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.

Social theory and system dynamics practice

This paper explores the social theories implicit in system dynamics (SD) practice. Groupings of SD practice are observed in different parts of a framework for studying social theories. Most are seen to be located within `functionalist sociology'. To account for the remainder, two new forms of practice are discussed, each related to a different paradigm. Three competing conclusions are then offered: 1. The implicit assumption that SD is grounded in functionalist sociology is correct and should be made explicit. 2. Forrester's ideas operate at the level of method not social theory so SD, though not wedded to a particular social theoretic paradigm, can be re-crafted for use within different paradigms. 3. SD is consistent with social theories which dissolve the individual/society divide by taking a dialectical, or feedback, stance. It can therefore bring a formal modelling approach to the `agency/structure' debate within social theory and so bring SD into the heart of social science. The last conclusion is strongly recommended.

The greater whole: towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology

This paper makes a theoretical case for using these two systems approaches together. The theoretical and methodological assumptions of system dynamics (SD) and soft system methodology (SSM) are briefly described and a partial critique is presented. SSM generates and represents diverse perspectives on a problem situation and addresses the socio-political elements of an intervention. However, it is weak in ensuring `dynamic coherence'. consistency between the intuitive behaviour resulting from proposed changes and behaviour deduced from ideas on causal structure. Conversely, SD examines causal structures and dynamic behaviours. However, whilst emphasising the need for a clear issue focus, it has little theory for generating and representing diverse issues. Also, there is no theory for facilitating sensitivity to socio-political elements. A synthesis of the two called ‘Holon Dynamics' is proposed. After an SSM intervention, a second stage continues the socio-political analysis and also operates within a new perspective which values dynamic coherence of the mental construct - the holon - which is capable of expressing the proposed changes. A model of this holon is constructed using SD and the changes are thus rendered `systemically desirable' in the additional sense that dynamic consistency has been confirmed. The paper closes with reflections on the proposal and the need for theoretical consistency when mixing tools is emphasised.

Managing the complexity of information flow for construction small and medium-sized enterprises (CSMEs) using system dynamics and collaborative technologies

With the increase in e-commerce and the digitisation of design data and information,the construction sector has become reliant upon IT infrastructure and systems. The design and production process is more complex, more interconnected, and reliant upon greater information mobility, with seamless exchange of data and information in real time. Construction small and medium-sized enterprises (CSMEs), in particular,the speciality contractors, can effectively utilise cost-effective collaboration-enabling technologies, such as cloud computing, to help in the effective transfer of information and data to improve productivity. The system dynamics (SD) approach offers a perspective and tools to enable a better understanding of the dynamics of complex systems. This research focuses upon system dynamics methodology as a modelling and analysis tool in order to understand and identify the key drivers in the absorption of cloud computing for CSMEs. The aim of this paper is to determine how the use of system dynamics (SD) can improve the management of information flow through collaborative technologies leading to improved productivity. The data supporting the use of system dynamics was obtained through a pilot study consisting of questionnaires and interviews from five CSMEs in the UK house-building sector.

Using system dynamics for collaborative design : a case study

Background  In order to facilitate the collaborative design, system dynamics (SD) with a group modelling approach was used in the early stages of planning a new stroke unit. During six workshops a SD model was created in a multiprofessional group. Aim To explore to which extent and how the use of system dynamics contributed to the collaborative design process. Method A case study was conducted using several data sources. Results SD supported a collaborative design, by facilitating an explicit description of stroke care process, a dialogue and a joint understanding. The construction of the model obliged the group to conceptualise the stroke care and experimentation with the model gave the opportunity to reflect on care. Conclusion SD facilitated the collaborative design process and should be integrated in the early stages of the design process as a quality improvement tool.