QUERY Society Strategy Development

[""John Morecroft"" <jmorecrof]

Posted by ""John Morecroft"" <jmorecroft@london.edu>

Kim,

In 2028, at a party to celebrate the continuing success of system
dynamics, I would like to see the following guests:

Twenty people who, at any time since 2000, have graduated with PhDs and
majored in system dynamics.

These twenty should also currently hold university faculty posts and
have received an award for outstanding work from a professional body
such as the System Dynamics Society, INFORMS, the Operational Research
Society or the Strategic Management Society

Finally each guest should name at least five good PhD graduates, trained
at their own institutions, who are themselves continuing to develop the
field and to teach others (undergraduates, MBAs, executives) about
system dynamics and the feedback view of business and society.

Regards John
_______________________________

John Morecroft | Senior Fellow
Management Science and Operations
London Business School
Posted by ""John Morecroft"" <jmorecroft@london.edu>
posting date Sat, 19 Apr 2008 14:33:11 +0100
_______________________________________________

[""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vu]

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

hi all,

currently i am preparing a paper for the new 'developmental papers' stream at
the SD conference in Athens on 'developing academic programmes in System
Dynamics'

although the focus of the paper will be on a brief comparison of some of the
the university/polytechnic programmes in SD around the world, hopefully we
will be able to have a good discussion around the scope and depth of education
required at the different levels for SD.

currently the System Dynamics Society has a web listing of most of the courses
in SD around the world (at least those that have contributed updated info).
however, in general, these are specific SD courses or specific courses
containing a significant SD component. this is different to SD programmes that
contain other supporting courses that are helpful/essential to getting a good
well rounded education in SD.

[however, i would like to emphasise that on the SDS website a number of
outstanding undergraduate, masters & PhD programmes in SD are listed (or
sometimes called 'systems modeling' or 'systems sciences' or some other
variation)]

we would expect the programmes to have a different emphasis depending on
whether the programme is situated in a business school, environmental science
dept, pyshology/sociology depts, engineering school, public administration
dept, health sciences, economics dept etc.

however, there is probably some generic material that should be covered re
SD & necessary underpinning knowlege, and recommended material depending on
the domain area etc. also we would have to recognise that some people want to
focus just on qualitative SD, and others on the whole subject area of SD.

i would appreciate any comments (or references) you may have regarding education
in SD. You might like to post your ideas/contributions to this thread, or email
them direct to me.

I will try and incorporate the contributions (if possible!) into my 'developmental
paper' for discussion at the Athens SD conference.

many thanks.
all the best,
Bob
Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz>
posting date Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:18:20 +1200
_______________________________________________

[""Jim Thompson"" <james.thomp]

Posted by ""Jim Thompson"" <james.thompson@strath.ac.uk>

John Morecroft envisions celebrating success of system dynamics
evidenced by a growing cadre of PhD faculty, graduates and
students twenty years on. His vision is inviting and raises the
question of how the Society might participate in making it a
reality.

Experience suggests that university-level research programs that
explore complex dynamics of important issues tend to draw the
people Prof. Morecroft sees at that celebration. A point of focus
draws students interested in solving the problem and who develop
new methods and tools to achieve that goal. 'The' solution is
almost beside the point; the interest and energy are in the
finding process.

The Society should encourage a few relatively large scale,
multiyear programs that promise to engage researchers at various
stages of their progress. Active encouragement includes providing
the forum for exchange of ideas at conferences and helping to
identify sources of funding

For example, just about all national health care systems are
challenged to meet rising demand, extraordinary price increases,
capacity limitations, and questions of quality. Conventional
analysis has taken us this far, and yet system dynamics
approaches tend to enhance the position of one system participant
at the cost of others. The systems that generate the problems
seem ripe for investigation at institutions in most every country
and, ideally, shared with all. And cracking the nut would attract
the hoped-for attention.

Jim Thompson
Posted by ""Jim Thompson"" <james.thompson@strath.ac.uk>
posting date Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:07:00 -0400
_______________________________________________

[""Pamela P"" <pamelapaquin@gm]

Posted by ""Pamela P"" <pamelapaquin@gmail.com>

Good Afternoon from Denmark!

I was just at the Society for Organizational Learning's global forum in
Oman with another SD colleague Ralf Lippold, it was an event from which
many great things could be taken and has given me the energy to respond
to this particular email.

The programme Jim is describing may be closely related to something
going on here at Copenhagen Business School called ""Instant Innovation
Camp"", which brings businesses, NGO's and research together to present
challenges to master's student studying innovation and sustainability
leadership in practice. The Students work up to a 30 hour live session
with a real business challenge. Indeed, the energy and the connections
(and practice on line) is the driver of this programmes success. The
hope being the collection of ""fresh eyes"" onto the challenges we face
across the board with sustainable innovation...and capitalizing on this
resource, as well as giving real space for young leaders to practice
where there is actual risk.

Website www.instantinnovationcamp.dk <http://www.instantinnovationcamp.dk>

warm regards!

Pamela
Posted by ""Pamela P"" <pamelapaquin@gmail.com>
posting date Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:42:38 +0200
_______________________________________________

[Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.]

Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>

My vision for the conference in 2028 is that of ordinariness, where system
dynamics has become so mainstream that sd-simulation is almost as widely
used as spreadsheets and a natural part of office packages. The tools have
been made useful and democratized, no longer the sole domain of those with
academic degrees. Systems Thinking and Dynamics have become natural choices
for solving even the just slightly messy problems. Those of us who have been
around a long time reminiscence over the days when we had to resort to
lengthy and indecipherable explanations of what we did.

Getting there started at school. Excellent material that already existed was
leveraged and made even more useable. Software was developed to cater for
the not so sophisticated modelers. Seasoned sd academics and practitioners
learned to live with the amateurism and early stages of learning amongst all
the newcomers. Actually all the old hands were active in developing and
running short courses for the neophytes at all levels of schooling. One gets
the feeling that most PhD's have used some sort of systems thinking or
modeling in their thesis work, it helps to integrate qualitative and
quantitative research.

Over the course of time sd trickled ³up² to higher levels of management and
got included into the standard tool set used in most organizations. The
trickle grew as younger managers were promoted upwards and as sd more and
more became integrated into conferences and training programs ans well as
other areas of knowledge and specialization.

Part of the popularization of st/sd was promoted by a new prize handed out
at system dynamics conferences, recognizing effort and clarity in thought in
popular writing, education and the spreading of sd to ³the masses²

Of course there are still a many doing pure sd and doing their doctoral work
advancing the field as such. As sd has become mainstream and spread into
other areas and conferences, the society conferences have turned more into
sd purism, advancement of the field as such and a watering hole for those in
other fields wanting to develop their expertise.

Best regards
Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>
posting date Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:41:05 +0200
_______________________________________________

[Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci]

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

- From what I read of these strategy ideas, I gather that we as a group
think the world of 2028 will likely be the world of 2008 with a bit more
age and wisdom (especially wisdom of the sort we offer).

Yet we have an early and long tradition of SD work that suggests we may
be on the threshold of major transitions due to a growing population and
shortages of food, energy, clean water and air, and the like.

Do we think those changes, perhaps first discussed in the Club of Rome
work, are unlikely? As I've blogged about a number of times (e.g.,
http://www.facilitatedsystems.com/weblo ... n-ltg.html), the
""outside"" world seems to be starting to get the message of LTG -- why
not us?

Or do we think they are likely but won't affect the adoption and
evolution of SD? If that, why don't we think the feedback we often see
in problems won't apply to us in this case?

Or do we think they are likely but technology will arise to fix the
problems in time without having to worry about population, food, energy,
disease, pollution, or political issues? I'd really like to think so,
but escaping all of those, especially given the delays (which we
describe to others in selling the utility of our work) in bringing new
technology online, seems a bit challenging (especially since food
shortages seem to be a current issue in much of the world -- see
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=& ... earch+News
- -- and I suspect we all know a bit about currently rising fuel prices).

