leverage points

[ttc11914]

Dear Colleagues:

I thought Donella Meadows post re:

>PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM
>12. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards). etc.

was one of the more provocative Ive seen on this list. May I add the
following question to the discussion? How do you "prove" it?

Meadows noted that this was an attempt to "distill systems wisdom." It
could probably be structured as a formal designed experiment:
o Categorize a series of models, by model type.
o Categorize interventions per Meadowss list.
o Design a standardized metric for measuring effectiveness of
intervention.
o Then run a series of experiments.

Sounds like a doctoral dissertation for someone.

Im looking forward to the discussion that follows.


John W. Rodat
President, Signalhealth
jwr@signalhealth.com

373 Wellington Rd.
Delmar, NY 12054
Voice: (518) 439-5743
Fax: (518) 439-3255

["William Steinhurst"]

The list looks like a very good way to focus thinking, and the
purpose of opening the discussion with an audience works, but I dont
feel that the ranking can be so fixed. For instance, the time scale
of intervention will make a difference as to the effectiveness of the
"levers." This should probably be one of the points the audience
comes to realize.

One additional leverage issue is related to #1, but distinguishable.
This is "the degree to which the structure of the system is known and
understood." I would put it a step above #1 (#0?), as this controls
the effectiveness of an intervention (even to the point of changing the sign of the
effectiveness of an intervention), regardless of where in the system
the intervention is applied.

From: "William Steinhurst" <wsteinhu@psd.state.vt.us>

["Jay W. Forrester"]

A thought resulting from Donella Meadows list of 12 places to intervene in
a system:

In the "Urban Dynamics" model,

Forrester, Jay W., 1969. "Urban Dynamics," Portland, OR: Productivity
Press. 285 pp.,

we found only one high-leverage policy. That policy was in low-cost
housing and one should remove such housing, not put it in as was the
government policy at that time.

I would ask Donella how the list of 12 items would have helped in
discovering the high-leverage policy about housing without doing actual
model simulations.

Or, how would the list have let the average person see that a job-training
program could increase unemployment?

Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management, Emeritus
and Senior Lecturer, Sloan School
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room E60-389
Cambridge, MA 02139
tel: 617-253-1571
fax: 617-252-1998

email: jforestr@mit.edu

[Bernd Mayr]

Dear Prof. Meadows,

At 11:17 27.06.1997 EDT, you wrote:
...
>But Id like to try to open nontechnical minds to the kinds of interventions we
>see when we look from the point of view of whole systems. So Im trying to
>write an article about this list. Id appreciate feedback and discussion from
>this group.
>
.....

>From my side, an arcticle on this question would be appreciated. As I am
quite new to this field of SD, I am still looking for basic literature. Most
of it had been written some time ago and is therefore not easily available
in libraries and/or bookstores. I think it would be useful to find some
principal thoughts in a compact form.

The list seems logical to me from the points 12 to 6. Concerning 1 to 5 I
would be interested in a discussion on the effects on a system.

Best regards
B.Mayr


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
******* * * Bernd MAYR, Dipl.-Ing.
* * * Forschungsinstitut fuer Chemie und Umwelt
* * * (Research Institute of Chemistry and the Environment)
* **** TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET WIEN (VIENNA UNIV. OF TECHNOLOGY)
-------------- Getreidemarkt 9/191, A-1060 VIENNA; AUSTRIA
W I E N Phone: ++43-1-58801-5194 Fax: ++43-1-581-29-52
email: bmayr191@fbch.tuwien.ac.at,
Bernd.Mayr+e191@tuwien.ac.at
WWW of Inst.: http://info.tuwien.ac.at/ficu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

["Jay W. Forrester"]

> As I am
>quite new to this field of SD, I am still looking for basic literature. Most
>of it had been written some time ago and is therefore not easily available
>in libraries and/or bookstores. I think it would be useful to find some
>principal thoughts in a compact form.
>
Perhaps the following information will be useful. All of the Productivity
books are in print and still available.
---------------------------------------------
Information on System Dynamics
Jay W. Forrester
June 20, 1997

To order the system dynamics bibliography of over 4100 entries,
specify IBM type PC, or Macintosh

Send $35 in US$ drawn on a US bank to:

System Dynamics Society
Roberta Spencer, Executive Director
Milne 300--Rockefeller College
State University at Albany
Albany, NY 12222 USA

tel: 1-518-442-3865=DD
fax: 518-442-3398
email: System.Dynamics@albany.edu

Three formats are available:

1. For Endnote, a very effective bibliography software available for either
Macintosh or PC from:

Niles & Associates, Inc
800 Jones St.
Berkeley, CA 94710 USA

Tel: 510-559-8592
Fax: 510-559-8683
Internet: nilesinc@well.sf.ca.us

I use Endnote and recommend it and use it to search for the references.

2. An exported version with field delimiters that presumably can be loaded
into some other kind of database.

3. A listing that one can look at in a word processor and do some simple
finding operations.

The bibliography can also be downloaded from:
http://www.std.com/vensim/sdbib.htm
-----------------------------------------------

The publications list of the System Dynamics Group at MIT is available on
the web as an Adobe Acrobat document from:
FTP://Sysdyn.MIT.edu/Ftp/sdep/papers/D-3059-43.pdf

---------------------------------------
Membership in the System Dynamics Society and subscription to the System
Dynamics Review
are US$80 per year for regular members
and US$40 for students.
Send application to:

John Wiley & Sons
Periodicals Division, System Dynamics Review
P.O. Box 7247 8491
Philadelphia, PA 19170

or to

John Wiley & Sons
Journals Administration, System Dynamics Review
1 Oldlands Way
Bognor Regis
West Sussex PO22 9SA

-------------------------------------
There is a system dynamics discussion group on the Internet.
To join, send email to: majordomo@world.std.com
In the body of the message, enter the following two lines:

Subscribe system-dynamics
End

More system dynamics information is available at:
http://www.std.com/vensim/sdmailing.html
------------------------------------
The next annual international conference of the System Dynamics Society
will be in Istanbul, Turkey in 1997, August 19-22. Write to the System
Dyanmics Society,

System Dynamics Society
Roberta Spencer, Executive Director
Milne 300--Rockefeller College
State University at Albany
Albany, NY 12222 USA
tel: 1-518-442-3865=DD
fax: 518-442-3398
email: System.Dynamics@albany.edu
or go to the web page at:
http://ieiris.cc.boun.edu.tr/sd97
----------------------------------------

Many of the major system dynamics books are available from:

PRODUCTIVITY PRESS
541 N.E. 20th Avenue
Portland, OR 97232, USA

tel: 503-235-0600
fax: 503-235-0909

Web page: http://www.ppress.com/
email: staff@ppress.com


Alfeld, Louis Edward, and Alan K. Graham. 1976. Introduction to Urban
Dynamics. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. 333 pp.

Forrester, Jay W. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. Portland, OR: Productivity
Press. 464 pp.

Forrester, Jay W. 1968. Principles of Systems. (2nd ed.). Portland, OR:
Productivity Press. 391 pp.

Forrester, Jay W. 1969. Urban Dynamics. Portland, OR: Productivity Press.
285 pp.

Forrester, Jay W. 1971. World Dynamics. (1973 second ed.). Portland, OR:
Productivity Press. 144 pp. Second edition has an added chapter on
physical vs. social limits.

Forrester, Jay W. 1975. Collected Papers of Jay W. Forrester. Portland, OR:
Productivity Press. 284 pp
=2E
Forrester, Nathan B. 1973. The Life Cycle of Economic Development.
Portland, OR: Productivity Press. 194 pp.

Goodman, Michael R. 1974. Study Notes in System Dynamics. Portland, OR:
Productivity Press. 388 pp.

Lyneis, James M. 1980. Corporate Planning and Policy Design: A System
Dynamics Approach. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. 520 pp.

Mass, Nathaniel J., ed., 1974. Readings in Urban Dynamics: Volume I,
Portland, OR: Productivity Press, 303 pp.

Mass, Nathaniel J. 1975. Economic Cycles: An Analysis of Underlying
Causes. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. 185 pp.

Meadows, Dennis L. 1970. Dynamics of Commodity Production Cycles. Portland,
OR: Productivity Press. 104 pp.

Meadows, Dennis L., et al. 1974. Dynamics of Growth in a Finite World.
Portland, OR: Productivity Press. 637 pp.

Meadows, Dennis L., and Donella H. Meadows, ed., 1973. Toward Global
Equilibrium: Collected Papers, Portland, OR: Productivity Press, 358 pp.

Morecroft, John D. W., and John D. Sterman, ed., (1994). Modeling for
Learning Organizationa, Portland, OR: Productivity Press, 400 pp.

Randers, Jorgen, ed., 1980. Elements of the System Dynamics Method,
Portland, OR: Productivity Press, 488 pp.

Richardson, George P., and Alexander L. Pugh III. 1981. Introduction to
System Dynamics Modeling with DYNAMO. Portland, OR: Productivity Press. 413
pp.

Roberts, Edward B. 1978. Managerial Applications of System Dynamics.
Portland, OR: Productivity Press. 562 pp.

Roberts, Nancy, David Andersen, Ralph Deal, Michael Garet, William Shaffer.
1983. Introduction to Computer Simulation: A System Dynamics Modeling
Approach. Portland OR: Productivity Press, 562 pages
=2E
Schroeder, Walter W., III, Robert E. Sweeney, and Louis Edward Alfeld, ed.,
1975. Readings in Urban Dynamics: Volume 2, Portland, OR: Productivity
Press, 305 pp.

----------------------------------
A self-study guide to system dynamics, called "Road Maps," is available for
downloading from:

http://sysdyn.mit.edu

or in paper copy from:

Creative Learning Exchange
Ms. Lees Stuntz, Director
1 Keefe Road
Acton, MA 01720, USA
tel: 1-508-287-0070
fax: 1-508-287-0080
email: stuntzln@tiac.net

---------------------------
For those wanting information on introducing system dynamics in
kindergarten through 12th grade education:

1. The Creative Learning Exchange is a nonprofit foundation that acts as a
clearinghouse to provide information on system dynamics in precollege
education and to help teachers share their experiences. They can be
reached at:

Creative Learning Exchange
Ms. Lees Stuntz, Director
1 Keefe Road
Acton, MA 01720, USA
tel: 1-508-287-0070
fax: 1-508-287-0080
email: stuntzln@tiac.net

2. The System Dynamics in Education Project at MIT has a web page with
links to pages at other K-12 activities:
http://sysdyn.mit.edu/

3. The FTP site for many of the papers on curriculum is
sysdyn.mit.edu

4. An internet discussion group on K-12 issues related to system dynamics i=
s:
k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
To subscribe, send a note to:
mailmasters@sysdyn.mit.edu.
Please provide the following information:
First Name:
Last Name:
E-mail:
Title:
Organization:
Address:
City:
State or Province:
ZIP or Postal Code:
Country:
Day Phone Number:
Evening Phone Number:
Fax Number:

5. The summer 93 issue of the System Dynamics Review, vol 9 no. 2, was a
special issue on "Systems thinking in education" It contains many
interesting pieces including reports from the field by teachers.

----------------------------------------------

There are now three good software packages for system dynamics. You can
request information:
--------------------------------------------
STELLA for Macintosh or PC:

High Performance Systems
45 Lyme Road, Suite #300
Hanover, NH 03755, USA

Phone: 1-603-643-9636 customer support
tel: 1-800-332-1202 product inquiries
fax: 1-603-643-9502
email: support@hps-inc.com
http://www.hps-inc.com/

--------------------------------------

Powersim for PC:

PowerSim Corporation
12030 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 300
Reston, VA 22091, USA

tel: 1-703-391-2779
fax: 1-703-391-2768
email: powersim@powersim.com
http://www.powersim.no/

-------------------------------------------

Vensim for PC or Macintosh:

Ventana Systems, Inc.
149 Waverley Street
Belmont, MA 02178, USA

tel: 1-617-489-5249
fax: 1-617-489-53316
email: vensim@world.std.com
http://news.std.com/vensim/

A "Personal Learning Edition" of Vensim can be downloaded from:
http://news.std.com/vensim/
----------------------------------------------------


Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management, Emeritus
and Senior Lecturer, Sloan School
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room E60-389
Cambridge, MA 02139
tel: 617-253-1571
fax: 617-252-1998

email: jforestr@mit.edu

[Bruce Campbell]

(John Rodat) wrote:
(replying to SD0971)
> I thought Donella Meadows post re:
> >PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM
> was one of the more provocative Ive seen on this list.

Ive not introduced myself before although I have been following this
list for some time.

Im currently working at Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia as a
research assistant and studying for an MSc (Hons). The research project
involves consulting with a large Australian company and looking at
problems in their billing system. An initial investigation indicates
that the computer system appears to work OK, but the overall system
doesnt. As part of the project I will be modelling the system and as
part of my studies comparing the various modelling tools. A problem
which has been recognised before, and which we are encountering, is that
process modelling tools as used in IT do a good job of modelling
information processes and flows, but they do not capture the softer
organisational issues, and nor do they look at a system as a whole. It
is in these issues that I believe the major leverage points are located
and hence my growing interest in systems thinking and system dynamics. I
also suspect that the lack of systems thinking is also a major
contributing factor to the lack of productivity gains in office IT
systems.

The reason I was interested in the "missing" post from Donella Meadows
is that it may help me in this area.

Another area with which Im going to have to come to grips with is that
of convincing the company what these leverage points are. Ive been told
that it is politically unaceptable to involve senior management in
systems thinking workshops so will have to work with middle management
(Im still fighting that one). My concern is that even if these middle
managers arrive at the "aha" factor (saw that term on this list and love
it!) they may not be able to "sell" it to senior management and, so,
little will be achieved.

I, also, will be looking forward to following this thread and learning
more about systems thinking and systems dynamics.


Bruce Campbell
Joint Research Centre for Advanced Systems Engineering
Macquarie University
Sydney

e-mail: Bruce.Campbell@mq.edu.au
AUSTRALIA

[John Wolfenden]

Hi folks

I am interested in Bruce Campbells comments below.

>Another area with which Im going to have to come to grips with is that
>of convincing the company what these leverage points are. Ive been told
>that it is politically unaceptable to involve senior management in
>systems thinking workshops so will have to work with middle management
>(Im still fighting that one). My concern is that even if these middle
>managers arrive at the "aha" factor (saw that term on this list and love
>it!) they may not be able to "sell" it to senior management and, so,
>little will be achieved.
>
He is describing a problem that we too have often faced. I wonder is it
peculiarly Australian, or whether senior managers everywhere are reluctant
to stoop so low that they muddy their hands with actually learning new
techniques and approaches?

A strategy that appears promising is to work synergistically with the
middle manager types that we seem to be able to get ready access to. This
idea was crystallised for me after reading an article by George Richardson
and David Andersen called "Teamwork in group model building" (SDR, 11:2,
Summer 1995). In this article the role of gatekeeper is identified.
This is a person who belongs to the client group, and acts as a
representative of the client to the modelling team, and an advocate for the
modelling team to the client management. I suggest extending this idea a bit.

Sometimes we can find ourselves in a them and us situation when working
with a client group. This probably comes about because we, the
consultants, dont communicate clearly the nature of what it is we are
doing. This leads to defensive postures being adopted by the client, and a
critical questioning of what we show them. So, I see the necessary steps
like this.

1. In the initial stages of the consultancy, attempt to connect as high up
the decision making totem pole as possible. That is, make sure that
someone of signifcant empowerment and influence actually WANTS to do the
project.

2. This person will then probably give you access to one or a few people in
the organisation with whom to work.

3. Out of steps 1 and 2, select the gatekeeper - the higher up in the
organisation the better.

4. The gatekeeper MUST become an integral part of the systems exploration
and modelling activities. They need the opportunity to become a _true
believer_.

5. Once you have a convert on your hands, you then ask that person to help
you develop the strategy for implementation of the overall learning that
has been generated. This person can advise on the internal politics, and
the circles of influence and power.

6. THE GATEKEEPER AND THE CONSULTANT WORK AS ONE UNIT TO DEVELOP AND
IMPLEMENT AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY TO ENSURE THAT THE SYSTEMS LEARNING
GENERATED BY A FEW IS EFFECTIVELY EXTENDED TO THE ORGANISATION AS A WHOLE.

The critical step is in convincing the gatekeeper that the stuff you are
doing is of earth shattering significance and importance to his/her
organsitation, but that experience tells us that actually communicating
this to senior management is exceedingly difficult. Also, that the only
way to have an effective outcome is that you and he/she work together to
make sure it happens.

Note that this approach is probably different to the more usual approach in
which somebody in the organisation is appointed to keep the consultant
honest - i.e. as a policeman/watchdog. Our agenda is to subvert that role
into one of being an apologist for OUR cause. Sounds tricky, but I think
it may be the only way to handle this extremely awkward problem.

regards to all


John

PS it sounds as though more and more people in Oz are getting involved in
SD - great stuff!

------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wolfenden
Centre for Water Policy Research
University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia
Phone 61 67 732420 Fax 61 67 733237 email jwolfend@metz.une.edu.au
Mobile 0412 245 234

Postgraduate Coordinator, Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological
Economics
Member New England Ecological Economics Group
- see web pages at http://www.une.edu.au/cwpr/neeg.html

[Jennifer Cover]

Many thanks to Professor Forrester for providing a list of available
SD resources. Id like to update the information about Powersim,
however:

US Address:

Powersim Corporation
1175 Herndon Parkway Suite 600
Herndon, VA 20170
Phone: (703) 481-1270
Fax: (703) 481-1271
Email: powersim@powersim.com
http://www.powersim.com


Norway Address:

Powersim AS
PO Box 206
N-5100 Isdalst=F8
Phone: +47 56 34 24 00
Fax: +47 56 34 24 01
Email: powersim@powersim.no
http://www.powersim.no

Our web pages are the same on both sites, but you may gain
faster access via the one closest to you (depending on traffic).


Jennifer Cover
Powersim AS
From: Jennifer Cover <jenco@powersim.no>

[Steve Nyland]

Hello!
Couldnt help but respond to this one. If theres no commitment from
the top the potential for successful implementation drops
significantly. Reminds me of an old Greek saying....."the fish rots
from the head down". Good luck!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Nyland
Digital Systems Research, Inc.
901 N. Heritage Dr., Ridgecrest, Ca. 93555
Phone 760-446-6885 e-mail: nyland@ridgecrest.ca.us

[hamersma.maarten@columbus.co.za]

Morning everyone

>He is describing a problem that we too have often faced. I wonder is it
>peculiarly Australian, or whether senior managers everywhere are reluctant
>to stoop so low that they muddy their hands with actually learning new
>techniques and approaches?
>
Probably the same everywhere. At our company, the senior blokes see the wood,
get confused, zoom in on one tree, solve it (thus proving that they are the real
problem solvers and the people are incompetent), and rest for a while.
Meanwhile the income statement doesnt change one bit.

This idea about the gatekeeper sounds good - will study and try it out.

Regards,

From: hamersma.maarten@columbus.co.za (Maarten Hamersma)
Maarten Hamersma Phone: +27 (0)13 247 2235
Systems Engineer Fax: +27 (0)13 246 1108
Columbus Stainless, South Africa

[Bill Harris]

Steve Nyland wrote:

> Subject: REPLY leverage points (SD0991)

> Couldnt help but respond to this one. If theres no commitment from
> the top the potential for successful implementation drops
> significantly. Reminds me of an old Greek saying....."the fish rots

It sounds good. However, I just finished Akkermans & Vennixs article in
the Spring 1997 System Dynamics Review. On p. 22, they write that "top
management support leads to involvement" is one of their "refuted textbook
theory relations." It also seems to me that Ive heard Senge say in a
day-long workshop he held in Seattle that their experience is that top
management involvement _doesnt_ correlate well with sustained change.

Still thinking,

Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Engineering Processes Lake Stevens Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330
phone: (425) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (425) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298

[Steve Nyland]

This has the makings of a long dialogue. It all depends on how you
define "support", and how the folks perceive it, in my experience.
Still questioning/learning!
Steve Nyland
From: Steve Nyland <nyland@ridgecrest.ca.us>
DSR, Inc.
901 N. Heritage Dr. Suite 201
Ridgecrest, Ca. 93555

[saeed@ait.ac.th (Khalid Saeed)]

Mohammed raises a key question. We often rely on intimate knowledge of the
model and its parameter sensitivity to identify the "right" loops, but a
systematic way to find them in a complex model would be a methodological
breakthrough.

Khalid Saeed



Khalid Saeed
Professor and Program Coordinator
Infrastructure Planning & Management
ASIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
P.O. Box 4, Klongluang, Pathumthani, THAILAND 12120
phones: (66-2) 524-5681, (66-2) 524-5785; fax: (66-2) 524-5776
email: saeed@ait.ac.th

Visit our program website at: http://www.ipm.ait.ac.th/

[Bill Harris]

Bill Braun wrote:

> Subject: REPLY leverage points (SD0997)

> Can you expand on the Senge thought. Seems, on the surface, to fly in the
> face of the influence of underlying structure and to perhaps run afoul of
> some archetypes.

As I recall (it was about a year ago), he was speaking after the person who
ran the Ford TownCar project spoke, and he was noting that some of their
commonly held beliefs about what made change stick werent being born out
in practice, at least as far as his group at MIT was observing things. It
was like management support didnt seem to ensure survivability of the
change. It was almost a pessimistic statement, like they didnt yet know
what does ensure survivability. He was thinking (hoping) that some of the
ideas live on in the people who participated and may surface again in
future work (sorta like seeds, insects, and other creatures who become
pretty invisible in the winter but [hopefully] show up again in the spring
--- my analogy).

Interestingly enough, that theme came up twice in things I got in my
mailbox in the past two days. The Akkermans/Vennix article in System
Dynamics review was one. I also got a free copy of an AQP newsletter (they
were soliciting new subscribers) that contained an interview with Peter
Block. While I passed the newsletter along to someone else, I can remember
much of the gist of his point that touched on this. He was claiming that
consultants (his profession) are giving seriously mixed messages when they
advocate learning and empowerment and then act as if change only happens if
it is blessed and supported by top management. By acting this way, you
(we) are reinforcing the notion that those of us in the "middle" and on the
"bottom" cant do anything without being told to do it.

Going down this path does make one begin to think about and clarify what
ones role as a manager _really_ might be. It also seems related to
Argyriss exhortation that one who is committed to organizational change in
the direction of a more open, more participative environment shouldnt use
coercive, closed techniques for two reasons: they wont work (i.e., that is
modeling the sort of behavior you are seeking to avoid, and people will
catch on to what you think is really effective), and it is ethically wrong
(you are asking people to do what you arent willing to do yourself).
Going down this last path was a challenging but rewarding journey for me.

I mentioned this conversation to the person to whom I passed the AQP
newsletter, and she noted that change may be much easier to accomplish by
peers than by managers exactly for the reason that peer-sponsored change is
by its nature restricted in its potential for coercion.

Regards,

Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Engineering Processes Lake Stevens Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330
phone: (425) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (425) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298

[Anupam Saraph]

Donella Meadows wrote:
> Id like to try to open nontechnical minds to the kinds of interventions we
> see when we look from the point of view of whole systems.
and added a list of 12 places to intervene in a system.

My immediate reaction: Intervention by whom? Us as
consultants/teachers/modellers? Or by the actors in the system?

This list is wonderful for me as a consultant/teacher/modeller to
recognise my incremental intervention into my client/students worlds! By
nontechnical persons are you trying to address the layperson to come to
better grips with life?

I do not know if my client/student (can they be the nontechnical
audience you address?) can use this list (in its present form) without
my intervention?

I use a simple 4 dimensions of action list for intervention, evolved
from my research program in systems, which my clients/students often
use: each dimension modifies the zone of the realised potential of the
system within a larger realisable potential and yet larger system
potential.

1. Act
eact to whatever you do; that is the simplest intervention.
2. Script
escript how you react to whatever you do: that requires you
to be your script writer, a more responsible role.
3. Cast
ecast the actors within the system: can you make other actors
in the system more concerned about the events important to you?
4. Organise
eorganise the system you are part of! Most drastic changing
the potential itself because new actors interact together to form newer
systems.

By the way, I could even state all this in SD terms if you wish...
What do you think?

Best Regards,

Anupam Saraph

Anupam Saraph, Ph.D.
Centre for Innovation and Invention, 11 Mangalam,
Paud Road, Pune 411038, India
Tel/Fax: +91-212-346191 Email: saraph@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in

[Anupam Saraph]

Jay Forrest wrote:
> From a purely SD perspective we would propose that the "effectiveness
>of a leverage point" should be essentially the derivative of
> system behavior with respect to the change in the element under
>consideration. More effective leverage points would have more impact.

Your observation implies leverage element (lever) is an element with
maximal impact in the same unit of time. Is there a term you would use
for rapid impact (rate of change is highest)? A derivative of system
behavior with respect to time for different possible change elements
under consideration? Many decision makers seem to imply this by leverage
rather than the former. Obviously (?) the intervention time scale will
decide which is viewed as an effective lever.

> In our work leverage points have relatively high statistical impact
> on other variables in the system, implying (but certainly not guaranteeing)
> a large impact on the behavior of the system.

I missed out something here. Can you please clarify if you mean
sensitivity analysis indcates levers are highly sensitive elements
influencing the system behaviour?

> Once high-influence (leverage) points are identified, we further classify them as either having
> high exposure to other variables (relatively difficult to control) or
> limited exposure (relatively easy to control). It is our experience that
> highly exposed "levers" are very difficult to change in complex systems --
> the system itself often resists the change -- such that even if the variable
> would be an effective lever IF one could change the it, substantial and
> coordinated effort are required to acheive the change.

By high exposure do you mean stocks with multiple rates, rates with
multiple elements influencing, or something else? And low exposure
stocks with limited rates, rates with single element influencing, or
something else?

> We would suggest that the logical sequence when working with clients
>is to begin at the top (number 1) of Donellas list and to work > down
>to the model details.

I looked back at Donellas list at this point and felt it actually =
captured the process of sequential intervention by the
consultant/teacher/modeller beautifuly. Donellas concern, as I
understand it, seems to be on how does our practical effort as a
consultant/teacher/modeller intervene in a system. I wonder if the list
ALSO follows an increased difficulty in intervention from 1 to 12,
especially if one is to ASSUME that most consultants/teachers/modellers
follow the method of working with clients that you do.=

If you cannot intervene at "n" then it is unlikely that you can
intervene at "n+1" on the list? If Ive been able to track this
logically, then it does follow that the greatest impact IN PRACTICE will
be at "n=3D1"! Of course then the range of impact will be limited from 1
to "n" where the consultant/teacher/modeller cannot penetrate beyond
"n". This means what we discussed above will be useful if we reach that
stage? Donella, did I read what you said right?

Best Regards,

Anupam Saraph

Anupam Saraph, Ph.D.
Centre for Innovation and Invention, 11 Mangalam,
Paud Road, Pune 411038, India
Tel/Fax: +91-212-346191 Email: saraph@giaspn01.vsnl.net.in

[BryanJames@aol.com]

Khalid Saeed writes:
>Mohammed raises a key question. We often rely on intimate knowledge of the
>model and its parameter sensitivity to identify the "right" loops, but a
>systematic way to find them in a complex model would be a methodological
>breakthrough.

In geophysics models are routinely utilized and can, when desired, be subjected
to full automatic sensitivity analysis to identify the most important parameters.
THe same is very likely possible for identifying loop sensitivities in SD.
The geophysics arena might be worth investigating on this subject.

Bryan James
(Recent ex-geophysicist and now employed by Computing Devices Intl)
11558 W. Arizona Av.
Lakewood, CO 80232
(303) 989-4695
bryanjames@aol.com

bus: bryan.a.james@cdev.com
(303) 779-7748

["J.Vennix"]

>> Couldnt help but respond to this one. If theres no commitment from
>> the top the potential for successful implementation drops
>> significantly. Reminds me of an old Greek saying....."the fish rots
>
>It sounds good. However, I just finished Akkermans & Vennixs article in
>the Spring 1997 System Dynamics Review. On p. 22, they write that "top
>management support leads to involvement" is one of their "refuted textbook
>theory relations." It also seems to me that Ive heard Senge say in a
>day-long workshop he held in Seattle that their experience is that top
>management involvement _doesnt_ correlate well with sustained change.

Lets be careful about this. Results may seem contradictory, but this
could well be caused by the fact that different people are talking about
different things. Both top management support and involvement are quite
fuzzy concepts. I would agree that if there is no commitment from the top
the potential for successful implementation drops significantly. But then we
are talking about implementation. This is something else then saying that
support from top management will lead to involvement in a group model
building project/sessions. And this again differs from saying that top
management involvement does or does not lead to sustained change. And then
what is meant by labels like involvement and support.
Let us suppose that a researcher is interested in finding out whether top
management support does lead to commitment. If support is understood by the
researcher as formal approval by top management and it is in fact
genuine interest and helping attitude by top management (which is another
way of defining top management support) to which people in an organization
will react favorably, then we would have a situation in which the researcher
will conclude that top management support is not sufficient for commitment
etc. (because there was formal approval and no commitment), while in fact
lack of involvement was caused by a lack of genuine interest and helping
attitude by top management, which the researcher failed to notice!
I guess what I am trying to say is that we have to be careful in making
statements using abstract concepts which can be misunderstood easily. We
have to read behind the lines and try to understand what is meant when
people use these vague concepts.

Jac Vennix


------------------------------------------------------
Jac A.M. Vennix
Fac. of Policy Sciences, Dept. of Research Methodology
P.O. Box 9104, 6500 HE Nijmegen, The Netherlands
phone: (0)24-3616291; fax (0)24-3612351
email: J.Vennix@maw.kun.nl
------------------------------------------------------

[Donella.H.Meadows@Dartmouth.EDU]

Dear SD folks,

For some time I have been playing with the following list, an attempt to
distill systems wisdom about how to effect change or find leverage points. I
know that such lists are necessarily oversimplified. I also know that this
particular one is slithery -- for example many parameter changes have little
effect on behavior, but a parameter that affects the length of a delay or a
balance between a positive and a controlling negative loop can be very
sensitive.

But Id like to try to open nontechnical minds to the kinds of interventions we
see when we look from the point of view of whole systems. So Im trying to
write an article about this list. Id appreciate feedback and discussion from
this group.

PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM
(in increasing order of effectiveness)

12. Constants, parameters, numbers (subsidies, taxes, standards).
11. The size of buffers and other stabilizing stocks relative to their flows.
10. The length of delays.
9. The structure of material stocks and flows and nodes of intersection (such
as transport networks, population age structures, flow of nitrogen through
soil).
8. The strength of regulating negative feedback loops.
7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops.
6. The structure of information flows (such as delivering potent information
to players who didnt have access to it).
5. The rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints).
4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure.
3. The goals ("thermostat" settings, set points of negative feedback loops) of
the system.
2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system -- its goals, structure,
rules, delays, parameters -- arises.
1. The power to change or evolve the paradigm.

So what do you think?

Donella H. Meadows
Donella.H.Meadows@Dartmouth.EDU
Adjunct Professor
Environmental Studies Program
Dartmouth College

[Stephen Wehrenberg]

Donella, et. al.

Im certainly with you from 1 to 8! That fits nicely into zillions of
years of research in organizational psychology, org structure, and
management theory. Actually, thats true down to 6, and my own limited
use of system dynamics leads me to believe that 7 and 8 are in the right
order (most of the time). I think paradigm may be too strong a word,
but in general the power to do something yourself is more useful (and
holds a higher probability of success) than helping others achieve the
same degree of understanding. Goals orient the "system," and adjusting
structure directs the activities of the system.

I wonder if there isnt a "power to do it yourself -- must do it through
others" dimensionality to many of the items on the list? For example,

1. Power to change the map yourself
2. Power to "help" others change the (common) map (the mindset,
paradigm, etc.)
3. Power to change the goals yourself
4. Power to "help" others change the goals
5. Power to change the system structure yourself
6. Power to "help" others change the system structure
etc.

I guess this adds the dimension of "ownership" of the system ...

Steve

--
Stephen B. Wehrenberg, Ph.D.
Chief, Forecasts and Systems, US Coast Guard;
Administrative Sciences Program, The George Washington University;
wstephen@erols.com

["David Gillespie"]

> PLACES TO INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM
> (in increasing order of effectiveness)

A well illustrated article on leverage points would be extremely useful.

The distinction between 1 & 2 is not clear. Intervention implies a change,
so how does the paradigm out of which the system arises differ from the
power to change the paradigm?

It seems like the power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system
structure (#4) is a special case of the structure of information flows
(#6) or maybe the rules plus information flows (#s 5 & 6).

