Hi Tom, Bob, JJ (et others)
I'd like to exchange ideas with you on the following topic. Let's imagine you need to introduce SD to a group of managers that did not have any previous exposure to the subject. You have two hours.
Where do you start from? A theoretical lesson with some case studies? Or a game (like the beer game or similar ) to explain that their usual decisional mechanism are not perfect? And after that some concept od SD ?
Any hints, opinion, ideas?
Thanks!!
Giovanni
Ideas on how to "sell" SD to managers
selling SD
Hi Giovanni.
I think that SD is very difficult to adapt to management problems. Whatever they manage (business, war, country) they work in a context that needs different qualities than those required by a modeler or anybody interested in the results of modeling. They deal with people and need to behave in a very clear way with precise rules (sometimes only apparently) because they manage a lot of people (employees, shareholders, clients, suppliers, bankers, etc..) who have an absolute need to understand their behavior. This needs people oriented towards action and not thinking, who have a relative simple way of thinking, in which they believe, that permits to handle all problems probably less than perfectly and avoid making big mistakes. This is enough. Wanting more than that will necessitate too much thinking with a lot of time lost, confusion and indecision which is the worst that can happen for a manager who must look like being always sure of what he is doing.
I have myself managed small and bigger businesses (one of them was buying each year about 10000 small trucks, vans and cars, Eurli) and our family business currently employed about 150 people.
We have recently sold most of our businesses for reasons of weak profitability and are looking for other opportunities.
To resume SD is too subtle for management problems.
I do not mean that managers are stupid people, they have learned from experience how to behave accordingly.
SD’ers do not understand this because they never had the occasion to manage anything important and build models instead of delivering solutions.
So expecting to explain SD in two hours, is at best misleading. I have never tried to explain SD to any of my manager friends and I know a lot of them in Strasbourg. It would deserve their interest.
They will never have the time to learn this very difficult method by themselves. The method by itself needs to conform to an extremely strict way of working that is most of the time never respected by SD’ers themselves and I do not see who could do any modeling for them, especially in France and even elsewhere. The only time when it may be worse trying to work with an SD consultant is when he has an extensive practice of the type of the problem the manager faces, an extensive experience of the business itself (is specialized in this type of business) and participates closely to the decisions taken and their implementations. To resume is selling solutions instead of selling modeling or SD.
This does not look very positive, but I think that one must always expect the worse because it is often what happens and it is then better to be prepared.
If you are a consultant and want still to work with SD, and want to deliver a true added value, the only way is to choose a growing field with a lot of dynamical problems and become a specialist of it.
I am myself interested in SD, because I studied extensively mathematics when I was young, but not because I expect any added value by using it. I expected once but no more. But I still enjoy making very simple models that may help me to think even is this thinking is not necessarily very productive.
Regards.
JJ
[Edited on 13-5-2010 by LAUJJL]
I think that SD is very difficult to adapt to management problems. Whatever they manage (business, war, country) they work in a context that needs different qualities than those required by a modeler or anybody interested in the results of modeling. They deal with people and need to behave in a very clear way with precise rules (sometimes only apparently) because they manage a lot of people (employees, shareholders, clients, suppliers, bankers, etc..) who have an absolute need to understand their behavior. This needs people oriented towards action and not thinking, who have a relative simple way of thinking, in which they believe, that permits to handle all problems probably less than perfectly and avoid making big mistakes. This is enough. Wanting more than that will necessitate too much thinking with a lot of time lost, confusion and indecision which is the worst that can happen for a manager who must look like being always sure of what he is doing.
I have myself managed small and bigger businesses (one of them was buying each year about 10000 small trucks, vans and cars, Eurli) and our family business currently employed about 150 people.
We have recently sold most of our businesses for reasons of weak profitability and are looking for other opportunities.
To resume SD is too subtle for management problems.
I do not mean that managers are stupid people, they have learned from experience how to behave accordingly.
SD’ers do not understand this because they never had the occasion to manage anything important and build models instead of delivering solutions.
So expecting to explain SD in two hours, is at best misleading. I have never tried to explain SD to any of my manager friends and I know a lot of them in Strasbourg. It would deserve their interest.
They will never have the time to learn this very difficult method by themselves. The method by itself needs to conform to an extremely strict way of working that is most of the time never respected by SD’ers themselves and I do not see who could do any modeling for them, especially in France and even elsewhere. The only time when it may be worse trying to work with an SD consultant is when he has an extensive practice of the type of the problem the manager faces, an extensive experience of the business itself (is specialized in this type of business) and participates closely to the decisions taken and their implementations. To resume is selling solutions instead of selling modeling or SD.
This does not look very positive, but I think that one must always expect the worse because it is often what happens and it is then better to be prepared.
If you are a consultant and want still to work with SD, and want to deliver a true added value, the only way is to choose a growing field with a lot of dynamical problems and become a specialist of it.
I am myself interested in SD, because I studied extensively mathematics when I was young, but not because I expect any added value by using it. I expected once but no more. But I still enjoy making very simple models that may help me to think even is this thinking is not necessarily very productive.
Regards.
JJ
[Edited on 13-5-2010 by LAUJJL]
SD for Managers
Hi JJ,
I agree with you that the timing requested by manager is often not exactly the same timing requested by SD. And I agree that managers have "simple minds" as well.
An I used to manage people in the past so I know "real life".
What I was thinking is to use SD for figuring out possible outcomes from strategies. Maybe the strategy definition is the only moment in time where managers sit down for a (short) while and think about future directions, new ideas...
Thanks again, your input to the forum are always of great vale.
Cheers
G
I agree with you that the timing requested by manager is often not exactly the same timing requested by SD. And I agree that managers have "simple minds" as well.
An I used to manage people in the past so I know "real life".
What I was thinking is to use SD for figuring out possible outcomes from strategies. Maybe the strategy definition is the only moment in time where managers sit down for a (short) while and think about future directions, new ideas...
Thanks again, your input to the forum are always of great vale.
Cheers
G
Run a simulation that addresses a management challenge in an interesting way?
(I haven't had much luck, so speaking hypothetically)
Managers have PRESSING issues, and don't seem to have time for eventual issues.
Much more thought needs to go into how to sell Models. Much more thought. I hope that there are other contributors to this thread because LAUJJL touched on the cultural gap between managers and modelers. It's like any other cultural gap. It just needs to be understood.
(I haven't had much luck, so speaking hypothetically)
Managers have PRESSING issues, and don't seem to have time for eventual issues.
Much more thought needs to go into how to sell Models. Much more thought. I hope that there are other contributors to this thread because LAUJJL touched on the cultural gap between managers and modelers. It's like any other cultural gap. It just needs to be understood.
How to sell SD to managers
Maybe the key point is to convince them that they can count on a group of modelers that can help in solving real issues. The General Motors case studies are an example of that, in the 70' they realized they need a team of "modelers" to help them solving real problems (See Sterman Bisiness Dynamics for a description of one of this cases).
I see also potenutial in using SD to simulate a strategy.
But I agree with JJ, there's still a lot of step to be taken.
But I do not give up;)
Cheers
G
I see also potenutial in using SD to simulate a strategy.
But I agree with JJ, there's still a lot of step to be taken.
But I do not give up;)
Cheers
G
The question is "How do you sell modeling in a formal systems thinking context". Managers HAVE plenty of "models" that are banging data together and programming where the reality get lost in the analysis. Compared to all of the programming, a simple Sterman/Forrester model looks like kids tinker toys. I'm trying to sell them as Graphic Design suppliments.
Hi everybody
I have not understood what Barry really wants to say.
But the main thing to sell SD to managers is to verify that they need it.
It is easy to make a model, but one must be sure that it will really bring an added value to the client and not only understanding.
