Advances in System Dynamics Group Model Building

1. Advances in System DynamicsGroup Model Building George P. Richardson Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany, SUNY

2. Outline of Remarks • Origins of the current work • System dynamics group model building • Recent work with Eden and Ackermann • Scottish Health System • Transportation Security Administration • The Emerging Approach

3. Colleagues • Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann, Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow • John Bryson, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota • David Andersen, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany • Thirteen years of collaborations and thought, enlivened by skiing and hiking together

4. Recent Fruits of our Efforts • Andersen, DF, JM Bryson, GP Richardson, C Eden, F Ackermann, C Finn, 2006. Integrating Models of Systems Thinking into Strategic Planning Education and Practice: The Thinking Persons Institute Approach.Journal of Public Affairs Education,12,3 (Summer 2006): 265-293. • C Eden, F Ackermann, JM Bryson, GP Richardson, DF Andersen, 2008. Integrating modes of policy analysis and strategic management practice: requisite elements and dilemmas.Journal of the Operational Research Society (forthcoming 2008).

5. Patterns of Behavior System Structure A Glimpse of the Systems Perspective Reactive Events and Decisions Adaptive Increasing leverage Generative

6. New York, Chicago & Philadelphia, 1800-2000

7. Prejudice and Minority Achievement (Myrdal, Merton) + (R) Hope or despair Aspirations of the minority – Prejudice – + Minority perceptions of the gap Achievements of the minority (B) Striving Discrimination + (R) Prejudice + + Opportunities for the minority Minority efforts to achieve – +

8. Stocks, Flows, and Feedback Loops in a Gasoline Crisis

9. What is Group Modeling? • A form of group decision support, involving a group of stakeholders with a complex problem • Group facilitation • Model building and refinement in public • Simulation of scenarios and options • Extensive facilitated discussion and analysis • Facilitated policy design and decisions

10. The Albany Teamwork Approach • Facilitator / Elicitor • Modeler / Reflector • Process coach • Recorder • Gatekeeper

11. Components of the Process • Problem definition meeting • Group modeling meeting • Formal model formulation • Reviewing model with model building team • Rolling out model with the community • Working with flight simulator • Making change happen

12. A Typical Room GMB Session

14. Strathclyde Group Explorer Approach • Facilitator / Elicitor • “Chauffer” / Analyst • Participants at networked computers

15. Group Explorer Facilitated Strategic Planning • Issue elicitation • Laddering up to “Own Goals” • Stakeholder power and interest grid • Stakeholder goals and sanctions • Prioritizing strategic priorities • Key performance indicators • Agreed policies and strategies in context

16. Strategy Workshop in Scotland • Borders Region of Scotland concerned with provision of care for persons with Dementia • Consortium of 28 Health Care Practitioners and Managers formed the strategy planning team • Workshop in January of 2007 Explored Innovation approaches integrating • Workshops designed and used innovative Group Model Building scripts that integrate two different approaches to strategy making

17. Scotland Workshop: a View of the Room

18. Scotland Workshop: a View of the Room

19. Picturing Complexity

20. Picturing Complexity

21. Picturing Complexity

22. The Initial GE Issues Map

23. Themes in the Issue Map

24. Graphs Over Time to Focus the Discussion

25. Linking Comments on Graphs Over Time

26. Contributing a Systems View:Screens for the model (right) and DE (left)

27. Flow of People in the Dementia Health System

28. Pressure Points: “Who would do what”?

29. “Who would do what?” to decrease inflow to community care

30. “Who Would Do What?” in Three Pressure Points

31. More Possible Pressure Points to Discuss

32. Summary of Synergies in the Scotland Workshop • Issue maps began the effort to focus the conversation • Graphs-over-time pulled thinking about issues toward long-term patterns • Stock-and-flow map stimulated system-wide understandings, taking thinking across boundaries • DE maps captured detailed observations, insights, and claims throughout the entire process

33. TSA Aviation Security Simulator • Contract Between Transportation Security Administration and Argonne National Labs • Argonne, Sandia, and Los Alamos as part of Tri-Labs collaboration • UAlbany as “special teams” subcontractor for Group Model Building • Eden and Ackermann invited to expand team

35. Initial Issues identified

36. Issues from Stakeholder Perspectives

37. Initial Policy Priorities

38. Graphs over time drawn by the participants

39. Collecting Comments on Graphs Over Time

40. Concept Model

41. Concept Model

42. Concept Model

43. Concept Model Behaviors

44. Eliciting TSA Model Structure • “Seed” for elicitation was backbone stock and flow structure from Concept Model as elaborated by group • Used “variable” pack available from “key variable” list made up in the morning • Ability to link model structure to Group Explorer issue elicitation and key variable list explicitly

48. Final Policy Priorities (red=short term, green=long term)

49. Summary of Synergies in TSA Workshop • GE maps used to elicit initial issues • Graphs-over-time defining the problem dynamically • GE used to map stakeholders and scenarios • GE phrases turned into variables to seed dynamic model structure • GE creating rich micro view; SD creating holistic macro view • GE used to create rich documentation as modeling discussion developed

50. Where is This Leading? • Duality of Vensim and Decision Explorer Maps • Seamless approach to client groups • Ability to “zoom lenses” between micro and macro views • New support for model formulation and documentation • New products that enhance value to clients • Eventually perhaps integrated software suites