A possible #13 could be new connections to other whole systems. This would
change the boundary of the system.

David Gillespie
davidfg@fidnet.com
Professor
Washington University

["Michael A. Gort"]

Donella,

A soft place to intervene is the quality of the conversations within the
clients team. Moving theory-in-use from Argyris Model I to more like Model
II could have significant impact on these items in your list:

6. The structure of information flows (such as delivering potent information
to players who didnt have access to it).

By reducing covering up and easing in, the quality of the data exchanged by the
team increases.

5. The rules of the system (incentives, punishments, constraints).

By living Model II and providing incentives to the team to move to Model II,
real issues are surfaced.

4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organize system structure.

Model II behavior is more likely to evolve system structure

2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system -- its goals, structure,
rules, delays, parameters -- arises.

Changing from Model I to Model II is a major paradigm or mindset change.


___________________
| Michael A. Gort |
| 203-637-9279 |
| mail18081@pop.net |
|__________________ |

[Mohammad Mojtahedzadeh]

Folks,

It is very difficult to resist and not to say something about what Donella
Meadows and others wrote on how to effect change or find leverage points as
they are all intriguing. Donellas list includes processes that are
familiar to almost any one who has been involved in rigorous modeling
efforts and systems thinking. It seems to me, however, that the list
suggests after-the-fact heuristics for dealing with leverage points.
Watching the gain around a positive loop, for example, is perhaps a key to
understanding the dynamics of growth, but which positive feedback loop
among all the existing positive loops to pick is a different story. The
same reasoning is true for delays and the length of delays in the system as
well as the strength of regulating negative feedback loops. Are the length
of all delays in a system important all the time? Probably not. The
question is, then, how to pinpoint the "right" positive loop(s) and/or
negative loop(s)?

It turns out that once leverage points are discovered, some of these
heuristics are often engaged to convey the findings and to provide
explanations for why the system behaves as it does.


Mohammad Mojtahedzadeh
High Performance Systems, Inc.
mohammad@hps-inc.com

["John D. Smith"]

Although theyre often amusing, even interesting, it seems to me that
lists of the top 10 something-or-others are a pretty low art form. Popular,
but low. Heres one perspective on how theyre invoked _after_ we have a
fairly sophisticated understanding of a system:

At 09:32 PM 7/8/97 -0400, Mohammad Mojtahedzadeh, High Performance Systems,
Inc., mohammad@hps-inc.com wrote:
>It turns out that once leverage points are discovered, some of these
>heuristics are often engaged to convey the findings and to provide
>explanations for why the system behaves as it does.
>

It seems to me we could also think of this top 10 (12, actually) as an
invitation. It sends the message, "If these statements or purported
insights are intriguing, try delving more deeply..." So what would the
_next_ exhibit be in your book or lecture, Donella? Would you show
something about what _generated_ the list? Something more succinct than the
thousands of diagrams and simulations and discussions that preceded and,
allegedly, caused the list? Let me see your model! Please?

Where would actually building or playing with a model fall in the list?
Both of them alter "the structure of information flows" in some fundamental
way. It seems to me that the utility of this kind of list is to invite
people to a more grounded and embedded conversation that is still rigorous.
It should invite them to _play_ with a model.

OK, since I notice I have a lot to say on the subject, it must be I have at
least a slight addiction to top 10 lists!

* How do you make sense of the order of items? One ordering that I see is
that the higher leverage points (lower numbers) often include one or more
of the concepts mentioned in the lower ones. Comments on whether you think
there is some nesting of goals, rules, strength, and size would be
of interest.

* As I think about the list, I see increasing self-inclusion or
self-reference as effectiveness increases. Or, the items at the top of
the list admit to more reflection about how we might generate the system and
its behavior.

* Our very common metaphor of leverage points really belongs to a very
linear paradigm. I notice that Prof. Meadows labeled the list "PLACES TO
INTERVENE IN A SYSTEM," which could include using levers and many other more
dynamic and non-linear actions.

John
From: "John D. Smith" <john.d.smith@cusys.edu>
-- http://www.cu.edu/~irm/pers/jds/ -- voice: (303) 492-9473 FAX: 492-9981
* John D. Smith, Info Resrce Mgmt, CB 50, U of Colo, Boulder, CO 80309-0050
* Change is an art. Resistance is a science.

[Bill Braun]

Bill,

Can you expand on the Senge thought. Seems, on the surface, to fly in the
face of the influence of underlying structure and to perhaps run afoul of
some archetypes.

Bill Braun

From: Bill Braun <medprac@hlthsys.com>
---------------------------
Medical Practice Systems Inc. (216) 382-7111 (Voice)
and The Health Systems Group http://www.hlthsys.com
Mergers - Planning - Management Services
Marketing - Managed Care - Education & Training