Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM): Combining Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and System Dynamics (SD)

Rodriguez-Ulloa, Ricardo A.; Paucar‐Caceres, Alberto

doi:10.1007/s11213-005-4816-7

Cited by 74 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Various combinations of SSM and SD have been used previously in other fields of enquiry (Maani and Cavana 2007;Rodriguez-Ulloa and Paucar-Caceres 2005), but have had a tendency to use SD methodology as the primary focus, with enhancements from SSM. In this paper, SSM is viewed as the primary focus, enhanced with aspects of SD.…”

Section: Proposed Hybrid Methodological Approach To Scc Infrastructurmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systems Pluralism in Infrastructure Decision-Making for Socially Connected Greenfield Communities

Pepper

Sense

Speare

2015

Syst Pract Action Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The problem in planning for relevant infrastructure in new communities is that the community doesn't yet exist and is not engaged in the planning process. As such, planners draw on available housing and demographic information and essentially 'best guess' the future community's infrastructure and social connection needs. This situation spotlights a gap in the planning literature concerning ways to 'better determine' a future community's infrastructures that enable social connection between residents. In seeking to help address that knowledge gap, the purpose of this paper is to theoretically argue for the process of and illustrate the value of, pursuing a hybrid systems thinking approach to the identification and deployment of the physical infrastructures that may help better facilitate the social connectedness of a future community in new greenfield development areas. This approach combines aspects of Soft systems methodology and system dynamics. Such a process informs the development of a decision support model for Planners' that incorporates multiple user perspectives in these local planning decisions and contributes to the structural advancement of socially connected communities.

show abstract

Section: Proposed Hybrid Methodological Approach To Scc Infrastructurmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systems Pluralism in Infrastructure Decision-Making for Socially Connected Greenfield Communities

Pepper

Sense

Speare

2015

Syst Pract Action Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most prominent example of this are the combinations of SD with cognitive mapping (Eden, 1994;Ackermann et al, 1997;Stotz and Größler, 2007), soft systems methodology (Lane and Oliva, 1994;Rodriguez-Ulloa and Paucar-Caceres, 2004;, cybernetics (Schwaninger et al, 2004;Schwaninger and Pérez Ríos, 2008), and multicriteria analysis (Brans et al, 1998;Santos et al, 2002;Pruyt, 2007). All of these demonstrate the power and utility of a multimethodological approach.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can System Dynamics Learn from Social Network Analysis?

Schoenenberger

Schenker‐Wicki

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article deals with the analysis of large or complex system dynamics (SD) models, exploring the benefits of a multimethodological approach to model analysis. We compare model analysis results from SD and social network analysis (SNA) by deploying SNA techniques on a pertinent example from the SD literature-the world dynamics model. Although SNA is a clearly distinct method from SD in that it focuses on social actors and their interrelationships, we contend that SD can indeed learn from SNA, particularly in terms of model structure analysis. Our argumentation follows renowned system dynamicists who acknowledge the potential of SD to synthesize and advance theories in social science at both the conceptual and technical levels. Can System Dynamics learn from Social

show abstract

“…They believed that "complexity" became the major issue, because it is complex enough at the practical level to mix methods, and to take into consideration issues at the paradigm level would require extensive effort. Nevertheless, they found that the use of mixed methodologies, in a practical sense, developed significantly over the period (Howick and Ackermann, 2011) As mentioned in Section 3.3.2.5, SD has strengths in providing rigorous dynamic models but is lacking in its capability to overcome multiple clients' perspectives (Lane & Oliva 1998;Jackson 2002;Rodriguez-Ulloa & Paucar-Caceres 2005). Efforts to reduce the limitation of SD methodology in dealing with multiple clients' perspectives and interests have been made by Vennix (1999).…”

Section: Combining the Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Forrester (1961) pointed out that problem identification is the important step in SD methodology; however he did not provide sufficient techniques that can be used to fully grasp the problem (Lane & Oliva 1998;Rodriguez-Ulloa & Paucar-Caceres 2005). The rationale behind this concern relates to the common view that SD practitioners tend to give more effort to developing and validating a model which represents real world phenomena than to examining whether the ''problem'' being analysed is really ''the problem'' that needs to be analysed.…”

Section: Strength and Limitation Of System Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systems thinking approach to develop smallholder beef farming in rural Java, Indonesia

Setianto¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Improving smallholder performance remains a seemingly intractable central issue for beef farming development in Indonesia. Studying a complex system such as beef farming requires a systems thinking approach. In the body of systems thinking, System Dynamics (SD) is considered to be a powerful methodology for taming the complexity of a system. However, SD has been criticized as being insensitive to the multiple interests and power structures likely to occur in a smallholder system. This thesis reports on the possibility of combining Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) to overcome that limitation.The objective of this research was to devise an approach that optimises the participation of farmers and other stakeholders in: (1) understanding the overall systems well enough to identify the problematic situations -the situations which participants considered as uncomfortable; and (2) formulate the most feasible strategies for mitigating the problematic situation.A series of interviews and workshops involving two farmer groups and other stakeholders in the smallholder beef farming system was undertaken in two separate field studies in Central Java, Indonesia. The five steps of SD's methodology were adopted with an enhancement at the problem structuring process where the CATWOE analysis of SSM and the 12 questions of CSH complement the SD.As a result, a four dimensional representation of the problematic situation of smallholder beef farming was generated. The dimensions involve; motivation, control, knowledge, and legitimacy. From this a Causal Loop Diagram (CLD) was assembled. This CLD has a total of nine loops, four reinforcing and five balancing, and seven archetypes: two limit to growth archetypes, three shifting the burden, and one each of archetypes of success to successful and fixes that fail, which together defined the systems' behaviour. A total of seven leverages were able to be identified: increase forage availability, control of the trading of cattle, improve farming productivity to generate income, improve breeder cow performance, strengthen waste management skills, balance the breeding and fattening ratio on farm, and focus on increasing the cattle population.After refinement, and in consultation with respondent farmers, this CLD was translated into a quantitative dynamic model to allow simulation of these leverage points. The result suggests the following strategies: forage availability is not an issue as the current cattle population is less than the carrying capacity, provide education about herd replacement strategies to maintain the desired sales rate at a sustainable level, improve the feed, reduce the risk of overpriced purchasing and under-priced selling, provide education about farm planning and budgeting, educate farmers on animal assessment i.e. to select quality breeding cows, manure composting, and buying cattle using non-grant schemes.Although increasing the complexity of the methodology, the inclusion of CSH and SSM in the research protocol provided de...

show abstract

Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM): Combining Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and System Dynamics (SD)

Cited by 74 publications

References 26 publications

Systems Pluralism in Infrastructure Decision-Making for Socially Connected Greenfield Communities

Systems Pluralism in Infrastructure Decision-Making for Socially Connected Greenfield Communities

Can System Dynamics Learn from Social Network Analysis?

Systems thinking approach to develop smallholder beef farming in rural Java, Indonesia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About