1. GP Richardson April 2008 1 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Advances in System Dynamics Group Model Building George P. Richardson Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany, SUNY

2. GP Richardson April 2008 2 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Outline of Remarks Origins of the current work System dynamics group model building Recent work with Eden and Ackermann Scottish Health System Transportation Security Administration The Emerging Approach

3. GP Richardson April 2008 3 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Colleagues Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann, Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow John Bryson, Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota David Andersen, Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy, University at Albany Thirteen years of collaborations and thought, enlivened by skiing and hiking together

4. GP Richardson April 2008 4 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Recent Fruits of our Efforts Andersen, DF, JM Bryson, GP Richardson, C Eden, F Ackermann, C Finn, 2006. Integrating Models of Systems Thinking into Strategic Planning Education and Practice: The Thinking Persons Institute Approach. Journal of Public Affairs Education,12,3 (Summer 2006): 265-293. C Eden, F Ackermann, JM Bryson, GP Richardson, DF Andersen, 2008. Integrating modes of policy analysis and strategic management practice: requisite elements and dilemmas. Journal of the Operational Research Society (forthcoming 2008).

5. GP Richardson April 2008 5 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Events and Decisions Patterns of Behavior System Structure Reactive Adaptive Generative Increasing leverage A Glimpse of the Systems Perspective

6. GP Richardson April 2008 6 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany New York, Chicago & Philadelphia, 1800-2000

7. GP Richardson April 2008 7 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Prejudice and Minority Achievement (Myrdal, Merton) Prejudice Discrimination Opportunities for the minority Achievements of the minority – + – + (R) Prejudice Aspirations of the minority Minority efforts to achieve Minority perceptions of the gap + + – + (B) Striving + (R) Hope or despair

8. GP Richardson April 2008 8 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Stocks, Flows, and Feedback Loops in a Gasoline Crisis

9. GP Richardson April 2008 9 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany What is Group Modeling? A form of group decision support, involving a group of stakeholders with a complex problem Group facilitation Model building and refinement in public Simulation of scenarios and options Extensive facilitated discussion and analysis Facilitated policy design and decisions

10. GP Richardson April 2008 10 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany The Albany Teamwork Approach Facilitator / Elicitor Modeler / Reflector Process coach Recorder Gatekeeper

11. GP Richardson April 2008 11 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Components of the Process Problem definition meeting Group modeling meeting Formal model formulation Reviewing model with model building team Rolling out model with the community Working with flight simulator Making change happen

12. GP Richardson April 2008 12 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany A Typical Room GMB Session

13. GP Richardson April 2008 13 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

14. GP Richardson April 2008 14 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Strathclyde Group Explorer Approach Facilitator / Elicitor “Chauffer” / Analyst Participants at networked computers

15. GP Richardson April 2008 15 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Group Explorer Facilitated Strategic Planning Issue elicitation Laddering up to “Own Goals” Stakeholder power and interest grid Stakeholder goals and sanctions Prioritizing strategic priorities Key performance indicators Agreed policies and strategies in context

16. GP Richardson April 2008 16 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Strategy Workshop in Scotland Borders Region of Scotland concerned with provision of care for persons with Dementia Consortium of 28 Health Care Practitioners and Managers formed the strategy planning team Workshop in January of 2007 Explored Innovation approaches integrating Workshops designed and used innovative Group Model Building scripts that integrate two different approaches to strategy making

17. GP Richardson April 2008 17 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Scotland Workshop: a View of the Room

18. GP Richardson April 2008 18 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Scotland Workshop: a View of the Room

19. GP Richardson April 2008 19 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Picturing Complexity

20. GP Richardson April 2008 20 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Picturing Complexity

21. GP Richardson April 2008 21 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Picturing Complexity

22. GP Richardson April 2008 22 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany The Initial GE Issues Map

23. GP Richardson April 2008 23 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Themes in the Issue Map

24. GP Richardson April 2008 24 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Graphs Over Time to Focus the Discussion

25. GP Richardson April 2008 25 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Linking Comments on Graphs Over Time

26. GP Richardson April 2008 26 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Contributing a Systems View: Screens for the model (right) and DE (left)

27. GP Richardson April 2008 27 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Flow of People in the Dementia Health System

28. GP Richardson April 2008 28 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Pressure Points: “Who would do what”?

