Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
Jack Homer noted his dismay ""to see extended discussion of yet another
question that was answered in our field decades ago...""
I found the statement thoughtfully provocative and it prompts me to ask
(generously, not contentiously), what are the unanswered questions?
After the seminal SD works, 23 years of the SDR, and the many books in
between, what dimension of SD (as an art and a science) needs more
conversation?
Bill Braun
Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
posting date Sun, 11 May 2008 08:20:51 -0400
_______________________________________________
QUERY Open and Resolved Issues in SD
-
Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.co
- Member
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
-
Jack Harich <register@thwink.
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
QUERY Open and Resolved Issues in SD
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
> Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
> I found the statement thoughtfully provocative and it prompts me to
> ask (generously, not contentiously), what are the unanswered
> questions? After the seminal SD works, 23 years of the SDR, and the
> many books in between, what dimension of SD (as an art and a science)
> needs more conversation?
Thanks Bill. I found this to be a tantalizing productive question, and
have been pondering it.
*Question A* - What are the great unanswered questions and unresolved
issues of SD?
As in all important endeavors fraught with the unknown, it is strategy
that makes the difference, not tactics. So how can we best look at
Bill's question strategically?
This brings us right back to what Jim Lyneis and Kim Warren are
currently attempting to do: ""develop a vision and strategy for the next
50 years."" The first step here was Kim's suggestion that we ""consider
the following question:""
*Question B* - ""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?""
Question B is a goals brainstorming exercise. Question A is a key issues
identification exercise. It has the potential to supplement question B
considerably, as well as to help us develop a vision and strategy.
So here's what I see as the key strategic open issues/unanswered
questions in SD:
*Question 1* - Why, despite the clear potential of the tool, has SD
failed to have more than a negligible impact on the world? Why has it
not become a key, integral part of social and business problem management?
* Question 2* - Is there a missing greater whole or abstraction that, if
present, would make it an order of magnitude easier for SD to achieve
its potential?
At the strategic level, these two questions may be all we need to get
started. Any more reduces focus.
The first question, why has SD failed to have an impact, is diagnosis.
This must come first. If we don't know why we have failed, then we have
little hope of changing the underlying causes of failure, and we will
continue to fail, no matter how clever, plausible, and inspiring our
vision and plan may appear to be.
The second question, is there a missing abstraction, is a ""bust out of
old ways of thinking"" question. We need to leave much of our present
paradigm behind, sort of like a lizard shedding his skin. The question
forces us to realize that something here is probably very incomplete.
Only half the cookie is there, maybe even a lot less. This is because if
you examine the history of major scientific and technological
discoveries, what you see is many small contributing components whose
impact could not be realized until they were able to be integrated into
a new, major abstraction that turned night into day. It's possible that
is what we have not yet discovered here.
Examples of what the missing abstraction could be are:
- A critical mass of integrated tools is needed. The suite is
incomplete. Compare the tools available to solve dynamic social/business
problems to those available to solve problems in physics, chemistry,
mathematics, quality control (the Six Sigma set of tools), dysfunctional
human behavior, etc.
- Complex social system problem solvers find solving such problems
difficult because they have never settled on a standard basic process
that the field could continuously improve. Imagine how deep and complete
the process would be if we had been improving it for 50 years. It would
be on a par with the process of medical diagnosis and treatment,
financial planning, project management, forensic analysis of various
kinds, or similar areas that are now so mature and standardized they can
be easily taught and mastered.
- There is an unidentified field. Is it social system engineering? Is
that what we should be thinking in terms of, instead of system dynamics?
Isn't that closer to the (possible) goal of the capability to solve
large, pressing problems of a social or business nature? And of course,
why differentiate between social and business problems? Why not return
to the original concept that both are social problems? The convenient
that's-where-the-money-is distinction may be blinding us to where our
focus should be.
- We are not yet modeling the equivalent of gravity, electricity or
molecules. That is, we have not yet discovered what is the fundamental
unit(s) of the field of complex system social problem solving. Is it
memes? Is this what flows through social systems, and causes natural and
artificial social agents to do what they do, more than anything else?
For those unfamiliar with memes, please see:
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/Meme.htm
Is another fundamental unit standard types of social agents? It may very
well be, because memes flow from agent to agent. Individual or groups of
agents are the key stocks in ""soft"" problems, and memes are the key
flow, because in difficult modern problems, it is the flow of memes that
affects agent behavior more than anything else.
