive limitations in analytical, serial and visualized thinking are mentioned (as opposed to female, “parallel” or non-western thinking); In De Bono, Edward: Lateral Thinking for Management, England, 1971, pp. 4–9, it is argued that linear vertical thinking being overly dominant in our education system. In Miller, George A.: “The Magical Number Seven, Plus Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information”, The Psychological Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, March 1956, p. 95, limitations on the amount of information humans are able to receive, process and remember are discussed.Google Scholar
  34. 120.
    Bakken, Bent E.: Learning and Transfer of Understanding in Dynamics Decision Environments, Boston, 1993, pp. 29–30; Kampmann, Christian P. E.: Feedback complexity and market adjustment — An experimental approach, Boston, 1992, p. 31.Google Scholar
  35. 121.
    Sterman, John D.: “Misperceptions of Feedback in Dynamic Decision Making”, in Peter M. Milling and Erich O.K. Zahn (eds.): Computer-Based Management of Complex Systems, Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Heidelberg, 1989, p. 30.Google Scholar
  36. 122.
    Dörner, Dietrich: The Logic of Failure, New York, 1996, p. 18.Google Scholar
  37. 123.
    Johnson-Laird, P. N.: Mental Models, Cambridge, 1983, pp. 144–145. See also Baron, Jonathan: Thinking and Deciding, 3rd edition, Cambridge, UK, 2000, p. 74.Google Scholar
  38. 124.
    In Doyle, James K. and David N. Ford: “Mental models concepts for system dynamics research”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 1998, p. 8, reference is made to Craik’s (1943) book “The Nature of Explanation”. This reference is also made in Johnson-Laird, P. N.: Mental Models, Cambridge, 1983, p. 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 125.
    Doyle, James K. and David N. Ford: “Mental models concepts for system dynamics research”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 1998, p. 4, p. 9 and p. 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 126.
    Doyle, James K. and David N. Ford: “Mental models concepts revisited: some clarifications and a reply to Lane”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 15, No. 4, Winter 1999, p. 414. The definition is a revised version from an earlier article, based on comments in Lane, David C.: Friendly amendment: A commentary on Doyle and Ford’s proposed re-definition of “mental model”, Systems Dynamics Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, Summer 1999, pp. 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 127.
    Lane, David C.: Friendly amendment: “A commentary on Doyle and Ford’s proposed re-definition of ‘mental model’”, Systems Dynamics Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, Summer 1999, p. 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 128.
    Lane, David C.: “A commentary on Doyle and Ford’s proposed re-definition of ‘mental model’”, Systems Dynamics Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, Summer 1999, p. 186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 129.
    Doyle, James K. and David N. Ford: “Mental models concepts revisited: some clarifications and a reply to Lane”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 1998, pp. 412–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 130.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems”, in Collected Papers of Jay W. Forrester: Foreword by Gordon S. Brown, Cambridge, 1975, p. 213.Google Scholar
  45. 131.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “Counterintuitive Behavior of Social Systems”, in Collected Papers of Jay W. Forrester, Cambridge, 1975, p. 214.Google Scholar
  46. 132.
    Bakken, Bent E.: Learning and Transfer of Understanding in Dynamics Decision Environments, Boston, 1993. pp. 29–30. An often mentioned example: Newell, Allen and Herbert A. Simon: Human Problem Solving, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1972, pp. 90–91, describe the well known ‘Nine Dot Problem’ (with nine dots arranged in a 3 by 3 square array), where each subject is “directed to draw four straight lines, without raising his pencil from the paper, that pass through all nine dots.” Most subjects subconsciously assume, that the lines may not continue outside the boundaries of the square, which make the problem unsolvable.Google Scholar
  47. 133.
    Baron, Jonathan: Thinking and Deciding, 3rd edition, Cambridge, UK, 2000, p. 182.Google Scholar
  48. 134.
    The Rosenthal experiment was carried out in the 1960’s, and a description can be found in Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 20. Other experiments showing conservatism in mental models include gaming environments where participants have a tendency to stick to their initial understandings of the system even when data would suggest otherwise, see Dörner, Dietrich: The Logic of Failure, New York, 1996, p. 17.Google Scholar
  49. 135.
    Baron, Jonathan: Thinking and Deciding, 3rd edition, Cambridge, UK, 2000, p. 183.Google Scholar
  50. 136.
    Kahnemann, Daniel and Amos Tversky: “On the Psychology of Prediction”, Psychological Review, Vol. 80, No. 4, July 1973, p. 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 137.
    Hogarth, Robin: Judgment and Choice: The Psychology of Decision, 2nd edition, Chicago, 1987, p. 55.Google Scholar
  52. 138.
    Hogarth: Judgment and Choice, Chicago, 1987, p. 53. Hogarth mentions work by Tversky and Kahnemann in much of his argumentation.Google Scholar
  53. 139.
    Hogarth: Judgment and Choice, 1987, p. 52.Google Scholar
  54. 140.
    Hogarth: Judgment and Choice, 1987, p. 49.Google Scholar
  55. 142.
    McKee, Robert: “Storytelling That Moves People”, Harvard Business Review, June 2003, p. 52.Google Scholar
  56. 143.
    Baron, Jonathan: Thinking and Deciding, 3rd edition, Cambridge, UK, 2000, pp. 176–181.Google Scholar
  57. 144.
    See Hogarth, Robin: Judgment and Choice: The Psychology of Decision, Chicago, 1987, p. 130; Baron, Jonathan: Thinking and Deciding, 3rd edition, Cambridge, UK, 2000, p. 182.Google Scholar
  58. 145.
    See discussions in Hogarth, Robin: Judgment and Choice, Chicago, p. 54; Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 28.Google Scholar
  59. 146.
    Vennix: Group Model Building, 1996, p. 28, offers a number of examples from psychology literature.Google Scholar
  60. 147.
    Hogarth: Judgment and Choice, 1987, p. 109.Google Scholar
  61. 148.
    Dörner, Dietrich: The Logic of Failure, New York, 196, p. 8. An example of personal motives and perceived behavioral control influencing behavior is given in Berger, Ulrike and Isolde Bernhard-Mehlich: “Die Verhaltenswissenschaftliche Entscheidungstheorie”, in Kieser, Alfred (ed.): Organisationstheorien, 3rd edition, Stuttgart, 1999, p. 155. A practical example of how to involve emotions in change processes is the use of storytelling, see McKee, Robert: “Storytelling That Moves People”, Harvard Business Review, June 2003, p. 52.Google Scholar
  62. 149.
    Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein: “The Prediction of Behavior from Attitudinal and Normative Variables”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, No. 6, 1970, p. 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 150.
    See Ajzen, Icek: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, 1988, Chicago, pp. 20–23, and pp. 120–121. Ajzen is using the three components of attitude (cognitive, affective, and conative), arguing that this tripartite model of attitude has served as the starting point of most behavioral analyses since the 1960’s.Google Scholar
  64. 151.
    See Kotler, Philip: Marketing Management, 7th edition, New Jersey, 1991, pp. 573–575 where different buying situations are described in terms of models embracing cognitive (learning), affective (feeling) and behavior (doing) stages. The AIDA-model (awareness-interest-desire-action) is probably the most known model. Kotler also argues, that high-involvement purchases with perceived high differentiation calls for the “learn-feel-do” sequence of marketing.Google Scholar
  65. 152.
    Taken from the figure in Ajzen, Icek: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, Chicago, 1988, p. 133.Google Scholar
  66. 153.
    Ajzen, Icek: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, Chicago, 1988, p. 46. See also Rao, Abhijit: “Recognition of Conative and Affective Behavior in Web Learning using Digital Gestures”, North America Web-Based Learning Conference, Online Proceedings, New Brunswick, 2001, p. 1, on conative and affective elements improving learning experiences.Google Scholar
  67. 154.
    See Ajzen, Icek: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, 1988, p. 21.Google Scholar
  68. 155.
    Ajzen, Icek: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, 1988, p. 121; Ajzen, Icek and Martin Fishbein: “The Prediction of Behavior from Attitudinal and Normative Variables”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, No. 6, 1970, p. 483.Google Scholar
  69. 156.
    See Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykology, Herning, 1990, p. 67.Google Scholar
  70. 157.
    Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykology, 1990, p. 37.Google Scholar
  71. 158.
    See Gladwell, Malcolm: The Tipping Point, paperback edition, New York, 2002, p. 141, giving credit of the Broken Window theory to the criminologists James Q. Wilson and George Kelling. At pp. 142–145 an example of interventions partly based on this theory is described: the fight against crime in New York in the 1990’s, where fight against graffiti and fare-beating in the subway was the starting pointGoogle Scholar
  72. 159.
    Ajzen: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, Chicago, 1988, p. 128.Google Scholar
  73. 160.
    See Ajzen: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, 1988, pp. 128–131.Google Scholar
  74. 161.
    Ajzen, Icek: Attitudes, Personality and Behavior, 1988, p. 134.Google Scholar
  75. 162.
    See Bungard, Walter: “Zur Implementierungsproblematik bei Business-Reengineering Projekten”, in Perlitz, Manfred, Andreas Offinger, Michael Reinhardt and Klaus Schug (eds.): Reengineering zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit, Wiesbaden, 1996, pp. 260–261. Also Kieser, Alfred: Organisationstheorien, 3rd edition, Stuttgart, 1999, pp. 129–131, describes “Humanisierung der Arbeit” and discusses the benefits of the individual’s influencing own work situation.Google Scholar
  76. 163.
    Hogarth, Robin: Judgment and Choice — The Psychology of Decision, Chicago, 1987, p. 130.Google Scholar
  77. 164.
    Bakken, Bent E.: Learning and Transfer of Understanding in Dynamics Decision Environments, Boston, 1993, p. 31.Google Scholar
  78. 165.
    Morgan, Gareth: Creative Organization Theory, Newbury Park, California, 1989, p. 28.Google Scholar
  79. 166.
    See Argyris, Chris: Reasoning, Learning, and Action — Individual and Organizational, San Francisco, 1982, p. 39.Google Scholar
  80. 167.
    In chapter A, learning was discussed in terms of single-loop and double-loop learning. The discussions on double-loop learning and mental model refinement are closely related. Both types of learning require impact of belief systems and value systems, with beliefs being an understanding of causality and values being a network where one value is supported by the other values. The belief system especially impacts the internal process of “making sense” and defining the situation, whereas the value system subsequent impacts the problem definition, see Eden, Colin: “Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, Nos. 2–3, Summer–Fall 1994, p. 263.Google Scholar
  81. 168.
    Doyle, James K. and David N. Ford: “Mental models concepts revisited: some clarifications and a reply to Lane”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 14, No. 1, Spring 1998, p. 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 169.
    Lewin, Kurt: “Group Decision and Social Change” (first published in Newcomb and Hartley’s Readings in social psychology, 1948, pp. 330–341), in Gold, Martin: The Complete Social Scientist — A Kurt Lewin Reader, Washington, 1999, pp. 276–279. Note that Lewin has a different terminology use compared to most SD research, as he calls individual decision made in a group setting for “group decisions” (see p. 274).Google Scholar
  83. 170.
    Lewin, Kurt: “Group Decision and Social Change”, in Gold, Martin: The Complete Social Scientist — A Kurt Lewin Reader, Washington, 1999, p. 273 and p. 281.Google Scholar
  84. 171.
    Baron, Jonathan: Thinking and Deciding, 3rd edition, Cambridge, UK, 2000, p. 208. Leavitt, Harold J.: Top Down — Why Hierarchies Are Here to Stay and How to Manage Them More Effectively, Boston, 2005, p. 130, discuss the same concept, stating that “we humans don’t just do what we believe. We also believe what we do.”Google Scholar
  85. 172.
    Janis, Irving L.: “Groupthink: The Problems of Conformity” (original printed in Psychology Today, Nov. 1971, pp. 271–279), in Morgan, Gareth: Creative Organization Theory, Newbury Park, California, 1989, pp. 224–228.Google Scholar
  86. 173.
    Dörner, Dietrich: The Logic of Failure, New York, 1996, p. 34.Google Scholar
  87. 174.
    Dörner, Dietrich: The Logic of Failure, New York, 1996, pp. 30–33; Salge, Markus and Peter Milling: “Who is to blame, the operator or the designer? Two stages of human failure in the Chernobyl accident”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 22, in print, 2006.Google Scholar
  88. 175.
    Quoted in Morgan, Gareth: Creative Organization Theory, Newbury Park, California, 1989, p. 22.Google Scholar
  89. 176.
    For a definition on cognitive diversity, see Tilebein, Meike: “Eine strukturwissenschaftliche Betrachtung von Diversity Management”, Tagungsband, GWS-Tagung, Greifswald, in print, 2006, p. 1.Google Scholar
  90. 177.
    Pearson, Alan: “You Drive for the Show but you Putt for the Dough”, appendix in Beer, Stafford: Beyond Dispute — The Invention of Team Syntegrity, 1994, p. 321.Google Scholar
  91. 178.
    See Beer, Stafford: Beyond Dispute — The Invention of Team Syntegrity, 1994, p. 59 and p. 102.Google Scholar
  92. 179.
    Kanter, Rosabeth Moss: “Leadership and the Psychology of Turnarounds”, Harvard Business Review, June 2003, p. 61.Google Scholar
  93. 180.
    Eden, Colin: “Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, Nos. 2–3, Summer–Fall 1994, p. 259; Rouwette, Etiënne: Group model building as mutual persuasion, Nijmegen, 2003, p. 251. Also the alignment of mental models has some similarities with building collective intuition, see Eisenhardt, Kathleen M.: “Strategy as Strategic Decision Making”, Sloan Management Review, Spring 1999, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar
  94. 181.
    Maier, Frank: Die Integration wissens-und modellbasierter Konzepte zur Entscheidungsunterstützung im Innovationsmanagement, Berlin, 1995, p. 217.Google Scholar
  95. 182.
    In Kim, Daniel H. and Peter M. Senge: “Putting systems thinking into practice”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, Nos. 2–4, Summer–Fall 1997, p. 279, the concept of mental models is called the transfer mechanism between individual learning and organizational learning. In Senge, Peter M.: The Fifth Discipline, New York, 1994, mental models and system thinking are together with team learning, shared vision and personal mastery, described as the main elements in organizational learning.Google Scholar
  96. 183.
    For literature overview and discussions of organizational learning, see Argyris, Chris: On Organisational Learning, 2nd edition, Oxford, 1999, pp. 7–14; and Kieser, Alfred and Ulrich Koch: Organizational Learning through Rule Adaptation: From the Behavioral Theory to Transactive Organizational Learning, Mannheim, 2000, pp. 2–26.Google Scholar
  97. 184.
    Senge, Peter M.: The Fifth Discipline, New York, 1994, p. 69; Sterman, John D.: “All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, Winter 2002, p. 526.Google Scholar
  98. 185.
    Argyris, Chris and Donald Schön: “Organizational Learning: A theory of Action Perspective” (first printed as part of book with the same title in 1978), reprint in Morgan, Gareth: Creative Organization Theory, Newbury Park, California, 1989, p. 140; Argyris, Chris: Reasoning, Learning, and Action — Individual and Organizational, San Francisco, 1982, p. 160.Google Scholar
  99. 186.
    Argyris, Chris and Donald Schön: “Organizational Learning: A theory of Action Perspective”, reprint in Morgan, Gareth: Creative Organization Theory, Newbury Park, Ca., 1989, p. 142.Google Scholar
  100. 187.
    Argyris, Chris: On Organisational Learning, 2nd edition, Oxford, 1999, pp. 230–238.Google Scholar
  101. 188.
    Schein, Edgar H.: Process Consultation, Boston, 2000, part I, p. 194.Google Scholar
  102. 189.
    De Geus Aire P: “Planning as Learning”, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1988, p. 70.Google Scholar
  103. 190.
    Milling, Peter: “Organisationales Lernen und seine Unterstützung durch Managementsimulatoren”, in: Zeitschrift fåür Bestriebswirtschaft, 65 Jg. Lernende Unternehmen (Sonderausgabe), 1995, pp. 98–100.Google Scholar
  104. 191.
    Kim, Daniel H. and Peter M. Senge: “Putting systems thinking into practice”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, Nos. 2–4, Summer–Fall 1997, pp. 280–281. This framework is more comprehensive, and includes a number of different types of learning, but is as a consequence less intuitively understandable compared to the framework of Milling.Google Scholar
  105. 192.
    Own translation of figure in Milling, Peter: “Organisationales Lernen und seine Unterstützung durch Managementsimulatoren”, in: Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft 3/95, Lernende Unternehmen (Sonderausgabe), 1995, p. 100.Google Scholar
  106. 193.
    Kim, Daniel H. and Peter M. Senge: “Putting systems thinking into practice”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, Nos. 2–4, Summer-Fall 1997, pp. 278–279 and p. 286.Google Scholar
  107. 194.
