Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

What Does the Arrow Mean? Observations on System Dynamics Mapping and the Potential for Experimentation with Other Methods

  • Chapter
Strategisches und operatives Produktionsmanagement

Abstract

Increasingly, maps developed in the field of system dynamics (SD) are combined with other mapping techniques. This has produced successful results; occasionally such experiments have ended in disappointment. Certain similarities between a variety of mapping techniques encourage experimentation. At the same time, these very similarities sometimes confuse clients and students with respect to the distinct differences between the methods supported by the various techniques. Confusion as to the purpose of a certain type of map relates to confusion about the use of mapping tools, down to individual symbols: what does the arrow mean in one map or another? This paper therefore attempts to explore the specific contribution that SD mapping can make and the potential usefulness of combining it with elements from other fields. The paper considers views from within the field of SD on the purpose of maps, their strengths and limitations. It shows how the prime purpose of maps within SD is the elucidation of the link between structure and behaviour but that the usage of maps with this purpose has changed since the field's beginning. The paper also explores a sample of other mapping techniques in their contexts, their distinctive nature as well as the similarities with SD mapping. The conclusion is that a complementarist attitude built on a clear acknowledgement of the distinct prime purpose of each approach and the distinct contribution that each tool was crafted to make offers many creative possibilities.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Ackermann, F. and C. Eden (2004): Using Causal Mapping – individual and group, traditional and new. In: Pidd, M. (ed.): Systems Modelling: Theory and practice, Chichester: Wiley, 127–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackermann, F., C. Eden and T. Williams (1997): Modeling for Litigation: Mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27(2): 48–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, M. G. (1994): System Dynamics, Determinism and Choice: Toward a reconsideration of the image of “system man”. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 10(1): 87–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brans, J. P., C. Macharis, P. L. Kunsch, A. Chevalier and M. Schwaninger (1998): Combining Multicriteria Decision Aid and System Dynamics for the Control of Socio-economic Processes: An iterative real-time procedure. Eur. J. Opl. Res. 109(2): 428–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M., F. Ackermann, C. Eden and C. B. Finn (2004): Visible Thinking: Unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. London: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J. R. (1977): Converting Signed Digraphs to Forrester Schematics and Converting Forrester Schematics to Differential Equations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics smc-7(10): 695–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, J. R., O. M. Ulgen and H. W. Beights (1979): An Algorithm for Converting Signed Digraphs to Forrester Schematics. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics smc-9(3): 115–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavana, R. Y. and E. D. Mares (2004): Integrating Critical Thinking and Systems Thinking. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 20(3): 223–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. and J. Poulter (2006): Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology and its use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students. Chichester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. B. (1981): Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. B. (1989): Chapter 4 Soft Systems Methodology. In: Rosenhead, J. (ed.): Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict, Chichester: J. Wiley, 71–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. B. and J. Scholes (1990): Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1968): The Systems Approach. New York: Delacorte Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, R. G. (1985): Representing Discrete Events in System Dynamics Models: a theoretical application to modelling coal production. J. Opl. Res. Soc. 36(4): 307–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coyle, R. G. (2000): Qualitative and Quantitative Modelling in System Dynamics: Some research questions. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 16(3): 225–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. (1989): Using cognitive mapping for strategic options development and analysis (SODA). In: Rosenhead, J. (ed.): Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict, Chichester: Wiley, 21–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. (2004): Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur. J. Opl. Res. 159: 673–686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. and F. Ackermann (1992): The analysis of causal maps. Journal of Management Studies 29(3): 309–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. and F. Ackermann (1998): Making Strategy: The journey of strategic management. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., S. Jones and D. Sims (1983): Messing About In Problems. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., S. Jones, D. Sims and H. Gunton (1979): Images into models: the subjective world of the policy maker. Futures (February): 56–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1991): Influence Diagrams, Bayesian Imperialism, and the Collins Case: An appeal to reason. Cardozo Law Review 13(2–3): 1025–1074.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, P. E. M. (1993): Herd Immunity: History, theory, practice. Epidemiologic Reviews 15(2): 265–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood, R. L. and M. C. Jackson (1991): Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, D. and J. D. Sterman (1998): Expert Knowledge Elicitation for Improving Mental and Formal Models. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 14(4): 309–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1956): Dynamic Models of Economic Systems and Industrial Organizations (2003 republication of a ‘Note to the Faculty Research Seminar. November 5, 1956’ and MIT ‘D-memo’ zero). Sys. Dyn. Rev. 19(4): 331–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1958): Industrial Dynamics: A major breakthrough for decision makers. HBR 36(4): 37–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1960): The Impact of Feedback Control Concepts on the Management Sciences. In: Collected Papers of Jay W. Forrester (1975 collection). Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen Press, 45–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1961a): Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1961b): Standard Symbols for Industrial Dynamics Flow Diagrams. MIT D-memo 41-1: 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1968a): Industrial Dynamics – A response to Ansoff and Slevin. Mgmt. Sci. 14(9): 601–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1968b): Market growth as influenced by capital investment. Industrial Management Review (now the Sloan Management Review) 9(2): 83–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1968c): Principles of Systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1968d): Industrial Dynamics – After the first decade. Mgmt. Sci. 14(7): 398–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1970): Counterintuitive behaviour of social systems. In: Collected Papers of Jay W. Forrester (1975 collection). Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen Press, 211–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1992): From the Ranch to System Dynamics. In: Bedeian, A. G. (ed.): Management Laureates: A collection of autobiographical essays (vol. 1), Greenwich CT: JAI Press, 335–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (1994): System Dynamics, Systems Thinking, And Soft OR. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 10(2–3): 245–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. (2007): System Dynamics – The next fifty years. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 23(2–3): 359–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forrester, J. W. and D. W. Packer (1962): A Model For The Study of Corporate Growth. MIT D-memo 151-1: 1–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, S. (1988): Decision Theory. Chichester: Ellis Horwood Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardiner, P. C. and A. Ford (1980): Which policy run is best, and who says so? In: Legasto, A. A., Forrester, J. W. and J. M. Lyneis (eds.): System Dynamics. TIMS Studies in the management sciences Vol. 14. Oxford: North-Holland, 241–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, M. R. (1974): Study Notes in System Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Größler, A. (2004a): Quantification Makes Sense Even When Empirical Data Is Limited: A model of the Bhopal crisis. In: Kennedy, M. and G. W. Winch (eds.): Proceedings of the 2004 International System Dynamics Conference (Oxford, England). Albany, NY: System Dynamics Society (CD based).

    Google Scholar 

  • Größler, A. (2004b): Don't Let History Repeat Itself – Methodological issues concerning the use of simulators in teaching and experimentation. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 20(3): 263–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer, J. B. (1987): A Diffusion Model with Application to Evolving Medical Technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 31(3): 197–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer, J. B. (1996): Why we iterate: scientific modelling in theory and practice. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 12(1): 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer, J. B. (2007): Reply to Jay Forrester's “System dynamics – the next fifty years”. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 23(4): 465–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homer, J. B. and R. Oliva (2001): Maps and Models in System Dynamics: A Response to Coyle. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 17(4): 347–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A. (1966): Decision Analysis: Applied decision theory. In: Herty, D. B. and J. Melese (eds.): Proceedings of the fourth International Conference on Operational Methods, New York: Wiley-Interscience, 55–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, R. A. and J. E. Matheson (1984): Influence Diagrams. In: Howard, R. A. and J. E. Matheson (eds.): Readings on the Principles and Applications of Decision Analysis, Vol. II, Menlo Park CA: Strategic Decisions Group, 719–762.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howick, S., F. Ackermann and D. Andersen (2006): Linking Event Thinking with Structural Thinking: Methods to improve client value in projects. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 22(2): 113–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. C. (2000): Systems Approaches To Management. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. C. (2003): Systems Thinking: Creative holism for managers. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, M. C. and P. Keys (1984): Towards a system of system methodologies. J. Opl. Res. Soc. 35(6): 473–486.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarmain, W. E. (ed.) (1963): Problems in Industrial Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. A. (1955): The Psychology of Personal Constructs. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keys, P. (1988): System Dynamics: A methodological perspective. Trans. Inst. Measurement & Control 10(4): 218–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. H. (1994): Cognitive Process and Operational Research: A human information processing perspective. J. Opl. Res. Soc. 45(8): 855–866.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. (1994): With A Little Help From Our Friends: How system dynamics and ‘soft’ OR can learn from each other. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 10(2–3): 101–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. (1998): Can We Have Confidence In Generic Structures? J. Opl. Res. Soc. 49(9): 936–947.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. (1999): Social Theory and System Dynamics Practice. Eur. J. Opl. Res. 113(3): 501–527.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. (2000): Should System Dynamics Be Described As A ‘Hard’ Or ‘Deterministic’ Systems Approach? Syst. Res. & Beh. Sci. 17(1): 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. (2001): Rerum cognoscere causas: Part II – Opportunities generated by the agency/structure debate and suggestions for clarifying the social theoretic position of system dynamics. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 17(4): 293–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. (2006): IFORS' Operational Research Hall of Fame – Jay Wright Forrester. Int. Trans. OR 13(5): 483–492.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. (2008): The Emergence and Use of Diagramming in System Dynamics: A critical account. Syst. Res. & Beh. Sci. 25(1): 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. and C. Smart (1996): Reinterpreting ‘generic structure’: evolution, application and limitations of a concept. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 12(2): 87–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. and R. Oliva (1998): The Greater Whole: Towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology. Eur. J. Opl. Res. 107(1): 214–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. and E. Husemann (2004): Movie Marketing Strategy Formation with System Dynamics: Towards a multidisciplinary adoption/diffusion theory of cinema-going. In: Maier, F (ed.): Komplexität und Dynamik als Herausforderung für das Management: Festschrift zum 60. Geburtstag von Peter Milling. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, 179–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. and M. Schwaninger (eds.) (2008): Theory Building with System Dynamics (Selected papers from the third European system dynamics workshop, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland). Special Edition of the international journal Systems Research and Behavioral Science 25(4).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. and E. Husemann (2008a): System Dynamics Mapping of Acute Patient Flows. J. Opl. Res. Soc. 59(2): 213–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, D. C. and E. Husemann (2008b): Steering without Circe: Attending to reinforcing loops in social systems. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 24(1): 37–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macharis, C., J.-P. Brans and B. Mareschal (1998): The GDSS Promethee Procedure. J. Dec. Sys. 7(3): 283–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machuca, J. A. D. (1992): Are we losing one of the best features of system dynamics? Sys. Dyn. Rev. 8(2): 175–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956): The Magical Number Seven, Plus Or Minus Two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(1): 81–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milling, P. M. (1974): Der technische Fortschritt beim Produktionsprozeß – Ein dynamisches Modell für innovative Industrieunternehmen, Wiesbaden: Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milling, P. M. (1986): Diffusionstheorie und Innovationsmanagement. In: Zahn, E. (ed.): Technologie- und Innovationsmanagement, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 49–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milling, P. M. (1996): Modeling Innovation Processes For Decision Support And Management Simulation. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 12(3): 211–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milling, P. M. (1999): System Dynamics at Mannheim University. J. Opl. Res. Soc. 50(4): 309–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milling, P. M. (2002): Understanding and Managing Innovation Processes (Jay Wright Forrester Prize 2001 Lecture). Sys. Dyn. Rev. 18(1): 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milling, P. M. and F. Maier (1996): Invention, Innovation und Diffusion: Eine Simulationsanalyse des Managements neuer Produkte. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. (2003): A Classification of the Philosophical Assumptions of Management Science Methods. J. Opl. Res. Soc. 54(6): 559–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J. and A. Gill (eds.) (1997): Multimethodology: The theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller, G. and V. Belton (2006): Causal maps and the evaluation of decision options – a review. In: Franco, A., D. Shaw and M. Westcombe (eds.): Problem Structuring Methods (Special Edition of the Journal of the Operational Research Society) 57(7): 779–791.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morecroft, J. D. W. (1982): A critical review of diagramming tools for conceptualising feedback system models. Dynamica 8(1): 20–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morecroft, J. D. W. (2007): Strategic Modelling and Business Dynamics: A feedback systems approach. Chichester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. D. (1989): Mathematical Biology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paich, M. (1985): Generic Structures. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 1(1): 126–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (2007): What Were They Thinking? Unconventional wisdom about management. Boston, MA: HBS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. D. (1984): A Theory of Requisite Decision Models. Acta Psych. 56(1): 29–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, L. D. (1990): Decision analysis for group decision support. In: Eden, C. and J. Radford (eds.): Tackling Strategic Problems: The Role of Group Decision Support.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidd, M. (1996): Tools For Thinking: Modelling in management science. Chichester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidd, M. (1999): Just Modeling Through: A Rough Guide to Modeling. Interfaces 29(2): 118–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1968): Decision Analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramos, J. M. (1983): Some Modifications to the Burns Algorithm. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics smc-13(1): 108–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rand, G. (2006): IFORS' Operational Research Hall of Fame. Int. Trans. OR 13(6): 583–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagan-Cirincione, P., S. Schuman, G. P. Richardson and S. A. Dorf (1991): Decision Modelling: Tools for strategic thinking. Interfaces 21(6): 52–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, G. P. (1986): Problems with casual-loop diagrams (originally published in 1976). Sys. Dyn. Rev. 2(2): 158–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, G. P. and A. L. Pugh (1981): Introduction to System Dynamics Modelling with DYNAMO (republished edition). Cambridge, MA: Productivity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, G. P., E. F. Wolstenholme and J. D. W. Morecroft (eds.) (1994): Systems Thinkers, Systems Thinking. System Dynamics Review 10(2–3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Richmond, B. (1994): Systems Thinking/System Dynamics: Let's just get on with it. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 10(2–3): 135–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riggs, J. L. and M. S. Inoue (1975): Introduction to Operations Research and Management Science: A general systems approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, E. B. (2007): Making System Dynamics Useful: A personal memoir. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 22(2–3): 119–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, N., D. F. Andersen, R. Deal, M. Garet and W. Shaffer (1983): Introduction to Computer Simulation: A System Dynamics Approach. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffernicht, M. (2007): Causality and diagrams for system dynamics. Paper presented at the 2007 International System Dynamics Conference (Boston, USA). Program Chairs: John Sterman and Rogelio Oliva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. M. (1990): The Fifth Discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1976): From Substantive To Proceedural Rationality. In: Latsis, S. J. (ed.): Method And Appraisal In Economics, Cambridge: CUP, 129–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (1988): A skeptic's guide to computer models. In: Grant, L. (ed.): Foresight and National Decisions, Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 133–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (1994): Learning In And About Complex Systems. Sys. Dyn. Rev. 10(2–3): 291–330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2000): Business Dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. New York: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman, J. D. (2006): Learning from Evidence in a Complex World. American Journal of Public Health 96(3): 505–514.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoneman, P. (2002): The Economics of Technological Diffusion. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsouvalis, C. and P. B. Checkland (1996): Reflecting on SSM: the dividing line between ‘real world’ and ‘systems thinking world’. Syst. Res. 13(1): 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tufte, E. R. (2006): Beautiful Evidence. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vennix, J. A. M. (1996): Group Model-building: Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, S. R. and D. M. Buede (1987): Decision Synthesis: the principles and practise of decision analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • White, M. M. and S. W. Palocsay (1999): Decision Explorer (Software Review). OR/MS Today (October): 62–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, T., C. Eden, F. Ackermann and A. Tait (1995): The effects of design changes and delays on project costs. J. Opl. Res. Soc. 46(7): 809–818.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London School of Economics and Political Science, London

    David C. Lane

  2. London School of Economics and Political Science, London

    Elke Husemann

Authors
  1. David C. Lane
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elke Husemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Jürgen Strohhecker Andreas Größler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Gabler | GWV Fachverlage GmbH

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Lane, D.C., Husemann, E. (2009). What Does the Arrow Mean? Observations on System Dynamics Mapping and the Potential for Experimentation with Other Methods. In: Strohhecker, J., Größler, A. (eds) Strategisches und operatives Produktionsmanagement. Gabler. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-8401-2_16

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation