Flexible study processes in ‘knotty’ system dynamics projects

System dynamics is generally selected as an analytical approach because it is believed to be particularly good with complex issues both in terms of the core model and the environment. The SD literature devotes considerable space to study and intervention processes, often suggesting general models, protocols or procedures that have worked in specific applications or a range of similar applications. This paper describes an ongoing project in which a complex system operates within a complex and fast-changing environment with major and overlapping organizational changes, a wide and diverse set of stakeholders and difficult national political agendas. The project concerns the nature of ‘quality and effective training’ for junior doctors in the UK against the backdrop of major changes in working hours and conditions driven by national safety concerns and the overarching requirements of the EU Working Time Directive. Early models are already yielding valuable insights for those at a large teaching hospital wrestling with the seemingly impossible task of maintaining levels and quality of both doctor training and service to patients. However, the study is also highlighting that in such high-complexity the study process itself can be problematic. This paper considers the issues raised and relates them to the literature on model-based interventions and concludes that flexible and adaptive processes are needed to effectively manage such ‘knotty’ projects. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  James W. Smither,et al.  Empowered self‐development and continuous learning , 1999 .

[2]  Henk Akkermans,et al.  Renga: A systems approach to facilitating inter-organizational network development , 2001 .

[3]  Janice Langan-Fox,et al.  Mental models, team mental models, and performance: Process, development, and future directions , 2004 .

[4]  Steven A. Cavaleri,et al.  Towards evaluation of systems‐thinking interventions: a case study , 1997 .

[5]  James M. Lyneis,et al.  System dynamics for business strategy: a phased approach , 1999 .

[6]  William J. Dalton,et al.  Aiming for restructuring success at London Underground , 2001 .

[7]  Elspeth McFadzean,et al.  Five strategies for improving group effectiveness , 2000 .

[8]  G. Winch,et al.  The training/service continuum: exploring the training/service balance of senior house officer activities , 2006, Medical education.

[9]  S. Carr,et al.  Education of senior house officers: current challenges , 2003, Postgraduate medical journal.

[10]  Edwin D. Mares,et al.  Integrating critical thinking and systems thinking: from premises to causal loops , 2004 .

[11]  L E Hollister,et al.  Decisions about drug therapy. II. Expert opinion in a hypothetical situation. , 1972, Behavioral science.

[12]  George P. Richardson,et al.  Foreword: Group model building, art, and science , 1997 .

[13]  W. G. Liddell,et al.  Agreeing access policy in a general medical practice: a case study using QPID , 2004 .

[14]  Jac A. M. Vennix,et al.  Group model-building: tackling messy problems , 1999 .

[15]  Deborah Campbell,et al.  The long and winding (and frequently bumpy) road to successful client engagement: one team's journey , 2001 .

[16]  I. Palmer,et al.  Who says change can be managed? Positions, perspectives and problematics , 2002 .

[17]  A. House,et al.  Working patterns and the quality of training of medical house officers: evaluating the effect of the `new deal' , 1998, Medical education.