QUERY How to promote good work

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.
Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com&
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

Post by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com& »

Posted by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com>

I gave Mr. Stevenson's post a constructive title, as I assume his intent was too look for good suggestions to move forward and not simply to criticize the status quo.

I spoke with Jay after his speech on the next 50 years at the conference and told him I should neve have picked the title ""The Death of System Dynamics"" for the thread Mr. Stevenson initiated this spring. Jay responded that it was a fine title, that the questions need to be discussed, and provoking people is a sensible approach.

Jay was troubled by the lack of thoughful responses by experienced people, and so am I. Mr. Stevenson has not put forward any proposal about what should be done, but simply leveled criticism at what is being done. Without thoughtful responses such provocations are indeed a waste of time and can only leave one with a sense of despair.

It is not because Mr. Stevenson is right that I, and I assume others, have not responsed more forcefully. Rather it is because so many of the things he says are patently wrong, or do not seem to have a constructive purpose, that there has been only silence.

On bahalf of all of my colleagues who have been working for years and decades to build up the System Dynamics Society let me just say how absurd Mr.
Stevenson's claims are. I can think of no single individual that has done work for the Society with the intent of any sort of self promotion or any expectation of personal reward. I have seen a lot of people do an amazing amount of work over a lot of years. Those people come from around the globe, many of course from the USA and the UK, but it is hardly limited to that.

As far as censorship goes - I have to take personal responsibility for that.
I post to this list things that are relevant and interesting. I do not post things that fail to meet those, what I consider quite low, thresholds. I am not sure that Mr. Stevenson's latest post quite meets that standard. In it is nothing new from what he has already posted beyond the suggestion that there are a number of people who share his views. Still, I am hoping this time there might be some concrete ideas that come of the thread. Certainly if a group of people desire an alternative forum in which to discussion matters apart from what appears on this list, news of such a forum would be both interesting and relevant.


One more note on censorship. I will not post anything that looks to be inflamatory in nature. Generally, I simply remove a line or two in order to make the tendency to start yelling go away. If you object to that say so at the beginning with a line such as [Do not edit except to remove this], and I will simply post, or if I would have edited not post, what you have written.

Bob Eberlein
Posted by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com
posting date Mon, 3 Sep 2007 12:34:19 -0500 _______________________________________________
Richard Stevenson <rstevenson
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

Post by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson »

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

Today I received several personal emails from SD mail subscribers around the world who all (my summary) said, ""we have given up subscribing to this forum because many people consider the SD mailing list to be a place where only politically correct thoughts are accepted.""

None of them wanted to be identified - because there's no mileage in being a rebel, apparently. But clearly some people do actually want to change the world through SD - not simply to further their intellectual curiosity or their academic ambitions. And clearly none of them believes that the ISDS represents their views - nor that the centre of SD is in Boston.

And that's my point, actually. Cozy introspection and congratulations are the hallmark of the ISDS. But it's no longer enough.

We all know that Jay is a genius - accepted. Clever causal loop
diagram games are fun. But please - now let's move on and make SD a
serious subject for change in the real world. The ISDS is abrogating its power and its responsibilities. And - dare I say it - adulation is not constructive.

The SDS website (http://www.systemdynamics.org/). It's outdated, boring and uninformative, particularly to the non-academic inquirer.

The Beer Game is old, for heavens sake. So what else can the SD mailing list offer, besides garrotting at source new, interesting exchanges of views on serious systemic matters that transcend causal loops and stocks and flows? There is a VERY fine line between moderation and censorship - and I firmly that believe the mailing list moderation leans strictly to the latter.

In my opinion (and clearly more widely) the SD Society itself has become a moribund, introspective, techno-fascinated, academic
dinosaur that is slowly strangling the growth of our field.
It is, to be frank, unprofessional.

But we have to be careful, too. In particular, in the 1990's the ""systems thinking"" movement also threatened to remove academic substance from the field. That flank needs to be protected, too.

Apparently SD wants to be loved ( i.e. academically respected) and also wanted (i.e. gainfully employed) at the same time.

Time, I believe, for a new paradigm in system dynamics? But - do we have to demolish the temple first?

I think that maybe we do.


Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com> posting date Sun, 2 Sep 2007 21:34:19 +0100 _______________________________________________
George Richardson <gpr@albany
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

Post by George Richardson <gpr@albany »

Posted by George Richardson <gpr@albany.edu>

On Sep 3, 2007, at 8:26 AM, SDMAIL Richard Stevenson wrote:

> Today I received several personal emails from SD mail subscribers
> around the world who all (my summary) said, ""we have given up
> subscribing to this forum because many people consider the SD mailing
> list to be a place where only politically correct thoughts are accepted.""


""Methodologically"" correct or really ""politically"" incorrect? Could have some examples?

>
> None of them wanted to be identified - because there's no mileage in
> being a rebel, apparently.
>
> But clearly some people do actually want
> to change the world through SD - not simply to further their
> intellectual curiosity or their academic ambitions. And clearly none
> of them believes that the ISDS represents their views - nor that the
> centre of SD is in Boston.


This posting has just switched from talking about the discussions in
this listserve to talking about the International System Dynamics
Society. I'm unsure about a lot of things at this stage of my life,
but I'm certain that this listserve is not the Society, and the
Society (1000 people?) does not have one view.

> And that's my point, actually. Cozy introspection and
> congratulations are the hallmark of the ISDS. But it's no longer> enough.


The international society engages in ""cozy introspection""? In its
conferences? In its journal? It certainly doesn't do it in this
listserve. I think I need examples.

> We all know that Jay is a genius - accepted. Clever causal loop
> diagram games are fun. But please - now let's move on and make SD a
> serious subject for change in the real world.

""Fun""?! Clever causal loop diagrams, drawn carefully and used
wisely, are, like all our diagrams, crucial tools for communicating
complex structural and dynamic thoughts. We can't communicate
circular causalities any where near as well or succinctly using
text or (heaven forbid) equations. I guess I don't know what other
options you've got in mind.

As for making system dynamics a serious subject for change in the
real world, I'm all for it. I'm sure the readers of this listserve,
readers of our journal, and our conference attendees, would be happy
to see postings suggesting better ways to do that. And although it
may be uncomfortable, I would think most of us would like to see
examples of efforts to contribute to this goal that were rejected
somehow and kept out of the Review or a conference. We'd want to
learn how not to reject strong efforts to help the field improve.
Do we have such examples?

> The ISDS is
> abrogating its power and its responsibilities. And - dare I say it -
> adulation is not constructive.

Actually, adulation is very constructive. Adulation of the right
sort flags great work in the field. Every year we identify
outstanding work in the field and honor it in awards at our
international conference. Recognizing the tendency of the Forrester
award to focus on academic publication, the Society recently added an
award for applcations, which everyone hopes will be able to honor
great work of consultants, corporate practitioners, and others who
see their best products to be applied work. Those honors identify
the best work in the field and thus help to show others some paths to
similarly great work.

Our journal has an international editorial board that similarly works
hard to present to its readers the very best work in the field. And
it publishes applied work as well as academic work (as an academic
doing applied work I don't like that distinction, but others
apparently want to be able to make it). Accepting an article for
publication is a form of adulation that serves a very high purpose in
a field: it leads to the regular appearance of the best submitted
work, so it serves to show what really good work should look like.
Flagging high quality work is indeed constructive for a field.

I have to hope that the filtering that goes on to select award
winners and journal publications searches for methodological
correctness rather than ""political"" correctness. We'd have to
acknowledge that there is always the potential for editorial boards
and award committees to select based on what their years of past
study and experience tell them identifies great work (in fact, that's
what we're hoping they do), so they could be looking backward rather
than forward more than some might like. A field that has no m
echanisms for allowing rebellious work of merit to reach public
scrutiny will probably not grow well and may die out. So we have to
worry about that, and people who think we have not been good at this
should keep speaking out constructively about how to do it better.
But we have to be careful here: some rebellious work is just junk.

> The SDS website (http://www.systemdynamics.org/). It's outdated,
> boring and uninformative, particularly to the non-academic inquirer.

I won't comment on that until I have the time to help. Why make
people feel bad about what they've managed to do unless you are
prepared to help make them feel better by contributing?

> The Beer Game is old, for heavens sake.

True. It is amazing that it has been played for decades and written
about famously (e.g., The Fifth Discipline) but still surprises.
People who have played it before can play it again and fail miserably
because they failed to 'get' the deep insights it has to offer. I
suspect that's partly because lots of folks around the world run the
Beer Game but have not stopped to learn from Sterman's superb debrief
notes and videos, but even those who go through John's debriefs can
fail to hold onto the game's deepest insights.

People still run the Beer Game because it puts the lesson of ""system
as cause"" more viscerally than almost anything else people have put
forward. It leads quickly to feedback thought as the debriefer draws
out from participants the decision rules they were using (or, in the
case of the supply line, not using). It leads people to rethink our
human tendency to blame workers when things aren't working right. It
helps people begin to make the move from thinking about events and
individual decisions to thinking about dynamic behavior and policy
structure. And when the debriefer shows examples of runs from
previous games, including a run of a simulation, it leads people to
doubt their conviction that you can't model the necessary
intricacies, complexities, and subtleties of human decision making.

Let's face it: It's a great game, and used well it's a great
teaching tool. Could we use more like it? Absolutely. Get to work.

> So what else can the SD
> mailing list offer, besides garrotting at source new, interesting
> exchanges of views on serious systemic matters that transcend causal
> loops and stocks and flows? There is a VERY fine line between
> moderation and censorship - and I firmly that believe the mailing
> list moderation leans strictly to the latter.

Bob has spoken to this issue. Because I know him well, and for
decades, I have absolute trust and confidence that whatever filtering
he does benefits the field and the conversations on the listserve.
[But I do have to ask: How can one know about the filtering without
seeing all the submissions and those that get through?]

> In my opinion (and clearly more widely) the SD Society itself has
> become a moribund, introspective, techno-fascinated, academic
> dinosaur that is slowly strangling the growth of our field.
> It is, to be frank, unprofessional.

It is unprofessional and unconvincing to claim that one's opinion is
""clearly more widely"" held without the willingness of ""the others"" to
speak up. That's like a student in a class who tells the department
chair he thinks professor X is doing a terrible job, and ""lots of
others think that way too but won't say it."" I don't buy it from a
student, and I don't buy it here. Furthermore, the claim in the
author's first sentence was about emails he received from people
about this listserve, not about the Society. How did we make that
leap?

Do these opinions have more to do with this listserve than the
Society? This listserve is actively contributed to by only a tiny
fraction of system dynamics practitioners. Often the folks writing
questions are new to the field. Sadly, sometimes the folks trying to
answer the questions are almost as new to the field. The listserve
is not the Society, just as the Society is not the field.

> But we have to be careful, too. In particular, in the 1990's the
> ""systems thinking"" movement also threatened to remove academic
> substance from the field. That flank needs to be protected, too.
>
> Apparently SD wants to be loved ( i.e. academically respected) and
> also wanted (i.e. gainfully employed) at the same time.

Is there something wrong with that?

>
> Time, I believe, for a new paradigm in system dynamics? But -
> do we have to demolish the temple first?
>
> I think that maybe we do.

Now we have moved from accusations about the listserve, to
accusations about the Society, to a belief that change in the field
is necessary. How does that follow?

Personally, I'd prefer to have another home built before I demolish
this one. If we have to have a new paradigm, I'd like to see it
compete in the intellectual marketplace before we demolish the old
one based on some sight-unseen promise. Again personally, I prefer
to build from within. Make the journal better by contributing to it.
Make the Society better by working in it. Make the field better
by doing great work and letting the world know about it.

And I have to ask: Why do we have to rebuild the field because we
aren't talking very within it? Is the field broken, or the Society,
or this listserve, or is it our general communication skills as
scholars and practitioners? It sounds to me as if it is the latter.

Let's fix what's broken. In my view, if anything is broken it is
definitely *not* the power of the system dynamics perspective and
approach as I have come to see and use them.

..George

George P. Richardson
Chair of public administration and policy
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany - SUNY, Albany, NY 12222
Posted by George Richardson <gpr@albany.edu>
posting date Mon, 3 Sep 2007 11:51:46 -0400
_______________________________________________
""Brett Sculthorp"" <bscultho
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

Post by ""Brett Sculthorp"" <bscultho »

Posted by ""Brett Sculthorp"" <bsculthorp@arp-phoenix.com>

Richard,

I am new to the list and haven't posted before but your challenge interested me as an outsider to the society and your knowledge culture in general. My profession is community social work and substance abuse prevention. Trying to take a systems perspective on ""prevention"" or wellness lead me to your listserv. Most of the time I delete the messages but still there are some postings which are tantalizingly close to the overlap I am seeking. I hope your challenge can encourage members to be service oriented so that their important knowledge can be a resource and be utilized through interdisciplinary outreach. Invite people to ask questions.

Thanks,

Brett Sculthorp MSW CSAPC
ARP/Phoenix Prevention
Asheville, North Carolina
Posted by ""Brett Sculthorp"" <bsculthorp@arp-phoenix.com> posting date Mon, 3 Sep 2007 09:58:58 -0400 _______________________________________________
Richard Stevenson <rstevenson
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

Post by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson »

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

Bob Eberlein wrote:

> Jay was troubled by the lack of thoughful responses by experienced
> people, and so am I. Mr. Stevenson has not put forward any proposal
> about what should be done, but simply leveled criticism at what is
> being done. Without thoughtful responses such provocations are indeed
> a waste of time and can only leave one with a sense of despair.

Actually, that's absolutely not true. In the past (and on various occasions) I have suggested the need for (inter alia):

* an independent, professional body to establish, promote and
regulate standards in SD - managed to Professional Institute
standards.

* a body that could actively promote SD - and associated methods and
tools - to business.

* a body that is not hamstrung by rigid academic publication
requirements, to act as a filter and a ""showcase"" for more (much,
much more) good SD work.

* an online interactive forum for practitioners to share their ideas
and work. An SD ""Facebook"", for example? The technology to
facilitate such a forum is virtually free these days.

* a ""repository"" of basic SD structures, categorised by (e.g.)
industry and topic. I have even offered to contribute from decades
of front line client case work to support such an enterprise.

* etc, etc. I had hoped these ideas were not simply criticism.
""Despair"" stems from frustration - and it is not the prerogative of
the current SD establishment.

The SDS does not presently fulfil any of these needs. Now, I fully understand that the SDS was not established to be a professional body. But the world has moved on and apparently the SDS has not.
I do not expect the SDS itself to transform. Rather I seek views from fellow practitioners (from within the SDS) as to what might actually be done to fill these needs, possibly by forming a new body. There is room for both the SDS (largely academic) and a Professional Institute (largely business).

> It is not because Mr. Stevenson is right that I, and I assume others,
> have not responsed more forcefully. Rather it is because so many of
> the things he says are patently wrong, or do not seem to have a
> constructive purpose, that there has been only silence.


Reprise my comments above.
Right or wrong - we can argue about that but probably to no purpose.
It is still true that there is a ""politically correct"" academic culture in the SDS that discourages constructive, controversial debate.

> On bahalf of all of my colleagues who have been working for years and
> decades to build up the System Dynamics Society let me just say how absurd Mr.
> Stevenson's claims are. I can think of no single individual that has
> done work for the Society with the intent of any sort of self
> promotion or any expectation of personal reward. I have seen a lot of
> people do an amazing amount of work over a lot of years. Those people
> come from around the globe, many of course from the USA and the UK, but it is hardly limited to that.


At no time have I criticised any individual. Indeed I have been very careful not to - I have great respect for all individuals who have supported the SDS over the years - as I have myself, both in respect of personal membership, conferencel contributions and voluntary donations from my company Cognitus.

My comments (and my frustration) are directed purely at the inadequacy of the SDS to move beyond its initial remit to fulfil the wider business role required in the 21st century.

This email forum (listserve) is a prime example - it is not constructive, nor efficient, nor modern, to communicate with other practitioners in this ""stepwise"" and arbitrarily regulated manner.

> As far as censorship goes - I have to take personal responsibility for that.
> I post to this list things that are relevant and interesting. I do
> not post things that fail to meet those, what I consider quite low, thresholds.

Well, with great respect, the standard of what gets published here s eems fairly random!

To be fair to Bob - to run such a forum is evidently a labour of love. However, what is ""relevant and interesting"" seems a somewhat personal perspective. Indeed, Bob's comments illustrate my point perfectly - it surely cannot not be the remit an individual, no matter how committed, to oversee a professional forum in this rapidly globalising world? These days, you can have it one of two ways (or indeed both, preferably).

First, a forum for serious professional debate that meets clearly defined and written standards. This should of course be moderated, but not on individual whim.

Second, an open online discussion forum where ""everybody and anybody""
can interact and share ideas and interests about SD and all related matters. This would be self-regulated, in the main. There are hundreds of successful online examples of such specialised forums.

> I am not sure that Mr. Stevenson's latest post quite meets that
> standard. In it is nothing new from what he has already posted beyond
> the suggestion that there are a number of people who share his views.
> Still, I am hoping this time there might be some concrete ideas that
> come of the thread. Certainly if a group of people desire an
> alternative forum in which to discussion matters apart from what
> appears on this list, news of such a forum would be both interesting and relevant.


Hmm. Just as I was composing this reply, I received Kim Warren's most thoughtful contribution on ""Forming an SD Institute"". This is very welcome. If my comments have been in any way constructive in leveraging this debate, I rest my case.

Finally, I am open and willing to interact and engage with all like- minded practitioners who share my interest to move SD into the ""next fifty years"". We must look forward - not only to the past.


Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com> posting date Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:02:17 +0100 _______________________________________________
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
Senior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

Post by Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci »

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

>> Posted by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com Jay was troubled by the lack
>> of thoughful responses by experienced people, and so am I. Mr.
>> Stevenson has not put forward any proposal about what should be done,
>> but simply leveled criticism at what is being done. Without
>> thoughtful responses such provocations are indeed a waste of time and
>> can only leave one with a sense of despair.


Bob,

I'm not sure that's correct. Sometimes (whether now is such a time or not is certainly up for discussion) someone has to say that the emperor is wearing no clothes, and sometimes that's the most useful thing (or perhaps the only thing) one can do.

If these are indeed hard problems that someone is raising, then expecting them to identify the problem and the solution may be raising the threshold quite high and may inhibit pointing out the emperor needs clothes when the person speaking doesn't know where the tailor works. :-) I'd rather know where the problems are.

Thoughts?


>> It is not because Mr. Stevenson is right that I, and I assume others,
>> have not responsed more forcefully. Rather it is because so many of
>> the things he says are patently wrong, or do not seem to have a
>> constructive purpose, that there has been only silence.


When I perceive someone's idea is too patently wrong, I do sometimes find it challenging to reach back and help the person who made the statements along. Yet I've far too often found that the obvious conclusion I've drawn needs to be modified, once I've listened to and explored others' ideas.

I don't care whether others have responded forcefully or not; in fact, as you obviously disagree with Richard, I'm glad you stated that clearly so that there is no mistaking the difference. Perhaps out of this we will have a synthesis of new ideas that will move us forward -- or perhaps not.

I do care that we try to maintain a dialog, not a debate (and I don't see anything in your comments that necessarily works against that, assuming the rest of us keep in that spirit, too).

Again, I'm not saying Richard is right or wrong or that you are right or wrong; I am acknowledging that bridging deep, broad chasms is challenging on both sides.


>> On bahalf of all of my colleagues who have been working for years and
>> decades to build up the System Dynamics Society let me just say how
>> absurd Mr. Stevenson's claims are. I can think of no single
>> individual that has done work for the Society with the intent of any
>> sort of self promotion or any expectation of personal reward. I have
>> seen a lot of people do an amazing amount of work over a lot of
>> years. Those people come from around the globe, many of course from
>> the USA and the UK, but it is hardly limited to that.


I don't think anyone is questioning that; I certainly am not, nor do I remember others doing it. Lack of self promotion and personal reward seems independent of whether or not things which have done have good or not-so-good results. (Again, I'm not in this email saying whether the results have been good or not so good.)

What do you and others think? I've got a busy week, so I may not respond for a while. That will leave others the chance to add their ideas without my filling up the airwaves.

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Facilitated Systems
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:38:16 -0700 _______________________________________________
""Erling Moxnes"" <Erling.Mox
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

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

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

It seems easy to agree to the goal put forward by Richard Stevenson:
""--let's move on and make SD a serious subject for change in the real world.""

Following standard SD procedure a description of the problem helps focus the analysis and motivate the client. Now clients sometimes, or quite often, tend to dislike the idea that problems are created by themselves.
When Richard criticises most of us for not doing a good enough job, we get a chance to experience the client role. Having tried our best for decades, harsh criticicm may feel like being blamed. And, we have learned from the beer game that it is easy to start blaming each other when the structure is the real culprit. Richard and the rest of us should keep this in mind when approaching our clients.

Next, after an agreed upon problem description (which in this case seems not yet agreed upon) a hypothesis is needed for the cause of the problem.
What has led to less than desired results? I have seen several costly consulting reports (not SD) in essence saying that the cause of a problem is that the client is ""not clever enough"" with the policy recommendation ""to improve"". The questions why and how are more interesting. When Richard
writes: ""The evidence, however, is that the SD community as a whole has currently neither the capability, nor the capacity, to build critical mass in the business world."" it sounds like ""not clever enough"" to me. Richard goes on: ""What's the answer? Well I do have my views. But I'll rest my case for the present."" But this is skipping the most interesting part.

Jay W. Forrester gave a sketch of a strategy for the next 50 years in his 50 year speech. Just as Winston Churchill said that ""It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."", Jay made clear that SD is yet far from reaching its potential. The list moderator should, and indirectly does, encourage us to focus on how we can get more out of the scarce resources we have.


Erling Moxnes
Professor, System Dynamics Group
Dept. of Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences University of Bergen Posted by ""Erling Moxnes"" <Erling.Moxnes@geog.uib.no> posting date Mon, 3 Sep 2007 17:39:35 +0200 _______________________________________________
Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

Post by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom. »

Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>

I am glad that Bob moderates this forum, so that it does not turn into flaming as on many unmoderated sites, which I have turned away from. Maybe we should allow us to discuss the moderation policies. Bob is doing a difficult job, with a difficult balance to hold. Earlier this year I stopped participating in a thread after what I considered as a slur by another participant.

On the other hand, another thread in which I took part was very much on the borderline, which I jokingly commented, by writing that it was getting a bit like a barroom brawl. Bob edited that bit away, which I accepted as it might have been misinterpreted as not being as jocular as intended.

I appreciate Richards attempts at giving us all prods, if not even whacks on the head. It is fairly easy for many of us to complacently occasionally grumble about how misunderstood we are. I would not be here or at conferences if I did not think that this is really interesting and at times mindboggling stuff. But I do find it a bit difficult to get others as enthusiastic.

Richards stark comments make me sit up and think about it. I do not think he is rude. It is just a bit of a shock being told that the emperor is nude. We need to be able to discuss what he says without evoking all our defence mechanisms. Just as we in sd modelling ask ourselves a lot of ""what if""
questions, we need to ask ourselves ""what if"" Richard is right and explore that possibility with the vigour and rigour that we use in our sd work.

Thank you Richard! I might not agree with exactly everything you write, but most of it, to a high degree. I would gladly participate in a discussion here about the possible consequences if you are right and what to do about it.

Kims post in another thread, suggesting a Systems Dynamics Institute is a very interesting thought. It could very well be that the field could gain from having a top-notch professional and ideological centre.

Regards
Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se> posting date Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:03:21 +0200 _______________________________________________
Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasyst
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

Post by Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasyst »

Posted by Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasystems.com>

I wish that Richard's second post (SD6568) had arrived first, because it contained constructive ideas that I was not able to retrieve from memory upon reading the first (SD6555). Some of those ideas have extremely low cost and could be implemented right away. For example, moving this discussion to a web forum (with email digest and submission) would be practically free and might increase participation. Better interface support could make it easier to ignore irrelevant threads, reducing the level of moderation needed. An SD wiki might be a good way to begin building a shared library of component models and other wisdom. I've been pondering both options lately in support of a community project, and would be happy to help.

Creating a professional institute is obviously a bigger task. But it seems to me that there's no need to tear down the temple first. If the ISDS really is in the thrall of flat-earthers and navel-gazers, so what? It doesn't control any resources that obstruct the creation of new institutions. Gather a few motivated pioneers and create something else; practitioners will follow. That ""something else"" could even be created within the structure of the ISDS - like any volunteer organization, it's subject to takeover by motivated contributors. It seems to me that the real problem may be that the business and consulting world (myself included) is simply too busy or too fragmented to organize. I'd be very interested to hear how the PMI, BSC and other organizations solved that chicken-egg problem.

Regarding the contention that PC censorship rules the email list, garrotting at source new, interesting exchanges that transcend stocks and flows, I suppose it could be true - after all, I can't see what's on the cutting room floor. But without any specific examples, I'm inclined to assign such claims to the same mental pigeonhole as the 100mpg carburetor the auto industry has been suppressing all these years. What exactly should we be talking about that we can't talk about on this list?

I find the implication that some in SD would rather pursue intellectual curiosity than change the world rather funny, given that it comes from rebels who fear to be named in an email exchange in an obscure corner of the universe ... not exactly Luke Skywalker material. To belittle the motives of practitioners based on perceived behavior of the field or its institutions strikes me as at best a fallacy of division, akin to certain economists' contention that the risk-free interest rate accurately reveals our time preference for welfare.

Tom
Posted by Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasystems.com> posting date Tue, 04 Sep 2007 16:45:12 -0600 _______________________________________________
""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sp
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

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

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

Those of us who are not academics, and many who are (I suspect), don't have a lot of time to devote to responding on this mailing list. So a response to just two points Mr. Stevenson has raised:

1. That SD is not spreading

Four or five years ago I took an online course from the American Society for Quality (on the subject of Six Sigma) that, much to my pleasant surprise, included a small section on ""systems thinking"" that taught about causal loop diagrams, system as cause, and a few other quite well chosen topics. I have recently seen their current version and find that the system dynamics section has grown, and that systems language is being used in many other parts of the course as well. [This is a lengthy course -- maybe 80-120 hours of online time, if I remember correctly. So, to thread systems language throughout took considerable effort on the part of the course designers.] The popularity of Lean and Six Sigma in the business world means that many managers and other workers are becoming exposed to a SD way of thinking these days. I, for one, am quite encouraged by this.

2. That there are disenfranchised practitioners

In my opinion, mailing lists are successful to the extent that they know what needs they serve, that those needs are fairly narrowly defined, and that they stick to serving them (a feature that Mr. Stevenson has called
""censorship."") There are other mailing lists that attempt to broaden the dialogue about systems thinking and SD. I subscribed to one for several years, until I got fed up with the self-indulgent rantings of people, many of whom had no technical background or understanding of SD, spewing nonsense that was nearly impossible to respond to. It was like arguing religion or trying to teach calculus to a kindergartener. Having said that, it still may be a good idea to have another kind of mailing list in which the people who currently feel voiceless can speak. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that it is a good idea. The trick will be, I think, to find a way to cross-pollinate things that arise from the new list into this list -- because I, for one, will not be monitoring that new list on a regular basis.
However when interesting and potentially fruitful ideas arise from the second list I would like to read about them and perhaps take part in the discussion. What we would need, then, would be some few people who are attuned to this list who have the time and are willing to monitor that new list, to extract ""gems"" from it for wider sharing. Or perhaps we can create a mailing list mechanism for sharing the titles of current threads (with hyperlinks to the actual threads), much like a digest does now but with titles only. This is top of my head -- what do others think would be useful?

John Gunkler
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com> posting date Tue, 4 Sep 2007 09:43:40 -0400 _______________________________________________
Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com&
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

Post by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com& »

Posted by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com>

Mr. Stevenson is correct in saying that he has put forward some suggestions for things it would be good to have - my apologies. I thank him for bringing these together into one place. There are none of that I would disagree with and I hope that people within the community have the energy to begin creating such things. None of these, as far as I can tell, are in any way in conflict with the current activiites of the System Dynamics Society (in fact many have been talked about within the Society) and I remain puzzled by the negative statements made about the Society.

As far as this email list goes, I would like to clarify that a little.
This list is not sanctioned by any organization. About a decade ago a group of people were meeting to discuss the formation of a System Dynamics Institute. We laid out various ambitious plans and one idea put forward was a discussion forum. Rick Karash, who was attending the meeting soon went out and established the Learning Organization email list. Not being shy about copying a good idea, I did the same for the System Dynamics mailing list. I started this list, and to this day continue to manage it with no mandate from anyone. The Society's web server is now being used as the address for this list, but that is in the spirit of facilitating community activity, not because of any mandate.

I do agree that the format of this list is outdated. There already exists an alternative at

http://www.ventanasystems.co.uk/forum/

which is the same place searchable archives exist for this list. The reason I have not simply moved everything to that forum is that participation is less widespread there. On this list there are lots of people who have been doing System Dynamics for decades (up to 50 years) who get the messages, and sometimes respond. On anything web based many of these people would likely never visit.

By the way, the fact that the System Dynamics Institute is again rearing its head (concidentally under the same name) is a good thing. It means the idea has merit and perhaps its time has come.

Bob Eberlein
Posted by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com> posting date Wed, 05 Sep 2007 06:59:44 -0400 _______________________________________________
""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategyd
Member
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work (SD6555)

Post by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategyd »

Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>

Whatever one thinks of how well the 'establishment' serves this community, we should recall that virtually all that commitment is voluntary and done for the love of it - a point I know Richard himself has made before. [I permit myself to comment, accepting that I myself should do more!] As a relative new-comer to the field, I found [and still do] those folk exceptionally welcoming and generous with their time and encouragement, and remarkably patient with the errors and misunderstandings.

It is also worth noting that without the 'Boston group' only a small fraction of the Society's activities would happen. With so many strong professionals originally emerging there over so many decades, it is hardly surprising that the region has developed the critical mass of resources to do more than groups based round other focal points. I have not come across a single case of an outsider being discouraged from getting involved - quite the opposite - and if we think something should be happening that isn't, it's up to us to get on with it rather than complain that 'they' are not doing so.

Richard's personal contacts whose politically-incorrect submissions have been excluded from discussion may not want to be named, so could he at least give us a precis of the key themes of those contributions, so we can all see the kinds of ideas that have been denied to us?
Picking up on some of the other complaints about the discussion list.
First, it is hardly reasonable to argue on the one hand that contributions are over-moderated, and then complain about rambling and inconclusive discussions. No-one has to read stuff they are not interested in, such as technical discussions - that is what threads are for. I also feel it would be a sad day when novices feel they cannot ask basic questions for fear of looking dumb. I'd bet that for every person who asks a basic question and gets a helpful answer there are many more thinking 'thanks for asking that one - I'd been wondering the same myself'.

As regards promoting good work in the business arena .. Unless much is happening that I don't know about, the problem is quite the opposite of the assertion that good work is being ignored or excluded - rather, very little business-oriented work, good or otherwise, seems to be offered up. There are some great professionals out there doing great work, but we see very little of it, either submitted to the Review or to the conference. As a reviewer for both, the thin trickle of material is a continuing disappointment. Even the new 'applications' award at the conference, specifically intended to encourage exactly such contributions, received very few entries, though thankfully those received were all great. Confidentiality can be a problem - one submission I know of had to be so heavily disguised that it lost the great value in the original work. And maybe modesty plays a part amongst the excellent practitioners out there - but building a stronger public profile may need a bit less modesty and a lot more showing off!

The conference is a great place to feature practical work, and for a serious professional - who after all will have done all the real work on a project already - the extra time needed to fulfil the quite modest requirements is trivial. This is important, as each year a hopeful band of new enthusiasts arrives from the business field, keen to find out about the great work the experts are doing - so if we don't see them again, perhaps it is evidence that they are not finding what could and should be there.

I would accept there is something of a barrier in the requirements for papers in the Review. It is an academic journal, and has to meet basic standards to be taken seriously. [But if you think it's tough getting into the System Dynamics Review, just try Harvard Business Review!] Even then, I believe reviewers try to be supportive of contributors who clearly come from a non-academic background by suggesting where they can find previous work on which they can develop their articles .. often pointing them to other sources that would be helpful in their practice!
Nevertheless, perhaps a System Dynamics 'magazine' would be popular, in which shorter pieces could be published - volunteers welcome, including from outside Boston! This would also of course need practitioners to contribute.

Kim Warren
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com> posting date Tue, 4 Sep 2007 21:34:34 +0100 _______________________________________________
""Saeed, Khalid"" <saeed@wpi.
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by ""Saeed, Khalid"" <saeed@wpi. »

Posted by ""Saeed, Khalid"" <saeed@wpi.edu>

I'd like to add a word about the idea of a System Dynamics Institute, which was discussed by the President's Committee at the 2007 Boston conference. I and my WPI colleagues have volunteered to develop a concept document outlining its remit, functions and structure. I greatly appreciate the various ideas expressed on this forum about this subject. Please also feel free to directly write to me if you have any thoughts about the creation of such an institution.

Khalid
Khalid Saeed, PhD
Professor of Economics and System Dynamics Social Science and Policy Studies Department WPI, Worcester, MA 01609 Posted by ""Saeed, Khalid"" <saeed@wpi.edu> posting date Wed, 5 Sep 2007 11:42:44 -0400 _______________________________________________
Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom. »

Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>

I think it is marvellous that we have this list.

We should not be to hasty in migrating to another format. With a mail list everything turns up in your mailbox. In many web forums you have to be active and remember to check if there is anything new. My experience from experiments in other organizations is that people are far less active in a web forum. Which probably can be compensated by supplementing a web forum with email and/or RSS.

As I stated before I am glad that Bob is willing to devote the time to moderate postings. One can respond so quickly to an email or a web posting that it is easy to write something that one regrets as soon as one has hit enter. Face to face most people think twice before saying anything and if they put their foot in it, they can immediately retract. Thanks Bob!

Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se> posting date Wed, 05 Sep 2007 17:06:11 +0200 _______________________________________________
""Schuette, Wade"" <wschuett@
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by ""Schuette, Wade"" <wschuett@ »

Posted by ""Schuette, Wade"" <wschuett@jhsph.edu>

Two comments:

1) In terms of progress (slow, but progress):

""Systems Thinking"" made it in 2006 to being an explicit section of
the Master of Public Health Core Competency list of the American
Schools of Public Health. (see link at
http://www.asph.org/document.cfm?page=898 )

2) I do think that we might be able to figure out a way to use newer web-based collaborative technologies to improve our interactions and the resulting products. It's so ""last century"" to be deciding whether to use a list-server OR a web-based list, let alone a WIKI, when there are technologies that give us the advantage of both and more.
(See examples of ""technology-mediated collaboration"" at
http://www.si.umich.edu/research/area.htm?AreaID=3 ).

It is slightly embarrassing to me that in 2007 we are arguing on a list- server over what possible causal factors are for some outcome without having candidate shared models posted on an interactive site vith e-mail, text-chat, and voice-chat where we can all push and pull on it and slowly improve them over time, along the lines of the best open-source development,
such as Linux. Maybe that's more a ""collaboration"" issue than a ""modeling""
issue, but the two overlap strongly. In my book, better collaboration
bandwidth leads to more growth. Most likely the issue is ""just"" this one:
""Great ... but who has time to set that up for us?"" and ""Surely it's too
complicated for us to ever learn."" Again, some new collaboration tools
address those issues and could be found.

Being set up to collaborate on models with high-bandwidth from a distance
has a lot of advantages as a tool in anyone's toolkit. Successful
modeling is an intrinsically social activity, yes? Maybe the ""socio"" part of our ""sociotechnical"" toolkit is the part that needs upgrading.

If a member thinks that X is a reason for a lack of growth in System Dynamics, fine, put that forward as one hypothesis and let's all look at the pros and cons of it in a model context. Sell me on it, using the rules we accept for
good design and model testing. That seems a reasonable expectation, and maybe
less emotional than arguing over it. We need to be ""mindful"" of outlier opinions that challenge our own mental models of how things are, right?

Or am I missing some crucial factor?

Wade Schuette
Ann Arbor, MI
Posted by ""Schuette, Wade"" <wschuett@jhsph.edu> posting date Wed, 5 Sep 2007 15:49:44 -0400 _______________________________________________
Richard Stevenson <rstevenson
Member
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson »

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

Kim Warren wrote:
> Whatever one thinks of how well the 'establishment' serves this
> community, we should recall that virtually all that commitment is
> voluntary and done for the love of it - a point I know Richard himself
> has made before.

Absolutely - I hope I have been careful not to be critical of individuals.

> I have not come across a single case of an outsider being discouraged
> from getting involved - quite the opposite - and if we think something
> should be happening that isn't, it's up to us to get on with it rather
> than complain that 'they' are not doing so.

Well... only partially agreed. It is the case that some perceptions
of the SDS (especially from outside the US) are that it is effectively controlled by the Boston ""group"". I totally understand the geographical density of SD talent in East Coast USA - but I think that whereas ""outsiders"" are not explicitly discouraged, neither are they actively encouraged. Like it or not, there is a ""not invented here"" culture in the SDS that tacitly (but effectively) discourages many ""outsiders"" from getting involved.

> Richard's personal contacts whose politically-incorrect submissions
> have been excluded from discussion may not want to be named, so could
> he at least give us a precis of the key themes of those contributions,
> so we can all see the kinds of ideas that have been denied to us?

Sadly, no. Several of them have been quite derogatory about the SDS
- I stress NOT about individuals. I summarised the theme as best I could in my previous mail. There's a lot of frustration out there in the wider world. I am just a messenger - and despite being shot at, I am still upright.

> The conference is a great place to feature practical work, and for a
> serious professional - who after all will have done all the real work
> on a project already - the extra time needed to fulfil the quite
> modest requirements is trivial.

Now here I do disagree.

Actually, it's not trivial! Absolutely not! This is a common academic conception but there is actually a huge barrier to serious professional submissions.

First there is the confidentiality and ""sanitisation"" issue - this
can actually wring the guts out of a serious strategy case study.
Second, there is the need to ""distil the SD-interest essence"" from
what might be a hugely complex set of issues, some not involving SD.
Third, there is the additional and irksome requirement to conform to academically-orientated SDS submission requirements.

Most business professionals have a greater need to move on the the next project. Thus - a huge amount of accumulated knowledge gets lost.

And here's another nub of my argument. Academics and business
professionals often don't understand each others' value drivers!
Those who try to straddle the fence usually fall one side or the other.

And - dare I also say - the SD Conference is not such a great place to feature practical work. It's small, inwardly focussed and low impact for a professional practitioner.

> Nevertheless, perhaps a System Dynamics 'magazine' would be popular,
> in which shorter pieces could be published - volunteers welcome,
> including from outside Boston! This would also of course need
> practitioners to contribute.

I think the ""magazine"" idea is interesting. But we need a
completely new and 2010-focussed professional reappraisal of how all practitioners can constructively interact.

Maybe the SDS should hire some external consultants?!

Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
UK
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com> posting date Wed, 5 Sep 2007 17:03:10 +0100 _______________________________________________
""Schuette, Wade"" <wschuett@
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by ""Schuette, Wade"" <wschuett@ »

Posted by ""Schuette, Wade"" <wschuett@jhsph.edu>

OK, I realize that suggesting we look at more powerful collaborative tools instantly generates policy resistance, because surely they are too hard to use.

Nope. 37Signals has done an astoundingly good job of making software
that's easy to use, as one example. So, I set up an account in their
product ""Basecamp"" for anyone who wants to to try out. No charge. No obligation. You can't break anything so take it out for a spin.

It has messaging (locally posted, also e-mail if you want, also RSS-feed if you want), file-storage, live-chat, shared-live-text editing,
shared web-based to-do lists, basic project management tools, etc.
It has won numerous awards for being astoundingly easy to use.

Please try it out. You need a username and password to sign on, pick either
username: SD password: SD
or
username SD2 password: SD2
at this URL

https://si689team.updatelog.com

I set this up two years ago when I took Gary Olson's course in ""Computer Supported Collaborative Work"" at the University of Michigan School of
Information. The course number was SI689, which is why this has that
strange URL. That class did a human-factors assessment of this tool,
and it got superb ratings.
( http://www.si.umich.edu/research/area.htm?AreaID=3 )

I have no relationship with 37signals or the School of Information - I
just think they are both neat and very much on the right track. And
I think System Dynamics is too! Go Team! (Well, I can't cheer too much for the Michigan Wolverines right now, so I need some other champion.)

Wade Schuette
Ann Arbor, MI
Posted by ""Schuette, Wade"" <wschuett@jhsph.edu> posting date Thu, 6 Sep 2007 07:30:46 -0400 _______________________________________________
<richard.dudley@attglobal.net
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by <richard.dudley@attglobal.net »

Posted by <Richard.Dudley@attglobal.net>

I agree with Paul (below). A web only format would draw less participation, I believe. However, the ability to include diagrams within postings would be a plus. Is that possible?

Richard
Posted by <Richard.Dudley@attglobal.net> posting date Thu, 6 Sep 2007 08:41:01 -0700 _______________________________________________
Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com&
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com& »

Posted by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com>

In a private communication Owen Ambur (Co-Chair of the StratML COP http://xml.gov/stratml/index.htm ) wrote:

> Bob & Richard, it seems to me the ""place"" in which to ""bring together""
> ""suggestions for things it would be good to have"" (i.e., goals and
> objectives) is in a *strategic plan*.


Owen, thanks for the note. I have not yet had a chance to look at StratML in any detail but will do so when I get time.

The System Dynamics society does have a strategic plan, though not one that is very clearly articulated. We are actively persuing open source publication of conference proceedings and other publications, promoting the formation of and providing resources to subject specific interest groups (SIGS) and Society Chapters, making membership more affordable for individuals in the developing world, bringing out material (such as the reprinted Electronic Oracle) that would otherwise not be available and providing more opportunities for everyone to add to the knowledge base of the field.

That is my quick personal rendering (as VP Electonic Presence) others might be able to articulate more.

Clearly progress on all fronts is not uniform and is dependent on the, as has been stated a number of times, volunteer efforts of lots of people. There is also work underway to more clearly articulate, and actually enumerate, the strategic plan though that again has not been making uniform process.

Owen further write:

> Unless and until the SDS has one, it will be hard for folks like me to
> take the organization seriously, much less to believe that you care a
> hoot about feedback from (potential) stakeholders like me.


I, and most other people active in the System Dynamics Society, care very much about the feedback from stakeholders, and potential stakeholders. Still, that does not mean I will take action on every suggestion that is made. If I can't see the merit in an idea I am not going to try to push it onto others.

Once again I must emphasize that this list, and the Society are totally different things. The Society is governed by a Policy Council, the current President is Qifan Wang from China. This list is moderated by me alone.

Bob Eberlein
Posted by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com> posting date Thu, 06 Sep 2007 08:43:20 -0400 _______________________________________________
""David Rees"" <david.rees@hp
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by ""David Rees"" <david.rees@hp »

Posted by ""David Rees"" <david.rees@hpls.co.nz>

As someone from 'down South' I find this UK-US debate slightly amusing and see it as reflecting personal biases and experiences rather than anything substantial. If the Boston group are really that closed how come they are so open about making their work publically available. The recent HIA videos being just the latest example - where Bobby Milstein, John Sterman, Jack Homer and George Richardson have giving wonderful presentations that I will return to and continue to learn from for some time yet. Every single contact I have made to leaders in the field, on both sides of the Atlantic has been responded to with respect and helpfulness. The accessibility and willingness of the leaders in our field to be helpful is something that people like me, out on the fringe, treasure and thank them all for.

Yes let us debate the future of SD and what can be done to develop it further, but can we shift from rhetoric to substance please and avoid artificial polarities between consultants and academics. Yes there are real issues; for me one is the seemingly limited knowledge SD people have of the broader systems sciences especially the extensive European systems field which has so much to offer our particular discipline. Although, as George Richardson's reply to my earlier post points out, the knowledge of this work is not so absent as I may have implied.

The diversity of the SD community and people's willingness to share their experience is what I value most. I make my living as a consultant, do a little teaching at Universities and SD sits at the core of what I do. I encounter everyday the challenges of trying to make it understandable and useful while trying to hold on to the rigour of the field, for without that we become just another fad. Without the openness and support of these leaders it would have been impossible for me, in this far flung part of the world, to develop the capability I have while still being excited about how much there is still yet to learn.

It is not popularity that I want for this field but influence. Unfortunately these two concepts often become muddled.

Regards

David
Posted by ""David Rees"" <david.rees@hpls.co.nz> posting date Fri, 7 Sep 2007 11:06:13 +1200 _______________________________________________
Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasyst
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasyst »

Posted by Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasystems.com>

It seems to me that improving electronic support for collaboration is a two step process: decide what we want, then find & implement software to do it.

For discussion (i.e. a possible successor to this list), there have been a number of wants expressed or implied so far, including:
- input from email-only users
- high discussion quality
- civility
- email distribution and digests
- more open discussions
- distribute moderation burden more widely
- search
- threads
- narrow focus
- minimal self-indulgent ranting
- cross-pollination from open to focused list
- easy/attractive to new users
- ad-free
(I took the liberty of adding a few of my own). There are some contradictions here, but perhaps solvable by technology.

A variety of collaboration and publication tasks also cropped up; a few that stick in my mind:
- shared knowledge base
- shared library of models or model components
- showcasing good work
- founding & managing new institutions
- attractive web front for the SDS

Clearly, there are options that integrate many of the needed functions (including apparently Sakai at the UMich site Wade linked). I'm personally not aware of a solution that satisfies all needs perfectly.
I may be a Luddite, but I'm somewhat inclined to choose individual tools for discrete tasks (e.g. phpBB and MediaWiki) rather than looking for an all-in-one. The conference submission & review system strikes me as a good example: not sexy or versatile, but very good at its primary task.

Perhaps if we can collect a few more desirable attributes, and some _specific_ suggestions for preferred software or hosts, we can move on this in the same voluntary spirit that created this list.

Tom
Posted by Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasystems.com> posting date Thu, 06 Sep 2007 18:22:46 -0600 _______________________________________________
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
Senior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci »

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

""SDMAIL"" <Richard.Dudley@attglobal.net> writes:
>> I agree with Paul (below). A web only format would draw less
>> participation, I believe. However, the ability to include diagrams
>> within postings would be a plus. Is that possible?

Sure. Use Gnuplot's dumb terminal option
(http://www.gnuplot.info/docs/node367.html) for graphs and Emac's Picture
(http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manua ... tures-2475)
and Artist (http://www.lysator.liu.se/~tab/artist/) modes for diagrams.

While you can't do complex graphics that way, I'm not really joking with this suggestion. See ""Making musical sense by email""
(http://facilitatedsystems.com/weblog/20 ... le-of.html
or http://preview.tinyurl.com/yq9pw7) for an example of how I have used that in practice. Parts 1, 2, and 3 are most pertinent to this issue.
While part 3 suggests it left something to be desired with that one person, another person suggested offline that the attempt in part 2 worked quite well for him.

Another thought comes to mind, if you like higher-resolution graphics than those mentioned above. What if you upload the diagrams to a Web space you own (perhaps with your ISP, perhaps a free space,
etc.) and then include the link in your email? For example, see http://avalidurllinkingtomydiagram.png for more information on what I was thinking ....

I'm rather glad we don't allow HTML email or attachments here. It keeps email smaller, and it works well for those of us who intentionally use text-only MUAs (Gnus in my case) for any of a number of reasons.

Thoughts?

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:24:09 -0700 _______________________________________________
Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasyst
Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasyst »

Posted by Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasystems.com>

A few more wishes for discussion 2.0 expressed:

In addition to:
> - input from email-only users
> - high discussion quality
> - civility
> - email distribution and digests
> - more open discussions
> - distribute moderation burden more widely
> - search
> - threads
> - narrow focus
> - minimal self-indulgent ranting
> - cross-pollination from open to focused list
> - easy/attractive to new users
> - ad-free

- permits including pictures
- linking & remote storage for files
- clean email (no html, no attachments)
- easy to bulk subscribe everyone now on this list

Specific sofware suggestions so far, with a few (+pros --cons ?questions):

* 37signals basecamp (+ simple, clean, easy, richer than a vanilla BB forum, subgroups in discussions -- not free, no wiki ? email submission, bulk
subscription)

* Yahoo groups (+ familiar, richer than vanilla BB -- need Yahoo ID, no bulk registration, html email ? no email submission)

* Google groups (+ collab web page creation, email submission to discussions -- need google ID, ads)

* phpBB (+ can host ourselves, subgroups in discussions, email submission, very widespread -- only does one thing, complex management options)


Tom
Posted by Tom Fiddaman <tom@ventanasystems.com>
posting date Sat, 08 Sep 2007 14:00:52 -0600
_______________________________________________
nickols@att.net <nickols@att.
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by nickols@att.net <nickols@att. »

Posted by nickols@att.net <nickols@att.net>

Well, just for the heck of it, I set up a system dynamics list on Yahoo groups. Those who want to are welcome to sign on and conduct some discussions there. After a while, if anyone signs on and if there is any participation, we can take stock of how it works. It won't be moderated.

To subscribe, send an email to SysDynamics-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Alternately, you can go to the site and sign on there. The URL is:

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/SysDynamics/

--
Regards,

Fred Nickols
Managing Principal
Distance Consulting
Posted by nickols@att.net (nickols@att.net) posting date Tue, 11 Sep 2007 11:32:13 +0000 _______________________________________________
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
Senior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY How to promote good work

Post by Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci »

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

""SDMAIL Tom Fiddaman"" <tom@ventanasystems.com> writes:
>> A few more wishes for discussion 2.0 expressed:


Tom,

Thanks for aggregating the comments people have suggested. I'd like to add a few:

- - No rewriting of headers to change people's names (I have to intervene
manually to almost every email I receive from this list to keep it
from thinking people's first names are always ""SDMAIL""). In exchange
for that, I'd be happy with prepending something like
""[system-dynamics]"" or even ""[sd]"" to the front of the subject
header.

- - No deleting of headers that allow threading of messages, for those of
us who use threaded email clients and who now lose structural
visibility into the organization of message threads.

- - Following something like the Well's philosophy of ""You own your own
words."" Among other things, I think that means that what we write,
with all of its potential warts, is what gets posted. Sure, some of
us would, on occasion, forget to use inline replying
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-postin ... e_replying), some of us
would forget to trim posts from time to time, and some of us would try
to insert a bit of levity on rare occasions. I think we are mature
enough here to be able to self-correct for the excesses, and I think
we would benefit from getting to know each other better by seeing not
only the content of what people write but how they structure what they
write.

With both the threading structure gone in this group and quotes from
prior messages generally elided, it's sometimes hard to get the
context for new messages that arrive.

Based on what I've seen in other successful groups, I do think there
is utility in some light-handed moderation; blocking messages totally
that stray outside the broad bounds of the list (with a note back to
the sender telling why) and trimming massive, untrimmed quotations
(again with a message back to the sender) are the two actions I've
seen sometimes on other successful lists. The former includes
messages that may be in HTML or include attachments (to the extent the
software doesn't trim those); the latter focuses simply on trimming
entire digests from replies from digest readers who top-post responses
and leave the entire digest quoted below.


>> Specific sofware suggestions so far, with a few (+pros --cons ?questions):


I'd like to throw in one more alternative: mailman (the current system).
I think that's what other groups I belong to (e.g., grp-facl, arlist-l, odnet, sdsustain, the now-defunct learning-org, evaltalk, ...) use, and it works quite nicely in those settings. People usually find homes for attachments and then link to them, if they want to show a picture or formatted document. Those groups self-moderate with precious little imposed moderation.

But I'd also like to suggest moving the dialog back to what objectives we have and how we'll assess those and away (for a bit) from what tool we'll use.

I wonder if one of the objectives might be to improve the practice of SD among those of us who participate here.

As one criterion, I'd suggest that a push system seems most likely to be successful for occasional users such as we are. Pull systems are great in some circumstances, but I think those are often reference sites or sites one deals with heavily throughout the day (e.g., a project management site for a project one is working on most of the time).

Thanks again,

Bill
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Tue, 11 Sep 2007 05:54:06 -0700 _______________________________________________
Locked