Moving online: reflections from conducting system dynamics workshops in virtual settings

Zimmermann, Nicole; Pluchinotta, Irene; Salvia, Giuseppe; Touchie, Marianne F.; Stopps, Helen; Hamilton, Ian; Kesik, Ted; Dianati, Kaveh; Chen, Ting

doi:10.1002/sdr.1667

“…Further, this note shared several insights that were consistent with prior articles. For example, online SD GMB workshops should incorporate frequent, short breaks, allocate enough time for technical issues, consist of effective, well‐planned facilitation, and ensure a balance between participant and facilitator manipulation of elements in the online environment (Wilkerson et al ., 2020 ; Zimmermann et al ., 2021 ). Also, the current project's group size of nine stakeholders was sufficient which is consistent with the group size recommendation of five to 10 stakeholders in prior articles (Wilkerson et al ., 2020 ; Zimmermann et al ., 2021 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, online SD GMB workshops should incorporate frequent, short breaks, allocate enough time for technical issues, consist of effective, well‐planned facilitation, and ensure a balance between participant and facilitator manipulation of elements in the online environment (Wilkerson et al ., 2020 ; Zimmermann et al ., 2021 ). Also, the current project's group size of nine stakeholders was sufficient which is consistent with the group size recommendation of five to 10 stakeholders in prior articles (Wilkerson et al ., 2020 ; Zimmermann et al ., 2021 ). However, there were several unique contributions in this note to the growing online SD GMB literature, including: (i) the utility of a novel software tool for online group‐model‐building activities (Google Jamboard, used in conjunction with previously introduced tools); (ii) the application of theory‐driven facilitation and engagement strategies that can be tested for effectiveness in future projects; (iii) critical nuances involved in effectively incorporating participant input (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Extant literature that provides guidance on the design and implementation of online SD GMB workshops is limited, although two recent articles have addressed the emerging importance of this issue (Wilkerson et al ., 2020 ; Yearworth and White, 2017 ; Zimmermann et al ., 2021 ). Along with the valuable insights shared by these authors, calls for further research aimed at addressing critical issues in conducting effective online SD GMB workshops were set forth, such as determining optimal group sizes for this methodology (Wilkerson et al ., 2020 ), elucidating optimal workshop designs and facilitation strategies (Wilkerson et al ., 2020 ; Zimmermann et al ., 2021 ), and evaluating the effectiveness of various workshop designs and formats (Wilkerson et al ., 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Planning, implementing, and evaluating an online group‐model‐building workshop during the COVID‐19 pandemic: celebrating successes and learning from shortcomings

Brown

¹

,

Lemke

²

,

Fallah‐Fini

³

et al. 2022

System Dynamics Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Work in London relevant to the programme theory drew on a case study of a participatory system dynamics modelling process in Thamesmead developed from November 2019 to July 2020. Detailed information is available elsewhere 85 . The objectives were to bring together institutional stakeholders to jointly scope the focus of work on green and blue spaces, sustainability, and health, to build causal maps (Causal Loop Diagrams) around shared concerns to capture the system boundaries for each group of stakeholders, to understand differences in stakeholders' perceptions of system boundaries and their potential effects on decision-making, to bring residents' vision into the discussion, and to collectively agree on the focus of a system dynamics model.…”

Section: Box 2 Challenges To Building Relationships and Consensus: Kenyamentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a programme theory for a transdisciplinary research collaboration: Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health

Moore

¹

,

Michie

²

,

Anderson

³

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Environmental improvement is a priority for urban sustainability and health and achieving it requires transformative change in cities. An approach to achieving such change is to bring together researchers, decision-makers, and public groups in the creation of research and use of scientific evidence. Methods: This article describes the development of a programme theory for Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health (CUSSH), a four-year Wellcome-funded research collaboration which aims to improve capacity to guide transformational health and environmental changes in cities. Results: Drawing on ideas about complex systems, programme evaluation, and transdisciplinary learning, we describe how the programme is understood to “work” in terms of its anticipated processes and resulting changes. The programme theory describes a chain of outputs that ultimately leads to improvement in city sustainability and health (described in an ‘action model’), and the kinds of changes that we expect CUSSH should lead to in people, processes, policies, practices, and research (described in a ‘change model’). Conclusions: Our paper adds to a growing body of research on the process of developing a comprehensive understanding of a transdisciplinary, multiagency, multi-context programme. The programme theory was developed collaboratively over two years. It involved a participatory process to ensure that a broad range of perspectives were included, to contribute to shared understanding across a multidisciplinary team. Examining our approach allowed an appreciation of the benefits and challenges of developing a programme theory for a complex, transdisciplinary research collaboration. Benefits included the development of teamworking and shared understanding and the use of programme theory in guiding evaluation. Challenges included changing membership within a large group, reaching agreement on what the theory would be ‘about’, and the inherent unpredictability of complex initiatives.

show abstract

“…Bureaucracy in decision-making and financial constraints within governing bodies have also contributed to delays. 85 . The objectives were to bring together institutional stakeholders to jointly scope the focus of work on green and blue spaces, sustainability, and health, to build causal maps (Causal Loop Diagrams) around shared concerns to capture the system boundaries for each group of stakeholders, to understand differences in stakeholders' perceptions of system boundaries and their potential effects on decision-making, to bring residents' vision into the discussion, and to collectively agree on the focus of a system dynamics model.…”

Section: Box 2 Challenges To Building Relationships and Consensus: Kenyamentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing a programme theory for a transdisciplinary research collaboration: Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health

Moore¹,

Michie²,

Anderson³

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Environmental improvement is a priority for urban sustainability and health and achieving it requires transformative change in cities. An approach to achieving such change is to bring together researchers, decision-makers, and public groups in the creation of research and use of scientific evidence. Methods: This article describes the development of a programme theory for Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health (CUSSH), a four-year Wellcome-funded research collaboration which aims to improve capacity to guide transformational health and environmental changes in cities. Results: Drawing on ideas about complex systems, programme evaluation, and transdisciplinary learning, we describe how the programme is understood to “work” in terms of its anticipated processes and resulting changes. The programme theory describes a chain of outputs that ultimately leads to improvement in city sustainability and health (described in an ‘action model’), and the kinds of changes that we expect CUSSH should lead to in people, processes, policies, practices, and research (described in a ‘change model’). Conclusions: Our paper adds to a growing body of research on the process of developing a comprehensive understanding of a transdisciplinary, multiagency, multi-context programme. The programme theory was developed collaboratively over two years. It involved a participatory process to ensure that a broad range of perspectives were included, to contribute to shared understanding across a multidisciplinary team. Examining our approach allowed an appreciation of the benefits and challenges of developing a programme theory for a complex, transdisciplinary research collaboration. Benefits included the development of teamworking and shared understanding and the use of programme theory in guiding evaluation. Challenges included changing membership within a large group, reaching agreement on what the theory would be ‘about’, and the inherent unpredictability of complex initiatives.

show abstract

Moving online: reflections from conducting system dynamics workshops in virtual settings

Cited by 27 publications

References 9 publications

Planning, implementing, and evaluating an online group‐model‐building workshop during the COVID‐19 pandemic: celebrating successes and learning from shortcomings

Planning, implementing, and evaluating an online group‐model‐building workshop during the COVID‐19 pandemic: celebrating successes and learning from shortcomings

Developing a programme theory for a transdisciplinary research collaboration: Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health

Developing a programme theory for a transdisciplinary research collaboration: Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About