This paper reports the results of a comparison of quantitative and qualitative approaches to systems analysis. The primary goal of the investigation was to test a heuristic for qualitative analysis previously proposed by the author that is intended to improve recognition of potential sources of failure for models used for forecasting. A series of papers published by John Sterman, George Richardson, and Pål Davidsen in the mid- to late-1980s examining resource estimation methods and the petroleum lifecycle were selected for analysis based on their completeness and perceived high quality of the models – both quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative results presented in those papers are compared to published data and some potential sources of deviation are identified. The paper then presents an analysis of the qualitative models contained in the papers, highlighting the differences in the nature of insights available from the qualitative and quantitative analyses and illustrating how this expanded logic for qualitative analysis may contribute to the formulation and bounding process for predictive system dynamic models.

This is the whole item.

Date created

• 2006 July 23-2006 July 27

Type

• Document

Processing Activity

• Processing documentation available at: https://wiki.albany.edu/display/SCA/Processing+Ingested+Digital+Files

License

• Creative Commons BY-NC-ND Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International

  
  Contact Us for questions or additional rights.

ITEM CONTEXT

Part of

32937c7b43e3e015509bb71fd40d2054

Scope and Contents

Part of

23d738ba88f8333bc39725f9cb5bd0b8

Scope and Contents

Part of

f9377a3ac7b50b1fca5e04fb6d679ec2

Scope and Contents

Collection

System Dynamic Society Records

Scope and Contents

Collecting area

• This collection is part of the University Archives