advances in system dynamics group model building

GP RichardsonApril 2008

1

Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyRockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany

Advances in System DynamicsGroup Model Building

George P. RichardsonRockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy

University at Albany, SUNY


2


Outline of Remarks

• Origins of the current work• System dynamics group model

building• Recent work with Eden and

Ackermann• Scottish Health System

• Transportation Security Administration

• The Emerging Approach


3


Colleagues

• Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann, Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow

• John Bryson, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota

• David Andersen, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany• Thirteen years of collaborations and thought, enlivened by

skiing and hiking together


4


Recent Fruits of our Efforts

• Andersen, DF, JM Bryson, GP Richardson, C Eden, F Ackermann, C Finn, 2006. Integrating Models of Systems Thinking into Strategic Planning Education and Practice: The Thinking Persons Institute Approach. Journal of Public Affairs Education,12,3 (Summer 2006): 265-293.

• C Eden, F Ackermann, JM Bryson, GP Richardson, DF Andersen, 2008. Integrating modes of policy analysis and strategic management practice: requisite elements and dilemmas. Journal of the Operational Research Society (forthcoming 2008).


5


Events and DecisionsEvents and Decisions

Patterns of BehaviorPatterns of Behavior

System StructureSystem Structure

ReactiveReactive

AdaptiveAdaptive

GenerativeGenerative

Incr

easi

ng

leve

rage

Incr

easi

ng

leve

rage

A Glimpse of the Systems Perspective


6


New York, Chicago & Philadelphia, 1800-2000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

180018101820183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000

Philadelphia

Chicago

New York


7


Prejudice and Minority Achievement (Myrdal, Merton)

Prejudice

Discrimination

Opportunities for the minority

Achievements of the minority

–

+

–

+

(R)Prejudice

Aspirations of the minority

Minority efforts to achieve

Minority perceptions of the gap+

+

–

+

(B)Striving

+(R)

Hope or despair


8


Stocks, Flows, and Feedback Loops in a Gasoline Crisis

-

+

Desiredgas pervehicle

Desiredpurchase

rate

Desired purchasesto correct gas in

vehicles

Perceivedavailability

Efforts to limitpurchases

Desiredpurchases

to cover use

Averageuse rateStation

coverage

Use rateShipment

ratePurchase

rateCas in carsGas in

Stations

-

+

Desiredgas pervehicle

Desiredpurchase

rate

Desired purchasesto correct gas in

vehicles

Perceivedavailability

Efforts to limitpurchases

Desiredpurchases

to cover use

Averageuse rateStation

coverage

Use rateShipment

ratePurchase

rateCas in carsGas in

Stations


9


What is Group Modeling?

• A form of group decision support, involving a group of stakeholders with a complex problem• Group facilitation

• Model building and refinement in public

• Simulation of scenarios and options

• Extensive facilitated discussion and analysis

• Facilitated policy design and decisions


10


The Albany Teamwork Approach

• Facilitator / Elicitor• Modeler / Reflector• Process coach• Recorder• Gatekeeper


11


Components of the Process

• Problem definition meeting• Group modeling meeting• Formal model formulation• Reviewing model with model building team• Rolling out model with the community• Working with flight simulator• Making change happen


12


A Typical Room GMB Session


13



14


Strathclyde Group Explorer Approach

• Facilitator / Elicitor• “Chauffer” / Analyst• Participants at networked computers


15


Group Explorer Facilitated Strategic Planning

• Issue elicitation• Laddering up to “Own Goals”• Stakeholder power and interest grid• Stakeholder goals and sanctions• Prioritizing strategic priorities• Key performance indicators• Agreed policies and strategies in context


16


Strategy Workshop in Scotland

• Borders Region of Scotland concerned with provision of care for persons with Dementia

• Consortium of 28 Health Care Practitioners and Managers formed the strategy planning team

• Workshop in January of 2007 Explored Innovation approaches integrating

• Workshops designed and used innovative Group Model Building scripts that integrate two different approaches to strategy making


17


Scotland Workshop: a View of the Room


18


Scotland Workshop: a View of the Room


19


Picturing Complexity


20




21




22


The Initial GE Issues Map


23


Themes in the Issue Map

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.


24


Graphs Over Time to Focus the Discussion


25


Linking Comments on Graphs Over Time




26


Contributing a Systems View:Screens for the model (right) and DE (left)


27


Flow of People in the Dementia Health System


28


Pressure Points: “Who would do what”?


