Using the Case Study Method

One important aspect of learning that is sometimes overlooked is the need to reinforce
concepts learned through practice. As we know, mastery does not result simply by being
introduced to a topic or subject. In this class we have reviewed the foundations of
complexity science and system dynamics. We have learned new ways of examining
complex systems and a new language of describing the elements of those systems. It is
now time for us to apply what we have learned and practice applying our knowledge to
real world situations.
One common method of applying learned concepts is the Case Study Method. Very
simply this method is an in-depth examination and analysis of a single specific situation.
Due to its restrictive scope there is some debate as to its value. I believe that the value
of case studies lies not in their applicability to a broad domain, but rather an exercise or
practice of applying learnings to a situation in order to validate your understanding and
knowledge. It is through the application of this knowledge to various case studies that
one can achieve a higher level of mastery of the concepts. Here is a good summary of
the strengths and weaknesses of the Case Study Method.

The Case Study Method is investigative in nature. The goal is to diagnose the system,
analyze the methods and decisions made, and determine subjectively your views on the
outcomes described in the case study. You begin by answering the Who, What, Where,
When and Why. In complex dynamic systems, the goals must also include the
identification of variables, interactions, feedback, causal loops and other elements of the
examined system.

As we have discussed repeatedly, in complex dynamic systems, decision-makers bring

their own mental models to their environment. One challenge of case studies is to
examine those mental models as part of the situation and determine whether they are
faulty. We also need to use our knowledge of system archetypes to see whether the
characteristics of the system presented align with any of those archetypes. Through
these processes we can master our ability to examine complex systems, identify its

components, causes, and outcomes and determine whether a change in input or

feedback could improve the system described.

Lastly, contrary to other types of assessments and evaluations, there is generally no

right or wrong answer. As a result it forms a solid foundation for discussion and
collaboration as a group of individuals share their insights about the scenario under
examination. As we have learned, most complex system analysis is greatly improved
when it goes beyond an individual evaluation to a group discussion