Table of Conte
On the relation between System D ynamics and Soft Systems M ethodology
in consulting.
Introduction
Systems Thinking, and the tools of Systems Thinking, are increasingly finding
a market within consulting in the United Kingdom. While System Dynamics
has a demonstrably growing market, particularly within the Defence sector, it
has been rather more difficult to market it as a relevant approach within other
Government departments and in other sectors of industry. Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM ) has, in contrast, found a comparatively receptive market
within a number of UK Government departments over some years. | have had
little success in persuading foreign owned companies of the value of SSM in
strategic reviews or information analysis. This may, to some degree, be
evidence in support of the oft quoted view that it is difficult to overcome the
“not invented here” attitude that is perceived to prevent UK methods and
approaches finding ready access to American and other markets.
It may, on the other hand, be a response to the work done in British
universities to explain the ideas of SSM, in part through the spread
throughout the academic world of the acolytes of Prof Peter Checkland and
Dr Brian Wilson at Lancaster University. Arguably, a major force for the
adoption of SSM within UK Government has been the regular workshops
conducted by Dr Wilson for the Design of Information Systems (DIS) MSc
course and others at the Royal Military College of Science. Students of these
courses have, in many cases, now reached influential positions within the
Ministry of Defence, or have spread the message into new spheres of
influence in second careers outside the military.
One further significant benefit of the DIS course was that, in addition to SSM,
Prof Geoff Coyle contributed a valued course on System Dynamics. These
contributions provided students with a suite of powerful tools to apply to
complex systems problems.
Asonewho has moved into the world of business and Information Systems
(IS) consulting after a military career, | have found both System Dynamics
and Soft Systems M ethodology to be immensely potent tools with which to
address complex business problems. This paper is a subjective attempt to
draw some lessons on the relationship between System Dynamics and SSM
from those few consulting assignments in which it has been appropriate to
consider using both approaches.
The purpose of this paper is therefore to report and reflect on experience in
the conduct of consultancy assignments in which both System Dynamics and
Soft Systems M ethodology have been applied, or are to be applied.
In the paper, | discuss the nature of consulting assignments, and provide an
example of the use of SSM in planning an intervention. | then providea brief
description of two assignments where both System Dynamics and SSM were
used, and discuss the nature of the relationship between them. | report on the
use of the methodologies in these examples, and reflect on the experience
before drawing conclusions.
The Nature of Consultancy Assignments
Consultancy assignments arise for a number of business reasons, and are
(usually) gained on the basis of competitive tender. In the UK, consultants are
a justifiable business response to a short-term skills shortage. In such cases,
typical assignments may range from manpower substitution, to address a
need for particular skills or competences, to the provision of an independent
and objective assessment of a particular business problem. Such assessments
may inherently be of value because of the consultant's skills, knowledge and
experience. They may also be of value through the production of a report that
carries none of the “baggage” that would attach to an internal report, and is
therefore capable of more acceptably recommending an unpopular or
potentially contentious course of action.
In each of these cases, the problem identified is invariably a complex one and
may involve cultural, political and dominance aspects in addition to what is
perceived to be the business problem initially suggested as the focus of the
assignment. The consultant treads a tightrope between those factions within
the organisation with something to gain from the expected outcome of the
intervention, and those with something to lose. The consultant has (generally)
little authority, except a mirrored authority from those who have employed
him or her, and must rely on the exercise of influence rather than any formal or
positional authority.
The risks to the consultant are therefore significant - all consultants seek
repeat business, and rely on our reputation, integrity and intellect to maintain
the revenue stream. Winning a short or long contract requires a similar
amount of effort, but the requirements of the short, reasonably scoped project
or assignment are in many ways more demanding. This is particularly
because there is a focus on deliverables and little time in which to develop
trust and confidence. In contrast, a longer consultant/ client relationship
allows the consultant the opportunity to become an accustomed member of
staff with the prospect of demonstrating worth by accepting peripheral tasks
outside the strict terms of the contract. Social activities also make the
consultant appear to “belong” and therefore there is a dynamic that leads to a
greater likelihood of the relationship being continued?. SSM, because of its
1 Ttis noted in passing that the UK Government has introduced a requirement that consultants in long
term positions must demonstrate that they are not in the position of employees; otherwise there is a
harsher tax treatment that prevents consultants’ limited companies from trading and paying dividends
economy, does not lend itself to long-term assignments, but rather to the short
term, delivery focused project.
Most invitations to tender (ITTs), other than those for manpower substitutes,
require some analysis of the problem as expressed by the organisation placing
the tender. It is normal to require bidders to explain the approach they intend
to use. Getting this right depends on understanding the problem, as well as
proposing an approach that is acceptable to the organisation. Price may not be
the only basis on which a tender is accepted, and it is usual, particularly in the
case of Government tenders, for there to be a complex assessment model
intended to reflect the relative priorities of the problem's stakeholders as well
as Government policies on value for money, “public private partnerships”
and risk. The consultant who can get inside the thoughts of the ITT’s authors
will havea valuable “inside track”. However, the costs of bidding can be
substantial and the bottom line is that, in the case of a complex or risky piece
of work, the old adage “no-one ever got fired for hiring IBM” still has some
prevalence!
Proposing an approach based on System Dynamics or SSM is not always well
received by client organisations. Where the potential client has some
understanding of the methodologies and the ideas underpinning them, it is
reasonable to be explicit in naming them; where the potential client shows no
evidence of understanding, it is generally safer (unless you have been invited
to tender specifically because of your known expertise in the area) to use
neutral terms such as “mission statements” or “activity models”.
Further, where, for example, a mathematical approach to a problem is being
proposed, a potential client is prepared to accept that they do not understand
the approach, or have the skills necessary to conduct the analysis. When an
approach uses the English language as the modelling language, there is a risk
that a client will believe they understand, and will make assumptions based
on the normal use of language rather than recognising that though the
language is the same, its use in the analysis is quite different. The corollary is
that the consultant must bear in mind that his or her “worldview”, based on
systems thinking2, constrains them to use language in a specific way, and they
must be careful to ensure that a common understanding is achieved.
It is therefore necessary to develop your credibility well in advance of bidding
for work, and to ensure that your proposed approach to the organisation’s
perceived problem is both viable, and culturally acceptable.
normally. This is to prevent tax avoidance through small companies paying dividends, rather than
salary payments that are subject to income tax and other taxes.
? Sterman (System Dynamics Review, Vol 18 No 4 Winter 2002, p503) states that “system dynamics is
also a worldview”. I prefer to regard systems thinking as the worldview, and System Dynamics as one
means of operationalising that worldview.
The bidding process and planning the assignment
Preparing tender documents is a problematic activity in its own right. A
number of threads run through the process. Planning and estimation (in terms
of resourcing the approach to the problem for the purpose of pricing the
response) are key.
SSM 3 recognises the problem of planning an intervention. There are two
distinct types of Root Definition and associated Conceptual Model, the lssue
Based model and the Primary Task model. In essence, the former has
temporary relevance while some problem exists, while the latter has
permanent relevance as long as the organisation and purpose exist.
The Issue Based mode! provides a logical approach to addressing the problen
identified, based either on the analyst’s understanding of the problem area or
on a form of words agreed between the analyst and the client. An example of
this agreed form of words (“Root Definition”), from the recent strategic
review of asmall manufacturing company, is:
“A Management Board owned system, operated by (analysts and
company representatives), to derive a set of actions to enhance the
long-term viability of the Company by undertaking an assessment of
the current business processes and structural arrangements through
the mapping, on to present practices and intentions, of an explicit and
coherent concept relevant to the Company, in the form of a Consensus
Primary Task Model (CPTM), in order to engage the company
personnel in an open discussion as a means of obtaining agreement on
the way forward.”>
Based on this Root Definition (RD), a conceptual mode! of the problem solving
process was developed, and is reproduced below (Figure 1). (It is not clear in
this case that a simulation could have facilitated the estimation and resource
allocation needed to plan the intervention, but it does seem that in a more
complex case there would be some value in doing so.)
It is accepted that there may be some criticism that our worldview constrained
us to adopt SSM. Our view was that as the assignment was concerned with
future processes and structure, this required an analysis of intent, rather than
a focus on current practice. It was therefore appropriate to use SSM. Although
the model incorporates an activity concerned with the construction of aCPTM,
it was not obvious at the time that undertaking these activities would address
3 This paper does not attempt to describe Soft Systems Methodology - there are many sources, both
published and Web based, that describe the traditional seven stage process. In practice, this model of
SSM has been found to be too rigid to be useful, and much of the power of SSM derives from its
flexibility.
