IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/sysdyn/v40y2024i4ne1790.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Minding the abstraction gap: approaches supporting implementation

Author

Listed:
  • Laura J. Black
  • Donald R. Greer

Abstract

Regardless of insights gained from building and analyzing dynamic models, the only strategies people can act on are those in their heads. The strategies people internalize are related to their perceived capacities to act—the verbs they believe they can do. If we want others to implement model‐informed policies, then we must connect model abstractions with new situated, concrete actions stakeholders can take. We can emphasize opportunities to act with SD representations, navigating levels of abstraction cleanly, identifying flows as verbs, and choosing variable names that signal who is acting. By drawing on social‐science theories as we offer our grammar of accumulations, activities, and relationships in the language of actions accessible to stakeholders, we help connect experiential understandings to richer, dynamic explanations people can internalize and so discover situated steps to implement policies informed by modeling. © 2024 The Author(s). System Dynamics Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of System Dynamics Society.

Suggested Citation

  • Laura J. Black & Donald R. Greer, 2024. "Minding the abstraction gap: approaches supporting implementation," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(4), October.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:sysdyn:v:40:y:2024:i:4:n:e1790
    DOI: 10.1002/sdr.1790
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.1790
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sdr.1790?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. George P. Richardson, 2024. "Building confidence in exploratory models," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(4), October.
    2. Sarah Kaplan, 2008. "Framing Contests: Strategy Making Under Uncertainty," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(5), pages 729-752, October.
    3. Paul R. Carlile, 2002. "A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(4), pages 442-455, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Krystyna Stave & Nici Zimmermann & Hyunjung Kim, 2024. "Qualitative Aspects of System Dynamics Modeling," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 40(4), October.

    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. Sarah Kaplan, 2011. "Strategy and PowerPoint: An Inquiry into the Epistemic Culture and Machinery of Strategy Making," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 320-346, April.
    2. Paula Jarzabkowski & Sarah Kaplan, 2015. "Strategy tools-in-use: A framework for understanding “technologies of rationality” in practice," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 537-558, April.
    3. Paul M. Leonardi, 2011. "Innovation Blindness: Culture, Frames, and Cross-Boundary Problem Construction in the Development of New Technology Concepts," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 347-369, April.
    4. Hall, Matthew & Mikes, Anette & Millo, Yuval, 2015. "How do risk managers become influential?: a field study of toolmaking in two financial institutions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60485, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    5. Meidell, Anita & Kaarbøe, Katarina, 2017. "How the enterprise risk management function influences decision-making in the organization – A field study of a large, global oil and gas company," The British Accounting Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 39-55.
    6. Tyler Wry & Michael Lounsbury & Mary Ann Glynn, 2011. "Legitimating Nascent Collective Identities: Coordinating Cultural Entrepreneurship," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(2), pages 449-463, April.
    7. Felipe A. Csaszar & Nicole Hinrichs & Mana Heshmati, 2024. "External representations in strategic decision‐making: Understanding strategy's reliance on visuals," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(11), pages 2191-2226, November.
    8. Claudio Biscaro & Anna Comacchio, 2018. "Knowledge Creation Across Worldviews: How Metaphors Impact and Orient Group Creativity," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 289(1), pages 58-79, February.
    9. Martha S. Feldman & Wanda J. Orlikowski, 2011. "Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(5), pages 1240-1253, October.
    10. Victor P. Seidel & Siobhán O’Mahony, 2014. "Managing the Repertoire: Stories, Metaphors, Prototypes, and Concept Coherence in Product Innovation," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(3), pages 691-712, June.
    11. Marlene Le Ber & Oana Branzei, 2010. "Value Frame Fusion in Cross Sector Interactions," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 94(1), pages 163-195, July.
    12. Meinel, Martin & Eismann, Tobias T. & Baccarella, Christian V. & Fixson, Sebastian K. & Voigt, Kai-Ingo, 2020. "Does applying design thinking result in better new product concepts than a traditional innovation approach? An experimental comparison study," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(4), pages 661-671.
    13. Michael Kaethler, 2019. "Curating creative communities of practice: the role of ambiguity," Journal of Organization Design, Springer;Organizational Design Community, vol. 8(1), pages 1-17, December.
    14. Yuliya Snihur & Llewellyn D. W. Thomas & Robert A. Burgelman, 2018. "An Ecosystem‐Level Process Model of Business Model Disruption: The Disruptor's Gambit," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(7), pages 1278-1316, November.
    15. Stefan Gröschl & Patricia Gabaldón & Tobias Hahn, 2019. "The Co-evolution of Leaders’ Cognitive Complexity and Corporate Sustainability: The Case of the CEO of Puma," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(3), pages 741-762, March.
    16. Andersson, Ulf & Dasí, Àngels & Mudambi, Ram & Pedersen, Torben, 2016. "Technology, innovation and knowledge: The importance of ideas and international connectivity," Journal of World Business, Elsevier, vol. 51(1), pages 153-162.
    17. Gavin M Schwarz & Karin Sanders & Dave Bouckenooghe, 2020. "In the driving seat: Executive’s perceived control over environment," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 45(2), pages 317-342, May.
    18. Yuchen Zhang & Wei Yang, 2022. "Breakthrough invention and problem complexity: Evidence from a quasi‐experiment," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(12), pages 2510-2544, December.
    19. Blackburn, Nivea & Brown, Judy & Dillard, Jesse & Hooper, Val, 2014. "A dialogical framing of AIS–SEA design," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 83-101.
    20. Daniele T. P. Souza & Eugenia A. Kuhn & Arjen E. J. Wals & Pedro R. Jacobi, 2020. "Learning in, with, and through the Territory: Territory-Based Learning as a Catalyst for Urban Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, April.

    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:40:y:2024:i:4:n:e1790. 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.