QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

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
""J. Robert Bois"" <bois@mchs
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by ""J. Robert Bois"" <bois@mchs »

Posted by ""J. Robert Bois"" <bois@mchsi.com>

WAS Please Capitalize System Dynamics (SD6350)

I have to whole heartedly agree with George on this one. As much as we would like to capitalize SD, it really belongs in the lower case and many on the list have given good reason for such. I do concur with George's suggestion of possibly renaming our field. May I suggest:

Dynasystrics

Combines Dynamics, Systems, & Metrics

And it cannot be Googled at this point in time. The iron is hot.

Cordially,

Bob Bois
Gulf Breeze, Florida
Posted by ""J. Robert Bois"" <bois@mchsi.com> posting date Sat, 24 Mar 2007 12:55:31 -0500 _______________________________________________
""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vu
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vu »

Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz>

WAS Please Capitalize System Dynamics (SD6350)

hi all,

i would like to add a few comments to my posting last week on this thread, although it has now 'factured' into a number of new threads.

my comments relate to:
(1) the current questioning over the name 'system dynamics' to describe
our field; and
[2 is a separate post]

Firstly,
(1) the name of 'system dynamics' to describe our field

- we should be very careful about changing the name. it is becoming
extremely well known as a very powerful methodology (set of methodologies,
approaches etc) within the systems sciences. for example i 'googled' the
name 'system dynamics' on the internet today (www.google.com) and came up with:
- 118,000,000 items for 'system dynamics' (in 0.14 seconds) compared with:
- 6,220,000 items for 'econometrics'
- 6,480,000 items for 'cybernetics'
- 151,000,000 items for 'economics'

There is also an extremely good Wikipedia entry for the term 'system dynamics'.
most of the better known 'system dynamics' web sites come up on the first page of the google search.

i think that the name system dynamics (SD) has now become very well known globally, and to change the name (again) may be detrimental to the field.

however, i do recognise the dilemma some people may face when using the terms 'qualitative system dynamics' and 'systems thinking' but that is another issue (& debate)!

Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz> posting date Sun, 25 Mar 2007 08:52:35 +1200 _______________________________________________
Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@ »

Posted by Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@yahoo.com>

WAS Please Capitalize System Dynamics (SD6350)

Toward the new name, I suggest one name for the field.
System dynamics may become 'systemdynamics'.
The advantages of this term are as follows:

1. The term has already entered common parlance among system dynamicists.
2. The domain-name 'systemdynamics.org' needs no change.
3. Such a domain becomes consistent with the field name.
4. The term is shorter than ever and thus reduces printing cost.
5. Systemdynamics is a very specific key word.
6. When ones say the field name, 'System dynamics'
and 'systemdynamics' sound the same.
7. This name serves to distinguish the field from other fields.
8. Systemdynamics might become a dictionary entry more easily.
9. Making use of this name can reduce a delay in the evolution of English. William Strunk and E.B. White write,

""..The steady evolution of the language seems to favor union:
two words eventually become one, usually after a period of hyphenation...""

Another issue is the desired definition of the field.
I propose the following:

systemdynamics n. the branch of science that seeks to understand and modify the feedback structure of dynamic problems in any system.

MK



Monte Kietpawpan
Ph.D. Student,
Faculty of Environmental Management
Prince of Songkla University
Songkhla, 90112, Thailand
Posted by Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@yahoo.com> posting date Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:36:30 -0700 (PDT) _______________________________________________
ybarlas@boun.edu.tr Dear Bob,
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by ybarlas@boun.edu.tr Dear Bob, »

Posted by ybarlas@boun.edu.tr

Dear Bob,

You observe:
>> - we should be very careful about changing the name. it is becoming
>> extremely well known as a very powerful methodology (set of
>> methodologies, approaches etc) within the systems sciences.

I have two related comments:

- I don't think we should (at least in the near future) discuss 'changing the name.' System dynamics denotes an extremely general field that we are part of and we can/should continue using it in this sense. But I was suggesting that we actually don't have is a good name for our methodology. (System dynamics method or system dynamics approach, system dynamics model...these are the ones that don't work, awkward and ambiguous, that can NOT become unique dict. entries).

- The huge number of google hits may actually be proving my point: perhaps half of these are NOT the sort of publication, center, company, project... that we would associate at all with system dynamics 'in our sense.' In addition to plain 'system dynamics' that engineers and mathamaticians use so often in general, you add any adjective and it means something specific and very different form what we mean: vehicle system dynamics, 3-body sd, particle sd, molecular sd, flow sd, on and on... Perhaps we should do a quick check of the first 10-20 pages of google results and see -unscientifically- the picture. (It did not look very good when I did a limited and difficult search 10 years ago when google did not exist).

thanks and best,

Yaman Barlas
Posted by ybarlas@boun.edu.tr
posting date Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:14:08 +0300 _______________________________________________
""Ines Winz"" <i.winz@aucklan
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by ""Ines Winz"" <i.winz@aucklan »

Posted by ""Ines Winz"" <i.winz@auckland.ac.nz>

With regards to the 118,000,000 hits in google on system dynamics; most of these will probably not refer to the methodology of system dynamics but rather a general description of behaviour (the dynamics in the system).
Hence, this discussion.

Searching literature databases for SD work in any field can be quite challenging. Search Current Contents (1998-2007) and you get 1,892 results for ""system dynamics"" in 93 disciplines: 241 hits in management, 224 in AI, robotics & automatic control, 218 in mechanical engineering, 150 in physics,
124 in environment/ecology and so forth. Most of these results have nothing to do with SD modelling. In fact, a refined search for ""SD model*"" results in only 182 records (roughly 10%) in 36 disciplines but there is no way of knowing that you got them all. This is certainly an important drawback of the current name, albeit one that we have managed to live with well over the past years.

Regards, Ines.
Posted by ""Ines Winz"" <i.winz@auckland.ac.nz> posting date Mon, 26 Mar 2007 10:48:15 +1200 _______________________________________________
""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vu
Junior Member
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vu »

Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz>

Hi all,

Many thanks for the emails I have received about my Google searching skills (!) & comments generally about the SD 'naming issue'.

Firstly I would like to draw attention to my initial mistake on Google.
unfortunately i searched incorrectly for 'system dynamics' in single quotation marks (resulting in 118 million hits!) rather than correctly in double quotation marks, ie ""system dynamics"" (resulting in 1.1 million hits).

by comparison i checked Google for a number of other related systems/simulation areas:

""systems thinking"" 1,080,000 hits
""soft systems methodology"" 123,000 hits
""dynamic simulation"" 872,000 hits
""continuous simulation"" 118,000 hits.

nevertheless 1,130,000 Google hits (items) for ""system dynamics"" is a considerable amount, although, as pointed out by Yaman Barlas, Ines Winz and others, many of these hits do not relate to our field (SD).

Maybe the System Dynamics Society could commission an 'independent'
study to investigate the level of awareness internationally for our field of ""system dynamics"" [SD] ?

This could be presented at the Boston 50th anniversary conference of SD (or some another appropriate occasion, eg to the SDS Policy Council) and we could have some 'scientific' evidence to see if there is a case to change the name of the field or methodology?

Comments please.

Many thanks,

Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz> posting date Tue, 27 Mar 2007 09:15:20 +1200 _______________________________________________
Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@ »

Posted by Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@yahoo.com>

I am reading the introductory book by
Nancy Roberts and others. They stress the importance of
policy choices in system dynamics. So let's me apply
the concept to this issue.

There are options to solve the searching problem.
Renaming is a policy choice. In this reply, I think of
another option. We can preserve the original name (system dynamics)
by regarding this as a common name and adding a new term for use
as the ID name for this field. It requires that all system dynamicists
include the same ID name as a key word in the works they publish.
Also, webmasters who operate system dynamics webpages must
be encouraged to include this ID name as a meta content in the
HTML codes. Given this, people can search for SD papers/webpages
by using just the ID name together with other key words.
The ID name needs to be as specific as possible, e.g.,
sd502007jwf or any password the Society issues.
This would not disturb the field name and solve the problem of
literature search. An important thing is to make sure that
people know the ID name and use it for searching.


Monte Kietpawpan
Ph.D. Student,
Faculty of Environmental Management
Prince of Songkla University
Songkhla, 90112, Thailand
Posted by Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@yahoo.com> posting date Tue, 27 Mar 2007 19:45:37 -0700 (PDT) _______________________________________________
""Erling Moxnes"" <Erling.Mox
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by ""Erling Moxnes"" <Erling.Mox »

Posted by ""Erling Moxnes"" <Erling.Moxnes@geog.uib.no>

I have not seen any reactions to Monte Kietpawpan's suggestions to change the name from ""system dynamics"" into ""systemdynamics"". Since we have used the single word ""systemdynamikk"" in Norwegian since it was first introduced, I have difficulties coming up with good reasons why this is not a good idea. Since this is the natural way to construct words in Norwegian, it feels OK, maybe not in English? What do the natives say?

Monte Kietpawpan's list of arguments seems convincing to me.

Regarding point 9, delays are usually underestimated and I do not think that systemdynamics will be used as a general term before the short version is established as the name of our field.

As a minimum, and in accordance with Monte Kietpawpan's second posting, systemdynamics could be a useful keyword, used along with system dynamics and System Dynamics when that is more appropriate.

My best,

Erling Moxnes
Posted by ""Erling Moxnes"" <Erling.Moxnes@geog.uib.no> posting date Wed, 28 Mar 2007 17:03:21 +0200 _______________________________________________
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
Senior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci »

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

""SDMAIL Erling Moxnes"" <Erling.Moxnes@geog.uib.no> writes:
>> I have not seen any reactions to Monte Kietpawpan's suggestions to
>> change the name from ""system dynamics"" into ""systemdynamics"". Since

I understand that it may work well in other languages, but I think it's strained in English.

Think of quantum mechanics, behavioral psychology, control theory, electrical engineering, computer science, ....

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Facilitated Systems
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Thu, 29 Mar 2007 07:22:54 -0700 _______________________________________________
James Melhuish <james@melhuis
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by James Melhuish <james@melhuis »

Posted by James Melhuish <james@melhuish.org>

I am somewhat surprised at the range of replies to the original message Capitalizing System Dynamics, now Renaming. I probably should not have been...

SUMMARY:

I think the issue of capitalizing System Dynamics (and/or renaming...) is important if we wish to strengthen knowledge of the field outside of our own circle of influence. My concern is that the current name of the field, system dynamics, gets easily lost in written form and therefore newcomers will not understand that there is a consolidated body of work called System Dynamics (that has continued without major theoretical change for 50 years). We should continue this discussion at the conference, and afterwards.

A counterpoint is found in the Chicago Manual of Style. The closest reference to capitalization of a field/methodology is under 7.120 (LAWS, PRINCIPLES, AND THE LIKE). ""Only proper names attached to the names of laws, theorems, principles, and the like are capitalized:

big bang theory
Boyle's law
the second law of thermodynamics
(Einstein's) general theory of relativity""

That said, do we think that SD is properly and adequately represented to people outside of our community? Do people understand and remember what we do, and that what we do is more general than vehicle system dynamics?

I would like to be convinced that my request for capitalization is not necessary; that system dynamics is well known throughout the scientific, management science, and social science world. But I am not yet reassured.
See point (6) below.

SOME DETAILS:

(1) I think we should be VERY careful about a decision to rename the field
of SD. Knowledgeable people have been talking about SD for 40+ years
(and about industrial dynamics for even longer). I don't support a
dramatic name change.

(2) I have no problem with system dynamicists choosing to capitalize or not
when publishing in the SD Review or SD conferences. As George Richardson
says, ""we could continue to be loose about it"". We all know what WE are
talking about.

For example ""building models of population system dynamics"" is properly written in lower case.

(3) What I am concerned about, and why I wrote the original post, is the awareness or recognition of our *field* by the general population (scientific or lay). Again George said:

""But suppose we wanted to flag we're talking about a field.
Then it seems right to capitalize: ""System Dynamics."" The capitals would tell the reader that what we mean at that moment is a set of scholarly traditions, literature, professional practice, and tools.""

(4) Regarding John Morecroft's practical solution of separating ""named approaches"" and ""fields"". How do we, or the majority of people who read about our work, separate or even recognize the difference between ""named approaches"" and ""fields""? Almost everybody knows about *economics*, very few (I wager) know about *Soft Systems Methodology*. When meeting system dynamics in a sentence, does the average reader know that this is a field?
Is system dynamics in fact a named approach?

(5) Further reinforcement comes from Bob Cavana, Monte Kietpawpan, and John Gunkler.

Searching for work related to ""system dynamics"" is difficult.

Very specific names like ""cybernetics"" make a field more distinct.

Branding is an important method of establishing a presence in a person's mind. system dynamics has very little *brand* worthiness; capitalizing helps a bit (my opinion).

Many references I have seen refer to SD as ""Forrester-style modeling"" or ""Limits to Growth modeling"". Obviously these authors don't realize (or want to use) the term System Dynamics.

(6) Google search on ""system dynamics"" returns 59 SD references from the first 100 hits (59%). Is that good enough for us?

By contrast, a google search on ""operations research"" returns 100 OR references from 100 hits (100%).

James
Posted by James Melhuish <james@melhuish.org> posting date Sat, 31 Mar 2007 00:29:28 -0500 _______________________________________________
""Valerie Gacogne"" <valerie.
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by ""Valerie Gacogne"" <valerie. »

Posted by ""Valerie Gacogne"" <valerie.gacogne@complexio.eu>

> ""SDMAIL Erling Moxnes"" <Erling.Moxnes@geog.uib.no> writes:
> I have not seen any reactions to Monte Kietpawpan's suggestions to
> change the name from ""system dynamics"" into ""systemdynamics"". Since

Let me tell you that it would be impossible to say it in French, and probably in many Latin languages?

Valerie

Complexio
10 Bis Avenue des Gobelins F-75005 Paris Posted by ""Valerie Gacogne"" <valerie.gacogne@complexio.eu> posting date Tue, 3 Apr 2007 13:51:33 +0200 _______________________________________________
""Magne Myrtveit"" <magne@myr
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by ""Magne Myrtveit"" <magne@myr »

Posted by ""Magne Myrtveit"" <magne@myrtveit.com>

Regarding ""systemdynamics"" ...

Wouldn't it be a little arrogant to believe that we can change the way nouns are constructed in the English language?

We could (in theory) use a ""foreign"" language (foreign to whom?) to name our field. (As an example, ""eigenvalue"" does not sound very English).

In our case I think it is Ok that English speakers use ""system dynamics"", Norwegians, Danes, and Swedes use ""systemdynamikk"", Germans ""Systemdynamik"", etc. These are well recognized terms. It will only hurt to mess with them.