    Senge, Peter M. and John D. Sterman: “Systems thinking and organizational learning: Acting locally and thinking globally in the organization of the future”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1992, pp. 146–148; Repenning, Nelson P., Sterman, John D.: “Nobody Ever Gets Credit for Fixing Problems that Never Happened: Creating and Sustaining Process Improvement”, California Management Review, Vol. 43, No. 4, Summer 2001, pp. 64–88; and Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, pp. 130–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 195.
    Own translation of figure in Milling, Peter: “Organisationales Lernen und seine Unterstützung durch Managementsimulatoren”, in: Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft 3/95, Lernende Unternehmen (Sonderausgabe), 1995, p. 105.Google Scholar
  109. 196.
    In Luna-Reyes, Luis Felipe and Deborah Lines Andersen: “Collecting and analysing qualitative data for system dynamics: methods and models”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2003, pp. 274–279, primarily based on the following mentioned sources: Randers, Richardson and Pugh, Roberts et al., Wolstenholme and Sterman.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 197.
    See Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, chapter 2 and 3; and Vennix, Jac A. M; David F. Andersen; George P. Richardson and John Rohrbaugh: “Model-building for group decision support: Issues and alternatives in knowledge elicitation”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, 1992, pp. 28–41.Google Scholar
  111. 198.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “System dynamics, system thinking, and soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994, p. 244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 199.
    For a description and discussion of management simulators, see Größler, Andreas: Entwicklungsprozess und Evaluation von Unternehmenssimulation für lernende Unternehmen, Frankfurt am Main, 2000.Google Scholar
  113. 200.
    See Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, pp. 87–88.Google Scholar
  114. 201.
    Homer, Jack B.: “Why we iterate: scientific modeling in theory and practice”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 1, Spring 1996, p. 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 202.
    Randers, Jørgen: “Guidelines for Model Conceptualization”, in Randers, Jørgen (ed.): Elements of the System Dynamics Method, Cambridge, Connecticut, 1980, p. 118.Google Scholar
  116. 203.
    In Forrester, Jay W.: “System dynamics, system thinking, and soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994, p. 253, it is stated that to describe the system is “the most important and the least straightforward of the stages in system improvement;” and Schein, Edgar H.: Process Consultation — MAOM Capstone Course for the University of Phoenix, Boston, 2000, part I, p. 62 it says: “In my own experience in solving problems and watching others solve them, by far the most difficult step is the first one — defining the problem.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 204.
    Richardson, George P. and Alexander L. Pugh: Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling with DYNAMO, Cambridge, 1981, p. 18, Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, p. 89. An exception from the problem-orientated viewpoint is the Strategy Dynamics approach, where a company’s strategic architecture is modeled rather than a problem, see Warren, Kim: Competitive Strategy Dynamics, Chichester, 2002, pp. 89–113.Google Scholar
  118. 205.
    Eden, Colin: “Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, Nos. 2–3, Summer–Fall 1994, p. 261.Google Scholar
  119. 206.
    Roberts, Edward B.: “Strategies for Effective Implementation of Complex Corporate Models”, in Edward B. Roberts (ed.): Managerial Applications of System Dynamics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978, pp. 83–89; Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, pp. 87–88.Google Scholar
  120. 207.
    Eden, Colin: “Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, Nos. 2–3, Summer–Fall 1994, pp. 261–262. Eden furthermore argues for the usage of cognitive mapping in the problem definition phase, to overcome the problems of handling complexity and politics (pp. 263–268).Google Scholar
  121. 208.
    Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, p. 90; Randers, Jørgen: “Guidelines for Model Conceptualization”, in Randers, Jørgen (ed.): Elements of the System Dynamics Method, Cambridge, Connecticut, 1980, pp. 121–122.Google Scholar
  122. 209.
    Warren, Kim: Competitive Strategy Dynamics, Chichester, 2002, p. 27.Google Scholar
  123. 210.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “System dynamics, system thinking, and soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994, p. 246; Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, p. 95; Luna-Reyes, L.F. and D. L. Andersen, “Collecting and analyzing qualitative data for system dynamics: methods and models”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2003, p. 275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 211.
    In Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics, Boston, 2000, p. 97, it is recommended to do a formal model boundary chart explicitly grouping endogenous, exogenous and excluded parameters.Google Scholar
  125. 212.
    Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics, Boston, 2000, p. 102; Richardson, George P. and Alexander L. Pugh: Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling with DYNAMO, Cambridge, 1981, pp. 25–26; de Geus, Arie P.: The Living Company, Boston, 1997, pp. 70–73; Luna-Reyes, L.F. and D. L. Andersen: “Collecting and analyzing qualitative data for system dynamics: methods and models”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2003, pp. 271–296; Hodgson, A. M.: “Hexagons for system thinking”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, 1992, pp. 123–136.Google Scholar
  126. 213.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “System dynamics, system thinking, and soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994, p. 252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 214.
    Warren, Kim: Competitive Strategy Dynamics, Chichester, 2002.Google Scholar
  128. 215.
    Wolstenholme, Eric F.: “The definition and application of a stepwise approach to model conceptualisation and analysis”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, 1992, p. 128. Wolstenholme describes the approach as a combination between a feedback loop approach to model construction and a modular approach to model construction (p. 136).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 216.
    Jac Vennix, Professor at Nijmegen University, in a Course in Group Model Buillding, Nijmegen, May, 2004.Google Scholar
  130. 217.
    Flood, Robert L. and Michael C. Jackson: Creative Problem Solving — Total Systems Intervention, Chichester, 1991, p. 74.Google Scholar
  131. 218.
    Forrester, Jay W.: Principles of Systems, Cambridge, 1968.Google Scholar
  132. 219.
    Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000.Google Scholar
  133. 220.
    Richardson, George P. and Alexander L. Pugh: Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling with DYNAMO, Cambridge, 1981, p. 63.Google Scholar
  134. 221.
    Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics, Boston, 2000, p. 95, argues: “system dynamic models seek endogenous explanations for phenomena.”Google Scholar
  135. 222.
    Luna-Reyes, L.F. and D. L. Andersen, “Collecting and analyzing qualitative data for system dynamics: methods and models”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2003, p. 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. 223.
    Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000; Wolstenholme, Eric: “Using generic system archetypes to support thinking and modelling”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 20, No. 4, Winter 2004, pp. 341–356.Google Scholar
  137. 224.
    Andersen, David F and George P. Richardson: “Scripts for group model building”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997, pp. 107–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. 225.
    Forrester, Jay W. and Peter Senge: “Tests for Building Confidence in System Dynamics Models”, in Legasto, Augusto A., Jay W. Forrester und James M. Lyneis (eds.), TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 14, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 211–226. A discussion of many of these tests (although differently labeled), as well as additional tests, can be found following a schematically overview of formal model validation tests in Barlas, Yaman: “Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1996, p. 189. Also Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics, Boston, 2000, pp. 845–901, offers an extensive discussion on validation of models.Google Scholar
  139. 226.
    Forrester, Jay W. and Peter Senge: “Tests for Building Confidence in System Dynamics Models”, in Legasto, Augusto A., Jay W. Forrester und James M. Lyneis (eds.), TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 14, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 211–216.Google Scholar
  140. 227.
    Forrester, Jay W. and Peter Senge: “Tests for Building Confidence in System Dynamics Models”, in Legasto, Augusto A., Jay W. Forrester und James M. Lyneis (eds.), TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 14, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 217–223.Google Scholar
  141. 228.
    Forrester and Senge: “Tests for Building Confidence in System Dynamics Models”, in Legasto, Forrester, und Lyneis (eds.), TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 14, Amsterdam, 1980, pp. 224–225.Google Scholar
  142. 229.
    See Barlas, Yaman: “Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1996, p. 188; Forrester and Senge: “Tests for Building Confidence in System Dynamics Models”, in Legasto, Forrester, und Lyneis (eds.), TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences, Vol. 14, Amsterdam, 1980, p. 210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  143. 230.
    Barlas: “Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1996, p. 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. 231.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “System dynamics, system thinking, and soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994, p. 226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  145. 232.
    See Sterman, John D.: “All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, Winter 2002, p. 522; Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, p. 846; Barlas, Yaman: “Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1996, p. 187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. 233.
    Größler, Andreas: “A Content and Process View on Bounded Rationality in System Dynamics”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 21, No. 4, July/August, 2004, pp. 319–330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. 234.
    Barlas, Yaman: “Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1996, pp. 199–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  148. 235.
    Barlas, Yaman: “Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics”, 1996, pp. 200–201.Google Scholar
  149. 236.
    Ashby, W. Ross: An Introduction to Cybernetics, paperback version, London, 1964, pp. 206–207. A regulator of the air traffic flows around New York is given as example. See also Conant, Roger C. and W. Ross Ashby: “Every Good Regulator of a System Must Be a Model of that System”, International Journal of System Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 2, 1970, pp. 89–97.Google Scholar
  150. 237.
