Posted by ""Johann Heymann"" <johann.heymann@fdg.co.za>
Bill
Thank you for your response.
I used PMP only as an example. We are involved in Business Inteligence
implementations and have found the agile approach that you refer to by far
more suitable than the waterfall approach. Obviously it should merit
serious consideration in the PM community and in particular the PMI. Thus,
in my view, the PM community has some distance to travel still. It does,
however not invalidate the concept of a body of knowledge.
Again, a body of knowledge would evolve over time with diverse inputs from
many sources withibn the SD community. The content, format and extent will
by established by participants. Certification should obviously be
indicative of potential capability, as do a formal academic qualification.
It would never be a substitute for delivery of results.
Regarding a maturity model: I would imagine that a multi-level
certification, again similar to an academic process, would be useful. This
should also include experience, of course.
I hope this adds value.
Kind Regards
_______________________________________________
Johann Heymann
FIFTH DISCIPLINE CONSULTING (PTY) LTD
Posted by ""Johann Heymann"" <johann.heymann@fdg.co.za>
posting date Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:13:51 +0200
_______________________________________________
QUERY Society Strategy Development
-
""Johann Heymann"" <johann.he
- Junior Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
-
Jack Harich <jack@thwink.org&
- Junior Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by Jack Harich <jack@thwink.org>
Goal/vision brainstorming has now gone on for 3 months. The Society
Strategy Development thread started on April 1. But compared to how this
is done in the business world, our work has not been productive. We have
no high quality work output. There is no trend in this direction. (This
is not to reflect on the work done by Kim. It's that getting a widely
varied set of volunteers to collaborate virtually is just plain hard.)
Hence the purpose of this thread is to discuss how we can improve our
goal setting process.
In 1979 I attended a two day goal setting conference of about 30 small
business managers. The purpose was to set the high level goals for a new
corporation, which was a non-profit cooperative. The attendees were its
founding members. This was in the US. The managers came from a 6 state
area in the Southeast.
The goal setting part of the conference was facilitated by an
experienced outside moderator. He had no trouble helping the group end
up with a mission statement and an organized list of goals in several
operational areas. There was a tremendous sense of success and
togetherness, because everyone's input had been used and everyone had
seen the initial suggestions, which were weak, evolve into strong,
executable goals.
The goal setting part of the conference took about 8 hours. (Half the
time!) It was hard work. The new corporation went on to become so
successful it opened its membership up to additional types of members.
All high level goals were achieved.
The facilitator used this goal setting process:
1. State the type of goal being created. These were mission, membership
services, product line, quality goals, etc. The process started with
mission and discovered the other goal types as we went along.
2. Brainstorm possible goals. No judgment or discussion, just list them.
This encourages creativity and participation. The only discussion was to
always summarize the (sometimes long) suggestions into a clear single
sentence or two, which was then written down.
3. Once we had a long list, it was then organized into types of goals.
The group then split up into smaller groups to refine the goals in each
type. Later they split up into specific goals, related goals, goal
integration, etc. The groups were selected at random except there was at
least one expert in each group familiar with the task of the group.
4. The small groups then reported back to the full group. For goal
types, their work output was a smaller list of refined goals, and a list
of pros and cons on the quality of the goals.
5. The process iterated until we had all the goal types we needed and
the goals in each type were high quality. Quality means easily
understood, achievable, value oriented, measurable, and well integrated
into an overall vision.
There were no solutions posing as goals in the final list, only customer
or member oriented needs that need to be solved later.
See this page: http://www.nps.gov/phso/rtcatoolbox/dec_goalsetting.htm
This describes a similar process. Notice the emphasis on refine, refine,
refine. This is what's not happening yet on the Society Strategy
Development thread. There is no sense of evolving anything. There is
only encouragement to list more goals. This is not productive after an
ample number have been listed.
Allow me to make a few suggestions:
1. The two processes above tell me that we need to stop asking for more
goal/vision suggestions. We need to do what the above processes do:
iteratively refine them.
2. Even before that, we need to agree on a minimal goal setting process.
It can start simple and evolve as needed.
3. Most of the goals listed so far are solutions. This is a trap. It
causes more harm than good, because it frames subsequent thinking. We
become biased toward intuitively attractive but (usually) low leverage
solutions. Better would be to first analyze, find the root causes, then
find the high leverage points, and only then brainstorm on how to push
on those high leverage points with solution strategies. Ironically, the
is the same trap that SD is supposed to help prevent.
4. Use the SD Wiki or website to list the evolving goals. Use a link to
the pertinent pages in list messages. This gives us a visible concept to
easily refer to and help evolve. When we're done, the work output is
then automatically already captured and published.
Hope this helps,
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <jack@thwink.org>
posting date Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:57:53 -0400
_______________________________________________
Goal/vision brainstorming has now gone on for 3 months. The Society
Strategy Development thread started on April 1. But compared to how this
is done in the business world, our work has not been productive. We have
no high quality work output. There is no trend in this direction. (This
is not to reflect on the work done by Kim. It's that getting a widely
varied set of volunteers to collaborate virtually is just plain hard.)
Hence the purpose of this thread is to discuss how we can improve our
goal setting process.
In 1979 I attended a two day goal setting conference of about 30 small
business managers. The purpose was to set the high level goals for a new
corporation, which was a non-profit cooperative. The attendees were its
founding members. This was in the US. The managers came from a 6 state
area in the Southeast.
The goal setting part of the conference was facilitated by an
experienced outside moderator. He had no trouble helping the group end
up with a mission statement and an organized list of goals in several
operational areas. There was a tremendous sense of success and
togetherness, because everyone's input had been used and everyone had
seen the initial suggestions, which were weak, evolve into strong,
executable goals.
The goal setting part of the conference took about 8 hours. (Half the
time!) It was hard work. The new corporation went on to become so
successful it opened its membership up to additional types of members.
All high level goals were achieved.
The facilitator used this goal setting process:
1. State the type of goal being created. These were mission, membership
services, product line, quality goals, etc. The process started with
mission and discovered the other goal types as we went along.
2. Brainstorm possible goals. No judgment or discussion, just list them.
This encourages creativity and participation. The only discussion was to
always summarize the (sometimes long) suggestions into a clear single
sentence or two, which was then written down.
3. Once we had a long list, it was then organized into types of goals.
The group then split up into smaller groups to refine the goals in each
type. Later they split up into specific goals, related goals, goal
integration, etc. The groups were selected at random except there was at
least one expert in each group familiar with the task of the group.
4. The small groups then reported back to the full group. For goal
types, their work output was a smaller list of refined goals, and a list
of pros and cons on the quality of the goals.
5. The process iterated until we had all the goal types we needed and
the goals in each type were high quality. Quality means easily
understood, achievable, value oriented, measurable, and well integrated
into an overall vision.
There were no solutions posing as goals in the final list, only customer
or member oriented needs that need to be solved later.
See this page: http://www.nps.gov/phso/rtcatoolbox/dec_goalsetting.htm
This describes a similar process. Notice the emphasis on refine, refine,
refine. This is what's not happening yet on the Society Strategy
Development thread. There is no sense of evolving anything. There is
only encouragement to list more goals. This is not productive after an
ample number have been listed.
Allow me to make a few suggestions:
1. The two processes above tell me that we need to stop asking for more
goal/vision suggestions. We need to do what the above processes do:
iteratively refine them.
2. Even before that, we need to agree on a minimal goal setting process.
It can start simple and evolve as needed.
3. Most of the goals listed so far are solutions. This is a trap. It
causes more harm than good, because it frames subsequent thinking. We
become biased toward intuitively attractive but (usually) low leverage
solutions. Better would be to first analyze, find the root causes, then
find the high leverage points, and only then brainstorm on how to push
on those high leverage points with solution strategies. Ironically, the
is the same trap that SD is supposed to help prevent.
4. Use the SD Wiki or website to list the evolving goals. Use a link to
the pertinent pages in list messages. This gives us a visible concept to
easily refer to and help evolve. When we're done, the work output is
then automatically already captured and published.
Hope this helps,
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <jack@thwink.org>
posting date Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:57:53 -0400
_______________________________________________
-
Carl Betterton <carlb@uga.edu
- Junior Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by Carl Betterton <carlb@uga.edu>
In reply to Bill Harris, who asked of Johann Heymann:
> May I ask why?
I don't intend to answer for Johann, but suggest that a published SD
body of knowledge (BOK) (perhaps along with certification) might confer
benefits similar to the following:
* Offer prospective SD students, together with their parents,
teachers, counselors, and advisers, a glimpse of the importance of SD
and of the breadth of opportunities it offers;
* Assist SD and other faculty members in designing curricula,
creating and modifying courses, and teaching and mentoring students;
* Offer researchers ideas on future directions of SD and related
needs and define the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that should be
imparted to students seeking to pursue a career in SD research;
* Provide SD students and beginning SD practitioners with a
framework against which they can understand the purpose, measure the
progress, and plan the completion of their studies and pre-certification
experience;
* Give leaders of the SD Society or other oversight organization and
those who work with them a basis for developing appropriate
accreditation criteria for SD curricula;
* Tell employers what they can expect in terms of basic knowledge,
skills, and attitudes from SD majors or graduates;
* Suggest to SD professionals how they can assist SD beginners
attain the additional levels of expertise needed to enter the practice
of SD at the professional level;
* Provide certifying bodies with confidence that the formal
education and pre-certification experience of SD practitioners will meet
the SD profession’s responsibility to the public for ethical and
competent practice.
* Serve as a focal point for continuous improvement in the BOK itself.
A BOK is not fixed, but evolves with the field. Anyone can write a book
about SD, but a BOK requires just the sort of agreement that we have
seen is so difficult, with goals and strategy for example. The PM (or
any other) BOK does not include everything that everyone believes it
should contain; but it includes some things that everyone agrees upon,
things ""generally recognized"" as ""good practice."" It is a start, not an
end point. The 3rd Edition of the Guide to the PM BOK does indeed refer
to critical chain methodology, but my recollection is that the first
edition did not. There is a process for updating the BOK; the committee,
contributors, and reviewers consisted of over 120 people for the 3rd
edition.
Integrate PRINCE2 with PMBOK? What a nice thought as it applies to SD -
how good it would be if we had a SD BOK developed in the UK and another
developed in the US (or India, Japan, etc). You must know that there is
much in the two approaches that is quite similar - the basics of
defining, initiating, controlling, etc. a project. And if I know PRINCE2
well, I will have little difficulty making a transition to PMBOK.
Yes, project management is a process, but applied engineering (control
theory or any other) is also a process; design is a process. Developing
and agreeing upon a BOK is a process. A BOK is a manifesto that says,
""this much we (as a society) agree on."" One of the problems with the SD
Society (in my view) is that its members can't seem to agree on what it
is, or should be. In other words, there is no minimal agreed, and
published, body of knowledge. I suspect SD people do not want to be
""tied down"" to any set of rules or standards that a published BOK would
imply. Bill's concern with ""codifying"" SD reminds me of the debates that
have raged in the building code community for a century. Some argue that
such codes restrict creativity and add to cost, and they do for the best
designers, but for others they prevent mistakes and enforce
fundamentals. I see codes (or a BOK) not as focused on the past, but
serving as a relatively stable launch platform in a dynamic present that
helps aim for an uncertain future.
There was a time when we did not have project managers, or even
""managers"" by that title. It was more rapid change and greater
complexity that produced the need for project managers, and the need was
there before there were people recognized as ""project managers."" It may
well be that change and complexity demand SD knowledge and skill, but
the need is not yet widely recognized, partly because there is no
published SD BOK - which would along with benefits listed above, embody
a bold and recognizable prescription for many of the current ills that
we endure.
By the way, the list of benefits above is an edited version of the
benefits given by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for its
civil engineering BOK publication
http://pubs.asce.org/magazines/ascenews ... /news3.htm.
Best regards,
Carl
Posted by Carl Betterton <carlb@uga.edu>
posting date Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:57:09 -0400
_______________________________________________
In reply to Bill Harris, who asked of Johann Heymann:
> May I ask why?
I don't intend to answer for Johann, but suggest that a published SD
body of knowledge (BOK) (perhaps along with certification) might confer
benefits similar to the following:
* Offer prospective SD students, together with their parents,
teachers, counselors, and advisers, a glimpse of the importance of SD
and of the breadth of opportunities it offers;
* Assist SD and other faculty members in designing curricula,
creating and modifying courses, and teaching and mentoring students;
* Offer researchers ideas on future directions of SD and related
needs and define the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that should be
imparted to students seeking to pursue a career in SD research;
* Provide SD students and beginning SD practitioners with a
framework against which they can understand the purpose, measure the
progress, and plan the completion of their studies and pre-certification
experience;
* Give leaders of the SD Society or other oversight organization and
those who work with them a basis for developing appropriate
accreditation criteria for SD curricula;
* Tell employers what they can expect in terms of basic knowledge,
skills, and attitudes from SD majors or graduates;
* Suggest to SD professionals how they can assist SD beginners
attain the additional levels of expertise needed to enter the practice
of SD at the professional level;
* Provide certifying bodies with confidence that the formal
education and pre-certification experience of SD practitioners will meet
the SD profession’s responsibility to the public for ethical and
competent practice.
* Serve as a focal point for continuous improvement in the BOK itself.
A BOK is not fixed, but evolves with the field. Anyone can write a book
about SD, but a BOK requires just the sort of agreement that we have
seen is so difficult, with goals and strategy for example. The PM (or
any other) BOK does not include everything that everyone believes it
should contain; but it includes some things that everyone agrees upon,
things ""generally recognized"" as ""good practice."" It is a start, not an
end point. The 3rd Edition of the Guide to the PM BOK does indeed refer
to critical chain methodology, but my recollection is that the first
edition did not. There is a process for updating the BOK; the committee,
contributors, and reviewers consisted of over 120 people for the 3rd
edition.
Integrate PRINCE2 with PMBOK? What a nice thought as it applies to SD -
how good it would be if we had a SD BOK developed in the UK and another
developed in the US (or India, Japan, etc). You must know that there is
much in the two approaches that is quite similar - the basics of
defining, initiating, controlling, etc. a project. And if I know PRINCE2
well, I will have little difficulty making a transition to PMBOK.
Yes, project management is a process, but applied engineering (control
theory or any other) is also a process; design is a process. Developing
and agreeing upon a BOK is a process. A BOK is a manifesto that says,
""this much we (as a society) agree on."" One of the problems with the SD
Society (in my view) is that its members can't seem to agree on what it
is, or should be. In other words, there is no minimal agreed, and
published, body of knowledge. I suspect SD people do not want to be
""tied down"" to any set of rules or standards that a published BOK would
imply. Bill's concern with ""codifying"" SD reminds me of the debates that
have raged in the building code community for a century. Some argue that
such codes restrict creativity and add to cost, and they do for the best
designers, but for others they prevent mistakes and enforce
fundamentals. I see codes (or a BOK) not as focused on the past, but
serving as a relatively stable launch platform in a dynamic present that
helps aim for an uncertain future.
There was a time when we did not have project managers, or even
""managers"" by that title. It was more rapid change and greater
complexity that produced the need for project managers, and the need was
there before there were people recognized as ""project managers."" It may
well be that change and complexity demand SD knowledge and skill, but
the need is not yet widely recognized, partly because there is no
published SD BOK - which would along with benefits listed above, embody
a bold and recognizable prescription for many of the current ills that
we endure.
By the way, the list of benefits above is an edited version of the
benefits given by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) for its
civil engineering BOK publication
http://pubs.asce.org/magazines/ascenews ... /news3.htm.
Best regards,
Carl
Posted by Carl Betterton <carlb@uga.edu>
posting date Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:57:09 -0400
_______________________________________________
-
""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategyd
- Member
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
This is indeed helpful Jack. It is very close to the process we
attempted to initiate in April. It is of course complexified by the
diffuse and distributed nature of our community, but the principles are
still sound [even though we don't have the opportunity to get the
hundreds of Society members and thousands of other stakeholders in one
room for 8 hours!].
Unfortunately, we have not yet moved beyond the brainstorming stage. I
would have moved us on long ago, had we received anything like the
number and scope of suggestions that might seem to represent passable
coverage of the community's interests. If we kill brainstorming now, we
would be processing a badly incomplete and partial set of prospective
objectives [by 'partial' I mean that whole domains of SD work are
under-represented]. The risk is we would end up with a set of
priorities, and a strategy for achieving them that no-one buys into.
I do intend, as soon as I can carve out a few hours, to get a report
back out to everyone on where the contributions so far have got us to. I
have them all, and in a somewhat organised form. Please bear with me a
short while.
Kim Warren
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:38 +0100
_______________________________________________
This is indeed helpful Jack. It is very close to the process we
attempted to initiate in April. It is of course complexified by the
diffuse and distributed nature of our community, but the principles are
still sound [even though we don't have the opportunity to get the
hundreds of Society members and thousands of other stakeholders in one
room for 8 hours!].
Unfortunately, we have not yet moved beyond the brainstorming stage. I
would have moved us on long ago, had we received anything like the
number and scope of suggestions that might seem to represent passable
coverage of the community's interests. If we kill brainstorming now, we
would be processing a badly incomplete and partial set of prospective
objectives [by 'partial' I mean that whole domains of SD work are
under-represented]. The risk is we would end up with a set of
priorities, and a strategy for achieving them that no-one buys into.
I do intend, as soon as I can carve out a few hours, to get a report
back out to everyone on where the contributions so far have got us to. I
have them all, and in a somewhat organised form. Please bear with me a
short while.
Kim Warren
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Tue, 1 Jul 2008 17:45:38 +0100
_______________________________________________
-
""nickols@att.net"" <nickols@
- Junior Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by ""nickols@att.net"" <nickols@att.net>
Bill Harris writes in part:
> > I realize I probably sound change-resistant in saying this, and I am
> > seriously curious as to the reasoning for your suggestions. I suspect
> > it's the belief that we, as PMs and others, can market ourselves if we
> > can only point to certain people and say, ""They're good (certified) at
> > this."" Yet most managers knew they needed PMs or PM skills; I don't
> > think they've broadly figured out they need SDers yet.
> >
> > Thoughts?
Yes, I have some thoughts.