The added understanding must generate added profit.
And the probability that among your businessman there is one who really will benefit from an SD study is rather low.
The chance of a business to profit from an SD study has not been really studied by SD'ers. I never heard of a study about that subject and I study each year the program of the SD conference. If anyone knows about the subject I would be very interested.
The reason of it is that SD'ers do not mind what the client will do with the model he buys.
And I can understand this.
I can rent a sport car to someone who is transporting his girl friend or his mother in law. I do not mind as long as he pays the fee.
And it will be much easier for me to convince someone to rent a sport car in the girl friend case than in the mother in law one.
It is the same for you. It will be extremely difficult to convince someone to buy SD if he does not need it. So the first thing to do is to select business people who work in a very dynamic environment with many unsolved questions and where SD will show its real power and helpfulness.
But SD will not change the reality. If the reality is not favorable, nothing will do. So the first thing to do is to find the favorable environment. This is known in French as “nager dans le sens du courant”.
Translation: swim with the draft and not against it.
I think too that if to proove the usefulness it is necessary to build a complex model, than it is probably not useful.
Regards.
JJ
[Edited on 28-6-2010 by LAUJJL]
I have not understood what Barry really wants to say.
But the main thing to sell SD to managers is to verify that they need it.
It is easy to make a model, but one must be sure that it will really bring an added value to the client and not only understanding.
The added understanding must generate added profit.
And the probability that among your businessman there is one who really will benefit from an SD study is rather low.
The chance of a business to profit from an SD study has not been really studied by SD'ers. I never heard of a study about that subject and I study each year the program of the SD conference. If anyone knows about the subject I would be very interested.
The reason of it is that SD'ers do not mind what the client will do with the model he buys.
And I can understand this.
I can rent a sport car to someone who is transporting his girl friend or his mother in law. I do not mind as long as he pays the fee.
And it will be much easier for me to convince someone to rent a sport car in the girl friend case than in the mother in law one.
It is the same for you. It will be extremely difficult to convince someone to buy SD if he does not need it. So the first thing to do is to select business people who work in a very dynamic environment with many unsolved questions and where SD will show its real power and helpfulness.
But SD will not change the reality. If the reality is not favorable, nothing will do. So the first thing to do is to find the favorable environment. This is known in French as “nager dans le sens du courant”.
Translation: swim with the draft and not against it.
I think too that if to proove the usefulness it is necessary to build a complex model, than it is probably not useful.
Regards.
JJ
[Edited on 28-6-2010 by LAUJJL]
Thanks. This is what I mean. There are plenty of SD modelers in the engineering field. People model steering and tracking systems, automatic systems etc. Most of what is discussed here is Sterman, Forrester's use...and that is a specific use of SD directed towards increasing understanding. It has to be read and understood. Forrester and Sterman have written a LOT about how to use and interpret the models for managing everything from traffic to cities. Hard systems modeling doesn't have that understanding element. They are components of automatic systems, like a computer system on a car. Other writers have written much more on the subject, and most of those writers focus on Dialogue first, and modeling second, as a tool for Dialogue. The most popular is Senge. My interpretation is that Dialogue helps groups to think about issues in more systemic ways (instead of only focusing on here and now....if we do this now, we will get this...but later we will get that)...and that models are tool for use in those Dialogues. When the whole group can acquire habits of thinking more systemically, then people stop bumping heads. We can TALK about global warming because we can talk about something that would normally be too complicated to talk about. The model didn't generate the insight, it was just a tool that let us talk about it and move past our fixed assumptions. I'm interested in seeing groups solve issues like global warming, but I'm not a huge enthusiast of models. Even though Sterman, Forrester and others discuss modeling in the context of management...hard systems modeling seems to outnumber management modeling 10 billion to one.
[Edited on 6-29-2010 by Barry]
[Edited on 6-29-2010 by Barry]
I'm working at one of the automotive companies as an engineer and I had an advanced degree on SD. Based on my experience, selling SD to low-level or mid-level managers are not easy because they do not work on dynamic issues where SD is beneficial. It is easier for high-level managers to accept SD than low- or mid-level managers.
I've been working with engineers whose work involve in modeling feedback system such as automobiles. Unfortuntely, my expereince is that they hardly apply the feedback thinking to dynamic issues other than hard systems modeling. I wonder why... One fact I can think of is that there are three distint yet conneted factors: (1) issues we want to understand thus solve, (2) modeling the issue and (3) then analysis of the mathmatical model using MATLAB. Most engineering books on dynamic problems focus on the last part, "analysis" of mathmathical model. SD is an activity of "modeling" rather than "analysis", which requires understading the issues first.
Sangdon Lee
I've been working with engineers whose work involve in modeling feedback system such as automobiles. Unfortuntely, my expereince is that they hardly apply the feedback thinking to dynamic issues other than hard systems modeling. I wonder why... One fact I can think of is that there are three distint yet conneted factors: (1) issues we want to understand thus solve, (2) modeling the issue and (3) then analysis of the mathmatical model using MATLAB. Most engineering books on dynamic problems focus on the last part, "analysis" of mathmathical model. SD is an activity of "modeling" rather than "analysis", which requires understading the issues first.
Sangdon Lee
how to sell SD to managers
Hi Langdon
Engineer technical problems are easier to define than social problems. This is why the work of technical issues focuses on the analysis part.
Social problems are much more difficult to define and can be differently defined. One should then take a lot of time with the problem definition, which is generally not done, people rushing to model the problem having not tried to determine the utility of doing so and how to do it.
But the analysis of social models is still difficult, mainly because of the lack of precision of the definition of the problems, which is one of their characteristics.
Regards.
JJ
Engineer technical problems are easier to define than social problems. This is why the work of technical issues focuses on the analysis part.
Social problems are much more difficult to define and can be differently defined. One should then take a lot of time with the problem definition, which is generally not done, people rushing to model the problem having not tried to determine the utility of doing so and how to do it.
But the analysis of social models is still difficult, mainly because of the lack of precision of the definition of the problems, which is one of their characteristics.
Regards.
JJ
I noticed in this and other SD forums that people ask about "advanced" SD books or materials. I think looking for advanced material for SD might be futile because the difficulty of developing SD is not that people lacks the skills/knowledge/theory of SD (stock and flow, feedback, etc), rather people lack knowledge on the issue to tackle. Once I studied several important books on SD, I think it is beneficial to read books on a specific issue or collect information.
Sangdon Lee
Sangdon Lee
>they hardly apply the feedback thinking to dynamic issues other than hard systems modeling. I wonder why...
I think the uses are entirely different. That is clear in almost every book that I've read, but it's not spelled out as being an important distinction. One is a "communication tool" (As in "soft systems modeling", and when writers say that "the model building process is important", isn't it clear that they mean "talking about the issues under question and bringing misguided assumptions to light") while hard systems modeling is for prediction, analysis, and tracking. Many dialogue and democracy promonents like Donella Meadows promote the use of models to facilitate discussions, while a "modeling approach" that treated people as hard systems would be anything but Democratic. Does anyone get what I am trying to say here? I can't remember if it was Forrester or Sterman who said that Models are a last resort when all else fails (ie communication about products and outcomes). I think that the "systems thinking" movement actually intends, and does not articulate, that they are using tracking models as a METAPHOR. People are always confusing metaphorical writings with literal interpretations, in all sorts of writings.
I think the uses are entirely different. That is clear in almost every book that I've read, but it's not spelled out as being an important distinction. One is a "communication tool" (As in "soft systems modeling", and when writers say that "the model building process is important", isn't it clear that they mean "talking about the issues under question and bringing misguided assumptions to light") while hard systems modeling is for prediction, analysis, and tracking. Many dialogue and democracy promonents like Donella Meadows promote the use of models to facilitate discussions, while a "modeling approach" that treated people as hard systems would be anything but Democratic. Does anyone get what I am trying to say here? I can't remember if it was Forrester or Sterman who said that Models are a last resort when all else fails (ie communication about products and outcomes). I think that the "systems thinking" movement actually intends, and does not articulate, that they are using tracking models as a METAPHOR. People are always confusing metaphorical writings with literal interpretations, in all sorts of writings.
if "hard systems modeling" is more popular, it's probably because "hard systems management" ie "industrial management theories" are more popular than decentralized theories of management (where any discussions, much less discussions around models would be seen as valuable.) In other words, "control" is more popular than the "let's talk about it" approach. Senge included Bohm and other Dialogue writers (who are not at all about automatic control), but it's only natural that "hard systems" will appeal more to Western Management.
"selling" modelling
"selling" modeling is a very dangerous concept.
Look how the Climate Change debate has been oversold, become an epistemological debate and derailed - almost fatally.
Modeling can provide insights rather than predictions.
The insights are only useful to the extent that they can help guide action.
Start with the familiar: every manager is already modeling; usually using a spreadsheet and preparing annual budgets for their area of responsibility.
Start here - SD is a much better tool than excel for providing the insights needed to manage.
Analyze a budget spreadsheet which they have prepared and present it back to them as an SD model.
Roger
Look how the Climate Change debate has been oversold, become an epistemological debate and derailed - almost fatally.
Modeling can provide insights rather than predictions.
The insights are only useful to the extent that they can help guide action.
Start with the familiar: every manager is already modeling; usually using a spreadsheet and preparing annual budgets for their area of responsibility.
Start here - SD is a much better tool than excel for providing the insights needed to manage.
Analyze a budget spreadsheet which they have prepared and present it back to them as an SD model.
Roger
It does not make sense to sell SD as a substitute to speadsheet budgeting. Budgets are made on a relatively short time horizon, generally one year and with the purpose of ressources allocation, forecasting the profit and limiting the risk of cash shortage.
It is made for the managers, the shareholders and bankers who will easily modify some hypotheses with a tool they master.
There is no feed back within such a short horizon and using a tool like Vensim just to make budgets or even to test different budgets scenarios does not add a sufficient added value to justify using such a complex tool compared with speadsheets.
It is much better for someone who sells SD to be really competent and to find clients who really will profit both from SD and from his knowledge and experience and will buy his sevice the correct price that is needed by the amount of work that is necessary to provide a useful service.
Regards.
JJ
[Edited on 14-8-2010 by LAUJJL]
It is made for the managers, the shareholders and bankers who will easily modify some hypotheses with a tool they master.
There is no feed back within such a short horizon and using a tool like Vensim just to make budgets or even to test different budgets scenarios does not add a sufficient added value to justify using such a complex tool compared with speadsheets.
It is much better for someone who sells SD to be really competent and to find clients who really will profit both from SD and from his knowledge and experience and will buy his sevice the correct price that is needed by the amount of work that is necessary to provide a useful service.
Regards.
JJ
[Edited on 14-8-2010 by LAUJJL]
I agree SD is NOT a substitute for spreadsheet modeling.
My suggestion to "sell SD" was to "START with the familiar".
Its about building a bridge to the SD concept.
One will quickly discover the limitations to the spreadsheet and can move to SD where appropriate.
I find the opposite problem: the spreadsheet paradigm is so pervasive many fall back to spread-sheeting, using spreadsheets where inappropriate, and often placing too much confidence in an illusion of precision.
The time horizon problem is something you need to stretch. Again, start with the familiar: shorter and less uncertain, to longer and more speculative.
Yes, one year is typical for profit and cash flows.
But many managers are familiar with dealing with a longer time horizon for capital budgeting or strategic planning, and so on.
Build on what clients already know.
Roger
[Edited on 23-808-1010 by RogerD]
My suggestion to "sell SD" was to "START with the familiar".
