Understanding construction competitiveness: the contribution of system dynamics

Purpose – Construction sector competitiveness has been a subject of interest for many years. Research too often focuses on the means of overcoming the “barriers to change” as if such barriers were static entities. There has been little attempt to understand the dynamic inter-relationship between the differing factors which impinge upon construction sector competitiveness. The purpose of this paper is to outline the benefits of taking a systems approach to construction competitiveness research. Design/methodology/approach – The system dynamics (SD) modelling methodology is described. This can provide practitioners with “microworlds” within which they can explore the dynamic effects of different policy decisions. The data underpinning the use of SD was provided by interviews and case study research which allowed an understanding of the context within which practitioners operate. Findings – The over-riding conclusion is that the SD methodology has been shown to be capable of providing a means to assess the forces which shape the sustained competitiveness of construction firms. As such, it takes the assessment of strategic policy analysis in the construction sector onto a higher plane. The need to collect data and make retrospective assessments of competitiveness and strategic performance at the statistical level is not now the only modus operandi available. Originality/value – The paper describes a novel research methodology which points towards an alternative research agenda for construction competitiveness research.

Exploring behavioural change through an agent-oriented system dynamics model: the use of personal protective equipment among pesticide applicators in Colombia

The misuse of Personal Protective Equipment results in health risk among smallholders in developing countries, and education is often proposed to promote safer practices. However, evidence point to limited effects of education. This paper presents a System Dynamics model which allows the identification of risk-minimizing policies for behavioural change. The model is based on the IAC framework and survey data. It represents farmers' decision-making from an agent-oriented standpoint. The most successful intervention strategy was the one which intervened in the long term, targeted key stocks in the systems and was diversified. However, the results suggest that, under these conditions, no policy is able to trigger a self sustaining behavioural change. Two implementation approaches were suggested by experts. One, based on constant social control, corresponds to a change of the current model's parameters. The other, based on participation, would lead farmers to new thinking, i.e. changes in their decision-making structure.

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.

System dynamics mapping of acute patient flows

Department of Health staff wished to use systems modelling to discuss acute patient flows with groups of NHS staff. The aim was to assess the usefulness of system dynamics (SD) in a healthcare context and to elicit proposals concerning ways of improving patient experience. Since time restrictions excluded simulation modelling, a hybrid approach using stock/flow symbols from SD was created. Initial interviews and hospital site visits generated a series of stock/flow maps. A ‘Conceptual Framework’ was then created to introduce the mapping symbols and to generate a series of questions about different patient paths and what might speed or slow patient flows. These materials formed the centre of three workshops for NHS staff. The participants were able to propose ideas for improving patient flows and the elicited data was subsequently employed to create a finalized suite of maps of a general acute hospital. The maps and ideas were communicated back to the Department of Health and subsequently assisted the work of the Modernization Agency.

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.

With a little help from our friends: how system dynamics and soft OR can learn from each other

At its inception, the paradigm of system dynamics was deliberately made distinct from that of OR. Yet developments in soft OR now have much in common with current system dynamics modeling practice. This article briefly traces the parallel development of system dynamics and soft OR, and argues that a dialogue between the two would be mutually rewarding. to support this claim, examples of soft OR tools are described along with some of the field’s philosophical grounding and current issues. Potential benefits resulting from a dialogue are explored, with particular emphasis on the methodological framework of system dynamics and the need for a complementarist approach. The article closes with some suggestions on how to begin learning from.

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

Rerum cognoscere causas: part I - How do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories and the voluntarism/determinism debate?

This is the first half of a two-part paper which deals with the social theoretic assumptions underlying system dynamics. The motivation is that clarification in this area can help mainstream social scientists to understand how our field relates to their literature, methods and concerns. Part I has two main sections. The aim of the first is to answer the question: How do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories? The theoretic assumptions of the field are seldom explicit but rather are implicit in its practice. The range of system dynamics practice is therefore considered and related to a framework - widely used in both operational research (OR) and systems science - that organises the assumptions behind traditional social theoretic paradigms. Distinct and surprisingly varied groupings of practice are identified, making it difficult to place system dynamics in any one paradigm with any certainty. The difficulties of establishing a social theoretic home for system dynamics are exemplified in the second main section. This is done by considering the question: Is system dynamics deterministic? An analysis shows that attempts to relate system dynamics to strict notions of voluntarism or determinism quickly indicate that the field does not fit with either pole of this dichotomous, and strictly paradigmatic, view. Part I therefore concludes that definitively placing system dynamics with respect to traditional social theories is highly problematic. The scene is therefore set for Part II of the paper, which proposes an innovative and potentially fruitful resolution to this problem.

Rerum cognoscere causas: part II - opportunities generated by the agency/structure debate and suggestions for clarifying the social theoretic position of system dynamics

This is the second half of a two-part paper dealing with the social theoretic assumptions underlying system dynamics. In the first half it was concluded that analysing system dynamics using traditional, paradigm-based social theories is highly problematic. An innovative and potentially fruitful resolution is now proposed to these problems. In the first section it is argued that in order to find an appropriate social theoretic home for system dynamics it is necessary to look to a key exchange in contemporary social science: the agency/structure debate. This debate aims to move beyond both the theories based only on the actions of individual human agents, and those theories that emphasise only structural influences. Emerging from this debate are various theories that instead aim to unite the human agent view of the social realm with views that concentrate solely on system structure. It is argued that system dynamics is best viewed as being implicitly grounded in such theories. The main conclusion is therefore that system dynamics can contribute to an important part of social thinking by providing a formal approach for explicating social mechanisms. This conclusion is of general significance for system dynamics. However, the over-arching aim of the two-part paper is to increase the understanding of system dynamics in related disciplines. Four suggestions are therefore offered for how the system dynamics method might be extended further into the social sciences. It is argued that, presented in the right way, the formal yet contingent feedback causality thinking of system dynamics should diffuse widely in the social sciences and make a distinctive and important contribution to them. Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas Happy is he who comes to know the causes of things Virgil - Georgics, Book II, line 490. 29 BCE