    Sterman, John D.: Business Dynamics — Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World, Boston, 2000, p. 104.Google Scholar
  151. 238.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “System dynamics, system thinking, and soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1994, pp. 245–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. 239.
    Bakken, Bent E.: Learning and Transfer of Understanding in Dynamics Decision Environments, Boston, 1993, p. 31; Sterman, John D.: “All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, Winter 2002, p. 522.Google Scholar
  153. 240.
    See Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 97. Although, the importance for designing the modeling process from the very start with implementation in view is also emphasized in more traditional system dynamics articles, see Roberts, Edward B.: “Strategies for Effective Implementation of Complex Corporate Models”, in Edward B. Roberts (ed.): Managerial Applications of System Dynamics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978, p. 83Google Scholar
  154. 241.
    Weil, Henry B.: “The Evolution of an Approach for Achieving Implemented Results from System Dynamics Projects”, in Jørgen Randers (ed.): Elements of the System Dynamics Method, Cambridge, Connecticut, 1980, p. 290.Google Scholar
  155. 242.
    Roberts, Edward B.: “Strategies for Effective Implementation of Complex Corporate Models”, in Edward B. Roberts (ed.): Managerial Applications of System Dynamics, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1978, p. 77.Google Scholar
  156. 243.
    See Bakken, Bent E.: Learning and Transfer of Understanding in Dynamics Decision Environments, Boston, 1993, p. 31; Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, pp. 97–99.Google Scholar
  157. 244.
    See Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, pp. 97–99.Google Scholar
  158. 245.
    Taken from the figure in Maani, Kambiz E. and Robert Y. Cavana: Systems Thinking and Modeling — Understanding Change and Complexity, Auckland, 2000, p. 112.Google Scholar
  159. 246.
    In Maani and Cavana: Systems Thinking and Modeling — Understanding Change and Complexity, 2000, pp. 112–113, the three elements of the learning cycle are discussed.Google Scholar
  160. 247.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1992, pp. 55–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  161. 248.
    Slight modification of figure in Forrester, Jay W.: “Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1992, p. 56. Forrester’s figure is also depicted in Luna-Reyes, L.F. and D. L. Andersen: “Collecting and analysing qualitative data for system dynamics: methods and models”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2003, p. 280, along with a discussion on the three types of databases.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  162. 249.
    Forrester, Jay W.: “Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1992, p. 56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. 250.
    Forrester.: “Policies, decisions and information sources for modeling”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1992, p. 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  164. 252.
    Luna-Reyes, L.F. and D. L. Andersen: “Collecting and analysing qualitative data for system dynamics: methods and models”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 19, No. 4, 2003, pp. 271–296. Besides the qualitative methods often mentioned in the system dynamics literature like interviews, focus and Delphi groups, observations, etc., the article also include analysis methods like hermeneutics, discourse analysis, grounded theory, ethnographic decision models and content analysis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  165. 253.
    Fey, Willard and John Trimble: “The Evaluation and Development of Knowledge Acquisition in System Dynamics Studies”, in Proceedings, System Dynamics Conference, System Dynamics Society, 1992, pp. 173–182; Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, pp. 175 and pp. 187–188.Google Scholar
  166. 254.
    Milling, Peter: “Organisationales Lernen und seine Unterstützung durch Managementsimulatoren”, in: Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft, Ergänzungsheft 3/95, Lernende Unternehmen (Sonderausgabe), 1995, p. 104.Google Scholar
  167. 255.
    Warren, Kim: Competitive Strategy Dynamics, Chichester, 2002, p. 25.Google Scholar
  168. 256.
    Weil, Henry B. and Kenneth P. Veit: “Corporate Strategic Thinking: The role of System Dynamics” in Peter M. Milling and Erich O.K. Zahn (eds.): Computer-Based Management of Complex Systems, Proceedings of the 1989 International Conference on the System Dynamics Society, Stuttgart, 1989, p. 67, discuss how system dynamics is often part of a larger package addressing a problem, e.g. in a strategy consulting project.Google Scholar
  169. 257.
    See Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 4; Lane, p. 70; Richmond, Barry: “The Strategic Forum: aligning objectives, strategy and process”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997, p. 131; Morecroft, J. D. W.: “Executive knowledge, models and learning”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, 1992, p. 13.Google Scholar
  170. 258.