4 The Root Definition is a well structured statement of purpose.
5 The RD and model have been slightly amended to maintain the anonymity of the company involved.
the problem in the manner expected by the clients’ representatives. There was
a clear indication that the client expected an outcome along the lines of
“purchase more capital equipment” or “diversify into other/ different
markets”. Such expected outcomes would seem to point to the need for a
simulation model, and despite confidence in the value of SSM in conducting a
“strategic review” there was some concern in the project team that the
approach adopted would lead to a failure to meet the client’s expectations for
advice resulting from a strategic review. However, decisions of this type are
not a “one off”; SSM is concerned with ensuring that the necessary activities
arein place to allow this type of decision to be made whenever it is
appropriate. It was therefore clear that the adoption of SSM did not act
against the provision of advice of this type, as an end product of the analysis.
DERE compan” DECIDE How
PeRonwet. TO UMDERTARE
OnDERT Ad) ASSESS ET |
NDERTARE An OF THE MAC ing
ASSESSHEMT oF TMHPA CT
MAP WG IW) TERMS
OF Cong ~teert
viasiery
ASSEMBLE WRELIZEW he
ABOUT fkexewr PRAcTicES,
AAD rarTENTIONS
(DERWE THE
CESSARY SET
of Rb TO
DETERMI
HAsdeneey
Borie
EXPECTATIONS
Restek. qe
THA Rerwmies,
DERWE PeTENTIAL
CHARGES TP CoRAEAT
BoswEss RecEssEs,
Acrten) To ENSURE
AGREEMENT 0A)
THE WAY FORWARD
PRACTICES Any
INTER
ENGAGE ConPRWy
Mens
PERSOMWEL In OPED
Pisevssion oF
PoTEWTIAL. CHANGES:
Figure 1. Issue Based model relevant to the company strategic review.
Among the main reasons why this approach was adopted were the credibility
of the project team (consultants and client representatives), the willingness of
the Managing Director to support what was promised to be an economical
approach (involving a minimum disruption to normal working) and, crucially,
the availability of public funding to support the project. Against this was the
legacy of the failure of a previous study, by a different consulting company, to
offer any perceived value, and a concern that other pressures (Six Sigma,
Investors in People, etc) could lead to “study fatigue”. The Company had an
excellent reputation in its market, and had been trading successfully for some
time, regardless of market factors.
This model enabled the project team to develop a plan, and estimate resource
requirements. In the event, the development of Root Definitions based on
interviews and information gathering and the construction of aCPTM took
only some 5 days of consulting effort. A workshop involving key stakeholders
was then held, where the model was explained and changes, mainly resulting
from a preference for domain language rather than a generic vocabulary,
were agreed. Further effort was expended in comparing the activities in the
CPTM with current activities, and a gap analysis was prepared and presented.
This analysis led to the identification of potential “quick wins” and stimulated
discussion within the Company on the potential “hows” through which to
achieve the “whats” agreed in the CPTM.
At this stage, the consultancy input ceased, to allow the Company to assess
potential “hows” and create their own action plan. It is hoped that further
support will be sought at a later date to carry out an information analysis, so
that appropriate information systems can be developed and introduced to
support what will become a new business model for the Company. At the
time of writing, the Company is considering ways of assessing potential
“hows”, and it is in this task that it now appears appropriate to consider the
use of System Dynamics, in addition to any need to construct abbreviated
business cases. Future work encouraged by us will develop a System
Dynamics simulation of the Company’s trading environment. This task will
be carried out by a suitably qualified Board Member as part of the
requirements for completion of a higher degree.
Conducting the activities depicted in the |ssue-Based model shown above
proved of valuein that they:
¢ Obtained client buy-in to a revised business model;
¢ Indicated the systemic nature of the client’s operations;
¢ Restored client confidence in consultancy support, through economy of
effort, an explicit audit trail and accessible deliverables;
¢ Identified scope for quick wins;
¢ Allowed the client to consider implementation decisions based on
business criteria.
Studies involving the use of both System Dynamics and SSM
An earlier assignment involved the production of both SSM and System
Dynamics models. In 1995, the British Army was considering its requirements
for information support to a new battlefield communications system. The
equipment being replaced already had a partially automated logistic support
system, based on computer hosting of data extracted from paper reports from
the equipment users. Some problems had been identified with the processes
involved, and it was intended to provide a new system to host a Logistic
Support Analysis Record (LSAR), based on US Department of Defense (DoD)
Military Standards, and to capture the relevant data automatically.