In the spirit of initiating thought about various scenarios, here's an
alternative future (and not necessarily one I seek):

There won't be a global SD meeting in 2028 (and may not have been for
some years), for the time delays inherent in the ship crossing to
wherever it would have been scheduled are too great. Air travel has
disappeared except for the most urgent purposes and by the wealthiest
people, and such uses are hotly debated for their perceived waste of
shrinking oil reserves and impact on global climate change, now seen
to be all too real.

Regional groups (where a region is a geographical area covered
comfortably by electric rail travel, highways having fallen into
disrepair due to the higher frictional losses of tire-based vehicles
and the petroleum required to maintain asphalt roads) are meeting
regularly to apply insights derived from SD and other techniques to
very real problems of the day. Because of the urgent nature of the
problems to be addressed, there is little time to wait for annual
meetings; most of these groups are meeting weekly, monthly, or, at
worst, quarterly.

While SD is still valued, it is no longer seen as a separate
discipline but as part of the skill set a good manager and good
citizen should understand. Thus the regional meetings aren't SD
confabs but rather problem-focused meetings with participants bringing
expertise in agriculture, health, SD/ST, OR, statistics, low-tech
local manufacturing, social justice, and the like to address problems
of the region. There are rumblings of a desire to restart some sort
of larger-scale, focused meetings on the various disciplines including
SD to remedy a few gaps in their theories which have become visible
over time, but costs of continental meetings are still perceived as
too high, and so research is often local to specific universities.
Even that is limited, for, with average lifespans dropping, there is
much less incentive for most to spend what is now becoming a
significant fraction of their lives in school. The world is moving
away from specialization as a tool of progress.

Limited computing power due to energy and materials shortages
(http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showAr ... =199703375)
has led to less application of simulation and more application of
insights from analytical approaches. As Jay has written, there aren't
that many different dynamical problems which we face; so many are
analogs of others we've already faced, and many of the lessons carry
over. As we know, garnering analytical insights from nonlinear,
dynamic MIMO systems is not a trivial task, but neither was designing
the space program on Picketts. The ""systems thinking"" of 2028 bears
little resemblance to today's thinking about systems archetypes and
owes more to engineering approaches of the 1940s, '50s, and '60s.

The localization of society (e.g., supply chains now are no longer
than regional electric rail systems can span) has lessened the need
for complex SD, as formerly coupled systems are now quite loosely
coupled, making qualitative approaches more feasible.

Those energy and materials shortages have led to a low-tech Internet 4
that focuses on the exchange of text messages and files of limited
size (even the wordiness of XML has come to be seen as excessive in
this changed world). The server farms of the 0-0s were no longer
supportable. With their demise, the ability to house and transport
rich media files vanished. Personal computers (including those used
by an individual at work) are largely solar- or crank-powered and have
low-powered processors that don't require much in the way of rare
earth metals or other scarce resources nor produce much pollution in
their manufacture, so the former emphasis on GUIs and environments
which were seen as highly productive but costly in terms of storage
and computing resources as well as their start-up (initialization)
times has vanished, as well.

As an aside, note that most computers are now housed in enclosures
made of renewable woods or recyled materials; too much burning of
petroleum in the 20th century has left precious little for
feedstock, and so plastics are used only where no other material
will suffice and where the cost is worth the benefit, saving most
petroleum for medicines.

Most SD simulationists are running DYNAMO VI Professional, the free
DYNAMO VI Lite, the free COSMOS IV, or perhaps COSMIC IV Pro, all of
which are text-based, CLI programs.

As I've said before about any scenario exercise I write, I don't expect
this to happen as I said (and I certainly don't want it to), but I do
think it contains elements which are likely enough to warrant a bit of
consideration. I do agree (or at least hope) that this scenario is on
the far, extreme end of what we might see, although I haven't written
anything about global or regional peace or conflict.

What do you think? What might make some of these things likely? What
might keep some of these events out of our future?

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Wed, 23 Apr 2008 10:30:52 -0700
_______________________________________________

[Jack Harich <register@thwink.]

Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>

SDMAIL Pamela P wrote:
> The programme Jim is describing may be closely related to something
> going on here at Copenhagen Business School called ""Instant Innovation
> Camp"", which brings businesses, NGO's and research together to present
> challenges to master's student studying innovation and sustainability
> leadership in practice. The Students work up to a 30 hour live
> session with a real business challenge. Indeed, the energy and the

The ""concrete business cases"" these ""30 hour live sessions"" will use
will tend to be what I call the proper coupling part of the
sustainability problem. The sessions will essentially try to figure out
how to more properly couple a business to the environment, on a specific
problem area.

If you want to get into deep innovation, then I suggest there is an
innovative and more productive way to look at the sustainability
problem. This is that the problem is best decomposed into three
distinctly different subproblems. These are:

A. Overcoming change resistance
B. Achieving proper coupling
C. Avoiding excessive model drift

You can see definitions of these terms at:
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/ ... stance.htm
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/ ... upling.htm
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/ModelDrift.htm

My analysis shows that when it comes to solving the environmental
sustainability problem as a whole, working on proper coupling is a low
leverage point area. There is much high leverage in solving the change
resistance problem first. This is because change resistance is high in
the sustainability problem. (In fact, that's why the problem is so
difficult!)

Once change resistance is overcome, the system will ""want"" to be
properly coupled. Solving subproblem B is then relatively easy, because
there are already a large number of proper coupling practices what would
work adequately. There are a small number that still need to be created.

Thus the results of the student's work will fall into what is commonly
called sub-optimization. It looks great. It feels great to do. But
that's only because you are looking at a small, isolated part of the
system: a business with a particular problem.

I realize this course is already designed. But this may give the
partners some ideas for future work.


Warm regards,

Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Wed, 23 Apr 2008 09:46:43 -0400
_______________________________________________

[Richard Stevenson <rstevenson]

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

Along with many others, no doubt, I broadly welcome the creation of a
""task force"" to examine the future of system dynamics.

But I sincerely question that it is possible to develop a global ""vision
and strategy"" for the field as a whole without considering more specific
interests - and specifically the future of SD in business.

Below, I try make some positive (but perforce limited) suggestions as to
how we might begin to make a difference in business. But we must start
from where we are now - and I see very limited evidence that there is
currently a collective view, nor any real capability within the SD
community, to make significant change in our strategy. Rather, the SD
world persists in the view that, if only we give out the same messages
often and loudly enough, the business world will eventually begin to see
the light. The reality is the opposite - SD has already had several
chances to make a difference, and has flunked them all.

Rather, SD itself must adapt to the way the business world works.

*Different strokes - SD's successes and failures*
SD suffers from the very fact that it is ubiquitous. It is applied in
education, in many sciences (including social science and economics) and
in business - both strategy and operations. The needs and the required
forms of application are utterly different in each case. There is a
tendency for new practitioners to believe that, having a little
experience in a particular domain, they can understand and express wider
applications of the SD disciplines. In reality, there is only a tiny
handful of SD practitioners who understand anything other than issues
that they have addressed in their own special domains.

SD’s impact in education and the sciences is undisputed - and it’s not
too difficult to see that it will continue to develop in these areas.
K-12 (e.g.) initiatives and disparate academic centres of excellence
will ensure this happens. So, first, let me say that I personally have
absolutely no experience, and hence nothing more to say, about SD's
future development outside of the business arena.

But the greatest failure of SD is to make a deep and lasting impact in
business. After all, in /Industrial Dynamics/ (1961) Forrester first
claimed that ""management is on the verge of a major breakthrough"".
Forrester himself was not initially concerned with education and
science, but with business strategy and design. So why hasn’t SD
happened in business, after 60 years?

*For a start - this forum is not the best place to discuss these serious
issues*
It is proposed by the strategy team to use this listserve as the primary
exchange of views on the future. Yet what I see here is only a
community of well-meaning yet largely inexperienced opinions, often
exchanging views on the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Sadly it is the case that those who can do (in business at least) just
don't communicate on forums like this. Ask yourselves, why?

There is still, after 60 years, no coherent SD approach to the business
market. How many serious SD practitioners have ever had to justify their
conclusions (and maybe their careers) to a sceptical Board, or to
shareholders, or have been responsible for reconciling short-term
strategy (the easy route) with long-term value creation (the necessary
but difficult route)?

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.

However, and in a good spirit, here are a few thoughts for starters.

*Past SD initiatives in business*
SD’s greatest opportunity and challenge in business is as a strategy
support tool - and here SD has been both widely touted and conspicuously
unsuccessful in creating wide, long-term organisational impact. Sadly,
even where SD has provided significant strategic insights (and of course
there are many, many examples) it has never become embedded in long-term
organisational thinking.

Since Forrester’s original pioneering work there have been just two
significant SD initiatives in the business strategy arena.

/Systems Thinking/
The first was the ""systems thinking"" movement initiated by Senge et al.
Forrester has described this as an attempt to ""dumb down"" SD and I
agree. There was a bubble of interest that faded as managers realised
that systems thinking generated over-expectations and totally
underplayed the skills needed to deliver results. In retrospect,
systems thinking damaged SD considerably in the business arena - and we
now ignore this lasting effect at our peril.

/Strategy Dynamics/
The second movement was initiated by Barry Richmond in the 1990's and
has been most recently described by Kim Warren. But ""strategy dynamics""
is really no different from Forrester’s original work - it's just
another name. It requires managers to directly address the physics of
their businesses with stock/flow thinking. Fundamentally it expects
managers to become proficient in SD - and as Forrester himself states,
this requires extensive study and practical application experience. So
it is unlikely (in the extreme) that managers will ever follow this
route in any great numbers.

Both these approaches are governed by a static mental model that says
that, given basic understanding of SD principles, managers will suddenly
'see the light'. Thus there really has been no intellectual
breakthrough since /Industrial Dynamics, Urban Dynamics, World Dynamic/s
and /Limits to Growth. /In short, SD has atrophied rather than grown in
business. Neither systems thinking nor strategy dynamics have anything
much more to say than Forrester's original work. In fact, both
movement occlude it. Forrester's work remains the beacon.

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.


*New requirements for SD in business*
SD in business is currently mired between over-simplification (loosely,
systems thinking) and managerial incomprehension (loosely, strategy
dynamics). So the key to the way ahead must therefore lie in three
interdependent directions.



/1) Competence - a more professional approach/
We must never again downplay the complexity of SD, as many ""short
courses"" and distance learning programmes aim to do. I personally have
been guilty in this respect, as have (in particular) all the SD software
suppliers. MBA electives do not suffice, either. Many managers have
been seduced and then disappointed - and nothing is more damaging in
business than disappointment.

Rather, we should be actively promoting understanding that SD, like
finance, medicine and engineering, is a serious discipline that requires
a professional, developmental approach. There is no quick development
route - SD competence can only be acquired ""on the job"", not taught (as
Forrester himself continually says). The PROBLEM is that learners are
(rightly) afraid to test their putative skills on big, important
problems and companies are (rightly) unwilling to let them do so. Would
you let a first-year medical student operate on your heart,
unsupervised? But how else do you learn?

So we need professional development qualifications - underpinned by a
competence framework that is based on practical experience in business
and supervised by practitioners having years of real business
experience. There are a few such people worldwide - but only a very,
very few. We should be developing more!

This idea of competence is not the sole fiefdom of universities and
business schools - rather it requires a professional body approach that
mirrors the career routes of (e.g.) surgeons, lawyers and accountants.
In fact, the business schools are culpable by promoting the short
course mentality (even MIT, who are currently running one-week SD
programmes for managers). That is not the way ahead - and it could
indeed be the road to perdition.



/2) Inter-disciplinary thinking/
SD practitioners must work hard to comprehend how business works in
practice and meet those needs, rather than thinking of SD as a ""stand
alone"" strategy discipline. This requires (inter alia) business
knowledge, financial fluency, industry familiarity and (of course) deep
understanding of SD structures. These are indeed rare skill sets - that
cannot even be learned at MBA level. It is pretty unlikely that career
academics, based lifelong in their universities and tied to academic
strictures, could ever develop the range of front line skills
required. And consultants (particularly the big consultancies) are not
interested in wasting their chargeable time on developing SD skills - so
they can never be a power base in the development of the field. They
have all tried (e.g. McKinsey) - and they have all ultimately failed.

These broader business competencies must be wired back into the
necessary SD competence framework.



/3) Integration and management communication/
Third, it will be vital to apply - and to promote - SD as a component of
a much larger strategy decision framework. As Forrester himself says,
""we must break the boundaries between…finance, marketing, production and
personnel"". This means weaving SD into the actual decision structures
of organisations - not the other way around! We must be bold in
recognising that we don't actually hold all the keys to the kingdom -
and that SD has been intellectually aloof.

The reality is that all organisations are governed by market
imperatives, external regulation - and by inter-personal dynamics. If
the CEO, CFO, the CMO and the rest of the top team don't communicate
effectively, no amount of analysis will help them. So SD's role can be
to help them to communicate through developing strategy - both with each
other and with external stakeholders. There is no more powerful
approach to ""hearts and minds"" than providing a medium for
communication. SD is a powerful communication toolset.



So the key - and the opportunity - to SD's progress in the next twenty
years, lies I believe, in understanding two major new business realities.

*A) Value - and the changing role of the CFO*
First, we need to understand that 'strategy' is no longer (if it ever
was) a discipline in its own right. In particular, strategy is
intrinsically bound up with finance.
There are huge changes afoot in the strategy and finance arena - and
hence great new opportunities for SD. In particular, the finance
function is changing rapidly and is progressively assuming
responsibility for strategy. Today’s new CFO is light years’ different
from the old ""control and command"" finance director - he assumes primary
responsibility for creating value in the long term, across the whole
organisation - and communicating value to a wide range of stakeholders.

Value is a real, tangible concept that derives from the resource-based
view of the firm - and hence SD is brilliantly positioned to describe
and communicate it. *Resource allocation = strategy = value*; this is
a powerful new proposition for SD. It takes Forrester's original
propositions and turns them towards the new concerns of business.



*B) Globalisation - and changing ideas in long-life industries*
Second, we should recognise that SD is not equally applicable as a
strategy tool in all industries. In particular, we have comparatively
little to say (apart from 'beer game' type issues) in short life cycle
industries such as retail and FMCG.

But in the past decade we have witnessed a seismic shift in strategy
attitudes in ‘long life’ capital industries such as pharmaceuticals,
energy and utilities. In particular, such industries have been directly
affected by new attention from regulators and by global competition.
Sleepy European and USA companies are being challenged by more nimble
competitors from (e.g.) India and China. Pharmaceutical companies, in
particular, have seen their market values slashed as their patents
expire or are challenged. Energy companies must maximise value from
each and every investment. Even utility companies are increasingly
traded internationally and must hence justify their long-term value
propositions.

A defining characteristic of all such industries is that investment
returns are earned in timescales way beyond the tenure and reward
systems of their managers. Only tools such as SD (indeed only SD!) are
capable of illuminating these inherent time dichotomies. This is a mind
shift for SD practitioners raised on ""beer game"" principles based in
short-term operational thinking. The hard thinking now is the
transition to confront long-term strategy (often over over decades). The
insights that SD can bring to reconcile long-term outcomes with
short-term management actions can be both highly valuable and motivational.

*SD is uniquely positioned...*
Hence my belief that SD could be on the verge of a major breakthrough.
Indeed, business conditions are currently more propitious for SD than
at any time since /Industrial Dynamics/. In the past 50 years, you
could have been an ape and been successful in business (hmmm....). But
suddenly, the tide has turned in favour of intellect . And so here's
our opportunity.

*But...*
It is also my belief that our field is hamstrung by a lack of business
competence, organisation and willpower. We have very few practitioners
capable of making the breakthrough.

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'.



Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>
posting date Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:20:57 +0100
_______________________________________________

[""John Morecroft"" <jmorecrof]

Posted by ""John Morecroft"" <jmorecroft@london.edu>

Bill

Thanks for your stimulating thoughts, scenarios and weblinks about the
major transitions we all now face. System dynamics surely does have an
important role to play in this vast arena - and a good track record too.

Regards John
Posted by ""John Morecroft"" <jmorecroft@london.edu>
posting date Thu, 24 Apr 2008 13:14:03 +0100
_______________________________________________

[Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci]

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

""SDMAIL Richard Stevenson"" <rstevenson@valculus.com> writes:
> SD in business is currently mired between over-simplification (loosely,
> systems thinking) and managerial incomprehension (loosely, strategy
> dynamics). So the key to the way ahead must therefore lie in three
> interdependent directions.

Richard,

Thanks for your thoughts.

> /1) Competence - a more professional approach/

> This idea of competence is not the sole fiefdom of universities and
> business schools - rather it requires a professional body approach that
> mirrors the career routes of (e.g.) surgeons, lawyers and accountants.

While I accept that SD has much technical depth, why are medicine, law,
and accounting better than engineering as role models? In particular, I
suspect most US electrical engineers (I can't speak to other countries'
situations, despite having worked as a practicing engineer in another
country for a while) are not Professional Engineers (PEs) but rather
graduate engineers. That is, they mostly studied at a university and
then went to work in a company without undergoing independent testincg
and licensure. Do you see practical, not just philosophical, gaps in
the engineering model that make it worth the cost of implementing the
heavier-weight medical, legal, or accounting model?

> /2) Inter-disciplinary thinking/

> SD practitioners must work hard to comprehend how business works in
> practice and meet those needs, rather than thinking of SD as a ""stand
> alone"" strategy discipline. This requires (inter alia) business

If some of the early and still ongoing work in SD (e.g., LTG) has value,
are we likely facing serious transitions
(http://facilitatedsystems.com/weblog/20 ... ughts.html
and the precautionary principle come to mind)?

If so, is our role to comprehend how business works and meet those
needs, or is it to speak truth to power and help businesses,
governments, NGOs, and individuals figure out how to navigate the
transitions we may encounter and that they -- or even we -- may not yet
see? (See Hume's problem at
http://www.facilitatedsystems.com/weblo ... s-and.html)

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:35:35 -0700
_______________________________________________

[""Rick Kossik"" <RKossik@gold]

Posted by ""Rick Kossik"" <RKossik@goldsim.com>

As an engineer who has built dynamic models of complex systems for over
20 years (using, in some cases, SD concepts and constructs), I find much
of the discussion on this board regarding finding ways to increase the
use of SD in the real world a bit confusing. Although I recently
joined the SDS (and attended and thoroughly enjoyed the Boston
conference), I am really an outsider: Although I am from MIT (Civil
Engineering, not Sloan), I learned dynamic modeling outside of the SD
community (through spending 20 years as a consulting engineer), and have
never taken a formal SD course. As such, I hope that some comments from
an ""outsider"" will add some value to this discussion. Many of the ideas
below have been mentioned or at least alluded to by others, but I
thought it would be worthwhile to reiterate them here, as an ""outside
voice"".

It seems to me that many of the suggestions for advancing SD tend to
revolve around training and graduating more SD modelers from system
dynamics programs (e.g., this was mentioned a few times at the
conference too). To an outsider like me, this seems analogous to
suggesting that we can solve more engineering and economic problems in
the world by graduating more mathematics professors. Mathematics
professors do not generally solve applied engineering and economic
problems (as they typically don’t have the domain-specific expertise to
do so). Rather, engineers and economists who understand the use of
calculus and other mathematical tools solve those problems.

Putting the focus on training more SD experts seems to imply that
solving complex engineering, business and social problems requires
nothing more than expertise in system dynamics, and a couple weeks
discussing the problem with discipline experts. Again and again in this
forum I read about how difficult it is to master SD. However, the
(probably unintentional) implication is that SD takes years to master;
but disciplines like economics and environmental engineering (to which
you want to apply SD) can be mastered quite quickly by a seasoned SD
modeler by simply talking to some experts a few times. Not only is this
unrealistic, I think it can also come across as arrogant and as such,
can have the affect of producing push back from discipline experts,
resulting in a decreased use of SD.

SD is a powerful and useful tool that is applicable within many
disciplines. However, to effectively use any modeling tool in a
particular discipline requires a thorough, fundamental and sometimes
subtle understanding of the system and processes being modeled. I do
not believe that this can be acquired in a couple meetings with domain
experts. That is, what we need is not more system dynamic modelers who
know something about economics, but more economists who understand
system dynamics. Therefore, I believe that if you want to increase the
use of SD, instead of focusing on training and graduating more SD
modelers, you should put all of your focus on encouraging various
disciplines to incorporate a semester or two of SD training into their
curriculum.

As an aside, it is worth reminding everyone (as has occasionally been
done by others here) that SD is just one of many modeling and simulation
tools that any particular discipline requires. Many real world dynamic
systems simply cannot be modeled using SD (e.g., many systems cannot be
realistically described using only ordinary differential equations). I
mention this because someone trained primarily as a SD modeler may tend
to see every problem as a SD problem (if all I have is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail). However, a good engineer, for example,
carries a large number of tools in his toolkit, and applies whichever
one is most appropriate to the problem at hand.

You will be successful if in 2028, the majority of the conference
attendees do not think of themselves primarily as system dynamics
modelers, but as economists, engineers, scientists and other analysts
who sometimes (but not always) use system dynamics in their discipline,
and have interesting and successful SD applications to describe.

Regards,

Rick Kossik
Posted by ""Rick Kossik"" <RKossik@goldsim.com>
posting date Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:15:29 -0700
_______________________________________________

[Richard Stevenson <rstevenson]

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

Bill Harris writes:
> Do you see practical, not just philosophical, gaps in
> the engineering model that make it worth the cost of implementing the
> heavier-weight medical, legal, or accounting model?

I have no problems with the engineering development model. Far from it. It is
in principle preferable to the other models - so thanks for suggesting it. But
I guess the practical issue is in persuading companies to employ young SD
graduates - without senior supervision. I refer to my analogy about first year
medical students operating on your heart. So when SD is an established business
discipline (i.e. in another 50 years, maybe) the ""apprentice"" route could be
viable.

> ...is our role to comprehend how business works and meet those
> needs, or is it to speak truth to power and help businesses,
> governments, NGOs, and individuals figure out how to navigate the
> transitions we may encounter and that they -- or even we -- may not yet
> see?

Both. But you can't do the latter without fulfilling the former.

Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>
posting date Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:12:05 +0100
_______________________________________________

[Jack Harich <register@thwink.]

Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>



SDMAIL Bill Harris wrote:
> Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
>
> - From what I read of these strategy ideas, I gather that we as a group
> think the world of 2028 will likely be the world of 2008 with a bit more
> age and wisdom (especially wisdom of the sort we offer).
>
> Yet we have an early and long tradition of SD work that suggests we may
> be on the threshold of major transitions due to a growing population and
> shortages of food, energy, clean water and air, and the like.
>
> Do we think those changes, perhaps first discussed in the Club of Rome
> work, are unlikely? As I've blogged about a number of times (e.g.,
> http://www.facilitatedsystems.com/weblo ... n-ltg.html), the
> ""outside"" world seems to be starting to get the message of LTG -- why
> not us?
(snip)
> In the spirit of initiating thought about various scenarios, here's an
> alternative future (and not necessarily one I seek):
>
> There won't be a global SD meeting in 2028 (and may not have been for
> some years), for the time delays inherent in the ship crossing to
> wherever it would have been scheduled are too great. Air travel has
> disappeared except for the most urgent purposes and by the wealthiest
> people, and such uses are hotly debated for their perceived waste of
> shrinking oil reserves and impact on global climate change, now seen
> to be all too real.
(long snip)

It would seem from this scenario that the Society would be better off
spending its time solving the ""limits to growth"" sustainability problem,
rather than solving its own ""no growth"" problem.

This runs along the lines of the SD rule of don't model a system, model
a problem. Or in science, solve the specific problem first, and then
develop a more powerful generalization from that. The latter is the real
payoff.

So far, all that's really happened is that the Limits to Growth project
and book of 1972 identified the sustainability problem. Realistically,
no comprehensive solution is in sight. The complete problematique
continues to grow exponentially worse, just as the World2 and World3
models predicted, unless....

If the Society could make a crucial contribution to the sustainability
problem analysis and solution, what it learns from that would (?) lead
to solution of its own smaller and more generalized problem. SD would
have hit a second home run.

Only this time, 46 years later, the bases are loaded.

If SD can't solve large social problems of critical importance, does it
really make sense to gaze at our navels and contemplate how to make the
field grow?

Thanks for the thoughtful scenario, Bill.

Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:12:06 -0400
_______________________________________________

[""Johann Heymann"" <johann.he]

Posted by ""Johann Heymann"" <johann.heymann@fdg.co.za>

Bill, Rick

As a business consultant with an engineering degree I agree that SD will
only grow and prosper if we are able to convince the broader business
community of its business value. Like with most mathematical modelling
techniques (including statistics and simulation), non-engineers and
non-scientists have significant difficulty in understanding the
complexities of SD. Unless systems can be articulated in business
terms, I suspect that there is a low probability that SD will be
regarded as a useful technology by the business community at large. It
should be noted that the business community had a very positive response
initially to Peter Senge’s book, ""The Fifth Discipline"", in particular,
to ""Systems Thinking"". Unfortunately, I believe that most of that
interest has been lost. Unless we can rejuvenate the acceptance of the
basic ""Systems Thinking"" philosophy among business people, I suspect
that we will have an uphill battle to convince Business to accept SD.

Regarding the road forward for SD, I believe that we need to consolidate
past efforts in building Generic Business Process SD Models including:

1. Inbound logistics models (Supply Chain)

2. Process models (i.e. manufacturing, construction, commercial etc)

3. Outbound logistics models (warehousing, distribution etc)

4. Marketing

5. Procurement

6. Research and Development

7. Human Resources

8. Financial processes (Financial Statements, Workflow, etc)

9. Governance processes (Responsibility, Accountability, Ethics,
Reputation Management etc)

10. Information processes (Information Technology, Information
Management, Business intelligence/Decision Support etc.)

11. Maintenance Management (Including Reliability modelling, Work
Order processes, Repair Processes, Condition Monitoring etc)

12. Risk Management

13. Project Management

14. Shared Services (including Outsourcing, Insourcing etc)

15. Safety Health and Environmental Management (SHE)

Such models can be integrated and modified to suit specific business
environments. Once Business can be convinced that the models seem to be
useful predictors of AS-IS processes, business improvements can be
suggested and demonstrated using such models. I believe that such
business process models could be used as one of the most powerful
tactical decision making instruments, because it allows for tactical
scenario planning.

Another area where SD can make a very significant contribution is in
Performance Management. Using the Business Process Models suggested
above, together with Business Intelligence, the most significant Key
Performance Indicators can be established from such SD models. An even
more significant contribution that can be made is in the area of Target
Setting as target setting methods in performance management frameworks
are mostly arbitrary and often lead to dysfunctional behaviour or at
best suboptimal performance.


From the above three major contributions of SD can be to the areas of:

1. Business Process Improvement;

2. Tactical Scenario Planning; and

3. Enterprise Performance Management.

Another obvious area of interest is that of Foresight and Strategy
Modeling. I believe, however, that the TO-BE scenarios should have less
emphasis as it depends largely on the acceptance of Business of the
value of SD. Once significant traction of SD in Business Processes has
been obtained, Strategy Modeling will be the logical next step with very
significan pay-offs.

In terms of Society Strategy Development, my suggestion is that the
Society should promote the development of generic SD models as shown
above, even to the extent of supporting new business ventures that
provide Business Process Solutions. In terms of academic development,
curricula should include:

1. Business Management themes;

2. Business Process Modelling;

3. Scenario Planning; and

4. Enterprise Performance Management.


In short: FOCUS ON BUSINESS VALUE.

I trust that the above comments will be of use.

Kind Regards

Johann Heymann
FIFTH DISCIPLINE CONSULTING (PTY) LTD
Posted by ""Johann Heymann"" <johann.heymann@fdg.co.za>
posting date Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:55:33 +0200
_______________________________________________

[Ralf Lippold <ralf_lippold@we]

Posted by Ralf Lippold <ralf_lippold@web.de>

Dear Johann,
dear all,

as a non-engineer working together with engineers (production,
logistics, computing) for the last couple of years in the rail and
automotive field I would like to share some different experiences.

My educational background is economics and business administration
whereas the economics perspective brought me to the systems thinking a
couple of years ago. It was 2006 when I drove up to the Netherlands to
attend the 23. International System Dynamics Conference in Nijmegen.
Totally new to the field I was thrilled what was being discussed in the
sessions. Especially a round table talk about how to connect SD with
Businesses got my interest and ever since I haven't lost deep interest
in this question.

>From my own workexperience I have learned that
most problems that organizations face and try to tackle are not as easy
as a calculus equation (difficult enough when you are struggling solving
it during a test;-)). The main obstacle in reaching a sustainable
solution that will last and improve the overall process outcome are the
hidden ""mental models"" that make it a walk through the fire while
stepping into unknown turfs managed by managers that fight for their own
groups, agendas or their boss's one.

> Posted by ""Johann Heymann"" <johann.heymann@fdg.co.za>
> As a business consultant with an engineering degree I agree that SD will
> only grow and prosper if we are able to convince the broader business
> community of its business value. Like with most mathematical modelling
> techniques (including statistics and simulation), non-engineers and
> non-scientists have significant difficulty in understanding the
> complexities of SD.

Of course engineers around the world like numbers! Are numbers really
the essence of the problem? It is like the temperature outside on a
stormy day when the wind chill factor isn't grasped at all by just
measuring the temperature. Getting the right numbers looks all too easy
and -that true- that can lead to solutions that fail in the long-run
(economics wording from twenty years ago).

> Unless systems can be articulated in business
> terms,

Getting the language right and understood by both sides is a real
challenge, as I had a discussion on ""low-hanging fruit"" with a friend
(an engineer;-)) while discussing why improvement efforts are often
leading to future decline in performance. It took us about an hour to
figure out what each of us meant by the just three words. And you must
know, that we are discussing the broader topic of shortcomings of
improvement efforts (especially lean initiatives) for about almost a
year, so have already a similar basis for discussion.

Just imagine doing such a discussion with a top manager! You wouldn't
have more than five minutes to get to the point, after that you are out.

> I suspect that there is a low probability that SD will be
> regarded as a useful technology by the business community at large.

What are the shortcomings that this is not the case? There is a limits
to growth situation and we should have a look at the obstacles that
hinder the growth (as we perceive it;-)). Perhaps the field is growing
and we don't it or see it. Just recently we had a conference with ""lean
thinkers"" around Germany and system dynamics was widely unknown. As soon
as I had drawn some loops some people of the group said, ""You are
talking about cause and effect (Wirkungszusammenhänge)? That I know and
have written my thesis about!"".

Perhaps we need more sensible radars to get the feeling where the
systemdynamicists are active.

> It
> should be noted that the business community had a very positive response
> initially to Peter Senge’s book, ""The Fifth Discipline"", in particular,
> to ""Systems Thinking"". Unfortunately, I believe that most of that
> interest has been lost.

Not lost probably, just hidden under the carpet of compliance;-( There
is in most organizations no shared vision that everybody can understand,
is part of and and/or can participate in - or am I totally wrong?

