Advertisement

Problem Scoping and Identification

  • Peter S. Hovmand
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter covers the first phase of community-based system dynamics of problem scoping and identification. The chapter provides some of the conceptual frameworks that can be used to help conceptualize and sequence projects within a larger community context, choosing the goal of model building and selecting the purpose of the model. The chapter then concludes with some additional considerations for assessing the readiness of a community.

Keywords

Analysis Problem Coordination Problem Problem Framing Soft System Methodology Leverage Point 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Andersen, D. F., Vennix, J. A. M., Richardson, G. P., & Etiënne, R. (2007). Group model building: problem structuring, policy simulation and decision support. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(5), 691–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: a treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  3. Box, G. E. P., & Draper, N. R. (1987). Empirical model-building and response surfaces. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  4. Burrell, G., & Morgan, G. (1979). Sociological paradigms and organizational analysis: Elements of sociology of corporate life. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  5. Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  6. Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2006). Where next for problem structuring methods. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7), 766–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2013). Problem structuring: on the nature of, and reaching agreement about, goals. EURO Journal of Decision Process, 1, 7–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ford, D. N. (1999). A behavioral approach to feedback loop dominance analysis. System Dynamics Review, 15(1), 3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hovmand, P. S., Ford, D. N., Flom, I., & Kyriakakis, S. (2009). Victims arrested for domestic violence: Unintended consequences of arrest policies. System Dynamics Review, 25(3), 161–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jackson, M. C. (2000). Systems approaches to management. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Lane, D. C. (1999). Social theory and system dynamics practice. European Journal of Operational Research, 113, 501–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lane, D. C. (2001a). Rerum cognoscere causas: Part II–Opportunities generated by the agency/structure debate and suggestions for clarifying the social theoretic position of system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 17(4), 293–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lane, D. C. (2001b). Rerum cognoscere causes: Part I-how do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories and the voluntarism/determinism debate? System Dynamics Review, 17, 97–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage points: places to intervene in a system. Hartland, VT: The Sustainability Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Meadows, D. H., & Robinson, J. M. (1985). The electronic oracle: Computer models and social decisions. System Dynamics Review, 18(2), 271–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Midgley, G., & Ochoa-Arias, A. E. (Eds.). (2004). Community operational research: OR and systems thinking for community development. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  18. Pidd, M. (1998). Computer simulation in management science (4th ed.). West Sussex, UK: Wiley.Google Scholar
  19. Randers, J. (1980). Guidelines for model conceptualization. In J. Randers (Ed.), Elements of the system dynamics method. Cambridge, MA: Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Richardson, G. P. (1995). Loop polarity, loop dominance, and the concept of polarity. System Dynamics Review, 11(1), 67–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Richardson, G. P. (2011). Reflections on the foundations of system dynamics. System Dynamics Review, 27(3), 219–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Saeed, K. (1992). Slicing a complex problem for system dynamics modeling. System Dynamics Review, 8(3), 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.Google Scholar
  24. Sterman, J. D. (1989). Misperceptions of feedback in dynamic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 43(3), 301–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sterman, J. D. (2002). All models are wrong: Reflections on becoming a systems scientists. System Dynamics Review, 18(4), 501–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sterman, J. D. (2010). Does formal system dynamics training improve people’s understanding of accumulation? System Dynamics Review, 26(4), 316–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sweeney, L. B., & Sterman, J. D. (2007). Thinking about systems: Student and teacher conceptions of natural and social systems. System Dynamics Review, 23(2/3), 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter S. Hovmand
    • 1
  1. 1.George Warren Brown School of Social WorkWashington UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations