IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v39y2023i2p140-151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving Loops that Matter

Author

Listed:
  • William Schoenberg
  • John Hayward
  • Robert Eberlein

Abstract

The Loops that Matter (LTM) approach to understanding behavior has proven easy to use and broadly applicable, but it has a shortcoming in its original formulation. This is because the original formulation treats the impact of a flow on a stock relative to the net flow, so that all scores tend to get very large in magnitude as a stock approaches equilibrium, but how big depends strongly on how the flows are specified. By reformulating the link scores from a flow to a stock, this topological dependency is removed. The mathematics behind this approach makes clear the relationship of LTM to the Pathway Participation and Loop Impact analysis methods. The result of this, when applying the analysis to a variety of models, is that the determination of the structure responsible for behavior is clearer, and more clearly tied to work already documented using other techniques. © 2023 The Authors. System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • William Schoenberg & John Hayward & Robert Eberlein, 2023. "Improving Loops that Matter," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 39(2), pages 140-151, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:39:y:2023:i:2:p:140-151
    DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1728
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1728
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sdr.1728?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. William Schoenberg & Pål Davidsen & Robert Eberlein, 2020. "Understanding model behavior using the Loops that Matter method," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 158-190, April.
    2. Rogelio Oliva, 2016. "Structural dominance analysis of large and stochastic models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(1), pages 26-51, January.
    3. Saleh, Mohamed & Oliva, Rogelio & Kampmann, Christian Erik & Davidsen, Pål I., 2010. "A comprehensive analytical approach for policy analysis of system dynamics models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(3), pages 673-683, June.
    4. Rogelio Oliva, 2020. "On structural dominance analysis," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(1), pages 8-28, January.
    5. John Hayward & Paul A. Roach, 2017. "Newton's laws as an interpretive framework in system dynamics," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 33(3-4), pages 183-218, July.
    6. John Hayward & Graeme P. Boswell, 2014. "Model behaviour and the concept of loop impact: A practical method," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(1-2), pages 29-57, January.
    7. Sergey Naumov & Rogelio Oliva, 2018. "Refinements on eigenvalue elasticity analysis: interpretation of parameter elasticities," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(3), pages 426-437, June.
    8. Erling Moxnes & Pål I. Davidsen, 2016. "Intuitive understanding of steady-state and transient behaviors," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 32(2), pages 128-153, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. William Schoenberg & Pål Davidsen & Robert Eberlein, 2020. "Understanding model behavior using the Loops that Matter method," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(2), pages 158-190, April.
    2. John Hayward & Paul A. Roach, 2022. "The concept of energy in the analysis of system dynamics models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(1), pages 5-40, January.
    3. Turner, Benjamin L., 2020. "Model laboratories: A quick-start guide for design of simulation experiments for dynamic systems models," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 434(C).
    4. Edward G. Anderson & David R. Keith & Jose Lopez, 2023. "Opportunities for system dynamics research in operations management for public policy," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(6), pages 1895-1920, June.
    5. Steven E. Wallis, 2021. "Understanding and improving the usefulness of conceptual systems: An Integrative Propositional Analysis‐based perspective on levels of structure and emergence," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(4), pages 426-447, August.
    6. Rogelio Oliva, 2020. "On structural dominance analysis," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 36(1), pages 8-28, January.
    7. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    8. Abram, Joseph J. & Dyke, James G., 2018. "Structural Loop Analysis of Complex Ecological Systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 333-342.
    9. Lu, Jinfeng & Dimov, Dimo, 2023. "A system dynamics modelling of entrepreneurship and growth within firms," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 38(3).
    10. Yu, Shiwei & Wei, Yi-ming, 2012. "Prediction of China's coal production-environmental pollution based on a hybrid genetic algorithm-system dynamics model," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 521-529.
    11. Azhari Aziz Samudra, 2024. "Property Tax in Indonesia: A Proposal for Increasing Land and Building Tax Revenue Using the System Dynamics Simulation Method," Journal of Tax Reform, Graduate School of Economics and Management, Ural Federal University, vol. 10(1), pages 100-121.
    12. Mert Edali, 2022. "Pattern‐oriented analysis of system dynamics models via random forests," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 38(2), pages 135-166, April.
    13. Navid Ghaffarzadegan & Richard C. Larson, 2018. "SD meets OR: a new synergy to address policy problems," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 327-353, January.
    14. Sujit De & Shib Sana, 2015. "Backlogging EOQ model for promotional effort and selling price sensitive demand- an intuitionistic fuzzy approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 233(1), pages 57-76, October.
    15. Florian Dierickx & Arnaud Diemer, 2020. "Challenging a Methodology to Analyse the Cycling of Materials and Induced Energy use Over Time," International Journal of Environmental Sciences & Natural Resources, Juniper Publishers Inc., vol. 26(4), pages 106-124, November.
    16. Castaneda, Monica & Herrera, Milton M. & Méndez-Morales, Alberto, 2023. "A simulation-based approach for assessing the innovation barriers in the manufacturing firms," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    17. Filgueira, Ramón & Chica, Manuel & Palacios, Juan José & Strohmeier, Tore & Lavaud, Romain & Agüera, Antonio & Damas, Sergio & Strand, Øivind, 2020. "Embracing multimodal optimization to enhance Dynamic Energy Budget parameterization," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 431(C).
    18. Guzzo, D. & Walrave, B. & Videira, N. & Oliveira, I.C. & Pigosso, D.C.A., 2024. "Towards a systemic view on rebound effects: Modelling the feedback loops of rebound mechanisms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    19. Forliano, Canio & Ferraris, Alberto & Bivona, Enzo & Couturier, Jerome, 2022. "Pouring new wine into old bottles: A dynamic perspective of the interplay among environmental dynamism, capabilities development, and performance," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 448-463.
    20. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:39:y:2023:i:2:p:140-151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/0883-7066 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.