> Unless we can rejuvenate the acceptance of the
> basic ""Systems Thinking"" philosophy among business people, I suspect
> that we will have an uphill battle to convince Business to accept SD.

To be honest, without resistance there will be no learning on how to
make things better next time. Get the small experiments and try to open
up the mental models people have around organizations (not easy, time
consuming and yet the best way to improve - over time). It is like in
""Lean Thinking"" where the small improvements (done forever! and called
KAIZEN) will lead to future excellence - as Toyota and other companies are

That's from my perspective for the moment -there is more I could write
about (as information overflow has never solved any problem I will
reflect on additional thoughts).

Looking forward to further diverse discussion on the topic.

Best regards from Leipzig

Ralf
Posted by Ralf Lippold <ralf_lippold@web.de>
posting date Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:37:42 +0200
_______________________________________________

[""Colin Beveridge"" <colin@co]

Posted by ""Colin Beveridge"" <colin@colin.beveridge.name>

> Johann Heymann wrote:
> As a business consultant with an engineering degree I agree that SD
> will only grow and prosper if we are able to convince the broader business
> community of its business value.

Or perhaps more accurately: if we can demonstrate the business value of its
application.

A fine but important distinction is required between the intrinsic value
(subjective) attributed to the technique (SD) and the measurable business
value (objective) actually derived from its use.

> Like with most mathematical modelling
> techniques (including statistics and simulation), non-engineers and
> non-scientists have significant difficulty in understanding the
> complexities of SD. Unless systems can be articulated in business
> terms, I suspect that there is a low probability that SD will be
> regarded as a useful technology by the business community at large.

Perhaps the most favourable business perspective of SD is as an analytical
tool that can be applied diagnostically or speculatively to understand a
situation. Few businesses think in terms of systems - and a large proportion
of those few probably confuse systems with information technology.
Consequently any ""difficult"" concept such as SD will always struggle to
achieve recognition, unless and until SD becomes embedded into broader
management systems, at the component level. At which point SD becomes
subsidiary, from an identity point of view.

I honestly believe therefore that anguishing over the lack of business
recognition for System Dynamics is a complete waste of intellectual energy.
>From a business perspective I would suggest that it is far more worthwhile
to address the fundamental question: What is the value proposition of System
Dynamics and how can it be realised?

Posted by ""Colin Beveridge"" <colin@colin.beveridge.name>
posting date Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:26:00 +0100
_______________________________________________

[Dr John P Weldon <corp_dyn@ii]

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

The following SDMAIL statement from Jack Harich (29 Apr 2008) provides
an opportunity to comment on issues central to future prospects for SD
growth:

'... the SD rule of don't model a system, model a problem. Or in
science, solve the specific problem first, and then develop a more
powerful generalization from that. The latter is the real payoff'.

Strong indications, that all is not well with the above 'rule', are
provided by the following:

* The Ingalls case (/Interfaces/, K Cooper, 1980); one of the
brightest jewels in the SD crown.
* Corporate models that are used for system-wide activity and
resource control, planning, budgeting, and accountability etc.

If the 'rule' is correct, these system models are inappropriate and
invalid, and outside the SD paradigm. However, it is much more likely
that the 'rule' is deficient.

In some cases a genuine 'problem' can be identified of smaller content
and scope than that of the system in which it resides. In many other
cases the 'problem' is grounded in high interactive complexity of the
system. This results in low effectiveness and efficiency. The 'problem'
then is: what to do about that situation.

The 'problem' in the Ingalls case was that Ingalls was due to be closed
down by its parent company, Litton, owing to Ingalls' induced
insolvency. Ingalls' management had to prove in court that US Navy
actions had caused that insolvency. The key point for the 'rule' in that
case was that no modeling below the level of the full engineering system
was relevant to Ingalls' stated objectives.

In the case of corporate models the 'problem' lies with the system
itself; specifically with high levels of interactive and dynamic
complexity, which are beyond the scope of 'manual' management (including
general computerisation). Again, in order to address this 'problem' no
modeling below the level of the full system is relevant for purposes of
enhancing effectiveness and efficiency.

The 'rule' therefore needs to be substantially redefined along the lines
below.

If a genuine 'problem' can be identified of smaller content and
scope than that of the system in which it resides, modeling shall be
confined to entities (below the number needed to model the system
itself) that can adequately explain and resolve the 'problem'. In
all other cases modeling of the system shall be regarded as
appropriate and necessary.

The existing 'rule' is pernicious because it discourages modeling at
system level in cases where that is appropriate. It also contributes to
confusion on the part of potential clients for SD applications. The
existing 'rule' is part of the baggage that needs to be jettisoned, if
the SDS is to have any real prospect of growing the SD field.

Growth from the present point should not be viewed mainly in terms of
more academic conferences, or even of graduating more SD Ph.Ds. It
should be seen in terms of extending the coverage and influence of SD in
the real world through quality SD applications. Modeling systems has an
important role to play in achieving these objectives.

As a first step the SDS web site should be amended to reflect the above
redefinition.

Sincerely.

John Weldon
Corporate Dynamics
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
Posted by Dr John P Weldon <corp_dyn@iimetro.com.au>
posting date Mon, 05 May 2008 12:50:35 +1000
_______________________________________________

[Jack Harich <jack@thwink.org&]

Posted by Jack Harich <jack@thwink.org>

Kim and everyone,

The purpose of this message is to discuss a fine point of strategy. As I
see it, Kim will soon draw the goals brainstorming phase to a close, get
to a focused goal, and then move on to the next phase, which may
eventually lead to work groups. Somehow their end goal will be to
develop a strategic plan, which is itself the high level solution.

When solving insanely difficult problems, once you have assembled a team
of motivated, sharp, qualified problem solvers (as we have here), THE
critical factor is the process. Kim, I was pleased to see in your
""Competitive Strategy Dynamics"" that this is the way you feel, so we are
on the same page.

Therefore a key milestone remaining in the project ""to develop a vision
and strategy for the next 50 years"" is the selection/design of a problem
solving process for how to reach the goal(s) we will soon agree upon.

Starting in chapter 6, your book illustrates how a standard problem
solving process is essential. I can’t help but to assume you have a
specific process in mind to help the SD community along. It may be based
on the process presented in the book. For those who don’t have a copy,
here are the seven steps of the ""Dynamic Resource System View"" (DRSV)
process:

1. Identify the time-path of performance.

2. Identify those few resources at the heart of the business

3. Get quantitative - identify the inflows and outflows causing the core
resources to grow, develop, or decline.

4. Identify how *flows* of each resource depend upon existing *levels*
of resources and other drivers.

5. Combine the resource dependencies from Step 4 into a strategic
architecture of the business.

6. Get quantitative - again - to see how the strategic architecture
explains performance to date and into the future.

7. Revising policy to uprate performance.

We have embarked on a long term self-transformation project, one that
has the potential to be the most important event in the field since it
was shot out of a cannon over 30 years ago by the work of Forrester and
the success of the LTG project. This is serious work, fraught with risk.
Thus it may help to remember what John Kotter wrote in his seminal
article on ""Leading Change: Why Transformational Efforts Fail,"" 1995,
Harvard Business Review. The paper opened with:

""Over the past decade, I have watched more than 100 companies try to
remake themselves into significantly better competitors. They have
included large organizations (Ford) and small ones (Landmark
Communications), companies based in the United States (General Motors)
and elsewhere (British Airways), corporations that were on their knees
(Eastern Airlines), and companies that were earning good money
(Bristol-Myers Squibb). These efforts have gone under many banners:
total quality management, reengineering, right sizing, restructuring,
cultural change, and turnaround. But, in almost every case, the basic
goal has been the same: to make fundamental changes in how business in
conducted in order to help cope with a new, more challenging market
environment.