Best regards,

Magne Myrtveit
Dynaplan As
Posted by ""Magne Myrtveit"" <magne@myrtveit.com> posting date Wed, 4 Apr 2007 12:54:34 +0200 _______________________________________________
ybarlas@boun.edu.tr <ybarlas@
Junior Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by ybarlas@boun.edu.tr <ybarlas@ »

Posted by ybarlas@boun.edu.tr <ybarlas@boun.edu.tr>

Dear friends,

In this difficult and general discussion, I would like to urge you to focus on one very specific aspect of the problem, captured by several findings, most recently by James Melhuish:

Quoting SDMAIL James Melhuish <james@melhuish.org>:
>> Many references I have seen refer to SD as ""Forrester-style modeling""
>> or ""Limits to Growth modeling"". Obviously these authors don't
>> realize (or want to use) the term System Dynamics.
>>
>> (6) Google search on ""system dynamics"" returns 59 SD references from
>> the first 100 hits (59%). Is that good enough for us?

The above problem is real, specific, macro-level and it will become more and more critical in the coming 'search' decades where accuracy and relevance of search findings will become more critical.

I do not think we can easily say 'there is no problem' here. I am not sure about the best solution, but it seems like the best way would be to keep system dynamics AND adopt a new, specific term for our specific methodology. (The name of journal and Society should NOT change. They ARE specific).

systemdynamics was suggested. Could be fine, but too long perhaps. By
inspiration:

how about sysdyn? (A sysdyn method, sysdyn model, sysdyn approach...)
best,
Yaman Barlas
Posted by ybarlas@boun.edu.tr
posting date Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:35:52 +0300 _______________________________________________
""Keith Linard"" <klin4960@bi
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by ""Keith Linard"" <klin4960@bi »

Posted by ""Keith Linard"" <klin4960@bigpond.net.au>

>>>>
>>>> (6) Google search on ""system dynamics"" returns 59 SD references
>>>> from the first 100 hits (59%). Is that good enough for us?

This posting suggests more about use of Google, than about the naming of system dynamics. From the outset I've always known the field as 'system dynamics modelling' (using the English, Australian, Indian, Pakistani etc etc spelling of 'modelling', rather than the contracted 'modeling' used by a minority of the english speaking world. Spelling aside, a Google search on ""system dynamics modelling"" or ""system dynamics modeling"" will give 98%
(modelling) to 92% (modeling) success rate. If 92% success rate is not good enough there is an obvious way to ramp it up.

Keith Linard
134 Gisborne Road
Bacchus Marsh
Vic 3340
Posted by ""Keith Linard"" <klin4960@bigpond.net.au> posting date Fri, 6 Apr 2007 13:21:47 +1000 _______________________________________________
Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.co
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.co »

Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>

I'm not in favor of a name change for reasons already cited by others.
Not withstanding, at work I do find that when I am in a position to propose some SD work and refer to it as a ""systems dynamics modeling, the continuous flow approach"", most people seem to instinctively know what the ""continuous flow"" part means, even if they cannot visualize what such a model looks like or would do. That puts the listener in a receptive mood, and I can offer some details of how and why the modeling might help.

I work in a hospital system. With the above introduction and overview description of SD, even when I note that the model will not be useful for what is happening in bed M050-04 but will give a nice picture of the overall inflow and outflow of patients on the unit M050, for most of the problems we have, that seems to capture their attention.

Rather than focusing on renaming SD, is there a useful conversation on how we describe SD in the first 30 seconds?
Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com> posting date Thu, 05 Apr 2007 07:10:48 -0400 _______________________________________________
George Richardson <gpr@albany
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by George Richardson <gpr@albany »

Posted by George Richardson <gpr@albany.edu>


>On Apr 5, 2007, at 6:04 AM, SDMAIL ybarlas wrote:
> how about sysdyn? (A sysdyn method, sysdyn model, sysdyn approach...)


Things come around. Here's a minor historical note:

""Sysdyn"" was the name I gave to the program of subroutines I wrote in BASIC in 1973 to enable my Simon's Rock students to build and simulate system dynamics models on a Digital Equipment Corporation PDP-8E computer. The PDP-8E was a box about 2.5 feet across by 3
feet deep by 1 foot high that contained 8K of core memory. (Really:
8K!) We stored our models on punched paper tape and used a 10 characters-per-second teletype as the input and output device.
It was a technological revolution when we got a DecWriter that typed at 30 characters per second.

Sysdyn could handle graphical functions (both TABLE and TABHL) and third order delays and produced typed graphs that were indistinguishable from DYNAMO. We used it in all my modeling courses at Simon's Rock until I left in 1979 to start my PhD at MIT.
It didn't travel widely, but it did travel far: it was used in those early days by Ante Munitic on tiny computers in Yugoslavia and by Dennis Meadows as the early beginnings of the simulation engine he built to enable his first simulation games to run on very simple computers in BASIC anywhere in the world.

So it would be quite nostalgic for me and my early college students of long ago to see the name ""sysdyn"" as the name for the field.
I didn't copyright it, so it's yours for the taking. But personally I fear it would be too much of a revolution for the rest of the field and for our international reputation.

That is not to say that Yaman's concerns about the rest of the world's confusions about our field's identify and name are
groundless. Far from it. I guess I am hoping that if we persist,
the world will have to recognize us. I hope that's not a silly hope.

Still, I am intrigued by Magne's observation that the field is known as one word to Scandinavians (""systemdynamikk"") and Germans (""Systemdynamik""). That suggests that the English equivalent ""systemdynamics"" is quite plausible. But the conservative in me still balks at trying to change global naming practice, fearing all we would get is more confusion, and the condescending reaction of other more established fields that ""we blinked,"" we had to admit that out name (field?) wasn't working.

I still hope that a never-ending tide of great work that others can not avoid talking about, boldly labeled ""system dynamics"" or ""System Dynamics"" by authors from all over, will win the day.

..George
Posted by George Richardson <gpr@albany.edu> posting date Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:04:09 -0400 _______________________________________________
""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sp
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by ""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sp »

Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>

I, for one, am (a) tiring of this discussion, and (b) seeing more clearly why the original message suggested that we capitalize System Dynamics (in the appropriate contexts.) I find every other suggestion to be strained and not getting us any closer to the objective. Made up words will not communicate our message to the non-technical public as well as ""system dynamics"" does now, and it would take decades to get non-SD academicians to know ""sysdyn"" (or ""klabberfrobs,"" or whatever) and use it.

Is it possible, at least, for the Society to register ""System Dynamics""
(with capital letters) as a service mark? Then we could at least use the R symbol when we wanted to be clear about our referent.

John Gunkler
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> posting date Thu, 5 Apr 2007 09:36:24 -0400 _______________________________________________
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
Senior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci »

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

>""SDMAIL James Melhuish"" <james@melhuish.org> writes:
>> (3) What I am concerned about, and why I wrote the original post, is
>> the awareness or recognition of our *field* by the general population
>> (scientific or lay).


James,

Why? To what end? I'm really curious; what would we gain by increased recognition of our field? If the answer seems obvious to you, pretend it isn't, at least just for a moment, and explain it to me. I think I can think of several possible answers; I'm not sure which people are thinking of here.

When you're answering, I encourage you to drop down to the lowest rung you can on the ladder of abstraction to help make it crystal clear.

I'm also curious whether the magnitude of this perceived need is different in academic and business circles.

I'll admit that I'm perhaps a bit influenced by the idea behind Glenn
Allen-Meyer's emphasis on nameless organizational change
(http://www.emberea.com/pdf/resources/Na ... erview.pdf). As you
can see in
http://facilitatedsystems.com/weblog/20 ... art-7.html,
I carried out a useful conversation with someone else using a system
dynamics model without ever mentioning system dynamics, and I don't
think the conversation suffered from that (see point three).


>> (4) Regarding John Morecroft's practical solution of separating
>> ""named approaches"" and ""fields"". How do we, or the majority of
>> people who read about our work, separate or even recognize the
>> difference between ""named approaches"" and ""fields""? Almost everybody
>> knows about *economics*, very few (I wager) know about *Soft Systems
>> Methodology*. When meeting system dynamics in a sentence, does the average reader know that this is a field?
>> Is system dynamics in fact a named approach?


I think I missed John's email, and I am not sure of the distinction between an named approach and a field.

Here's a question to inject a bit of energy into the system (as if it needed it): what would we lose, if anything, if we simply called it feedback control theory? What would we gain, if anything?

After all, I don't call my half inch box end wrench something different when I apply it to a car, a bicycle, or a piece of outdoor furniture.

While I suspect there may be a bit of a reaction on the assumption I'm suggesting that change, I'm really just asking the question. I suspect thinking about the answer out loud might prove interesting, whether the change itself would be a good, bad, or awful idea.


>> (6) Google search on ""system dynamics"" returns 59 SD references from
>> the first 100 hits (59%). Is that good enough for us?


I just tried Google with ""system dynamics"" (no quotation marks). Of the first ten hits, nine pertained to SD, and one pertained to the Irish software company. I'm not familiar with Google's algorithms, so, just to be sure, I logged out of Google before running that test in case it organized its results based on my history of search.

Of the second ten hits, at least five pertained to SD. Three of the third third seemed to pertain to SD.

- From what I've read of search engine optimization, few people go past the third page in searching anyway, so these results seem reasonable to me. The phrase ""system dynamics"" does have other meanings, and those should get their due, as well (unless we think that Irish company should be banned and people talking about the movement of planets about the sun would have to talk about solar orbital dynamics).

Search engines seem to get better, too. I often program in J when I have calculations to do (beats a spreadsheet! -- http://www.facilitatedsystems.com/weblo ... arder.html).
As you might imagine, it used to be that Googling J was a real disaster, and so I stopped trying. I tried today to give an example here (still logged out of Google, just in case), and I was pleasantly surprised to see that the first and tenth hits were right on (J Lo was number _two_!).

I, too, like George's suggestion, and I suspect we'll each continue to do what we want, anyway. I don't really want to contribute to extending this thread _except_ that I sense there may be something driving it which would be beneficial to surface and look at: hence my first two questions.

Thoughts?

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Facilitated Systems
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:04:25 -0700 _______________________________________________
Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac
Senior Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac »

Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>

Hi Bill

You write
< I'm really curious; what would we gain by increased < recognition of our field?

Dropping down to the lowest rung on my personal ladder of abstraction (which is in fact no more abstract) if the field was much more recognized it would be a blessing for me.
I could find where I am living a consultant that could have saved me years of hard work, or eventually found a student if SD was taught in the University to do many of the time consuming associated jobs like data verifications, model equations validations etc.
Instead of that I had to do a job which I am not supposed to do (I am the manager of my business).

I went once to my old mathematic institute and talked to somebody teaching modelling and understood quickly that it had nothing to do with my problems.

I think too that SD will once be recognized, but unfortunately not in the near future, not because of the capacity of SD to solve problems but to the lack of people able to use it, and to the length of time necessary to form a good modeller.

So whatever name we use will not change that problem and will not increase our recognition that may only come from the quality and quantity of current SD models.

Moreover, the change of the name should have happened thirty years before if ever, now it is too late.

Regards.
Jean-Jacques Laublé.
Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr> posting date Sat, 7 Apr 2007 16:05:11 +0200 _______________________________________________
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
Senior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci »

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

>>""SDMAIL Jean-Jacques Laublé"" <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>> I could find where I am living a consultant that could have saved me
>>years of hard work, or eventually found a student if SD was taught in
>>the University to do many of the time consuming associated jobs like
>>data verifications, model equations validations etc.


Jean-Jacques,

Thank you. I like that reason. In fact, it's helping me once again to try to seek a balance between two competing directives I heard when I was first starting out on my own. Some people said that I shouldn't write that I did system dynamics, for no one cares about system dynamics; they care about the problems they face. Others told me I should say I do system dynamics, for, without that, no one would know why they should seek me out. You've added weight to that side.

I /think/ both statements are true. Some people, such as you, understand what SD is, know when it would be of help to you, and can save much time by directly seeking a system dynamicist to help you.
Others don't yet know what SD is and don't particularly care; in fact, they may be put off if we talk about what /we/ know about the subject (or any subject). They do want someone to help them solve their dynamic problems, though.

I think I've met about an even number of people in each camp, so I try to let it be known what I do on some occasions and to simply talk (or
ask) about the other person's problems on other occasions.


>> Instead of that I had to do a job which I am not supposed to do (I am
>> the manager of my business).


That I can well understand.

Merci,

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Facilitated Systems
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:02:13 -0700 _______________________________________________
Tom Forest <tforest@promethea
Junior Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Tom Forest <tforest@promethea »

Posted by Tom Forest <tforest@prometheal.com>

I resisted this thread for a long time, but Yaman Barlas' thoughtful posting of March 24 kept summoning from my inbox and would not be filed away until I replied to it. So saying...

When I use the term ""System Dynamics"" with people, I get blank looks.
Asking for familiarity with Jay Forrester, Limits to Growth, Peter Senge or The Fifth Discipline, I might get a response from one in ten. If I say ""modeling via solving systems of nonlinear equations solved in time series,"" the more technically minded nod semi-comprehendingly--maybe another two out of ten. ""Computer modeling"" most people will understand, as far as it goes, but of course SD is a tiny part of that category. Then I might follow with ""it's much like weather modeling or engineering models, but applied to non-engineering problems: basically it's rocket science."" It still seems unsatisfying. If people are still with me, they typically inquire about point-to-point predictions, which of course are besides the point (sorry, couldn't resist). The key paradox has always been that SD is about the quantitative description of qualitative behavior, and deeply involves both the right side/left side of the brain.
We don't have many similar pursuits, and those that are closest are musically or visually artistic. If I say SD is about designing and building simulators and simulations, then people start thinking about computer games, which is still somewhat frustrating but is the best I've managed to date.

In the preface to John Sterman's excellent ""Business Dynamics,"" which I recently read cover-to-cover (sorry it took me so long, John!) he waits until the third paragraph to define system dynamics (which he does not capitalize. interestingly enough in light of this thread) as ""a perspective and set of conceptual tools that enable us to understand the structure and dynamics of complex systems. System dynamics is also a rigorous modeling method that enables us to build formal computer simulations of complex systems and use them to design more effective policies and organizations."" Spot on, of course, but as befits a 982 page textbook it's a bit on the dry side and doesn't immediately suggest an alternative name for our field. And frankly, Jay Forrester borrowed the term system dynamics from his engineering background so we don't even have priority in usage.

What do you use for your elevator speeches, 15-second sound bite descriptions of SD, to pique someone's interest? Yaman, how about that naming contest?

Tom Lum Forest
Forest Grove, Oregon USA
Posted by Tom Forest <tforest@prometheal.com> posting date Mon, 9 Apr 2007 21:39:24 -0800 _______________________________________________
Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac
Senior Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac »

Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>

Hi Bill

Thank you for your answer.
I have always been puzzled about the sense of culpability that many SDers convey and the way they manage to live with this sensation.
The last thread on renaming the name of the field is an example of how the profession tries to exorcise that feeling.

The only explanation I can find about this fear of naming SD, is that there must be, or must have been a lot of studies pretending to use SD that failed to deliver the expected results.

Having practised now the field for about 5 years and having made standard programming for 40 years with all sorts of languages, I can tell that SD is really a field whose difficulty stands at least two points above current programming difficulty (with SQL,C or any language) .

Kim Warren in his book, writes about the rarity of really good SD modellers, probably exaggerating, but certainly with a good part of truth.

SO I cannot tell if SDers are right to overemphasize the importance of the name thinking that other people care.

If it was well recognized that SD delivers great value, the problem of renaming the field and the sensation of culpability would not exist.
So I cannot say whether it is good or not to name the field, when communicating. It probably depends on the circumstances.

In France, saying that one practices SD, will have no effect, the field being completely unknown.
Of course not living in the USA and not selling SD, I may be wrong and other reasons may exist.

You mention that I know when to use or not use SD.
I have a better knowledge about it, but it is far from sufficient, even with my problems that I know very well. I can then still be wrong about it.

To my opinion instead of looking towards wrong directions, the profession should ask the right questions.

1. What are the characteristics of the business or any organisation susceptible to be interested by SD?
The characteristics being their job, their size, their length of service, the type of problems they currently encounter that can be solved by SD, the expected profit and the expected cost (money, time), the delay to deliver the study, the delay to notice the expected profits etc..
and once the characteristics are defined, how to practically find and get in relation with such businesses and organisations.

2. How to verify that one prospect fulfils the above characteristics, and that there are reasonable chances that the prospect has real problems susceptible to be solved by SD.

3. How to verify that one has the necessary resources in expertise, time, people to model that problem? To what point is it necessary to already know the profession of the prospect. Sders who work with the health profession seem to have better results.

4. When one is sure to have a good prospect, how to convince him to start a relation and what should be proposed at first?
Is it mandatory to start with SD, or is it possible or better to start with something easier?

5. How to make sure of the quality of the service offered after the prospect has been convinced?
6. At least at what stage are the real difficulties?
Finding a prospect, convincing him or doing the job?

But you know certainly these questions better than me.
Regards.
Jean-Jacques Laublé
Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr> posting date Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:44:01 +0200 _______________________________________________
Fabian Fabian <f_fabian@yahoo
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Fabian Fabian <f_fabian@yahoo »

Posted by Fabian Fabian <f_fabian@yahoo.com>

Hi All,

Here is what this discussion list generated by 1997 about SD elevator speaches:

http://www.ventanasystems.co.uk/forum/v ... php?t=1787

Be all well,

Fabian Szulanski
Director
System Dynamics Centre
Posted by Fabian Fabian <f_fabian@yahoo.com> posting date Tue, 10 Apr 2007 05:38:26 -0700 (PDT) _______________________________________________
Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac
Senior Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac »

Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>

Hi Fabian

I have a definition for greating somebody who is going down when your are going up in a staircase.

Sd is a method that describes reality.

Regards.
Jean-Jacques Laublé
Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr> posting date Wed, 11 Apr 2007 14:39:31 +0200 _______________________________________________
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
Senior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Renaming System Dynamics (was Capitalize System Dynami

Post by Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci »

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

> ""SDMAIL Jean-Jacques Laublé"" <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr> writes:
>> The only explanation I can find about this fear of naming SD, is that
>> there must be, or must have been a lot of studies pretending to use
>> SD that failed to deliver the expected results.


Hi Jean-Jacques,

I think there may be another explanation. Say you as a businessperson meet two consultants. One says, ""Hello, my name is Jane, and I do system dynamics,"" while the other says, ""Hello, my name is Mary, and I help you solve your problems."" There's an impression among some (many?) consultants that Jane cares about himself and his technology, while Mary cares about the client, and, as a result, people will be more likely to hire Mary.

I really don't know which is true. You seem to be making the claim that you'd often rather hire Jane, for at least you can identify quickly what she does. Have I understood you correctly? Interestingly, I received that advice from one other system dynamics practitioner years ago. Most of the advice I've received favor's Mary's approach.

I did write
http://www.iseesystems.com/(pwmxldaxedx ... arris.html
that gives my thoughts of a few years ago. It's written from the point of view of a Mary.


>> Having practised now the field for about 5 years and having made
>> standard programming for 40 years with all sorts of languages, I can
>> tell that SD is really a field whose difficulty stands at least two
>> points above current programming difficulty (with SQL,C or any language) .

There's a level at which SD seems easy. After all, it's merely hooking up a few components in a stock and flow diagram, adding some equations and parameters, and pressing ""Run.""

As you may be suggesting, though, there are multiple levels of complexity hidden in that description:

programming (for the model is a program, but this is likely the
easiest)

feedback control theory (an approach which can help make sense of a
model and its output; most likely nonlinear control theory will be
needed, involving as much classical or modern control theory as one
wishes or needs)

numerical analysis (to ensure the calculations work as intended,
although this is often just getting DT or TIMESTEP right if you don't
have an automatic integration routine)

statistics (to determine parameter values to use and possibly to
analyze simulation results)

modeling (to transform a problem into a model)


>> In France, saying that one practices SD, will have no effect, the
>> field being completely unknown. Of course not living in the USA and
>> not selling SD, I may be wrong and other reasons may exist.


