QUERY Society Strategy Development

[Jack Harich <register@thwink.]

Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>

>
> Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
>
> A terrific organizational learning experience has just occurred. (long snip)

> Because SD is a large subset of systems engineering, our own mission statement
> could be created by substituting ""system dynamics"" for ""systems engineering"".
I
> think mentioning system thinking dilutes the force of the statement. It's not
> necessary because ST is part of the SD skillset. The phrase ""technologically
> appropriate"" is not necessary. Better is ""high quality, cost effective.""

An alert reader has questioned the assertion that ""SD is a large subset of
systems engineering,"" and for good reason, because it's not.

What I was thinking as I wrote this was that ""SD is a *potentially* large subset
of systems engineering."" That's why the reuse of the INCOSE mission statement
works.

If SD matures to where a lot of the members of this list think it can, then it
will be a large subset of SE. The only other large subset that I can see now is
the process side of system engineering.

Sorry about this error. My spelling and syntax checkers have been working fine,
but my mind reading software apparently needs an update.

> Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>
>
> Jack Harich wrote ""A terrific organizational learning experience has just
> occurred"". Maybe Jack is right, but not necessarily in the way he thinks.
>
> Can we be sure that the problem is that 1160 people did not respond? What if
we
> just had our own version of the Abiline Paradox, where a outspoken few made
> suggestions that the others followed. Not until afterwards was it realized
that
> nobody really wanted to go to Abiline.
>

Thanks, Paul. This is a wonderfully insightful post. I took the time to read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abilene_paradox as I've not encountered this
before.
I especially liked:

""The phenomenon may be a form of groupthink. It is easily explained by social
psychology theories of social conformity and social cognition which suggest that
human beings are often very averse to acting contrary to the trend of the group.
Likewise, it can be observed in psychology that indirect cues and hidden motives
often lie behind peoples' statements and acts, frequently because social
disincentives discourage individuals from openly voicing their feelings or
pursuing their desires.

""The theory is often used to help explain extremely poor business decisions,
especially notions of the superiority of 'rule by committee.' ""

About two weeks after this thread started, I found myself doubting its value.
The
suggested goals and musings were interesting, but the actual value seemed to be
low, other than to get a general sense of what the SD community thought
ambitious
future goals should or could be.

I found myself comparing it to what if NASA had asked the population of the US
in
1961 ""How do you think we should get a man on the moon in ten years? What should
our goals be?""

That is a question for specialists, not generalists. And it is a question
answered by analysis, not brainstorming of goals.

Slowly, I started to conclude that is the case here. It's too easy for a long
list of suggested goals to become the basis for a groupthink driven plan to
achieve them - regardless of whether or not that's the ""best"" option. The
weakness of ""management by committee"" became apparent as the list of goals grew,
because nearly all the goals were symptomatic instead of root cause resolution
or
problem definition oriented.

This assumes that the Society's main problem is it that after 50 year of trying,
it has not achieved anywhere close to its potential. The intermediate cause is
that SD is immature. As for why maturity is low and growing so slowly, no
analysis has been done. Thus any suggestions for what to do to resolve the
problem, such as in the form of goals, cannot possibly be of much more than feel
good value.

It's very difficult to solve a problem if you don't know why it is occurring.

As the goals exercise continued, I found myself comparing the Society's behavior
to that of well run corporations. They do not discover a problem and then start
brainstorming goals. If a corporation has a major problem, it defines the
problem, finds its cause, and then works on how to resolve that.

I wonder why we didn't travel down that path?

> Those of us in the two dozen that responded maybe should not be so sure that
we
> are right that something drastic needs to be done.
> Yes. Without analysis we don't know that maybe we are already on the best
> trajectory possible.

> Most members might be quite satisfied with the present direction.
>
> So I repeat my suggestion that it is time for our elected officers to reflect
> and somehow get a sense of where all the others are before deciding how to
> continue this process.
> I'm certain those that have been reading this thread are reflecting, but there
> seems to be a reluctance to do that on this list. Perhaps there are good
reasons.
> From past experience our officers may have found this is not time efficient.

When I look at http://www.systemdynamics.org/Governance.htm I see they are doing
far more work than we are on this list. We have some hard working, altruistic
leaders. Many thanks!!!

It appears this list is for general discussion, rather than management level
work. That could change if we converted to a forum style discussion, where it
was
possible to organize threads and groups of forum members. We could have open
subject areas, like this one, and areas limited to certain members, such as one
for elected officers, one for conference attendees, one for committee A, etc.
There are many advantages to a forum versus an email list. But the Society's mgt
is aware of this.

Thanks for the Abilene Paradox, Paul. I wonder what other paradoxes/traps were
are in right now but don't know it?

Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Tue, 08 Jul 2008 22:55:21 -0400
_______________________________________________

[""Jack Homer"" <jhomer@comcas]

Posted by ""Jack Homer"" <jhomer@comcast.net>

More grist for Kim Warren's mill regarding society strategy development:

One thing that I believe has not come up in the discussion so far is the
question of our true current status as a field. If we're talking about
visions and goals for the future, it's helpful to understand, based on real
evidence, where we currently stand. One of the important things SD brings
to
strategic decision making is an insistence on distinguishing clearly between
perception and reality. We should apply this principle to our own
self-analysis. Jay Forrester presented his perceptions of the ""endless
plateau"" in his 50th Anniversary speech last year, but he, like all of us,
is
working not so much from hard data as from perceptions that are partial and
of the moment. Before I'm asked to take part in radical surgery, I want a
complete history and all pertinent imaging and blood work.

Back in 1993, a fellow named Greg Scholl did a benchmarking study of the SD
community. He got about 160 members of the SD society (out of 455 at that
time) to respond to a questionnaire asking about their academic backgrounds,
occupations, areas of SD application, model building approaches, use of
software and hardware, knowledge of SD history, publications read, and
authors cited. There were plenty of other questions he didn't get around to
asking but thought were important:
- Do members of the SD society have the right kinds of background for real
world problem solving?
- Are there enough faculty and grad students to meet demand for SD modelers?
- Are there logical subcommunities in SD and is it important to distinguish
between them?
- What is our common core in terms of methodology?
- How can the SD Society and the SD Review shape development of the field?

These are questions we still ask. But I would also ask some questions that
go beyond SD practitioners and go more to the marketplace. I would ask
these
questions of general consulting firms, of government agencies, and of
foundations and other NGOs, and I would ask them in various industries and
departments:
- What fraction are aware of SD?
- What fraction have ever used SD?
- Of those who have not used SD, why not?
- Of those who have used SD, would they use it again? If so, why? If not,
why not?

This is just a start, just scratching the surface, but I hope my point is
clear. Could we actually do a little objective scouting of our surroundings
before we launch off into the wilderness?

Jack Homer
Posted by ""Jack Homer"" <jhomer@comcast.net>
posting date Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:44:06 -0400
_______________________________________________

[""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategyd]

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

Good proposal Jack - I did not include explicitly at the start the step
of asking where we currently are, because I anticipated that anyone
offering a view of where SD should aim for in the future would start
from their own knowledge of where we already are, i.e. I anticipated
that those in K-12 / environmental issues / health policy / economics /
Uni-education / Govt policy / business would all have good knowledge of
how widely and deeply SD has already penetrated in their own particular
domains. They would therefore set out their ambitions in
relation to that start-point.

As it turns out, either we do not know this present status, or those who
know have chosen not to contribute to the discussion. I am particularly
conscious of this in regard to business applications, but there may be
more areas for which we just don't know where we currently are. I have
directly asked some folk in that domain about where they think we should
aim to go, but as yet received no replies.

A key part of the parallel study I am doing for another professional
body involved surveying members' views on their field's priorities [12%
response rate within 5 days, and still rising!]. So it should be
possible to take your desire forward to add the kind of research to the
next phase.

Kim Warren
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Sun, 13 Jul 2008 10:52:31 +0100
_______________________________________________

[Diana Fisher <dfisher25@veriz]

Posted by Diana Fisher <dfisher25@verizon.net>

I would like to argue again for the importance of increasing efforts at the
K-12 level. Certainly, the number of young people who can be reached is
enormous, making success at this level a significant leverage point. So how
do we go about reaching the students, what do we want to have happen in that
environment, how do we get teachers interested? Actually, getting the
teachers interested is the key. I have some suggestions:

If we are to be successful at the K-12 level, we must show teachers that
using SD models will enhance students understanding of some KEY concepts
they are trying to teach. The software is a significant Trojan horse. It
has been successfully used in various K-12 math, science, social science,
health, and English classes, and teachers have shown interest if the lessons
fit smoothly into their traditional curriculum.

Problems:
1. We do not have a set of small, generic models that are available that
could become the core of lessons in multiple disciplines. But starting such
a set of models, and making them available at the CLE website, would not be
very difficult.

2. It will be necessary to develop a well-designed sequence of lessons in
each discipline, that can be used in any core curricular approach within
that discipline, and that can be inserted in smaller time-units, so teachers
do not feel the need to make big changes in their curriculum to try some of
the lessons for the first time.

To develop these lessons we need creative, successful teachers (who can
write well) in each of the disciplines we want to infect. They will best be
able to decide the high leverage problems that an SD lesson would
successfully address. At this point the teachers need to see that the
software is of secondary concern. These teachers need to be trained in the
full SD method so they can create lessons from an understanding of the steps
in the system dynamics method. They will also need to be given time to
develop the curriculum. But actually, if the teachers are trained well,
they can start creating lessons as part of their training. Then they can,
and probably will, design more lessons as they continue to teach. The next
issue will be trying to get the lessons reviewed and published.

3. The largest problem is training the teachers in the SD method. We can
hook teachers with the software, but we must move them to the next level
(understanding feedback analysis, testing scenarios and policy implications,
using models) if we are going to make a real impact. I believe there are
enough teachers who would be interested in learning to create SD models and
the accompanying curriculum that we would not have difficulty filling these
classes, especially if they were offered in a convenient venue for teachers.

An instructional sequence, similar to that offered at WPI, but at a less
intense, less expensive, and more elementary level is needed. The course
sequence should have teachers build some core generic structures relevant to
his or her specific discipline. Then teachers should learn the full system
dynamics process, where they take a problem and develop a reference mode,
dynamic hypothesis, develop the stock and flow diagram, test the model,
develop and test potential policies.

Finally teachers need to practice the art of creating multiple types of
lessons that allow them to engage students in enhancing their systems
thinking skills by building and/or manipulating models. Ideally, this course
would be offered on-line so teachers anywhere could take them. The sequence
will definitely need to be available in the summer. For those who become
even more interested, they could then take the WPI courses.

These courses would be more effective if offered within a core discipline.
(I believe a math department would be ideal. Unfortunately, there could be
more resistance in math than in a science department.) I would avoid
university education departments, as I have found them fairly resistant to
new ideas, especially if technology is involved.

Another issue that has to be addressed is that most high school math and
science classes do not have regular access to computer labs even though most
high schools in the United States have at least one. This will take some
planning and communication with the schools technology person, and with the
curriculum vice principal, but it can be accomplished. The teachers
involved will need to start the process early, to get school policy to
accommodate regular access for students to use models.

And yet another issue is the No Child Left Behind national US educational
initiative. Over the past 6 or 7 years most school district efforts and
discretionary money has gone, with single focus, to trying to have students
reach benchmarks. In my experience there has been little interest and much
less funding, for the most part, to support innovative curricular approaches
to learning. Hopefully this will change with a new administration.

Diana Fisher
High School Mathematics Teacher
Portland, Oregon
Posted by Diana Fisher <dfisher25@verizon.net>
posting date Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:07:34 -0700
_______________________________________________

[Richard Stevenson <rstevenson]

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

I totally agree with Kim Warren on the contribution of academics to SD. I
don't think anybody has ever questioned the huge intellectual contributions
that derive from university-based people - after all, they are actually paid
to think and then to write about it.

The issue, perhaps, is that academics are (maybe by definition?) not
equipped
to actually manage organisations - even organisations like the SDS. If we
really want to develop and promote the field, then we need look at how
professional bodies such as the accounting and legal institutions manage
themselves.

Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>
posting date Sun, 13 Jul 2008 13:14:34 +0100
_______________________________________________

[Bill Rathborne <brathborne@sy]

Posted by Bill Rathborne <brathborne@sympatico.ca>

On 13-Jul-08, at 6:50 AM, SDMAIL Diana Fisher wrote:
> I would like to argue again for the importance of increasing efforts at
> the K-12 level.

Diana,

Although it would be nice to engage the teachers, I believe that it will =
only
be
possible if the politicians and most senior school board officials are
engaged
first, at least in my part of the world. (Ontario, Canada)

I use the following two documents when I communicate with a variety of lo=
cal
board officials, politicians, and independent organizations that are und=
er
contract
of the Ontario (Canada) Ministry of Education to develop curriculum and
advise
senior board administrators.

1 - System Dynamics in K-12 Education: Lessons Learned: A follow-up to th=
e
report from the planning meeting held in Essex, Massachusetts, 2001, By
Debra
Lyneis and Lees N. Stuntz, Presented at The International System Dynamic=
s
Society Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, July 2007 - The Creative
Learning
Exchange, Volume 17, Number 2 =95 Spring 2008

2 - Understanding public complacency about climate change: adults=92 ment=
al
models of climate change violate conservation of matter,
John D. Sterman =B7 Linda Booth Sweeney, 3 August 2006.

and, of course, the SDEP and Waters Foundation sites are extremely
valuable references.

Ontario also has a ""taxpayer-friendly, accountability & responsibility""
regime
of ""standardized testing"", that virtually eliminates teacher initiatives=
and
creativity.
""teaching to the test"" has become axiomatic. Only through the deliberate
decisions
of the highest political and administrative functions - at least in Onta=
rio
- will any
change be introduced and filter down to the local school boards and
teachers. If the
kinds of concepts as described in,
http://www.watersfoundation.org/index.c ... rch.habits, ar=
e not
built
into curricula and extensions to SD modeling not incorporated, teachers
simply cannot
make any ""diversions"" from the mandated content without considerable
personal risk.

My various approaches have been met with the customary stoney silence!

Bill
Posted by Bill Rathborne <brathborne@sympatico.ca>
posting date Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:42:10 -0400
_______________________________________________

[Diana Fisher <dfisher25@veriz]

Posted by Diana Fisher <dfisher25@verizon.net>

Bill,

Although I have not had the experience of someone else exerting total
control over what I do in my classroom in the US, I hope I may be able to
provide some suggestions:

I have found parents to be powerful allies in supporting change. I have
taken every opportunity, as a teacher, to explain to parents the new methods
I use in my classes (especially if they are quite different from what they
may have seen/heard about in other classes). (I talk about systems ideas &
modeling at ""back to school night"" - for parents each fall, at parent
teacher conferences - when I talk about their child, at ""8th grade parent
night"" in the spring when parents are trying to choose a high school for
their 8th grader, and whenever prospective parents, interested business
people, or visiting academics come to my school.) I have yet to find a
parent, business person, or academic who was not excited for their child to
have these modeling experiences.

For someone who is not actually teaching it may be possible to speak more
informally to other parents at the school. If your children attend the
school you are probably attending various activities that would put you in
contact with other parents. Of course, you will want to find a teacher who
would be willing to have you come into his/her classroom to demonstrate the
modeling process using an appropriate problem, or it will be necessary to
find a way to help the teacher gain skill and confidence outside of the
teaching day, so he/she would be able to do a lesson with a class, should
the opportunity arise. I have found science teachers to be the most
receptive. Additionally, I have found that administrators are much more
receptive to parents and the pressure they can exert, than to teachers.

Another approach is to offer a modeling club after the final class of the
school day. I don't know if there are clubs available for student at the
schools in Canada, but I would think there are some academic activities for
students after school (Chess clubs, programming clubs, environmental action
clubs?) Of course, any good student work that is produced should get some
kind of recognition.

Finally, it will become important to find out who creates the standards to
which the students are to achieve benchmarks. In some places in the US
there are teachers on these committees, and sometimes concerned citizens.
This path takes longer. But if schools are required to teach to the test,
then it must become important to have systems thinking questions start to
appear on the tests. To appear on the test they must be listed on the
standards to which the test is an assessment tool, to judge whether students
are reaching that standard.

It is much easier to reach students by infecting teachers. But if teachers
are locked into a curriculum that dictates what they must teach each class
period, there are still ways to foment a more subtle revolution. It will
just take longer, (except for the possible ""modeling club"" idea).

I hope some of these ideas may give you encouragement to continue to try to
affect change in your school(s). I have had the opportunity to work with
some creative, innovative administrators, but unfortunately, I have found
those administrators to be more the exception than the rule. I have found
most administrators interested in maintaining the status quo. Another
caution, teachers - especially high school teachers in the US, are quite
resistant to top down initiatives. It seems we have to deal with new ones
every few years. Most last only a few years, so we tend to pay little
attention. Perhaps it is different in Canada.

Diana Fisher
Posted by Diana Fisher <dfisher25@verizon.net>
posting date Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:32:53 -0700
_______________________________________________

[<PackerDW@aol.com>]

Posted by <PackerDW@aol.com>

Dear colleagues.,

Here is a thought of a future where systemic, holistic thinking plays a
central role. It is set in the decade of the 2050's. It is what I hope =
for
personally, with appreciation of the effort and courage that will be
required
to achieve it.=20
=85=85=85
Here is the vision. In the world of the 2050's there is broad understand=
ing
of the necessity to take on issues systemically. People routinely talk o=
f
dynamic behavior over time as essential to seeing the challenges, of
feedback
processes that are key elements in creating the behaviors they experience=
,
of
time delays, and of unintended consequences. The media frequently uses th=
e
language that we have long termed =93system principles=94 and there is
increasingly deep comprehension of what these are. Major issues are often
charted and explained with various diagrams and there is often active
dialogue about when models and simulation are vital to choosing the cours=
e
ahead.

This broad sense of systemic understanding has evolved from the bitter
lessons of the early decades of the century, when the world was severely
threatened by huge global issues that were long-term in nature; where
quick-fixes not only often failed but visibly increased the threat; and
where
an expanding fraction of the populace recognized that holistic, long-term=
,
deep comprehension was literally required for survival. These issues
included, among others, sustainability, resource depletion, climate chang=
e,
a
string of disastrous speculative bubbles, and collapses of both businesse=
s
and economies. Overall, these issues affected the welfare of billions.

As a result of these impacts, interest began to build from the ground up =
for
real, fundamental solutions. Systems thinking and system dynamics were
re-discovered by many, and the earlier accomplishments of these rather sm=
all
fields became highly appreciated by an expanding network that sensed thei=
r
potential. Linkages to related fields were energized and fostered. The
results spurred programs that incorporated the systems view from early
education to graduate programs. Publications spanning the range from nov=
ice
to expert have appeared with accelerating frequency. Many voters looked =
for
systemic approaches in their decisions to support candidates. Numerous
classes, workshops, seminars, and conferences offered pathways for
individuals to increase their personal competencies.

In brief, over the course of time, interest and activity increased
exponentially, reflecting both a base of broad grass-roots awareness and
top-down research and development. Systemic application became recognized=
as
a principle contributor to successful solutions of many complex issues an=
d
is
expected to continue at the core of future approaches to increasingly
complex
challenges.

This progression led ultimately to codification of the field of =93Syste=
mic
Studies=94, which now appears in academic programs at all major universit=
ies
and at dedicated Institutes throughout the world.
=85=85=85

Such is the vision of a possible future. I suggest that getting there
requires focusing on the whole spectrum, from deep research to broad
accessibility of the concepts, need, and power. We need to work
collaboratively across this spectrum (which now contains approaches we ca=
ll
system dynamics, soft-systems, systems thinking, organizational learning =
and
the like). We need many more publications like =93Industrial Dynamics=94=
,=20
=93Limits to Growth=94, and =93The Fifth Discipline=94 that capture atten=
tion and
excite whole new constituencies.

Finally, we should, I suggest, view all of these elements as components o=
f a
system that we nurture with a focus that expands reach and quality. We ne=
ed
to work together on this system to achieve the goal of routinely bringing
systemic principles to bear on our most important human issues.

Regards, Dave

David W. Packer
Systems Thinking Collaborative
Posted by PackerDW@aol.com
posting date Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:34:13 EDT
_______________________________________________

[Bill Rathborne <brathborne@sy]

Posted by Bill Rathborne <brathborne@sympatico.ca>

On 15-Jul-08, at 7:04 AM, SDMAIL PackerDW wrote:

> Posted by PackerDW@aol.com
>
> Dear colleagues.,
>
> Here is a thought of a future where systemic, holistic thinking plays a
> central role. It is set in the decade of the 2050's. It is what I hope
> for
> personally, with appreciation of the effort and courage that will be
> required to achieve it.
>

Dave,

Thanks for the ""vision"". It shall feature prominently in my future mailings!

Bill
Posted by Bill Rathborne <brathborne@sympatico.ca>
posting date Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:44:31 -0400
_______________________________________________

[Paul Holmstr=F6m <ph@holmstro]

Posted by Paul Holmstr=F6m <ph@holmstrom.se>

Earlier this year we had a maillist thread about =B3professional=B2 confe=
rences,
adhering to a commonly used distinction between academics and
=B3professionals=B2. I have tried to research the etymology of the word
professional, but didn=B9t manage to clarify the differences in meaning.
Although academics obviously are professional, the word professionals is
commonly used for people earning their living outside academia.

Given that distinction, there was quite some discussion about separate
conferences or a separate conference track. However the thread seemed to
dwindle away in some vague hope that conference chairs or the society boa=
rd
would consider the issue. I have not observed that the issue is being
considered anywhere.

In the ongoing thread about the vision of the Society there also crops up
differences of interest, some of them between academics and =B3profession=
als=B2,
the latter very pointedly expressed by Carl Betterton and Richard Stevens=
on.
I do think it is necessary that the governing body and the policy council=
of
the society considers the particular interests of professionals and how t=
hey
might be supported more extensively within the Society and maybe
particularly at the conferences.

I doubt that any vision about the spread of System Dynamics can be fulfil=
led
without an extensive cadre of practitioners and professionals outside of
academia. It would be a pity if that group did find it necessary to form =
a
separate association in order to advance their aspirations and interests.
Much of the differences in interests were expressed in the thread about
=B3professional=B2 conferences, which I suggest be revisited.

Being a =B3professional=B2 myself I would like to belong to a group, part=
of or
separate of the SD Society in order to have opportunities to share knowle=
dge
and discuss with colleagues. And I would rather see that group as part of
the present society.

Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmstr=F6m <ph@holmstrom.se>
posting date Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:19:47 +0200
_______________________________________________

[Richard Stevenson <rstevenson]

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

Bill Braun writes

> I find the points you make, though strident, to have some value. That
> said,
> if you cannot, or will not, speak your mind without belittling and
> denigrating people that I believe are doing the best they can, you can
> kiss
> the south end of my north bound person - you are not the leader I would
> follow, either.