    See Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 6; Andersen, David F., George P. Richardson and Jac A. M. Vennix: “Group model building: adding more science to the craft”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997, p. 191.Google Scholar
  171. 259.
    Lane, David C.: “Modelling as Learning: A consultancy methodology for enhancing learning in management teams”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No.1, 1992, p. 72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  172. 260.
    Taken from the figure in Morecroft, J. D. W.: “Executive knowledge, models and learning”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, 1992, p. 14. The full article is also printed in the book: Morecroft, John D. W. and John D. Sterman (eds.): Modeling for Learning Organizations, Portland, Oregon, 1994, pp. 3–28 (the book is in principle a reprint of the special issue of European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1992).Google Scholar
  173. 261.
    Morecroft, J. D. W.: “Executive knowledge, models and learning”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1992, p. 13.Google Scholar
  174. 262.
    See Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, pp. 97–99.Google Scholar
  175. 263.
    Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A Behavioural Science View, Reading, Massachusetts, 1970, p. 83Google Scholar
  176. 264.
    Schein, Edgar H.: Organisationspsykologi, Danish translation, Herning, 1990, p. 40; Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A Behavioural Science View, Reading, Massachusetts, 1970, chapter 1 and 2.Google Scholar
  177. 265.
    See Akkermans, Henk: Modelling With Managers, Breda, The Netherlands, 1995, p. 87; Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 114.Google Scholar
  178. 266.
    Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 128.Google Scholar
  179. 267.
    Akkermans, Henk: Modelling With Managers, Breda, 1995, p. 89.Google Scholar
  180. 268.
    Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, 1996, p. 113.Google Scholar
  181. 269.
    Vennix: Group Model Building, 1996, p. 132.Google Scholar
  182. 270.
    Morecroft, J. D. W.: “Executive knowledge, models and learning”, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 59, No. 1, 1992, p. 15.Google Scholar
  183. 271.
    See Andersen, David F and George P. Richardson: “Scripts for group model building”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997, p. 108. See also Andersen, David F., George P. Richardson and Jac A. M. Vennix: “Group model building: adding more science to the craft”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997, p. 195, where furthermore The Gifted Practitioner hypothesis is stated, indicating that some facilitators are skilled to a degree where choice of intervention method is less important — and also the other way around — if facilitation skills are lacking, no methods and tools can assure an effective intervention.Google Scholar
  184. 272.
    Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 134.Google Scholar
  185. 273.
    Richardson, George P. and David F. Andersen: “Teamwork in group model building”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1995, pp. 114–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. 274.
    Argyris, Chris: Interventions Theory and Method — A Behavioural Science View, Reading, Massachusetts, 1970, p. 83.Google Scholar
  187. 275.
    Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, p. 6.Google Scholar
  188. 276.
    Scheper, Willem J.: Group Decision Support Systems, Tilburg/Utrecht, 1991, p. 23.Google Scholar
  189. 277.
    Scheper.: Group Decision Support Systems, 1991, p. 143.Google Scholar
  190. 278.
    Slight simplification of the model in Eco, Umberto: A Theory of Semiotics, Bloomington, 1976, p. 141. The model has originally also focus on sub-codes, which is especially relevant in the discussion of undercoding and overcoding. The simplification is mainly inspired by the use in Scheper, Willem J.: Group Decision Support Systems, Dissertation, Tilburg/Utrecht, 1991, p. 143.Google Scholar
  191. 279.
    Miller, George A.: “The Magical Number Seven, Plus Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information”, The Psychological Review, Vol. 63, No. 2, March 1956, p. 93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  192. 280.
    Morecroft, J. D. W.: “Executive knowledge, models and learning”, European Journal of Operational Research, 59, 1992, p. 18.Google Scholar
  193. 281.
    For further descriptions on facilitation of group model sessions, see Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, Chichester, 1996, pp. 140–171.Google Scholar
  194. 282.
    See Akkermans, Henk: Modelling With Managers, Breda, The Netherlands, 1995, pp. 91–92, where credit for the term The Wallow Curve is given to McKinsey.Google Scholar
  195. 283.
    Vennix, Jac A. M.: Group Model Building, 1996, p. 154.Google Scholar
  196. 286.
    Taken from the figure in Akkermans, Henk: Modelling With Managers, Breda, 1995, p. 91.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden 2007

Personalised recommendations