Strategy magazine article about Jay Forrester

This forum contains all archives from the SD Mailing list (go to http://www.systemdynamics.org/forum/ for more information). This is here as a read-only resource, please post any SD related questions to the SD Discussion forum.
Locked
Kim Warren Kim strategydynamics.
Junior Member
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Strategy magazine article about Jay Forrester

Post by Kim Warren Kim strategydynamics. »

Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
Can I draw attention to an outstanding article in 'Strategy+Business', the strategy magazine from consultants Booz Allen & Hamilton - Issue 40, Fall 2005, p78. Written by Lawrence M Fisher, it is an extensive and thoughtful review of Professor Forrester's work and ideas [not just about business] and the wide circulation of this magazine amongst senior executives should add significantly to visibility within this important community.

Kim Warren
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:48:38 +0100
Justin Lyon justin1028 yahoo.com
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Strategy magazine article about Jay Forrester

Post by Justin Lyon justin1028 yahoo.com »

Posted by Justin Lyon <justin1028@yahoo.com>
Kim,

I really do believe we are at the tipping point for
system dynamics (what I like to call 'simulation
science). This article lends further support to this
arguement don't you agree?

Thanks for pointing me to the article.

What do you think of my blog?
http://360.yahoo.com/justin1028

Best,
Justin Lyon
Posted by Justin Lyon <justin1028@yahoo.com>
posting date Thu, 1 Sep 2005 09:49:59 -0700 (PDT)
Mike Fletcher mefletcher gmail.c
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Strategy magazine article about Jay Forrester

Post by Mike Fletcher mefletcher gmail.c »

Posted by Mike Fletcher <mefletcher@gmail.com>
Yes it was a nice article. However, I thinks your assessment of what can be defined as ""evidence"" is perhaps a bit optimistic. Such a tipping point would be evidenced by decision makers actually using simulations more frequently to aid decision making - not an article about the founder of system dynamics.

That aside, the underlying question you posed indirectly was the perception that simulation could be used more often to aid decision making. That discussion has happened before on this list and elsewhere. I'm not sure it's a very useful discussion, because for various reasons we are always going to believe it to be true even if it isn't. Practitioners, almost by definition, are going to believe that their specialty is underutilized.

In any event, the article is rather nice piece and Prof. Forrester's wry sense of humor does come out. Definitely worth the read.

Michael E. Fletcher
mefletcher@gmail.com mefletc@wpi.edu
Posted by Mike Fletcher <mefletcher@gmail.com>
posting date Fri, 2 Sep 2005 10:07:35 -0400
Francisco Perez francisco77pp ya
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Strategy magazine article about Jay Forrester

Post by Francisco Perez francisco77pp ya »

Posted by Francisco Perez <francisco77pp@yahoo.com>
Hi,

I think it is movitvating. But regarding what just Justin said about calling SD SimSci, I think we, as SD'ists, should keep in mid that SD is just part of the ample space of SimSci. Take into account, dynamic systems sim, agent mod & sim, discrete event sim, and so on.

Let's keep being aware of the sci-world we are part of.
Thanks and regards
Francisco
Posted by Francisco Perez <francisco77pp@yahoo.com>
posting date Fri, 2 Sep 2005 08:27:40 -0700 (PDT)
Jim Thompson james.thompson stra
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Strategy magazine article about Jay Forrester

Post by Jim Thompson james.thompson stra »

Posted by ""Jim Thompson"" <james.thompson@strath.ac.uk>
Justin Lyon wrote, ""...we are at the tipping point for system dynamics (what I like to call 'simulation science').""

Even though computer simulation is important in the system dynamics methodology, it is a management science and I'm a little put off by such emphasis on its simulation aspect. Consider George P. Richardson's ""Feedback thought in social science and systems theory"" (Pegasus Communications, 1999) and Herbert Simon's ""The sciences of the artificial"" (The MIT Press; 3rd ed., 1996). Richardson documents a history and provides a context for computer simulation of feedback systems. Simon, in part, argues the role of computer simulation in the sciences of design in general and design of social systems in particular. Both can shed light on whether 'we are at the tipping point' and which way things are likely to tip.

Jim Thompson
Posted by ""Jim Thompson"" <james.thompson@strath.ac.uk>
posting date Sat, 3 Sep 2005 10:24:22 -0400
Justin Lyon justin1028 yahoo.com
Junior Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Strategy magazine article about Jay Forrester

Post by Justin Lyon justin1028 yahoo.com »

Posted by Justin Lyon <justin1028@yahoo.com>
Francisco and others,

Please allow me to clarify and at the risk of starting
a dialog (or even worse, a flame war) that many will
have already discussed in the past . . .

Simulation Science, in my mental model, is the
application of 'linear science' **AND** 'nonlinear
science' to solving problems in the real world.

'Linear science' is located within the larger set of
'nonlinear science'.

I hate the phrase 'nonlinear science' as to me it's
like calling Zoology the 'study of nonelephant
animals.' (thanks go to the mathematician Stanislaw
Ulam for this simile).

So, system dynamics is a discipline within the larger
set of Simulation Science.

Simulation Science is the use of computers and the
application of nonlinear techniques (and 'linear'
techniques when appropriate) for understanding our
complex world so that people can solve real world
problems more creatively and efficiently.

Techniques used within Simulation Science might come
from a variety of fields, e.g., regression analysis, agent-based modelling, discrete-event simulations, system dynamics, fractal mathematics, dynamical systems, chaos, etc. ad nausea depending on the problem being studied.

