The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist
Abstract
Thoughtful leaders increasingly recognize that we are not only failing to solve the persistent problems we face, but are in fact causing them. System dynamics is designed to help avoid such policy resistance and identify high‐leverage policies for sustained improvement. What does it take to be an effective systems thinker, and to teach system dynamics fruitfully? Understanding complex systems requires mastery of concepts such as feedback, stocks and flows, time delays, and nonlinearity. Research shows that these concepts are highly counterintuitive and poorly understood. It also shows how they can be taught and learned. Doing so requires the use of formal models and simulations to test our mental models and develop our intuition about complex systems. Yet, though essential, these concepts and tools are not sufficient. Becoming an effective systems thinker also requires the rigorous and disciplined use of scientific inquiry skills so that we can uncover our hidden assumptions and biases. It requires respect and empathy for others and other viewpoints. Most important, and most difficult to learn, systems thinking requires understanding that all models are wrong and humility about the limitations of our knowledge. Such humility is essential in creating an environment in which we can learn about the complex systems in which we are embedded and work effectively to create the world we truly desire. The paper is based on the talk the author delivered at the 2002 International System Dynamics Conference upon presentation of the Jay W. Forrester Award. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Learning in and about complex systems
Sterman, J. D. (1994) · System Dynamics Review · doi:10.1002/sdr.4260100214 · Cited by 1,279
Self-citationBathtub dynamics: initial results of a systems thinking inventory
Sweeney, L. B., & Sterman, J. D. (2000) · System Dynamics Review · doi:10.1002/sdr.198 · Cited by 763
Self-citation
Cited by
Key competencies in sustainability: A reference framework for academic program development
Wiek, A., Withycombe, L., & Redman, C. L. (2011) · Sustainability Science · doi:10.1007/s11625-011-0132-6 · Cited by 2,995
Usage impact on data center electricity needs: A system dynamic forecasting model
Koot, M., & Wijnhoven, F. (2021) · Applied Energy · doi:10.1016/j.apenergy.2021.116798 · Cited by 403
Developing Robust, Sustainable, Implementation Systems Using Rigorous, Rapid and Relevant Science
Glasgow, R. E., & Chambers, D. (2012) · Clinical and Translational Science · doi:10.1111/j.1752-8062.2011.00383.x · Cited by 278
A review of socio-technical energy transition (STET) models
Li, F. G. N., Trutnevyte, E., & Strachan, N. (2015) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.017 · Cited by 277
Richards, C. E., Lupton, R. C., & Allwood, J. M. (2021) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-021-02957-w · Cited by 134
Metadata
- Authors
- Sterman, J. D.
- Venue
- System Dynamics Review
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 501-531
- ISSN
- 0883-7066 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1727
- OpenAlex
- W2141271160
- Cited by
- 953
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 19.49
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/sdr.261
- The paper
- Sterman, J. D. (2002). All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems scientist. System Dynamics Review. https://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.261
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.