Using Simulation to Teach Public Management Competencies
by David F. Andersen
Abstract: For the past several years, we have been experimenting at the
Rockefeller College with both developing and using Simulation-Based
Learning Environments (SBLEs) to support teaching in our core courses for
the Masters of Public Administration degree. This presentation presents two
examples of this work and discusses its implications for teaching public
management competencies. The first example is the ReThink Health
simulator developed by the Rippel Foundation. Students in a capstone class
experiment with this model to design locally-based health care reforms ina
generic region, “Any Town’”--a region calibrated with US national health and
demographic data at a scale of 1:1000. The second example is the
CoastalProtectSIM simulator, a SBLE designed to explore planning to protect
a coastal region from hurricanes. This simulator is based on principles from
the Shared Vision Planning unit of the US Army Corps of Engineers. The
presentation also presents survey data from student participants in the
CoastalProtectSIM classes that link the experiences to five core managerial
competencies, part of the national standards for public affairs education.
This presentation is based directly on three recent presentations:
1. “Simulation —Based Learning Environments to Teach Complexity: The
Missing Link in Teaching Sustainable Public Management.” (2013)
(With Michael A. Deegan, Krystyna A. Stave, Roderick H. MacDonald,
Minyoung Ku, Eliot Rich). Proceedings of the International Conference
of the System Dynamics Society 2013. July 21-25, 2013. Cambridge,
MA, USA.
2s “Teaching and Learning about Complexity in Public Policy and
Management: Developing the Simulation-Based Learning Environment
with the Gulf Coast Disaster Preparedness Case.” (2013). (With
Minyoung Ku, Michael Deegan, Roderick H. MacDonald, Deborah Lines
Andersen). Public Management Research Conference, Madison, WI.
3. “ReThink Health: A Simulation-Based Learning Environment as One
Component of the MPA Capstone Experience at the Rockefeller
College” (2013) (with Bobby Milstein, Gary Hirsch, Rebecca Niles,
Michael Breslin, Robert McEvoy, Rod MacDonald, Hyo-Shin Kwon)
NASPAA Annual Conference Washington DC October 11, 2013
Biosketch: David Andersen is Distinguished Service Professor
of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Information
Science at the Rockefeller College, University at Albany. His
work centers on applying system dynamics, systems thinking,
and information technology approaches to problems in the
public, not-for-profit, and private sectors. He has served as a
technical consultant to public and not-for-profit agencies in
the federal, state, and local sectors as well as corporate clients
in North America and Europe.
Professor Andersen is co-author of /ntroduction to Computer
Simulation: The System Dynamics Modeling Approach (winner
of the Forrester Award in 1983)
and Government Information
Management as well as over 80
journal articles, book chapters,
monographs, and edited volumes. §
He holds a Ph.D. in Management
from MIT's Sloan School (1977)
with a specialization in System
Dynamics as well as an AB in
Mathematics and Urban Studies
from Dartmouth College (1970).
Evaluating Model Credi
ity (Quality, Validity): Concepts, Tools and Recent Developments
by Yaman Barlas
Abstract: Typically (and improperly) called ‘model validity’ testing,
model credibility evaluation has always been a very controversial issue in
system dynamics methodology, and in any modeling field in general. We
will briefly discuss why this important notion is so controversial. To this
end, we will review major types of models, particularly as they impact
the notion of model credibility. The two most important model types are
i- Purely statistical forecasting (black box) models, and ii- Causal-
descriptive policy (transparent) models. We will also provide an overview
of philosophical roots of the controversy and show in the process why
validity is a poor choice of term. We will then focus on what makes
system dynamics model credibility and evaluation unique and quite
different than most forecasting models. These properties stem from the
fact that system dynamics models are causal-descriptive models and they
are designed for long-term policy analysis and design objectives (rather
than short/medium term forecasting). One important result is the fact
that system dynamics credibility consists of two very different aspects:
structural and behavioral. Moreover, in system dynamics method
establishing structure credibility must strictly precede behavior
credibility; the latter has no value without the former. We thus discuss
Structural tests and behavior pattern tests for system dynamics
separately. Structure tests can further be classified into direct and
indirect structure tests. We place special emphasis on indirect structure
tests. These are strong (special) behavior tests that can provide
information on potential structural flaws. Closely related with model
credibility, we discuss the main principles of building high quality models,
so that model credibility is spontaneously and naturally established in
modeling process.
We next provide a quick overview of two different model testing
software developed at Bogazici University SESDYN Lab: i- SiS to assist
with indirect structure testing, and _ii- BTS Il to facilitate behavior
pattern testing. Finally, we offer a preview of our new integrated model
evaluation software that we are close to finalizing in our Lab. To
conclude, we discuss some implementation issues and how the available
model evaluation tools/methods can potentially be integrated into the
mainstream modeling software and practice.
