systems archetypes

["Lane,DC"]

Responding to Jaideep Mukherjees query about finding more archetypes, I
would say two things:

1) On Accumulation of Archetypes
As has been noted by no less than George Richardson (Richardson, 1996), our
field has been less than perfect in accumulating knowledge on a number of
fronts, archetypes and other generic structures being but one example.
However, for a range of lists and examples - in addition to The Fifth
Discipline - see (Meadows, 1982; Paich, 1985; Senge, Roberts, Ross, Smith
and Kliener, 1994; Lane and Smart, 1996).
For comment on how to go about hunting and selecting archetypes onto the
list, see (Lane and Smart, 1996) and (Lane, 1998a).
There is also an intriguing topological generation line of attack
mentioned in that last paper and something like it has been achieved in
(Corben, 1995).
Finally, Khalid Saeed and I have chatted briefly about starting with
modes of behavior and working back, though this sounds as though it might be
drifting over into the Abstracted Micro-structures area (see below).
Something like this is contained in (Senge, et al., 1994) but a more
comprehensive search would be possible.


2) On The Purpose of Archetypes
Archetypes are an odd animal for our field to have generated. We are
dedicated to the rigor of simulation as the only way to deduce the behaviour
of a formal model, yet archetypes ask us to infer behaviour. We know that
this is very, very difficult. Archetypes are best thought of as one of a
troika of Generic Structures: Canonical Situation Models (general models),
Abstracted Micro-structures (pieces of structure which produce a
characteristic mode of behaviour) and Counter-intuitive System Archetypes
(simple CLDs offering an explanation for an odd system response and an
outline reason for trying a different policy lever). The justification for
this split is in (Lane and Smart, 1996).
The interesting question is then whether Archetypes are merely system
dynamics models and insights for civilians or something rather deeper. A
critique of the validity of Archetypes may be found in (Lane, 1998a). What
this tries to show is that not all system dynamics insights are expressible
as Archetypes and that Archetypes have a range of other difficulties too.
So from a traditional perspective they look like pretty thin gruel.
However, the radical alternative is to say that Archetypes are ideal
types, in the sense of Max Weber. This means that they are devices which
seek to provoke the user into thinking in certain lose categories and
comparing real world phenomena with the ideal type in order to generate
explanatory insights. This view pushes Archetypes into being a tool for a
more interpretive form of system dynamics. I have discussed - both on paper
(Lane, 1998b) and with Peter himself - whether this fits Senges ideas. I
have also explored what it would mean for system dynamics to adopt this
stance (Lane and Oliva, 1998).
The point about this rather theoretical debate is that unless we have a
clear understanding of WHAT IT IS we are trying to accumulate then
accumulation is going to be pretty tricky because appropriate criteria are
lacking. I think that that has happened with Generic Structures and (Lane
and Smart, 1996) tried to tackle that lack. The same problem may now be
transferred to Archetypes.
So: think before you grab!


References
Corben, D. A. 1995. Improving the Accessibility of Modelling for Management
Learning. Type, University of Stirling.
Lane, D. C. 1998a. Can We Have Confidence In Generic Structures? Journal of
the Operational Research Society 49(9), 936-947.
Lane, D. C. 1998b. Social theory and system dynamics practice. European
Journal of Operational Research 113(3), scheduled to appear.
Lane, D. C. and R. Oliva. 1998. The Greater Whole: Towards a synthesis of
system dynamics and soft systems methodology. European Journal of
Operational Research 107(1), 214-235.
Lane, D. C. and C. Smart. 1996. Reinterpreting generic structure:
evolution, application and limitations of a concept. System Dynamics Review
12(2), 87-120.
Meadows, D. H. 1982. Whole earth models and systems. The Coevolution
Quarterly Summer,98-108.
Paich, M. 1985. Generic Structures. System Dynamics Review 1(1), 126-132.
Richardson, G. P. 1996. Problems for the future of system dynamics. System
Dynamics Review 12(2), 141-157.
Senge, P. M., C. Roberts, R. Ross, B. Smith and A. Kliener. 1994. The Fifth
Discipline Fieldbook. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.


Regards,

David
____________________________________________________________________________
________________
Dr. David C. Lane
Operational Research Department
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street Tel.
(44) (0) 171-955-7336
London WC2A 2AE Fax. (44)
(0) 171-955-6885
United Kingdom
e-mail: d.c.lane@lse.ac.uk

[j-d]

The following archetypes are commonly used by SDers. (from The Fifth
Discipline)

1. Balancing process with delay
2. Limits to growth
3. Shifting the burden
4. Shifting the burden to the intervenor
5. Eroding goals
6. Escalation
7. Success to the successful
8. Tragedy of the commons
9. Fixes that fail
10. Growth and underinvestment

Question: could someone on the list help me identify the other systems
archetypes? Senge mentions the above 10 are only about half the commonly
used archetypes. So which are the other ones? Any good references??

I will compile a list of all after Ive received sufficient responses.

Thanks a bunch

Jaideep
From: j-d <j-d@technologist.com>

**************************************************************
Jaideep Mukherjee, Ph. D.
Virtual Office http://www.netopia.geocities.com/shunya/
**************************************************************