QUERY Subjective and objective synthesis

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
Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac
Senior Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Subjective and objective synthesis

Post by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac »

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

Hi everybody

Even after having studied quite a long time SD, by books, articles,
distant courses, there is something that I do not understand at all.

It is the relation between the subjective and the objective part of
a model.

The subjective part is everything relative to the 'owner' or 'client',
the owner or client being a distinct person or a group of persons:
purposes of the model, constraints imposed to the modelling process,
resources available, delay of realisation, cost etc..

The objective part is everything relative to the reality, independent
or not from the subjective part.

One first job is to identify what in these two parts, are independent
from one another and a second job what are the relative interdependencies.

It is obvious that the reality observed will depend on the subjective part.

But the subjective part will be influenced too by the objective one.

This problem is not a theoretical one.

Having a better understanding of this relation will help me too:

first better choose the purposes and constraints of the model.

One example comes from my general preoccupation: increasing the results
generated by my agencies.

About that general problem, I can have very different levels of pretension.

I can just describe all the reality and ask the model to give me the
adequate and precise pricing for all my products with the adequate
variation depending on the short term demand, the corresponding good
level of investments and the delay of renewing the fleet, the number of
employees, how much I will pay them and even how I will interest them
to the results, the level of commercial effort, etc...

This is of course exaggerated and I have learned since a long time that
this objective is unrealistic.

But from that point, there is a large possibility of simplification of the
purpose up to a very simplified problem like: what is happening if I
increase the price of the kilometre versus increasing the price of the day,
everything saying equal.

Up to what point is it in interesting to explore a problem with successive
more and more elaborate questions, starting with a very simple question at
first?

Second: how to aggregate the mixed subjectivity generated by group modelling?

I do not believe very much in group modelling, because whatever people will
pretend, the point of views and personal interests may vary and may be
eventually opposite.

It is maybe one of the reasons of not acceptation of the owner of solutions
proposed by a model if he finds out too lately that his own objectives are
not enough represented in the definition of the problem.

The understanding of this relation between subjectivity and objectivity have,
I am sure, plenty of other concrete applications.

Does anybody know of books, articles, papers that have explored that problem?

Regards.

Jean-Jacques Laublé Eurli, Allocar

Strasbourg France.
Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>
posting date Fri, 16 Nov 2007 15:10:38 +0100
_______________________________________________
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
Senior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Subjective and objective synthesis

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:
> Up to what point is it in interesting to explore a problem with successive
> more and more elaborate questions, starting with a very simple question at
> first?

Hello Jean-Jacques,

I think iterations are generally quite useful. For one thing, the
modeler has probably gone through multiple iterations to get to a
""final"" model; it seems presumptious to assume that others can always
immediately make the mental leap from their current state to the final
solution without seeing at least some of the intervening thought
processes. That's not to say you need to involve the client in each and
every step along the way, of course. It's a bit of a judgment issue.

There was an old computer science article whose title fascinated me,
something to the effect of ""Rational Development Processes: When and
How to Fake Them."" The essence of the article was that one develops
software in one sometimes messy approach, but, because someone has to
maintain that software later, one has to restructure the work in a way
that others can make sense of it. It's the same with modeling, I
think. Perhaps writings on making presentations or teaching would
give some ideas.

No matter what you do, it's a collaborative affair. Sometimes you'll
think a leap from one model (or one step) to the next is trivial, and
the other party will be totally confused, and other times you'll want to
work through the details only to find the other party already at the
end. Flexibility and listening count.

> Second: how to aggregate the mixed subjectivity generated by group
> modelling?

> It is maybe one of the reasons of not acceptation of the owner of solutions
> proposed by a model if he finds out too lately that his own objectives are
> not enough represented in the definition of the problem.

I think I've more seen the opposite problem, although maybe there are
cultural specifics at work. I'm more likely to worry about lack of
acceptance if all the pertinent stakeholders were not involved than if
too many were. Good facilitation and good consulting skills count.
Peter Block's Flawless Consulting comes to mind as a potentially useful
reference.

> The understanding of this relation between subjectivity and
> objectivity have, I am sure, plenty of other concrete applications.
>
> Does anybody know of books, articles, papers that have explored that
> problem?

If I understand what you're seeking, I suspect that good books on
facilitation might also be of help. Roger Schwarz' The Skilled
Facilitator and Bob <b>****</b>'s Helping Groups to Be Effective come to mind.

That might be an interesting question to pose on the GRP-FACL list, too.

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:48:03 -0800
_______________________________________________
Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac
Senior Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Subjective and objective synthesis

Post by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac »

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

Hi Bill

Thank you for your reply.

I think that I did not formulate well enough my question.

The question was not if it is necessary to progress step by step,
which is often preferable (not always) and is largely dependant on the circumstances,
but the influence of the difficulty of the question that the model is supposed to solve, and the
ability of the modeller to ask simple questions but still useful that may generate a much more simple model to build.

The subjective side represents the variable part of the model,
the purposes, constraints, resources allocated
that are chosen by the client, the objective part being the reality.

To summarize the question is: how to choose adequate (preferably simple) purposes and
constraints to allow for a more simple and manageable model?

Regards.

Jean-Jacques Laublé Eurli Allocar
Strasbourg France.
Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>
posting date Sun, 18 Nov 2007 17:18:19 +0100
_______________________________________________
Locked