For nearly newcomers as I am, and far from the relevant centers of SD,
it is really difficult to give ourselves (and to our clients) a
satisfactory asnwer to the following question:
Why - if true - System Dynamics, in nearly four decades, did not exploit
(both in universities and in business) all the enormous potential that
many acknowledge and we practitioners feel? Is this a local problem (we
work in Italy) or a more generalized one?
I presume that this problem has been largely dealt in literature and in
the SD Society Conferences, as well as in direct conversation; but I
couldnt read any paper about this subject, that is instead felt as hot
among my Italian collegues.
If you think that this matter is appropriate to the list, and yet
presents unexplored aspects, Id like to propose it as subject of
discussion; otherwise Ill be grateful to receive any information to
fill this lack.
--
_==|
_==| )__) | Augusto Carena
)_) )___) ))
)___) )____))_) Dharma srl
_ )____)_____))__) via Bronzino,13
---__|____/|___|___---- 20133 MILANO (ITALY)
^^^^^^^^^ oo oo oo oo /~~^^^^^^^^
~^^^^ ~~~~^^~~~~^^~~^^~~~~~
~~^^ ~^^~ ~^~ ~^ ~^
~^~~ ~~~^^ E-mail: a.carena@agora.stm.it
SD success?
SD success?
I think (but am not sure) that Augusto Carena in message SD0137 is
rquesting a satisfying answer to the question: Why hasnt the system
dynamics field grown (faster).
This is certainly a question that I get frequently from students and
from clients. I usually offer two of explanations.
First, I say that, well, system dynamics is hard.
Then I observe that system dynamics is actually quite young. Its
younger, say, than neural nets (first paper published in 1947).
In fact, we can calculate the growth rate. There are between 500 and
600 people on this email list. This list does not overlap completely
with the system dynamics society which has 450 members. And there are
many practioners who are neither on the email list nor belong to the
society. But, lets be conservative and say there are 500 system
dynamics folks in the world. In 1960, there were perhaps 4 system
dynamics people (Jay Forrester, Ed Roberts, Will Fey, and Jack Pugh).
To get from 4 people to 500 people in 35 years requires a (continusously
compounded) average growth rate of about 14%.
14% per year is really rather fast. Lots of things that we want to
grow, actually grow considerably slower. Many U.S. citizens would be
thrilled if their economy would grow by even 5% per year (the average is
probably around 3%). 14% implies a doubling time of just five years.
True, lots of movements in business have grown faster than 14%. It has
been observed, however, that things that grow like weeds often are
weeds. A long-term average growth rate of 10% - 15% per year seems
healthy to me.
Regards,
Jim Hines
JimHines@Interserv.Com
rquesting a satisfying answer to the question: Why hasnt the system
dynamics field grown (faster).
This is certainly a question that I get frequently from students and
from clients. I usually offer two of explanations.
First, I say that, well, system dynamics is hard.
Then I observe that system dynamics is actually quite young. Its
younger, say, than neural nets (first paper published in 1947).
In fact, we can calculate the growth rate. There are between 500 and
600 people on this email list. This list does not overlap completely
with the system dynamics society which has 450 members. And there are
many practioners who are neither on the email list nor belong to the
society. But, lets be conservative and say there are 500 system
dynamics folks in the world. In 1960, there were perhaps 4 system
dynamics people (Jay Forrester, Ed Roberts, Will Fey, and Jack Pugh).
To get from 4 people to 500 people in 35 years requires a (continusously
compounded) average growth rate of about 14%.
14% per year is really rather fast. Lots of things that we want to
grow, actually grow considerably slower. Many U.S. citizens would be
thrilled if their economy would grow by even 5% per year (the average is
probably around 3%). 14% implies a doubling time of just five years.
True, lots of movements in business have grown faster than 14%. It has
been observed, however, that things that grow like weeds often are
weeds. A long-term average growth rate of 10% - 15% per year seems
healthy to me.
Regards,
Jim Hines
JimHines@Interserv.Com
-
Gloria Perez Salazar
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
I am a SD teacher at Leon Guanajuato Mexico University and I am agree
with Augusto that the utilization of the concepts around the comunity has
been very poor.
How is the utilization in all over the world? Do you have any papers
related to that?
Do you have material to teach SD in an funny way?
thanks a lot
gloria perez-salazar
Itesm Campus Leon
gperez@campus.leo.itesm.mx
with Augusto that the utilization of the concepts around the comunity has
been very poor.
How is the utilization in all over the world? Do you have any papers
related to that?
Do you have material to teach SD in an funny way?
thanks a lot
gloria perez-salazar
Itesm Campus Leon
gperez@campus.leo.itesm.mx
-
"Scholl Greg"
- Junior Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
Jim Hines writes:
>"To get from 4 people to 500 people in 35 years requires a (continusously
>compounded) average growth rate of about 14%."
I think this is a dangerous assumption as the average skill set of the first
four is probably quite different than that of the current 500. No slights
intended, but we arent all Jay Forrester or working closely with him. The
comparison is not apples-to-apples.
The real issue, in my opinion, is one of capacity: how many truly skilled
system dynamicists are there, how strong is their ability to transfer that
skill to others, and how much money and other resources have been made
available to them to facilitate the transaction? The fact is that the
installed base of strong, developed system dynamics programs from which to
churn "new" practitioners is small and severely under-funded relative to most
disciplines. As a result, system dynamics often "spreads" from either
incidental contact to a practitioner (followed by a quick read of The 5th
Discipline and the iThink handbook) or enrollment in one or a subset of
courses as a part of a larger and often disconnected academic program. In my
opinion, it is very difficult to develop strong modeling skills and a
sophisticated understanding of the discipline in this manner.
As a result, we have the situation that faces the discipline today: a large,
diffuse group of people who all share an interest in the discipline (and
unbounded enthusiasm in exposing others to it), and only a small subset of
that group who are highly proficient in the actual methodology ... but this
subgroup has no leverage to develop others skills or establish "standards" to
police the model literature.
Please dont get me wrong. I dont profess to be one of the "subgroup
experts". I appreciate the few chances that my schedule allows to interact
with the core group of practitioners ( and this BB has been alot of fun for me
as many of them contribute here regularly). My only point is that, as a
group, if we care about and believe in this methodology, we need to figure out
how to leverage our own dynamics.
The solution to the challenges that the field faces is not to put our heads in
the sand or pretend they dont exist. I presented a paper last year at
Stirling that was the culmination of two years of research capturing the who,
what, why and how of members of the System Dynamics Society. Only 2 or 3
people (not surprisingly, members of the underleveraged "core practitioners"!)
were interested in, supported and wanted to communicate the results of the
research. After the conference, only 3 or 4 people expressed any interest at
all in the topic or the results. This was perhaps the biggest surprise and
the best insight of the whole research project.
An open discussion about this topic is long overdue. Perhaps this forum is a
perfect place to start.
Greg Scholl
scholl_greg@bah.com
>"To get from 4 people to 500 people in 35 years requires a (continusously
>compounded) average growth rate of about 14%."
I think this is a dangerous assumption as the average skill set of the first
four is probably quite different than that of the current 500. No slights
intended, but we arent all Jay Forrester or working closely with him. The
comparison is not apples-to-apples.
The real issue, in my opinion, is one of capacity: how many truly skilled
system dynamicists are there, how strong is their ability to transfer that
skill to others, and how much money and other resources have been made
available to them to facilitate the transaction? The fact is that the
installed base of strong, developed system dynamics programs from which to
churn "new" practitioners is small and severely under-funded relative to most
disciplines. As a result, system dynamics often "spreads" from either
incidental contact to a practitioner (followed by a quick read of The 5th
Discipline and the iThink handbook) or enrollment in one or a subset of
courses as a part of a larger and often disconnected academic program. In my
opinion, it is very difficult to develop strong modeling skills and a
sophisticated understanding of the discipline in this manner.
As a result, we have the situation that faces the discipline today: a large,
diffuse group of people who all share an interest in the discipline (and
unbounded enthusiasm in exposing others to it), and only a small subset of
that group who are highly proficient in the actual methodology ... but this
subgroup has no leverage to develop others skills or establish "standards" to
police the model literature.
Please dont get me wrong. I dont profess to be one of the "subgroup
experts". I appreciate the few chances that my schedule allows to interact
with the core group of practitioners ( and this BB has been alot of fun for me
as many of them contribute here regularly). My only point is that, as a
group, if we care about and believe in this methodology, we need to figure out
how to leverage our own dynamics.
The solution to the challenges that the field faces is not to put our heads in
the sand or pretend they dont exist. I presented a paper last year at
Stirling that was the culmination of two years of research capturing the who,
what, why and how of members of the System Dynamics Society. Only 2 or 3
people (not surprisingly, members of the underleveraged "core practitioners"!)
were interested in, supported and wanted to communicate the results of the
research. After the conference, only 3 or 4 people expressed any interest at
all in the topic or the results. This was perhaps the biggest surprise and
the best insight of the whole research project.
An open discussion about this topic is long overdue. Perhaps this forum is a
perfect place to start.
Greg Scholl
scholl_greg@bah.com
-
rgill@metz.une.edu.au (Roderic G
- Junior Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
>Why - if true - System Dynamics, in nearly four decades, did not exploit
>(both in universities and in business) all the enormous potential that
>many acknowledge and we practitioners feel? Is this a local problem (we
>work in Italy) or a more generalized one?
>
I had two years experience in introducing System Dynamics training into my
farm and resource management teaching program at the University of New
England in Armidale, Australia. The students loved it, thinking the
process to be relevant, meaningful and tractable in terms of their own
learning effort. Perhaps even more important, the various farmers we
worked with to keep my courses very applied seemed to appreciate the SD
approach and the thinking behind it (ie, they liked the foundation on
ecological-economic feedback and the capacity to explicitly incorporate
aesthetic and other non-money considerations in decision making).
Well, my students may have liked it, but my academic colleagues considered
my activities to be something akin to a mix of heresy and witchcraft (SD is
virtually unknown at this University and in my agricultural economics
profession generally). The social science (agricultural economics in this
case) field is dominated by a mindset that rewards those with prowess in
impenetrable econometric modelling. A brief glance at the professional
literature that defines academic worth here would suggest that the less
understandable and cryptic one can be, the more highly regarded ones
activities will be. Cleverness seems to be defined in terms of
mathematical prowess and ones capacity to dumbfound an audience of peers.
The motivation that ours is an applied field that is supposed to help the
business and resource management communities seems to have gone astray
somewhere. But I am a terrible cynic! Quite simply, how, in this kind of
culture, can a modelling approach that uses pictures be regarded as
rigorous where rigour is the benchmark for success? Good heavens, how
can economists maintain their aura of mystery and intellectual superiority
if mere business managers can understand their activities? I know and you
know that SD has as much (if not more) capacity for rigour as anything any
econometrician could dream up, but the seeming simplicity of the approach
is always damming to the heavily econometic mindsetted set.
And a mindset is the hardest thing in the world to shift, especially when
it is culturally embedded. Just ask any institutional economist.
_____________________________________________________
Dr Roderic A. Gill
Resource Systems Management Consultant
"Camusfearna"
Chandler Road
Armidale, NSW, 2350
Australia
Vice President, Australia and New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics
(ANZSEE)
Honorary Associate of the University of New England
Telephone: 067 751709, fax: 067 751709, mobile: 015 293 288
international: phone: 61 67 751709, fax: 61 67 751709, mobile: 61 67 15 293288
______________________________________________________
"Wisdom is a happy marriage between respect for tradition on the one
hand, and confidence in ones own discernment on the other".
______________________________________________________
>(both in universities and in business) all the enormous potential that
>many acknowledge and we practitioners feel? Is this a local problem (we
>work in Italy) or a more generalized one?
>
I had two years experience in introducing System Dynamics training into my
farm and resource management teaching program at the University of New
England in Armidale, Australia. The students loved it, thinking the
process to be relevant, meaningful and tractable in terms of their own
learning effort. Perhaps even more important, the various farmers we
worked with to keep my courses very applied seemed to appreciate the SD
approach and the thinking behind it (ie, they liked the foundation on
ecological-economic feedback and the capacity to explicitly incorporate
aesthetic and other non-money considerations in decision making).
Well, my students may have liked it, but my academic colleagues considered
my activities to be something akin to a mix of heresy and witchcraft (SD is
virtually unknown at this University and in my agricultural economics
profession generally). The social science (agricultural economics in this
case) field is dominated by a mindset that rewards those with prowess in
impenetrable econometric modelling. A brief glance at the professional
literature that defines academic worth here would suggest that the less
understandable and cryptic one can be, the more highly regarded ones
activities will be. Cleverness seems to be defined in terms of
mathematical prowess and ones capacity to dumbfound an audience of peers.
The motivation that ours is an applied field that is supposed to help the
business and resource management communities seems to have gone astray
somewhere. But I am a terrible cynic! Quite simply, how, in this kind of
culture, can a modelling approach that uses pictures be regarded as
rigorous where rigour is the benchmark for success? Good heavens, how
can economists maintain their aura of mystery and intellectual superiority
if mere business managers can understand their activities? I know and you
know that SD has as much (if not more) capacity for rigour as anything any
econometrician could dream up, but the seeming simplicity of the approach
is always damming to the heavily econometic mindsetted set.
And a mindset is the hardest thing in the world to shift, especially when
it is culturally embedded. Just ask any institutional economist.
_____________________________________________________
Dr Roderic A. Gill
Resource Systems Management Consultant
"Camusfearna"
Chandler Road
Armidale, NSW, 2350
Australia
Vice President, Australia and New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics
(ANZSEE)
Honorary Associate of the University of New England
Telephone: 067 751709, fax: 067 751709, mobile: 015 293 288
international: phone: 61 67 751709, fax: 61 67 751709, mobile: 61 67 15 293288
______________________________________________________
"Wisdom is a happy marriage between respect for tradition on the one
hand, and confidence in ones own discernment on the other".
______________________________________________________
-
Bill Harris
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
Gene wrote:
>than find a need and respond to it with the PC as the answer. Have we
>attempted "to Sell" System Dyanmics rather than sell solutions to specific
>problems, with System Dyanmics as the vehicle? Are we selling drill bits as
>opposed to educating the customer that we have a nifty way to make the holes
>they want?
Bingo!
Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Productivity Department Lake Stevens Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330
phone: (206) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (206) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298
>than find a need and respond to it with the PC as the answer. Have we
>attempted "to Sell" System Dyanmics rather than sell solutions to specific
>problems, with System Dyanmics as the vehicle? Are we selling drill bits as
>opposed to educating the customer that we have a nifty way to make the holes
>they want?
Bingo!
Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Productivity Department Lake Stevens Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330
phone: (206) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (206) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298
-
Bill Harris
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
Ed writes:
>Next month they will be scratching their head and saying, "Boy, if I had
>six round holes in the frame of my car, I could put this trailer hitch on
>..... " So someone drills the holes for them and they say, "Thanks, I
>dont know anything about cars!...." They STILL dont what a drill
>bit can do for them!
Is that all bad? Either
Some can make (or make more) money as consultants drilling holes
,
and
One day one of them will get interested and say, "How did you _do_ that
so easily?"
Pull systems seem to work better than push systems (anyone have a model for
the diffusion of innovation?).
Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Productivity Department Lake Stevens Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330
phone: (206) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (206) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298
>Next month they will be scratching their head and saying, "Boy, if I had
>six round holes in the frame of my car, I could put this trailer hitch on
>..... " So someone drills the holes for them and they say, "Thanks, I
>dont know anything about cars!...." They STILL dont what a drill
>bit can do for them!
Is that all bad? Either
Some can make (or make more) money as consultants drilling holes
,and
One day one of them will get interested and say, "How did you _do_ that
so easily?"
Pull systems seem to work better than push systems (anyone have a model for
the diffusion of innovation?).
Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Productivity Department Lake Stevens Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330
phone: (206) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (206) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298
-
Bill Harris
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
John brings up an important point:
>rate of demand exceeds the growth of capacity. Such a condition cannot
>continue for very long, as the growing number of people seeking SD help
>and expertise grow frustrated by inadequate access to skilled people and
>resources; as the excess demand causes inexperienced people to enter the
>field and take on projects for which they are insufficiently qualified
>and have insufficient support, leading to low quality work which then
>feeds back to reduce demand, and so on. This dynamic is one of the
Some of us are relatively new to the field (Ive been reading and playing
for about 9 years, but Ive got only a few real models done that Ive used
for anything serious). Barring going back to MIT or some other institution
which teaches SD, how do I and others get to be competent at this? Im
beginning (slowly) to work through the "Desert Island Dynamics"
bibliography, and Ive read a bunch of books on the subject, including
"Industrial Dynamics", and the Pugh book on Dynamo.
The next step seems to be to do more models and find out what works and
what doesnt. Some of that is somewhat obvious, but some begs for feedback
from others.
Suggestions?
BTW, thanks to this group for the contributions lots of people are making.
Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Productivity Department Lake Stevens Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330
phone: (206) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (206) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298
>rate of demand exceeds the growth of capacity. Such a condition cannot
>continue for very long, as the growing number of people seeking SD help
>and expertise grow frustrated by inadequate access to skilled people and
>resources; as the excess demand causes inexperienced people to enter the
>field and take on projects for which they are insufficiently qualified
>and have insufficient support, leading to low quality work which then
>feeds back to reduce demand, and so on. This dynamic is one of the
Some of us are relatively new to the field (Ive been reading and playing
for about 9 years, but Ive got only a few real models done that Ive used
for anything serious). Barring going back to MIT or some other institution
which teaches SD, how do I and others get to be competent at this? Im
beginning (slowly) to work through the "Desert Island Dynamics"
bibliography, and Ive read a bunch of books on the subject, including
"Industrial Dynamics", and the Pugh book on Dynamo.
The next step seems to be to do more models and find out what works and
what doesnt. Some of that is somewhat obvious, but some begs for feedback
from others.
Suggestions?
BTW, thanks to this group for the contributions lots of people are making.
Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Productivity Department Lake Stevens Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 330
phone: (206) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (206) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298
-
Augusto Carena
- Junior Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
John Sterman wrote:
>
> It is useful to distinguish between the growth of
> demand and the growth of the capacity of skilled modelers. Demand can
> grow very fast, through word of mouth - and word of email,
> publications, conferences, etc.
Maybe we pay the difference of living in the suburbs of the empire, but I
can hardly see a fast growing demand for SD in Italy. Probably this is not
a suitable place for this discussion, but Id like to receive some
feedback about perception of demand in other countries. Instead, I personally
know more than one experienced modeler - today lent, for necessity, to
other business - that would turn back to SD if there were work enough
in the field. Sterman says we are in a "market growth model" structure,
where growth is limited by
> inadequate access to skilled people and
> resources; as the excess demand causes inexperienced people to enter the
> field and take on projects for which they are insufficiently qualified
> and have insufficient support, leading to low quality work which then
> feeds back to reduce demand, and so on.
I perfectly agree. Moreover, at least for our country, I see some other
constraints acting as a negative feedback loop that only partially can be
traced back to lack of skilled people. For example, I know about some models
developed for large companies that have never been used; maybe working, but
often too complicated to use, or needing data that could not be collected by
IS, or simply useless. When you propose models to clients who have lived this
experience, the answer is simply: SD? No, thanks.
But, at least locally, simply I cant see the positive loop driving the
growth. Are we yet in a collapse condition, dominated by the negative one?
Is it possible that the past history, that has involved a so marginal
fraction of the market(few companies, only partially unsatisfied),
condition so strongly the development of a so promising methodology? Is this
a local vision? Or a myopic one? Or maybe we have not yet found the ways to
effectively sell SD?
Instead, for example, I can see a fast diffusion of Peter Senges approach to
Systems Thinking within the framework of 5th discipline, together with a
strong underevaluation of the role that Senge himself gives to modeling. Does
it mean anything for our problem?
> However, the growth of capacity of
> skilled modelers is limited by the number of skilled modelers itself -
> experienced modelers train students, either in the classroom or via
> apprenticeships in other organizations.
In my opinion, the contribution of Universities is critical, because a
business organization, exclusively working in SD, has no return from
investment in new resources for at least one year - and much more if they
come from university without any skill in simulation or, the worst, with a
statistic-oriented curriculum. Unfortunately, in Italy, SD has today nearly
no acknowledgement in Universities, and relations with contiguous
disciplines have always been difficult - particularly with OR. After some
relevant tentatives in the last decades, today it happens that a student who
has casually heard about system dynamics and wants to develop a thesis
project about it has to follow a tricky path to look for some professor that
in fifteen years ago has dealt the matter (directly experimented). In this
condition, it seems difficult to start a positive feedback loop.
_==|
_==| )__) | Augusto Carena
)_) )___) ))
)___) )____))_) Dharma srl
_ )____)_____))__) via Bronzino,13
---__|____/|___|___---- 20133 MILANO (ITALY)
^^^^^^^^^ oo oo oo oo /~~^^^^^^^^
~^^^^ ~~~~^^~~~~^^~~^^~~~~~
~~^^ ~^^~ ~^~ ~^ ~^
~^~~ ~~~^^ E-mail: a.carena@agora.stm.it
>
> It is useful to distinguish between the growth of
> demand and the growth of the capacity of skilled modelers. Demand can
> grow very fast, through word of mouth - and word of email,
> publications, conferences, etc.
Maybe we pay the difference of living in the suburbs of the empire, but I
can hardly see a fast growing demand for SD in Italy. Probably this is not
a suitable place for this discussion, but Id like to receive some
feedback about perception of demand in other countries. Instead, I personally
know more than one experienced modeler - today lent, for necessity, to
other business - that would turn back to SD if there were work enough
in the field. Sterman says we are in a "market growth model" structure,
where growth is limited by
> inadequate access to skilled people and
> resources; as the excess demand causes inexperienced people to enter the
> field and take on projects for which they are insufficiently qualified
> and have insufficient support, leading to low quality work which then
> feeds back to reduce demand, and so on.
I perfectly agree. Moreover, at least for our country, I see some other
constraints acting as a negative feedback loop that only partially can be
traced back to lack of skilled people. For example, I know about some models
developed for large companies that have never been used; maybe working, but
often too complicated to use, or needing data that could not be collected by
IS, or simply useless. When you propose models to clients who have lived this
experience, the answer is simply: SD? No, thanks.
But, at least locally, simply I cant see the positive loop driving the
growth. Are we yet in a collapse condition, dominated by the negative one?
Is it possible that the past history, that has involved a so marginal
fraction of the market(few companies, only partially unsatisfied),
condition so strongly the development of a so promising methodology? Is this
a local vision? Or a myopic one? Or maybe we have not yet found the ways to
effectively sell SD?
Instead, for example, I can see a fast diffusion of Peter Senges approach to
Systems Thinking within the framework of 5th discipline, together with a
strong underevaluation of the role that Senge himself gives to modeling. Does
it mean anything for our problem?
> However, the growth of capacity of
> skilled modelers is limited by the number of skilled modelers itself -
> experienced modelers train students, either in the classroom or via
> apprenticeships in other organizations.
In my opinion, the contribution of Universities is critical, because a
business organization, exclusively working in SD, has no return from
investment in new resources for at least one year - and much more if they
come from university without any skill in simulation or, the worst, with a
statistic-oriented curriculum. Unfortunately, in Italy, SD has today nearly
no acknowledgement in Universities, and relations with contiguous
disciplines have always been difficult - particularly with OR. After some
relevant tentatives in the last decades, today it happens that a student who
has casually heard about system dynamics and wants to develop a thesis
project about it has to follow a tricky path to look for some professor that
in fifteen years ago has dealt the matter (directly experimented). In this
condition, it seems difficult to start a positive feedback loop.
_==|
_==| )__) | Augusto Carena
)_) )___) ))
)___) )____))_) Dharma srl
_ )____)_____))__) via Bronzino,13
---__|____/|___|___---- 20133 MILANO (ITALY)
^^^^^^^^^ oo oo oo oo /~~^^^^^^^^
~^^^^ ~~~~^^~~~~^^~~^^~~~~~
~~^^ ~^^~ ~^~ ~^ ~^
~^~~ ~~~^^ E-mail: a.carena@agora.stm.it
SD success?
Greg Scholl in SD0153 writes:
" In my opinion, it is very difficult to develop strong modeling skills
and a sophisticated understanding of the discipline... As a result, we
have the situation that faces the discipline today: a large, diffuse
group of people who all share an interest in the discipline (and
unbounded enthusiasm in exposing others to it), and only a small subset
of that group who are highly proficient in the actual methodology ...
but this subgroup has no leverage to develop others skills .."
This comment comes at a timely point. Let me ask the following
far-from-idle questions of the group. "Distance learning" is a term
applied to educational efforts that bring the learning to the student;
so that people who cannot move to a new spot and who cannot take a year
or three off can still learn what they need.
1) Who here would be interested in a "distance learning" curriculum,
taught by folks who would be considered (say by Jay Forrester) as
"highly proficient in the actual methodology"?
2) What would you say if the price were the "usual" tuition to a U.S.
University?
3) What if the course of study extended for somewhere between one and
two years?
4) Would you prefer a concentrated 3-6 months (not distant, but on site
somewhere?)
5) What skills would you like to have? (The simpler the response to
this the better).
Feel free to respond either to the list or to me directly
(JimHines@Interserv.Com).
Jim Hines
JimHines@Interserv.Com
LeapTec and MIT
" In my opinion, it is very difficult to develop strong modeling skills
and a sophisticated understanding of the discipline... As a result, we
have the situation that faces the discipline today: a large, diffuse
group of people who all share an interest in the discipline (and
unbounded enthusiasm in exposing others to it), and only a small subset
of that group who are highly proficient in the actual methodology ...
but this subgroup has no leverage to develop others skills .."
This comment comes at a timely point. Let me ask the following
far-from-idle questions of the group. "Distance learning" is a term
applied to educational efforts that bring the learning to the student;
so that people who cannot move to a new spot and who cannot take a year
or three off can still learn what they need.
1) Who here would be interested in a "distance learning" curriculum,
taught by folks who would be considered (say by Jay Forrester) as
"highly proficient in the actual methodology"?
2) What would you say if the price were the "usual" tuition to a U.S.
University?
3) What if the course of study extended for somewhere between one and
two years?
4) Would you prefer a concentrated 3-6 months (not distant, but on site
somewhere?)
5) What skills would you like to have? (The simpler the response to
this the better).
Feel free to respond either to the list or to me directly
(JimHines@Interserv.Com).
Jim Hines
JimHines@Interserv.Com
LeapTec and MIT
-
Shaun Tang
- Junior Member
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
QUOTE
Gene Bellinger (SD151): " Wheres the real leverage point?"
Scholl Greg (SD153): "In my opinion, it is very difficult to develop
strong modeling skills and ..."
UNQUOTE
IMO, the hardly-unified and loosely-structured stock-and-flow
modelling grammar as well as its underlying knowledge
being introduced by many different SD simulators would
also possibly be one of the major contributing factors.
Regards, Shaun
Shaun TANG <stang@fcit.monash.edu.au>
Gene Bellinger (SD151): " Wheres the real leverage point?"
Scholl Greg (SD153): "In my opinion, it is very difficult to develop
strong modeling skills and ..."
UNQUOTE
IMO, the hardly-unified and loosely-structured stock-and-flow
modelling grammar as well as its underlying knowledge
being introduced by many different SD simulators would
also possibly be one of the major contributing factors.
Regards, Shaun
Shaun TANG <stang@fcit.monash.edu.au>
-
"Adrian Boucher"
- Junior Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
Hi Gene
Brilliant idea!
Just to disappoint you a little, some years ago I used to run a
Business Studies undergraduate programme in an (unidentified) UK
University. At that time it didnt have its own charter to award
degrees, but had them externally validated by the UK Council for
National Academic Awards (CNAA). In preparing our bid for sumission
of a part-time route through the programme, a couple of colleagues
and I put together the proposal that all of the previously
comparmentalised subjects ( a bit of economics, some quants, a dollop
p of law, some organisational behaviour, etc) might be unified by
adopting a systems approach. Our experience to date with the
full-time programme was that students found it extremely difficult to
use concepts and techniques from one subject area to apply to general
business problems which ostensibly arose in another discipline.
Outcome: The bid was rejected out of hand, as being far too radical,
and we re-submitted another subject-based clone of old-style
Business Studies degrees. So much for learning organisations.
Best wishes
Adrian
Adrian Boucher
Director
NatWest Financial Literacy Centre
Centre for Education & Industry
University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL
UK
Tel: +44 1203 524 234
Fax: +44 1203 523 617
e-mail: adrian.boucher@csv.warwick.ac.uk
URL: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/WWW/faculties/ ... index.html
Brilliant idea!
Just to disappoint you a little, some years ago I used to run a
Business Studies undergraduate programme in an (unidentified) UK
University. At that time it didnt have its own charter to award
degrees, but had them externally validated by the UK Council for
National Academic Awards (CNAA). In preparing our bid for sumission
of a part-time route through the programme, a couple of colleagues
and I put together the proposal that all of the previously
comparmentalised subjects ( a bit of economics, some quants, a dollop
p of law, some organisational behaviour, etc) might be unified by
adopting a systems approach. Our experience to date with the
full-time programme was that students found it extremely difficult to
use concepts and techniques from one subject area to apply to general
business problems which ostensibly arose in another discipline.
