Beyond words: Visual metaphors that can demonstrate comprehension of KM as a paradoxical activity system

Following criticism that, in business and management, metaphor is largely verbal and primarily used to convey similarity, this paper explores how visual metaphors can communicate the anomalous and the paradoxical aspects of KM more concisely than words, whilst simultaneously presenting more tacit associations to stimulate creative thinking. It considers a series of 30 assessed posters that aimed to re-present six basic KM paradoxes through imagery that captures both the analogous and the anomalous. We found six categories of radial metaphors able to convey paradoxical complexity in a concise way. This has implications for organizations thinking about how to engage people with both the familiar and the strange. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The emergence and use of diagramming in system dynamics: a critical account

The paper reviews the leading diagramming methods employed in system dynamics to communicate the contents of models. The main ideas and historical development of the field are first outlined. Two diagramming methods—causal loop diagrams (CLDs) and stock/flow diagrams (SFDs)—are then described and their advantages and limitations discussed. A set of broad research directions is then outlined. These concern: the abilities of different diagrams to communicate different ideas, the role that diagrams have in group model building, and the question of whether diagrams can be an adequate substitute for simulation modelling. The paper closes by suggesting that although diagrams alone are insufficient, they have many benefits. However, since these benefits have emerged only as ‘craft wisdom’, a more rigorous programme of research into the diagrams' respective attributes is called for.

Formal theory building for the avalanche game: explaining counter-intuitive behaviour of a complex system using geometrical and human behavioural/physiological effects

In 'Avalanche', an object is lowered, players staying in contact throughout. Normally the task is easily accomplished. However, with larger groups counter-intuitive behaviours appear. The paper proposes a formal theory for the underlying causal mechanisms. The aim is to not only provide an explicit, testable hypothesis for the source of the observed modes of behaviour-but also to exemplify the contribution that formal theory building can make to understanding complex social phenomena. Mapping reveals the importance of geometry to the Avalanche game; each player has a pair of balancing loops, one involved in lowering the object, the other ensuring contact. For more players, sets of balancing loops interact and these can allow dominance by reinforcing loops, causing the system to chase upwards towards an ever-increasing goal. However, a series of other effects concerning human physiology and behaviour (HPB) is posited as playing a role. The hypothesis is therefore rigorously tested using simulation. For simplicity a 'One Degree of Freedom' case is examined, allowing all of the effects to be included whilst rendering the analysis more transparent. Formulation and experimentation with the model gives insight into the behaviours. Multi-dimensional rate/level analysis indicates that there is only a narrow region in which the system is able to move downwards. Model runs reproduce the single 'desired' mode of behaviour and all three of the observed 'problematic' ones. Sensitivity analysis gives further insight into the system's modes and their causes. Behaviour is seen to arise only when the geometric effects apply (number of players greater than degrees of freedom of object) in combination with a range of HPB effects. An analogy exists between the co-operative behaviour required here and various examples: conflicting strategic objectives in organizations; Prisoners' Dilemma and integrated bargaining situations. Additionally, the game may be relatable in more direct algebraic terms to situations involving companies in which the resulting behaviours are mediated by market regulations. Finally, comment is offered on the inadequacy of some forms of theory building and the case is made for formal theory building involving the use of models, analysis and plausible explanations to create deep understanding of social phenomena.

Theory building with system dynamics: topic and research contributions

The article discusses various reports published within the issue, including the articles "Closing the Loop: Promoting Synergies with other Theory Building Approaches to Improve System Dynamics Practice," by Birgit Kopainsky and Luis Luna-Reyes, and "On improving dynamic decision-making: Implications from multiple-process cognitive theory," by Bent Bakken.

Public sector applications of the system dynamics approach

The article discusses various reports published within the issue, including one by Carmine Bianchi on understanding public sector from different levels and perspectives, one by Mauro Lo Tennero on the aspiration and structure of Sicily to enforce public policy, and one by Nuno Videira and colleagues on the use of group model building in the public sector to concur sustainable policies.

Participative modelling and big issues: defining features of system dynamics?

In this article the author discusses participative modelling in system dynamics and issues underlying it. It states that in the heart of system dynamics is the servo-mechanism theory. It argues that it is wrong to see an optimal solution being applied by the empowered parties just because it exhibits self-evident truth and an analysis is not enough to encourage people to do things in different way. It mentions other models including the simulation models used for developing strategy discussions.

An in-depth view of the facets, antecedents and effects of leaders’ change competency: lessons from a case study

Leaders across companies initiate and implement change and thus are crucial for successful organizations. This study takes a competency perspective on leaders and investigates the competencies leaders show to facilitate effective change. The article explores the content of the construct of leaders’ change competency and examines its antecedents and effects. We conducted a case study in a German tourism company undergoing a major change process. The study identified (a) distinct content facets regarding the construct of leaders’ change competency along its two dimensions of leaders’ readiness for change and leaders’ change ability; (b) the construct’s antecedents, specifically contextual factors, leaders’ competency potentials, and attitudes toward change; and (c) beneficial effects of leaders’ change competency. The study ends with implications for research and leadership practice as well as suggestions for future studies on leaders’ change competency.

System dynamics

Selected papers from the third European system dynamics workshop, University of St. Gallen, Switzerland.

Rationality in system dynamics

Special Issue: Selected Papers from the First European System Dynamics Workshop, Mannheim University

Should system dynamics be described as a 'hard' or 'deterministic' systems approach?

This paper explores the criticism that system dynamics is a ‘hard’ or ‘deterministic’ systems approach. This criticism is seen to have four interpretations and each is addressed from the perspectives of social theory and systems science. Firstly, system dynamics is shown to offer not prophecies but Popperian predictions. Secondly, it is shown to involve the view that system structure only partially, not fully, determines human behaviour. Thirdly, the field's assumptions are shown not to constitute a grand content theory—though its structural theory and its attachment to the notion of causality in social systems are acknowledged. Finally, system dynamics is shown to be significantly different from systems engineering. The paper concludes that such confusions have arisen partially because of limited communication at the theoretical level from within the system dynamics community but also because of imperfect command of the available literature on the part of external commentators. Improved communication on theoretical issues is encouraged, though it is observed that system dynamics will continue to justify its assumptions primarily from the point of view of practical problem solving. The answer to the question in the paper's title is therefore: on balance, no.