Biosketch: Yaman Barlas received his B.S., M.S. and Ph.D.
degrees in Industrial and Systems Engineering. Upon receiving
his Ph.D. from Georgia Institute of Technology in 1985, he
joined Miami University of Ohio, department of Systems
Analysis, and he was tenured in 1990. He returned to Bogazici
University in Istanbul in 1993, where he is currently working
as a professor of Industrial Engineering and directing the
SESDYN research laboratory . His interest areas are validation
of simulation models, system dynamics method, systems
science, modeling/analysis of socio-economic and medical
problems, and simulation as a learning/training platform. Prof.
Barlas teaches simulation, system dynamics, systems science
and advanced
dynamic systems
modeling. He has
several teaching
excellence awards. He
is a founding member
~~ anda former
~ President of the
< System Dynamics
* Society, managing
editor of System
Dynamics Review and
an invited Honorary
Editor of the
Encyclopedia of Life
Support Systems.
System Dynamics Modelling for the Management of Economic Development
By Brian Dangerfield
Abstract: Economic modelling applications are the subject of a
growing effort within system dynamics and, as part of that thrust,
the field of economic development is a significant component. This
paper offers some reflections on exactly how the system dynamics
methodology has made an impact in that sphere. Based largely
upon work conducted for the government of the State of Sarawak
in East Malaysia, where a system dynamics model was formulated
to inform the State’s future economic and social planning to 2020,
aseries of modelling and policy precepts are discussed which
position this methodology ahead of other approaches. In particular
the system dynamics methodology facilitates positive engagement
with government officials, a necessary pillar in the effective
deployment of a modelling methodology in this context.
Biosketch: Brian is Professor of Systems Modelling at Salford
Business School, University of Salford, UK. He was educated in
the UK and holds a bachelor's degree in Economics, Statistics
& Operational Research from Swansea University, a post-
graduate diploma in Industrial Administration from Bradford
University and a PhD from Salford University.
Following a short spell in industrial Operational Research,
Brian joined the University of Liverpool, UK before moving to
the University of Salford. He was promoted to a Chair in 2000.
Brian was awarded the UK Operational Research Society's
President's Medal in 1991and their Goodeve Medal in 2005.
From 2002 to 2011 he was Executive Editor of the System
Dynamics Review. His work using system dynamics has
included models applied to the epidemiology of HIV/AIDS and
to economies of scale and capacity management in the steel
industry. In 2005 he completed a major SD-based economic
modelling project for the government of the State of Sarawak
in East Malaysia. Following that he
was engaged in a research council
funded project analyzing
competitiveness in the UK
construction industry. His current
interests include SD projects in
health care, particularly childhood
obesity.
‘Model’ Teaching: Furthering the Arts of Teaching System Dynamics Modeling
by George P. Richardson
Abstract: Lessons learned from years of teaching system dynamics
modelers-to-be, trying to distill principles that can guide master
teaching. The focus of these reflections is on quantitative modeling,
rather than qualitative systems thinking. The talk will present a
“canonical sequence” for course design. It will then focus in detail on
what to do first, early and repeated iterative modeling, adding model
structure, improving model structure, time constants, and end with
thoughts on teaching conceptualization.
Biosketch: George P. Richardson is Professor Emeritus of
Public Administration, Public Policy, and Informatics in the
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy at the
University at Albany. He is the author of Introduction to
System Dynamics Modeling with DYNAMO (1981) and
Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory (1991,
1999), both of which were honored with the System Dynamics
Society’s Jay W. Forrester Award, and the edited two-volume
collection Modeling for Management: Simulation in Support
of Systems Thinking (1996). He founded the System Dynamics
Review and later served for seven years as its Executive Editor.
Professor Richardson has been honored with awards from the
University and the State University of New York for Excellence
in Teaching (2003) and Excellence
in Academic Service (2010).
In 2011, the System Dynamics
Society recognized him with its
award for Outstanding Service for
his contributions to the Society
and the field. In 2013 he was
honored with the Rockefeller
College Distinguished Service
Award.
Taking on the “Big Issues” and “Climbing the Mountains Ahead”: Challenges and Opportunities in Asia
by John Richardson
Abstract: In a characteristically forthright 2007 article, Professor Jay Forrester
expressed concern about the current state of the system dynamics profession
and charged colleagues with a challenging, inspiring future agenda that would
encompass the next 50 years. He called for work that would achieve greater
“penetration into “the big issues” such as economic dangers from balance of
trade deficits, the future of social security systems, immigration and health
care. He mourned the lack of path breaking works comparable to Urban
Dynamics, World Dynamics and Limits to Growth that could challenge - and
change - public opinion. He urged us to be purposeful and courageous in
“climbing the mountains ahead.”