Outcome: The bid was rejected out of hand, as being far too radical,
and we re-submitted another subject-based clone of old-style
Business Studies degrees. So much for learning organisations.
Best wishes
Adrian
Adrian Boucher
Director
NatWest Financial Literacy Centre
Centre for Education & Industry
University of Warwick
Coventry
CV4 7AL
UK
Tel: +44 1203 524 234
Fax: +44 1203 523 617
e-mail: adrian.boucher@csv.warwick.ac.uk
URL: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/WWW/faculties/ ... index.html
-
Allen Brown
- Junior Member
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
Hi everyone,
On Mon, 6 May 1996, John Sterman wrote:
> Re Bill Harris question about how to deepen ones learning about SD
> when you cant come back to school.
...
> as George Richardson has said, recreate the classic models of the field
> on your own computer and for yourself. This means entering them in to
> the computer yourself, from scratch, NOT getting the model on disk. The
> latter way ensures the model remains a black box; the former forces you
...
> SD is not a spectator sport. You learn by doing. And best of all, its
> fun, too.
This is why SD _could_ be so pivotal to education, were it _embedded_ in
curriculum, and this relates to the earlier discussion about models and
the modeling process. It requires significant intellectual _engagement_
in analysis, synthesis, and comparison and hypothesis formulation.
Good stuff.
Allen
***********************************************
* Allen Brown
* Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education Group
* Faculty of Education voice: 613 545 6722
* Queens University v-mail: 613 545 6000 ext 7431
* Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 fax: 613 545 6584
* CANADA e-mail: brownan@educ.queensu.ca
* web: http://educ.queensu.ca/~brownan/
On Mon, 6 May 1996, John Sterman wrote:
> Re Bill Harris question about how to deepen ones learning about SD
> when you cant come back to school.
...
> as George Richardson has said, recreate the classic models of the field
> on your own computer and for yourself. This means entering them in to
> the computer yourself, from scratch, NOT getting the model on disk. The
> latter way ensures the model remains a black box; the former forces you
...
> SD is not a spectator sport. You learn by doing. And best of all, its
> fun, too.
This is why SD _could_ be so pivotal to education, were it _embedded_ in
curriculum, and this relates to the earlier discussion about models and
the modeling process. It requires significant intellectual _engagement_
in analysis, synthesis, and comparison and hypothesis formulation.
Good stuff.
Allen
***********************************************
* Allen Brown
* Mathematics, Science, and Technology Education Group
* Faculty of Education voice: 613 545 6722
* Queens University v-mail: 613 545 6000 ext 7431
* Kingston, ON K7L 3N6 fax: 613 545 6584
* CANADA e-mail: brownan@educ.queensu.ca
* web: http://educ.queensu.ca/~brownan/
-
Jim Thompson <73424.1506@compuse
- Junior Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
Proliferating the use of system dynamics to help solve complex problems requires
an adequate supply of problem-solvers and demand (an adequate recognition of
problems). However, not all of the problem-solvers are acceptable to the
persons with the problems (call them clients). That is, there is a
socialization process to the adoption of system dynamics that is hardly trivial.
>From my experience, the field gets significant push-back from clients who have
not previously used system dynamics. The most primative form of resistance
comes from personality mismatches. Some folks do not get on well with others
and, especially when adopting a new methodology for problem-solving, it is
important to invest heavily in developing a strong bond. These situations are
quite sad: the client recognized the need and the system dynamicist could not
help. Building a working partnership improves the methodology.
Clients usually have had "the" problem for a long time before the system
dynamicist shows up. System dynamics sometimes can capture "the" problem very
quickly. Clients can find this disconcerting: Theyve spent years trying to
crack an issue. Someone who usually possesses far less experience in the company
and industry develops an answer, or at least a promising solution path. Often
both the client and the system dynamicist are "expert" in their fields and
neither wishes to cede control of an issue to the other. This set of
circumstances can undermine the clients feeling of control and authority. The
system dynamicist must be sensitive to the clients need to build trust, the
methodology succeeds because the system dynamicist succeeds on a human level.
Another hurdle comes from mixing both a personal abstraction (mental model) with
a formal model. I suppose there are a variety of ways to label these
mismatches, but I like to think of them as "right brain, left brain" issues.
Clients who can recognize the need are often highly creative people but they may
be put off by formal logic and the quantitative output of analysis. The system
dynamicist must be creative (and consoling at times) in working with the client
to understand the methodology on the clients terms.
Clients who have been exposed to the field through "The Fifth Discipline" may
believe in and want a deep level of participation in preparing the model. Yet,
model construction tends to be a highly personal activity. This "lone wolf"
form of modeling and analysis can seem exclusive rather than inclusive. If the
client is excluded from the equation-writing, the system dynamicist may be put
on trial to defend the model structure, parameter values, and outcomes from
simulations. Since there are no perfect models, defending a model can quickly
become a losing proposition. The system dynamicist is challenged to maintain
close communication with the client and to be willing to try alternative
formulations.
Skill in conceptualization, formulation, and analysis is a big step. But it is
only one step. Learning to communicate and work with diverse groups and
interests is, perhaps, an equal challenge. So, as the field grows,
practicioners have more opportunity to socialize their problem-solving skills.
Jim Thompson
73424.1506@compuserve.com
an adequate supply of problem-solvers and demand (an adequate recognition of
problems). However, not all of the problem-solvers are acceptable to the
persons with the problems (call them clients). That is, there is a
socialization process to the adoption of system dynamics that is hardly trivial.
>From my experience, the field gets significant push-back from clients who have
not previously used system dynamics. The most primative form of resistance
comes from personality mismatches. Some folks do not get on well with others
and, especially when adopting a new methodology for problem-solving, it is
important to invest heavily in developing a strong bond. These situations are
quite sad: the client recognized the need and the system dynamicist could not
help. Building a working partnership improves the methodology.
Clients usually have had "the" problem for a long time before the system
dynamicist shows up. System dynamics sometimes can capture "the" problem very
quickly. Clients can find this disconcerting: Theyve spent years trying to
crack an issue. Someone who usually possesses far less experience in the company
and industry develops an answer, or at least a promising solution path. Often
both the client and the system dynamicist are "expert" in their fields and
neither wishes to cede control of an issue to the other. This set of
circumstances can undermine the clients feeling of control and authority. The
system dynamicist must be sensitive to the clients need to build trust, the
methodology succeeds because the system dynamicist succeeds on a human level.
Another hurdle comes from mixing both a personal abstraction (mental model) with
a formal model. I suppose there are a variety of ways to label these
mismatches, but I like to think of them as "right brain, left brain" issues.
Clients who can recognize the need are often highly creative people but they may
be put off by formal logic and the quantitative output of analysis. The system
dynamicist must be creative (and consoling at times) in working with the client
to understand the methodology on the clients terms.
Clients who have been exposed to the field through "The Fifth Discipline" may
believe in and want a deep level of participation in preparing the model. Yet,
model construction tends to be a highly personal activity. This "lone wolf"
form of modeling and analysis can seem exclusive rather than inclusive. If the
client is excluded from the equation-writing, the system dynamicist may be put
on trial to defend the model structure, parameter values, and outcomes from
simulations. Since there are no perfect models, defending a model can quickly
become a losing proposition. The system dynamicist is challenged to maintain
close communication with the client and to be willing to try alternative
formulations.
Skill in conceptualization, formulation, and analysis is a big step. But it is
only one step. Learning to communicate and work with diverse groups and
interests is, perhaps, an equal challenge. So, as the field grows,
practicioners have more opportunity to socialize their problem-solving skills.
Jim Thompson
73424.1506@compuserve.com
-
Jim Thompson <73424.1506@compuse
- Junior Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
John Sterman suggests recreating classic models in ones own computer. I second
that suggestion. Some learners may have the ability to jump right into
abstractions and formulations, and that is a wonderful gift. For those of us
who have to start at a more concrete point, working by copying the masters is a
success path -- not to mention a resource of model fragments that become model
formulation time-savers.
Johns second point, finding someone to work with, is equally valid. Ive had
the benefit of working with talented and richly experienced system dynamicists.
When I saw a short-cut to wisdom, each has slowed me down to ask important
questions and then helped me find the answers. Ive learned a bit from each one
to the point of developing my own style.
Not everyone may have my good fortune in finding system dynamicists to work
with. Nevertheless, I believe that a mentor (master craftsman) is essential.
Even expert classroom preparation, such as offered by Jim Hines or John Sterman,
can carry one only so far. When model, issue, ego, and talent get mashed
together, it is very reassuring to have a disciplined, helping mind to draw on.
Software, such as Vensim, can help point out some formulation errors or speed up
the analytical processes. But understanding the issues and the system that
generates the issues is still a human competency. And developing competency is
where the fun is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Thompson 73424.1506@compuserve.com
Gemini Consulting, Inc. phone:
860/676-8152
55 Reservoir Road fax: 860/676-8052
Farmington, CT 06032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
that suggestion. Some learners may have the ability to jump right into
abstractions and formulations, and that is a wonderful gift. For those of us
who have to start at a more concrete point, working by copying the masters is a
success path -- not to mention a resource of model fragments that become model
formulation time-savers.
Johns second point, finding someone to work with, is equally valid. Ive had
the benefit of working with talented and richly experienced system dynamicists.
When I saw a short-cut to wisdom, each has slowed me down to ask important
questions and then helped me find the answers. Ive learned a bit from each one
to the point of developing my own style.
Not everyone may have my good fortune in finding system dynamicists to work
with. Nevertheless, I believe that a mentor (master craftsman) is essential.
Even expert classroom preparation, such as offered by Jim Hines or John Sterman,
can carry one only so far. When model, issue, ego, and talent get mashed
together, it is very reassuring to have a disciplined, helping mind to draw on.
