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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 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Sections of this chapter have borrowed from the author’s unpublished dissertation, The Effects of System Dynamics Modeling on Systems Thinking in The Context of Regional Strategic Planning, (Porter 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
Boland RJ, Jr., Tenkasi RV (1993) Perspective making and perspective taking in communities of knowing. CEO Publication, Los Angeles, T 93-18(238)
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
Bracken P (2006) Net assessment: a practical guide. Parameters Spring 2006:90–100
Bradbury R, Reason P (2003) Action research, an opportunity for revitalizing research purpose and practices. Qual Soc Work 2(2):155–175
Bresnahan T, Gambardella A (2004) Building high-tech clusters: Silicon Valley and beyond. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Cioffi-Revilla C (2014) Introduction to computational social science: principles and applications. Springer, London
Dooley LM (2016) Case study research and theory building. Adv Dev Hum Resour 4(3):335–354
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
Gartner S (2015) Introduction to the special issue. CTX J 5(3):11–13
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
Glaser BG, Strauss AL (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Transaction, Piscataway
Gordon IR, McCann P (2000) Industrial clusters: complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks? Urban Stud 37(3):513–532
Grant RM (2003) Strategic planning in a turbulent environment: evidence from the oil majors. Strateg Manag J 24(6):491–517
Iammarino S, McCann P (2006) The structure and evolution of industrial clusters; transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers. Res Policy 35:1018–1036
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
Meadows D (1982) Whole earth models & systems. Coevolution Q:153–163
Porter ME (2003) The economic performance of regions. Reg Stud (37.6&7):549−578
Porter NW (2014) The effects of system dynamics modeling on systems thinking in the context of regional strategic planning. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey
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
Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM, van Mullekom T (2002) Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies. Syst Dyn Rev 18(1):5−45
Schaffernicht M, Groesser SN (2011) A comprehensive method for comparing mental models of dynamic systems. Eur J Oper Res 210:57−67
Senge PM (1990, 2006) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Currency Doubleday, New York
Skypek TM (2010) Evaluating military balances through the lens of net assessment: history and application. J Mil Strateg Stud 12(2):1–25
Snabe B (2007) The usage of system dynamics in organizational interventions. Deutscher Universitats-Verlag/GWV Fachverl, Wiesbaden
Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, MA
Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Sci New Series 185(4157):1124–1131
Veazie TG (2015) Preface to the special edition. CTX J 5(3):1–2
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
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
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61762-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-61761-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-61762-6
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)