Having now had a robust personal correspondence with Bill and others, I must
make it clear that I am not ""belittling and denigrating"" anybody. Far from
it, I know that the officers of the SDS are committed and intelligent people
who do indeed try very hard. But that was not my issue.

My issue (for the umpteenth time) is that the SDS is - in itself - simply
not
""fit for purpose"" as a body to promote and develop the field of SD. Carl
Betterton's recent letter adds another voice to the growing clamour for a
more professional organisation. Of course there is need for the activities
that the SDS does carry out. But it is not enough - not by a long, long
way.
And, as Carl points out (again) the image that the SDS presents to the
outside world is archaic.

> The ""best they can"" may turn out to be woefully inadequate, good enough
> down
> the middle, or brilliant. One can differ with their performance with
> (out?)
> degrading them as people. Find another way to talk about them.

OK Bill - and others who have taken me to task - we should not be strident.
But I believe we should be forthright, ""tell it like it is"" and not accept
the status quo. Any organisation that cannot openly debate its own purpose
and future is simply immature. In fact, I have received many letters of
support - a lot more than of criticism.

I eagerly await the report (when?) of the strategy committee headed by Kim
Warren. However, as delegates gather in Athens, I'd simply invite
reflection
on a number of key organisational questions, for example:

- Does the SDS do enough to promote the field worldwide? Does it have any
such ambition? Or capability?
- Is it right that SD still has no established competence framework - and
hence limited leverage with potential client organisations?
- Does the SDS present a modern, vibrant image to the outside world?
- Does the SDS really represent a worldwide view, or is it still heavily
skewed to the USA?
- Is SD growing exponentially (as Forrester et al claim) or has it declined
since the peak in the 1990's?
- Is an overwhelmingly academic membership base going to drive change? Or
resist it?
- Are academics intrinsically equipped to manage professional organisations?

If not, who is?

As I have previously suggested, I truly doubt that the SDS is capable of
self-reform. But SD itself is too important to leave things in the state
they are in.

Perhaps (and only partly tongue in cheek) we should be looking to find some
European Community money for an initiative to found a completely new
international SD professional Institution? I for one believe that it must
not be left completely to the USA.

Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>
posting date Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:50:47 +0100
_______________________________________________

[Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.co]

Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>

Richard Stevenson writes and emphasizes (in addition to other ground
covered)
the need for a professional focus.

The question of academic versus professional seems to have descended into a
conversation that demands that we choose the ox by which we do not wish to
be
gored.

The Society already has SIGs (bodies of people who elect their own leaders
and pursue their agenda(s) of interest) and chapters (people whose common
interests are geographical). It is but a short walk to see this structure
morph slightly into schools of application. This easily opens the door to an
academic and a professional school of application.

Each school of application could elect its own officers, have its own web
site and autonomous discussion list (moderated or not, as they wish), and
pursue its own purposes. The collection of Society dues could be amended to
allow for a fractional designation to a school (or schools) of application
(not unlike pledging to United Way - either to the general fund or to a
specific charity). All of this could remain under the overarching umbrella
of
the Society. The dues designation would speak volumes about where indeed the
passion and the interest of the members of the Society reside.

There is only one reason I can see that would prevent this (there may be
others) - the debate has become so personal that some voices have painted
themselves into a corner of pride and principle that will not allow them to
stay under the umbrella of the Society. They should reconsider.

Bill Braun
Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
posting date Wed, 16 Jul 2008 18:24:29 -0400
_______________________________________________

[Richard Stevenson <rstevenson]

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

I have - fairly - been accused of negativity about the SDS and challenged to
suggest a more positive route for development of our field.

I have thoughts of my own but many of them are well summarised by two
weblinks.

First, some principles. Here
http://www.zenska-mreza.hr/prirucnik/en ... tion_2.htm is a well thought
out summary of the difficulties of moving from an idea - a pioneering
organisation - to a professional organisation. The ideas originated around
NGO's in Bosnia - but have much in common with our situation, I think.

Second, here http://www.biij.org/2007/3/e58/ is a description of an
professional/academic organisation that is light years ahead of the SDS. It
has a UK slant admittedly, but it covers all the requirements of our field
now - to move into the mainstream management area, to regulate standards, to
inter-relate with other branches of management science and to promote the
interests of its members.

I, for one, would subscribe to such a model, subject if course to the
outcome
of the present strategy review. The challenge to the SDS is - do you all
want to play with SD, or do you really want to promote and professionalise
the field?

Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>
posting date Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:38:24 +0100
_______________________________________________

[""Laura Loucks"" <laura.louck]

Posted by ""Laura Loucks"" <laura.loucks@gmail.com>

Dave,

Thanks for this uplifting vision.

In fact, this is consistent with what I'm experiencing in my SD work
with the Dutch LNV Department of Fisheries. I'm using systems thinking
in a collaborative setting to address complex issues. We're seeing the
shifting the burden pattern emerge from a commodity production system
and we're now exploring the next stage of identifying fundamental
solutions.

I'm hoping to use more SD modelling in our next phase of research. The
point is, the complexity of the problem is driving the need for new
types of analysis and SD is fitting in nicely. It has been well
received in the Ministry and I'm leveraging this opportunity by
holding a SD symposium in October here at Wageningen University. In
other words, the vision is happening now!

See you in Athens!

Laura Loucks.

Assistant Professor,
Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy,
Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Posted by ""Laura Loucks"" <laura.loucks@gmail.com>
posting date Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:20:43 +0200
_______________________________________________

[""Duggan, Jim"" <james.duggan]

Posted by ""Duggan, Jim"" <james.duggan@nuigalway.ie>

I like Bill's constructive suggestion in relation to a resolution to the
(perceived) problem of academic vs professional focus. [I say perceived because
I
am not convinced that there is a significant problem, but that may be due to
lack
of knowledge on my part].

I think a core strength of SD is the breadth of study in the discipline, from
practical application all the way through to theoretical foundations.

