Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

System Dynamics Modeling: Validation for Quality Assurance

  • Reference work entry
Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science

Definition of the Subject

The present chapter addresses the question of building better models. This is crucial for coping with complexity in general, and in particular forthe management of dynamic systems. Both the epistemological and the methodological-technological aspects of model validation for the achievement ofhigh-quality models are discussed. The focus is on formal models, i. e. those formulated in a stringent, logical, and mostly mathematicallanguage.

Introduction

The etymological root of valid is the Latin word validus, which denotesattributes such as strong, powerful and firm. A valid model, then, is well‐founded and difficult to reject because it accurately represents theperceived real system which it is supposed to reflect. This system can be either one that already exists or one that is being constructed, or evenanticipated, by a modeler or a group of modelers.

Validation standards in System Dynamics are more rigorous than those of many other methodologies. Let us...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

Model/model system:

A model is a simplified representation of a real system. Models can be descriptive or prescriptive (normative). Their functions can be to enable explanation, anticipation or design. A distinction used in this contribution is between causal and non‐causal models, with System Dynamics models being of the former type. The term model system is used to stress the systemic character of a model; this serves to identify it as an organized whole of variables and relationships on the one hand, and to distinguish it from the real system which is to be modeled, on the other.

Model validity:

A model's property of adequately reflecting the system modeled. Validity is the primary measure of model quality . It is a matter of degree, not a dichotomized property.

Model purpose:

The goal for which a model is designed or the function it is intended to fulfill. The model purpose is closely linked to the end-model user or model owner. Model purpose is the criterion for the choice of a model's boundary and design.

Modeling process:

The process involving phases such as problem articulation, boundary selection, development of a dynamic hypothesis, model formulation, model testing, policy formulation and policy evaluation [28]. The modeling process is followed by model use and implementation, i. e., the realization of actions designed or facilitated by the use of the model.

Validation process:

Validation is the process by which model validity is enhanced systematically. It consists in gradually building confidence in the usefulness of a model by applying validation tests as outlined in this chapter. In principle, validation pervades all phases of the modeling process , and, in addition, extends into the phases of model use and implementation.

Bibliography

Primary Literature

  1. Barlas Y (1990) An autocorrelation function test for output validation. Simulation 55(1):7–16

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barlas Y (1996) Formal aspects of model validity and validation in system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 12(3):183–210

    Google Scholar 

  3. Barlas Y (2006) Model validity and testing in System Dynamics: Two specific tools. Paper presented at the 24th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Nijmegen

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barlas Y, Carpenter S (1990) Philosophical roots of model validity – two paradigms. Syst Dyn Rev 6(2):148–166

    Google Scholar 

  5. Coyle G, Exelby D (2000) The validation of commercial system dynamics models. Syst Dyn Rev 16(1):27–41

    Google Scholar 

  6. Feyerabend P (1993) Against method, 3rd edn. Verso, London

    Google Scholar 

  7. Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  8. Forrester JW, Senge PM (1980) Test for building confidence in System Dynamics models. In: Legasto AA Jr, Forrester JW, Lyneis JM (eds) System Dynamics. North‐Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, pp 209–228

    Google Scholar 

  9. Graham AK (1980) Parameter estimation in system dynamics modeling. TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 14:125–142

    Google Scholar 

  10. Heracleous L (2006) Discourse, interpretation, organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  11. James W (1987) Writings 1902–1910. Library of America, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kuhn T (1996) The structure of scientific revolutions, 3rd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lacey AR (1996) A dictionary of philosophy, 3rd revised edn. Barnes and Noble, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lane DC (1995) The folding star: A comparative reframing and extension of validity concepts in System Dynamics. In: Simada T, Saeed K (eds) Proceedings of 1995 international System Dynamics conference, 30 July–4 Aug, vol I. System Dynamics Society, Lincoln, pp 111–130

    Google Scholar 

  15. Mass NJ (1975) Economic cycles: An analysis of underlying causes. Productivity Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  16. Mattheij RMM, Rienstra SW, Boonkkamp JH MtT (2005) Partial differential equations: Modeling, analysis, computation. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Eindhoven

    Google Scholar 

  17. Petersen DW, Eberlein RL (1994) Understanding models with vensim. In: Morecroft JDW, Sterman JD (eds) Modeling for learning organiziations. Productivity Press, Portland, pp 339–358

    Google Scholar 

  18. Phillips LD (2007) Decision conferencing. In: Edwards W, Miles RF, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis. From foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 375–399

    Google Scholar 

  19. Popper KR (1959) The logic of scientific discovery. Basic Books, New York (latest edition: 2002, Routledge, London)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Popper KR (1972) Objective knowledge: An evolutionary approach. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  21. Rapoport A (1954) Operational philosophy. Integrating knowledge and action. Harper, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schwaninger M, Groesser SN (2008) Model-based theory‐building with system dynamics. Syst Res Behav Sci 25:1–19

    Google Scholar 

  23. Seiffert H, Radnitzky G (1994) Handlexikon der Wissenschaftstheorie, 2nd edn. DTV Wissenschaft, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  24. Smith VL (2008) Rationality in economics: Constructivist and ecological forms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  25. Snabe B, Grössler A (2006) System dynamics modelling for strategy implementation – case study and issues. Syst Res Behav Sci 23(4):467–481

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sterman JD (1984) Appropriate summary statistics for evaluating the historical fit of system dynamics models. Dynamica 10(2):51–66

    Google Scholar 

  27. Sterman JD (1989) Misperceptions of Feedback in Dynamic Decision Making. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 43(3):301–335

    Google Scholar 

  28. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics. Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw‐Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  29. Taleb NN (2007) The black swan. The impact of the highly improbable. Random House, New York

    Google Scholar 

  30. Vennix JAM (1996) Group model building: Facilitating team learning using System Dynamics. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  31. von Foerster H (1984) Observing systems, 2nd edn. Intersystems Publications, Seaside

    Google Scholar 

  32. von Glasersfeld E (1991) Abschied von der Objektivität. In: Watzlawick P, Krieg P (eds) Das Auge des Betrachters. Piper, Munich, pp 17–30

    Google Scholar 

Books and Reviews

  1. Finlay PN (1997) Validity of decision support systems: Towards a validation methodology. Syst Res Behav Sci 14(3):169–182

    Google Scholar 

  2. Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  3. Law AM (2007) Simulation modeling and analysis, 4th edn. McGraw‐Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Legasto AA Jr, Forrester JW, Lyneis JM (eds) (1980) System Dynamics. North‐Holland, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  5. Morecroft J (2007) Strategic modelling and business dynamics: A feedback systems approach. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sargent RG (2004) Validation and verification of simulation models. In: Ingalls RG, Rossetti MD, Smith JS, Peters BA (eds) Proceedings of the 2004 winter simulation conference. ACM‐Association for Computing Machinery, Washington DC, pp 17–28

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sterman JD (2001) Business dynamics. Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw-Hill, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  8. Warren K (2008) Strategic management dynamics. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Management, University of St. Gallen, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Markus Schwaninger & Stefan Groesser

Authors
  1. Markus Schwaninger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan Groesser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. RAMTECH LIMITED, 122 Escalle Lane, Larkspur, CA, 94939, USA

    Robert A. Meyers Ph. D. (Editor-in-Chief) (Editor-in-Chief)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag

About this entry

Cite this entry

Schwaninger, M., Groesser, S. (2009). System Dynamics Modeling: Validation for Quality Assurance. In: Meyers, R. (eds) Encyclopedia of Complexity and Systems Science. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30440-3_540

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation