ARCHIVE PAPER: Micro worlds versus boundary objects in group model building: evidence from the literature on problem definition and model conceptualization (2007)

IF 1.7 3区管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT

System Dynamics Review Pub Date : 2024-08-19 DOI:10.1002/sdr.1784

Aldo A. Zagonel

{"title":"ARCHIVE PAPER: Micro worlds versus boundary objects in group model building: evidence from the literature on problem definition and model conceptualization (2007)","authors":"Aldo A. Zagonel","doi":"10.1002/sdr.1784","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Foreword by David AndersenWhen I saw the call for papers for the Special Issue on Qualitative Aspects of System Dynamics Modeling, I immediately thought of the unpublished work completed by my graduate student Aldo Zagonel. I nominated it for consideration as an Archives paper. I believe this 2007 working paper (originally posted on the Sandia website) may be one of the best unpublished pieces of early work on the qualitative nature of our client‐based modeling efforts. (Although Dr. Zagonel included me as an author of the 2007 working paper, my involvement was simply that of a graduate advisor. He deserves all the credit for this work and manuscript.) Zagonel developed this work in his doctoral program and presented an earlier version at the 2002 International System Dynamics Conference (Zagonel 2002). That version of the paper won the Dana Meadows Award for the best student paper.Zagonel's doctoral work was part of our early efforts at UAlbany to develop group model building (GMB) as a technique in system dynamics. These approaches to model conceptualization and formulation blend quantitative and qualitative methods with strong scripted facilitation techniques. Zagonel was the first to note how this combination of approaches creates the ideal‐type dichotomy between “micro worlds” and “boundary objects” that he describes in this paper. His suggestion that much of the good work in system dynamics draws on both of these ideal types was prescient. The ideas discussed here have influenced many others over the years. I am pleased they will now be more easily accessible for our field.I am especially pleased that this paper is being published in the same issue as Laura Black's (2024) thoughtful reflection on Dr. Zagonel's paper and extension of the ideal‐type dichotomy he presents. Her paper offers an update on the idea of Zagonel's “straw man” comparison of micro worlds and boundary objects, suggesting that these are two points on a continuum of models that contribute to decision making and stakeholder interaction. She shows how this aspect of our field has developed in the last few decades and provides a clear framework for how to think about our work.Black, LJ. 2024. Reflecting on Zagonel's Dichotomy of Microworlds and Boundary Objects. System Dynamics Review.Zagonel AA. 2002. Model conceptualization in Group Model Building: A review of the literature exploring the tension between representing reality and negotiating a social order. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Palermo, Italy (July 28‐August 1).AbstractBased upon participant observation in group model building and content analysis of the system dynamics literature, I postulate that modeling efforts have a dual nature. On one hand, the modeling process aims to create a useful representation of a real‐world system. This must be done, however, while aligning the clients' mental models around a shared view of the system. There is significant overlap and confusion between these two goals and how they play out on a practical level. This research clarifies these distinctions by establishing an ideal‐type dichotomy. To highlight the differences, I created two straw men: “micro world” characterizes a model that represents reality and “boundary object” represents a socially negotiated model. Using this framework, the literature was examined, revealing evidence for several competing views on problem definition and model conceptualization. The results are summarized in the text of this article, substantiated with strikingly polarized citations, often from the same authors. I also introduce hypotheses for the duality across the remaining phases of the modeling process. Understanding and appreciation of the differences between these ideal types can promote constructive debate on their balance in system dynamics theory and practice. © 2024 System Dynamics Society.","PeriodicalId":51500,"journal":{"name":"System Dynamics Review","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"System Dynamics Review","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1784","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Foreword by David AndersenWhen I saw the call for papers for the Special Issue on Qualitative Aspects of System Dynamics Modeling, I immediately thought of the unpublished work completed by my graduate student Aldo Zagonel. I nominated it for consideration as an Archives paper. I believe this 2007 working paper (originally posted on the Sandia website) may be one of the best unpublished pieces of early work on the qualitative nature of our client‐based modeling efforts. (Although Dr. Zagonel included me as an author of the 2007 working paper, my involvement was simply that of a graduate advisor. He deserves all the credit for this work and manuscript.) Zagonel developed this work in his doctoral program and presented an earlier version at the 2002 International System Dynamics Conference (Zagonel 2002). That version of the paper won the Dana Meadows Award for the best student paper.Zagonel's doctoral work was part of our early efforts at UAlbany to develop group model building (GMB) as a technique in system dynamics. These approaches to model conceptualization and formulation blend quantitative and qualitative methods with strong scripted facilitation techniques. Zagonel was the first to note how this combination of approaches creates the ideal‐type dichotomy between “micro worlds” and “boundary objects” that he describes in this paper. His suggestion that much of the good work in system dynamics draws on both of these ideal types was prescient. The ideas discussed here have influenced many others over the years. I am pleased they will now be more easily accessible for our field.I am especially pleased that this paper is being published in the same issue as Laura Black's (2024) thoughtful reflection on Dr. Zagonel's paper and extension of the ideal‐type dichotomy he presents. Her paper offers an update on the idea of Zagonel's “straw man” comparison of micro worlds and boundary objects, suggesting that these are two points on a continuum of models that contribute to decision making and stakeholder interaction. She shows how this aspect of our field has developed in the last few decades and provides a clear framework for how to think about our work.Black, LJ. 2024. Reflecting on Zagonel's Dichotomy of Microworlds and Boundary Objects. System Dynamics Review.Zagonel AA. 2002. Model conceptualization in Group Model Building: A review of the literature exploring the tension between representing reality and negotiating a social order. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Palermo, Italy (July 28‐August 1).AbstractBased upon participant observation in group model building and content analysis of the system dynamics literature, I postulate that modeling efforts have a dual nature. On one hand, the modeling process aims to create a useful representation of a real‐world system. This must be done, however, while aligning the clients' mental models around a shared view of the system. There is significant overlap and confusion between these two goals and how they play out on a practical level. This research clarifies these distinctions by establishing an ideal‐type dichotomy. To highlight the differences, I created two straw men: “micro world” characterizes a model that represents reality and “boundary object” represents a socially negotiated model. Using this framework, the literature was examined, revealing evidence for several competing views on problem definition and model conceptualization. The results are summarized in the text of this article, substantiated with strikingly polarized citations, often from the same authors. I also introduce hypotheses for the duality across the remaining phases of the modeling process. Understanding and appreciation of the differences between these ideal types can promote constructive debate on their balance in system dynamics theory and practice. © 2024 System Dynamics Society.

查看原文本刊更多论文

档案论文：小组模型构建中的微观世界与边界对象：来自问题定义和模型概念化文献的证据（2007 年）

大卫-安德森（David Andersen）前言当我看到 "系统动力学建模的定性方面 "特刊的论文征集启事时，我立即想到了我的研究生阿尔多-扎格内尔（Aldo Zagonel）未发表的作品。我将其提名为档案论文。我相信这篇 2007 年的工作论文（最初发布在桑迪亚网站上）可能是我们基于客户的建模工作的定性性质方面未发表的早期工作的最佳作品之一。(虽然扎格内尔博士将我列为 2007 年工作论文的作者之一，但我只是以研究生导师的身份参与其中。这项工作和手稿应归功于他）。Zagonel 在他的博士课程中完成了这项工作，并在 2002 年国际系统动力学会议上发表了早期版本（Zagonel 2002）。Zagonel 的博士论文是我们早期在奥尔巴尼大学努力发展系统动力学技术--群体模型构建 (GMB) 的一部分。这些模型概念化和制定方法融合了定量和定性方法以及强大的脚本促进技术。Zagonel 是第一个注意到这种方法的结合如何在 "微观世界 "和 "边界对象 "之间形成理想型二分法的人，他在本文中对此进行了描述。他认为，系统动力学中的许多优秀作品都借鉴了这两种理想类型，他的这一观点很有先见之明。多年来，本文讨论的观点影响了许多其他人。我尤其高兴的是，这篇论文与劳拉-布莱克（Laura Black，2024 年）对扎贡内尔博士论文的深思以及他提出的理想类型二分法的扩展发表在同一期上。她的论文更新了扎贡内尔关于微观世界和边界对象的 "稻草人 "比较的观点，认为这是有助于决策和利益相关者互动的模型连续体上的两个点。她展示了我们这个领域在过去几十年中是如何发展的，并为如何思考我们的工作提供了一个清晰的框架。2024.系统动力学评论》.Zagonel.System Dynamics Review.Zagonel AA.2002.小组模型构建中的模型概念化：探索现实表述与社会秩序协商之间矛盾的文献综述》。系统动力学学会第 20 届国际会议论文集。意大利巴勒莫（7 月 28 日-8 月 1 日）.摘要根据对小组模型构建的参与观察和对系统动力学文献的内容分析，我推测建模工作具有双重性质。一方面，建模过程旨在为现实世界的系统创建有用的表征。然而，在这样做的同时，还必须使客户的心智模型与系统的共同观点保持一致。在这两个目标之间存在着明显的重叠和混淆，以及它们在实际操作中是如何实现的。本研究通过建立理想型二分法来澄清这些区别。为了突出这些区别，我创造了两个稻草人："微观世界 "代表一种代表现实的模式，而 "边界对象 "则代表一种经过社会协商的模式。利用这一框架，我们对文献进行了研究，发现了关于问题定义和模型概念化的几种相互竞争的观点。本文对这些结果进行了总结，并通过惊人的两极分化引文加以证实，这些引文往往出自同一作者之手。我还介绍了建模过程其余阶段的二元性假设。理解和认识这些理想类型之间的差异，可以促进对它们在系统动力学理论和实践中的平衡进行建设性的讨论。© 2024 系统动力学会。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

System Dynamics Review Multiple-

CiteScore

6.60

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The System Dynamics Review exists to communicate to a wide audience advances in the application of the perspectives and methods of system dynamics to societal, technical, managerial, and environmental problems. The Review publishes: advances in mathematical modelling and computer simulation of dynamic feedback systems; advances in methods of policy analysis based on information feedback and circular causality; generic structures (dynamic feedback systems that support particular widely applicable behavioural insights); system dynamics contributions to theory building in the social and natural sciences; policy studies and debate emphasizing the role of feedback and circular causality in problem behaviour.