The SIG structure (""Schools of Application"") could provide the flexibility for
focus on the professional application of SD, while maxmising the potential for
synergies between academics and professionals (although many professionals are
also academics and vice versa!).

regards,
Jim.
Posted by ""Duggan, Jim"" <james.duggan@nuigalway.ie>
posting date Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:08:28 +0100
_______________________________________________

[Paul Holmstr=F6m <ph@holmstro]

Posted by Paul Holmstr=F6m <ph@holmstrom.se>

I am quite amazed at the love of SD and dedication that Richard Stevenson=
is
showing. He persists telling in telling us that we need to mend out ways.
And having met Richard some years ago I am quite certain that he is not
doing it out of spite and vengeful enjoyment.

In the world of business, where I have worked 35 years there is nobody yo=
u
can learn as much from as a dedicated grumpy customer on the verge of
deserting you. They are basically love something about you and your produ=
ct
and are willing to tell all that bugs them before they (maybe) leave. Mos=
t
customers with a complaint leave without a word.

I think it a pity if we were not to listen closely to Richard, Carl and
others, even if their words may sound harsh. For me SD is very much about
learning and there is a lot of learning in what they have to say.

Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmstr=F6m <ph@holmstrom.se>
posting date Thu, 17 Jul 2008 20:04:48 +0200
_______________________________________________

[sheldon.friedman@comcast.net]

Posted by sheldon.friedman@comcast.net

>From Shelly Friedman

I find the entire thread to be depressing. Why? Every meeting and all the
training I have had around SD is based on finding the dynamic hypothesis or
change over time, or at least a good explanation of what is occuring.. But this
does not happen unless we have the ability to work with groups in order to
develop a shared map of a situation. This seems to be what is missing in the
current discussion. Indeed, as I read the inputs I see a breakdown in the
communication process between colleagues.

It seems that an issue that is so deep and important to the members should be
better managed in a live environment. Indeed, the use of cognitive mapping as
described by Ackerman could be a big help in getting all the issues out that we
,
as a group, now face.

Whether this should be done at the coming conference or sometime during the year
might be a useful discussion.

Shelly Friedman
Posted by sheldon.friedman@comcast.net
posting date Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:23:29 +0000
_______________________________________________

[""David Corben"" <david@dsc-c]

Posted by ""David Corben"" <david@dsc-consulting.co.uk>

David Packer wrote:

>We need many more publications like ""Industrial Dynamics"", ""Limits to Growth"",
> and ""The Fifth Discipline"" that capture attention and excite whole new
> constituencies.

""Industrial Dynamics"" defined the field and ""The Fifth Discipline"" certainly
created a huge amount of interest, but has it had any lasting impact? I am not
sure that we need another ""Limits to Growth"" because I do not believe that SD
can
currently handle the publication of another high profile and inevitably
contentious study.

I do not wish to open up a debate about the merits or otherwise of the limits to
growth work. I am sure we have all made our minds up about that long ago. Rather
I want to focus on how limits to growth was perceived by people outside SD, what
we can learn from that and the issues the publication of similar work raises for
the SD community.

Lets consider the two case, for the purpose of my argument it does not matter
which of these is true or if neither of them are true.

Case 1: LTG was a brilliant piece of work, with insights that were years ahead
of
its time, but only those already converted to this way of thinking listened.

Case 2: LTG was a poor piece of work that did the credibility SD a huge amount
of
damage at a critical time for its growth.

Case 1

LTG did not seem to be able to convince people that it was right. There seemed
to
be a communication problem, the model (despite the best intentions of the
authors) was perceived as a predictive model and moreover a predicted model that
got it wrong. Journalists and politicians either did not understand or choose to
ignore that the model was designed to explore policy options and scenarios. The
worst case scenario was the one that got the most media attention.

Challenge 1

How can we effectively present SD models to the wider world so people do listen
to what we say and do look at our models in the way we intend (as policy tools,
not predictions)?

Case 2

What if the critics were right, what if we got it wrong? Probably the most high
profile SD model ever built, it is still the one thing that many people who know
nothing about SD may have heard of; not good for SD.

Challenge 2

How can we as a profession assess the merits of high profile SD work so that we
can endorse if it is good and disown it if it bad? How do we police SD to
maintain professional standards and stamp out bad practise and bad
practitioners?

Some Thoughts

Case 1

The public reaction to LTG is a brilliant opportunity to find out what our
potential customers think about us and our methodology. A huge amount of
material
has been published over the decades on LTG in the press, books, academic papers
and on the internet.

This material could be analysed and common criticism and misunderstanding
identified.It might be useful to focus on the criticism that are generic to SD
rather than specific to LTG. For those criticisms we feel are valid we can
change
what we do to address them, and for those we think are unfair we can create
standard rebuttals.

Many of the comments on LTG are of course partisan (pro and anti), but some are
more thoughtful and open minded. I did a brief Google on LTG and found one
interesting idea Francois Cellier posting at
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/3551 simulated one of the World models
backwards through time (not as daft as it sounds) and found that population
started to grow pre 1900. This technique of simulating a model backwards beyond
its initial conditions to see if it produces sensible behaviour strikes me as a
potentially useful additional test of SD model validity. Has anyone come across
this idea before and followed it up?

Case 2

In reality this is asking the question does the SD society want to become a
professional regulatory body and do SD practitioners want to be regulated? Would
people be happy to see incompetent SD practitioners barred from practising, like
doctors and lawyers can be?

David Corben
Posted by ""David Corben"" <david@dsc-consulting.co.uk>
posting date Fri, 18 Jul 2008 13:00:12 +0100
_______________________________________________

[Jay Forrester <jforestr@MIT.E]

Posted by Jay Forrester <jforestr@MIT.EDU>

I have recently had occasion to reread my presidential address at the 1983
System
Dynamics conference, available at:
http://www.systemdynamics.org/publications.htm

The title,""Future Development of the System Dynamics Paradigm,"" seems almost
entirely relevant to today's discussion of what the SD Society needs to do. The
goals set forth 25 years ago have not yet been met. I still feel that those
goals must be addressed if the SD field is to move forward.

Jay Forrester

Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management
Sloan School, MIT
Posted by Jay Forrester <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
posting date Thu, 17 Jul 2008 10:00:16 -0400
_______________________________________________

[Richard Stevenson <rstevenson]

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

One last windmill tilt before I retire for the summer - and you guys all convene
in Athens.

Bill Braun says:

> ""the debate has become so personal that some voices have painted
> themselves into a corner of pride and principle that will not allow them to
> stay under the umbrella of the Society. They should reconsider.""

Fact: the debate is not personal and never has been. Fact: nobody has painted
themselves into a corner. Fact: the umbrella of the Society is blowing inside
out - it is up to the SDS to develop a better umbrella. Fact: we can all
reconsider - providing that genuine contributions will be considered and not
censored - and when we are listened to, and when things change.

> ""The Society already has SIGs (bodies of people who elect their own leaders
> and pursue their agenda(s) of interest) and chapters (people whose common
> interests are geographical). It is but a short walk to see this structure
> morph slightly into schools of application. This easily opens the door to an
> academic and a professional school of application.""

No it does not - at all. Things do not ""morph"" unless and until people want to
change and until someBODY wants to make things change. Most of the SIGs and
chapters are pretty moribund, as you will find if you look closely. I know many
good practitioners who were enthusiastic SDS participants who have fallen away -
the Society is losing members more quickly than it wins them (we all know the
stock/flow model!) and those who are leaving are the experienced practitioners
who are just giving up and moving on.

I don't mind being characterised as inflammatory. Somebody has to be. Because
otherwise....

But now I am probably finished with banging my head against a brick wall.

Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>
posting date Thu, 17 Jul 2008 18:56:09 +0100
_______________________________________________

[Dr John P Weldon <corp_dyn@ii]

Posted by Dr John P Weldon <corp_dyn@iimetro.com.au>

In late 2007 I submitted to the academically-controlled SDS specific proposals
about several specific professional SD applications, under the heading of
developing the international influence and coverage of SD. I noted that gains in
SD's position, from the existing parlous situation, must come mainly from the
professional side. The applications concerned could deliver significant, even
spectacular, gains in SD's position and prospects.

Ensuing SDS unresponsiveness to these proposals calls to mind the contemptuous
manner in which SD itself has been excluded from international economic policy
by
the macro-econometric orthodoxy for the past half century. Ending that situation
was one of my proposals.

Academics currently controlling the SDS have been and remain uninterested in,
and
indifferent to, needs and opportunities on the professional side of SD. This is
in marked contrast to what happened in the econometrics community. It has been
very successful in melding the aspirations and needs of its academic and
professional cohorts. (I also suggested that the SDS should research how the
econometrics community was so successful, and emulate that success. My
suggestion
was ignored).

I am in little doubt that nothing is likely to be achieved under existing SDS
auspices. If there is positive leadership from the top in regard to what needs
to
be done, I am unaware of it. I also note nascent murmurs in these pages about
forming a breakaway SD association. What about 'The Professional System Dynamics
Association' (PSDA) as a name?

There is a debate in these pages. However, it appears relatively unfocused and
unstructured. Does the movement for promoting professional SD development have
an
agreed and specific set of aims? Or a program? Or a convenor? Or a deadline?
Etc.

It is also often difficult to identify the flecks of gold in postings under the
heading 'Society Strategy Development' from the sheer weight of self-indulgent
(even metaphysical) verbiage. Specific (bulleted) proposals and arguments are
needed, in an atmoshere of professional self-discipline, focus and structure. A
deadline (certainly before the end of 2008) should be agreed. Proposals need to
be collated.

If proposals for professional development are not accepted by the SDS (again by
a
deadline that will need to be agreed), what happens next? Will the initiative
simply fade away, or will specific steps be taken to form a breakaway SD
association? How and when will that be done?

Professionals can be sure that the SDS will remain inactive and unresponsive on
these issues for as long as possible. They are confident in relying on the
initiative to simply fade away. After all, nothing has been done in fifty years.

Sincerely.

John Weldon
Corporate Dynamics
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
Posted by Dr John P Weldon <corp_dyn@iimetro.com.au>
posting date Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:01:17 +1000
_______________________________________________

[Richard Stevenson <rstevenson]

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

David Corben's contribution is interesting.

The antagonism to LTG is still palpable and SD has certainly suffered for
decades
because of the controversy. The old parable about the guy who jumps off a
skyscraper and yells ""so far so good"" all the way down springs to mind. We are
not into forecasts. We are about policy - jumping off a skyscraper is clearly
not a good policy for long-term health.

The current credit and housing crunch is a prime example. Most SD people knew
it
was coming - but because it kept on NOT happening we were derided. Now things
are ten times worse than if we had had a recession in say 2003.

False prophets? If we do not coalesce as a 'profession' then SD will always be
derided. Divided we fall.

So - sorry all you free minded and tender beings. SD needs more discipline and
rigour - and David Corben is right. Lawyers and accountants who fail their
clients are rightly prosecuted. And SD practitioners should be equally
responsible.

People are ""playing"" with a powerful toolset. Idiots can do great harm with it.

Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>
posting date Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:20:51 +0100
_______________________________________________

[Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com&]

Posted by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com>

Hi Everyone,

Just a few comments on the recent posts on this thread - it is one that has had
a
variety of subthreads but I have kept the same heading to give some continuity.

There have been some good suggestions around professional activities. But many
of
these suggestions are already implemented. There is a business SIG within the
Soceity and all Sigs and Chapters have access to web space and mailing lists run
off the Societies main web server. It is true that not all SIGS and Chapters are
active, and it is also true that not everyone subscribes to this list. It is
important to remember that this list is not a Society list. It is just something
I
did personally to foster communication and later moved to use the email support
available from the Society's web server.

