Using Graphical Perception Principles to Improve the ST Tools’ Data Visualization: Revisiting the Systems Dynamics Model
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background: Systems Thinking (ST) is the new paradigm in Evaluation. It represents a significant mind-set shift for the evaluation field and it is a powerful tool to tackle complex environments.
Heir to the systems concepts of the engineering field, and especially regarding the hard systems tools, ST in evaluation uses the same visual tools that were created many years ago. All these tools already incorporate data visualization features: they depict ideas, relationships and concepts relying in shapes and figures more than a textual explanation.
Revisiting these tools and applying the latest data visualization principles, they could be optimised in order to provide with more information within the same concept.
Purpose: To provide ST practitioners with more informative tools in order to facilitate:
- ST experts and users can optimise the application of the tools to real life models beyond the initial set up of their visual representations.
- Audiences of evaluations using ST as part of the toolkit can find the outputs more apprehensible and easy to understand.
Setting: Not applicable.
Intervention: Not applicable.
Research Design: Not applicable.
Data Collection and Analysis: Not applicable.
Findings: Improving ST representations of reality and systems can help both enhance ST applications and make it more accessible and comprehensible for evaluation practitioners' and users.
Six ways for improving the understanding of the current stock and flow diagrams were identified. The tools proposed consist of: customizing the colours and shape of the variables and their relationships to make them more informative; highlighting the existing subsystems within the model; and providing the specific sequence for reading the main causal chains.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Permissions
Authors retain full copyright for articles published in JMDE. JMDE publishes under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY - NC 4.0). Users are allowed to copy, distribute, and transmit the work in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes, provided that the original authors and source are credited accurately and appropriately. Only the original authors may distribute the article for commercial or compensatory purposes. To view a copy of this license, visit creativecommons.org
References
Akkermans, H. A., & Vennix, J. A. M. (1997). Clients' opinion on group model-building: An exploratory study. System Dynamics Review, 13(1), 3-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199721)13:1<3::AID-SDR113>3.0.CO;2-I DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1727(199721)13:1<3::AID-SDR113>3.3.CO;2-9
Arango, S., Prado, J. J., & Dyner, I. (2009). Evaluación de políticas públicas para la reducción de la criminalidad en Medellín: Una aproximación con dinámica de sistemas. Ensayos sobre Políticas Econóomicas, 27(60), 80-109. https://doi.org/10.32468/Espe.6003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.32468/Espe.6003
Bryden, J.M. (2009). Towards a new analysis of CAP policy options: Using system dynamics to model the relationships between agricultural functions, territorial rural development, and policies. 8th international Conference of the European Society for Ecological Economics: Transformation. Innovation and Adaptation for Sustainability. Retrieved from: http://www.esee2009.si/papers/BRYDEN%20-20Towards%20a%20New%20Analysis.pdf
Cabrera. D.; Colosic, L.; Lobdellc, C. (2008). Systems thinking. Evaluation and Program Planning 31(3), 299-310 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.12.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2007.12.001
Dyehouse, M., Bennett, D., Harbor, J., Childress, A., and Dark, M. (2009). A comparison of linear and systems thinking approaches for program evaluation illustrated using the Indiana Interdisciplinary GK-12. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(3), 187-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.03.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.03.001
Forrester, J. W. (1993). System dynamics and the lessons of 35 years. In: De Greene, K.B (Ed.), A Systems-based Approach to Policymaking. (pp. 199-240). London: Kluwer Academic Press https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3226-2_7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-3226-2_7
Gil-García, J. R. (2008). Pensamiento sistémico y dinámica de sistemas para el análisis de políticas públicas: Fundamentos y recomendaciones. Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económica (CIDE), 212, 1-44.
Healey, C. G., and Enns, J. T. (2012). Attention and Visual Memory in Visualization and Computer Graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 18(7), 1170-1188. DOI: 10.1109/TVCG.2011.127 https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.127 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TVCG.2011.127
Jackson, M. C. (1991). Systems methodology for the management sciences. New York: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2632-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2632-6
Kay, A. (2006). The dynamics of public policy: Theory and evidence. United Kingdom: Cheltenham. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847203007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781847203007
Klaus, D. J. (2011). A system dynamics approach to macroeconomic policy evaluation: The case of the German debt brake. In J. Lyneis y G. Richardson (Eds.) Proceedings of the 29th International Conference of the System Dynamics Society (pp. 1691-1712). Washington, DC: The System Dynamics Society.
Makoto, I., & Suetake, T. (2005). Public Policy Evaluation using System Dynamics Group Modeling. In John D. Sterman, N. Repenning, R. Langer, J. Rowe ay J. Yanni (Eds.) 23rd International Conference of the System Dynamics Society. Boston: The System Dynamics Society. Retrieved from: http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2005/proceed/papers/SUETA131.pdf
McRoberts, K. (2010). Rural development challenges: System dynamics ex ante decision support for agricultural initiatives in southern Mexico. Cornell University. Retrieved from: http://tiesmexico.cals.cornell.edu/research/documents/mcroberts_mps_final.pdf
Meadows, D. (1999). Leverage Points: Places to Intervene in a System. Hartland, VT: Sustainability Institute
Milling, P. (2002). Understanding and managing innovation processes. System Dynamics Review, 18(1), 73-86. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.231
Rodrigues, A., (1996.) The Role of System Dynamics in Project Management: A Comparative Analysis with Traditional Models. International Journal of Project Management, 14(4), 213-220. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00075-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(95)00075-5
Sherwood, D. (2002). Seeing the forest for the trees: A manager's guide to applying systems thinking. London: Nicholas Brealey Pub.
Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency/Doubleday.
Sterman, J.D. (2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modelling for a complex world. Irwin-McGraw-Hill.
Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group model building: Facilitating team learning using system dynamics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Williams, B; and Hummelbrunner R. (2011). Systems concepts in action. A practicioner's toolkit. California: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804776554 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9780804776554
Williams, B; and van 't Hof, S. (2014). Wicked solutions. A systems approach to complex problems. Gumroad.
Wolstenholme, E. F. (1999). Qualitative vs. Quantitative Modeling: The Evolving Balance. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 50(4), 422-428. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600700 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600700
Wu, J. (1991). Dynamics of Landscape Islands: A Systems Simulation Modeling Approach. Ph. D. Dissertation. Miami University, Oxford, OH.