My talk, elaborating on themes with which | concluded my talk at the 2013
International System Dynamics Society Conference in Cambridge presents a
more optimistic view, which is strongly Asia focused. The Lee Kuan Yew School
of Public Policy, where | teach system dynamics modeling, has faced up to the
challenge of balancing the needs of faculty members for academic credibility
with the need to produce work that is relevant to wider publics, though it has
not fully resolved the issue. Students in my classes have produced high quality
work that, in one instance has won high praise from Professor Forrester
himself.
My optimism has been fueled by my work in Singapore, which has proved to
be an increasingly receptive environment. This reflects the degree to which
Singapore’s political, social economy has been shaped by the system’s thinking
of its founding political leaders. Singapore is not only an intrinsically
interesting venue, however, it is also a point of leverage for i ing
Biosketch: John Richardson is Visiting Professor at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy,
National University of Singapore and Professor Emeritus, School of International Service,
American University, Washington, DC. His contributions n the areas of research, teaching,
public policy consulting and acaclemic administration draw upon a diverse background that
includes graduate work in political science, ics and He
would describe the principal goal of his work, spanning 40 years, as making the results of
rigorous public policy analysis widely accessible to policy makers and wider publics. Among
awards and recognition he has received, three are most noteworthy. In 2013, he was recognized
by the System Dynamics Society for his work in sustainable development and public policy with
the Society's Lifetime Achievement Award. In 2012, he was named by the Balaton Group, an
international network of scholars in fields related to systems and sustainability as its “Member
of the Year.” In 1982, he was named by an international committee of the Society for Computer
Simulation as “One of the Twenty Most Effective Decision-Makers in the World.” His recent
work focused on the causes of political conflict in Global South nations and on non-violent
strategies for development. Publications on this subject have appeared in Futures, the Futurist,
Ethnic Studies Report and as chapters in several edited volumes. His most recent book, Paradise
Poisoned: Learning about Conflict Terrorism and Development from Sri Lanka’s Civil Wars (2005)
culminated nearly 20 years of research and writing on these topics. An excerpt from Paradise
Poisoned translated into Sinhala and Tamil, was recently published as Lessons from the War:
Consequences and Failures (2008). A second, Path to the Crisis was launched in January 2010. A
third, Years of Promise and Hope was launched in September 2011. A fourth, Middle Path:
similar initiatives in China.
Singapore has also proven to be an unusually receptive environment for
achieving Professor Forrester’s goal of a society of populated by “systems
citizens,” through programs targeting secondary education. A pilot program,
initiated by one of Singapore’ 's most prestigious elite college preparatory
schools is part of a “grand plan to introduce and promote systems modeling to
all youth in Singapore.”
Looking to the future, however, | see the need for further initiatives. There are
a growing number of organizations that are concerned with the “big issues,”
especially in the area of sustainability. Among them are two with which | am
personally familiar, the Balaton Group, which focuses on global sustainability
issues and Japan For Sustainability, which, as its name suggests, devotes its
attention to Japan. Both groups have been strongly influenced by systems
thinking, but there needs to be greater dialogue between them and system
dynamics modeling practitioners. This will enable them to frame issues they
raise more sharply so that they can be accessible to the smaller models that
Professor Forrester calls for and my growing cadre of talented students (and
students from other programs) are capable of producing. There is much to be
done and a multitude of opportunities for our community members, especially
our Asian community members, to play a more important role in both model
development and creative outreach. My experiences lead me to be optimistic
about potential contributions of system dynamics to the challenging but
resolvable issues that inhabitants of Asia - and the rest of our planet - face.
Dudley ’s Imperfect Strategy was launched in October 2012 with further
volumes to be launched yearly, through 2015. Singapore is the primary focus of his present
research, which focuses on issues of resilience and sustainability in the face of anticipated
challenges posed by global overshoot and collapse. His most recent publications are “The
Improbable Resilience of Singapore” (coauthored with Elizabeth Ong Ling Lee), Solutions,
September, 2012, and “The Past is Prologue: Reflections on 40-Plus Years of System Dynamics
Modeling Practice, forthcoming in the System Dynamics Review, Fall 2014. In concluding this
latter article, Professor Richardson posed this question:
“What role will system dynamics play
in China's future?” He responded: | believe that many in China are open to new visions of how
regional, national and global economies function. |
believe they are open to new visions of development
that include sustainability, carrying capacity and
resilience as values. The challenge is this: Can our
community of those schooled in system dynamics
communicate a powerful, compelling body of both
theory and practice that will capture these leaders’
thinking? More important, can we catalyze the
education of a generation of students with the
capacity to communicate and manifest that body of
theory and practice more widely? Personally, lam
optimistic.