Bottom line in all of this though, is that if you think something is important
you need to do it. Few of the active posters to this list are also active in the
Society. The Society is shaped by the people who participate in it. I can think
of no examples of good ideas that have been suppressed by an overt action of any
of the Officers or Policy Council members of the Society. There are, however,
lots of good ideas that have never come to fruition because nobody has had the
persistence and energy to follow through on them.

One important one, which has been brought up here, is some sort of set of
standards. This has been a topic of discussion for 20 years now at Policy
Council
meetings. A formal committee was constituted some 6-8 years ago. A new one is
being reformed to try to make progress. But again, it is made up of people who
have lots of things to worry about.

Our Society is a volunteer organization with most of the people volunteering
working or studying full time. Thus there are lots of demands on peoples time.
The small paid staff has their hands full just doing business as usual. So
anything new, is up to a volunteer - perhaps that's you.

Bob Eberlein
Posted by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com>
posting date Sun, 20 Jul 2008 01:11:40 -0400
_______________________________________________

[Richard Stevenson <rstevenson]

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

Jay Forrester writes:

> I have recently had occasion to reread my presidential address at the 1983
> System
> Dynamics conference, available at:
> http://www.systemdynamics.org/publications.htm

I reread it too. Forrester's address paper is as pertinent as it was in 1983.
It
could have been written today. So why 25 years of inaction? I hypothesise.

I well remember the first time I met Jay. It was at a Pegasus ""Systems Thinking
in Action"" conference in Boston in 1992. He looked me straight in the eye and
asked ""do you approve of what's going on here?"" He clearly did not!

The next morning, I attended a breakfast meeting for overseas delegates. It was
lead by some USA facilitators (presumably to guide we poor overseas souls) and
comprised breakout groups who were asked to consider in half an hour (I recall)
a
topic ""how can we use 'new and brighter' systems thinking to achieve the world
we
yearn for?"". I do recall that there was a lot of yearning and no substance
whatsoever. Not a single person in my group of 15 people (even the facilitator)
had ever heard of SD - nor the SD Society. At that point I thought - what on
earth are otherwise apparently sane people doing here?

The ""systems thinking"" movement - thankfully - has expired. It made a bubble of
money for some people but did a lot of damage to SD in retrospect - and held
back
the true development of the field. And that kind of summarises my central
point.
As things stand, SD is capable of being highjacked by interest groups. Unless
and until SD organises around a professional body that defines its presence,
objectives and that promotes its central interests, it will always be vulnerable
to being used and abused.

This is like medicine and surgery in the 19th century. Any hick then could turn
up with a snake oil. Then a few enlightened people got together to define and
to
regulate good practise - and subsequently medicine has progressively built 'on
the shoulders of giants'.

Despite Forrester's reservations about SD being 'unfinished business' (of course
it is) - future development must surely be based on a professional approach.
The
SDS has thus far failed to take a lead.

Dare I say it? Perhaps it is precisely because Forrester and the MIT school
have
such a hold over the field, that SD has not matured much in the past 25 years.
That is indeed my own hypothesis.

Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
UK
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>
posting date Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:59:38 +0100
_______________________________________________

[Jack Harich <register@thwink.]

Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>

SDMAIL Dr John P Weldon wrote:
> Posted by Dr John P Weldon <corp_dyn@iimetro.com.au>
>
> In late 2007 I submitted to the academically-controlled SDS specific proposals
> about several specific professional SD applications, under the heading of
> developing the international influence and coverage of SD. I noted that gains
in
> SD's position, from the existing parlous situation, must come mainly from the
> professional side. The applications concerned could deliver significant, even
> spectacular, gains in SD's position and prospects.
>

Sounds productive. Could you post a summary of the applications and the
rationale
behind them?

> Ensuing SDS unresponsiveness to these proposals calls to mind the contemptuous
> manner in which SD itself has been excluded from international economic policy
by
> the macro-econometric orthodoxy for the past half century. Ending that
situation
> was one of my proposals.
>

Contemptuous? Perhaps you could give some examples that illustrate the norm, not
the exception.

I suspect that the deeper force at play here is the old versus new paradigm
explanation that Kuhn offered. The old paradigm of ""macro-economic orthodoxy""
has
accumulated far too many anomalies. In this case, econometric modeling did not
discover the sustainability problem. SD modeling did. But yet economists
*should*
have discovered it but was (and is?) incapable. Preventing economic collapse is,
after all, something they see as central to economics. A little professional
jealousy has apparently gotten out of hand.

When a new theory starts competing successfully with an established one, Kuhn
says to expect violent confrontation. This is what paradigm revolutions are all
about. It doesn't matter that the new theory is better. What matters to
followers
of the old theory (economics can do it all) is their world view is being
challenged by an uppity wild new tool (SD can provide some of the key insights
needed) that couldn't possibly be more than mildly useful. Thus any serious
challengers must be attacked. So when LTG appeared, the system reacted just as
Kuhn predicted it would.

If the Society develops a good strategy it can accelerate the paradigm
revolution
stage of the Kuhn cycle.

> There is a debate in these pages. However, it appears relatively unfocused and
> unstructured.

I'm new to the list, but I've noticed the same thing. There's no sense of
continuity or long term direction on the list. It has me puzzled. Looking at
http://www.systemdynamics.org/other_res ... ListServes
I see that: ""The purpose of the System Dynamics Mailing List is to promote
discussion around issues in building and using System Dynamics models.""

This policy appears to be dated. The list is being used for discussing whatever
people want to discuss. It appears to serve no organized, productive purpose,
unlike most forums or lists associated with organizations.

I can't help but to see the list's problems as symptomatic of the Society's
problems. SD does have great potential. I'm glad the new strategy initiative is
underway. Perhaps that will consider your proposal ""about several specific
professional SD applications.""

Thanks,

Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:21:56 -0400
_______________________________________________