Author
Listed:
- E F Wolstenholme
(Leeds Business School)
Abstract
This paper addresses the issue of what are the wise uses of qualitative mapping and what are the conditions that require formal quantitative modelling within System Dynamics. The background to the evolution of qualitative and quantitative system dynamics is explored. This analysis recognises that, although the history of feedback thought repeatedly contains the assertion that formal, quantitative models are essential for understanding the dynamics of complex systems, the need for quantification is relative and depends on the purpose of analysis, which, in turn, is related to the methods used and the audience addressed. The central theme of the paper is to examine the strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative system dynamics and to relate these to their respective tool sets. The paper also focuses on evidence from the author’s extensive recent use of qualitative and quantitative system dynamics in education, training, research and consultancy studies of the way in which qualitative and quantitative system dynamics can be linked together to consolidate management learning, both in projects and in organisations. The paper concludes that both qualitative and quantitative system dynamics are important to management problem solving and related to the purpose of analysis. It is suggested that within studies the true power of system dynamics to address problem solving lies in a judicious blend and intertwining of both qualitative and quantitative ideas, aimed at addressing as broad an audience as possible whilst remaining sufficiently rigorous to be useful. A process referred to as intertwined project learning (IPL) is outlined for this purpose. Within organisations it is suggested that there is a need to link the use of qualitative system dynamics in management development programmes and quantitative system dynamics modelling projects into an integrated organisational learning activity. A process referred to as accelerated business learning (ABL) is outlined for this purpose.
Suggested Citation
E F Wolstenholme, 1999.
"Qualitative vs quantitative modelling: the evolving balance,"
Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 50(4), pages 422-428, April.
Handle:
RePEc:pal:jorsoc:v:50:y:1999:i:4:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2600700
DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2600700
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
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:pal:jorsoc:v:50:y:1999:i:4:d:10.1057_palgrave.jors.2600700. 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.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.