The LSAR isa well structured set of data, based on a physical or functional
breakdown of the equipment, and is intended to provide the data needed for
all maintenance and support activities throughout the equipment’s service life.
It might therefore be assumed that the processes required to manage the
associated data, and the physical equipment in use, would be well defined
and understood. This was not the case, although the staff involved did have
experience of managing the LSAR for another major capital equipment.
In conducting the feasibility and scoping studies for the proposed information
systems, it was found that the system boundaries, and therefore the interfaces,
were poorly defined. Further, the interaction between people and computer
within processes had not been investigated, and although there was a general
aspiration to automate as much as possible, no analysis had been carried out
to consider the elements of the task appropriate to human operators, and
those amenable to automation.
The client organisation had adopted |DEFO as a standard, and had some
experience of System Dynamics. However, it was considered that the scope of
the system needed to be defined in the context of the larger logistics system,
and it was believed that SSM was more appropriate for this analysis. A
number of SSM Root Definitions were derived from a “top down”
consideration of the logistic mission and a need to elaborate particular
activities from higher level models. In all, 11 separate models were produced,
an example of which appears as Figure 2.
SN a
~
se
Sees
ware No
~ LAIN
So ceragie eupenerT
Figure 2. High level logistic support activity model.
These models were insufficient for the purpose of the feasibility study, which
required the estimation of aspects of capacity and performance. Haslett® notes
that, based on the experience of setting real world problems for students, it is
advisable to have a “clear definition of the problem to be modelled”. Such a
clear definition did not exist at the outset, and only the SSM analysis provided
the common understanding of the problem that allowed further work. This
involved the development of a System Dynamics model of essentially the
same system model as had been developed using SSM, and had been scoped
to provide system boundaries. The model was coded using iThink® and a
simulation report produced to provide evidence for the initial assumptions
regarding workload estimates. The model is shown in Figure 3 below.
_
Figure 3. Potential logistics system iThink® moda.
The major advantage of the System Dynamics mode! lay in the ability it gave
us to assess the impact of policy on resource requirements, and hence to
Haslett, T. (2001) “Transition from Classroom to Practice”, System Dynamics Review Vol 17 No 2
Summer 2001. Page 167.
inform the construction of the business case necessary to progress the project.
However, the team were also able, in the quantified model, to reflect the
system and organisational boundaries imposed by the client and highlight the
implications of these in terms of transport and administrative overhead. This
provided signposts for the further SSM analysis of the system, in indicating
where “lower level” models were required. These were duly produced.
A later assignment in which both methodologies were used was an
assignment, carried out on behalf of the Royal Navy, focusing on future
training needs and organisation. The use of SSM in this case is reported in Dr
Wilson's recent excellent book’. One activity within the 200 or so activities in
the CPTM he delivered required that an assessment be conducted into the
relationship between certain factors, in order to clarify policy. This question
was addressed in a separate System Dynamics investigation, resulting in the
model, a simplified version of a larger model, shown as Figure 4 below. The
value of this model was to highlight the key relationship between average
length of time a sailor spends at sea, a policy for which there was an explicit
target, and total training loads. This evidence then drew out discussion on the
political difficulties associated with this factor and the perceived reluctance of
certain groups of service personnel to spend time away from home.
(22) Career training
C
ail
Total stot raring
Max size of Navy
oHTQ.
In recruittraining
b 6 Leave the Navy ©
Mai
Reertitment Pass out i => 5
Retum from sea duty
Leave thé Navy Retum from shore draft
Max sea billets Policy 2
Policy 1
Max shore billets os
él £2
PJT shore
P\Tsea
2
iO} 5 On sea duty
shore bil Postto shore duty
On shore draft Rostin seed Move to sea bilet
Career taining in gaining
Total strength
Figure 4. M ode relevant to a previous policy for Royal N avy training.
7 Wilson, B. (2001) “Soft Systems Methodology - Conceptual Model Building and its Contribution”.
John Wiley and Sons.
One feature of this assignment (conducted by separate consulting companies)
was that the two modelling activities took approximately the same effort, in
terms of man-days. It became obvious that the SSM approach was inherently
more economical than System Dynamics, reflecting the lower interview load
imposed by its “top down” approach.
