Never the strongest: reconciling the four schools of thought in system dynamics in the debate on quality

Abstract

All eventually fell to Rome. Likewise, the reign of Emperor Shah Jahan was considered a "Golden Age" of the Mughal Empire in what today is India, but as he fell ill, the Mughal tradition that succession went to 'the strongest' took hold. Jahan's sons rebelled, fighting against one another and imprisoning their father, the Shah, who lived for another 8 years. The Mughal Empire soon fell apart.By contrast, the inheritor of Alexander's Aristotelian influence was the city of Alexandria, founded as a center of learning, science, and knowledge. However, Alexandria's strength was not the excellence of a single academy within it-but the dozens of philosophical and scientific pursuits studied there. Schools reconciled to the existence of one another turned that energy instead to accumulating, cataloging, and furthering philosophy, science, medicine, mathematics, and astronomy.With the passing of Jay Forrester, the field of system dynamics exists at a similar crossroads. Debates of implicit, if not explicit, inheritance and future direction are already breaking out among competing generals. Who owns Forrester's legacy? Will we proceed down the reference mode of the Macedonian and Mughal Empires-or will we instead seek an alternative reference mode of Alexandria: integration, reconciliation, and mutually recognized coexistence of different schools within the broader field of system dynamics?We suggest the latter path-and that begins by recognizing at least four, if not more, distinct schools of thought on how to approach system dynamics

What is (quantitative) system dynamics modeling? Defining characteristics and the opportunities they create

“…The current lack of clarity and resulting identity crisis (Homer, 2013) is rooted in ambiguous philosophical and theoretical directions. In particular, there has been a disagreement about how system dynamics should be defined (Clancy, 2023). Größler (2013) noted that establishing a coherent identity for the field holds some danger due to its potential for limiting diversity; the defining characteristics presented here attempt to create identity while promoting diversity and innovation.…”

Using system dynamics to support a functional exercise for pandemic preparedness and response

“…The system dynamics modelling process provided the overall structure for model building (Sterman, 2000, p. 85). The resource modelling work fell primarily into the "pragmatic" school of thought within the system dynamics field (Clancy et al, 2023), in which the goal is to solve a problem in direct relationship with stakeholders to create management tools, and where quality is defined by stakeholder needs. The model was then integrated within the PANDEM-2 dashboard.…”

In response to: “Never the strongest: reconciling the four schools of thought in system dynamics in the debate on quality” — beyond pragmatism

“…System dynamics (SD) is fundamentally committed to rigorous scientific standards, a principle that should remain uncompromised in any debate on quality. The discussion around schools of thought in SD by Clancy et al (2023) aims to provide a broad view of the current state of the field. Two critical responses to Clancy et al discussed the mischaracterization of the SD community as fragmented and, instead, argued for the community's inclusive, cooperative evolution (Eberlein, 2023;Schoenberg, 2023).…”