Publications
Micro worlds versus boundary objects in group model building; evidence from the literature on problem definition and model conceptulization
Based upon participant observation in group model building and content analysis of the system dynamics literature, we postulate that modeling efforts have a dual nature. On one hand, the modeling process aims to create a useful representation of a real-world system. This must be done, however, while aligning the clients’ mental models around a shared view of the system. There is significant overlap and confusion between these two goals and how they play out on a practical level. This research clarifies these distinctions by establishing an ideal-type dichotomy. To highlight the differences, we created two straw men: “micro world” characterizes a model that represents reality and “boundary object” represents a socially negotiated model. Using this framework, the literature was examined, revealing evidence for several competing views on problem definition and model conceptualization. The results are summarized in the text of this article, substantiated with strikingly polarized citations, often from the same authors. We also introduce hypotheses for the duality across the remaining phases of the modeling process. Finally, understanding and appreciation of the differences between these ideal types can promote constructive debate on their balance in system dynamics theory and practice.