29




“Who would do what?” to decrease inflow to community care


30


“Who Would Do What?” in Three Pressure Points


31


More Possible Pressure Points to Discuss




32


Summary of Synergies in the Scotland Workshop

• Issue maps began the effort to focus the conversation• Graphs-over-time pulled thinking about issues toward

long-term patterns• Stock-and-flow map stimulated system-wide

understandings, taking thinking across boundaries• DE maps captured detailed observations, insights, and

claims throughout the entire process


33


TSA Aviation Security Simulator

• Contract Between Transportation Security Administration and Argonne National Labs

• Argonne, Sandia, and Los Alamos as part of Tri-Labs collaboration

• UAlbany as “special teams” subcontractor for Group Model Building

• Eden and Ackermann invited to expand team


34



35


Initial Issues identified


36


Issues from Stakeholder Perspectives


37


Initial Policy Priorities


38


Graphs over time drawn by the participants Graphs over time drawn by the participants


39


Collecting Comments on Graphs Over Time


40


Concept Model

Part timescreeners

Hiring rate

Totalpersonnel

Desiredpersonnel

Part timersquitting


41


Concept Model

Part timescreeners

Full timescreeners

Promotingto full time

Hiring rate

Full timersquitting

Frac fulltimersleaving p month

Totalpersonnel

Fraction full time

Desiredpersonnel

Part timersquitting

Desired full timescreeners


42


Concept Model

Part timescreeners

Full timescreeners

Promotingto full time

Hiring rate

Full timersquitting

Time to becomefull time

Frac fulltimersleaving p month

Totalpersonnel

Fraction full time

Desiredpersonnel

Part timersquitting

Desired full timescreeners

Dissatisfactionleading to quits


43


Concept Model BehaviorsPart time screeners

60,000

30,000

0

0 15 30 45 60Time (p month)

Part time screeners : TSA1 peoplePart time screeners : TSA2 peoplePart time screeners : TSA3 people

Full time screeners40,000

20,000

0

0 15 30 45 60Time (p month)

Full time screeners : TSA1 peopleFull time screeners : TSA2 peopleFull time screeners : TSA3 people

Hiring rate20,000

10,000

0

0 15 30 45 60Time (p month)

Hiring rate : TSA1 people/monthHiring rate : TSA2 people/monthHiring rate : TSA3 people/month

Time to become full time60

30

0

0 15 30 45 60Time (p month)

Time to become full time : TSA1 monthTime to become full time : TSA2 monthTime to become full time : TSA3 month


44


Eliciting TSA Model Structure

• “Seed” for elicitation was backbone stock and flow structure from Concept Model as elaborated by group

• Used “variable” pack available from “key variable” list made up in the morning

• Ability to link model structure to Group Explorer issue elicitation and key variable list explicitly


45



46



47



48


Final Policy Priorities (red=short term, green=long term)


49


Summary of Synergies in TSA Workshop• GE maps used to elicit initial issues• Graphs-over-time defining the problem

dynamically• GE used to map stakeholders and scenarios• GE phrases turned into variables to seed

dynamic model structure• GE creating rich micro view; SD creating

holistic macro view• GE used to create rich documentation as

modeling discussion developed


50


Where is This Leading?

• Duality of Vensim and Decision Explorer Maps• Seamless approach to client groups• Ability to “zoom lenses” between micro and

macro views• New support for model formulation and

documentation• New products that enhance value to clients• Eventually perhaps integrated software suites


51


Our Goals in Group Strategy Support




52


A Portion of Our Analysis of Scripts and Products Leading to Implementable Actions that will Work




53


Example of Scripts and Products Working Together Toward Key Performance Indicators




54


Issue Elicitation Leads to …




55


Graphs Over Time Lead to …




56


The Magic: Moving Fluently between Macro and Micro


57


…between Micro and Macro


58


For Further Reading• Eden, C. and F. Ackermann (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management.

London. Sage.

• Bryson, J. M. (2004). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, Third Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

• Scripts for Group Model Building. System Dynamics Review 13,2 (summer 1997), D.F. Andersen and G.P. Richardson.

• Teamwork in Group Modeling Building, with David F. Andersen. System Dynamics Review 11,2 (summer 1995).

• Using simulation models to address ‘What If’ questions about welfare reform, A.A. Zagonel, J. W. Rohrbaugh, G.P. Richardson, and D.F. Andersen, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23,4 (2004): 890-901.

• Anatomy of a group model-building intervention: building dynamic theory from case study research. L.F. Luna-Reyes, I.J. Martinez-Moyano, T.A. Pardo, A.M. Cresswell, D.F. Andersen and G.P. Richardson. System Dynamics Review 22,4 (winter 2006):291-320.

advances in system dynamics group model building

Documents