That is, people need to understand the real-life
problem and then choose the appropriate scientific
discipline to analyze it and develop policy. Maybe
it's an SD model, maybe a discrete-event model or
maybe some combination of a variety of techniques.
Just make sure the scientific technique you are using
embraces the facts of complex adaptive systems.

Greater than 90% of all business problems in the world currently being analyzed by the vast majority of consultants, economists, marketers, etc., are almost exclusively analyzed using techniques that paint patently false simulacrums of reality.

Many of these traditional simulacrums (often in the
form of highly complex spreadsheet models and implicit
mental models) include assumptions that violate the
most basic of physical laws.

They are more of a hindrance to decision making than a
benefit. I argue that reductionism analysis is more
often used for improving perceived certainty and
reducing perceived risk (leading to the all to often
heard lament, ""we did a bunch of analysis before it
all went wrong, so its not our fault, rather something extrinsic to us caused our failure).

Nothing wrong with doing what you’ve always done other
than the technology for applying simulation science is available (after decades of refinement) in the form of fast computers, excellent modelling software, solid management science, etc., so that humans can build evermore robust simulacrums for improving their decision making.

Like a good book that has been relentlessly edited
over time, simulation models become simpler over time
(unlike traditional analysis which gets more complex
over time). Over time, the user interface gets more
complex and robust, but the underlying simulation
models (objects) should get simpler.

Or, the more time I have, the simpler I can make the
simulation objects. The complexity of the model arises
when you connect a bunch of very simple objects
(molecules) together into a larger simulation. Sort of
like the complexity that arises when you connect a
bunch of atoms together into molecules into cells into
organs into humans.

It was *nearly* impossible *before computers* to truly understand the dynamics of businesses, because businesses are complex adaptive systems and it is IMPOSSIBLE for any human being, no matter how clever, to solve high-order, nonlinear, dynamic systems other than in the most 'gut-feel' sort of way by using the most powerful computer on the planet (our brains).

Nothing wrong with that either -- I just think it's
easier for people to follow their leaders if they make
their mental models explicit in a computer simulation
instead of requiring faith in the hidden mental
models.

Simulation Science insights have diffused slowly over
the past fifty years from the natural sciences to the
social sciences.

A 2002 citation search compared 5,400 social science
journals against the 100 natural science disciplines
covered by INSPEC (>4,000 journals) and Web of Science
( >5,700 journals) indexes. It shows keywords comput*
and simulat* peak at around 18,500 in natural science,
whereas they peak at 250 in economics and around 125
in sociology. For the keyword nonlinear citations peak
at 18,000 in natural science, at roughly 180 in
economics, and near 40 in sociology.

In the words of the researchers who conducted this
study, ""How can it be that sciences founded on the
mathematical linear determinism of classical physics
have moved more quickly toward the use of nonlinear
computer models than economics and sociology—where
those doing the science are no different from social
actors—who are Brownian Motion?""

My answer: It takes time.

So, one of the key challenges I'm facing as I
promulgate simulation science insights outside the
academic world, is . .

How do I make the CEO realize that the reliability and
accuracy of his decision-making can be improved by
using simulation science?

I believe that this involves educating managers that
it is time to set aside their historical (and
erroneous) preconceptions and prejudices of how to
manage a business in the 21st century.

Few executives today realize that the complexity of
business is genuinely beyond them. And that's not an
easy sell.

Humans, thanks to computers and only with the help of computers, can deepen our understanding of the world we live in. And, that’s an even harder sell.

-Justin
Posted by Justin Lyon <justin1028@yahoo.com>
posting date Sun, 4 Sep 2005 04:57:25 -0700 (PDT)
Bruce Skarin bruceskarin hotmail
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

Strategy magazine article about Jay Forrester

Post by Bruce Skarin bruceskarin hotmail »

Posted by ""Bruce Skarin"" <bruceskarin@hotmail.com>
I was very glad to see this article. I know some people don't see much utility in discussing the broader implications of System Dynamics and modeling as an approach to problem solving, but I for one believe that it is a crucial process not only for our field, but society at large.

It’s hard to change something that is dysfunctional if you aren’t willing to talk about how to approach it. And more often it is only the people with a strong personal bias that care enough to act versus those that are capable of more objective problem solving.

One of the reasons System Dynamics is so unique as an approach to problem solving is that it recognizes its faults before its benefits (all models are wrong, not all models are useless). This dichotomy is perhaps part of the cause for caution in trumpeting the field. Yet this does not mean that we should not be concerned with the quality and availability of information about System Dynamics.

For example, the increasingly popular Wikipedia website “the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit” had the following under Jay W. Forrester:

“He wrote a book ""World Dynamics"" on modelling the world economy, population and ecology. The paper ""A Dynamic World Model"" by D. H. Brownlee (in American Society for Engineering Education Transactions on Computers in Education 1973 Vol. 5) implements this model on an analogue computer. It concludes that the only hope for mankind is massive depopulation resulting from a nuclear war!”

This association was subsequently copied and spread over other sites polluting some 140 websites. I have since edited the site and hope that the newer version will slowly displace this view, but I think there is a lesson to be learned here.

My point is simply; if we don’t take a more active role in defining our field, someone else will. And I personally do not care for the view of System Dynamics as a field bent on predicting the end of the world. Kudos to Lawrence M. Fisher on an excellent and far more accurate account!

-Bruce

P.S. I encourage others on the list to edit both the page on Forrester and the page on System Dynamics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_W._Forrester
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics
It is somewhat fun and fairly easy. Translations are equally important! Posted by ""Bruce Skarin"" <bruceskarin@hotmail.com> posting date Wed, 14 Sep 2005 14:35:21 -0400
Locked