29. GP Richardson April 2008 29 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany “Who would do what?” to decrease inflow to community care

30. GP Richardson April 2008 30 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany “Who Would Do What?” in Three Pressure Points

31. GP Richardson April 2008 31 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany More Possible Pressure Points to Discuss

32. GP Richardson April 2008 32 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Summary of Synergies in the Scotland Workshop Issue maps began the effort to focus the conversation Graphs-over-time pulled thinking about issues toward long-term patterns Stock-and-flow map stimulated system-wide understandings, taking thinking across boundaries DE maps captured detailed observations, insights, and claims throughout the entire process

33. GP Richardson April 2008 33 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany TSA Aviation Security Simulator Contract Between Transportation Security Administration and Argonne National Labs Argonne, Sandia, and Los Alamos as part of Tri- Labs collaboration UAlbany as “special teams” subcontractor for Group Model Building Eden and Ackermann invited to expand team

34. GP Richardson April 2008 34 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

35. GP Richardson April 2008 35 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Initial Issues identified

36. GP Richardson April 2008 36 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Issues from Stakeholder Perspectives

37. GP Richardson April 2008 37 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Initial Policy Priorities

38. GP Richardson April 2008 38 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Graphs over time drawn by the participants

39. GP Richardson April 2008 39 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Collecting Comments on Graphs Over Time

40. GP Richardson April 2008 40 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Concept Model

41. GP Richardson April 2008 41 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Concept Model

42. GP Richardson April 2008 42 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Concept Model

43. GP Richardson April 2008 43 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Concept Model Behaviors

44. GP Richardson April 2008 44 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Eliciting TSA Model Structure “Seed” for elicitation was backbone stock and flow structure from Concept Model as elaborated by group Used “variable” pack available from “key variable” list made up in the morning Ability to link model structure to Group Explorer issue elicitation and key variable list explicitly

45. GP Richardson April 2008 45 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

46. GP Richardson April 2008 46 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

47. GP Richardson April 2008 47 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

48. GP Richardson April 2008 48 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Final Policy Priorities (red=short term, green=long term)

49. GP Richardson April 2008 49 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Summary of Synergies in TSA Workshop GE maps used to elicit initial issues Graphs-over-time defining the problem dynamically GE used to map stakeholders and scenarios GE phrases turned into variables to seed dynamic model structure GE creating rich micro view; SD creating holistic macro view GE used to create rich documentation as modeling discussion developed

50. GP Richardson April 2008 50 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Where is This Leading? Duality of Vensim and Decision Explorer Maps Seamless approach to client groups Ability to “zoom lenses” between micro and macro views New support for model formulation and documentation New products that enhance value to clients Eventually perhaps integrated software suites

51. GP Richardson April 2008 51 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Our Goals in Group Strategy Support

52. GP Richardson April 2008 52 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany A Portion of Our Analysis of Scripts and Products Leading to Implementable Actions that will Work

53. GP Richardson April 2008 53 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Example of Scripts and Products Working Together Toward Key Performance Indicators

54. GP Richardson April 2008 54 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Issue Elicitation Leads to …

55. GP Richardson April 2008 55 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Graphs Over Time Lead to …

56. GP Richardson April 2008 56 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany The Magic: Moving Fluently between Macro and Micro

57. GP Richardson April 2008 57 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany …between Micro and Macro

58. GP Richardson April 2008 58 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany For Further Reading Eden, C. and F. Ackermann (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management. London. Sage. Bryson, J. M. (2004). Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, Third Edition. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Scripts for Group Model Building. System Dynamics Review 13,2 (summer 1997), D.F. Andersen and G.P. Richardson. Teamwork in Group Modeling Building, with David F. Andersen. System Dynamics Review 11,2 (summer 1995). Using simulation models to address ‘What If’ questions about welfare reform, A.A. Zagonel, J. W. Rohrbaugh, G.P. Richardson, and D.F. Andersen, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23,4 (2004): 890-901. Anatomy of a group model-building intervention: building dynamic theory from case study research. L.F. Luna-Reyes, I.J. Martinez-Moyano, T.A. Pardo, A.M. Cresswell, D.F. Andersen and G.P. Richardson. System Dynamics Review 22,4 (winter 2006):291-320.