""A few of these corporate change efforts have been very successful. A
few have been utter failures. Most fall somewhere in between, with a
distinct tilt toward the lower end of the scale. The lessons that can be
drawn are interesting and will probably be relevant to even more
organizations in the increasingly competitive business environment of
the coming decade.

""The most general lesson to be learned from the more successful cases is
that the change process goes through a series of phases that, in total,
usually require a considerable length of time. *Skipping steps* creates
only the illusion of speed and never produces a satisfying result. A
second very general lesson is that *critical mistakes* in any of the
phases can have a devastating impact, slowing momentum and negating
hard-won gains.""

These observations apply to any process, not just the one Kotter goes on
to present.

So, after the group settles on a first iteration of its goal(s), is the
next step selection/design of the problem solving process (our own
change process) we will use, along with a commitment to use it in a high
quality manner, so as to avoid critical mistakes? If so, this would give
us this *high level project plan* :

A. Roughly define the problem by setting the goal(s) to achieve.

B. Select/design a process to solve the problem.

C. Execute the process, continuously improving it as we go.

For a field to have *the capability* to accomplish anything reliably, it
must have a standardized ""model"" of ""Normal Science"" (using Kuhn’s terms
from his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) to transmit to
newcomers to the field. If we have the process, we have the model.

Now here’s an intellectual leap: If our goal is something like *the
capability* to reliably solve difficult complex social system problems,
then isn’t the best way to express that capability a generic, flexible,
foundational problem solving *process* that applies to all difficult
complex social system problems?

If the answer to the above question is yes, then the backbone of the
process we use to solve our own problem becomes our key output.

This is much like the scientist who perfects and tests a solution on
himself before announcing it is ready to be used by others. Thus our
strategic plan would contain a self-referential step that looked
something like this: ""When the process has proven itself to be
productive and stable, then publish and promote its core as the
foundation of the next generation of the science of social system
engineering.""

Naturally, a key process tool would be system dynamics. But it would not
be the only tool, and it would be embedded in a greater context, one
that would dramatically amplify its power and reliability.

To me this would be a beautiful, elegant strategy. It couldn’t be any
simpler.

Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <jack@thwink.org>
posting date Mon, 09 Jun 2008 10:51:30 -0400
_______________________________________________

[""peter Luttik"" <peter.lutti]

Posted by ""peter Luttik"" <peter.luttik@dotank.nl>

I have followed the discussion on the strategic direction of the SD
society with great interest. From 25 years involvement in strategic
transformation processes - often in the public domain, i fully recognize
the trackrecord Jack quoted Kotter on.

My favorite system thinking rule is, that if a problem is resistant to
change then the common solution could well be part of the problem. So
maybe strategic change processes are part of the problem of making
organisations respond effectively.

I just spend some time on the website of a 170 year old NGO anti slavery
international. Interestingly enough their old mission still works.
After successfully contribution to the abolition in the UK and US they
later found that new forms of slavery recurred.

So why not build on the great story of SD over the last thirty years:
starting the sustainability debate. It will still be around in 50
years )if not nobody will'. In new forms and structures and a continued
albeit higher level of confusion and misunderstanding. Who needs new SD
goals with collapsing ice shelfs, new coast lines (e.g. in my
place/holland), potential mass migrations, more resource (food, water,
energy) focused world conflicts and a 35 trillion energy transition. So
we got a great goal.

And focus on what I believe to be the most promising long term
strategy: introducing SD starting in primary education, allowing the
birth of a generation of minds able to deal with more facility with the
emerging complexities. Modern technology is unthinkable without
calculus, modern business without accounting and a sustainable world
with systemic thinkers. It meets the key requirement for a solution to a
long term problem: its long term in its impact.

The main problem in this is that its all more of the same. And since
we are a group of change agents, we don´t like that. But then
our own personal bias for birthing new ideas may well be our biggest
trap: not getting the basics right and making sure that the essential
hard work is continued.

Maybe terribly boring, but it may stop my kids from having to move due
to flooding risks. Maybe we can try to reframe things in such a way
that they become current, challenging and interesting again. Instead
of I told you so and more of the same.
/
By the way, Anti-slavery International (set up in 1837) still inspires
and does great work for the 12 (ILO) or 27 (NGO's) million people used
and traded as slaves today, which at an annual turn over of 10 billion
(FBI) to 32 billion (ILO) is now the third largest criminal enterprise
in the world (after illegal drugs and illegal arm trade). Like slave
trading, abusing the global common stocks of energy, water and other
resources is likely to remain highly profitable and therefore resistant
to any common intervention, requiring dedicated citizens to continue to
work on the issue. /

Peter Luttik
the Netherlands
Posted by ""peter Luttik"" <peter.luttik@dotank.nl>
posting date Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:39:22 +0200
_______________________________________________

[""John Gunkler"" <johngunkler]

Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <johngunkler@comcast.net>

There is a theory, well supported by data, that organizations go through
predictable phases as they grow successfully (or, as they fail.)

Different authors in Harvard Business Review, and in books, divide the
""growth curve"" (a logistic curve with bifurcation points) into different
numbers of phases, but it is typically three to five.

The transitions between phases are true ""phase changes"" not just linear
progressions to more or less of the same -- the significance being that what
strategy works best in Phase N is NOT what works best in Phase N+1.

All of these models of organizational growth have an initial stage during
which the strategy is to ""find a pattern of behavior that works."" This
means figuring out what your ""market"" (constituency, audience, etc.) wants
and how you can provide it to them in a way that allows you to continue to
provide it (i.e., ""profitably."")

Phase 2, then, requires that you stop fiddling around with the basics of
what you do and how you provide your products/services, and instead work
very hard at perfecting your offering -- becoming more and more efficient,
and standardized, in how you deliver what you deliver. The efforts that pay
off in Phase 2 are those that remove variation from the ways you work and
from the outcomes that you deliver. This is a stage that academics usually
detest -- because it's not as ""creative"" or ""free"" as Phase 1 -- but it is
essential to success. [I suspect that this is one reason why so few
academics venture out successfully into business.]

The good news in this phase is twofold:

1. Success is driven by a positive feedback loop -- exponential growth is
the norm (if you do the hard work of becoming efficient.) 2. Success in
this phase creates the opportunity for the next phase -- where freedom and
creativity are once again the driving forces.

I suspect that SD, as a field, is stuck in Phase 1. We are reluctant to
stop acting as if we were founding a new field and to begin the hard work of
making it efficient and more effective at producing results. And, although
I said that Phase 2 is not as creative or free, that's not really true.
It's just that the creativity required is of a more practical kind and must
be applied within limits. My friends who perform improvisational theater
say those conditions (of having to perform under tight constraints) provoke
their highest levels of creativity.

John Gunkler
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <johngunkler@comcast.net>
posting date Wed, 11 Jun 2008 11:08:57 -0400
_______________________________________________

[""peter Luttik"" <peter.lutti]

Posted by ""peter Luttik"" <peter.luttik@dotank.nl>

It reminds me of the creative work in the arts. E.g. in music its
sounds like the difference between the composer and the performer.
Both highly creative. But with a very different meaning to the same
word. The composer brings something into being out of nothing. The
performer expresses, interprets and redefines. Without the performer
music is just a number of black dots on paper. Without the composer
its eine kleine nachtmusik and classic FM at infinitum.

But the two processes tend to require different mindsets, aspirations
and attitudes. I'm very much of the first phase, while my wife (a
clarinettist) is the second type - artistic, creative, structured.

Given the importance of SD we can not afford to leave it a theoretical
excercise. We have to train and mobilize a generation of ""performers"".

--
Ir. Peter Luttik
Stichting DOTank
Posted by ""peter Luttik"" <peter.luttik@dotank.nl>
posting date Thu, 12 Jun 2008 16:33:23 +0200
_______________________________________________

[Jack Harich <register@thwink.]

Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>


SDMAIL peter Luttik wrote:
> I have followed the discussion on the strategic direction of the SD
> society with great interest. From 25 years involvement in strategic
> transformation processes - often in the public domain, I fully
> recognize the trackrecord Jack quoted Kotter on.
> My favorite system thinking rule is, that if a problem is resistant to
> change then the common solution could well be part of the problem.

Such as the oxymoron of ""sustainable development""?

> So maybe strategic change processes are part of the problem of making
> organisations respond effectively.
(long snip)
> The main problem in this is that its all more of the same.

> Maybe we can try to *reframe things* in such a way that they become
> current, challenging and interesting again.

Peter,

Wow, some very powerful thoughts. Let me throw out two possible
reframings that may help with what you suggest:


*Reframing 1. A new problem decomposition*

Currently the world sees The Sustainability Problem. There is great
confusion and disagreement on what the problem is and how to approach
solving it. Now suppose we decompose that one big problem into three
smaller subproblems:

A. How to overcome change resistance
B. How to achieve proper coupling
C. How to avoid excessive model drift

Here's a few key propositions:

- The problems are sequential. In particular, it is impossible to solve
B before A.

- The world has focused on B for the last 30 years as THE problem to solve.

- Analyzing the three subproblems together in one big jumble, as is the
norm, leads to very different conclusions from analyzing them separately.

- The terms change resistance, proper coupling, and model drift allow
discourse on what was previously undiscoursable. They provide the
missing abstractions so necessary to see the problem from a new, more
productive line of inquiry. These three terms and their implications are
essentially the foundation of a new paradigm.

The conclusions that follow from the above should make the problem
""challenging and interesting again.""


*Reframing 2. Problem restatement at a higher level*

The sustainability problem, believe it or not, is a symptom of a bigger,
deeper problem: the Progressive Paradox.

To understand what this paradox is, consider this definition:
""Progressive philosophy is a comprehensive rationale and value set whose
goal is optimizing the human system for the common good of all and their
descendants.""

There are other social problems just as big as the sustainability
problem, like war, institutional poverty, corruption, and the negative
aspects of religious fundamentalism. Any of these can cause nations to
suffer horribly. What do these problems have in common? First, solving
them would benefit the common good. Second, none of these problems are
new. The human system has been unable to solve them for thousands of
years. Third, not solving these problems benefits special interests. (I
hope there's a little light bulb starting to glow right now!!!)

Given the above, we arrive at a statement of the Progressive Paradox
with this line of reasoning:

- Most people are progressives.

- The goal of progressive philosophy is to promote the common good.

- In theory this is also the goal of democracy.

- Why then do democratic systems so strongly resist changing their
behavior from what benefits the special interest few to what benefits
the common good of all?


Well Peter, does that do the job?

Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Sat, 14 Jun 2008 07:59:53 -0400
_______________________________________________

[""peter Luttik"" <peter.lutti]

Posted by ""peter Luttik"" <peter.luttik@dotank.nl>

I feel challenged by the decomposition. My associations around change
resistance have to do with deepening our understanding of choice and
awareness, a field that is only just now becoming the subject of
scientific inquiry. What happens during in paradigm shift in the
brain, how do we start to think differently and accept new
structures. The combination of change resistance/path dependency,
temporary optima/model drift (maybe more jumpy), and increasing
complexity through more coupling creates an interesting combination by
which the long term problem at a high level very well couldbe our
optimisation thinking in a complex, chaotic world. we are
inceasing complexity to manage change in a direction we think is
desirable, while that actually increases complexity, chaotic behaviour
and overshoot.

Maybe we should start focussing on why the structures have been working
so well for so long - a history of social evolution. And seek to
understand why change resistance is actually often a good thing - what
its function is.

Peter
Posted by ""peter Luttik"" <peter.luttik@dotank.nl>
posting date Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:38:37 +0200
_______________________________________________

[""Wehrenberg, Stephen"" <Step]

Posted by ""Wehrenberg, Stephen"" <Stephen.B.Wehrenberg@uscg.mil>

Peter Luttik wrote:

""Maybe we should start focusing on why the structures have been working so
well for so long - a history of social evolution. And seek to understand
why change resistance is actually often a good thing - what its function is.""

I've been researching the issue of ""change management"" for some time, and have
an evolving theory that plays to the challenge Peter poses.

Many change theorists (Kotter, et. al.) posit that most efforts to change fail
because of something they term ""resistance to change"" on the part of those who
would change. Many have also suggested that ""fear of the unknown"" is the root
cause of that resistance. I think that ignores the real psychology of change.
Envision a future state represented by a framed picture. Fear of the unknown
would look like an empty picture frame. Of course that wouldn't be a rational
fear at all (fear of nothing?). Instead, we tend to fill up that frame with
our worst fears. We project the worst case onto the blank canvas, and that
image then generates fear (fear of that which we already fear) and resistance.
Thus what makes change in an organization so difficult is that everyone has
their own worst case to project into that frame.

These days I teach my graduate students and change managers alike that when
contemplating a major change they should create the positive side of that
picture of the future state first so that at least part of the image will
exist before the ""subjects"" get a chance to fill it with the worst case.
In other words, tell a compelling story that describes the future state in
realistic, not utopian, terms, and that will capture the collective interests
and hopes of the participants.

Assuming this theory has some merit (much testing remains to be done, of course)
how might it have come to pass that we behave this way? I argue that there is
real survival value to fearing that which we cannot or do not understand.
Assume Australopithecus wandering around the savannah. From behind a clump of
bush he hears a sound. He cannot identify the sound, and assumes that it
represents a threat. He may project a carnivore or other boogeyman as the
threat and act accordingly. The Australopithecus who treats the unknown as a
threat is more likely to survive than the one who exhibits naïve curiosity. If
this is so, then the practice of assigning threat to every unknown would be
selected for, and present itself in interesting but not unpredictable ways
today.

Of course in all my reading of the literature of sustainability, we usually see
the worst case presented first, then as an afterthought suggest that if we act,
the worst case need not obtain. Perhaps we have been doing it backwards all
along. Perhaps this suggests that we need to describe a desirable future state
first, along the many dimensions that we usually see raised as objections (it
will kill the economy; everyone will be out of work; the costs of carbon
mitigation are prohibitive; let the market solve the problem; etc.). If I had
all the time in the world, I would do something to identify key stakeholder
groups (decision makers, influencers), figure out what their ""stakes"" are, and
then craft a story that improves their lot while solving the problem of
sustainability. Once the story is firmly imbedded in the culture, one could
begin to decompose that future state (What would have to happen for that
condition to exist? And what would have to happen before that? !

And before that? And that means that the next thing we should do -- right
now -- is _______?) into action steps.

The key is the collective commitment to the image of the future state--the
pre-filled picture frame.

I will be very interested to hear the reactions of this group regarding the
possibility.

Collegially,

Steve Wehrenberg
Posted by ""Wehrenberg, Stephen"" <Stephen.B.Wehrenberg@uscg.mil>
posting date Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:49:29 -0400
_______________________________________________

[""Chip Hines"" <hines.chip@gm]

Posted by ""Chip Hines"" <hines.chip@gmail.com>

I must have missed the original note from Peter, but I find a
resonance with the ""why change resistance is actually a good thing""
In my eons as a US federal bureaucrat, I came to understand that as
wildly frustrating as it can be, the way the US government bureaucracy
""resists change"" was designed in by the founding fathers for the
purpose of both preventing what they saw as the tyranny of a monarchy
and to avoid as much as possible rushing into change when emotions are
high. The Federalist Papers discuss this concept - for example, they
felt that by having political appointees with their own agendas there
would be infighting and resistance which would help stop the
consolidation of power. Probably an oversimplification of their
arguments, but quite a revelation to see how this did come to be, and
that as Stephan says below, the designers had an idea of how things
should be, and took steps to add checks and balances that would help
prevent moving too far from the hoped for outcome.

chip
Posted by ""Chip Hines"" <hines.chip@gmail.com>
posting date Tue, 17 Jun 2008 08:48:28 -0400
_______________________________________________