Ultimately, this thread (for me) traces to what I call ""the Rodney Dangerfield
syndrome"" (i.e., ""we don't get no respect""). Many reasons for the lack of fame
and fortune making their way to SD's (and SDers') doors have been posited and
all
of them probably have merit.
I'd like to add one more to the mix...
First a little story.
Many years ago I was hired by Bell Labs to take a look at the then Ma Bell's
systems development process. The presentation of my findings was titled
""Systems
Development: No Place for People."" I chose that title because my examination of
the old Ma Bell's systems development process revealed that the human side of
enterprise was conspicuously absent. Essentially, what could be shoved into a
computer system was shoved in there and human beings were left to figure out how
to cope with the result. To be sure and to be truthful, the systems development
process did have a stage in it that purported to deal with the allocation of
tasks/work between people and the computer but, in operation, it boiled down to
what I just said: what could be programmed was programmed and people were
expected to deal with the rest of it.
When I look at System Dynamics (SD) - and I look at it every now and then -
people are conspicuously absent from it, too. It's all about dynamics and loops
and feedback and stocks and flows but it's not about people. Systems Dynamics,
like systems development, is not homo-centric nor, for that matter, are people
accorded prominence in SD. Yet, I can practically guarantee you that the lion's
share of managers and executives are focused on people and their behavior. One
of the long-standing problems in a related field - that of performance
improvement - is that of managers blaming people for performance problems and,
more often than not, reaching for training as the immediate fix. Yet, people
are
rarely the problem; usually it's the system in which they are embedded and that
is typically a work process of some kind or another. (And, yes, SD comes into
play there.)
So, were you to ask me how I might usefully and productively draw managers'
attention to SD, interest them in it, and demonstrate to them its value, I would
reply, ""Show 'em how SD can be used to address 'people problems'.""
As I see it, clearly demonstrating the applicability of SD to the human side of
enterprise is one of the strategic issues facing the society and its
practitioners.
--
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
Posted by ""nickols@att.net"" <nickols@att.net>
posting date Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:37:30 +0000
_______________________________________________
Bill Harris writes in part:
> > I realize I probably sound change-resistant in saying this, and I am
> > seriously curious as to the reasoning for your suggestions. I suspect
> > it's the belief that we, as PMs and others, can market ourselves if we
> > can only point to certain people and say, ""They're good (certified) at
> > this."" Yet most managers knew they needed PMs or PM skills; I don't
> > think they've broadly figured out they need SDers yet.
> >
> > Thoughts?
Yes, I have some thoughts.
Ultimately, this thread (for me) traces to what I call ""the Rodney Dangerfield
syndrome"" (i.e., ""we don't get no respect""). Many reasons for the lack of fame
and fortune making their way to SD's (and SDers') doors have been posited and
all
of them probably have merit.
I'd like to add one more to the mix...
First a little story.
Many years ago I was hired by Bell Labs to take a look at the then Ma Bell's
systems development process. The presentation of my findings was titled
""Systems
Development: No Place for People."" I chose that title because my examination of
the old Ma Bell's systems development process revealed that the human side of
enterprise was conspicuously absent. Essentially, what could be shoved into a
computer system was shoved in there and human beings were left to figure out how
to cope with the result. To be sure and to be truthful, the systems development
process did have a stage in it that purported to deal with the allocation of
tasks/work between people and the computer but, in operation, it boiled down to
what I just said: what could be programmed was programmed and people were
expected to deal with the rest of it.
When I look at System Dynamics (SD) - and I look at it every now and then -
people are conspicuously absent from it, too. It's all about dynamics and loops
and feedback and stocks and flows but it's not about people. Systems Dynamics,
like systems development, is not homo-centric nor, for that matter, are people
accorded prominence in SD. Yet, I can practically guarantee you that the lion's
share of managers and executives are focused on people and their behavior. One
of the long-standing problems in a related field - that of performance
improvement - is that of managers blaming people for performance problems and,
more often than not, reaching for training as the immediate fix. Yet, people
are
rarely the problem; usually it's the system in which they are embedded and that
is typically a work process of some kind or another. (And, yes, SD comes into
play there.)
So, were you to ask me how I might usefully and productively draw managers'
attention to SD, interest them in it, and demonstrate to them its value, I would
reply, ""Show 'em how SD can be used to address 'people problems'.""
As I see it, clearly demonstrating the applicability of SD to the human side of
enterprise is one of the strategic issues facing the society and its
practitioners.
--
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Managing Partner
Distance Consulting, LLC
Posted by ""nickols@att.net"" <nickols@att.net>
posting date Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:37:30 +0000
_______________________________________________
-
""ing. Augusto Carena - Dharma s
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by ""ing. Augusto Carena - Dharma srl"" <dharma@dharmaconsulting.net>
Maybe I couldn't read carefully all replies in the thread, so if I
duplicate other ideas, I apologize in advance.
My humble suggestion is the following:
Why not trying to face the problem in a sort of ""SD style"", I mean
building a cooperative model (or models, or even antagonist models) of
SD devlopment, trying to formally identify and understand the underlying
dynamics?
While I understand that is not too orthodox doing it without a clear
statement of goals (very ehterogeneous, as far as I can see), and I'm
aware of the risk of starting a Babel Tower project, it seems to me that
the process itself, and the methodological questions it would raise,
could be useful to generate hints, verify feasibility, and clarify the
different positions through a common and shared (I hope) language.
Best regards
Augusto Carena
Posted by ""ing. Augusto Carena - Dharma srl"" <dharma@dharmaconsulting.net>
posting date Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:41 +0200
_______________________________________________
Maybe I couldn't read carefully all replies in the thread, so if I
duplicate other ideas, I apologize in advance.
My humble suggestion is the following:
Why not trying to face the problem in a sort of ""SD style"", I mean
building a cooperative model (or models, or even antagonist models) of
SD devlopment, trying to formally identify and understand the underlying
dynamics?
While I understand that is not too orthodox doing it without a clear
statement of goals (very ehterogeneous, as far as I can see), and I'm
aware of the risk of starting a Babel Tower project, it seems to me that
the process itself, and the methodological questions it would raise,
could be useful to generate hints, verify feasibility, and clarify the
different positions through a common and shared (I hope) language.
Best regards
Augusto Carena
Posted by ""ing. Augusto Carena - Dharma srl"" <dharma@dharmaconsulting.net>
posting date Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:41 +0200
_______________________________________________
-
""John Gunkler"" <johngunkler
- Junior Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <johngunkler@comcast.net>
I support the development of a minimal set of knowledge and tools (a body of
knowledge) for SD. With all due respect, Bill (Harris), how is this in any
way ""limiting?"" Yes, a BOK takes a field down to its least common
denominators -- but that doesn't define the boundaries of the field, merely
the minimal components. It is primarily helpful to those who are starting
out to learn and would make no claim to completeness. It can also be
changed as we learn and mature.
On the other hand, I can see that your concerns about certification
(expressed by many others on this list in the past) might cause you to
oppose the creation of a BOK -- because it's a fairly easy step from a BOK
to a BOK-based certification process. Is that your real concern?
John Gunkler
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <johngunkler@comcast.net>
posting date Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:27:59 -0400
_______________________________________________
I support the development of a minimal set of knowledge and tools (a body of
knowledge) for SD. With all due respect, Bill (Harris), how is this in any
way ""limiting?"" Yes, a BOK takes a field down to its least common
denominators -- but that doesn't define the boundaries of the field, merely
the minimal components. It is primarily helpful to those who are starting
out to learn and would make no claim to completeness. It can also be
changed as we learn and mature.
On the other hand, I can see that your concerns about certification
(expressed by many others on this list in the past) might cause you to
oppose the creation of a BOK -- because it's a fairly easy step from a BOK
to a BOK-based certification process. Is that your real concern?
John Gunkler
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <johngunkler@comcast.net>
posting date Tue, 1 Jul 2008 08:27:59 -0400
_______________________________________________
-
<richard.dudley@attglobal.net
- Member
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by <Richard.Dudley@attglobal.net>
It might indeed be worthwhile for readers to review the comments in
Forrester's 2007 paper in thinking about the society's strategy. Two
responses to that paper, one by Jack Homer and another by Yaman Barlas
(both in SDR Winter 2007) also deserve examination. Both of these responses
emphasize the need to have quality communication with scientific and
technical communities. This is done both through high quality work and by
maintaining long term commitments to working in, and understanding, the
fields of application in which the SD work is carried out.
In the past the consultancy approach has worked well (e.g. Roberts SDR
summer/fall 2007) because those SD practitioners also had a background in
business having come, to a large extent, from business schools, and the
business realm was where much of the consulting work in SD was done. But
extending this approach to other fields will be different for reasons
pointed out by both Barlas and Homer: for lasting impact and influence one
needs to fully understand, or even be a part of, the field of application.
Thus, it may be sensible to consider Barlas' idea of promoting the housing
of SD academic programs in something like 'systems science' departments.
These could offer a major courses of study (for system dynamics
professionals) and minor courses of study for those with majors in technical
and other fields. That is, a two pronged approach.
Thus one goal of the society's strategy (in terms of higher education) would
be to promote both high quality professional training in system dynamics and
also provide high quality system dynamics modeling training to professionals
in other fields.
Of course this is easy to say, but harder to accomplish. Nevertheless, many
larger universities have beginning level systems type courses scattered
throughout various departments. Seemingly the need for these courses is
apparent. The next step is the coordination of these course offerings
(which I assume has been attempted) across departmental lines.
Perhaps some who are already involved in this type of approach would like to
comment?
Richard
Posted by <Richard.Dudley@attglobal.net>
posting date Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:18:30 +0700
_______________________________________________
It might indeed be worthwhile for readers to review the comments in
Forrester's 2007 paper in thinking about the society's strategy. Two
responses to that paper, one by Jack Homer and another by Yaman Barlas
(both in SDR Winter 2007) also deserve examination. Both of these responses
emphasize the need to have quality communication with scientific and
technical communities. This is done both through high quality work and by
maintaining long term commitments to working in, and understanding, the
fields of application in which the SD work is carried out.
In the past the consultancy approach has worked well (e.g. Roberts SDR
summer/fall 2007) because those SD practitioners also had a background in
business having come, to a large extent, from business schools, and the
business realm was where much of the consulting work in SD was done. But
extending this approach to other fields will be different for reasons
pointed out by both Barlas and Homer: for lasting impact and influence one
needs to fully understand, or even be a part of, the field of application.
Thus, it may be sensible to consider Barlas' idea of promoting the housing
of SD academic programs in something like 'systems science' departments.
These could offer a major courses of study (for system dynamics
professionals) and minor courses of study for those with majors in technical
and other fields. That is, a two pronged approach.
Thus one goal of the society's strategy (in terms of higher education) would
be to promote both high quality professional training in system dynamics and
also provide high quality system dynamics modeling training to professionals
in other fields.
Of course this is easy to say, but harder to accomplish. Nevertheless, many
larger universities have beginning level systems type courses scattered
throughout various departments. Seemingly the need for these courses is
apparent. The next step is the coordination of these course offerings
(which I assume has been attempted) across departmental lines.
Perhaps some who are already involved in this type of approach would like to
comment?
Richard
Posted by <Richard.Dudley@attglobal.net>
posting date Wed, 2 Jul 2008 08:18:30 +0700
_______________________________________________
-
""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategyd
- Member
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
Thanks Jack - I know there are great processes for brainstorming with
groups, and were it possible both time-wise and physically to do it,
they would be great. However, the challenges I mentioned before remain.
I have asked 3 times now for inputs to the 'divergent' phase of your
process - what would be good aims for SD - with little response. How
effective would the sessions you experienced have been if most of the
audience had just sat in their chairs and said nothing when the
facilitator started each phase of the process?
The problem I raised before therefore remains - if we start your
divergent/convergent phases with a badly incomplete set of raw inputs,
then we will very, very likely converge on things most people don't buy
into. It does not need to be like this - I have mentioned before a very
similar project running right now with another professional body, which
is part-way through the three phases of [a] where are we going what
do we need to build to get there [c] what do we have to do to build
those things. I will try to get permission to share some of that work
shortly.
But our situation is not totally bad - the responses include many good
suggestions that directly address the question of where the community
could be trying to get to. I will shortly be posting information on a
synthesis of what we have collected to date [all of it, not just my view
of the best elements], and next steps.
Kim Warren
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:40:14 +0100
_______________________________________________
Thanks Jack - I know there are great processes for brainstorming with
groups, and were it possible both time-wise and physically to do it,
they would be great. However, the challenges I mentioned before remain.
I have asked 3 times now for inputs to the 'divergent' phase of your
process - what would be good aims for SD - with little response. How
effective would the sessions you experienced have been if most of the
audience had just sat in their chairs and said nothing when the
facilitator started each phase of the process?
The problem I raised before therefore remains - if we start your
divergent/convergent phases with a badly incomplete set of raw inputs,
then we will very, very likely converge on things most people don't buy
into. It does not need to be like this - I have mentioned before a very
similar project running right now with another professional body, which
is part-way through the three phases of [a] where are we going what
do we need to build to get there [c] what do we have to do to build
those things. I will try to get permission to share some of that work
shortly.
But our situation is not totally bad - the responses include many good
suggestions that directly address the question of where the community
could be trying to get to. I will shortly be posting information on a
synthesis of what we have collected to date [all of it, not just my view
of the best elements], and next steps.
Kim Warren
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Thu, 3 Jul 2008 09:40:14 +0100
_______________________________________________
-
""John Gunkler"" <johngunkler
- Junior Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <johngunkler@comcast.net>
Bill and List,
As I wrote in an earlier post, ""variance reduction"" is precisely what I
think we may need in order to grow from here. IF (and it's a big ""if"") I'm
right about where SD is in our phases of growth, we're poised at the
transition between Phase I and Phase II. Which means that what we need is
standardization of practices, variance reduction if you will, in order to
feed a period of exponential growth.
The fact that those who helped found a field favor diversity in thinking is
what got us to this point; but it doesn't mean it is the best attitude for
going further. Why do you think so few true entrepreneurs make good
managers?
John
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <johngunkler@comcast.net>
posting date Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:18:58 -0400
_______________________________________________
Bill and List,
As I wrote in an earlier post, ""variance reduction"" is precisely what I
think we may need in order to grow from here. IF (and it's a big ""if"") I'm
right about where SD is in our phases of growth, we're poised at the
transition between Phase I and Phase II. Which means that what we need is
standardization of practices, variance reduction if you will, in order to
feed a period of exponential growth.
The fact that those who helped found a field favor diversity in thinking is
what got us to this point; but it doesn't mean it is the best attitude for
going further. Why do you think so few true entrepreneurs make good
managers?
John
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <johngunkler@comcast.net>
posting date Wed, 2 Jul 2008 14:18:58 -0400
_______________________________________________
-
""Louis Macovsky"" <dynbiosys
- Junior Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by ""Louis Macovsky"" <dynbiosys@verizon.net>
It seems to me that Jay Forrester has already (as is usually the case) shown us
the way to integrate SD/ST into society and professional disciplines. As I see
it, he points us toward K-12 education as the key piece of the system that you
are discussing.
In the words of Michael J. Radzicki, Ph.D. ""During the last twenty years, Jay
Forrester's attention has been focused
primarily in two areas: 1) the creation of a system dynamics model of the United
States economy, and 2) the extension of system dynamics training to kindergarten
through high school education. Forrester sees the former project as leading to a
new approach to economic science and a fundamental understanding of the way
macroeconomic systems work. He views the latter
project as crucial, not only for the future health of the field of system
dynamics, but also for the future health of human society.""
Go back and reread the word ""crucial.""
See http://207.44.232.77/conferences/2002/p ... tuntz1.pdf
THE FUTURE OF SYSTEM DYNAMICS AND LEARNER-CENTERED LEARNING IN K-12
EDUCATION
I could search my computer's library for references and citations but I think we
all know that Jay has repeatedly stressed SD/ST education at the k-12 level and
its ramifications for the future of System Dynamics.
If we are going to fill university system science departments with students
interested in studying and applying the system dynamics ""paradigm"" which will
result after the appropriate delay in a surge of professionals using the
""paradigm,"" we must educate, support, and FUND (repeat emphasis...FUND) teachers
who will teach SD/ST at the k-12 level.
Imagine students asking their parents for help, showing off their work to their
peers, parents and communities (SymFest, Dynamiquest, and others)...parents and
community would become INFECTED. Build the EPIEDEMIC MODEL and perhaps the
delay will be much shorter than would otherwise be predicted for the permeation
of SD into professional societies as well as general society.
We would all like to be funded and have our work appreciated and sought after
now, but it probably won't happen until SD/ST is infused into standard
curriculum
at the k-12 and then university levels. We will struggle but perhaps the next
generation will build on what we are trying to do now and it won't be too late
for them.
The SD Society needs to move K12 educational support and funding to the top of
its list of priorities.
My 2 cents.
Lou
Louis Macovsky, DVM, MS
Dynamic BioSystems, LLC
28695 SW Sandalwood Dr.
Wilsonville, OR 97070
Posted by ""Louis Macovsky"" <dynbiosys@verizon.net>
posting date Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:33:43 -0700
_______________________________________________
It seems to me that Jay Forrester has already (as is usually the case) shown us
the way to integrate SD/ST into society and professional disciplines. As I see
it, he points us toward K-12 education as the key piece of the system that you
are discussing.
In the words of Michael J. Radzicki, Ph.D. ""During the last twenty years, Jay
Forrester's attention has been focused
primarily in two areas: 1) the creation of a system dynamics model of the United
States economy, and 2) the extension of system dynamics training to kindergarten
through high school education. Forrester sees the former project as leading to a
new approach to economic science and a fundamental understanding of the way
macroeconomic systems work. He views the latter
project as crucial, not only for the future health of the field of system
dynamics, but also for the future health of human society.""
Go back and reread the word ""crucial.""
See http://207.44.232.77/conferences/2002/p ... tuntz1.pdf
THE FUTURE OF SYSTEM DYNAMICS AND LEARNER-CENTERED LEARNING IN K-12
EDUCATION
I could search my computer's library for references and citations but I think we
all know that Jay has repeatedly stressed SD/ST education at the k-12 level and
its ramifications for the future of System Dynamics.
If we are going to fill university system science departments with students
interested in studying and applying the system dynamics ""paradigm"" which will
result after the appropriate delay in a surge of professionals using the
""paradigm,"" we must educate, support, and FUND (repeat emphasis...FUND) teachers
who will teach SD/ST at the k-12 level.