Jay Forrester’s disruptive models of economic behavior
by Khalid Saeed
Abstract: A revolution in economics was probably never a
conscious goal of Forrester’s work. Yet, his writings might
have laid the foundation for it by visualizing the decision
processes in firms, markets, countries and global economic
institutions, as it exists in an operational setting instead of
being defined by the abstract postulates of mainstream
economics. This operational perspective allows his models to
be tied to policies that influence everyday decisions to avoid
problematic futures. When viewed in the context of the
working of the market, economic development, management
of common property resources and control of growth and
recession, which are important application areas of
economics, Forrester’s writings provide deep insights that not
only tie well to reality, but can also be used for creating
effective policies for managing firms, regions and countries.
Drawing from my simultaneous pursuit of Economics and
System Dynamics, both in my graduate work at MIT and in
later research, and a careful study of Forrester’s work, |
discuss in this presentation Forrester’s alternative models
that address a wide range of economics policy agendas,
which set the stage for a disruptive change in the practice of
economics.
Biosketch: Khalid Saeed is Professor of Economics and System
Dynamics at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute, where he
also directs undergraduate and graduate programs in system
dynamics. He holds a Ph.D. in System Dynamics and Economic
Development from MIT. Dr. Saeed has previously held faculty
positions at Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok; Curtin
University, Australia; Dartmouth College, NH; Northeastern
University, Boston; Lulea Technical University, Sweden; and
Lahore University of Management Sciences, Pakistan. He has
worked as a consultant, among other organizations, with US
Health Resources and Services Administration, Veterans
Administration, United Nations, Asian Development Bank,
World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Booz
Alan Hamilton and McKinsey & Company. He has written two
books and numerous articles on economic development,
management and environmental agendas using system
dynamics modeling. He received Jay Wright Forrester Award
for his work on sustainable
economic development in 1995
and has served as President of
System Dynamics Society and
Associate Editor of System
Dynamics Review.
Mapping and simulation as means to improve mental models of dynamic systems
by Martin Schaffernicht
Abstract: System dynamics believes that undesirable system behavior is the
consequence of aspects that the decision policies fail to recognize or take into
account. In other words, some relevant factor or some relevant causal link has
not been recognized or its importance has been misjudged. In other words, if
our decision policies fail to yield the desired outcomes, then our mental models
are to be blamed. If we were able to improve the mental models, decision
policies could be mended and system behavior would develop accordingly.
Therefore we have to ask which factors and causal links could be relevant and
then assure that only the relevant ones remain in the mental model. We need a
creative phase of problem structuring followed by a testing phase. Problem
structuring is prone to overshooting: when faced with a problematic situation,
individuals unconsciously retrieve previous experiences hooked by salient
features of the situation, and so everyone can find many factors and influences
which might be relevant. Those who privilege a stock-oriented structuring (like
in “strategy dynamics”) impose a disciplining framework of rules right from the
start, but not all adhere to this approach. As ever, the price of discipline is the
time spent on learning it, and therefore one may find reasons to opt for a less
disciplined approach.
However, upon structuring a set of candidate variables and links, the obligatory
question is how can we decide what is relevant? Following the basic
assumption that structure drives behavior, it has to be assessed if the proposed
structure generates the problematic behavior. Only this “test-drive” allows to
decide what must be corrected and what can be left out of the representation
of the problematic situation.
So can individuals with little quantitative background and little time to invest in
learning the prerequisite skills accede to the advantages of improving their
mental models by the disciplined creativity of mapping and simulating? This
question has been debated ever since user-friendly desktop computers spread
and icon-based modeling software seemed to make system dynamics available
to “the rest of us”.
In this presentation, | will argue that there are three questions to be answered
for each possibly relevant factor: a) how does it behave? b) how do | believe
this behavior is generated? and c) can | demonstrate it?
| will show the use of the three questions for a short executive course in an
MBA program. In this case, a simulation game allows to generate a problematic
situation, triggering players to propose factors and influences; then guided,
piecewise modeling experiments with parts of the structure allow to structure
the mental models and attach behavior patterns to the structure blocks. Then
groups are built and devise decision policies which are justified using causal
loop diagrams and try them out in the gaming environment. The simulated
performances allows a comparative discussion of the strategies/CLDs and by the
final discussion, students have gone through various iterations of proposing and
testing, and their mental models have been put to test without them having
written the equations of a stock-and-flow model.
