M.Kapsali, T. Bolt, S. Bayer, S. Brailsford

THE SIMULATION MODEL AS AN OBJECT BETWEEN BOUNDARIES

HaCIRIC 2010

Outline

- Stakeholder interaction

- The boundary roles of technology

- What do models do

- Simulation as a social object

- Ideal Types

- 2 case studies

- Results

- Questions

Stakeholder interaction Different diverse communities,

Healthcare complexity, cognitive distance – various backgrounds, professions, roles, levels etc.

+ Different interests, viewpoints and

background - communication patterns =

Different forms of collaboration

The boundary roles of technology

Communication and translation artefacts between several intersecting social worlds

- multi-dimensional nature - satisfy their information requirements - explore perceptions and attitudes - convey meaning and create understanding used to manipulate meaning or assert status

ambiguous role since they are used subjectively

What do models do?

Models as “micro-worlds” Models as “boundary-objects”

• problems are preexistent in the

system

• create a realistic representation

• accurately address the content

of the issue

• strive to find the “correct”

solution

• focused upon the results and

outcomes

• problems emerge from debate

and discussion

• come upon a shared

understanding

• understand our complementary

and competing views,

• build a joined picture reconciling

our different views

(Zagonel, 2002)

Simulation as a social object

1. facilitate interdisciplinarity 2. used to make predictions 3. shape the conversation 4. conceptual modelling as representing reality 5. negotiating a social order

Epistemic objects Technical objectsAbstract and evolutionary in-flux artefacts used in expert work to negotiate meaning – usually political

Unproblematic, static, technocratic instruments used in expert work between the boundaries

(Ewenstein & Whyte, 2009)

Simulation as a social object

Epistemic Object(create

knowledge)

Technical Object(make

knowledge available)

Boundary Object(facilitate

communication across

boundaries)Representative

Object(represent

reality)

Ideal Types

Epistemic Object(create

knowledge)

Technical Object(make

knowledge available)

Boundary Object(facilitate

communication across

boundaries)

Learn as groupExperiment and

express

Representative Object

(represent reality)

Explore Predict

Ideal Types

Epistemic Object(create

knowledge)

Technical Object(make

knowledge available)

Boundary Object(facilitate

communication across

boundaries)

Learn as groupExperiment and

express

Representative Object

(represent reality)

Explore Predict

Easily changeable, (visually) making systemic mechanisms easily accessible

Fixed, (visually) making systems outcomes attractive

Ideal Types

Case studies• Two System Dynamics modelling projects tackling

the same problem from a local and national perspective

• Work carried out by consultants in collaboration with expert group for health care client

• Similar group model building approach• Different composition of expert group• Local project aims to inform commissioning• National project aims to develop tool for

commissioners nationwide

national vs. a local SD modelling projects National

• Cohesive group • Community of practice • Common

understanding of the goal knowledge about the model and the technology, common knowledge of the system

• Produce a predictive tool

Local • Diverse group • Community of interest • Different backgrounds,

different understandings of the system, different knowledge of the processes, variable understanding of the model as a technology

• Learning about the system

case studies cont....

National • The goal was clear and

shared • Codifying the already

shared knowledge • The common

understanding combined with the tool building focus resulted in limited use of the model as a boundary object.

Local • The model used to

provide to stakeholders a shared imagery of the system through its RO function

• workshops spent time at creating the shared understanding of the problem

National: producing a generic tool for all PCTs

• Goal: "influence policy" and "make a difference“, "reflect the work we had done in this“, "Provide a tool for local authorities to make a robust business case."  

• Group composition: "it is a reasonably small field" and so "we all knew each other"

• Some said model building made them "look at everything“ while others don’t see difference to other policy discussions

• Welcome broad participation in group (different disciplines)• Model is ("looking at full spectrum of interventions") – model can

communicate this to others • Model can also distract because some find it difficult to

understand

Local: producing a specific tool for one PCT • Data clashed with perception of participants – learning about

wider system, finding about the performance of the solutions, attention directed by modeller towards solutions

• Iterative process where the boundaries of the model are negotiated with participants depending on changing perceptions of the system

• “Three key points to help the participants use the model constructively: a well defined issue, people who have the power to make changes to take part in the process and the simplest model to address the issue.”

•  “ ..... it is a group learning process – if you present it cold through a model without the learning process it is very difficult to own the results ......”

• “the model works best with those (participants) who have a whole systems view and can articulate what they see ....”

Results

The ability of the model to serve as a boundary/epistemic object was limited by the perceived complexity of its visual representation.

The role taken by the model at various points seemed to be linked to the project process- the process had an effect.

Tied to the project process are the issues of consistency in participation and learning elements. Therefore it is a matter of project management handling the project group.

Results

• The less diverse and distant the group the more the representative role was successful- because the group had a common understanding of the reality of the system and common goal, did not need to negotiate it and created successfully fixed representational and technical elements in the model

Dominant role in case studies

Epistemic Object(create

knowledge)

Technical Object(make

knowledge available)

Boundary Object(facilitate

communication across

boundaries)

Learn as groupExperiment and

express

Representative Object

(represent reality)

Explore Predict

National

Local

Questions

Thank you