Software, such as Vensim, can help point out some formulation errors or speed up
the analytical processes. But understanding the issues and the system that
generates the issues is still a human competency. And developing competency is
where the fun is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Thompson 73424.1506@compuserve.com
Gemini Consulting, Inc. phone:
860/676-8152
55 Reservoir Road fax: 860/676-8052
Farmington, CT 06032
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
scuba@usa.net (Bob Powell)
- Junior Member
- Posts: 4
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
Here are two more suggestions for barriers to SD success and a first cut
summary of the barriers suggested so far.
First, Tom DeMarco noted at ICRE 96 in April (International Conference on
Requirements Engineering) that the reason many software projects fail is due
to ambiguities in the requirements. The reason often cited for these
ambiguities is the desire to not impose barriers to creativity, i.e. too
much detail at too early a stage might cause the project to miss creative
approaches.
He argued that the actual reason for the ambiguities is that power will be
gained by some and lost by others. People fight change because they do not
feel safe in organizations, because losing power can also mean losing
influence and even a job. To avoid, or at least postpone, a political
battle, the requirements are left ambiguous. He asserted that the recent
problems with FAA software development were due to requirements ambiguities
resulting from just such a power conflict between the central authority and
the regional authorities.
Our mental models often reinforce our prejudice, position and power. We
tend to come from a point of view (mental model), then select and interpret
facts according to that view. (What the Cato Institute does relative to
Path Dependence - SD0220.)
System dynamics threatens such conduct because it requires examining the
system (structure, policies and data), building and simulating a model,
validating it against observed system behavior, and developing a position on
what should be done accordingly. When we already know what should be done,
such a process leaves little room for protecting our "rightness," position
or power. This makes system dynamics a very threatening process. Dealing
with this human aspect seems to be the reason Senge includes four other
disciplines besides systems thinking / system dynamics in "The Fifth
Discipline."
Second, another barrier to SD success is that knowledge elicitation is a
critical skill. It is much more of an art than a science and is especially
difficult with groups.
Here is an attempt to summarize the issues relative to SD Success suggested
so far (I tried to get them all, but may have missed some):
Demand issues:
- mindset bias for system decomposition, not analysis
- perceived relevance of the discipline
- not being aware of the difference between detail and dynamic complexity
- lack of understanding that humans have innate limitations in predicting
outcome in systems which are dynamically complex
- sales related issues:
- limited attention to developing ways to effectively sell SD
- selling SD, rather than solutions
- too few practitioners being interested in communicating SD research
results
- path dependence and investment in other methods (includes: the appearance
that SD is "heresy and witchcraft" relative to econometric modeling and
that SD is on the downside of a "Success to the Successful" archetype)
- SD methodology threatens prejudice, position or power
Supply issues:
- limited available stock of capable practitioners
- limited growth rate of capable practitioners, barriers to growth of supply:
- technology for building models is difficult to use
- user-friendly tools like ithink and Vensim allow people to build bad
models quickly, become frustrated and convinced the approach is flawed
- it is very difficult to develop strong modeling skills and a
sophisticated understanding of the discipline
- requires a combination of "right brain, left brain" skills to handle
both the creative aspects and the formal logic / quantitative analysis
- early system dynamics work written in technical terms difficult to
understand
- SDs hardly-unified and loosely-structured stock-and-flow modeling
grammar
- SDs underlying knowledge being introduced by many different SD
simulators
- knowledge elicitation is a critical skill, much more of an art than a
science and especially difficult with groups
- SD practitioner insufficiently includes the client in the modeling
process -- not doing so can result in the modeler having to defend the
model structure, parameter values, and simulations results
- lack of SD practitioner human relations skill (e.g., ability to build
trust and overcome defensiveness and personality mismatches)
Supply/demand issues:
- demand is low because it is too expensive to build models
- inexperienced people have produced poor quality work and reduced demand
(includes: company experience with models that have never been used; maybe
working, but too complicated to use, or needing data that could not be
collected by IS, or simply useless)
This would be an interesting model.
Bob Powell
scuba@usa.net
summary of the barriers suggested so far.
First, Tom DeMarco noted at ICRE 96 in April (International Conference on
Requirements Engineering) that the reason many software projects fail is due
to ambiguities in the requirements. The reason often cited for these
ambiguities is the desire to not impose barriers to creativity, i.e. too
much detail at too early a stage might cause the project to miss creative
approaches.
He argued that the actual reason for the ambiguities is that power will be
gained by some and lost by others. People fight change because they do not
feel safe in organizations, because losing power can also mean losing
influence and even a job. To avoid, or at least postpone, a political
battle, the requirements are left ambiguous. He asserted that the recent
problems with FAA software development were due to requirements ambiguities
resulting from just such a power conflict between the central authority and
the regional authorities.
Our mental models often reinforce our prejudice, position and power. We
tend to come from a point of view (mental model), then select and interpret
facts according to that view. (What the Cato Institute does relative to
Path Dependence - SD0220.)
System dynamics threatens such conduct because it requires examining the
system (structure, policies and data), building and simulating a model,
validating it against observed system behavior, and developing a position on
what should be done accordingly. When we already know what should be done,
such a process leaves little room for protecting our "rightness," position
or power. This makes system dynamics a very threatening process. Dealing
with this human aspect seems to be the reason Senge includes four other
disciplines besides systems thinking / system dynamics in "The Fifth
Discipline."
Second, another barrier to SD success is that knowledge elicitation is a
critical skill. It is much more of an art than a science and is especially
difficult with groups.
Here is an attempt to summarize the issues relative to SD Success suggested
so far (I tried to get them all, but may have missed some):
Demand issues:
- mindset bias for system decomposition, not analysis
- perceived relevance of the discipline
- not being aware of the difference between detail and dynamic complexity
- lack of understanding that humans have innate limitations in predicting
outcome in systems which are dynamically complex
- sales related issues:
- limited attention to developing ways to effectively sell SD
- selling SD, rather than solutions
- too few practitioners being interested in communicating SD research
results
- path dependence and investment in other methods (includes: the appearance
that SD is "heresy and witchcraft" relative to econometric modeling and
that SD is on the downside of a "Success to the Successful" archetype)
- SD methodology threatens prejudice, position or power
Supply issues:
- limited available stock of capable practitioners
- limited growth rate of capable practitioners, barriers to growth of supply:
- technology for building models is difficult to use
- user-friendly tools like ithink and Vensim allow people to build bad
models quickly, become frustrated and convinced the approach is flawed
- it is very difficult to develop strong modeling skills and a
sophisticated understanding of the discipline
- requires a combination of "right brain, left brain" skills to handle
both the creative aspects and the formal logic / quantitative analysis
- early system dynamics work written in technical terms difficult to
understand
- SDs hardly-unified and loosely-structured stock-and-flow modeling
grammar
- SDs underlying knowledge being introduced by many different SD
simulators
- knowledge elicitation is a critical skill, much more of an art than a
science and especially difficult with groups
- SD practitioner insufficiently includes the client in the modeling
process -- not doing so can result in the modeler having to defend the
model structure, parameter values, and simulations results
- lack of SD practitioner human relations skill (e.g., ability to build
trust and overcome defensiveness and personality mismatches)
Supply/demand issues:
- demand is low because it is too expensive to build models
- inexperienced people have produced poor quality work and reduced demand
(includes: company experience with models that have never been used; maybe
working, but too complicated to use, or needing data that could not be
collected by IS, or simply useless)
This would be an interesting model.
Bob Powell
scuba@usa.net
-
gallaher@teleport.com (Ed Gallah
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
Augusto Carena asks:
>
>Why - if true - System Dynamics, in nearly four decades, did not exploit
>(both in universities and in business) all the enormous potential that
many acknowledge and we practitioners feel? Is this a local problem (we
work in Italy) or a more generalized one?
>
>
>If you think that this matter is appropriate to the list, and yet
>presents unexplored aspects, Id like to propose it as subject of
>discussion; otherwise Ill be grateful to receive any information to
>fill this lack.
I also do not know the extent to which this question has been explored.
However, I feel that this question is not only relevant, I think it is THE
question!
After auditing a 3-qtr course from Wayne Wakeland at Portland State
University, I felt like I had discovered an enormously valuable technique.
It seemed as though my colleagues could hardly fail to see this as well.
It is now almost 10 years later, and I remain baffled at the tremendous
hurdles that appear to be in place.
Here are some of them:
1. Although powerful, DYNAMO was not easy to use. This is not a comment
on the developers, but on the state of the art at the time. Diagrams
occurred on paper, and then required coding, proofreading, etc. Compile
errors were common, and jobs were run in batches, precluding immediate
feedback.
2. STELLA, and friendlier (and cheaper) desktop computers eliminated many
of these problems. The diagrams and the equations are closely tied
together, and simulation runs can be conducted immediately.
3. After several years using STELLA I found it enormously difficult to
document my work. I would find myself with a deskful of printouts, but I
had to laboriously label each one as it was printed, or I would forget the
values of the parameters. These were very simple models; impossible with
more complex models.
4. When I found a particularly interesting run, I would save it as
Pharmacokin 1.7. Another interesting run would be Pharmacokin 1.8, etc
etc.
Two weeks later Id open a folder and find a long list of saved models.
Which was which? It would take HOURS to sort this out.
5. I would tell a colleague about some interesting work, and want to show
him or her the results. But I had no viable document. I had Pharmacokin
1.7, 1.8 ....
"Come in and look at my computer (when we both have time......). Not likely.
6. As a result I developed a set of templates, and found a good screen
capture shareware program. Together I call these "Instant Manual". I now
run Word and STELLA side by side.
It is possible to (a) think out loud, documenting ones current
conceptual framework in text, (b) create a simple model structure, capture
and paste it into Word, (c) capture and paste the equations, (d) document
the setting of parameters (including dt!), (e) run the simulation, (f)
capture the output graph, and add a caption, (g) capture the table and add
a caption, and so on.
Now, since I document the equations, and all parameter changes, I no longer
have to save v. 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, etc. I just pull the parameters out of the
written document. I can show this document to my colleagues, students,
etc.
I find this to be a tremendous advantage, and I believe is an important
factor in the development of CC-STADUS curriculum materials (and SyM Bowl).
Many of the documents disseminated by the Creative Learning Exchange are
in this format.
By logging ones own work, and by communicating the work, SD proceeds more
quicky.
Wayne W stated recently that he no longer does -any- modeling in the
absence of Instant Manual. When he does, he finds to work largely
evaporated a week or so later. He also estimates that 75% of his work is
in Word, 25% in STELLA. That says a lot about the modeling process
itself.
Advertisement: These templates took very many hours to develop. I could
give this away, but Id prefer to distribute it as share-ware ($25), and
use the $$ to support SyM Bowl
7. In biomedical work there is a strong aversion to quantitative analysis
of systems, because of pre-conceived notions regarding the math
requirements.
8. SD requires disciplined thinking. Many people dont want to do this.
9. Jay Forrester and others have noted that SD provides strategic
advantages in business. Therefore, those that have discovered this have a
great incentive NOT to tell others about it. We have seen evidence of this
in recent; members are quite rightly reluctant to discuss clients work in
too much detail. I cant comment on this personally, but would like to
hear other opinions on this point. It sounds reasonable to me.
If and when SD becomes wide spread in biomedical work, this should not be a
problem. We have an incentive to TELL people about our work, not hide it.
FANATACISM:
In Concord in July 94 Peter Senge cautioned against fanaticism. He defined
(roughly) a fanatic as someone who rigidly clings to an idea, and who was
unwilling to critically evaluate this idea, and unwilling to recognize or
acknowledge its limitations. This should be contrasted to an evangelist.
(See Guy Kawasakis book)
To the extent that we discuss these issues here, I guess it would be hard
to call us fanatics. There is no lack of critical evaluation!
ed
gallaher@teleport.com
>
>Why - if true - System Dynamics, in nearly four decades, did not exploit
>(both in universities and in business) all the enormous potential that
many acknowledge and we practitioners feel? Is this a local problem (we
work in Italy) or a more generalized one?
>
>
>If you think that this matter is appropriate to the list, and yet
>presents unexplored aspects, Id like to propose it as subject of
>discussion; otherwise Ill be grateful to receive any information to
>fill this lack.
I also do not know the extent to which this question has been explored.
However, I feel that this question is not only relevant, I think it is THE
question!
After auditing a 3-qtr course from Wayne Wakeland at Portland State
University, I felt like I had discovered an enormously valuable technique.
It seemed as though my colleagues could hardly fail to see this as well.
It is now almost 10 years later, and I remain baffled at the tremendous
hurdles that appear to be in place.
Here are some of them:
1. Although powerful, DYNAMO was not easy to use. This is not a comment
on the developers, but on the state of the art at the time. Diagrams
occurred on paper, and then required coding, proofreading, etc. Compile
errors were common, and jobs were run in batches, precluding immediate
feedback.
2. STELLA, and friendlier (and cheaper) desktop computers eliminated many
of these problems. The diagrams and the equations are closely tied
together, and simulation runs can be conducted immediately.
3. After several years using STELLA I found it enormously difficult to
document my work. I would find myself with a deskful of printouts, but I
had to laboriously label each one as it was printed, or I would forget the
values of the parameters. These were very simple models; impossible with
more complex models.
4. When I found a particularly interesting run, I would save it as
Pharmacokin 1.7. Another interesting run would be Pharmacokin 1.8, etc
etc.
Two weeks later Id open a folder and find a long list of saved models.
Which was which? It would take HOURS to sort this out.
5. I would tell a colleague about some interesting work, and want to show
him or her the results. But I had no viable document. I had Pharmacokin
1.7, 1.8 ....
"Come in and look at my computer (when we both have time......). Not likely.
6. As a result I developed a set of templates, and found a good screen
capture shareware program. Together I call these "Instant Manual". I now
run Word and STELLA side by side.
It is possible to (a) think out loud, documenting ones current
conceptual framework in text, (b) create a simple model structure, capture
and paste it into Word, (c) capture and paste the equations, (d) document
the setting of parameters (including dt!), (e) run the simulation, (f)
capture the output graph, and add a caption, (g) capture the table and add
a caption, and so on.
Now, since I document the equations, and all parameter changes, I no longer
have to save v. 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, etc. I just pull the parameters out of the
written document. I can show this document to my colleagues, students,
etc.
I find this to be a tremendous advantage, and I believe is an important
factor in the development of CC-STADUS curriculum materials (and SyM Bowl).
Many of the documents disseminated by the Creative Learning Exchange are
in this format.
By logging ones own work, and by communicating the work, SD proceeds more
quicky.
Wayne W stated recently that he no longer does -any- modeling in the
absence of Instant Manual. When he does, he finds to work largely
evaporated a week or so later. He also estimates that 75% of his work is
in Word, 25% in STELLA. That says a lot about the modeling process
itself.
Advertisement: These templates took very many hours to develop. I could
give this away, but Id prefer to distribute it as share-ware ($25), and
use the $$ to support SyM Bowl
7. In biomedical work there is a strong aversion to quantitative analysis
of systems, because of pre-conceived notions regarding the math
requirements.
8. SD requires disciplined thinking. Many people dont want to do this.
9. Jay Forrester and others have noted that SD provides strategic
advantages in business. Therefore, those that have discovered this have a
great incentive NOT to tell others about it. We have seen evidence of this
in recent; members are quite rightly reluctant to discuss clients work in
too much detail. I cant comment on this personally, but would like to
hear other opinions on this point. It sounds reasonable to me.
If and when SD becomes wide spread in biomedical work, this should not be a
problem. We have an incentive to TELL people about our work, not hide it.
FANATACISM:
In Concord in July 94 Peter Senge cautioned against fanaticism. He defined
(roughly) a fanatic as someone who rigidly clings to an idea, and who was
unwilling to critically evaluate this idea, and unwilling to recognize or
acknowledge its limitations. This should be contrasted to an evangelist.
(See Guy Kawasakis book)
To the extent that we discuss these issues here, I guess it would be hard
to call us fanatics. There is no lack of critical evaluation!
ed
gallaher@teleport.com
-
CrbnBlu@aol.com
- Senior Member
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
irt: a.carena@agora.stm.it (Augusto Carena), Wed, May 1, 1996 2:22 PM EST
Augusto asked:
Why - if true - System Dynamics, in nearly four decades, did not exploit
(both in universities and in business) all the enormous potential that
many acknowledge and we practitioners feel? Is this a local problem (we
work in Italy) or a more generalized one?
And I would really appreciate someone taking a stab at this. And is it
perceived that the future will present a broader adoption of SD than has
shown itself in the past? And what are the foundations of this answer,
whether its yes or no? Is there a model in this also?
Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com
Augusto asked:
Why - if true - System Dynamics, in nearly four decades, did not exploit
(both in universities and in business) all the enormous potential that
many acknowledge and we practitioners feel? Is this a local problem (we
work in Italy) or a more generalized one?
And I would really appreciate someone taking a stab at this. And is it
perceived that the future will present a broader adoption of SD than has
shown itself in the past? And what are the foundations of this answer,
whether its yes or no? Is there a model in this also?
Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com
-
CrbnBlu@aol.com
- Senior Member
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
irt: gallaher@teleport.com (Ed Gallaher), Thu, May 2, 1996 3:46 PM EST
Augusto Carena asks:
>
>Why - if true - System Dynamics, in nearly four decades, did not exploit
>(both in universities and in business) all the enormous potential that
>many acknowledge and we practitioners feel? Is this a local problem (we
>work in Italy) or a more generalized one?
And Ed replied:
>I feel that this question is not only relevant, I think it is THE question!
And I would comment:
Is this "the Question" or "the Implication" of other questions not asked?
The second time around this question created all kinds of connections.
Numerous companies attempted to crack the Home PC market for years and failed
miserably. They failed miserably because they were trying to sell PCs rather
than find a need and respond to it with the PC as the answer. Have we
attempted "to Sell" System Dyanmics rather than sell solutions to specific
problems, with System Dyanmics as the vehicle? Are we selling drill bits as
opposed to educating the customer that we have a nifty way to make the holes
they want?
Would it not make much more sense to find people with nagging problems and
then develop their understanding of a technique for understanding and dealing
with the problem. In this fashion they would find immediate value in the
technique as opposed to being taught techinques and then running off to find
a problem to apply it to.
I have been involved in some of this recently in the areas of Organizational
Design and Team Development, and we have just started referring to what were
doing as "Just In Time Learning." People seem to immediately take to the
techniques we offer as they immediately see their applicability in terms of
dealing with the dilemmas they are currently facing.
The whole crux of the situation is "perceived meaningfulness!"
Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com
Augusto Carena asks:
>
>Why - if true - System Dynamics, in nearly four decades, did not exploit
>(both in universities and in business) all the enormous potential that
>many acknowledge and we practitioners feel? Is this a local problem (we
>work in Italy) or a more generalized one?
And Ed replied:
>I feel that this question is not only relevant, I think it is THE question!
And I would comment:
Is this "the Question" or "the Implication" of other questions not asked?
The second time around this question created all kinds of connections.
Numerous companies attempted to crack the Home PC market for years and failed
miserably. They failed miserably because they were trying to sell PCs rather
than find a need and respond to it with the PC as the answer. Have we
attempted "to Sell" System Dyanmics rather than sell solutions to specific
problems, with System Dyanmics as the vehicle? Are we selling drill bits as
opposed to educating the customer that we have a nifty way to make the holes
they want?
Would it not make much more sense to find people with nagging problems and
then develop their understanding of a technique for understanding and dealing
with the problem. In this fashion they would find immediate value in the
technique as opposed to being taught techinques and then running off to find
a problem to apply it to.