Biosketch: Martin Schaffernicht is Associate Professor at the
College of Business Administration of the University of Talca in
Chile. He teaches system dynamics to undergraduate and
graduate students of business administration. His research
deals with the measurement and analysis of learning effects of
system dynamics interventions.
Originally trained as economist, he then joined a development
organization and worked in the development of management
information systems for rural banking projects in western
Africa. During this time he discovered the challenging
problem of defining decision policies in informal organizations.
After three years, he followed a call to the University of Talca,
where he started teaching information system development
and systems theory. Then followed a PhD Project developing
a method for organizational learning called OMCA (Observe-
Model-Construct-Act) based on the cybernetic approach to
ultrastable systems, where decision rules (policies) and design
rules (policies) have to be developed as part of routine work.
The challenge of designing design policies lead towards system
dynamics as a tool. Starting in 2003, a growing amount of
effort has been dedicated to making system dynamics
accessible to the Spanish speaking community by a textbook,
the development of intermediate approaches to
system dynamics (between full
scale modeling and simulation
gaming) and the notion of the
evolution of models over time,
with special attention to mental
models. Over the past few years,
the definition of “mental model of
dynamic systems” has been
operationalized such as to take
account of specific features of
dynamic systems, most
prominently feedback loops and
delays.
System Dynamics: Re-basing the Paradigm
by Kim Warren
Abstract: “When faced with a new problem, | start
by identifying the stocks and how they are
changing. | do not try to develop causal loop
diagrams, though | know this is popular.” Forrester
J, 2013.
There has been much recent debate about how
the uptake of System Dynamics might be
accelerated - suggesting a fundamental
reconsideration of how it is practiced might be in
order. System dynamics projects commonly start
with defining how issues of concern are changing
over time, then moves to the building of
qualitative causal-loop diagrams with those
involved, after which model structures with
stocks and flows are drawn up and data sought
with which to populate and formulate those
structures, so as to create a working mathematical
model. The process is difficult, time-consuming
and unreliable (in the sense that there is a high
risk of models with serious flaws and omissions,
and that different models of the same situation
will differ substantially from each other) — a weak
foundation for a professional method.
Reconsidering the method's basic science
suggests that the second step is unnecessary, and
that model-building can go straight from how the
issue of concern is behaving to a quantified
mapping of how stocks and flows are changing.
From there, interdependencies can be traced —
again with quantified support — and significant
feedback mechanisms identified. Resulting
models are more likely to be demonstrably valid,
and easier and faster to build, making system
dynamics both more accessible and a more
reliable professional tool.
Biosketch: Kim’s is an experienced strategy professional, teacher and writer. His
work now focuses entirely on the practical, rigorous method known as Strategy
Dynamics which he developed to help businesses and other organisations of
any kind or size radically improve their planning and implementation of
strategy. After 15 years in senior strategy roles in business, Kim joined the
Strategy faculty at London Business School, teaching on MBA and Executive
programs. Realising serious limitations with the strategy methods available —
see The Trouble with strategy ... (Kindle, 2012) — he developed the powerful
strategy dynamics frameworks. He is author of the prize-winning Competitive
Strategy Dynamics (Wiley, 2002), a major strategy textbook Strategic
Management Dynamics (Wiley, 2008), and e-book summary of the method —
Strategy Dynamics Essentials (Kindle, 2011). Although widely used in business
schools, this latest book is invaluable to consultants and executives engaged in
strategy. With colleagues, he has developed many simulation-based business
games that provide a clear understanding of his rigorous, fact-based approach
to developing and managing Strategy and performance. To these learning
materials has now been added the powerful, easy to use Sysdea online
modelling software. He offers a fully-featured online course in Strategy
Dynamics, also available as part of a Masters degree programme - see
strategydynamics.com/sdcourse. Collaborations with leading consulting firms
have extended the scope of Strategy Dynamics’ impact to corporate strategy,
equity analysis, technological disruption and due-diligence for M&A and private
equity deals. Consulting relationships also enhance and develop the approach,
recent examples including the UK Government's Dept for International
Development, Microsoft Inc, Visa International, BT plc, Barclays Bank, Schneider
Electric and PWC, and other public sector and
voluntary organisations. Kim has an engineering
background, an MBA and PhD from the London
Business School. His early career was spent in the
oil and petrochemicals industry. He was later retail
strategy director for Whitbread PLC during the
group's transformation to become the dominant
operator in many leisure sectors. His work,
publications, software and extensive learning
materials are available at strategydynamics.com.
