System dynamics projects that failed to make an impact

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the phenomenon of why some system dynamics projects fail to generate substantial impact in organizations-despite the fact that they are based on an apparently valid system dynamics model and are conducted by experts in the field. The approach followed in the paper is a conceptual discussion, extended by two short case studies. Findings are that the quality of the model and the expertise of the modeler are necessary but not sufficient requirements for organizational impact. Further research should concentrate on the detailed analysis of additional requirements. Practical implications are an increased embedding of system dynamics projects in organizational intervention architectures. The originality of the paper lies in its focus and discussion of failed projects that are invaluable sources for insight generation.Over the last 12 years the author has been involved in a substantial number of system dynamics-based projects in companies as an academic advisor and external consultant. The companies are from a broad range of industries; for instance, software companies, airlines, automobile manufacturers, or pharmaceutical firms. The topics that are analyzed comprise issues such as supply chain manufacturing, knowledge management, and the organization of production processes. The system dynamics models that resulted from these projects are usually well received from colleagues at academic institutions; regularly, companies claimed to be satisfied with the outcomes of the projects. However, the results concerning longer-term organizational impact, for example, changed policies or structures in the companies, are mixed at best-the same is true regarding the sustainable application of system dynamics after the project's completion.The purpose of this paper is to shed some light on the issue that organizational impact is often rather low, despite the fact that projects are considered a success from a system dynamics perspective. The structure of the paper is as follows: in the next section the phenomenon of limited organizational impact is described in more detail on a general level. In the second section two brief case studies are presented, in which an apparently successful system dynamics project did not lead to substantial organizational changes. The third section discusses the integration of system dynamics projects into intervention

PartiSim: A multi-methodology framework to support facilitated simulation modelling in healthcare

“…• Follow-up reports are developed after workshops (especially 1, 2 and 3), because not all those who will be involved in implementing change attend the workshops for reasons such as stakeholder availability, time, group size effectiveness, space. Communication and coordination at all levels of an organisation is considered crucial for implementation study success, so that employees understand the reason for change and the implementation strategy (Barber, 1977;Größler, 2007;Snabe, 2007).…”

Proposing a Participative Modelling Framework for Discrete Event Simulation Studies

“…Employees representing different parts of the system in terms of departments and hierarchical levels should be involved, such as employees who will take part in the implementation of change, but also members of the management team. The latter will have a say and endorse the change resulting from the study, but they will eventually provide and create the necessary support settings in line with the changes resulting from the study [36].…”

“…In terms of PartiSim, it is also advised that follow-up reports should be developed especially after workshops 3 and 4, mainly because not all those who will be involved in implementing change attend the workshops for reasons such as cost, time, group size effectiveness, space, etc. Communication and coordination at all levels of an organization is considered crucial for implementation study success, so that employees understand the reason for change and the implementation strategy [33,35,36]. Not all the stages described in the PartiSim framework need to be undertaken.…”

Resilience for Whom? The Problem Structuring Process of the Resilience Analysis

“…Second, stakeholders who have a different understanding of the problem will rarely support or get actively engaged in the implementation of a solution that is not addressing their initial understanding of the problem [45]. The contribution of any solution is null if those ultimately responsible for implementing them are not willing to do so [46].…”