Building confidence in models for multiple audiences: The modelling cascade

European Journal of Operational Research

Volumn 186, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 1068-1083

  Howick, Susan ^a   Eden, Colin ^a   Ackermann, Fran ^a   Williams, Terry ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF STRATHCLYDE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Cause mapping; Cognitive mapping; Simulation; Validity

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONFORMAL MAPPING; MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS; TRANSPARENCY;

CAUSE MAPPING; COGNITIVE MAPPING; VALIDITY;

OPERATIONS RESEARCH;

EID: 35549008506     PISSN: 03772217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2007.02.027     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ackermann F., and Eden C. Contrasting single user and networked group decision support systems. Group Decision and Negotiation 10 1 (2001) 47-66
2. Ackermann F., and Eden C. Using causal mapping: Individual and group; traditional and new. In: Pidd M. (Ed). Systems Modelling: Theory & Practice (2004), Wiley, Chichester 127-145
3. Ackermann F., and Eden C. Using causal mapping with group support systems to elicit an understanding of failure in complex projects: Some implications for organizational research. Group Decision and Negotiation. 14 5 (2005) 355-376
4. Ackermann F., Eden C., and Williams T.M. Modeling for litigation: Mixing qualitative and quantitative approaches. Interfaces 27 2 (1997) 48-65
5. Ackermann F., Eden C., Williams T., and Howick S. Systematic risk assessment: A case study. Journal of the Operational Research Society 58 1 (2006) 39-51
6. Ackoff R.L., and Sasieni M.W. Fundamentals of Operations Research (1968), Wiley, New York
7. Balci O. Validation, verification, and testing techniques throughout the life cycle of a simulation study. Annals of Operations Research 53 (1994) 121-173
8. Balci O. A methodology for certification of modeling and simulation applications. ACM Transactions on Modeling and Computer Simulation 11 4 (2001) 352-377
9. Barlas Y. Multiple tests for validation of system dynamics type of simulation models. European Journal of Operational Research 42 1 (1989) 59-87
10. Barlas Y. Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. System Dynamics Review 12 3 (1996) 183-210
11. Barlas Y., and Carpenter S. Philosophical roots of model validation: Two paradigms. System Dynamics Review 6 2 (1990) 148-166
12. Bell J.A., and Bell M.F. System dynamics and scientific method. In: Randers J. (Ed). Elements of the System Dynamics Method (1980), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
13. Bryson J.M., Ackermann F., Eden C., and Finn C. Visible Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results (2004), Wiley, Chichester
14. Burns J.R. Converting signed digraphs to Forrester schematics and converting Forrester schematics to differential equations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC 7 10 (1977) 695-707
15. Burns J.R., and Ulgen O.M. A sector approach to the formulation of system dynamics models. International Journal of Systems Science 9 6 (1978) 649-680
16. Burns J.R., Ulgen O.M., and Beights H.W. An algorithm for converting signed digraphs to Forrester's schematics. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC 9 3 (1979) 115-124
17. Coyle R.G. System Dynamics Modelling: A Practical Approach (1996), Chapman & Hall, London
18. Coyle R.G. Qualitative and quantitative modelling in system dynamics: Some research questions. System Dynamics Review 16 3 (2000) 225-244
19. Coyle G., and Exelby D. The validation of commercial system dynamics models. System Dynamics Review 16 1 (2000) 27-41
20. Eden C. Cognitive mapping: A review. European Journal of Operational Research 36 (1988) 1-13
21. Eden C., and Ackermann F. Analyzing and comparing idiographic causal maps. In: Eden C., and Spender J.C. (Eds). Managerial and Organizational Cognition (1998), Sage, London 192-209
22. Eden C., and Ackermann F. Cognitive mapping expert views for policy analysis in the public sector. European Journal of Operational Research 152 (2004) 615-630
23. Ford D., and Sterman J. Expert knowledge elicitation to improve formal and mental models. System Dynamics Review 14 4 (1998) 309-340
24. Forrester J.W. Industrial Dynamics (1961), Productivity Press, Portland, Oregon
25. Forrester J.W., and Senge P.M. Tests for building confidence in system dynamics models. In: Legasto Jr. A.A., Forrester J.W., and Lyneis J.M. (Eds). TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 14 (1980), North-Holland
26. Fossett C.A., Harrison D., Weintrob H., and Gass S.I. An assessment procedure for simulation models: a case study. Operations Research 39 5 (1991) 710-723
27. Gass S.I. Decision-aiding models: validation, assessment, and related issues for policy analysis. Operations Research 31 4 (1983) 603-631
28. Gass S.I. Model accreditation: a rationale and process for determining a numerical rating. European Journal of Operational Research 66 (1993) 250-258
29. Gass S.I., and Joel L.S. Concepts of model confidence. Computers and Operations Research 8 4 (1981) 341-346
30. Howick S. Using system dynamics to analyse disruption and delay in complex projects for litigation: Can the modelling purposes be met?. Journal of the Operational Research Society 54 3 (2003) 222-229
31. Howick S. Using system dynamics models with litigation audiences. European Journal of Operational Research 162 1 (2005) 239-250
32. Howick S., Ackermann F., and Andersen D. Linking event thinking with structural thinking: Methods to improve client value in projects. System Dynamics Review 22 2 (2006) 113-140
33. Lane D. Diagramming conventions in system dynamics. Journal of Operational Research Society 51 2 (2000) 241-245
34. Lane D., and Oliva R. The greater whole: Towards a synthesis of system dynamics and soft systems methodology. European Journal of Operational Research 107 (1998) 214-235
35. Law A.M., and Kelton W.D. Simulation Modeling and Analysis. third ed. (2000), McGraw-Hill, New York
36. Mitchell G. The Practice of Operational Research (1993), Wiley, Chichester
37. Oliva R. Model structure analysis through graph theory: Partition heuristics and feedback structure decomposition. System Dynamics Review 20 4 (2004) 313-336
38. Pidd M. Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science (2003), Wiley, Chichester
39. Pidd M. Computer Simulation in Management Science. fifth ed. (2004), Wiley, Chichester
40. Richardson G.P., and Pugh III A.L. Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling with DYNAMO (1981), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
41. Rivett P. Principles of Model Building (1972), Wiley, London
42. Robinson S. Simulation: The Practice of Model Development and Use (2004), Wiley, Chichester
43. Rosenhead J., and Mingers J. Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited (2001), Wiley, Chichester
44. Sterman J.D. Appropriate summary statistics for evaluating the historical fit of system dynamics models. Dynamica 10 2 (1984) 51-66
45. Sterman J.D. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World (2000), Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Chicago
46. Vennix J. Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning using System Dynamics (1996), Wiley, Chichester
47. Williams T., Ackermann F., and Eden C. Structuring a delay and disruption claim: An application of cause-mapping and system dynamics. European Journal of Operational Research. 148 (2003) 192-204
48. Williams T.M., Ackermann F., Eden C., and Howick S. Learning from project failure. In: Love P., Irani Z., and Fong P. (Eds). Management of Knowledge in Project Environments (2004), Oxford Elsevier/Butterworth-Heinemann 219-236
49. Wolstenholme E.F. System Enquiry: A System Dynamics Approach (1990), Wiley, Chichester
50. Wolstenholme E.F. Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: The evolving balance. Journal of the Operational Research Society 50 4 (1999) 422-428