Imagine students asking their parents for help, showing off their work to their
peers, parents and communities (SymFest, Dynamiquest, and others)...parents and
community would become INFECTED. Build the EPIEDEMIC MODEL and perhaps the
delay will be much shorter than would otherwise be predicted for the permeation
of SD into professional societies as well as general society.
We would all like to be funded and have our work appreciated and sought after
now, but it probably won't happen until SD/ST is infused into standard
curriculum
at the k-12 and then university levels. We will struggle but perhaps the next
generation will build on what we are trying to do now and it won't be too late
for them.
The SD Society needs to move K12 educational support and funding to the top of
its list of priorities.
My 2 cents.
Lou
Louis Macovsky, DVM, MS
Dynamic BioSystems, LLC
28695 SW Sandalwood Dr.
Wilsonville, OR 97070
Posted by ""Louis Macovsky"" <dynbiosys@verizon.net>
posting date Wed, 02 Jul 2008 15:33:43 -0700
_______________________________________________
-
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
- Senior Member
- Posts: 51
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
""SDMAIL John Gunkler"" <johngunkler@comcast.net> writes:
> > I support the development of a minimal set of knowledge and tools (a body of
> > knowledge) for SD. With all due respect, Bill (Harris), how is this in any
> > way ""limiting?"" Yes, a BOK takes a field down to its least common
> > denominators -- but that doesn't define the boundaries of the field, merely
> > the minimal components. It is primarily helpful to those who are starting
> > out to learn and would make no claim to completeness. It can also be
> > changed as we learn and mature.
John,
True, but creating a BOK is IMHO a convergent, not a divergent,
activity. It's variance-reducing.
I admit to holding what some may see as self-contradictory thoughts. In
helping production processes inside one organization, I tend to favor
Deming's approach of reducing variance first and then moving the central
tendency. I _claim_ this is a different situation that calls for a
different approach.
In particular, Deming's approach doesn't advocate inter-company but only
intra-company variance reduction. We still have the variance between
companies that gives the free market the _opportunity_ to create
something better.
If the lack of a BOK was our problem, is the answer simple? Write one!
Many of us could do that. Of course, if I write one, you might write a
better one. I might be unhappy, but the field might be better off. In
fact, you might have only been inspired to write a better one because
you saw specific shortcomings in what I wrote.
Or, simpler and more efficiently (and effectively?), _declare_ one.
What about _Business Dynamics_? Or perhaps _Industrial Dynamics_? Or
_System Dynamics Modeling_? Or ...?
But I'm puzzled. I don't know of a math BOK or even a topology BOK, and
mathematicians seem to be doing okay. I don't know of a physics BOK. I
don't know of a circuit design BOK. How are we different from those
practitioners?
What I see critical in a BOK is not the accumulation of basic knowledge
in one place (I submit that _Business Dynamics_ or some of the other
good books in the field achieve that) but the desire to have a group of
those with power decide the content. Is the practice of SD a free
market, based on the competition of ideas and approaches, or is it a
guild, with limited entry and fixed processes? Is a BOK truly
competence enhancing, or is it competition reducing? Or does it have
aspects of both?
> > On the other hand, I can see that your concerns about certification
> > (expressed by many others on this list in the past) might cause you to
> > oppose the creation of a BOK -- because it's a fairly easy step from a BOK
> > to a BOK-based certification process. Is that your real concern?
That is probably a key component. I know people who have told me they
regard people with certifications as signaling that they don't feel
competent enough to stand on their own abilities, and that makes me a
bit nervous even as I recognize that's also a prejudice. More to the
point, I worry that creating certifications is yet another way to add a
non-essential, financial barrier to entry. See
http://facilitatedsystems.com/weblog/20 ... -well.html
for another's thoughts on the matter.
It's also that I think I am a bit of an eclectic learner (and think
others may be, too), and I think a bit (well, perhaps more than a bit)
of diversity is a good thing. I see focusing on learning a BOK as a
(possibly useful) time cost that reduces the time we have to generate
that diversity.
I hope I'm not arguing against competence in what we do. That is not my
intent. (Hopefully, if you were in any of my classes, you got that
message.
I think that our field, a field that's called on (or one that we _wish_
were called on more to puzzle through the tough, unusual problems of
the day that don't lend themselves to pattern-matching answers, needs a
diversity of approaches to be able to do that well.
Put another way, I see the cry for a BOK as an effort that could tend to
create strong disciplinary silos. I see today's world as needing good,
cross-disciplinary solutions. Much as people have decried silo-building
in business, I think it's important to avoid it in our work. To
complicate matters, I'll offer a partial definition of systems thinking
that aligns neither with Jay's nor with Barry's: systems thinking is an
umbrella term that includes both Jay's and Barry's ideas _as well as_
fields as divergent as soft systems, cultural-historical activity
theory, and many more. While we need specific skills in specific
subsets of systems thinking, we don't want thick walls between them.
Certifications in subsets of systems thinking (SD, SSM, etc.) could
have the effect of reducing one's ability to cross those boundaries in
the service of the client's or society's problem (if clients only hire
people certified in a field, does that limit my ability to reach out to
aspects of SSM or CHAT or ... if the problem indicates it without
spending the time and money to pass the test?).
Is the PMBOK and the PMP process special? I'm not a PMP, nor do I sell
my services as project management even though I've managed projects, so
I may not be well qualified to say, but I do perceive project management
is significantly about reducing variance in business systems, not about
solving wicked problems. My concerns about power, about delaying the
adoption of new ideas, and about barriers to entry still stand, but the
PMI may be able to address all of those.
Do I think all licensing and certifications are bad? No. For a simple
(and hopefully unemotional) example, take amateur radio licenses. While
I'm not a ham, I appreciate that they operate in a commons (the RF
spectrum), and I appreciate that licensing helps to ensure they don't
damage the commons we all use.
Okay, I've weighed in passionately. I recognize that reasonable people
can disagree on these issues; what do you think?
Bill
PS: I've written more than enough, but it strikes me that some of Glenda
Eoyang's CDE heuristic might help us think through this question. I'll
leave that to others here.
- --
Bill Harris
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:20:34 -0700
_______________________________________________
""SDMAIL John Gunkler"" <johngunkler@comcast.net> writes:
> > I support the development of a minimal set of knowledge and tools (a body of
> > knowledge) for SD. With all due respect, Bill (Harris), how is this in any
> > way ""limiting?"" Yes, a BOK takes a field down to its least common
> > denominators -- but that doesn't define the boundaries of the field, merely
> > the minimal components. It is primarily helpful to those who are starting
> > out to learn and would make no claim to completeness. It can also be
> > changed as we learn and mature.
John,
True, but creating a BOK is IMHO a convergent, not a divergent,
activity. It's variance-reducing.
I admit to holding what some may see as self-contradictory thoughts. In
helping production processes inside one organization, I tend to favor
Deming's approach of reducing variance first and then moving the central
tendency. I _claim_ this is a different situation that calls for a
different approach.
In particular, Deming's approach doesn't advocate inter-company but only
intra-company variance reduction. We still have the variance between
companies that gives the free market the _opportunity_ to create
something better.
If the lack of a BOK was our problem, is the answer simple? Write one!
Many of us could do that. Of course, if I write one, you might write a
better one. I might be unhappy, but the field might be better off. In
fact, you might have only been inspired to write a better one because
you saw specific shortcomings in what I wrote.
Or, simpler and more efficiently (and effectively?), _declare_ one.
What about _Business Dynamics_? Or perhaps _Industrial Dynamics_? Or
_System Dynamics Modeling_? Or ...?
But I'm puzzled. I don't know of a math BOK or even a topology BOK, and
mathematicians seem to be doing okay. I don't know of a physics BOK. I
don't know of a circuit design BOK. How are we different from those
practitioners?
What I see critical in a BOK is not the accumulation of basic knowledge
in one place (I submit that _Business Dynamics_ or some of the other
good books in the field achieve that) but the desire to have a group of
those with power decide the content. Is the practice of SD a free
market, based on the competition of ideas and approaches, or is it a
guild, with limited entry and fixed processes? Is a BOK truly
competence enhancing, or is it competition reducing? Or does it have
aspects of both?
> > On the other hand, I can see that your concerns about certification
> > (expressed by many others on this list in the past) might cause you to
> > oppose the creation of a BOK -- because it's a fairly easy step from a BOK
> > to a BOK-based certification process. Is that your real concern?
That is probably a key component. I know people who have told me they
regard people with certifications as signaling that they don't feel
competent enough to stand on their own abilities, and that makes me a
bit nervous even as I recognize that's also a prejudice. More to the
point, I worry that creating certifications is yet another way to add a
non-essential, financial barrier to entry. See
http://facilitatedsystems.com/weblog/20 ... -well.html
for another's thoughts on the matter.
It's also that I think I am a bit of an eclectic learner (and think
others may be, too), and I think a bit (well, perhaps more than a bit)
of diversity is a good thing. I see focusing on learning a BOK as a
(possibly useful) time cost that reduces the time we have to generate
that diversity.
I hope I'm not arguing against competence in what we do. That is not my
intent. (Hopefully, if you were in any of my classes, you got that
message.
I think that our field, a field that's called on (or one that we _wish_
were called on more
to puzzle through the tough, unusual problems ofthe day that don't lend themselves to pattern-matching answers, needs a
diversity of approaches to be able to do that well.
Put another way, I see the cry for a BOK as an effort that could tend to
create strong disciplinary silos. I see today's world as needing good,
cross-disciplinary solutions. Much as people have decried silo-building
in business, I think it's important to avoid it in our work. To
complicate matters, I'll offer a partial definition of systems thinking
that aligns neither with Jay's nor with Barry's: systems thinking is an
umbrella term that includes both Jay's and Barry's ideas _as well as_
fields as divergent as soft systems, cultural-historical activity
theory, and many more. While we need specific skills in specific
subsets of systems thinking, we don't want thick walls between them.
Certifications in subsets of systems thinking (SD, SSM, etc.) could
have the effect of reducing one's ability to cross those boundaries in
the service of the client's or society's problem (if clients only hire
people certified in a field, does that limit my ability to reach out to
aspects of SSM or CHAT or ... if the problem indicates it without
spending the time and money to pass the test?).
Is the PMBOK and the PMP process special? I'm not a PMP, nor do I sell
my services as project management even though I've managed projects, so
I may not be well qualified to say, but I do perceive project management
is significantly about reducing variance in business systems, not about
solving wicked problems. My concerns about power, about delaying the
adoption of new ideas, and about barriers to entry still stand, but the
PMI may be able to address all of those.
Do I think all licensing and certifications are bad? No. For a simple
(and hopefully unemotional) example, take amateur radio licenses. While
I'm not a ham, I appreciate that they operate in a commons (the RF
spectrum), and I appreciate that licensing helps to ensure they don't
damage the commons we all use.
Okay, I've weighed in passionately. I recognize that reasonable people
can disagree on these issues; what do you think?
Bill
PS: I've written more than enough, but it strikes me that some of Glenda
Eoyang's CDE heuristic might help us think through this question. I'll
leave that to others here.
- --
Bill Harris
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Wed, 02 Jul 2008 09:20:34 -0700
_______________________________________________
-
Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac
- Senior Member
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>
Hi Everybody
I belong to the many people who follow this thread and feel
embarrassed by adding one more suggestion.
I expressed right at the start of the thread my wish that SD may become more
practical
and used on problems that can be solved. Before wanting to solve the great
problems facing humanity it would be better to be able to solve the millions
simpler ones first.
I expressed too that before expressing wishes it is better to explore the
present
situation, because from all the factors that affect the future, the starting
point is always important,
especially in an environment that has already a long history. And understanding
the past
history will permit to control better the future.
My remark it about the BOK, a sort of body of knowledge and practice,
guarantying
more or
less the SD user that if he conforms to it, the outcome will be correct from the
client point of view.
All body of knowledge have a certain amount of necessary rules to be followed
and
some have even sufficient rules.
The problem with SD is that the necessary rules are well known and the
sufficient
ones are not.
If you follow the necessary ones you will have maybe 5% chance of solving the
problem,
and if you do not follow them you will have near 0% chance.
This is already a good point. But it is not sufficient.
There is still at least 75% missing if you aim at least 80% chance of success.
I think that the very low percentage but still mandatory effect of the necessary
rules is
what characterizes SD.
Now what to do with the 95% sufficient knowledge and rules to find?
I have no idea, but the SD profession should work hard to determine some of the
sufficient rules, or expand the percentage of the necessary ones.
Practically, having no theoretical knowledge about how to make a useful model, I
know that if I start a model and follow the necessary rules strictly I will have
5% chance of getting a useful model.
What do I do to increase that chance?
I start my study at the simplest imaginable stage.
A concise expose of the problem and instead of a model
a set of ratios for example.
After a while, I add some more material and verify what was the added
value of this add-on. I verify at each stage, that my understanding of my expose
is as transparent as 1+1 = 2.
I try to solve my problem not using simulation.
After a while, if I cannot do it, I can start to make a model, preferably static
at first and eventually I finish with a very simple dynamic model.
I have not after 6 years of practice, built a more useful model that has more
than 50 loops or about 200 equations.
I verify at each stage, that the added value was greater than the added
complication.
I end the process when the preceding condition is not satisfied.
I do not hesitate to down size the model or the process if with practice I
find it preferable.
Respecting that process, would make the added value of SD transparent and people
would use it efficiently.
It would for instance make the understanding of the models exposed at the SD
conference
a pleasure.
To resume, I consider that the added value of SD is not clear at all and that it
is the main
actual drawback of the method, and expressing unrealistic wishes for the 20 next
years
won’t help.
Best regards to everydoby.
Jean-Jacques Lauble Eurli Allocar
Strasbourg France.
Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>
posting date Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:26:58 +0200
_______________________________________________
Hi Everybody
I belong to the many people who follow this thread and feel
embarrassed by adding one more suggestion.
I expressed right at the start of the thread my wish that SD may become more
practical
and used on problems that can be solved. Before wanting to solve the great
problems facing humanity it would be better to be able to solve the millions
simpler ones first.
I expressed too that before expressing wishes it is better to explore the
present
situation, because from all the factors that affect the future, the starting
point is always important,
especially in an environment that has already a long history. And understanding
the past
history will permit to control better the future.
My remark it about the BOK, a sort of body of knowledge and practice,
guarantying
more or
less the SD user that if he conforms to it, the outcome will be correct from the
client point of view.
All body of knowledge have a certain amount of necessary rules to be followed
and
some have even sufficient rules.
The problem with SD is that the necessary rules are well known and the
sufficient
ones are not.
If you follow the necessary ones you will have maybe 5% chance of solving the
problem,
and if you do not follow them you will have near 0% chance.
This is already a good point. But it is not sufficient.
There is still at least 75% missing if you aim at least 80% chance of success.
I think that the very low percentage but still mandatory effect of the necessary
rules is
what characterizes SD.
Now what to do with the 95% sufficient knowledge and rules to find?
I have no idea, but the SD profession should work hard to determine some of the
sufficient rules, or expand the percentage of the necessary ones.
Practically, having no theoretical knowledge about how to make a useful model, I
know that if I start a model and follow the necessary rules strictly I will have
5% chance of getting a useful model.
What do I do to increase that chance?
I start my study at the simplest imaginable stage.
A concise expose of the problem and instead of a model
a set of ratios for example.
After a while, I add some more material and verify what was the added
value of this add-on. I verify at each stage, that my understanding of my expose
is as transparent as 1+1 = 2.
I try to solve my problem not using simulation.
After a while, if I cannot do it, I can start to make a model, preferably static
at first and eventually I finish with a very simple dynamic model.
I have not after 6 years of practice, built a more useful model that has more
than 50 loops or about 200 equations.
I verify at each stage, that the added value was greater than the added
complication.
I end the process when the preceding condition is not satisfied.
I do not hesitate to down size the model or the process if with practice I
find it preferable.
Respecting that process, would make the added value of SD transparent and people
would use it efficiently.
It would for instance make the understanding of the models exposed at the SD
conference
a pleasure.
To resume, I consider that the added value of SD is not clear at all and that it
is the main
actual drawback of the method, and expressing unrealistic wishes for the 20 next
years
won’t help.
Best regards to everydoby.
Jean-Jacques Lauble Eurli Allocar
Strasbourg France.
Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>
posting date Wed, 2 Jul 2008 16:26:58 +0200
_______________________________________________
-
Jack Harich <register@thwink.
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
SDMAIL Jay Forrester wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 6:41 AM, SDMAIL Jack Harich wrote:
>
>> For example, unless I missed something, where are the goal suggestions from
the founder of the field,
>
> In my talk at the 2007 annual conference of the Society, I discussed the
present plight of system dynamics and my vision of how we could proceed over the
next 50 years. The paper is published in the Summer-Fall 2007 issue of the
System Dynamics Review.
> So far, I have seen almost no discussion or debate about the issues raised in
that paper. I hope that paper can serve as a basis for considering the future
of
the Society. Can we hear from members on it?
Jay,
I'm amazed there was not intense discussion at the conference when you gave the
talk. There were no questions during or after the talk? No one button holed you
in the halls and excitedly asked about your assessment and suggestions? After
the
conference was over, no one did the same?
I read ""System Dynamics - The Next Fifty Years"" when it came out in the SD
Review. Of all the articles in the 50 year anniversary special issue, it was THE
article to think about. I remember coming to the conclusion that this has either
caused a big buzz or is the result of one. But now we hear from you that is not
the case. There has been ""almost no discussion or debate about the issues raised
in that paper.""
Surely there was some discussion, because we are now embarked on trying to solve
the very problem your talk and paper covered. But there has not been enough.
Below are my comments about the issues you raise in the paper. Since this is a
goals setting thread, I will also attempt to extract the many goals mentioned.
*The Problem*
The problem you address is SD has failed to ""realize its potential. ... We are
now at the same state of advancement that engineering was when MIT first opened
its doors in 1865, or that medicine was in the late 1800s when the Johns Hopkins
School of Medicine was established. ... At present, with system dynamics on a
rather aimless plateau, the field seems to be catching its breath. ... Because
of
this stagnation, we see disappointment and frustration.""
Solving this problem needs to be expressed as a goal or goal set. This would be
the topmost goal of the problem solving project. That's the kind of goal Kim has
been looking for in this thread. Nowhere in the paper do I see a clear,
quantifiable top goal. Perhaps you had one in mind but didn't include it?
For example, my topmost goal suggestion was ""the ability to reliably solve
large,
pressing social problems."" The reliability level desired is easily quantified,
such as 95%. This goal does leave out cost and speed (the iron triangle of
function, cost and speed), so it is incomplete.
It's easy to see (from your words above and the results of the field) that the
proximate reason the field cannot yet reliably solve large pressing social
problems, as well as the easier ones of business management (really a social
problem type), is that the field is immature. Why it's immature we don't know.
How to solve the problem we don't know. So let's call this the System Dynamics
Immaturity Problem.
*Causes*
The paper hypothesizes several causes of the problem. This is important, because
if one doesn't resolve the underlying causes, then a problem cannot be solved
except for temporary quick fixes. The causes you present (I may have missed
some)
are:
Cause 1 - Low level of training - ""Most of the academic programs have stagnated
at the level of introductory courses taught to students who have no expectation
of developing expertise in the powerful professional field of nonlinear feedback
dynamics. We are turning out more and more people who are led to believe that
they have been taught system dynamics but who have only a superficial and
unworkable preview of the potential of the field. ...many people enter the field
without the training that would allow them to reach the full potential of system
dynamics.""
Cause 2 - Not enough innovation - ""There is little evidence of a strong reach
into new territory.""
(I'm not clear on this. What is new territory? Is it new ways to apply SD or
attempts to add to SD itself?)
Cause 3 - Corruption of the original idea - ""We see many people trying to 'dumb
down' system dynamics into 'systems thinking' and 'causal loop diagrams', which
lack the power that is inherent in system dynamics. ... [also to be avoided is]
using system dynamics for forecasting and placing emphasis on a model's ability
to exactly fit historical data.""
Cause 4 - Reasons that ""stand in the way of a new series of powerful books"" -
These are ""Lack of courage in the field to open oneself to severe debate and
criticism."" and ""The field has a very small number of people capable of such
publications."" and ""There is an assumption that expensive sponsorship must
precede an effort to address important issues."" and the dumbing down mentioned
in
cause 3.
Except for cause 2, these causes are shallow. They are intermediate rather than
root causes.
I see SD as one of many tools that make up the emerging field of social system
engineering (SSE). This is a more productive viewpoint, because the name of the
field incorporates the goal of the field: the ability to reliably, efficiently,
and quickly engineer social systems from scratch or solve existing social system
problems. The foundational tools would, I suspect, include a repeatable process
for solving SSE problems (like all mature engineering fields have), SD,
memetics,
reusable parts like those in electronics and architecture, and certain
principles
that would allow instant easy insight into complex social system behavior. These
principles would be similar in importance to the key principles of other fields,
like the three laws of motion, the concept of electricity, the molecular
composition of matter, the evolutionary algorithm, the Periodic Table, etc.
Thus to think and argue in terms of only SD is parochial. It is too limiting a
mindset. It constrains us to such a small pasture that we will never get a big
enough picture (and a comprehensive enough tool set) to solve the big hairy
audacious problems that are the true test of any emerging field.
The field of social system engineering is immature. I'd estimate that less than
10% of its major discoveries have been made. What these will be no one knows.
Given this immaturity, how can cause 1, a low level of training, possibly be a
root cause? How can a high level of training, such as at the phd level, train
anyone in how to reliably solve complex system social problems when how do that
is only 10% known?
Given this immaturity, cause 3, corruption of the original idea, cannot be a
root
cause because the original idea is incomplete. If it were not corrupted it would
still be immature.
Given this immaturity, consider cause 4. How likely is it we will see more books
like Urban Dynamics, World Dynamics, and The Limits to Growth? Those books were
a
combination of flukes, reliance on the brilliance of the founder of the field,
and picking the low hanging fruit. The last is probably the largest factor. That
more such books have not been created is not due to the four reasons listed.
It's
due to the fact that SSE is immature. In fact, it is proof SSE is immature.
Let's be honest. SSE is so immature that it has never solved a mega social
problem. The urban decay problem was never fully solved. It was only downgraded
from a crisis (in America) to a major, festering problem. We still have large
slums with high levels of crime, poverty, and alienation all over the world. We
still have occasional urban riots, even in first world countries such as France
in 2005 and 2007. The environmental sustainability problem was never solved. The
World2 and World3 models, as magnificent as the were, only identified the
problem.
Let's look at cause 2, not enough innovation. Assuming this means not enough
innovation of the field itself, then this is true. The discovery rate is too low
to bring the field to maturity. For a new promising technology that is still
immature, business calls this the ""not enough R&D"" cause.
Why not enough productive R&D? That's a good question.
*Solutions*
The paper presents various solution strategies as goals. These are:
Solution 1 - More influential books - ""a new series of powerful books to address
the important issues that dominant the newspaper headlines."" These would be
books
conveying SD analyses. There have been only three such books to date: ""Urban
Dynamics, World Dynamics, and The Limits to Growth. ... We need books addressed
to the public that are understandable, relevant, important, and dramatic.""
This is an impossible dream. As explained above, this cannot presently be done
because we have already picked the low hanging fruit and the field is so
immature
it cannot be reliably applied. This solution is an unrealistic short term goal.
Solution 2 - Better quality work in system dynamics - ""System dynamics is still
far from reaching the quality of work to which we should be aspiring. We need to
begin debating how to raise quality and scope in applications, published papers,
and especially in academic programs.""
If a field has only 10% of the foundational discoveries it needs to be mature,
how is raising the quality of the application or teaching of the 10% that does
exist going to result in success? It can't. This is like the general who urges
his ill-equipped troops on to win a battle. Their desperate charge fails,
because
they have only 10% of the arms and ammunition needed for the job. Better would
be
to stop the battle, go find what the troops need, give it to them, and then
return to the battle. The probable outcome would be significantly different.
Solutions 1 and 2 are symptomatic. More influential books and better quality SD
work would be symptoms that the basic capability of the field has dramatically
improved.
Solution 3 - Teaching SD in K to 12 - ""The goal is to have a cumulative program
from kindergarten through 12th grade that builds a systems background.""
This is appealing but flawed. SD is immature. The age at which it is learned
will
have little effect on that immaturity. I agree that thinking in terms of dynamic
structure is so difficult it's best learned at a young age. But this alone is
insufficient.
Have any people who were taught SD starting at a young age made breakthrough
contributions to the field? Have they turned out to be SD wunderkinds who can do
high quality analyses in record time? Probably not. This points to the fact that
it's not the age the tool is learned that is a critical factor.
Reading the Spring 2008 Creative Learning Center newsletter, I see progress has
been meager and temporary.
Solution 4 - SD centric management schools - ""A future school of corporate
design
would break the boundaries between disciplines.... We should think of management
education being more like that in engineering, with an undergraduate program
followed by a graduate program.""
But what will the students be taught? Again, this would fail because there is
simply not enough practical ability of SD to solve corporate problems, compared
to competing methods.
If social system engineering was mature and worked in the business world, there
would be a strong demand for trained practitioners. We would not have to create
such schools. They would spontaneously appear. Thus this is another symptomatic
solution.
Solution 5 - Reusable business structure patterns - ""Suppose we had 20 generic
structures that would cover more than 90 percent of the situations that a
manager
ever encounters. ... Each such generic structure would require a separate
textbook; each would be studied at least to the extend of a full semester
subject.""
A beautiful and productive vision. I like this. It directly addresses the
immaturity issue.
Solution 6 - A detailed plan - ""A first step would be to create a plausible
50-year detailed plan for the future of system dynamics.""
The success of all plans depends mostly on the strategies they are based upon.
If
the plan would implement solutions 1 to 5 it would fail, because except for
solution 5, these do not resolve the underlying cause of the problem. Even 5
appears insufficient, because there is no proof it would increase the maturity
of
the field by more than a small amount.
Are major business problems really that generic? If the 20 some structures were
created and taught, wouldn't competitive corporations digest them and then
quickly evolve to where other structures made the critical difference? If SD has
identified only one such structure in 50 years, how long is it going to take to
identify the rest? I love the idea Jay, but pragmatic skepticism prevails.
Solution 7 - Good leadership/promoters - ""The future that I have suggested
depends on there emerging a leadership group in the field that I have not yet
been able to identify. We need a group of full-time, enthusiastic, charismatic,
visionary, energetic promoters.""
This has some potential, but not in the promotional direction. At the risk of
repeating myself too many times, this solution relies on there being something
worthy of promotion. This is never the case for an immature product.
Rather the good leadership angle has potential. I don't think ""hundreds of
millions of dollars"" is necessary or even possible, in the short term. If the
leadership got behind a deep analysis and focused the Society's limited energies
on what that pointed to as worth doing, we would get results.
*Where's the model?*
This leads right into a main point I was planning to make: Where is the model
that would allow a sound look at the last 50 years and a successful approach to
the next 50 years?
In your ""Quality of Work in SD"" section, you make this insightful point:
""How often do you see a paper that shows all of the following
characteristics?
1. The paper starts with a clear description of the system shortcoming to be
improved.
2. It displays a compact model that shows how the difficulty is being caused.
3. It is based on a model that is completely endogenous with no external time
series to drive it.
4. It argues for the model being generic and descriptive of other members of a
class of systems to which the system at hand belongs.
5. It shows how the model behavior fits other members of the class as policies
followed by those other members are tested.
6. It arrives at recommended policies that the author is willing to defend.
7. It discusses how the recommended policies differ from past practice.
8. It examines why the proposed policies will be resisted.
9. It recognizes how to overcome antagonism and resistance to the proposed
policies.""
This is a great checklist.
But shouldn't we practice what we preach? Your paper attempts to solve a complex
social system problem where performance over time is the issue. So why have you
not followed the above checklist? Above all, where is the model in your paper?
The fact that there is none means we are doing just what too many others are
doing - we look at a difficult problem and come up with intuitively derived
causes and solutions.
Building this model is not easy, or you or others would have done it. The fact
that it is so difficult, and done so seldom, is one more proof that SD is still
too immature to have widespread applicability.
*Conclusions*
You said ""I hope that paper can serve as a basis for considering the future of
the Society.""
It's an excellent paper for getting the creative juices flowing. It raises the
call that we need to do something or SD will fade out of relevancy, with
probable
dire consequences for humanity.
But as the source of the topmost goals we need or the beginning of a strategy,
for me it falls short, because its central conclusions are all intuitively
derived. Similar papers could be written extolling entirely different goals and
strategies, and would sound just as plausible. That is, until one analytically
examined them.
But suppose we treated this paper as a first iteration. It has a lot of value.
What if we got behind it and listed its pros and cons, and then worked on those
cons?
Then your efforts over the last 50 years, and on this paper, would not have been
in vain.
SDMAIL ing. Augusto Carena - Dharma srl wrote:
> Why not trying to face the problem in a sort of ""SD style"", I mean building a
cooperative model (or models, or even antagonist models) of SD devlopment,
trying
to formally identify and understand the underlying dynamics?
>
> While I understand that is not too orthodox doing it without a clear statement
of goals (very ehterogeneous, as far as I can see), and I'm aware of the risk of
starting a Babel Tower project, it seems to me that the process itself, and the
methodological questions it would raise, could be useful to generate hints,
verify feasibility, and clarify the different positions through a common and
shared (I hope) language.
You must be a mind reader.
This is exactly what I hint at in my reply to Jay
Forrester.
By the way, this has already been suggested a few times. But the stone has not
yet begun to roll and collect moss.
I have long assumed that the strategy group would see this as one of their main
options.
SDMAIL Kim Warren wrote:
> Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
>
> This is indeed helpful Jack. It is very close to the process we attempted to
initiate in April. It is of course complexified by the diffuse and distributed
nature of our community, but the principles are still sound [even though we
don't
have the opportunity to get the hundreds of Society members and thousands of
other stakeholders in one room for 8 hours!].
>
> Unfortunately, we have not yet moved beyond the brainstorming stage. I would
have moved us on long ago, had we received anything like the number and scope of
suggestions that might seem to represent passable coverage of the community's
interests. If we kill brainstorming now, we would be processing a badly
incomplete and partial set of prospective objectives [by 'partial' I mean that
whole domains of SD work are under-represented]. The risk is we would end up
with
a set of priorities, and a strategy for achieving them that no-one buys into.
> I do intend, as soon as I can carve out a few hours, to get a report back out
to everyone on where the contributions so far have got us to. I have them all,
and in a somewhat organised form. Please bear with me a short while.
>
> Kim Warren
Thanks Kim.
You caution that ""If we kill brainstorming now, we would be processing a badly
incomplete and partial set of prospective objectives.""
Then I didn't explain the goal setting process well enough. My apologies. What I
saw in 1979 and at numerous other goal setting or consensus building meetings
was
that brainstorming is not done once in one big batch. It's done as many times as
necessary, in short quick bursts. Between bursts the facilitator helps the group
evaluate what they have so far and how it can be refined into what the group
needs to end up with. The group alternates between divergent and convergent work
until it converges on the high quality set of items desired.
It's been a long time since 1979, but I'd estimate we broke up into small groups
about four times for the convergent part. The basic cycle was:
1. State the types of goals to be brainstormed. (A process management step)
2. Brainstorm goals as a group. (The all-important divergent step.)
At first these are created from scratch. Later new goals are created by looking
at a list of existing goals and brainstorming better ones or changing existing
ones. Toward the very end sometimes only a single phrase or word is changed. The
final result is great clarity, consensus, and motivation to go out and achieve
the goals.
3. Organize the goals into categories. Some discussion happens here. (A
convergent step)
4. Break up into small groups to refine, condense, clarify, improve the goals.
(Convergent step)
5. Report back to the full group on results. Discuss, judge the quality of the
goals, come to agreement. (Communication and judgment step)
6. Repeat as necessary until done.
In the very large, this is how international treaties are negotiated. The hard
work between meetings is the convergent phase of step 4, and the meetings are
for
everything else.
Step 1 was done in the opening post to this thread. Step 2 could have ended in
about two weeks, although I've not graphed the posts containing goals on a
timeline. If we want to try something like the above we could go for one week
cycles and get several done before the Society conference. We could start this
as
soon as you report on what we've got so far. I think we are all looking forward
to that.
Since this list's membership is large and dispersed, goals will trickle in. We
can simply add them as we go. But the bulk of the goals will come in step 2
bursts.
Brainstorming is a divergent, creative activity. Synthesis into a smaller number
of better stated, better directed goals is a convergent activity. Divergence and
convergence are best done as separate activities. See this short page for
definitions of these two terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent ... production
In ""The Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making"" on page 6 is a
great diagram of how divergent and convergent thinking is used, though only one
cycle is shown. I've copied the diagram to this page:
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/work/reference/index.htm
Notice the list of what the two types of thinking do:
Divergent Thinking versus Convergent Thinking:
- Generating a list of ideas versus Sorting ideas into categories
- Free-flowing open discussion versus Summarizing key points
- Seeking diverse points of view versus Coming to agreement
- Suspending judgment versus Exercising judgment
Hope this explains things,
SDMAIL Richard Stevenson wrote:
> Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>
>
> I know this won't get published, Bob. Because you won't pass it.
>
> I have read the recent correspondence on strategy development with a very
limited degree of interest. This thread was instigated over six months ago and
initially received very little response. Those of us that did respond
(enthusiastically) were basically ignored.
>
Richard,
My humble opinion is this is due to an immature process in goal setting. I
posted
a message to address this problem on July 1.
> There is now very little in this ""second wave"" that is worthy of comment.
Intrinsically, it seems that system dynamics will always prefer to gaze at its
own navel rather than to do anything constructive.
>
In your post on April 24 in this thread I see this excellent suggestion:
""If the SDS is really serious about conducting a 'strategy review', then
it needs to adopt a more formal and controlled forum of business people,
headed by people who have appropriate business credentials as well as SD
experience. Reality is that the SDS is still a tiny - yes a tiny -
collection of academics who appear to revel in their academic isolation.""
I agree. Academics teach. Business consultants and managers solve problems. The
latter group is far more qualified to lead a strategy review. The rule of thumb
in business is if you put an academic in charge of a major project or business,
you are pretty much guaranteeing its failure. There are of course some
exceptions.
Another jewel: ""So if we really are serious about rethinking the future of SD -
we need to completely rethink the way that SD fits into the way that the
business world actually works.""
This is a great insight. But it is incomprehensible to most academics, who on
the
average do not understand the business world. (By the way, my career is 100%
business management and consulting, with 8 years off for an artistic endeavor.
How refreshing!)
A strong close: ""We must shift our emphasis away from promoting SD in its own
right - and take a market-based perspective in business. The primary customer
is
the CFO, who speaks the language of value - not of systems. The need
and the opportunity is to provide deep insights into the relationships
between strategy and long-term financial value, using the language of
resources - indeed the very language of SD!
""I suggest that our 'task force' should address these issues by engaging
significant external expertise and interest - not simply by reinforcing
entrenched SD ideas with internal SD 'experts'.""
Yes, yes, yes. But since the Society is academic centered, these thoughts have
been ignored.
Or have they? It's possible that ""significant external expertise and interest""
HAS been planned for inclusion in the very project this thread launched. I
wonder
if Jim Lyneis, Society president, could speak to this.
> I really am sorry. Get on with it - or get over it. Most of the rest of
world
has now moved on. And - SD people - it is your fault. Have a good time in
Athens.
>
> But - SD Society - please understand. Your academic fumbling and internal
censorship has effectively destroyed a great idea.
I feel your pain, Richard. But if people like you and me speak up, and calmly
point out these problems, offer constructive ways to surmount them, and exhibit
patience and empathy, then perhaps the Society can get past its growing pains.
By growing pains I mean the fact the the Society has done well in what
professional societies normally do: publish journals and host conferences. But
there are other areas in which societies can benefit their members and society.
Our Society is now trying to grow into those other areas, and is having the
usual
initial trouble. But if we can all work together constructively, we should be
able to ""develop a vision and strategy for the next 50 years"" that will astonish
the world as it is achieved, step by tiny step.
Gosh, hope this doesn't sound too artificially inspirational....
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:46:31 -0400
_______________________________________________
SDMAIL Jay Forrester wrote:
> On Jun 26, 2008, at 6:41 AM, SDMAIL Jack Harich wrote:
>
>> For example, unless I missed something, where are the goal suggestions from
the founder of the field,
>
> In my talk at the 2007 annual conference of the Society, I discussed the
present plight of system dynamics and my vision of how we could proceed over the
next 50 years. The paper is published in the Summer-Fall 2007 issue of the
System Dynamics Review.
> So far, I have seen almost no discussion or debate about the issues raised in
that paper. I hope that paper can serve as a basis for considering the future
of
the Society. Can we hear from members on it?
Jay,
I'm amazed there was not intense discussion at the conference when you gave the
talk. There were no questions during or after the talk? No one button holed you
in the halls and excitedly asked about your assessment and suggestions? After
the
conference was over, no one did the same?
I read ""System Dynamics - The Next Fifty Years"" when it came out in the SD
Review. Of all the articles in the 50 year anniversary special issue, it was THE
article to think about. I remember coming to the conclusion that this has either
caused a big buzz or is the result of one. But now we hear from you that is not
the case. There has been ""almost no discussion or debate about the issues raised
in that paper.""
Surely there was some discussion, because we are now embarked on trying to solve
the very problem your talk and paper covered. But there has not been enough.
Below are my comments about the issues you raise in the paper. Since this is a
goals setting thread, I will also attempt to extract the many goals mentioned.
*The Problem*
The problem you address is SD has failed to ""realize its potential. ... We are
now at the same state of advancement that engineering was when MIT first opened
its doors in 1865, or that medicine was in the late 1800s when the Johns Hopkins
School of Medicine was established. ... At present, with system dynamics on a
rather aimless plateau, the field seems to be catching its breath. ... Because
of
this stagnation, we see disappointment and frustration.""
Solving this problem needs to be expressed as a goal or goal set. This would be
the topmost goal of the problem solving project. That's the kind of goal Kim has
been looking for in this thread. Nowhere in the paper do I see a clear,
quantifiable top goal. Perhaps you had one in mind but didn't include it?
For example, my topmost goal suggestion was ""the ability to reliably solve
large,
pressing social problems."" The reliability level desired is easily quantified,
such as 95%. This goal does leave out cost and speed (the iron triangle of
function, cost and speed), so it is incomplete.
It's easy to see (from your words above and the results of the field) that the
proximate reason the field cannot yet reliably solve large pressing social
problems, as well as the easier ones of business management (really a social
problem type), is that the field is immature. Why it's immature we don't know.
How to solve the problem we don't know. So let's call this the System Dynamics
Immaturity Problem.
*Causes*
The paper hypothesizes several causes of the problem. This is important, because
if one doesn't resolve the underlying causes, then a problem cannot be solved
except for temporary quick fixes. The causes you present (I may have missed
some)
are:
Cause 1 - Low level of training - ""Most of the academic programs have stagnated
at the level of introductory courses taught to students who have no expectation
of developing expertise in the powerful professional field of nonlinear feedback
dynamics. We are turning out more and more people who are led to believe that
they have been taught system dynamics but who have only a superficial and
unworkable preview of the potential of the field. ...many people enter the field
without the training that would allow them to reach the full potential of system
dynamics.""
Cause 2 - Not enough innovation - ""There is little evidence of a strong reach
into new territory.""
(I'm not clear on this. What is new territory? Is it new ways to apply SD or
attempts to add to SD itself?)
Cause 3 - Corruption of the original idea - ""We see many people trying to 'dumb
down' system dynamics into 'systems thinking' and 'causal loop diagrams', which
lack the power that is inherent in system dynamics. ... [also to be avoided is]
using system dynamics for forecasting and placing emphasis on a model's ability
to exactly fit historical data.""
Cause 4 - Reasons that ""stand in the way of a new series of powerful books"" -
These are ""Lack of courage in the field to open oneself to severe debate and
criticism."" and ""The field has a very small number of people capable of such
publications."" and ""There is an assumption that expensive sponsorship must
precede an effort to address important issues."" and the dumbing down mentioned
in
cause 3.
Except for cause 2, these causes are shallow. They are intermediate rather than
root causes.
I see SD as one of many tools that make up the emerging field of social system
engineering (SSE). This is a more productive viewpoint, because the name of the
field incorporates the goal of the field: the ability to reliably, efficiently,
and quickly engineer social systems from scratch or solve existing social system
problems. The foundational tools would, I suspect, include a repeatable process
for solving SSE problems (like all mature engineering fields have), SD,
memetics,
reusable parts like those in electronics and architecture, and certain
principles
that would allow instant easy insight into complex social system behavior. These
principles would be similar in importance to the key principles of other fields,
like the three laws of motion, the concept of electricity, the molecular
composition of matter, the evolutionary algorithm, the Periodic Table, etc.
Thus to think and argue in terms of only SD is parochial. It is too limiting a
mindset. It constrains us to such a small pasture that we will never get a big
enough picture (and a comprehensive enough tool set) to solve the big hairy
audacious problems that are the true test of any emerging field.
The field of social system engineering is immature. I'd estimate that less than
10% of its major discoveries have been made. What these will be no one knows.
Given this immaturity, how can cause 1, a low level of training, possibly be a
root cause? How can a high level of training, such as at the phd level, train
anyone in how to reliably solve complex system social problems when how do that
is only 10% known?
Given this immaturity, cause 3, corruption of the original idea, cannot be a
root
cause because the original idea is incomplete. If it were not corrupted it would
still be immature.
Given this immaturity, consider cause 4. How likely is it we will see more books
like Urban Dynamics, World Dynamics, and The Limits to Growth? Those books were
a
combination of flukes, reliance on the brilliance of the founder of the field,
and picking the low hanging fruit. The last is probably the largest factor. That
more such books have not been created is not due to the four reasons listed.
It's
due to the fact that SSE is immature. In fact, it is proof SSE is immature.
Let's be honest. SSE is so immature that it has never solved a mega social
problem. The urban decay problem was never fully solved. It was only downgraded
from a crisis (in America) to a major, festering problem. We still have large
slums with high levels of crime, poverty, and alienation all over the world. We
still have occasional urban riots, even in first world countries such as France
in 2005 and 2007. The environmental sustainability problem was never solved. The
World2 and World3 models, as magnificent as the were, only identified the
problem.
Let's look at cause 2, not enough innovation. Assuming this means not enough
innovation of the field itself, then this is true. The discovery rate is too low
to bring the field to maturity. For a new promising technology that is still
immature, business calls this the ""not enough R&D"" cause.
Why not enough productive R&D? That's a good question.
*Solutions*
The paper presents various solution strategies as goals. These are:
Solution 1 - More influential books - ""a new series of powerful books to address
the important issues that dominant the newspaper headlines."" These would be
books
conveying SD analyses. There have been only three such books to date: ""Urban
Dynamics, World Dynamics, and The Limits to Growth. ... We need books addressed
to the public that are understandable, relevant, important, and dramatic.""
This is an impossible dream. As explained above, this cannot presently be done
because we have already picked the low hanging fruit and the field is so
immature
it cannot be reliably applied. This solution is an unrealistic short term goal.
Solution 2 - Better quality work in system dynamics - ""System dynamics is still
far from reaching the quality of work to which we should be aspiring. We need to
begin debating how to raise quality and scope in applications, published papers,
and especially in academic programs.""
If a field has only 10% of the foundational discoveries it needs to be mature,
how is raising the quality of the application or teaching of the 10% that does
exist going to result in success? It can't. This is like the general who urges
his ill-equipped troops on to win a battle. Their desperate charge fails,
because
they have only 10% of the arms and ammunition needed for the job. Better would
be
to stop the battle, go find what the troops need, give it to them, and then
return to the battle. The probable outcome would be significantly different.
Solutions 1 and 2 are symptomatic. More influential books and better quality SD
work would be symptoms that the basic capability of the field has dramatically
improved.
Solution 3 - Teaching SD in K to 12 - ""The goal is to have a cumulative program
from kindergarten through 12th grade that builds a systems background.""
This is appealing but flawed. SD is immature. The age at which it is learned
will
have little effect on that immaturity. I agree that thinking in terms of dynamic
structure is so difficult it's best learned at a young age. But this alone is
insufficient.
Have any people who were taught SD starting at a young age made breakthrough
contributions to the field? Have they turned out to be SD wunderkinds who can do
high quality analyses in record time? Probably not. This points to the fact that
it's not the age the tool is learned that is a critical factor.
Reading the Spring 2008 Creative Learning Center newsletter, I see progress has
been meager and temporary.
Solution 4 - SD centric management schools - ""A future school of corporate
design
would break the boundaries between disciplines.... We should think of management
education being more like that in engineering, with an undergraduate program
followed by a graduate program.""
But what will the students be taught? Again, this would fail because there is
simply not enough practical ability of SD to solve corporate problems, compared
to competing methods.
If social system engineering was mature and worked in the business world, there
would be a strong demand for trained practitioners. We would not have to create
such schools. They would spontaneously appear. Thus this is another symptomatic
solution.
Solution 5 - Reusable business structure patterns - ""Suppose we had 20 generic
structures that would cover more than 90 percent of the situations that a
manager
ever encounters. ... Each such generic structure would require a separate
textbook; each would be studied at least to the extend of a full semester
subject.""
A beautiful and productive vision. I like this. It directly addresses the
immaturity issue.
Solution 6 - A detailed plan - ""A first step would be to create a plausible
50-year detailed plan for the future of system dynamics.""
The success of all plans depends mostly on the strategies they are based upon.
If
the plan would implement solutions 1 to 5 it would fail, because except for
solution 5, these do not resolve the underlying cause of the problem. Even 5
appears insufficient, because there is no proof it would increase the maturity
of
the field by more than a small amount.
Are major business problems really that generic? If the 20 some structures were
created and taught, wouldn't competitive corporations digest them and then
quickly evolve to where other structures made the critical difference? If SD has
identified only one such structure in 50 years, how long is it going to take to
identify the rest? I love the idea Jay, but pragmatic skepticism prevails.
Solution 7 - Good leadership/promoters - ""The future that I have suggested
depends on there emerging a leadership group in the field that I have not yet
been able to identify. We need a group of full-time, enthusiastic, charismatic,
visionary, energetic promoters.""
This has some potential, but not in the promotional direction. At the risk of
repeating myself too many times, this solution relies on there being something
worthy of promotion. This is never the case for an immature product.
Rather the good leadership angle has potential. I don't think ""hundreds of
millions of dollars"" is necessary or even possible, in the short term. If the
leadership got behind a deep analysis and focused the Society's limited energies
on what that pointed to as worth doing, we would get results.
*Where's the model?*
This leads right into a main point I was planning to make: Where is the model
that would allow a sound look at the last 50 years and a successful approach to
the next 50 years?
In your ""Quality of Work in SD"" section, you make this insightful point:
""How often do you see a paper that shows all of the following
characteristics?
1. The paper starts with a clear description of the system shortcoming to be
improved.
2. It displays a compact model that shows how the difficulty is being caused.
3. It is based on a model that is completely endogenous with no external time
series to drive it.
4. It argues for the model being generic and descriptive of other members of a
class of systems to which the system at hand belongs.
5. It shows how the model behavior fits other members of the class as policies
followed by those other members are tested.
6. It arrives at recommended policies that the author is willing to defend.
7. It discusses how the recommended policies differ from past practice.
8. It examines why the proposed policies will be resisted.
9. It recognizes how to overcome antagonism and resistance to the proposed
policies.""
This is a great checklist.
But shouldn't we practice what we preach? Your paper attempts to solve a complex
social system problem where performance over time is the issue. So why have you
not followed the above checklist? Above all, where is the model in your paper?
The fact that there is none means we are doing just what too many others are
doing - we look at a difficult problem and come up with intuitively derived
causes and solutions.
Building this model is not easy, or you or others would have done it. The fact
that it is so difficult, and done so seldom, is one more proof that SD is still
too immature to have widespread applicability.
*Conclusions*
You said ""I hope that paper can serve as a basis for considering the future of
the Society.""
It's an excellent paper for getting the creative juices flowing. It raises the
call that we need to do something or SD will fade out of relevancy, with
probable
dire consequences for humanity.
But as the source of the topmost goals we need or the beginning of a strategy,
for me it falls short, because its central conclusions are all intuitively
derived. Similar papers could be written extolling entirely different goals and
strategies, and would sound just as plausible. That is, until one analytically
examined them.
But suppose we treated this paper as a first iteration. It has a lot of value.
What if we got behind it and listed its pros and cons, and then worked on those
cons?
Then your efforts over the last 50 years, and on this paper, would not have been
in vain.
SDMAIL ing. Augusto Carena - Dharma srl wrote:
> Why not trying to face the problem in a sort of ""SD style"", I mean building a
cooperative model (or models, or even antagonist models) of SD devlopment,
trying
to formally identify and understand the underlying dynamics?
>
> While I understand that is not too orthodox doing it without a clear statement
of goals (very ehterogeneous, as far as I can see), and I'm aware of the risk of
starting a Babel Tower project, it seems to me that the process itself, and the
methodological questions it would raise, could be useful to generate hints,
verify feasibility, and clarify the different positions through a common and
shared (I hope) language.
You must be a mind reader.
This is exactly what I hint at in my reply to JayForrester.
By the way, this has already been suggested a few times. But the stone has not
yet begun to roll and collect moss.
I have long assumed that the strategy group would see this as one of their main
options.
SDMAIL Kim Warren wrote:
> Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
>
> This is indeed helpful Jack. It is very close to the process we attempted to
initiate in April. It is of course complexified by the diffuse and distributed
nature of our community, but the principles are still sound [even though we
don't
have the opportunity to get the hundreds of Society members and thousands of
other stakeholders in one room for 8 hours!].
>
> Unfortunately, we have not yet moved beyond the brainstorming stage. I would
have moved us on long ago, had we received anything like the number and scope of
suggestions that might seem to represent passable coverage of the community's
interests. If we kill brainstorming now, we would be processing a badly
incomplete and partial set of prospective objectives [by 'partial' I mean that
whole domains of SD work are under-represented]. The risk is we would end up
with
a set of priorities, and a strategy for achieving them that no-one buys into.
> I do intend, as soon as I can carve out a few hours, to get a report back out
to everyone on where the contributions so far have got us to. I have them all,
and in a somewhat organised form. Please bear with me a short while.
>
> Kim Warren
Thanks Kim.
You caution that ""If we kill brainstorming now, we would be processing a badly
incomplete and partial set of prospective objectives.""
Then I didn't explain the goal setting process well enough. My apologies. What I
saw in 1979 and at numerous other goal setting or consensus building meetings
was
that brainstorming is not done once in one big batch. It's done as many times as
necessary, in short quick bursts. Between bursts the facilitator helps the group
evaluate what they have so far and how it can be refined into what the group
needs to end up with. The group alternates between divergent and convergent work
until it converges on the high quality set of items desired.
It's been a long time since 1979, but I'd estimate we broke up into small groups
about four times for the convergent part. The basic cycle was:
1. State the types of goals to be brainstormed. (A process management step)
2. Brainstorm goals as a group. (The all-important divergent step.)
At first these are created from scratch. Later new goals are created by looking
at a list of existing goals and brainstorming better ones or changing existing
ones. Toward the very end sometimes only a single phrase or word is changed. The
final result is great clarity, consensus, and motivation to go out and achieve
the goals.
3. Organize the goals into categories. Some discussion happens here. (A
convergent step)
4. Break up into small groups to refine, condense, clarify, improve the goals.
(Convergent step)
5. Report back to the full group on results. Discuss, judge the quality of the
goals, come to agreement. (Communication and judgment step)
6. Repeat as necessary until done.
In the very large, this is how international treaties are negotiated. The hard
work between meetings is the convergent phase of step 4, and the meetings are
for
everything else.
Step 1 was done in the opening post to this thread. Step 2 could have ended in
about two weeks, although I've not graphed the posts containing goals on a
timeline. If we want to try something like the above we could go for one week
cycles and get several done before the Society conference. We could start this
as
soon as you report on what we've got so far. I think we are all looking forward
to that.
Since this list's membership is large and dispersed, goals will trickle in. We
can simply add them as we go. But the bulk of the goals will come in step 2
bursts.
Brainstorming is a divergent, creative activity. Synthesis into a smaller number
of better stated, better directed goals is a convergent activity. Divergence and
convergence are best done as separate activities. See this short page for
definitions of these two terms:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent ... production
In ""The Facilitator's Guide to Participatory Decision-Making"" on page 6 is a
great diagram of how divergent and convergent thinking is used, though only one
cycle is shown. I've copied the diagram to this page:
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/work/reference/index.htm
Notice the list of what the two types of thinking do:
Divergent Thinking versus Convergent Thinking:
- Generating a list of ideas versus Sorting ideas into categories
- Free-flowing open discussion versus Summarizing key points
- Seeking diverse points of view versus Coming to agreement
- Suspending judgment versus Exercising judgment
Hope this explains things,
SDMAIL Richard Stevenson wrote:
> Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>
>
> I know this won't get published, Bob. Because you won't pass it.
>
> I have read the recent correspondence on strategy development with a very
limited degree of interest. This thread was instigated over six months ago and
initially received very little response. Those of us that did respond
(enthusiastically) were basically ignored.
>
Richard,
My humble opinion is this is due to an immature process in goal setting. I
posted
a message to address this problem on July 1.
> There is now very little in this ""second wave"" that is worthy of comment.
Intrinsically, it seems that system dynamics will always prefer to gaze at its
own navel rather than to do anything constructive.
>
In your post on April 24 in this thread I see this excellent suggestion:
""If the SDS is really serious about conducting a 'strategy review', then
it needs to adopt a more formal and controlled forum of business people,
headed by people who have appropriate business credentials as well as SD
experience. Reality is that the SDS is still a tiny - yes a tiny -
collection of academics who appear to revel in their academic isolation.""
I agree. Academics teach. Business consultants and managers solve problems. The
latter group is far more qualified to lead a strategy review. The rule of thumb
in business is if you put an academic in charge of a major project or business,
you are pretty much guaranteeing its failure. There are of course some
exceptions.