I know some people in other parts of the world from where I live, and they see the USA as having a particularly restrictive view of the concept of ""systems thinking"" when compared to Europe, Australia, and elsewhere. To them, we in the USA limit systems thinking either to quantitative, simulation-based system dynamics or to CLDs and system archetypes.

They make the claim that those in Europe and Australia, among other places, tend to have a much broader conception of systems thinking (including SSM and a number of other approaches).


>> You mention that I know when to use or not use SD.
>> I have a better knowledge about it, but it is far from sufficient,
>> even with my problems that I know very well. I can then still be wrong about it.


That's true of all of us, I think. I've gravitated to people who tend to have multiple approaches at hand, because the first tool any of us picks (or the only tool we might use) might not be sufficient to make sense of the problem we're facing. I'm probably better at SD than at many other systemic approaches, but I feel more comfortable being able to switch methodologies if the task seems to demand it. I'd rather not do an SD model for someone simply because I know the tool, not because their problem needs it.

Some of those people have been associated with ""Systems Concepts in
Evaluation: An Expert Anthology""
(http://www.wkkf.org/default.aspx?tabid= ... nguageID=0).
It can be also ordered in book form:

,----
| Williams B. Imam I. (2006) Systems Concepts in Evaluation - An Expert
| Anthology EdgePress/AEA Point Reyes CA.
|
| ISBN 978-0-918528-22-3 softbound, and 978-0-918528-21-6 hardbound
|
| Copies can be ordered from EdgePress PO Box69 Point Reyes, CA 94986
| USA or via Amazon
`----


>> To my opinion instead of looking towards wrong directions, the
>> profession should ask the right questions.
>>
>> 1. What are the characteristics of the business or any organisation
>> susceptible to be interested by SD?
>> The characteristics being their job, their size, their length of
>> service, the type of problems they currently encounter that can be
>> solved by SD, the expected profit and the expected cost (money,
>> time), the delay to deliver the study, the delay to notice the expected profits etc..
>> and once the characteristics are defined, how to practically find and
>> get in relation with such businesses and organisations.


You raise some good and hard questions. Part of the answer involves disclosing business models, I think, and I wonder if we're sometimes shy about sharing those.

For example, I could say that you can only address problems that are worth 100,000 Euros or more with SD. For certain approaches, that might be true, but then I'd also risk being embarrassed by other SDers who might claim to be very successful at working with small models to solve all sorts of problems. Or I could do the opposite, saying I could do a lot with small models, and risk being embarrassed by those who might point out the inaccuracies in my models when compared to their bigger ones.

I'm not sure that's the case, but I wonder if it is.

As you can see at
http://www.artsjournal.com/adaptistrati ... nt_22.html,
I'm trying a bit different and lower-key approach to see how it works.

So I think it's heavily dependent on the business model of the individual practitioner. I will say that I had a very easy time early on with managers who had been practicing control theory engineers. They understood feedback loops, and so they were very receptive to SD once they saw that feedback ideas could be applied to their organizational problems.


>> 2. How to verify that one prospect fulfils the above
>> characteristics, and that there are reasonable chances that the
>> prospect has real problems susceptible to be solved by SD.


The essence is still determining if the current problem can best be understood and fixed by assuming it is controlled by information feedback.


>> 3. How to verify that one has the necessary resources in expertise,
>> time, people to model that problem? To what point is it necessary to
>> already know the profession of the prospect. Sders who work with the
>> health profession seem to have better results.


I've heard it said that, in many cases, knowing the field is important.
I've also been told that I tend to be a generalist, able to go against that trend and work in a number of areas. I'm not sure if that makes it easier or harder for me to sell my services. :-)

In any case, I think it's very important to listen carefully to the client and to work with, not independently of, the client.


>> 4. When one is sure to have a good prospect, how to convince him to
>> start a relation and what should be proposed at first?
>> Is it mandatory to start with SD, or is it possible or better to
>> start with something easier?


How would you like to be approached? I'm guessing most people would prefer to have someone inquire into their needs and get to know their problems, not talk about what they can do. That notion is supported by ideas such as Huthwaite's SPIN® Selling. Then again, that might be my blind spot.


>> 5. How to make sure of the quality of the service offered after the
>> prospect has been convinced?


That's a very important part. Assuming the SDer has a certain minimum competence, the process of delivering the service can be straightforward when things go well. When things don't, then it can take a lot of listening and a lot of skill to make the situation right again. So I think one side is technical competence and the other is consulting competence. For the latter, Peter Block's _Flawless Consulting_ is a classic text.


>> 6. At least at what stage are the real difficulties?
>> Finding a prospect, convincing him or doing the job?


Yes, yes, and yes.

Thoughts?

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Facilitated Systems
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Mon, 16 Apr 2007 15:55:02 -0700 _______________________________________________
Locked