Discussion Topic for the 1998 SD Conference
Professional Accreditation for SD Practitioners
As every professional field matures, its practitioners must eventually
face the issue of accreditation. Who is qualified to practice and who
is not? And what criteria distinguish the two groups? As the SD field
widens and software tools become easier to use, an ever-growing number
of practitioners offer models and model-building consulting services to
the public. Some of this work is outstanding; some of it is not.
Currently, we rely on individual and company credentials as an assurance
of good work. A degree in SD, study under a recognized "master",
published papers, a pedigreed client list - all of these signs are
evidence of SD competence. Yet the demand for SD applications is
growing much more rapidly than is the pool of SD competence (however one
wishes to define competence). Individuals and organizations that
purchase SD services cannot readily recognize SD competence. Our
professional field, like many professions before it, risks sullying its
reputation and earning public rejection by failing to establish an
objective method of certifying competence in the field.
As a first step towards establishing a professional SD accreditation, I
propose to precipitate a discussion on the topic at the 1998 SD
Conference.
I propose that the SD Society establish a one-day exam for any of its
members who wish to enjoy the privileges and rights of accreditation,
including the use of the words "Accredited SD Professional" (or ASDP as
initials). Only SD Society members would be eligible for accreditation
and no member would be required to become accredited. (In all
likelihood, few members would actually do so during the next few years
but, as SD practice continues to expand, more individuals would desire
to do so.)
The exam would consist of four parts, all of which an individual would
be required to pass:
* demonstrate knowledge of core SD literature and
models, including such standard references as Industrial Dynamics and
Principles of Systems;
* demonstrate knowledge of basic SD archetypal
structures, their applications and their behavior;
* demonstrate capacity to understand and explain
the structure and behavior of a referent SD model, including tests for
model validation; and
* demonstrate capacity to construct an SD model
from a description of a dynamic problem and its causal structure.
Passing the exam will require familiarity with one of the SD programming
languages. The knowledge required would be equivalent to that gained by
a student in two introductory semesters of SD study perhaps augmented by
additional study and some practical experience in model building.
An annual examination would be created by a SD Society Board of
Examiners who would also determine the criteria for a passing grade and
oversee the conduct and grading of the exams. The examination could be
given the day immediately before the annual SD conference and results
posted within three months. Examiners would be appointed by the Policy
Committee. Fees collected from examinees would cover all exam expenses
(although the SD Society may need to defray some expenses during the
early years).
Questions to be raised and discussed at the conference include:
1) Is professional accreditation needed?
2) How would accreditation impact the growth of the
SD field?
3) Can an examination establish a minimum
recognized standard of competency for SD practice?
4) What material should an examination cover and
how should it be presented for testing?
5) Under what criteria, if any, could the Board of
Examiners waive the examination and grant accreditation?
6) What preliminary requirements must a candidate
met, if any, to sit for the examination?
7) Should some form of "advanced accreditation"
such as a "ASDP Fellow" be considered for distinguished practitioners?
I am sure that SD practitioners hold a broad range of viewpoints, both
for and against. My purpose is to raise the question for debate, with
the goal of eventually proposing that the SD Society form a committee to
investigate the issue and report back to the Society at a future
conference. Your opinions and ideas are welcome.
From: "Dr. Louis E. Alfeld" <lealfeld@decisiondynamics.com>
Professional Accreditation
-
"Dr. Louis E. Alfeld"
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
-
Nelson Repenning
- Junior Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
Some Thoughts On Professional Accreditation,
Jay Forrester has often framed system dynamics as a profession similar to
engineering or medicine which requires a combination of academic training,
experience, and apprenticeship. Following this model, accreditation might
be appropriate since there are similar procedures for doctors and engineers.
The critical problem is how to make sure that the process is rigorous and
the the accrediting body commands the appropriate respect. Its been a
while since I checked, but I believe there are a number of professions for
which one can receive credentials simply by mailing a check to the
appropriate address in the back of rolling stone magazine. Obviously, we
want our profession to be more like medicine and engineering and less like
some others ( I wont provide examples for fear of offending somebody).
Another issue that comes to mind is the fact that there is a wide range of
practice. Some consultants spend the majority of their time on process
facillitation and rarely move beyond causal loop diagrams while others
build only large scale formal models that are calibrated to existing time
series data using statistical methods. It is difficult for me to imagine a
single process (exam) that could appropriately certify both of these work
styles. As a counter point to this, some have argued that formal modeling
training is critical to build good dynamic intuition even if your primary
work is graphical in nature.
Finally, there is the issue of required training. My feeling is that
apprenticeship is essential to learning system dynamics. Im not sure this
could be a requirement to get certified, but whatever exam is created must
test more than knowledge of the literature, cannonical formulations, etc.
On the whole, I think it would be in the long term interest of the field,
if the above could be appropriately dealt with. However, it all sounds
pretty complicated. Perhaps, as my students love to say any time there is
a problem in course administration or in the school as a whole,
"...somebody should build a model of this."
nelson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson P. Repenning
Robert N. Noyce Career Development Assistant Professor
Operations Management/System Dynamics Group
30 Wadsworth St, E53-339
Cambridge, MA 02139
phone: 617258-6889 fax:617258-7579 e-mail:nelsonr@mit.edu
Jay Forrester has often framed system dynamics as a profession similar to
engineering or medicine which requires a combination of academic training,
experience, and apprenticeship. Following this model, accreditation might
be appropriate since there are similar procedures for doctors and engineers.
The critical problem is how to make sure that the process is rigorous and
the the accrediting body commands the appropriate respect. Its been a
while since I checked, but I believe there are a number of professions for
which one can receive credentials simply by mailing a check to the
appropriate address in the back of rolling stone magazine. Obviously, we
want our profession to be more like medicine and engineering and less like
some others ( I wont provide examples for fear of offending somebody).
Another issue that comes to mind is the fact that there is a wide range of
practice. Some consultants spend the majority of their time on process
facillitation and rarely move beyond causal loop diagrams while others
build only large scale formal models that are calibrated to existing time
series data using statistical methods. It is difficult for me to imagine a
single process (exam) that could appropriately certify both of these work
styles. As a counter point to this, some have argued that formal modeling
training is critical to build good dynamic intuition even if your primary
work is graphical in nature.
Finally, there is the issue of required training. My feeling is that
apprenticeship is essential to learning system dynamics. Im not sure this
could be a requirement to get certified, but whatever exam is created must
test more than knowledge of the literature, cannonical formulations, etc.
On the whole, I think it would be in the long term interest of the field,
if the above could be appropriately dealt with. However, it all sounds
pretty complicated. Perhaps, as my students love to say any time there is
a problem in course administration or in the school as a whole,
"...somebody should build a model of this."
nelson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson P. Repenning
Robert N. Noyce Career Development Assistant Professor
Operations Management/System Dynamics Group
30 Wadsworth St, E53-339
Cambridge, MA 02139
phone: 617258-6889 fax:617258-7579 e-mail:nelsonr@mit.edu
-
"Gunkler, John"
- Junior Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
Thanks for bringing up this issue and for your thoughtful approach. I
probably will not be attending this years SD Conference, so I wont
have that forum for responding and I would like to respond, briefly.
Since I am a working professional (I have owned my own consulting
business for almost 15 years) I have taken a non-academic route to SD
competence (I dont claim to have arrived at it yet, though.) I do have
some advantages as I undertake self-study -- Ive been practicing in the
areas of strategic thinking and organizational (culture) change for
nearly 20 years, working with over 25% of the Fortune 1000; my Ph.D.
studies (I completed all but the dissertation many years ago)
concentrated in the psychological foundations of education while my
undergraduate degree is in mathematics (I began wanting to work in
astrophysics, but Vietnam intervened ... and its a long story.) Its
an unusual background for someone who has worked his entire career in
the training (human resources) and management consulting areas, but is
well suited to understanding both the organizational systems aspects and
background mathematics of SD.
I think a test such as you propose would be the fairest way to accredit
SD professionals. Other "hurdles" (such as academic requirements --
coursework, specific degree specialization, etc.) would serve to
discourage working people from pursuing the field, and I think we all
are interested in expanding rather than limiting the practical use of
SD.
One of the reasons I left the training field was my disgust at the
fields lack of professionalism (in fact, proliferation of charlatanism
might be a better way of describing what happened and is still
happening.) I see a real danger of a similar fate befalling SD. Of
course, there is one surefire way to avoid this (other than
accreditation) -- and that is to fail to provide practical benefits as a
field. Then charlatans will not be very tempted to claim membership!
To the extent that SD finds ways to provide beneficial services, to that
extent will the need for accreditation grow. I salute your raising of
the issue and support your suggested path.
From: "Gunkler, John" <Jgunkler@satmansys.com>
probably will not be attending this years SD Conference, so I wont
have that forum for responding and I would like to respond, briefly.
Since I am a working professional (I have owned my own consulting
business for almost 15 years) I have taken a non-academic route to SD
competence (I dont claim to have arrived at it yet, though.) I do have
some advantages as I undertake self-study -- Ive been practicing in the
areas of strategic thinking and organizational (culture) change for
nearly 20 years, working with over 25% of the Fortune 1000; my Ph.D.
studies (I completed all but the dissertation many years ago)
concentrated in the psychological foundations of education while my
undergraduate degree is in mathematics (I began wanting to work in
astrophysics, but Vietnam intervened ... and its a long story.) Its
an unusual background for someone who has worked his entire career in
the training (human resources) and management consulting areas, but is
well suited to understanding both the organizational systems aspects and
background mathematics of SD.
I think a test such as you propose would be the fairest way to accredit
SD professionals. Other "hurdles" (such as academic requirements --
coursework, specific degree specialization, etc.) would serve to
discourage working people from pursuing the field, and I think we all
are interested in expanding rather than limiting the practical use of
SD.
One of the reasons I left the training field was my disgust at the
fields lack of professionalism (in fact, proliferation of charlatanism
might be a better way of describing what happened and is still
happening.) I see a real danger of a similar fate befalling SD. Of
course, there is one surefire way to avoid this (other than
accreditation) -- and that is to fail to provide practical benefits as a
field. Then charlatans will not be very tempted to claim membership!
To the extent that SD finds ways to provide beneficial services, to that
extent will the need for accreditation grow. I salute your raising of
the issue and support your suggested path.
From: "Gunkler, John" <Jgunkler@satmansys.com>
Professional Accreditation
Lou,
I am all for a discussion, though Im not sure I favor the proposal.
Perhaps, your message will initiate a discussion in this email list in
addition to the discussion at the conference. An advantage of a
discussion here is that this list goes out to a much wider group than
will attend the conference, and an email discussion can go on for as
long as necessary, whereas the conference discussion will necessarily be
constrained.
I think it would be good to have some concrete examples of the sort of
thing accedation might cure. The first question I have is: Does anyone
have an example (or two) of poor performance by an unqualified person
sullying the reputation of system dynamics?
Regards,
Jim Hines
MIT and LeapTec
From: Jim Hines <jimhines@interserv.com>
I am all for a discussion, though Im not sure I favor the proposal.
Perhaps, your message will initiate a discussion in this email list in
addition to the discussion at the conference. An advantage of a
discussion here is that this list goes out to a much wider group than
will attend the conference, and an email discussion can go on for as
long as necessary, whereas the conference discussion will necessarily be
constrained.
I think it would be good to have some concrete examples of the sort of
thing accedation might cure. The first question I have is: Does anyone
have an example (or two) of poor performance by an unqualified person
sullying the reputation of system dynamics?
Regards,
Jim Hines
MIT and LeapTec
From: Jim Hines <jimhines@interserv.com>
Professional Accreditation
I would love to become a certified systems dynamics professional. However,
please make sure that the level of training for the base level certification is
something that can be attained through the level of training that most companies
will support or that can be attained through self-study of training materials.
In considering a system for professional accreditation, I would suggest that an
arrangement similar to the Microsoft Professional Certification program be
implemented. For example to become a Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer,
a computer professional has to take two core technology tests on Windows Architecture,
and two elective tests to measure technical proficiency. (For more information about
Microsoft Certification programs see http://www.microsoft.com/mcp/mktg/cert.htm).
I believe a systems dynamics certification for professionals in the consulting field
could be similar. An individual could take one test on the theoretical foundations of
systems thinking and elective tests which would cover the practical application of a
software package such as the iThink, Stella, Powersim, Vensim, or other suitable
software. To be a certified systems dynamics professional, an individual could be
required to pass the theoretical test and one or two tool based tests.
The tool makers should be encouraged to develop courses which would cover theory
and other courses which would cover the finer points of applying the theory through
their software. (A progression of courses leading towards certification would help me
sell my bosses on sending me to more training.) Systems Dynamics professional groups
should publish a short reading list or create a book of important readings which when
combined with a two day course on theory and three day course on software should
advance an individual a long way towards a first level of practical professional
certification.
The consulting firm that I work for strongly encourages employees to become professionally
certified and provides bonuses for passing certification tests. While they could never be able
to afford to send me to MIT or a University in Sweden for advanced academic training, they
can usually pay $1000 to $2500 for up to 5 days of training and $100 to take an exam. I believe
this pattern is typical of U.S. consulting companies and is certainly the norm for computer training.
While a practical professional certification will never be as impressive as an advanced degree in systems
dynamics, it would certainly help point us in the right direction. Thanks.
From: Lee Spain <lspain@calibresys.com>
please make sure that the level of training for the base level certification is
something that can be attained through the level of training that most companies
will support or that can be attained through self-study of training materials.
In considering a system for professional accreditation, I would suggest that an
arrangement similar to the Microsoft Professional Certification program be
implemented. For example to become a Microsoft Certified Solutions Developer,
a computer professional has to take two core technology tests on Windows Architecture,
and two elective tests to measure technical proficiency. (For more information about
Microsoft Certification programs see http://www.microsoft.com/mcp/mktg/cert.htm).
I believe a systems dynamics certification for professionals in the consulting field
could be similar. An individual could take one test on the theoretical foundations of
systems thinking and elective tests which would cover the practical application of a
software package such as the iThink, Stella, Powersim, Vensim, or other suitable
software. To be a certified systems dynamics professional, an individual could be
required to pass the theoretical test and one or two tool based tests.
The tool makers should be encouraged to develop courses which would cover theory
and other courses which would cover the finer points of applying the theory through
their software. (A progression of courses leading towards certification would help me
sell my bosses on sending me to more training.) Systems Dynamics professional groups
should publish a short reading list or create a book of important readings which when
combined with a two day course on theory and three day course on software should
advance an individual a long way towards a first level of practical professional
certification.
The consulting firm that I work for strongly encourages employees to become professionally
certified and provides bonuses for passing certification tests. While they could never be able
to afford to send me to MIT or a University in Sweden for advanced academic training, they
can usually pay $1000 to $2500 for up to 5 days of training and $100 to take an exam. I believe
this pattern is typical of U.S. consulting companies and is certainly the norm for computer training.
While a practical professional certification will never be as impressive as an advanced degree in systems
dynamics, it would certainly help point us in the right direction. Thanks.
From: Lee Spain <lspain@calibresys.com>
-
Khalid Saeed
- Senior Member
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
Lou, Jim,
Perhaps we should discuss an accreditation process for the teaching
programs rather than for the individuals.
Khalid Saeed
From: Khalid Saeed <saeed@WPI.EDU>
_____________________________________
Khalid Saeed
Professor and Department Head
Social Science and Policy Studies
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
100 Institute Road
Worcester, MA 01609, USA
Ph: 508-831-5563; fax: 508-831-5896
http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/SSPS/
Perhaps we should discuss an accreditation process for the teaching
programs rather than for the individuals.
Khalid Saeed
From: Khalid Saeed <saeed@WPI.EDU>
_____________________________________
Khalid Saeed
Professor and Department Head
Social Science and Policy Studies
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
100 Institute Road
Worcester, MA 01609, USA
Ph: 508-831-5563; fax: 508-831-5896
http://www.wpi.edu/Academics/Depts/SSPS/
-
"Norman Marshall"
- Junior Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
This may be a minor issue, but one argument in favour of accreditation is
that some companies may be more willing to pay to send people on SD
training courses (and more individuals may be more willing to put in the
hours) if there is a recognised qualification that results. I have no idea
at how widely this might be true - it is not the case in my own company -
but I have heard the point put quite strongly from one potential
commissioner of SD training, and think it would be interesting to explore
further.
Norman Marshall
Practice Manager, Business Dynamics
McKinsey & Company
44 171 873 5487
norman_marshall@mckinsey.com
that some companies may be more willing to pay to send people on SD
training courses (and more individuals may be more willing to put in the
hours) if there is a recognised qualification that results. I have no idea
at how widely this might be true - it is not the case in my own company -
but I have heard the point put quite strongly from one potential
commissioner of SD training, and think it would be interesting to explore
further.
Norman Marshall
Practice Manager, Business Dynamics
McKinsey & Company
44 171 873 5487
norman_marshall@mckinsey.com
-
Christopher Trost
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
As a licensed professional engineer and SD practitioner, Im against any =
form of professional accreditation for SD consultants! =20
Professional engineering certification (as well as accounting, land =
surveying, architecture, and other professional endeavors) is intended =
to ensure public safety. The express purpose of the engineering =
licensing process is to ensure licensees demonstrate a standard of =
"minimum competency". In engineering, minimum competency is defined as =
"The lowest level of knowledge at which a person can practice =
professional engineering in such a manner that will safeguard the life, =
health and property and promote the public welfare". Certification is =
supported by legal restrictions on who may design certain items =
(buildings, public structures, etc.), use the terms "engineer" or =
"engineering" in titles for consulting and design as well as testify in =
court as experts. Licensing requires an accredited engineering degree, =
passing 2 separate 8 hour exams (one fundamentals and one professional) =
and several years of engineering experience; just to demonstrate =
"minimum competence". The application process is quite tedious and =
requires fees on the order of several hundred dollars to support the =
examination and review bureaucracy. Because of the bureaucratic burden =
of the process, many excellent engineers who do not work in areas =
legally requiring a seal do not seek licensing.
The benefits of a PE license include the ability to work in fields with =
legal requirements for a license or work as an engineering consultant =
and to document competence in the field. There is also a significant =
level of prestige and respect associated with successfully completing =
the recognized arduous process because "minimum competence" has such a =
significant definition (this is the only benefit I can currently claim =
to get from having my PE!). None of these benefits seem to apply to SD =
consulting. Anyone can be a consultant and use SD or modeling. As the =
ease of use of the software continues to develop, the field should =
spread. Certification requirements have the potential to impede the =
spread of SD practice by generating the perception that it is somehow =
similar in complexity and potential impact to other fields requiring =
certification. SD certification does not equate to consulting =
competency and the prestige factor requires a long period of =
demonstrated professionalism to become a factor.
Certification for a particular segment of consulting known as SD could =
also significantly increase liability. In consulting, you are an =
outsider providing advice to a decision maker based on your perception =
of a system as reflected in an admittedly incomplete model. The results =
obtained depend not only on how well you build your model but also on =
how well you communicate with the customer, weather or not the customer =
provided all the necessary information, how various variable changes in =
the model are interpreted by you and the customer as policy changes and =
how well the customer actually implements the change. When an engineer =
designs a bridge he certifies it will carry the intended load as =
designed, period. If it fails, he/she is accountable. Are you willing =
to be held accountable as a SD consultant for the failure of a =
recommended course of action based on a model given the circumstances =
that lead to its creation?
SD modeling capability is only one of many necessary attributes of an =
effective SD consultant. If you are a great model builder but cant =
communicate effectively with your customer than you are not a "minimally =
competent" consultant yet you could be certified as one by the SD =
society. The risks to the continued spread of SD and the SD society =
from setting up a certification process are much greater than the =
potential benefits!
Chris Trost, PE
ctrost@snet.net
form of professional accreditation for SD consultants! =20
Professional engineering certification (as well as accounting, land =
surveying, architecture, and other professional endeavors) is intended =
to ensure public safety. The express purpose of the engineering =
licensing process is to ensure licensees demonstrate a standard of =
"minimum competency". In engineering, minimum competency is defined as =
"The lowest level of knowledge at which a person can practice =
professional engineering in such a manner that will safeguard the life, =
health and property and promote the public welfare". Certification is =
supported by legal restrictions on who may design certain items =
(buildings, public structures, etc.), use the terms "engineer" or =
"engineering" in titles for consulting and design as well as testify in =
court as experts. Licensing requires an accredited engineering degree, =
passing 2 separate 8 hour exams (one fundamentals and one professional) =
and several years of engineering experience; just to demonstrate =
"minimum competence". The application process is quite tedious and =
requires fees on the order of several hundred dollars to support the =
examination and review bureaucracy. Because of the bureaucratic burden =
of the process, many excellent engineers who do not work in areas =
legally requiring a seal do not seek licensing.
The benefits of a PE license include the ability to work in fields with =
legal requirements for a license or work as an engineering consultant =
and to document competence in the field. There is also a significant =
level of prestige and respect associated with successfully completing =
the recognized arduous process because "minimum competence" has such a =
significant definition (this is the only benefit I can currently claim =
to get from having my PE!). None of these benefits seem to apply to SD =
consulting. Anyone can be a consultant and use SD or modeling. As the =
ease of use of the software continues to develop, the field should =
spread. Certification requirements have the potential to impede the =
spread of SD practice by generating the perception that it is somehow =
similar in complexity and potential impact to other fields requiring =
certification. SD certification does not equate to consulting =
competency and the prestige factor requires a long period of =
demonstrated professionalism to become a factor.
Certification for a particular segment of consulting known as SD could =
also significantly increase liability. In consulting, you are an =
outsider providing advice to a decision maker based on your perception =
of a system as reflected in an admittedly incomplete model. The results =
obtained depend not only on how well you build your model but also on =
how well you communicate with the customer, weather or not the customer =
provided all the necessary information, how various variable changes in =
the model are interpreted by you and the customer as policy changes and =
how well the customer actually implements the change. When an engineer =
designs a bridge he certifies it will carry the intended load as =
designed, period. If it fails, he/she is accountable. Are you willing =
to be held accountable as a SD consultant for the failure of a =
recommended course of action based on a model given the circumstances =
that lead to its creation?
SD modeling capability is only one of many necessary attributes of an =
effective SD consultant. If you are a great model builder but cant =
communicate effectively with your customer than you are not a "minimally =
competent" consultant yet you could be certified as one by the SD =
society. The risks to the continued spread of SD and the SD society =
from setting up a certification process are much greater than the =
potential benefits!
Chris Trost, PE
ctrost@snet.net
-
Jay Forrest - SDSG
- Junior Member
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
As a first step I must comment that I echo many of the sentiments of Nelson
Repenning regarding accreditation.
Academically degreed SD professionals are but a very minor fragment of the
practicing SD community. As a degreed "futurist" (more formally "Studies of
the Future") I am even more rare in the futures community. Those of us who
hold futures degrees are frequently "more than disturbed" by the quacks,
nitwits, and seers who consult under the guise of "futurist".=20
Like futures studies, SD is a multidisciplinary field, demanding multiple
academic perspectives, a detailed knowledge of tools and methods, an
appreciation of prior work in the field, and a breadth of experience in the
field to develop competence and versatility.
Within the futures community I helped lead a probe into the ethics of
"professional futurist" and into potential criteria for accrediting
futurists. While I feel the ethics investigation went well, the criteria
for accreditation failed as the appropriate perspectives, experience, and
knowledge evaded encapsulation. I would suggest that similar difficulties
will exist for SD.
There ARE charlatans bearing the banner of "System Dynamics Professional".
But I see little reason to believe that a degree somehow guarantees the
holder is not a charlatan or incompetent. As an "outsider" to the academic
SD community, I know that I bring perspectives and experience to SD which
enriches the field and I am scheduled to share those perspectives at the
conference in Quebec.
As an academic outsider as I look at the literature of system dynamics I am
struck by the fact that the dominant books in the field are with few
exceptions more than fifteen years old. From my perspective it appears that
it is the practitioners of SD who DO NOT have degrees in SD who are doing
the most to promote and advance the field.=20
One could argue that this lack of advancement of the literature reflects
the purity and completeness of the material. I cannot agree. I have to feel
that the growth has been somehow stifled by academic puritanism. I base
this comment on the fact that my company, SDSG, with no degreed system
dynamicists is developing rich, fertile methods for mining information from
models by using not only new, innovative analytical techniques, but
familiar, academic ones (from operations research and other fields) as well
AND we have received enthusiastic support from highly respected members of
the SD community. And I know of others who lack degrees but are making
significant contributions.
To grow, a field needs new ideas and new concepts -- a clash of ideas. I do
not see the field of system dynamics as mature enough to allow
encapsulation for accreditation without further stifling its development
and growth.=20
At this immature point we have many fractionally informed practitioners who
understand (or think they understand) some portion of SD and build a
practice around that fragment. Their failures create a barrier of
credibility for all of us. But they also bring the seeds of new concepts.
And failing to examine those concepts contributes to the stagnation of the
field. Accreditation discourages new concepts by defining the field.
My conclusion for SD is the same as my conclusion for my academic field of
futures studies. The field is too complex and immature to permit meaningful
accreditation at this time.=20
I suspect I had best prepare for a barrage of pebbles and rotten fruit, but
I have felt for some time that this perspective needed surfacing and offer
it, not with the intent of provoking wrath or ire nor with the claim of
being "right", but with the hope of encouraging the field to examine itself
and take another step forward.=20
Respectfully yours,=20
Jay Forrest
SDSG,LLC=A0 - The Strategic Decision Simulation Group=20
11606 Highgrove Drive
Houston, Texas 77077
Tel:=A0 281-493-5022
Fax: 281-558-3228
E-mail: jayf@sdsg.com
Repenning regarding accreditation.
Academically degreed SD professionals are but a very minor fragment of the
practicing SD community. As a degreed "futurist" (more formally "Studies of
the Future") I am even more rare in the futures community. Those of us who
hold futures degrees are frequently "more than disturbed" by the quacks,
nitwits, and seers who consult under the guise of "futurist".=20
Like futures studies, SD is a multidisciplinary field, demanding multiple
academic perspectives, a detailed knowledge of tools and methods, an
appreciation of prior work in the field, and a breadth of experience in the
field to develop competence and versatility.
Within the futures community I helped lead a probe into the ethics of
"professional futurist" and into potential criteria for accrediting
futurists. While I feel the ethics investigation went well, the criteria
for accreditation failed as the appropriate perspectives, experience, and
knowledge evaded encapsulation. I would suggest that similar difficulties
will exist for SD.
There ARE charlatans bearing the banner of "System Dynamics Professional".
But I see little reason to believe that a degree somehow guarantees the
holder is not a charlatan or incompetent. As an "outsider" to the academic
SD community, I know that I bring perspectives and experience to SD which
enriches the field and I am scheduled to share those perspectives at the
conference in Quebec.
As an academic outsider as I look at the literature of system dynamics I am
struck by the fact that the dominant books in the field are with few
exceptions more than fifteen years old. From my perspective it appears that
it is the practitioners of SD who DO NOT have degrees in SD who are doing
the most to promote and advance the field.=20
One could argue that this lack of advancement of the literature reflects
the purity and completeness of the material. I cannot agree. I have to feel
that the growth has been somehow stifled by academic puritanism. I base
this comment on the fact that my company, SDSG, with no degreed system
dynamicists is developing rich, fertile methods for mining information from
models by using not only new, innovative analytical techniques, but
familiar, academic ones (from operations research and other fields) as well
AND we have received enthusiastic support from highly respected members of
the SD community. And I know of others who lack degrees but are making
significant contributions.
To grow, a field needs new ideas and new concepts -- a clash of ideas. I do
not see the field of system dynamics as mature enough to allow
encapsulation for accreditation without further stifling its development
and growth.=20
At this immature point we have many fractionally informed practitioners who
understand (or think they understand) some portion of SD and build a
practice around that fragment. Their failures create a barrier of
credibility for all of us. But they also bring the seeds of new concepts.
And failing to examine those concepts contributes to the stagnation of the
field. Accreditation discourages new concepts by defining the field.
My conclusion for SD is the same as my conclusion for my academic field of
futures studies. The field is too complex and immature to permit meaningful
accreditation at this time.=20
I suspect I had best prepare for a barrage of pebbles and rotten fruit, but
I have felt for some time that this perspective needed surfacing and offer
it, not with the intent of provoking wrath or ire nor with the claim of
being "right", but with the hope of encouraging the field to examine itself
and take another step forward.=20
Respectfully yours,=20
Jay Forrest
SDSG,LLC=A0 - The Strategic Decision Simulation Group=20
11606 Highgrove Drive
Houston, Texas 77077
Tel:=A0 281-493-5022
Fax: 281-558-3228
E-mail: jayf@sdsg.com
-
Bill Harris
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
Chris Trost wrote:
> As a licensed professional engineer and SD practitioner, Im against any
> form of professional accreditation for SD consultants!
As a former engineer who chose not to seek licensing because it wasnt
needed in my field, I resonate quite well with Chriss arguments.
I do agree with Khalids suggestion to consider accreditation for degree
programs. That fits more in with the model in most fields I see. At that
point, the SD practitioner who learned the field on their own has the
responsibility to demonstrate to the client their competency in the field
and the applicability of their skills to the clients problem.
I very much appreciate that a PE is important to society for engineers
doing certain types of life critical design, but having become a PE to
practice engineering in the places Ive worked would have cost me
significant time and money without benefiting me or my company.
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
> As a licensed professional engineer and SD practitioner, Im against any
> form of professional accreditation for SD consultants!
As a former engineer who chose not to seek licensing because it wasnt
needed in my field, I resonate quite well with Chriss arguments.
I do agree with Khalids suggestion to consider accreditation for degree
programs. That fits more in with the model in most fields I see. At that
point, the SD practitioner who learned the field on their own has the
responsibility to demonstrate to the client their competency in the field
and the applicability of their skills to the clients problem.
I very much appreciate that a PE is important to society for engineers
doing certain types of life critical design, but having become a PE to
practice engineering in the places Ive worked would have cost me
significant time and money without benefiting me or my company.
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
-
Stephen Wehrenberg
- Member
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
I had planned to maintain silence on this issue, but Jay Forrests
impassioned and well reasoned argument forces me out of the closet ...
to agree with him. One of the more challenging aspects of SD is that it
has very little utility when pure; it must be used in the service of
other disciplines or efforts in order to demonstrate utility. Forrester
and other luminaries are quick to caution us all to employ SD in the
mode of solving problems, not merely understanding systems--and problems
are messy and generally interdisciplinary.
Given that view, I will never aspire to being "an expert in SD," but I
do aspire to becoming proficient at using SD (as well as many other
tools) in service to my profession, manpower planning and human resource
management. Perhaps certification as a "problem solver in the HR arena"
would do it for me.
Two musings: in many disciplines, much pressure for accreditation comes
from a desire to restrict entry to the marketplace, the ignoble result
being artificially high prices commanded for the service. Im sure that
isnt the goal of this discussion, but it is likely to be the unintended
result.
Second, given the tremendous breadth of potential SD applications, are
we willing to settle on a "core competence with specialties" model like
the medical or psychological professions? Will that include models of
relationships with clients that range from over-the-transom technical
model building to group facilitated model building (moderated knowledge
mapping) and the complexity associated with culture change in
organizations? Where does SD knowledge end and the next discipline
begin? What are our outcomes?
Jay is probably right ... not big enough yet, and not mature enough as a
discipline yet (IMHO).
--
Stephen B. Wehrenberg, Ph.D.
From: Stephen Wehrenberg <wstephen@erols.com>
Chief, Forecasts and Systems, US Coast Guard
Administrative Sciences, The George Washington University
wstephen@erols.com (202)267-0624
"Born empowered ... what happened?!?"
impassioned and well reasoned argument forces me out of the closet ...
to agree with him. One of the more challenging aspects of SD is that it
has very little utility when pure; it must be used in the service of
other disciplines or efforts in order to demonstrate utility. Forrester
and other luminaries are quick to caution us all to employ SD in the
mode of solving problems, not merely understanding systems--and problems
are messy and generally interdisciplinary.
Given that view, I will never aspire to being "an expert in SD," but I
do aspire to becoming proficient at using SD (as well as many other
tools) in service to my profession, manpower planning and human resource
management. Perhaps certification as a "problem solver in the HR arena"
would do it for me.
Two musings: in many disciplines, much pressure for accreditation comes
from a desire to restrict entry to the marketplace, the ignoble result
being artificially high prices commanded for the service. Im sure that
isnt the goal of this discussion, but it is likely to be the unintended
result.
Second, given the tremendous breadth of potential SD applications, are
we willing to settle on a "core competence with specialties" model like
the medical or psychological professions? Will that include models of
relationships with clients that range from over-the-transom technical
model building to group facilitated model building (moderated knowledge
mapping) and the complexity associated with culture change in
organizations? Where does SD knowledge end and the next discipline
begin? What are our outcomes?
Jay is probably right ... not big enough yet, and not mature enough as a
discipline yet (IMHO).
--
Stephen B. Wehrenberg, Ph.D.
From: Stephen Wehrenberg <wstephen@erols.com>
Chief, Forecasts and Systems, US Coast Guard
Administrative Sciences, The George Washington University
wstephen@erols.com (202)267-0624
"Born empowered ... what happened?!?"
-
"Tom Forest"
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
This thread looks like too much fun to pass up...
Several images come to mind:
- A guild or an oligolopolistic market, with merchants trying to construct
barriers to entry and increase individual revenues by creating an
artificial scarcity. I dont think the market for SD is strong enough to
support such an exercise - cf. OPEC and the demand for oil.
- A startup company contemplating a bottleneck of resources, and the
founder(s) are contemplating the issue of "share the dough, let it grow"
vs. "stay small, keep it all." An SD certification could be used by the
certified to discourage or prevent the uncertified from practicing SD (cf.
the medical community). This is related to the first image.
- A commodity market, with some merchants trying to differentiate their
product move upmarket. It worker for Compaq in products, but there are at
least ten other companies that fail at this approach for each one that
succeeds.
In the interest of full disclosure: I have a degree from MIT in System
Dynamics. When I graduated, I had a choice of (A) working for
Pugh-Roberts, (B) grad school/teaching, - or (C) doing something that
didnt involve System Dynamics. I chose (C). Since 1991, Ive been
working with a product called Lotus Notes. I have had all the
certifications there were to get since then, and kept them updated. In
1995, IBM bought Lotus to get Lotus Notes. In 1997, the installed base
more than doubled - from 9.5M to 20M. I use the Lotus certifications to
differentiate myself in the marketplace, and they are more valuable than my
SD training.
If SD ever counts its users in the hundreds of thousands, Ill be
interested in certifications (hey Bob Eberlin - any chance of your selling
out to IBM?). I might even try to make a living using SD, rather than the
avocational hobby it is now. Until then, I think any discussions of SD
certification are premature.
Outreach, marketing, and selling are more appropriate foci.
Tom Lum Forest
From: "Tom Forest"<tforest@cordada.com>
http://bachelor.cordada.com/forest/tfweb.nsf
Several images come to mind:
- A guild or an oligolopolistic market, with merchants trying to construct
barriers to entry and increase individual revenues by creating an
artificial scarcity. I dont think the market for SD is strong enough to
support such an exercise - cf. OPEC and the demand for oil.
- A startup company contemplating a bottleneck of resources, and the
founder(s) are contemplating the issue of "share the dough, let it grow"
vs. "stay small, keep it all." An SD certification could be used by the
certified to discourage or prevent the uncertified from practicing SD (cf.
the medical community). This is related to the first image.
- A commodity market, with some merchants trying to differentiate their
product move upmarket. It worker for Compaq in products, but there are at
least ten other companies that fail at this approach for each one that
succeeds.
In the interest of full disclosure: I have a degree from MIT in System
Dynamics. When I graduated, I had a choice of (A) working for
Pugh-Roberts, (B) grad school/teaching, - or (C) doing something that
didnt involve System Dynamics. I chose (C). Since 1991, Ive been
working with a product called Lotus Notes. I have had all the
certifications there were to get since then, and kept them updated. In
1995, IBM bought Lotus to get Lotus Notes. In 1997, the installed base
more than doubled - from 9.5M to 20M. I use the Lotus certifications to
differentiate myself in the marketplace, and they are more valuable than my
SD training.
If SD ever counts its users in the hundreds of thousands, Ill be
interested in certifications (hey Bob Eberlin - any chance of your selling
out to IBM?). I might even try to make a living using SD, rather than the
avocational hobby it is now. Until then, I think any discussions of SD
certification are premature.
Outreach, marketing, and selling are more appropriate foci.
Tom Lum Forest
From: "Tom Forest"<tforest@cordada.com>
http://bachelor.cordada.com/forest/tfweb.nsf
-
Nelson Repenning
- Junior Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
Some more thoughts on Accreditation:
First, let met try to point out the bias I am bringing to this issue. I
have a degree in System Dynamics and my current livelihood depends on other
people also wanting to get such degrees, so it should fairly obvious where
my preferences lie.
Given that here are some more thoughts on recent discussion
(SD1410,SD1411,SD1414,SD1412) on accreditation:
1) I am struck by how un-dynamic and one sided the discussion has been so
far. It seems to me that are two reference modes of interest here. What
I, and I assume everybody else, wants to see is continued growth in the
field and then, eventually, a smooth transition to steady state thus
generating the nice S-shaped growth pattern that is common to successful
innovations. The less pleasant alternative is rapid growth followed by
collapse. Many people seem to think that overshoot and collapse only
happens to fads and cant happen to innovations and technologies with real
content. Unfortunately, the data shows pretty clearly that is not the
case, it is quite possible for a field such as SD to have something useful
to offer and still not develop into a widely accepted and used business
tool.
For example, a recent survey showed that among American managers Total
Quality Management(TQM) is "...deader than a pet rock." In addition two
researchers from Emory university, George Easton and Sherry Jarrell, in
doing a survey of TQM usage found fewer than 100 companies in the fortune
1000 with well developed TQM programs, thus its pretty clear that TQM is
not on the radar screen for most American managers. Ironically, Easton and
Jarrell are also able to show that those 100 firms that do use TQM vastly
outperform everybody else on just about every performance measure you can
think of (profit, share price, perceived quality etc.). Anybody who thinks
these tools dont work should take a quick look at how Honda and Toyota
compare to GM and Ford on the various quality and reliability measures. I
think this is a pretty compelling example of a technology that has a lot of
useful content but experienced overshoot and collapse rather than s-shaped
growth, there are many more.
Why did this happen? well there are lots of reasons, but one is clearly
that the field grew very rapidly, spawned hundreds of cottage industries,
converted many consultants and was applied to basically everything under
the sun. Because people without much training were applying the TQM tools
to places where they werent very appropriate the results were pretty
mediocre. This wasnt the fault of the tools, but the fact the popularity
of the tools outstripped the number of qualified practioners.
I believe system dynamics is at far greater risk to suffer from these
dynamics than TQM. SD is a much more complicated and subtle discipline
than TQM and can be applied to a wider range of problems. The SD community
would be foolish not to consider seriously the possibility of overshoot and
collapse and consider ways to avoid such an outcome. Accreditation may or
may not be the solution but I think both its costs and benefits need to be
considered. One thing it might accomplish is to prevent some inappropriate
applications of the tools and thus help avoid the collapse. Personally, I
would be willing to accept a slower growth rate of the field if it meant
the overshoot was avoided.
As a final note on this point, there has been some implication that this
might just be a way to create a barrier to entry to the field, so that
those with degrees can keep it for themselves. Besides finding the
implication personally offensive, I simply do not see how one can accuse
anybody who goes into the education profession as trying to restrict entry
to the field in which they teach.
2) I am also troubled by a number of statements along the lines of
engineering, medicine, accounting have certification procedures because
they are difficult and lives are stake while anyone can do SD. I do not
agree. System dynamics is younger than these fields so its theoretical
basis is not as well developed, but it is no simpler or easier or less
important. Saying that anybody can do SD because they can use the software
is no different than saying anybody can design cars if they can use Pro
Engineer. It is simply not the case.
I once thought that I could just do it since I could build a model and
get it to work, but later realized that a lot of smart people have worked
in the field in the last 40 years (including, arguably, one of the smartest
this century), and it was a bit arrogant to think that I could quickly
figure out for myself everything that all of these people had already done.
I firmly believe that good SD is no easier than good engineering or good
medicine. It is less well developed so less has been written down and a
larger fraction of the accumulated knowledge resides only in the heads of
practioners, but that does not make good practice easier, it makes it
harder.
On a related, note on the idea that people die if a bridge collapses, but
nobody gets hurt from a bad model, so we should certify engineers but not
SD people. I disagree with the first part strongly. Since its inception,
SD has focused on the important problems facing society. Although I dont
have the data, I feel reasonably confident that many more people die every
day due to poorly designed social systems than have been killed by faulty
bridges in the past decade. System Dynamics can make a difference in these
systems, but intervening in them is not without its risks. As an example
slightly closer to home, data shows pretty clearly that people who are
laid off or fired from their jobs are more likely to have heart attacks,
become alcoholics, abuse their families, commit felonies etc. Misguided
consulting projects of all kinds have led to mass downsizing and hence are
indirectly responsible for all of the above. The problem, of course, is it
easy to count the number of people killed by the collapsing bridge and hard
to count the pain and suffering caused by a misguided downsizing effort.
The consultant however is no less culpable than the engineer.
3) Finally, a direct response to Jay Forrest, who wrote:
-----
>From my perspective it appears that it is the practitioners of SD who DO
NOT have degrees in SD who are doing the most to promote and advance the
field.
----
While I have no doubt that his company is doing fine work, I think this
claim is without basis. I wont take the time to enumerate all the work
that PhDs and MSs in system dynamics have done recently, but I think its
safe to say that these people are doing a lot of good work that both
promotes and advances the field. Further people with degrees who work in
the ivory tower spend a fair amount of time introducing the field to new
comers. At MIT, we teach our introductory SD course to about 300 people
per year and introduce the field to another 200-300 people in various
shorter courses. Im sure the other SD programs do similar numbers. I
think almost everybody on this list, degreed or not, is trying to promote
and advance the field, in part, because their livelihood depends on it.
nelson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson P. Repenning
Robert N. Noyce Career Development Assistant Professor
Operations Management/System Dynamics Group
30 Wadsworth St, E53-339
Cambridge, MA 02139
phone: 617258-6889 fax:617258-7579 e-mail:nelsonr@mit.edu
First, let met try to point out the bias I am bringing to this issue. I
have a degree in System Dynamics and my current livelihood depends on other
people also wanting to get such degrees, so it should fairly obvious where
my preferences lie.
Given that here are some more thoughts on recent discussion
(SD1410,SD1411,SD1414,SD1412) on accreditation:
1) I am struck by how un-dynamic and one sided the discussion has been so
far. It seems to me that are two reference modes of interest here. What
I, and I assume everybody else, wants to see is continued growth in the
field and then, eventually, a smooth transition to steady state thus
generating the nice S-shaped growth pattern that is common to successful
innovations. The less pleasant alternative is rapid growth followed by
collapse. Many people seem to think that overshoot and collapse only
happens to fads and cant happen to innovations and technologies with real
content. Unfortunately, the data shows pretty clearly that is not the
case, it is quite possible for a field such as SD to have something useful
to offer and still not develop into a widely accepted and used business
tool.
For example, a recent survey showed that among American managers Total
Quality Management(TQM) is "...deader than a pet rock." In addition two
researchers from Emory university, George Easton and Sherry Jarrell, in
doing a survey of TQM usage found fewer than 100 companies in the fortune
1000 with well developed TQM programs, thus its pretty clear that TQM is
not on the radar screen for most American managers. Ironically, Easton and
Jarrell are also able to show that those 100 firms that do use TQM vastly
outperform everybody else on just about every performance measure you can
think of (profit, share price, perceived quality etc.). Anybody who thinks
these tools dont work should take a quick look at how Honda and Toyota
compare to GM and Ford on the various quality and reliability measures. I
think this is a pretty compelling example of a technology that has a lot of
useful content but experienced overshoot and collapse rather than s-shaped
growth, there are many more.
Why did this happen? well there are lots of reasons, but one is clearly
that the field grew very rapidly, spawned hundreds of cottage industries,
converted many consultants and was applied to basically everything under
the sun. Because people without much training were applying the TQM tools
to places where they werent very appropriate the results were pretty
mediocre. This wasnt the fault of the tools, but the fact the popularity
of the tools outstripped the number of qualified practioners.
I believe system dynamics is at far greater risk to suffer from these
dynamics than TQM. SD is a much more complicated and subtle discipline
than TQM and can be applied to a wider range of problems. The SD community
would be foolish not to consider seriously the possibility of overshoot and
collapse and consider ways to avoid such an outcome. Accreditation may or
may not be the solution but I think both its costs and benefits need to be
considered. One thing it might accomplish is to prevent some inappropriate
applications of the tools and thus help avoid the collapse. Personally, I
would be willing to accept a slower growth rate of the field if it meant
the overshoot was avoided.
As a final note on this point, there has been some implication that this
might just be a way to create a barrier to entry to the field, so that
those with degrees can keep it for themselves. Besides finding the
implication personally offensive, I simply do not see how one can accuse
anybody who goes into the education profession as trying to restrict entry
to the field in which they teach.
2) I am also troubled by a number of statements along the lines of
engineering, medicine, accounting have certification procedures because
they are difficult and lives are stake while anyone can do SD. I do not
agree. System dynamics is younger than these fields so its theoretical
basis is not as well developed, but it is no simpler or easier or less
important. Saying that anybody can do SD because they can use the software
is no different than saying anybody can design cars if they can use Pro
Engineer. It is simply not the case.
I once thought that I could just do it since I could build a model and
get it to work, but later realized that a lot of smart people have worked
in the field in the last 40 years (including, arguably, one of the smartest
this century), and it was a bit arrogant to think that I could quickly
figure out for myself everything that all of these people had already done.
I firmly believe that good SD is no easier than good engineering or good
medicine. It is less well developed so less has been written down and a
larger fraction of the accumulated knowledge resides only in the heads of
practioners, but that does not make good practice easier, it makes it
harder.
On a related, note on the idea that people die if a bridge collapses, but
nobody gets hurt from a bad model, so we should certify engineers but not
SD people. I disagree with the first part strongly. Since its inception,
SD has focused on the important problems facing society. Although I dont
have the data, I feel reasonably confident that many more people die every
day due to poorly designed social systems than have been killed by faulty
bridges in the past decade. System Dynamics can make a difference in these
systems, but intervening in them is not without its risks. As an example
slightly closer to home, data shows pretty clearly that people who are
laid off or fired from their jobs are more likely to have heart attacks,
become alcoholics, abuse their families, commit felonies etc. Misguided
consulting projects of all kinds have led to mass downsizing and hence are
indirectly responsible for all of the above. The problem, of course, is it
easy to count the number of people killed by the collapsing bridge and hard
to count the pain and suffering caused by a misguided downsizing effort.
The consultant however is no less culpable than the engineer.
3) Finally, a direct response to Jay Forrest, who wrote:
-----
>From my perspective it appears that it is the practitioners of SD who DO
NOT have degrees in SD who are doing the most to promote and advance the
field.
----
While I have no doubt that his company is doing fine work, I think this
claim is without basis. I wont take the time to enumerate all the work
that PhDs and MSs in system dynamics have done recently, but I think its
safe to say that these people are doing a lot of good work that both
promotes and advances the field. Further people with degrees who work in
the ivory tower spend a fair amount of time introducing the field to new
comers. At MIT, we teach our introductory SD course to about 300 people
per year and introduce the field to another 200-300 people in various
shorter courses. Im sure the other SD programs do similar numbers. I
think almost everybody on this list, degreed or not, is trying to promote
and advance the field, in part, because their livelihood depends on it.
nelson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson P. Repenning
Robert N. Noyce Career Development Assistant Professor
Operations Management/System Dynamics Group
30 Wadsworth St, E53-339
Cambridge, MA 02139
phone: 617258-6889 fax:617258-7579 e-mail:nelsonr@mit.edu
Professional Accreditation
Khalid Saeed wrote:
> Perhaps we should discuss an accreditation process for the teaching
> programs rather than for the individuals.