Using the M ethodologies
Aside from the obvious need to be adept with each methodology, it was
discovered that there were a number of differences in the required skills or
approach of the analyst. The key difference was found to be the language of
communication with the client. In the case of SSM, the modelling language is
English, with the emphasis on verbs in the imperative The modelling language
of System Dynamics is stocks and flows, in both the influence diagram and
the simulation stages. The impact of this on the interaction with the client is
that, when using System Dynamics, there must be an element of “client
education” prior to modelling. This is unnecessary when using SSM, although
it is often found necessary to translate SSM products after development, to aid
clients’ understanding. Further, the organisations with which | have
experience of using SSM tended to have some form of “mission statement”
which could often be used as the basis for the development of Root
Definitions. In all cases, there remains a need for some significant education
of the client in respect of the status of models; it must be made clear that the
conceptual models of SSM are not descriptions of any “ideal” system, and
that results from System Dynamics simulations give insight into the
behaviour of the modd.
Clients who have physical products as a key business deliverable are
apparently more receptive to the language of stocks and flows, and can
readily grasp the relationship between their raw materials and products and
the entities in a model. The concept of the passage of information within a
mode! is, however, a more difficult idea to communicate.
The process or activity focus of the SSM conceptual mode! relates well to the
current emphasis on process in many organisations, resulting from the needs
to conform to process focused standards or management initiatives, including
1SO9001 and Investors in People. Government and other administrative
organisations therefore find Conceptual Models easier to grasp and
appreciate the value of. Compared with System Dynamics, SSM is a less
structured methodology and it is open (indeed it is encouraged) to the analyst
or consultant to tailor the methodology to suit the problem situation. This
skill, the scoping of the problem and adapting the approach to suit it, is a
10
facility acquired with experience. It is not one required when using System
Dynamics8.
The purpose of interviews differs between the two methodologies. SSM
requires a top down approach (though not necessarily starting at the “very
top”), to determine relevant worldviews, organisational purpose and
potential futures. System Dynamics needs a subset of these, as well as an
understanding of current processes, decision policies and the ability to make
mental models explicit. Where a decision relies on internal knowledge or
information that is not explicit, then the consultant using System Dynamics
must have the ability to elicit this detail. In my view, this makes the
information gathering a more difficult task for the analyst or consultant.
Both methodologies seem to require that the consultant have credibility and
some gravitas. These are not intrinsically required by the methodologies, but
are necessary to overcome the difficulties inherent in obtaining access to key
personnel within the organisation, and for information gathering. Of course,
not having the brand and status that comes from working for a “big name”
consultancy, it is possible that this observation reflects a problem arising only
in the case of the small consultancy!
Reflecting on the use of both methodologies
The experience of using, or considering, both System Dynamics and Soft
Systems M ethodology in the same consultancy assignment allows us to
consider particular questions.
¢ What is the key difference between the use of SSM and System Dynamics?
The assignments reported above seem to confirm our view that the
prime difference between the purpose of using SSM and System
Dynamics in consulting is that SSM is concerned with the “whats” whereas
System D ynamics is concerned with the “hows”. This view is itself
problematic. If it is the case that SSM is of valuein constructing a
consensus view of “what” the organisation is or should be, then a
problem that is already defined and scoped should not be amenable to
analysis using SSM. In practice, however, understanding of the
“problem situation” is generally ambiguous and incomplete, as the
examples above illustrate.
¢ How was communication with the client affected by using both models? In
the case of the feasibility and scoping study for the UK Ministry of
Defence (MOD) the client was a technical branch of the MOD’s
logistics agency. Initial reaction to the SSM model's was sceptical,
whereas the System Dynamics mode! was apparently more readily
8 Vennix (Vennix, J.A.M., (1996) “Group Model Building” , Chichester, Wiley. p130.) summarises a
number of approaches to designing a group model-building project, and provides guidelines for
selecting the most appropriate approach in a given situation. This, in my view, is subtly different from
the tailoring the experienced practitioner can apply to SSM.
11
accepted. The client expected to see deliverables produced using
computers and software tools. The hand drawn SSM models, and in
particular the “Rich Picture”, were initially met with some derision.
This view changed over time, and the conceptual models came to be
trusted more than computer output. It was reported that this was
because the source of the models was trusted and could be probed to
justify thoughts that underpinned any part of the model.