Its about building a bridge to the SD concept.
One will quickly discover the limitations to the spreadsheet and can move to SD where appropriate.
I find the opposite problem: the spreadsheet paradigm is so pervasive many fall back to spread-sheeting, using spreadsheets where inappropriate, and often placing too much confidence in an illusion of precision.
The time horizon problem is something you need to stretch. Again, start with the familiar: shorter and less uncertain, to longer and more speculative.
Yes, one year is typical for profit and cash flows.
But many managers are familiar with dealing with a longer time horizon for capital budgeting or strategic planning, and so on.
Build on what clients already know.
Roger
[Edited on 23-808-1010 by RogerD]
How to sell SD to managers
Hi Roger
From your point of view, selling SD this way may be useful, beacause as you say, start with something people master, and you can then extend the time horizon.
The problem is that to be able to extend the time horizon you must go to the system thinking paradigm that works completely differently.
But SD has his own limits as spreadheets and the limits are not on SD, nor on modelers but on clients.
SD is poorly used, because most clients have not capitalized enough experience with the use of SD and are not able to choose a competent modeler or to build by themselves models (the best solution for most business problems) and to interpret and use the preferably simple model again for most business problems, knowing the limits of the method.
The most difficult thing when using SD for a manager is the ability to mix his own knowledge, experience and intuition with the insights given by a model and make them work together. Doing this requires years of experience from the client. Not being able to do this when he first deals with SD, he will fall into two alternate reactions. the first is to reject SD, the second is to accept blindly its results. Both solutions are bad. The solution is to make the correct blending of practical experience and intuition with a rationale tool like SD.
Blending intuition and rationality is difficult and requires a lot of time and effort too, but it is absolutely necessary in the business world which is only half rationale.
The worst thing to sell SD is to present it as a miracle solution that will at last solve the prospect's problems.
The prospect may become a client, but will be disappointed later on, and this will be counter productive. This will generate a negative word of mouth loop.
Regards.
JJ
[Edited on 23-8-2010 by LAUJJL]
[Edited on 23-8-2010 by LAUJJL]
From your point of view, selling SD this way may be useful, beacause as you say, start with something people master, and you can then extend the time horizon.
The problem is that to be able to extend the time horizon you must go to the system thinking paradigm that works completely differently.
But SD has his own limits as spreadheets and the limits are not on SD, nor on modelers but on clients.
SD is poorly used, because most clients have not capitalized enough experience with the use of SD and are not able to choose a competent modeler or to build by themselves models (the best solution for most business problems) and to interpret and use the preferably simple model again for most business problems, knowing the limits of the method.
The most difficult thing when using SD for a manager is the ability to mix his own knowledge, experience and intuition with the insights given by a model and make them work together. Doing this requires years of experience from the client. Not being able to do this when he first deals with SD, he will fall into two alternate reactions. the first is to reject SD, the second is to accept blindly its results. Both solutions are bad. The solution is to make the correct blending of practical experience and intuition with a rationale tool like SD.
Blending intuition and rationality is difficult and requires a lot of time and effort too, but it is absolutely necessary in the business world which is only half rationale.
The worst thing to sell SD is to present it as a miracle solution that will at last solve the prospect's problems.
The prospect may become a client, but will be disappointed later on, and this will be counter productive. This will generate a negative word of mouth loop.
Regards.
JJ
[Edited on 23-8-2010 by LAUJJL]
[Edited on 23-8-2010 by LAUJJL]
We're on the same wavelength here!
I have been amazed at what people try to do with a spreadsheet! (and usually when more appropriate tools are available.)
Some of them can make the paradigm shift and take up a new investment in learning SD. Most get lost and persist with their spreadsheets.
I find a helpful step is to introduce them to influence diagrams. This they find very helpful as a presentation or thinking tool.
The adaption of excel formulas to SD is a hurdle that many find a leap too far. At least they have some kind of a handle on what SD is about.