Khalid, that sounds very interesting. I wonder if it would encourage
colleges and universities (and other organizations, perhaps) to either
(1)offer more courses in system dynamics by alerting them to what it
takes to provide a solid foundation. Or,
(2) pull together the elements that they might already have (e.g. an sd
course in the business school, a control theory course in the
engineering school, etc) into a coherent sequence.
Regards,
Jim
From: Jim Hines <jimhines@interserv.com>
> Perhaps we should discuss an accreditation process for the teaching
> programs rather than for the individuals.
Khalid, that sounds very interesting. I wonder if it would encourage
colleges and universities (and other organizations, perhaps) to either
(1)offer more courses in system dynamics by alerting them to what it
takes to provide a solid foundation. Or,
(2) pull together the elements that they might already have (e.g. an sd
course in the business school, a control theory course in the
engineering school, etc) into a coherent sequence.
Regards,
Jim
From: Jim Hines <jimhines@interserv.com>
-
fred nickols
- Junior Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
The discussion regarding professional accreditation of system dynamics
practitioners echoes that on other lists. I am concerned here, just as I
am concerned on those other lists about the split between process and
content.
This split shows up in several disciplines (see table below).
DISCIPLINE CONTENT SPECIALIST PROCESS SPECIALIST
Training Subject Matter Expert Instructional Designer
Performance Master Performer Performance Analyst
Technology
Organization Manager/Executive Process Consultant
Development (Client)
Artificial Domain Expert Knowledge Engineer
Intelligence
I see a similar split in system dynamics (see below)
System Dynamics Manager/Executive SD Modeler
Client
Frankly, I prefer to work around that split whenever possible. Moreover,
it has always seemed easier to provide content specialists with process
knowledge than it is to provide process specialists with content knowledge.
In short, it is much easier to make instructional materials developers out
of physicists than it is to make physicists out of instructional materials
developers. If SD were a specialty all its own, with no content knowledge
other than SD, that would be a much less powerful combination than making
SD modelers out of people who already know business and organizations.
A case in point: At ETS, I have been working for more than two years now
to introduce SD in a meaningful, successful way, a way that clearly adds
value to ETS and thus demonstrates the value of SD. I like to think Im
succeeding, too. Initially, we made use of consultants to introduce the
concepts and tools, and to support early projects (Eberlein, Hines, and
Homer, to be specific). While that was going on, I was in search of a
candidate in whom I might vest an internal capability. I knew exactly what
I was looking for, too: an engineer with an MBA. When I found one, I hired
him. So far, its working out pretty good. Hes taking to SD like a duck
to water.
For what its worth, from where I sit, it might be useful to have a
certification in SD or SD modeling at some point, but Id be willing to
wager thats going to have to be stacked on top of some other set of
competencies and bodies of knowledge. It wont be enough by itself. By
itself, it is a "process" skill and therefore incomplete. Said a little
differently, SD has modest value until it is applied to other areas.
Similarly, an SD practitioner without knowledge of other areas is also of
modest value.
Just some thoughts...
Regards,
Fred Nickols, Executive Director
Strategic Planning & Management Services
Educational Testing Service, Mail Stop 09-C
Princeton, NJ 08541
Tel = 609.734.5077
Fax = 609.734.5590
e-mail = fnickols@ets.org
Opinions expressed are the authors, not ETSs.
practitioners echoes that on other lists. I am concerned here, just as I
am concerned on those other lists about the split between process and
content.
This split shows up in several disciplines (see table below).
DISCIPLINE CONTENT SPECIALIST PROCESS SPECIALIST
Training Subject Matter Expert Instructional Designer
Performance Master Performer Performance Analyst
Technology
Organization Manager/Executive Process Consultant
Development (Client)
Artificial Domain Expert Knowledge Engineer
Intelligence
I see a similar split in system dynamics (see below)
System Dynamics Manager/Executive SD Modeler
Client
Frankly, I prefer to work around that split whenever possible. Moreover,
it has always seemed easier to provide content specialists with process
knowledge than it is to provide process specialists with content knowledge.
In short, it is much easier to make instructional materials developers out
of physicists than it is to make physicists out of instructional materials
developers. If SD were a specialty all its own, with no content knowledge
other than SD, that would be a much less powerful combination than making
SD modelers out of people who already know business and organizations.
A case in point: At ETS, I have been working for more than two years now
to introduce SD in a meaningful, successful way, a way that clearly adds
value to ETS and thus demonstrates the value of SD. I like to think Im
succeeding, too. Initially, we made use of consultants to introduce the
concepts and tools, and to support early projects (Eberlein, Hines, and
Homer, to be specific). While that was going on, I was in search of a
candidate in whom I might vest an internal capability. I knew exactly what
I was looking for, too: an engineer with an MBA. When I found one, I hired
him. So far, its working out pretty good. Hes taking to SD like a duck
to water.
For what its worth, from where I sit, it might be useful to have a
certification in SD or SD modeling at some point, but Id be willing to
wager thats going to have to be stacked on top of some other set of
competencies and bodies of knowledge. It wont be enough by itself. By
itself, it is a "process" skill and therefore incomplete. Said a little
differently, SD has modest value until it is applied to other areas.
Similarly, an SD practitioner without knowledge of other areas is also of
modest value.
Just some thoughts...
Regards,
Fred Nickols, Executive Director
Strategic Planning & Management Services
Educational Testing Service, Mail Stop 09-C
Princeton, NJ 08541
Tel = 609.734.5077
Fax = 609.734.5590
e-mail = fnickols@ets.org
Opinions expressed are the authors, not ETSs.
-
"William Steinhurst"
- Member
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
Professional Accreditation
> Khalid Saeed wrote:
>
> > Perhaps we should discuss an accreditation process for the teaching
> > programs rather than for the individuals.
Could list readers tell us what accreditations SD programs have to
begin with? Many are housed in business or engineering
departments that presumably have their own accreditation
organizations. How does a brand new accreditation outfit bootstrap
itself into existence? Has that happened in living memory? Are there
examples of sub-departmental programs being accredited in other
fields? Are there examples of interdisciplinary programs being
accredited, other than by reference to the host departments own
accreditation? Bill Steinhurst
From: "William Steinhurst" <wsteinhu@psd.state.vt.us>
>
> > Perhaps we should discuss an accreditation process for the teaching
> > programs rather than for the individuals.
Could list readers tell us what accreditations SD programs have to
begin with? Many are housed in business or engineering
departments that presumably have their own accreditation
organizations. How does a brand new accreditation outfit bootstrap
itself into existence? Has that happened in living memory? Are there
examples of sub-departmental programs being accredited in other
fields? Are there examples of interdisciplinary programs being
accredited, other than by reference to the host departments own
accreditation? Bill Steinhurst
From: "William Steinhurst" <wsteinhu@psd.state.vt.us>