Premium
Rejoinder to Homer and Oliva
Author(s) -
Coyle Geoff
Publication year - 2001
Publication title -
system dynamics review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.491
H-Index - 57
eISSN - 1099-1727
pISSN - 0883-7066
DOI - 10.1002/sdr.223
Subject(s) - proposition , confusion , value (mathematics) , epistemology , positive economics , argument (complex analysis) , psychology , computer science , economics , philosophy , medicine , psychoanalysis , machine learning
This rejoinder clarifies that there is significant agreement between my position and that of Homer and Oliva as elaborated in their response. Where we differ is largely to the extent that quantification offers worthwhile benefit over and above analysis from qualitative analysis (diagrams and discourse) alone. Quantification may indeed offer potential value in many cases, though even here it may not actually represent “value for money”. However, even more concerning is that in other cases the risks associated with attempting to quantify multiple and poorly understood soft relationships are likely to outweigh whatever potential benefit there might be. To support these propositions I add further citations to published work that recount effective qualitative‐only based studies, and I offer a further real‐world example where any attempts to quantify “multiple softness” could have lead to confusion rather than enlightenment. My proposition remains that this is an issue that deserves real research to test the positions of Homer and Oliva, myself, and no doubt others, which are at this stage largely based on personal experiences and anecdotal evidence. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.