Another jewel: ""So if we really are serious about rethinking the future of SD -
we need to completely rethink the way that SD fits into the way that the
business world actually works.""
This is a great insight. But it is incomprehensible to most academics, who on
the
average do not understand the business world. (By the way, my career is 100%
business management and consulting, with 8 years off for an artistic endeavor.
How refreshing!)
A strong close: ""We must shift our emphasis away from promoting SD in its own
right - and take a market-based perspective in business. The primary customer
is
the CFO, who speaks the language of value - not of systems. The need
and the opportunity is to provide deep insights into the relationships
between strategy and long-term financial value, using the language of
resources - indeed the very language of SD!
""I suggest that our 'task force' should address these issues by engaging
significant external expertise and interest - not simply by reinforcing
entrenched SD ideas with internal SD 'experts'.""
Yes, yes, yes. But since the Society is academic centered, these thoughts have
been ignored.
Or have they? It's possible that ""significant external expertise and interest""
HAS been planned for inclusion in the very project this thread launched. I
wonder
if Jim Lyneis, Society president, could speak to this.
> I really am sorry. Get on with it - or get over it. Most of the rest of
world
has now moved on. And - SD people - it is your fault. Have a good time in
Athens.
>
> But - SD Society - please understand. Your academic fumbling and internal
censorship has effectively destroyed a great idea.
I feel your pain, Richard. But if people like you and me speak up, and calmly
point out these problems, offer constructive ways to surmount them, and exhibit
patience and empathy, then perhaps the Society can get past its growing pains.
By growing pains I mean the fact the the Society has done well in what
professional societies normally do: publish journals and host conferences. But
there are other areas in which societies can benefit their members and society.
Our Society is now trying to grow into those other areas, and is having the
usual
initial trouble. But if we can all work together constructively, we should be
able to ""develop a vision and strategy for the next 50 years"" that will astonish
the world as it is achieved, step by tiny step.
Gosh, hope this doesn't sound too artificially inspirational....
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Wed, 02 Jul 2008 20:46:31 -0400
_______________________________________________
-
Ralf Lippold <ralf_lippold@we
- Member
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by Ralf Lippold <ralf_lippold@web.de>
Hello everybody,
the discussion that momentarily is going on reminds me very strongly of a
similar
discussion on how to implement a ""lean management system"" in corporations
(similar to what Toyota is practicing for the last several decades).
There are lots of ideas on how to solve ""the"" problem that can be seen clearly
in
the open but as soon as the question bends back on what the ""real"" problem(s) is
everybody is falling into his problem solving mode.
The ""problem"" SD seems to have -from my viewpoint- is that the multi-purpose
approach and adaptibility hasn't reached the emotions of the leaders of this
world's organizations (whether profit orientated, NGO, communities, schools,
universities, ....) - YET.
For most managers that I have spoken to in the past, ""system dynamics"" is a mere
buzz word and the mental models that lay behind the manager's thinking is often,
""...this is technical stuff and we need highly paid experts to get this to go!"".
This leads in almost 100% of the cases to resistance and denial of even trying
the methode to see whether it could be of any use. The only thing that counts in
business is the quick solution to the problem at hand
.
That makes me ever stronger believe that starting at the bottom line (doing
system dynamics in K12 as Jay suggested a couple of years back and is still
promoting -all around the world, not just the U.S.) is the best way to get the
change we all would like to see in the use of system dynamics. In a way that is
how Toyota has become what it is today -start small and grow big! Don't push
things ahead even though you are often overwhelmed to do that.
Why not start off in university courses (especially economics, social behavior,
business adminstration, logistics) with using causal loop diagramming to get the
story of the ""real"" problem open? Up till nowadays in economics, one all too
often is only looking for the one-time equilibrium at the cost of ""ceteribus
paribus"" (all other factors -in the equation- equal!) - is this really how the
world works?
This will inevitably lead to the questions that arise in people's heads doing
this CLD analysis, ""How can we simulate this and get to the right policy?"" - How
can we start the ball make rolling? (at WPI and other institutions is has
started
to roll; what about the other teams around the globe? Let's get together and
through competition, dialog and inquiery the field will surely grow!)
Personally I'd love to get back into university (honestly, this time on the
other
side now) teaching about what system dynamics could be useful for but -heck,
I can tell you- that is almost impossible.
Just my cents for today and looking forward to a great conference in Athens
Ralf
PS.: Where are the people who have side-stepped into the field from either
engineering, management, operation, or alike never having a clue about system
dynamics until they were struck by ""lightning"" (in my case it was the mere
mentioning of the Nijmegen Conference by John Sterman, that made me tap into the
""unknown"" two years ago - a small step in life and yet the beginning of a big
change)? Please stand up and take part in the discussion.
--
-----------
Ralf Lippold
Posted by Ralf Lippold <ralf_lippold@web.de>
posting date Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:20:45 +0200
_______________________________________________
Hello everybody,
the discussion that momentarily is going on reminds me very strongly of a
similar
discussion on how to implement a ""lean management system"" in corporations
(similar to what Toyota is practicing for the last several decades).
There are lots of ideas on how to solve ""the"" problem that can be seen clearly
in
the open but as soon as the question bends back on what the ""real"" problem(s) is
everybody is falling into his problem solving mode.
The ""problem"" SD seems to have -from my viewpoint- is that the multi-purpose
approach and adaptibility hasn't reached the emotions of the leaders of this
world's organizations (whether profit orientated, NGO, communities, schools,
universities, ....) - YET.
For most managers that I have spoken to in the past, ""system dynamics"" is a mere
buzz word and the mental models that lay behind the manager's thinking is often,
""...this is technical stuff and we need highly paid experts to get this to go!"".
This leads in almost 100% of the cases to resistance and denial of even trying
the methode to see whether it could be of any use. The only thing that counts in
business is the quick solution to the problem at hand
.That makes me ever stronger believe that starting at the bottom line (doing
system dynamics in K12 as Jay suggested a couple of years back and is still
promoting -all around the world, not just the U.S.) is the best way to get the
change we all would like to see in the use of system dynamics. In a way that is
how Toyota has become what it is today -start small and grow big! Don't push
things ahead even though you are often overwhelmed to do that.
Why not start off in university courses (especially economics, social behavior,
business adminstration, logistics) with using causal loop diagramming to get the
story of the ""real"" problem open? Up till nowadays in economics, one all too
often is only looking for the one-time equilibrium at the cost of ""ceteribus
paribus"" (all other factors -in the equation- equal!) - is this really how the
world works?
This will inevitably lead to the questions that arise in people's heads doing
this CLD analysis, ""How can we simulate this and get to the right policy?"" - How
can we start the ball make rolling? (at WPI and other institutions is has
started
to roll; what about the other teams around the globe? Let's get together and
through competition, dialog and inquiery the field will surely grow!)
Personally I'd love to get back into university (honestly, this time on the
other
side now
) teaching about what system dynamics could be useful for but -heck,I can tell you- that is almost impossible.
Just my cents for today and looking forward to a great conference in Athens
Ralf
PS.: Where are the people who have side-stepped into the field from either
engineering, management, operation, or alike never having a clue about system
dynamics until they were struck by ""lightning"" (in my case it was the mere
mentioning of the Nijmegen Conference by John Sterman, that made me tap into the
""unknown"" two years ago - a small step in life and yet the beginning of a big
change
)? Please stand up and take part in the discussion.--
-----------
Ralf Lippold
Posted by Ralf Lippold <ralf_lippold@web.de>
posting date Thu, 3 Jul 2008 15:20:45 +0200
_______________________________________________
-
Jack Harich <register@thwink.
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
SDMAIL Kim Warren wrote:
> Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
>
> Thanks Jack - I know there are great processes for brainstorming with groups,
and were it possible both time-wise and physically to do it, they would be
great.
3 months is plenty of time. Even 2 weeks is plenty of time, at one week per
cycle. Businesses do this rapidly all the time via email, as well as physical
meetings.
Before the conference, I expect we at least have time for a convergent phase,
another ask/improvement phase, and a convergent phase.
> However, the challenges I mentioned before remain. I have asked 3 times now
for
inputs to the 'divergent' phase of your process - what would be good aims for SD
- with little response.
Something still hasn't clicked. That's the whole point of iterative refinement.
You DON'T keep asking for more idea input. Instead, you switch to convergent
mode
and ask for judgment on the ideas you have. This improves them slightly and,
more
importantly, educates people on what it is we are looking for. Then after that,
you start another round of divergent input.
For example, right now I'm doing a business problem analysis. To build a model I
need certain cause and effect data. In round one I asked mid level managers at a
billion dollar corporation for their ideas on what is causing behavior X. I then
collected the data and we had a conference call. I explained the pros and cons
of
the data so far, and then asked for more. It came in, and one person had the
great idea to put it all into a spreadsheet. We then had another conference call
where everyone critiqued the data, such that they could see its shortcomings and
strengths. I then pointed out the areas where we needed more or better data,
modified the spreadsheet to accommodate it, and we had another round of data
collection and improvement. In this morning's email I sent out the latest
spreadsheet, asked for about a dozen blank cells to be filled in, and more
importantly, asked for about 20 cells to be improved.
This is iterative refinement. We are expecting over 20 rounds before we have
enough high quality cause and effect data to even begin modeling. Most rounds
involve no conference call. We're doing about two rounds a week, which is
impressive considering one person lives in Australia and I'm in the US.
This process would have failed if all I did was ask for more data again and
again.
The convergent phase of each cycle creates a feedback loop that drives the
process toward success. Without that phase there is no feedback loop, and people
shoot out ideas all over the place, instead of at specific targets.
Much more important than quantity of data is quality of data. If one is
collecting lots of data that cannot be used to solve a problem, then one is
doing
the wrong things right. Better is to allow the idea creators to give themselves
frequent feedback, so they are creating useful data, and the team is doing the
right things right.
Jack Homer's paper on ""Why We Iterate?"" shows the importance of iterative
refinement. One never gets it right the first time.
Perhaps someone else on this list can give Kim another example?
> How effective would the sessions you experienced have been if most of the
audience had just sat in their chairs and said nothing when the facilitator
started each phase of the process?
I've never had this happen, because I and the other managers or consultants I've
watched have always used the ask, refine, ask, refine cycle process. If instead
an ask, ask, ask process was used, I would expect input to fall off
exponentially
with each ask phase.
> The problem I raised before therefore remains - if we start your
divergent/convergent phases with a badly incomplete set of raw inputs, then we
will very, very likely converge on things most people don't buy into.
Again, I can see something hasn't yet clicked. The whole idea of brainstorming
and iterative refinement is that you ALWAYS start off with a first round of weak
ideas. Then you improve them. This educates the group to what you are looking
for. Then you have another round of brainstorming, which from experience is
always better than the first round.
Your sentence above seems to assume there is only one brainstorming phase and
one
convergence phase. If that process is followed, then I agree. You will end up
with poor quality results.
Also, I would hesitate to call this ""your divergent/convergent phases."" This is
not my idea. It is a standard business best practice.
It may be that you are concerned that the goals you are about to release are
weak
and that that reflects on you as the facilitator. Don't worry. This is
groundless. This process expects them to be weak at first. A facilitator's role
is to provide the group with the assistance they need to go through several
rounds of successive refinement, until the goals are somewhat strong and ready
for the strategy committee, who will no doubt refine them even further.
I expect that in the first convergent phase lots of discussion will be on how to
objectively evaluate the different goal suggestions. Take a peek at this
approach
for ideas:
http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/ ... 10p56d.jpg
So you might present the goals in a spreadsheet, in groups. But we probably need
to list the goals along the vertical axis, since we have so many. The criteria
would be along the horizontal axis with totals on the far right. That should be
a
tantalizing column.
Well, I hope this explains the concept.
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:22:03 -0400
_______________________________________________
SDMAIL Kim Warren wrote:
> Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
>
> Thanks Jack - I know there are great processes for brainstorming with groups,
and were it possible both time-wise and physically to do it, they would be
great.
3 months is plenty of time. Even 2 weeks is plenty of time, at one week per
cycle. Businesses do this rapidly all the time via email, as well as physical
meetings.
Before the conference, I expect we at least have time for a convergent phase,
another ask/improvement phase, and a convergent phase.
> However, the challenges I mentioned before remain. I have asked 3 times now
for
inputs to the 'divergent' phase of your process - what would be good aims for SD
- with little response.
Something still hasn't clicked. That's the whole point of iterative refinement.
You DON'T keep asking for more idea input. Instead, you switch to convergent
mode
and ask for judgment on the ideas you have. This improves them slightly and,
more
importantly, educates people on what it is we are looking for. Then after that,
you start another round of divergent input.
For example, right now I'm doing a business problem analysis. To build a model I
need certain cause and effect data. In round one I asked mid level managers at a
billion dollar corporation for their ideas on what is causing behavior X. I then
collected the data and we had a conference call. I explained the pros and cons
of
the data so far, and then asked for more. It came in, and one person had the
great idea to put it all into a spreadsheet. We then had another conference call
where everyone critiqued the data, such that they could see its shortcomings and
strengths. I then pointed out the areas where we needed more or better data,
modified the spreadsheet to accommodate it, and we had another round of data
collection and improvement. In this morning's email I sent out the latest
spreadsheet, asked for about a dozen blank cells to be filled in, and more
importantly, asked for about 20 cells to be improved.
This is iterative refinement. We are expecting over 20 rounds before we have
enough high quality cause and effect data to even begin modeling. Most rounds
involve no conference call. We're doing about two rounds a week, which is
impressive considering one person lives in Australia and I'm in the US.
This process would have failed if all I did was ask for more data again and
again.
The convergent phase of each cycle creates a feedback loop that drives the
process toward success. Without that phase there is no feedback loop, and people
shoot out ideas all over the place, instead of at specific targets.
Much more important than quantity of data is quality of data. If one is
collecting lots of data that cannot be used to solve a problem, then one is
doing
the wrong things right. Better is to allow the idea creators to give themselves
frequent feedback, so they are creating useful data, and the team is doing the
right things right.
Jack Homer's paper on ""Why We Iterate?"" shows the importance of iterative
refinement. One never gets it right the first time.
Perhaps someone else on this list can give Kim another example?
> How effective would the sessions you experienced have been if most of the
audience had just sat in their chairs and said nothing when the facilitator
started each phase of the process?
I've never had this happen, because I and the other managers or consultants I've
watched have always used the ask, refine, ask, refine cycle process. If instead
an ask, ask, ask process was used, I would expect input to fall off
exponentially
with each ask phase.
> The problem I raised before therefore remains - if we start your
divergent/convergent phases with a badly incomplete set of raw inputs, then we
will very, very likely converge on things most people don't buy into.
Again, I can see something hasn't yet clicked. The whole idea of brainstorming
and iterative refinement is that you ALWAYS start off with a first round of weak
ideas. Then you improve them. This educates the group to what you are looking
for. Then you have another round of brainstorming, which from experience is
always better than the first round.
Your sentence above seems to assume there is only one brainstorming phase and
one
convergence phase. If that process is followed, then I agree. You will end up
with poor quality results.
Also, I would hesitate to call this ""your divergent/convergent phases."" This is
not my idea. It is a standard business best practice.
It may be that you are concerned that the goals you are about to release are
weak
and that that reflects on you as the facilitator. Don't worry. This is
groundless. This process expects them to be weak at first. A facilitator's role
is to provide the group with the assistance they need to go through several
rounds of successive refinement, until the goals are somewhat strong and ready
for the strategy committee, who will no doubt refine them even further.
I expect that in the first convergent phase lots of discussion will be on how to
objectively evaluate the different goal suggestions. Take a peek at this
approach
for ideas:
http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/ ... 10p56d.jpg
So you might present the goals in a spreadsheet, in groups. But we probably need
to list the goals along the vertical axis, since we have so many. The criteria
would be along the horizontal axis with totals on the far right. That should be
a
tantalizing column.
Well, I hope this explains the concept.
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Thu, 03 Jul 2008 11:22:03 -0400
_______________________________________________
-
""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategyd
- Member
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
We are way behind where we should be by this point, for which I apologise. I
hope
there will be a chance to share a little more on the work, and get some
additional input, in Athens and afterwards.
I have synthesised the responses so far [except today's!] - at
www.gsdoffice.co.uk/isdc-strategy.zip is a pictorial mind-map and a Word
document
that is best viewed in Outline form so you can collapse and expand sections and
subsections.
A couple of points ...
- you will notice that the same post may appear in different places - because
the
post made more than one point
- the actual mind-map has the specific contribution extracts that support the
summary point the contributor is making, and is the strategy team's working
database
To see the actual post in each case, go to the SD-list archive at
http://www.systemdynamics.org/pipermail/sdmail/.
If any contributor feels I have missed the essential point[s] in their post -
please advise me directly.
Observations ...
- contrary to some comments, the stream includes a lot about meeting
customer/client needs
- there is a strong stream too on the need to build capability
The major weakness - and the point of the original request that keeps being
missed is that very, very few posts actually answer the question 'what does
success look like'. What we do have though are many, many paragraphs/pages on
- 'things that ought to be done or done better'
- 'problems we need to fix'
- 'how to initiate change and remove resistance'
- and a few 'things we ought to have' if we are going to do better or fix those
problems [ this category is OK, since it does at least set some things to aim
at].
Though Jack Harich has offered to help with a further intense process to knock
something solid together in the next few weeks, I fear [a] we are starting with
too little that the energy to participate has waned and [c] we are entering
the travel season. For all these reasons, I do not propose initiating another
phase of work right now.
I will, though, continue to add any further contributions I receive.
Kim
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:24:11 +0100
_______________________________________________
We are way behind where we should be by this point, for which I apologise. I
hope
there will be a chance to share a little more on the work, and get some
additional input, in Athens and afterwards.
I have synthesised the responses so far [except today's!] - at
www.gsdoffice.co.uk/isdc-strategy.zip is a pictorial mind-map and a Word
document
that is best viewed in Outline form so you can collapse and expand sections and
subsections.
A couple of points ...
- you will notice that the same post may appear in different places - because
the
post made more than one point
- the actual mind-map has the specific contribution extracts that support the
summary point the contributor is making, and is the strategy team's working
database
To see the actual post in each case, go to the SD-list archive at
http://www.systemdynamics.org/pipermail/sdmail/.
If any contributor feels I have missed the essential point[s] in their post -
please advise me directly.
Observations ...
- contrary to some comments, the stream includes a lot about meeting
customer/client needs
- there is a strong stream too on the need to build capability
The major weakness - and the point of the original request that keeps being
missed is that very, very few posts actually answer the question 'what does
success look like'. What we do have though are many, many paragraphs/pages on
- 'things that ought to be done or done better'
- 'problems we need to fix'
- 'how to initiate change and remove resistance'
- and a few 'things we ought to have' if we are going to do better or fix those
problems [ this category is OK, since it does at least set some things to aim
at].
Though Jack Harich has offered to help with a further intense process to knock
something solid together in the next few weeks, I fear [a] we are starting with
too little that the energy to participate has waned and [c] we are entering
the travel season. For all these reasons, I do not propose initiating another
phase of work right now.
I will, though, continue to add any further contributions I receive.
Kim
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Fri, 4 Jul 2008 17:24:11 +0100
_______________________________________________
-
""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vu
- Junior Member
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz>
hi all,
This is a slight diversion from the current ""Society Strategy Development""
thread, but i wonder whether we are not looking at the 'big picture'
sufficiently?
Perhaps our broader academic/professional field is ""Systems Management"", and
""System Dynamics"" is one of the main 'sets of tools' & 'methodolgies' within
this
field.
For example, maybe 'System Dynamics' is to 'Strategic Management', like
'Econometrics' is to 'Economics', or 'Biometrics' is to 'Biology', or
'Pyschometretics' is to 'Psychology' etc??
Maybe 'Systems Management' should have the same relationship to ""Management"",
that 'Systems Engineering' has to ""Engineering""??
Perhaps SDS should collaborate more closely with other international systems
related societies (eg ISSS etc) to get ""Systems Management"" better understood
and
placed within the international community.
Any comments please?
many thanks,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Reader in Systems Management
Victoria Management School
Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand
Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz>
posting date Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:46:48 +1200
_______________________________________________
hi all,
This is a slight diversion from the current ""Society Strategy Development""
thread, but i wonder whether we are not looking at the 'big picture'
sufficiently?
Perhaps our broader academic/professional field is ""Systems Management"", and
""System Dynamics"" is one of the main 'sets of tools' & 'methodolgies' within
this
field.
For example, maybe 'System Dynamics' is to 'Strategic Management', like
'Econometrics' is to 'Economics', or 'Biometrics' is to 'Biology', or
'Pyschometretics' is to 'Psychology' etc??
Maybe 'Systems Management' should have the same relationship to ""Management"",
that 'Systems Engineering' has to ""Engineering""??
Perhaps SDS should collaborate more closely with other international systems
related societies (eg ISSS etc) to get ""Systems Management"" better understood
and
placed within the international community.
Any comments please?
many thanks,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Reader in Systems Management
Victoria Management School
Victoria University of Wellington,
New Zealand
Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz>
posting date Sun, 6 Jul 2008 16:46:48 +1200
_______________________________________________
-
Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.
- Junior Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>
Kim, you have done a great job in categorizing and summarizing all the
thoughts and sugegstions in this thread. Just ""collapsing"" the outline and
reading the headlines says a lot.
My opinion is that we have reached the stage where we should let the elected
officers of the society do what one expects of a board. Now is the time to
let them study the inputs, start work on a policy document which can be put
forward for discussion during the year and work when we meet at next years
conference. And by work I mean moving from talk to action. We will need a
lot of hands to realize the vison and strategies.
Regards
Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>
posting date Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:33:12 +0200
_______________________________________________
Kim, you have done a great job in categorizing and summarizing all the
thoughts and sugegstions in this thread. Just ""collapsing"" the outline and
reading the headlines says a lot.
My opinion is that we have reached the stage where we should let the elected
officers of the society do what one expects of a board. Now is the time to
let them study the inputs, start work on a policy document which can be put
forward for discussion during the year and work when we meet at next years
conference. And by work I mean moving from talk to action. We will need a
lot of hands to realize the vison and strategies.
Regards
Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>
posting date Sat, 05 Jul 2008 13:33:12 +0200
_______________________________________________
-
Jack Harich <register@thwink.
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
A terrific organizational learning experience has just occurred. After three
months of discussion, our first phase of trying to capture ""a clear sense of
what
the organization is trying to achieve"" has ended.
The purpose of this thread is to initiate developing ""a vision and strategy for
the next 50 years"" by starting with consideration of member's preferred
""success""
goals.
The opening question ""to clarify what *goals* the wider community should be
pursuing"" was ""It is 2028, and a special global gathering has been organised
with
no other purpose than to celebrate the outstanding progress that system dynamics
has made since 2008. What achievements would make you - and [importantly]
outside
observers - feel that this celebration is totally justified, and how would you
measure each of those achievements?""
Now then, what did we learn?
- We have 1180 members. Only about two dozen posted goal suggestions. This is
strikingly low.
- Kim was ""somewhat taken aback"" by this and made some personal inquiries to
some
of the influential members, most of who did not weigh in. Their reasons include
fear that ""developing a strategy is a long, complex, process of arguing and
dispute to arrive at a rather vague document about trying to achieve some
abstract and/or unrealistic outcomes,"" that ""we don't need a strategy,"" and
""Some
individuals and small groups may feel they are getting on just fine in their own
back yard, and don't see a need to get involved in the wider effort.""
Here we learned that we will not get a large response to an important question.
Nor will we hear from more than a small fraction of the Society's most
influential members. This could be interpreted as disaster. But in my opinion,
that considers only quantity. If we consider quality of the responses, then we
may have what we need.
We also learned:
- ""Very, very few posts actually answer the question what does success look
like.""
It's normal when soliciting opinions from a varied membership to receive varied
responses. Suppose most posts didn't answer the question. Then a few did. So,
did
these few answer it well or close? Have we collected enough goals to give us ""a
clear sense of what the organization is trying to achieve?"" I think the answer
is
yes.
Let's first discuss the number of such goals needed. This can be small. For
example, examine the INCOSE About page at:
http://www.incose.org/about/index.aspx
INCOSE is the International Council on Systems Engineering. They appear to be
about ten times as successful as the SDS. Not in terms of membership size or
budget size, but in terms of value delivered to the customer. The product is
systems engineering knowledge and practitioners. The customer is industry,
academia, and government. Demand from these customers shows that customer
satisfaction is high. Thus value is high.
And they do it all with 1 mission statement, 1 vision statement, and 5 goals.
Another example of a similar professional organization is at
http://www.nspe.org/AboutNSPE/MissionVision/index.html
They do it all with 1 vision statement, 1 mission statement, 8 values, and 3
goals.
Therefore we do not need lots of top objectives, some of which we have been
calling goals. We need a mere handful. They need to be organized into the
standard threesome of mission statement, vision, and goals. The mission is
fairly
fixed. The vision varies over the long term. The goals vary over the short term
in order to surmount current obstacles and reach portions of the vision that
have
not been achieved. They may also contain on going goals. As a starting point for
us to fill in the blanks, here is the standard format:
A. Definition of the field the organization is attempting to assist.
B. Mission statement: This is the main work the org does. It's what we actually
do.
C. Vision statement: This describes the successful outcome, the topmost goal to
achieve.
D. Goals, 5 or less
I believe that what we are ultimately trying to end up with is a vision
statement
for the next 50 years. Once that's clear, the strategy team will develop a
strategy to achieve the vision. The key objectives in that strategy will become
the Goals.
There can be a long vision description behind the vision statement. That could
incorporate many of the fine goals and rationale offered in this thread, as well
as illustrative scenarios. But to create the vision statement the long
description must be boiled down to a simple, clear, memorable short statement.
Otherwise you have a foggy unfocused vision.
The vision is the inspirational goal of the organization. As Peter F. Drucker
describes it in ""Managing the Non-Profit Organization"", 1990, page 189, ""Most
people don't continue to work for a non-profit corporation if they don't share,
at least in part, the vision of the organization.""
Imagine we were rewriting the SDS home page at http://www.systemdynamics.org .
This is the closest the SDS website has to an About page, where A, B, C, and D
usually live. Right now we could extract this consensus:
A. Definition of the field: ""System dynamics is a methodology for studying and
managing complex feedback systems, such as one finds in business and other
social
systems."" (Given the mission below, a one sentence definition of systems
thinking
is also needed.)
B. Mission statement: The encouragement of ""the development and use of systems
thinking and system dynamics around the world.""
C. Vision statement: (unknown)
D. Goals:
- Provide ""a forum in which researchers, educators, consultants, and
practitioners in the corporate and public sectors interact to introduce
newcomers
to the field, keep abreast of current developments, and build on each other's
work.""
- (Other goals are unknown)
I'd be cautions about developing C before checking to see that B is high
quality.
For example, here's the mission of INCOSE, the International Council on Systems
Engineering:
""Mission: Advance the state of the art and practice of systems engineering in
industry, academia, and government by promoting interdisciplinary, scalable
approaches to produce technologically appropriate solutions that meet societal
needs.""
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.""
Notice the phrase ""to produce technologically appropriate solutions."" Currently
SD is not seen as capable of producing solutions, but insights that may be
helpful in creating solutions. To me this is a serious shortcoming. It makes the
tool look weak compared to the other tools of systems engineering and greatly
reduces demand. For example, Sterman's ""Business Dynamics"", 2000, page 4 says
""System dynamics is a method to enhance learning in complex systems."" This is
the
book's definition of SD. Well, lots of things can enhance learning about complex
systems.
Here's the Wikipedia definition from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics: ""System dynamics is an approach to
understanding the behaviour of complex systems over time. It deals with internal
feedback loops and time delays that affect the behaviour of the entire system.
What makes using system dynamics different from other approaches to studying
complex systems is the use of feedback loops and stocks and flows. These
elements
help describe how even seemingly simple systems display baffling nonlinearity.""
SD is an engineering discipline but it's not an approach to solving problems or
designing systems? It's only useful for ""understanding?"" Then where's its large
scale practical value?
I suspect that SD needs to be reframed as a solution oriented tool. This of
course will require high emphasis on and integration with a problem solving
process. This is so important that at
http://www.incose.org/practice/fellowsconsensus.aspx we see that the field of
systems engineering is defined as ""an engineering discipline whose
responsibility
is creating and executing an interdisciplinary *process* to ensure that the
customer and stakeholder's needs are satisfied in a high quality, trustworthy,
cost efficient and schedule compliant manner throughout a system's entire life
cycle.""
Note the process diagram. ""The Systems Engineering Process"" appears to be the
very core of what today's systems engineers are expected to master. SD has
nothing like this.
Once SD has been reframed to being solution oriented and process driven, and the
tool itself and the process are mature, the field will have the ability to
reliably solve difficult complex system problems. This would be a HUGE
achievement because today that can't be done, especially for social as opposed
to
business problems.
INCOSE's vision statement is ""The world's authoritative systems engineering
professional society.""
I think we can do better. That vision is too inward focused. It can too easily
lead to promoting the organization instead of serving the customer. It's also
not
inspiring. So I'd lean toward a vision statement and related goal like:
- Vision: System dynamics is the world's leading approach to solving difficult
complex system problems, as well as engineering the dynamic core of complex
industrial and social systems.
- Goal: The project success rate where the problem solving process is rigorously
and correctly applied rises to 25% in 10 years, 50% in 20 years, and 95% in 50
years.
This is a vision I could get excited about and would love to participate in
achieving.
It is, however, a bit of a stretch.
""Dynamic core"" addresses the fact that SD (or at least stock and flow modeling)
is not the right tool for modeling all of most systems. But a highly evolved SD
could become be the right tool for modeling the core structure. This would
enable
engineers to get the strategy/backbone of the system right, which would lead to
successful system construction or modification.
Note how the vision covers two types of projects: solving problems and
constructing or upgrading large systems. The latter is currently mostly
industrial plants or product/weapon systems. Social systems like organizations,
governments, life forms like corporations, and society itself are seldom
engineered. This would change if the latter part of the vision could be
realized.
The above leads to this sample next iteration of the SD Society's objectives:
A. Definition of the field: System dynamics is a methodology for studying,
designing, and managing complex feedback systems, such as one finds in business
and other social systems.
B. Mission: Advance the state of the art and practice of system dynamics in
industry, academia, and government by promoting interdisciplinary, scalable
approaches to produce high quality, cost effective solutions that meet society's
needs.
C. Vision: System dynamics is the world's leading approach to solving difficult
complex system problems, as well as engineering the dynamic core of complex
industrial and social systems.
D. Goals:
- The project success rate where the problem solving process is rigorously and
correctly applied rises to 25% in 10 years, 50% in 20 years, and 95% in 50
years.
- (More to be determined by the strategy team)
This is just an example to help get discussion flowing in a productive new
direction. Note how clear, comprehensive, and integrated the objectives are.
To summarize, there are lots of valuable ideas in the goals and observations
posted to this thread. They can be used to help flesh out a vision description
and from that, a vision statement. They can also be used to determine the
membership's sense of what our mission should be. Once the mission and vision
are
clear, SDS officers and the strategy team can develop a strategy to achieve the
vision and create the top goals.
The team will no doubt consider deep thinking that has already gone into this,
like Jay Forrester's ""SD - The next 50 years,"" Ali Mashayekhi's talk (with rare
models) on ""A vision for the field of system dynamics with some suggestive
policies"" at
http://www.systemdynamics.org/newslette ... ss2001.htm, and
especially George Richardson's ""Problems for the Future of SD."" (there are many
more)
A final word about SD, from the last paragraph in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/techn ... wanted=all
“You can have the best technology in the world,” he said, “but if you don’t have
a community who wants to use it and who are excited about it, then it has no
purpose.”
Which is why we need the right vision....
I sincerely hope this helps,
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:36:30 -0400
_______________________________________________
A terrific organizational learning experience has just occurred. After three
months of discussion, our first phase of trying to capture ""a clear sense of
what
the organization is trying to achieve"" has ended.
The purpose of this thread is to initiate developing ""a vision and strategy for
the next 50 years"" by starting with consideration of member's preferred
""success""
goals.
The opening question ""to clarify what *goals* the wider community should be
pursuing"" was ""It is 2028, and a special global gathering has been organised
with
no other purpose than to celebrate the outstanding progress that system dynamics
has made since 2008. What achievements would make you - and [importantly]
outside
observers - feel that this celebration is totally justified, and how would you
measure each of those achievements?""
Now then, what did we learn?
- We have 1180 members. Only about two dozen posted goal suggestions. This is
strikingly low.
- Kim was ""somewhat taken aback"" by this and made some personal inquiries to
some
of the influential members, most of who did not weigh in. Their reasons include
fear that ""developing a strategy is a long, complex, process of arguing and
dispute to arrive at a rather vague document about trying to achieve some
abstract and/or unrealistic outcomes,"" that ""we don't need a strategy,"" and
""Some
individuals and small groups may feel they are getting on just fine in their own
back yard, and don't see a need to get involved in the wider effort.""
Here we learned that we will not get a large response to an important question.
Nor will we hear from more than a small fraction of the Society's most
influential members. This could be interpreted as disaster. But in my opinion,
that considers only quantity. If we consider quality of the responses, then we
may have what we need.
We also learned:
- ""Very, very few posts actually answer the question what does success look
like.""
It's normal when soliciting opinions from a varied membership to receive varied
responses. Suppose most posts didn't answer the question. Then a few did. So,
did
these few answer it well or close? Have we collected enough goals to give us ""a
clear sense of what the organization is trying to achieve?"" I think the answer
is
yes.
Let's first discuss the number of such goals needed. This can be small. For
example, examine the INCOSE About page at:
http://www.incose.org/about/index.aspx
INCOSE is the International Council on Systems Engineering. They appear to be
about ten times as successful as the SDS. Not in terms of membership size or
budget size, but in terms of value delivered to the customer. The product is
systems engineering knowledge and practitioners. The customer is industry,
academia, and government. Demand from these customers shows that customer
satisfaction is high. Thus value is high.
And they do it all with 1 mission statement, 1 vision statement, and 5 goals.
Another example of a similar professional organization is at
http://www.nspe.org/AboutNSPE/MissionVision/index.html
They do it all with 1 vision statement, 1 mission statement, 8 values, and 3
goals.
Therefore we do not need lots of top objectives, some of which we have been
calling goals. We need a mere handful. They need to be organized into the
standard threesome of mission statement, vision, and goals. The mission is
fairly
fixed. The vision varies over the long term. The goals vary over the short term
in order to surmount current obstacles and reach portions of the vision that
have
not been achieved. They may also contain on going goals. As a starting point for
us to fill in the blanks, here is the standard format:
A. Definition of the field the organization is attempting to assist.
B. Mission statement: This is the main work the org does. It's what we actually
do.
C. Vision statement: This describes the successful outcome, the topmost goal to
achieve.
D. Goals, 5 or less
I believe that what we are ultimately trying to end up with is a vision
statement
for the next 50 years. Once that's clear, the strategy team will develop a
strategy to achieve the vision. The key objectives in that strategy will become
the Goals.
There can be a long vision description behind the vision statement. That could
incorporate many of the fine goals and rationale offered in this thread, as well
as illustrative scenarios. But to create the vision statement the long
description must be boiled down to a simple, clear, memorable short statement.
Otherwise you have a foggy unfocused vision.
The vision is the inspirational goal of the organization. As Peter F. Drucker
describes it in ""Managing the Non-Profit Organization"", 1990, page 189, ""Most
people don't continue to work for a non-profit corporation if they don't share,
at least in part, the vision of the organization.""
Imagine we were rewriting the SDS home page at http://www.systemdynamics.org .
This is the closest the SDS website has to an About page, where A, B, C, and D
usually live. Right now we could extract this consensus:
A. Definition of the field: ""System dynamics is a methodology for studying and
managing complex feedback systems, such as one finds in business and other
social
systems."" (Given the mission below, a one sentence definition of systems
thinking
is also needed.)
B. Mission statement: The encouragement of ""the development and use of systems
thinking and system dynamics around the world.""
C. Vision statement: (unknown)
D. Goals:
- Provide ""a forum in which researchers, educators, consultants, and
practitioners in the corporate and public sectors interact to introduce
newcomers
to the field, keep abreast of current developments, and build on each other's
work.""