(btw forio have an interesting on-line tool that will read a simple excel spreadsheet and convert it to a systems dynamics model - I have found this a useful "icebreaker" for some clients.
Expose was another attempt to bridge to the spreadsheet.)
Roger
[Edited on 24-808-1010 by RogerD]
I have been amazed at what people try to do with a spreadsheet! (and usually when more appropriate tools are available.)
Some of them can make the paradigm shift and take up a new investment in learning SD. Most get lost and persist with their spreadsheets.
I find a helpful step is to introduce them to influence diagrams. This they find very helpful as a presentation or thinking tool.
The adaption of excel formulas to SD is a hurdle that many find a leap too far. At least they have some kind of a handle on what SD is about.
(btw forio have an interesting on-line tool that will read a simple excel spreadsheet and convert it to a systems dynamics model - I have found this a useful "icebreaker" for some clients.
Expose was another attempt to bridge to the spreadsheet.)
Roger
[Edited on 24-808-1010 by RogerD]
How to sell SD ...
Hi Roger
Good luck in your endeavour to introduce business people to SD!
Being a business man myself and not selling SD, I have never tried to explain SD to any of my business friends. I think that their business are not big enough to justify such an action, the biggest I knew and where i was a shareholder was dealing with a turnover of about 150 millions Euros, by aggregating all the turnover of all the shareholders of this central organisation that was buying cars for them and other thinkgs like insurances, credit etc.. and being a thinking tank too . i think that taken into account that they were most of the time not sharing the same ideas, Sd would have been inappropriate.
I know several other firmas but they will never get to more than 100 million euros and I think that at this size SD is not the right tool to use. Maybe influence diagrams but not quantitative SD.
SD books are generally to big and to complex.
Kim Warren's book is rather close to business people problems but is big too and could to my opinion say the same thing being three times thinner without insisting and repeating things that business people know already. BD is too big and complex. One good book is Coyle's 'System dynamics a practical approach'. It is now unfortunately a bit updated, deals with a language no more used and has not a very appealing presentation.
Cavanna's last book is maybe good, but I have not bought it.
Regards.
JJ
Good luck in your endeavour to introduce business people to SD!
Being a business man myself and not selling SD, I have never tried to explain SD to any of my business friends. I think that their business are not big enough to justify such an action, the biggest I knew and where i was a shareholder was dealing with a turnover of about 150 millions Euros, by aggregating all the turnover of all the shareholders of this central organisation that was buying cars for them and other thinkgs like insurances, credit etc.. and being a thinking tank too . i think that taken into account that they were most of the time not sharing the same ideas, Sd would have been inappropriate.
I know several other firmas but they will never get to more than 100 million euros and I think that at this size SD is not the right tool to use. Maybe influence diagrams but not quantitative SD.
SD books are generally to big and to complex.
Kim Warren's book is rather close to business people problems but is big too and could to my opinion say the same thing being three times thinner without insisting and repeating things that business people know already. BD is too big and complex. One good book is Coyle's 'System dynamics a practical approach'. It is now unfortunately a bit updated, deals with a language no more used and has not a very appealing presentation.
Cavanna's last book is maybe good, but I have not bought it.
Regards.
JJ
How to sell SD to manager
Hi all,
I'm really glad to see that my initial question generated such an interesting thread.
Maybe the time are now mature to introduce a bit of "quantitative" or statistical/or "analytical (as we are hearing as the new trendy expression) techniques to manager.
I'll try to do it in the next months and keep you posted, so let's keep this forum alive!
Cheers
Giovanni aka Duilio
I'm really glad to see that my initial question generated such an interesting thread.
Maybe the time are now mature to introduce a bit of "quantitative" or statistical/or "analytical (as we are hearing as the new trendy expression) techniques to manager.
I'll try to do it in the next months and keep you posted, so let's keep this forum alive!
Cheers
Giovanni aka Duilio