The diagnostic question should be answered long before the missing
abstraction question. Once we know the root causes of long term failure
of SD to achieve its potential, then there will be many clear, strong
clues about what the missing abstraction(s) may be.
And then, suddenly, all may be light.
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Sat, 24 May 2008 07:34:22 -0400
_______________________________________________
> Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
> I found the statement thoughtfully provocative and it prompts me to
> ask (generously, not contentiously), what are the unanswered
> questions? After the seminal SD works, 23 years of the SDR, and the
> many books in between, what dimension of SD (as an art and a science)
> needs more conversation?
Thanks Bill. I found this to be a tantalizing productive question, and
have been pondering it.
*Question A* - What are the great unanswered questions and unresolved
issues of SD?
As in all important endeavors fraught with the unknown, it is strategy
that makes the difference, not tactics. So how can we best look at
Bill's question strategically?
This brings us right back to what Jim Lyneis and Kim Warren are
currently attempting to do: ""develop a vision and strategy for the next
50 years."" The first step here was Kim's suggestion that we ""consider
the following question:""
*Question B* - ""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?""
Question B is a goals brainstorming exercise. Question A is a key issues
identification exercise. It has the potential to supplement question B
considerably, as well as to help us develop a vision and strategy.
So here's what I see as the key strategic open issues/unanswered
questions in SD:
*Question 1* - Why, despite the clear potential of the tool, has SD
failed to have more than a negligible impact on the world? Why has it
not become a key, integral part of social and business problem management?
* Question 2* - Is there a missing greater whole or abstraction that, if
present, would make it an order of magnitude easier for SD to achieve
its potential?
At the strategic level, these two questions may be all we need to get
started. Any more reduces focus.
The first question, why has SD failed to have an impact, is diagnosis.
This must come first. If we don't know why we have failed, then we have
little hope of changing the underlying causes of failure, and we will
continue to fail, no matter how clever, plausible, and inspiring our
vision and plan may appear to be.
The second question, is there a missing abstraction, is a ""bust out of
old ways of thinking"" question. We need to leave much of our present
paradigm behind, sort of like a lizard shedding his skin. The question
forces us to realize that something here is probably very incomplete.
Only half the cookie is there, maybe even a lot less. This is because if
you examine the history of major scientific and technological
discoveries, what you see is many small contributing components whose
impact could not be realized until they were able to be integrated into
a new, major abstraction that turned night into day. It's possible that
is what we have not yet discovered here.
Examples of what the missing abstraction could be are:
- A critical mass of integrated tools is needed. The suite is
incomplete. Compare the tools available to solve dynamic social/business
problems to those available to solve problems in physics, chemistry,
mathematics, quality control (the Six Sigma set of tools), dysfunctional
human behavior, etc.
- Complex social system problem solvers find solving such problems
difficult because they have never settled on a standard basic process
that the field could continuously improve. Imagine how deep and complete
the process would be if we had been improving it for 50 years. It would
be on a par with the process of medical diagnosis and treatment,
financial planning, project management, forensic analysis of various
kinds, or similar areas that are now so mature and standardized they can
be easily taught and mastered.
- There is an unidentified field. Is it social system engineering? Is
that what we should be thinking in terms of, instead of system dynamics?
Isn't that closer to the (possible) goal of the capability to solve
large, pressing problems of a social or business nature? And of course,
why differentiate between social and business problems? Why not return
to the original concept that both are social problems? The convenient
that's-where-the-money-is distinction may be blinding us to where our
focus should be.
- We are not yet modeling the equivalent of gravity, electricity or
molecules. That is, we have not yet discovered what is the fundamental
unit(s) of the field of complex system social problem solving. Is it
memes? Is this what flows through social systems, and causes natural and
artificial social agents to do what they do, more than anything else?
For those unfamiliar with memes, please see:
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/Meme.htm
Is another fundamental unit standard types of social agents? It may very
well be, because memes flow from agent to agent. Individual or groups of
agents are the key stocks in ""soft"" problems, and memes are the key
flow, because in difficult modern problems, it is the flow of memes that
affects agent behavior more than anything else.
The diagnostic question should be answered long before the missing
abstraction question. Once we know the root causes of long term failure
of SD to achieve its potential, then there will be many clear, strong
clues about what the missing abstraction(s) may be.
And then, suddenly, all may be light.
Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Sat, 24 May 2008 07:34:22 -0400
_______________________________________________