¢ Did either model assist the development of the other? Against my strongest
principles, because of time constraints the System Dynamics mode! for
the MOD logistics feasibility and scoping study was developed
without first producing an influence diagram. It was found that the
insight offered by the SSM conceptual model, which had been
developed first, was inadequate as a foundation for the construction of
a quantified model, but was considerably better than nothing.
Construction of the iThink® model did not provide any additional
understanding that affected our confidence in the SSM models. This is
most likely to be because the simulation was at a different “level of
resolution” from the SSM models.
¢ What practical differences were therein the treatment of the models? Perhaps
surprisingly, the team encountered some concerns about the security
classification of the models within MOD client organisations. It was
understandable that there should be disquiet, as the models related to
operational equipment or capability. In the event, it was argued
(successfully) that the SSM models should be regarded as unclassified
on the grounds that they depicted activities related to a “concept”
rather than a real world system; these activities were ‘empty’ and could
give no indication of the capability of any military system. This
argument led to the quantified mode! being treated as having a higher
classification because the quantities and metrics within it could be
taken to relate to existing or potential military capability.
¢ How did modeling improve the understanding of the system as a whole? One
of the aims of the studies reported was to determine information
requirements. Both models were crucial in meeting this aim. The SSM
models facilitate the derivation of operational and performance
information requirements? while the System Dynamics model leads to
the identification of areas where explicit policies or relationship data
are required. The SSM model! also allows an organisation to be
developed that closely aligns with activity boundaries. This both
facilitates a consideration of corporate governance, and reduces scope
for confusion by ensuring that responsibility, accountability and
authority lie exclusively and logically with an appropriate part of the
organisation. Neither model would provide all the necessary
information on its own.
9 Operational information is that which is required in order to carry out the activity, performance
information is that which allows the assessment of how well the activity is being done.
12
¢ Was it possible to use either model to validate the other? Yes, to some degree.
This was particularly the case where the SSM model required some
policy making activity; it was useful to be able to confirm that such a
policy was reflected in the simulation. Since the SSM models are
constructed on the basis of logic, their validation is not problematical.
Using SSM to support other tests of the validity of System Dynamics
models may therefore have broader value.
¢ Werethereany other subjective relations between the two models? It was
found that the ability to show sections of the simulation on one screen
was an advantage over the AO paper on which the SSM models were
drawn. Clients are somewhat overawed by the extent of a large SSM
model, and take a long time to come to terms with it. (This acceptance
sometimes only arrives when the activities in the model have been
formatted into a tabular document for further analysis.) The graphical
facilities of the software and ability to play “what if” games allowed
clients to develop a “feel” for the operation of the system, which
helped their grasp of the relationships. Attempts to represent SSM
conceptual models using software applications ranging from simple
drawing packages to process management applications was of limited
value, although some clients have imported SSM models into process
or requirements management applications. | will myself type
conceptual models into a drawing package, to facilitate report
production, though our experience it that this often introduces errors.
Subjectively, it is considered that this is because of the difficulty of
retaining a systemic view when looking at only asmall “window” on
part of the overall system. In an effort to facilitate the client’s
understanding of the CPTM, it has been found useful to providea
“subsystem decomposition”, which shows a logical grouping of
activities into labelled subsystems and the key products or flows
between them.
Conclusion
It is acknowledged that the review in this paper of the assignments referred to
above is merely subjective reflection. These deliberations have done little to
address Richardson’s?° concern that we need to “address the relationships
between qualitative mapping and quantitative modeling”. The Consensus
Primary Task Model of SSM is one particular form of qualitative model, of
considerable value in a range of types of intervention. Experience in using
both SSM and System Dynamics on the same project suggests that the prime
difference between the two is that SSM is concerned with the “whats” while
System Dynamics is concerned with the “hows”. In consequence, their use
can be seen as complementary, rather than in competition.
10 Richardson, G.P. (1996) “Problems for the Future of System Dynamics”, System Dynamics Review
Vol 12 No 2, Summer 1996. p150.
13
SSM is also more useful in organisations concerned with administration or
management activities, such as departments of government, whereas System
Dynamics fits more readily into assignments concerned with measurement
and efficiency. Here too, however, SSM encourages the derivation of
measurements of efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness; it is therefore a useful
precursor to further analysis using a simulation model.
14
Back to the Top
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0