I have been involved in some of this recently in the areas of Organizational
Design and Team Development, and we have just started referring to what were
doing as "Just In Time Learning." People seem to immediately take to the
techniques we offer as they immediately see their applicability in terms of
dealing with the dilemmas they are currently facing.
The whole crux of the situation is "perceived meaningfulness!"
Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com
-
CrbnBlu@aol.com
- Senior Member
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
irt: rgill@metz.une.edu.au (Roderic Gill), Fri, May 3, 1996 5:46 AM EST
I almost didnt respond to this message and then after the thought cooked a
bit I really began to appreciate Roderics cynicism, a few synapses fired and
heres what emerged.
Isnt one of the first principles of systems, "Dont fight the system. Change
the rules and the system will change itself." This connected with a book by
Edward de Bono titled "Sur-Petition," which puts forward the idea that the
really successful dont compete, at least not on the same plane with everyone
else, they redefine the rules of the game and let everyone else eat their
dust. Which also connects with what Netscape is doing in the world of Web
browsers. Theyre recreating the rules so fast that all the would be
competition is fighting over the 10% of the market Netscape doesnt already
own. And it also connects with Larry Wilsons, "Changing the Name of the
Game, The New Way to Sell." And whole buch of other connections happened that
I wont bore you with.
The thought that finally emerged is that maybe were going about this all
wrong. Wheres the real leverage point? Rather than fighting the ingrained
system and trying to change it, maybe we could just scare the hell out of it.
Great change often happens when an organism faces life threatening
situations. It happens in people, in business organization, and in non-profit
organizations. Osbornes Reinventing Government was full of marvelous
examples of system change when entities felt their existence was threatened.
So what am I alluding to?
Maybe we should establish the University of Systems on the Net (US Net), and
any other combination of University, Systems and Net would work just as well,
this is just the one that came out first. This would be a university in which
all courses were designed from a systems perspective and offered via the Net.
I have a feeling there is more than sufficient talent, frustrated with their
current environment, poised just waiting for an opportunity to do this. I
feel there are some real nifty characteristics to this distributed virtual
learning entity.
Anybody familiar with what it takes to get a curriculum accredited? Anyone
interested in discussing this further? And, who do we apply to for a grant to
fund this effort? An existing uinversity is probably a ludicrous thought.
Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com
I almost didnt respond to this message and then after the thought cooked a
bit I really began to appreciate Roderics cynicism, a few synapses fired and
heres what emerged.
Isnt one of the first principles of systems, "Dont fight the system. Change
the rules and the system will change itself." This connected with a book by
Edward de Bono titled "Sur-Petition," which puts forward the idea that the
really successful dont compete, at least not on the same plane with everyone
else, they redefine the rules of the game and let everyone else eat their
dust. Which also connects with what Netscape is doing in the world of Web
browsers. Theyre recreating the rules so fast that all the would be
competition is fighting over the 10% of the market Netscape doesnt already
own. And it also connects with Larry Wilsons, "Changing the Name of the
Game, The New Way to Sell." And whole buch of other connections happened that
I wont bore you with.
The thought that finally emerged is that maybe were going about this all
wrong. Wheres the real leverage point? Rather than fighting the ingrained
system and trying to change it, maybe we could just scare the hell out of it.
Great change often happens when an organism faces life threatening
situations. It happens in people, in business organization, and in non-profit
organizations. Osbornes Reinventing Government was full of marvelous
examples of system change when entities felt their existence was threatened.
So what am I alluding to?
Maybe we should establish the University of Systems on the Net (US Net), and
any other combination of University, Systems and Net would work just as well,
this is just the one that came out first. This would be a university in which
all courses were designed from a systems perspective and offered via the Net.
I have a feeling there is more than sufficient talent, frustrated with their
current environment, poised just waiting for an opportunity to do this. I
feel there are some real nifty characteristics to this distributed virtual
learning entity.
Anybody familiar with what it takes to get a curriculum accredited? Anyone
interested in discussing this further? And, who do we apply to for a grant to
fund this effort? An existing uinversity is probably a ludicrous thought.
Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com
-
gallaher@teleport.com (Ed Gallah
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
>Gene Bellinger; CrbnBlu@aol.com said:
>Would it not make much more sense to find people with nagging problems and
>then develop their understanding of a technique for understanding and dealing
>with the problem. In this fashion they would find immediate value in the
>technique as opposed to being taught techinques and then running off to find
>a problem to apply it to.
"Just In Time Learning."
I like it!
>The whole crux of the situation is "perceived meaningfulness!"
Gene is absolutely right; people are much less likely to buy drill bits, or
even think about them, if they dont even realize they need a hole, much
less a drill bit. So it is not realistic to lay out toolkit for a task
that is not yet perceived, and expect people to use the tools to create a
figment of -our- imagination.
So we need to produce more examples of solutions to their recognized
problems, and lay the technique in their laps.
However, we still have a problem, in that many will say "Thanks for the
hole; I was never any good in wood shop. Now I can hang that picture on the
wall", and they STILL wont understand what a drill bit is!
Next month they will be scratching their head and saying, "Boy, if I had
six round holes in the frame of my car, I could put this trailer hitch on
..... " So someone drills the holes for them and they say, "Thanks, I
dont know anything about cars!...." They STILL dont what a drill
bit can do for them!
Biological example:
1. I converted an excellent diff eq diabetes model (in the literature) to
SD (unpublished). It models the translocation of glucose transporters
(GLUT) from the cytoplasm, where it is inactive, to and from the cell
surface, where it serves to move glucose into the cell.
This process is influenced strongly by insulin, which greatly increases the
rate of cytoplasm -> surface. In the absence of insulin GLUT migrates back
into the cytoplasm.
2. Diabetes researchers read diabetes journals. Almost no one else does.
3. This "archetype" model is widely applicable to other cell systems.
Neurotransmitter receptors migrate like this as well. But neuroscientists
dont read diabetes journals. (Carpenters dont read car repair
journals....)
So we clearly need to do both.
(A) Solve specific problems -using- SD, and
(B) Try to get the audience to listen to a discussion on generic thinking
so they will consider using the tool for a related, but somewhat different
task in the future.
ed gallaher
gallaher@teleport.com
>Would it not make much more sense to find people with nagging problems and
>then develop their understanding of a technique for understanding and dealing
>with the problem. In this fashion they would find immediate value in the
>technique as opposed to being taught techinques and then running off to find
>a problem to apply it to.
"Just In Time Learning."
I like it!
>The whole crux of the situation is "perceived meaningfulness!"
Gene is absolutely right; people are much less likely to buy drill bits, or
even think about them, if they dont even realize they need a hole, much
less a drill bit. So it is not realistic to lay out toolkit for a task
that is not yet perceived, and expect people to use the tools to create a
figment of -our- imagination.
So we need to produce more examples of solutions to their recognized
problems, and lay the technique in their laps.
However, we still have a problem, in that many will say "Thanks for the
hole; I was never any good in wood shop. Now I can hang that picture on the
wall", and they STILL wont understand what a drill bit is!
Next month they will be scratching their head and saying, "Boy, if I had
six round holes in the frame of my car, I could put this trailer hitch on
..... " So someone drills the holes for them and they say, "Thanks, I
dont know anything about cars!...." They STILL dont what a drill
bit can do for them!
Biological example:
1. I converted an excellent diff eq diabetes model (in the literature) to
SD (unpublished). It models the translocation of glucose transporters
(GLUT) from the cytoplasm, where it is inactive, to and from the cell
surface, where it serves to move glucose into the cell.
This process is influenced strongly by insulin, which greatly increases the
rate of cytoplasm -> surface. In the absence of insulin GLUT migrates back
into the cytoplasm.
2. Diabetes researchers read diabetes journals. Almost no one else does.
3. This "archetype" model is widely applicable to other cell systems.
Neurotransmitter receptors migrate like this as well. But neuroscientists
dont read diabetes journals. (Carpenters dont read car repair
journals....)
So we clearly need to do both.
(A) Solve specific problems -using- SD, and
(B) Try to get the audience to listen to a discussion on generic thinking
so they will consider using the tool for a related, but somewhat different
task in the future.
ed gallaher
gallaher@teleport.com
-
gallaher@teleport.com (Ed Gallah
- Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
Re SD success, why not more over?
Dr Roderic A. Gill writes:
>students may have liked it ...academic colleagues considered
>my activities to be something akin to a mix of heresy and witchcraft
>But I am a cynic.
Is one paranoid when someone -really is- out to get you?
>....And a mindset is the hardest thing in the world to shift, especially when
>it is culturally embedded. Just ask any institutional economist.
Exactly (and I mean EXACTLY) what I am seeing in biomedical research in the U.S.
If one has a grant (i.e. is bringing $$ into the university), then the work
one is doing is respected.
If one does not have a grant, then the work is a hobby, or a diversion
or worse.
But one cant get a grant, because the rigorous academic peer reviewers
do not accept modeling.
Well get there eventually, but only if we keep doing it and telling people
about it. But this does not do a whole lot for ones career track.
(Entrepreneurs are all nuts, until -after- they succeed, after which they
are acclaimed for their imagination and foresight.......)
ed gallaher
gallaher@teleport.com
Dr Roderic A. Gill writes:
>students may have liked it ...academic colleagues considered
>my activities to be something akin to a mix of heresy and witchcraft
>But I am a cynic.
Is one paranoid when someone -really is- out to get you?
>....And a mindset is the hardest thing in the world to shift, especially when
>it is culturally embedded. Just ask any institutional economist.
Exactly (and I mean EXACTLY) what I am seeing in biomedical research in the U.S.
If one has a grant (i.e. is bringing $$ into the university), then the work
one is doing is respected.
If one does not have a grant, then the work is a hobby, or a diversion
or worse.
But one cant get a grant, because the rigorous academic peer reviewers
do not accept modeling.
Well get there eventually, but only if we keep doing it and telling people
about it. But this does not do a whole lot for ones career track.