- (Other goals are unknown)
I'd be cautions about developing C before checking to see that B is high
quality.
For example, here's the mission of INCOSE, the International Council on Systems
Engineering:
""Mission: Advance the state of the art and practice of systems engineering in
industry, academia, and government by promoting interdisciplinary, scalable
approaches to produce technologically appropriate solutions that meet societal
needs.""
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.""
Notice the phrase ""to produce technologically appropriate solutions."" Currently
SD is not seen as capable of producing solutions, but insights that may be
helpful in creating solutions. To me this is a serious shortcoming. It makes the
tool look weak compared to the other tools of systems engineering and greatly
reduces demand. For example, Sterman's ""Business Dynamics"", 2000, page 4 says
""System dynamics is a method to enhance learning in complex systems."" This is
the
book's definition of SD. Well, lots of things can enhance learning about complex
systems.
Here's the Wikipedia definition from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics: ""System dynamics is an approach to
understanding the behaviour of complex systems over time. It deals with internal
feedback loops and time delays that affect the behaviour of the entire system.
What makes using system dynamics different from other approaches to studying
complex systems is the use of feedback loops and stocks and flows. These
elements
help describe how even seemingly simple systems display baffling nonlinearity.""
SD is an engineering discipline but it's not an approach to solving problems or
designing systems? It's only useful for ""understanding?"" Then where's its large
scale practical value?
I suspect that SD needs to be reframed as a solution oriented tool. This of
course will require high emphasis on and integration with a problem solving
process. This is so important that at
http://www.incose.org/practice/fellowsconsensus.aspx we see that the field of
systems engineering is defined as ""an engineering discipline whose
responsibility
is creating and executing an interdisciplinary *process* to ensure that the
customer and stakeholder's needs are satisfied in a high quality, trustworthy,
cost efficient and schedule compliant manner throughout a system's entire life
cycle.""
Note the process diagram. ""The Systems Engineering Process"" appears to be the
very core of what today's systems engineers are expected to master. SD has
nothing like this.
Once SD has been reframed to being solution oriented and process driven, and the
tool itself and the process are mature, the field will have the ability to
reliably solve difficult complex system problems. This would be a HUGE
achievement because today that can't be done, especially for social as opposed
to
business problems.
INCOSE's vision statement is ""The world's authoritative systems engineering
professional society.""
I think we can do better. That vision is too inward focused. It can too easily
lead to promoting the organization instead of serving the customer. It's also
not
inspiring. So I'd lean toward a vision statement and related goal like:
- Vision: System dynamics is the world's leading approach to solving difficult
complex system problems, as well as engineering the dynamic core of complex
industrial and social systems.
- Goal: The project success rate where the problem solving process is rigorously
and correctly applied rises to 25% in 10 years, 50% in 20 years, and 95% in 50
years.
This is a vision I could get excited about and would love to participate in
achieving.
It is, however, a bit of a stretch.
""Dynamic core"" addresses the fact that SD (or at least stock and flow modeling)
is not the right tool for modeling all of most systems. But a highly evolved SD
could become be the right tool for modeling the core structure. This would
enable
engineers to get the strategy/backbone of the system right, which would lead to
successful system construction or modification.
Note how the vision covers two types of projects: solving problems and
constructing or upgrading large systems. The latter is currently mostly
industrial plants or product/weapon systems. Social systems like organizations,
governments, life forms like corporations, and society itself are seldom
engineered. This would change if the latter part of the vision could be
realized.
The above leads to this sample next iteration of the SD Society's objectives:
A. Definition of the field: System dynamics is a methodology for studying,
designing, and managing complex feedback systems, such as one finds in business
and other social systems.
B. Mission: Advance the state of the art and practice of system dynamics in
industry, academia, and government by promoting interdisciplinary, scalable
approaches to produce high quality, cost effective solutions that meet society's
needs.
C. Vision: System dynamics is the world's leading approach to solving difficult
complex system problems, as well as engineering the dynamic core of complex
industrial and social systems.
D. Goals:
- The project success rate where the problem solving process is rigorously and
correctly applied rises to 25% in 10 years, 50% in 20 years, and 95% in 50
years.
- (More to be determined by the strategy team)
This is just an example to help get discussion flowing in a productive new
direction. Note how clear, comprehensive, and integrated the objectives are.
To summarize, there are lots of valuable ideas in the goals and observations
posted to this thread. They can be used to help flesh out a vision description
and from that, a vision statement. They can also be used to determine the
membership's sense of what our mission should be. Once the mission and vision
are
clear, SDS officers and the strategy team can develop a strategy to achieve the
vision and create the top goals.
The team will no doubt consider deep thinking that has already gone into this,
like Jay Forrester's ""SD - The next 50 years,"" Ali Mashayekhi's talk (with rare
models) on ""A vision for the field of system dynamics with some suggestive
policies"" at
http://www.systemdynamics.org/newslette ... ss2001.htm, and
especially George Richardson's ""Problems for the Future of SD."" (there are many
more)
A final word about SD, from the last paragraph in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/07/techn ... wanted=all
“You can have the best technology in the world,” he said, “but if you don’t have
a community who wants to use it and who are excited about it, then it has no
purpose.”
Which is why we need the right vision....
I sincerely hope this helps,
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Sun, 06 Jul 2008 23:36:30 -0400
_______________________________________________
-
""Balaporia, Zahir"" <Balapor
- Junior Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by ""Balaporia, Zahir"" <BalaporiaZ@schneider.com>
Kim – Thanks for your efforts to date. I hope the following helps.
As a relative newcomer to SD the success of SD looks like the following:
1. I see SD as fundamental to corporate strategy groups (at the risk of
re-stating the obvious). There are regular references to SD in business
publications (Business Week, WSJ, HBR, etc.) when writing about how successful
organizational strategies have been developed. A corporate strategy group
without SD experts would be the exception.
2. Enterprise Architecture (EA is a growing area dominated today by IT) uses
SD as a foundational modeling technique to guide the IT elements of their work.
I think some of the value that EA is supposed to bring has connections to the
airplane designer/pilot analogy that I believe Jay put forward in a paper a
little while ago.
3. SD is an ""integrative"" method (pun intended) among other techniques.
Collaboration with other areas such as OR/MS, Lean/Six Sigma, Change Management,
Business Intelligence, etc. is the norm.
4. Popular media reference SD models when discussing/reporting on the
troubles
of the day. For example I heard a discussion on the radio regarding the current
food crisis. It had all the elements of a great SD based discussion, unintended
consequences and all.
5. SD is widely accepted in K-12 education around the world. I just attended
the conference on SD in K-12 last week and came back excited about what schools
around the world are doing/starting to do. I hope my 5 and 7 yr old kids will
be
as excited as I am (please leave that out of your strategy) J.
6. The annual Franz Edelman Award (awarded by INFORMS – Operations Research /
Mgmt Sciences society) regularly has finalists/winners that used SD in their
award winning work.
7. In future election years, candidates for president/prime minister, use SD
to develop a basis for their planned policies that are supposed to make life
better for everyone.
Ok … I realize I went too far with #7 so I will stop for now. Hope that helps.
Thanks again for all your effort.
Regards.
Zahir Balaporia
Director, Decision Engineering
Schneider National, Inc.
Posted by ""Balaporia, Zahir"" <BalaporiaZ@schneider.com>
posting date Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:28:58 -0500
_______________________________________________
Kim – Thanks for your efforts to date. I hope the following helps.
As a relative newcomer to SD the success of SD looks like the following:
1. I see SD as fundamental to corporate strategy groups (at the risk of
re-stating the obvious). There are regular references to SD in business
publications (Business Week, WSJ, HBR, etc.) when writing about how successful
organizational strategies have been developed. A corporate strategy group
without SD experts would be the exception.
2. Enterprise Architecture (EA is a growing area dominated today by IT) uses
SD as a foundational modeling technique to guide the IT elements of their work.
I think some of the value that EA is supposed to bring has connections to the
airplane designer/pilot analogy that I believe Jay put forward in a paper a
little while ago.
3. SD is an ""integrative"" method (pun intended) among other techniques.
Collaboration with other areas such as OR/MS, Lean/Six Sigma, Change Management,
Business Intelligence, etc. is the norm.
4. Popular media reference SD models when discussing/reporting on the
troubles
of the day. For example I heard a discussion on the radio regarding the current
food crisis. It had all the elements of a great SD based discussion, unintended
consequences and all.
5. SD is widely accepted in K-12 education around the world. I just attended
the conference on SD in K-12 last week and came back excited about what schools
around the world are doing/starting to do. I hope my 5 and 7 yr old kids will
be
as excited as I am (please leave that out of your strategy) J.
6. The annual Franz Edelman Award (awarded by INFORMS – Operations Research /
Mgmt Sciences society) regularly has finalists/winners that used SD in their
award winning work.
7. In future election years, candidates for president/prime minister, use SD
to develop a basis for their planned policies that are supposed to make life
better for everyone.
Ok … I realize I went too far with #7 so I will stop for now. Hope that helps.
Thanks again for all your effort.
Regards.
Zahir Balaporia
Director, Decision Engineering
Schneider National, Inc.
Posted by ""Balaporia, Zahir"" <BalaporiaZ@schneider.com>
posting date Sun, 6 Jul 2008 23:28:58 -0500
_______________________________________________
-
""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategyd
- Member
- Posts: 36
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
I have added the mind map for this project to the download at
www.gsdoffice.co.uk/isdc-strategy.zip . You should be able to view this map,
which includes the notes added to each topic from each contributor's list-serve
post, with the trial version of MindVizualiser from
http://www.innovationgear.com/index.php
Kim
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:31:18 +0100
_______________________________________________
I have added the mind map for this project to the download at
www.gsdoffice.co.uk/isdc-strategy.zip . You should be able to view this map,
which includes the notes added to each topic from each contributor's list-serve
post, with the trial version of MindVizualiser from
http://www.innovationgear.com/index.php
Kim
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Tue, 8 Jul 2008 08:31:18 +0100
_______________________________________________
-
Jack Harich <register@thwink.
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
SDMAIL Bob Cavana wrote:
> hi all,
>
> This is a slight diversion from the current ""Society Strategy Development""
thread, but i wonder whether we are not looking at the 'big picture'
sufficiently?
>
The big picture is always worth keeping mind when developing strategy. The
bigger
picture is exactly what I've been trying to fathom for the last week or so. The
result was the post about mission, vision and goals.
> Perhaps our broader academic/professional field is ""Systems Management"", and
""System Dynamics"" is one of the main 'sets of tools' & 'methodolgies' within
this
> field.
>
> For example, maybe 'System Dynamics' is to 'Strategic Management', like
'Econometrics' is to 'Economics', or 'Biometrics' is to 'Biology', or
'Pyschometretics' is to 'Psychology' etc??
>
> Maybe 'Systems Management' should have the same relationship to ""Management"",
that 'Systems Engineering' has to ""Engineering""??
>
As I see it SD is a large subset of systems engineering, which is a small subset
of engineering.
> Perhaps SDS should collaborate more closely with other international systems
related societies (eg ISSS etc) to get ""Systems Management"" better understood
and
placed within the international community.
>
Yes, but I think you mean systems engineering rather than systems management.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_engineering and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_management
INCOSE seems more mature and successful than ISSS, and much closer to
engineering. See:
http://www.incose.org/about/index.aspx and
http://isss.org/world/index.php
There may be other organizations to consider.
I wonder if collaboration with other societies has been tried in the past?
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:53:35 -0400
_______________________________________________
SDMAIL Bob Cavana wrote:
> hi all,
>
> This is a slight diversion from the current ""Society Strategy Development""
thread, but i wonder whether we are not looking at the 'big picture'
sufficiently?
>
The big picture is always worth keeping mind when developing strategy. The
bigger
picture is exactly what I've been trying to fathom for the last week or so. The
result was the post about mission, vision and goals.
> Perhaps our broader academic/professional field is ""Systems Management"", and
""System Dynamics"" is one of the main 'sets of tools' & 'methodolgies' within
this
> field.
>
> For example, maybe 'System Dynamics' is to 'Strategic Management', like
'Econometrics' is to 'Economics', or 'Biometrics' is to 'Biology', or
'Pyschometretics' is to 'Psychology' etc??
>
> Maybe 'Systems Management' should have the same relationship to ""Management"",
that 'Systems Engineering' has to ""Engineering""??
>
As I see it SD is a large subset of systems engineering, which is a small subset
of engineering.
> Perhaps SDS should collaborate more closely with other international systems
related societies (eg ISSS etc) to get ""Systems Management"" better understood
and
placed within the international community.
>
Yes, but I think you mean systems engineering rather than systems management.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_engineering and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_management
INCOSE seems more mature and successful than ISSS, and much closer to
engineering. See:
http://www.incose.org/about/index.aspx and
http://isss.org/world/index.php
There may be other organizations to consider.
I wonder if collaboration with other societies has been tried in the past?
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:53:35 -0400
_______________________________________________
-
Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.
- Junior Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
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.
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. 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.
Regards
Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>
posting date Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:13:33 +0200
_______________________________________________
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.
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. 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.
Regards
Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>
posting date Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:13:33 +0200
_______________________________________________
-
Brian Crowe <brian_crowe@i-wo
- Junior Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Society Strategy Development
Posted by Brian Crowe <brian_crowe@i-worx.com>
I have been monitoring this thread since I participated in this discussion in
April. I want to summarize my expectations for the System Dynamics Society with
one analogy based upon my recent experience with a team of civic planners. But
first, regarding Kim warren's July 5 posting:
> I have synthesised the responses so far [except today's!] - at
> www.gsdoffice.co.uk/isdc-strategy.zip is a pictorial mind-map and a Word
document
> that is best viewed in Outline form so you can collapse and expand sections
and
> subsections.
This is a fascinating summary of this discussion. It reveals something of the
complex nature of establishing a strategy in a community of experts with
significantly differing priorities. Thank you Kim for taking the time to record
this result for us to see. It says a lot!
A brief story - I recently met with City Manager staff in my small city to talk
about how obvious placement of a small number of video cameras in neighborhoods
might reduce crime throughout the city. I pulled out my laptop and displayed a
simple system dynamics model that showed a video camera to be about (certainly
within an order of magnitude) as effective as a police officer on patrol in the
neighborhood in reducing home burglaries. The city manager staff member pulled
out his HP-12C financial calculator and had net present value and return on
investment calculated for a phased deployment of cameras throughout the city -
and had a plan in his head to reduce police staffing levels. The city manager
staff member failed to account for the potentially changing nature of the city's
crime and failed to account correctly for the ongoing value of the police
officers in the city. The system dynamics model told a more complete story...
Twenty-six years ago before that HP-12C financial calculator was invented, this
city manager staff member would have had a more exotic financial background, and
would have come prepared with a pile of finance tables to look at and calculate
from. Today, the financial expertise and the tools to make many financial
decisions are almost common place and casually employed, but the decisions can
be
flawed because they do not account for the system dynamics-nature of the problem
at hand.
When we gather at our future party to reflect on System Dynamics
accomplishments,
my hope is that the City Manager staff in my small city has an ""HP-1,000,000
System Dynamics Calculator"" to aid in their decision making. I am hopeful that
the Society works to make System Dynamics a generic tool for improved decision
making that is readily accessible and casually used by those who are not
necessarily the experts in the field. That would be my mission for the System
Dynamics Society - that's a big mission - and a ""macro"" mission. My experience
is that a big mission makes for a big success...
I wish I could be at the Athens conference to talk to many of you face to face -
I hope that everyone who attends has a good ""work hard - play hard"" experience!
Brian
Brian Crowe
TELE-WORX
2432 Kingsley Dr.
Grand Prairie, TX 75050
Posted by Brian Crowe <brian_crowe@i-worx.com>
posting date Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:46:34 -0500
_______________________________________________
I have been monitoring this thread since I participated in this discussion in
April. I want to summarize my expectations for the System Dynamics Society with
one analogy based upon my recent experience with a team of civic planners. But
first, regarding Kim warren's July 5 posting:
> I have synthesised the responses so far [except today's!] - at
> www.gsdoffice.co.uk/isdc-strategy.zip is a pictorial mind-map and a Word
document
> that is best viewed in Outline form so you can collapse and expand sections
and
> subsections.
This is a fascinating summary of this discussion. It reveals something of the
complex nature of establishing a strategy in a community of experts with
significantly differing priorities. Thank you Kim for taking the time to record
this result for us to see. It says a lot!
A brief story - I recently met with City Manager staff in my small city to talk
about how obvious placement of a small number of video cameras in neighborhoods
might reduce crime throughout the city. I pulled out my laptop and displayed a
simple system dynamics model that showed a video camera to be about (certainly
within an order of magnitude) as effective as a police officer on patrol in the
neighborhood in reducing home burglaries. The city manager staff member pulled
out his HP-12C financial calculator and had net present value and return on
investment calculated for a phased deployment of cameras throughout the city -
and had a plan in his head to reduce police staffing levels. The city manager
staff member failed to account for the potentially changing nature of the city's
crime and failed to account correctly for the ongoing value of the police
officers in the city. The system dynamics model told a more complete story...
Twenty-six years ago before that HP-12C financial calculator was invented, this
city manager staff member would have had a more exotic financial background, and
would have come prepared with a pile of finance tables to look at and calculate
from. Today, the financial expertise and the tools to make many financial
decisions are almost common place and casually employed, but the decisions can
be
flawed because they do not account for the system dynamics-nature of the problem
at hand.
When we gather at our future party to reflect on System Dynamics
accomplishments,
my hope is that the City Manager staff in my small city has an ""HP-1,000,000
System Dynamics Calculator"" to aid in their decision making. I am hopeful that
the Society works to make System Dynamics a generic tool for improved decision
making that is readily accessible and casually used by those who are not
necessarily the experts in the field. That would be my mission for the System
Dynamics Society - that's a big mission - and a ""macro"" mission. My experience
is that a big mission makes for a big success...
I wish I could be at the Athens conference to talk to many of you face to face -
I hope that everyone who attends has a good ""work hard - play hard"" experience!
Brian
Brian Crowe
TELE-WORX
2432 Kingsley Dr.
Grand Prairie, TX 75050
Posted by Brian Crowe <brian_crowe@i-worx.com>
posting date Tue, 8 Jul 2008 09:46:34 -0500
_______________________________________________