System Dynamics And Strategy

Carlos Legna Verna, PhD, La Laguna University, Spain, e-mail: clegna@ull.es
Serafín Corral Quintana, PhD, La Laguna University, e-mail: scorral@ull.es





Integrating System Dynamics, Qualitative Analysis and Scenarios to Improve Strategic Decisions: An application to desertification processes in the Canary Islands.
Abstract—This paper continues a line of research on improvingStrategic Decisions (SD). The nature of governance issues (complex and uncertain world, lack of information, need of bear in mind qualitative and quantitative information, participation of different actors in the decision making processes, etc.) imply that there is no a unique solution (the strategy). On the contrary, there are different alternatives strategies, which lead the social system to alsodifferent futures (scenarios). Working with qualitative information, the methodology allow the decision makers and social actors to be aware of the directions their decisions will lead the system; and which are the key variables for the implementation of public policies, to achieve the desired (or agreed) scenario. An integrated methodology is discussed, using the process of desertification in theCanary Islands to illustrate it. This study is currently under development and is funded by the regional government. The first section deals with the elaboration of qualitative models; the second with the application of system dynamics based mainly in the results of the qualitative analysis; the third one the definition of logical path of scenarios; and in the last section the authors explain howto combine the tools to select strategies.
Keywords—Qualitative information, System Dynamics, Strategic Decisions
1.- INTRODUCTION
This paper carries on researches of the authors on the elaboration of methodologies to improve Strategic Decisions (Legna Verna, C.; Kljajić, M. et al. 2005b; Legna Verna, C.; Kljajić, M. et al. 2005a; Legna Verna, C.; González González, C. 2006; Legna Verna, C.;González González, C. 2005; Legna Verna, C. 2010; Legna Verna, C. 2007; Legna Verna, C. 2000;Corral Quintana, S.; Funtowicz, S. et al. 2002;Guimarães Pereira, Â.; Corral Quintana, S. 2002a;Guimarães Pereira, Â.; Corral Quintana, S. 2002b).
In recent years, the so called decision tools – in which Decision Support Systems (DSS) are included – have been enhanced not only because of technologybut also because of greater skills and openness to actually use such tools for consultation purposes. In a sense, we have been assisting to a change of place of decision tools within decision-making processes. Emerging more accountable and inclusive governance styles, indicate that there is not a decision maker (there was never only one, is just that DSS developers are no longer being naïve in thatregards) but debates that take place over policy issues. Accountability and inclusive processes have been progressively promoted in the last two decades through legislation. Moreover, there has been also a progressive recognition that it is not at the level of decision that appropriate consultation, dialogue and deliberation take place among those concerned[1] with a certain problematique.
Assaid earlier, tools to inform such processes have been changing over time not only in the adoption of different technologies and design concepts, but also in conceptual framework. From a recent review of DSS for environmental issues, latest developments comprise the integration of social research methods and institutional analysis. (Guimarães Pereira, Â.; Corral Quintana, S. 2002a)
Environmentalissues entail multiple dimensions of analysis that cannot be amalgamated into a single scale of measurement because they pertain to different aspects and actors of the processes. Actors talk different languages, express uncertainty in different ways – hence, new developments for information tools have to take into account for this diversity. In the past, many decision systems corresponding to...