(Entrepreneurs are all nuts, until -after- they succeed, after which they
are acclaimed for their imagination and foresight.......)
ed gallaher
gallaher@teleport.com
-
jsterman@MIT.EDU (John Sterman)
- Senior Member
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
Jim Hines is right on the mark regarding the growth rate of the field of
system dynamics. It is useful to distinguish between the growth of
demand and the growth of the capacity of skilled modelers. Demand can
grow very fast, through word of mouth - and word of email,
publications, conferences, etc. However, the growth of capacity of
skilled modelers is limited by the number of skilled modelers itself -
experienced modelers train students, either in the classroom or via
apprenticeships in other organizations. Some of these students go on to
become skilled modelers themselves, and then can train still more
people. The time required to become skilled may be debated, but I
suggest it is several years at least (probably on the order of 5). The
number of apprentices (such as phd students or associates in a
consulting firm) each skilled modeler can mentor with sufficient
attention and care is small (on the order of 10. However, in practice
the effective number is lower since most experienced people are not
teachers. Lets say the mean teacher fraction is 10%). Thus the maximum
growth rate of capacity is 10 apprentices/skilled modeler* .10 teacher
fraction /5 years = .20 /year. Now subtract the fractional attrition
rate of skilled modelers (many of the best get promoted in their
organizations to levels where they no longer actively do formal modeling
or training; some leave the field; some are getting old enough to
retire). Lets say the average tenure in the field as an active
practitioner is 15 years. Then the net growth rate of capacity is .20 -
1/15 = .13. This 13% growth rate, through clearly an approximation, is
on the order of the observed growth rate of the field.
i believe we should work hard to increase the gain of the positive loop
by which capacity grows, so long as we do not do it by lowering
standards. In the meantime, however, we should be worried if the growth
rate of demand exceeds the growth of capacity. Such a condition cannot
continue for very long, as the growing number of people seeking SD help
and expertise grow frustrated by inadequate access to skilled people and
resources; as the excess demand causes inexperienced people to enter the
field and take on projects for which they are insufficiently qualified
and have insufficient support, leading to low quality work which then
feeds back to reduce demand, and so on. This dynamic is one of the
fundamental generic structures long unerstood in system dynamics, and
perhaps best illustrated in Forresters "market growth model" (the model
in his article "Market Growth as Influenced by Capital Investment". It
is also the model behind the rise and fall of People Express Airlines.
John Sterman
jsterman@mit.edu
system dynamics. It is useful to distinguish between the growth of
demand and the growth of the capacity of skilled modelers. Demand can
grow very fast, through word of mouth - and word of email,
publications, conferences, etc. However, the growth of capacity of
skilled modelers is limited by the number of skilled modelers itself -
experienced modelers train students, either in the classroom or via
apprenticeships in other organizations. Some of these students go on to
become skilled modelers themselves, and then can train still more
people. The time required to become skilled may be debated, but I
suggest it is several years at least (probably on the order of 5). The
number of apprentices (such as phd students or associates in a
consulting firm) each skilled modeler can mentor with sufficient
attention and care is small (on the order of 10. However, in practice
the effective number is lower since most experienced people are not
teachers. Lets say the mean teacher fraction is 10%). Thus the maximum
growth rate of capacity is 10 apprentices/skilled modeler* .10 teacher
fraction /5 years = .20 /year. Now subtract the fractional attrition
rate of skilled modelers (many of the best get promoted in their
organizations to levels where they no longer actively do formal modeling
or training; some leave the field; some are getting old enough to
retire). Lets say the average tenure in the field as an active
practitioner is 15 years. Then the net growth rate of capacity is .20 -
1/15 = .13. This 13% growth rate, through clearly an approximation, is
on the order of the observed growth rate of the field.
i believe we should work hard to increase the gain of the positive loop
by which capacity grows, so long as we do not do it by lowering
standards. In the meantime, however, we should be worried if the growth
rate of demand exceeds the growth of capacity. Such a condition cannot
continue for very long, as the growing number of people seeking SD help
and expertise grow frustrated by inadequate access to skilled people and
resources; as the excess demand causes inexperienced people to enter the
field and take on projects for which they are insufficiently qualified
and have insufficient support, leading to low quality work which then
feeds back to reduce demand, and so on. This dynamic is one of the
fundamental generic structures long unerstood in system dynamics, and
perhaps best illustrated in Forresters "market growth model" (the model
in his article "Market Growth as Influenced by Capital Investment". It
is also the model behind the rise and fall of People Express Airlines.
John Sterman
jsterman@mit.edu
-
CrbnBlu@aol.com
- Senior Member
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
irt: Scholl_Greg@bah.com (Scholl Greg), Fri, May 3, 1996 5:24 PM EST
Greg commented:
>The solution to the challenges that the field faces is not to put our heads
>in the sand or pretend they dont exist....
I would say what we need is what I repeatedly relay to people as being "The
Southwest Air Mindset." As I understand it Southwest Air decided that on the
ground turnaround of planes was a critical success factor in their business
so they benchmarked their operation against their competition. The result of
the benchmark indicated Southwest Air already had the best turn around time
in the airline industry...to which Southwest Air said, "Being the best isnt
good enough!" So they decided to find someone else to benchmark against, and
I understand they finally benchmaked against an Indy 500 pit crew...
Sounds like a great mindset to learn from...
Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com
Greg commented:
>The solution to the challenges that the field faces is not to put our heads
>in the sand or pretend they dont exist....
I would say what we need is what I repeatedly relay to people as being "The
Southwest Air Mindset." As I understand it Southwest Air decided that on the
ground turnaround of planes was a critical success factor in their business
so they benchmarked their operation against their competition. The result of
the benchmark indicated Southwest Air already had the best turn around time
in the airline industry...to which Southwest Air said, "Being the best isnt
good enough!" So they decided to find someone else to benchmark against, and
I understand they finally benchmaked against an Indy 500 pit crew...
Sounds like a great mindset to learn from...
Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com
-
CrbnBlu@aol.com
- Senior Member
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
SD success?
irt: gallaher@teleport.com (Ed Gallaher), Fri, May 3, 1996 5:32 PM EST
Ed commented:
So we need to produce more examples of solutions to their recognized
problems, and lay the technique in their laps.
Which made a couple more connections:
Does this aid or hinder the situation? I endeavor not to solve people
problems for them. Only through solving their own problems will they learn
anything. By solving their problems I work toward making them dependent on
me, which althought it may make me feel good, it is absolutely the wrong
thing to do from a leverage perspective.
The oldest example I know is, "Dont give people fish. Teach them how to
fish."
Which is both correct and incorrect for "teaching" is my action and what I am
most intersted in is "learning" which is the participants action. How many
examples immediately come to mind of "teaching without learning?" I am not
interested in "teaching." I am interested in promoting "learing."
As for when people "get it!" Heres a personal example I strive never to
forget.
It was probably somewhere in hight school that I was first introduced to the
concept of synergy. And the example that was most often used was that of a
person begin more than the sum of their parts. And over the years there I
must have experienced thousands of examples of synergy. Yet, one day about 3
years ago while reading Mark Davidsons "Uncommon Sense: The Life and Tought
of Ludwig von Bertalanffy" I came across comments about emergence and the
idea that when hydrogen and oxygen are combined in the molecular form there
is an emergent characteristic called wetness. After countless examples of
synergy and emergence it was this very simply example that caused the flash
bulb to go off and so many bits and pieces immediately formed themselves into
a coherent whole. Ive been on a trip ever since (and the drug is insight).
What I learned from this was that there is no well defined formula for
creating insight. It happens when it happens. The best one can do is approch
things countless directions with endless examples and when it clicks, it
clicks.
And, before I end, heres another one. I must have putzed around with the
reinforcing Archetype for 5 years before it dawned on me that the emergent
characteristic of the reinforcing Archetype is "growth" or "decline." I know,
you read this and you say, "Well thats obvious." To you it may be obvious,
yet the number of implications I perceived is not so obvious, and Im still
finding them.
Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com
Ed commented:
So we need to produce more examples of solutions to their recognized
problems, and lay the technique in their laps.
Which made a couple more connections:
Does this aid or hinder the situation? I endeavor not to solve people
problems for them. Only through solving their own problems will they learn
anything. By solving their problems I work toward making them dependent on
me, which althought it may make me feel good, it is absolutely the wrong
thing to do from a leverage perspective.
The oldest example I know is, "Dont give people fish. Teach them how to
fish."
Which is both correct and incorrect for "teaching" is my action and what I am
most intersted in is "learning" which is the participants action. How many
examples immediately come to mind of "teaching without learning?" I am not
interested in "teaching." I am interested in promoting "learing."
As for when people "get it!" Heres a personal example I strive never to
forget.
It was probably somewhere in hight school that I was first introduced to the
concept of synergy. And the example that was most often used was that of a
person begin more than the sum of their parts. And over the years there I
must have experienced thousands of examples of synergy. Yet, one day about 3
years ago while reading Mark Davidsons "Uncommon Sense: The Life and Tought
of Ludwig von Bertalanffy" I came across comments about emergence and the
idea that when hydrogen and oxygen are combined in the molecular form there
is an emergent characteristic called wetness. After countless examples of
synergy and emergence it was this very simply example that caused the flash
bulb to go off and so many bits and pieces immediately formed themselves into
a coherent whole. Ive been on a trip ever since (and the drug is insight).
What I learned from this was that there is no well defined formula for
creating insight. It happens when it happens. The best one can do is approch
things countless directions with endless examples and when it clicks, it
clicks.
And, before I end, heres another one. I must have putzed around with the
reinforcing Archetype for 5 years before it dawned on me that the emergent
characteristic of the reinforcing Archetype is "growth" or "decline." I know,
you read this and you say, "Well thats obvious." To you it may be obvious,
yet the number of implications I perceived is not so obvious, and Im still
finding them.
Gene Bellinger
CrbnBlu@aol.com