QUERY Forming a System Dynamics Institute

[""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategyd]

Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>

In his Keynote address at the Society conference, Professor Forrester made a persuasive argument that the progress of SD's influence might be accelerated if it were not hampered by its status in relation to most Universities' established departments [the establishment of Engineering schools over a century ago may indicate a precedent]. It seems unlikely that this situation will change any time soon, so a search for an alternative might be fruitful. [I hope I have not mis-stated Jay's point here].

Other fields/methods appear to have broken this constraint by the creation of dedicated Institutes. A couple of examples ..
1. The 'Balanced Scorecard' has achieved extensive uptake amongst mid- to larg-size corporations in just a decade. Whilst its books and articles have undoubtedly been helpful, it is also supported by The Balanced Scorecard Institute [see www.balancedscorecard.org ] which offers an extensive range of resources, plus frequent training at different levels - it also offers consulting services, though it is not clear how central this is to its success. It has also spawned a vast number of look-alike services from a diverse array of organizations, from small consulting and training firms up to large institutions.
Exactly how influential the BSC Institute itself has been is not clear, but without its creation the method might have languished as a fringe activity within management school accounting departments.
2. The Chartered Financial Analyst Institute ""is a non-profit organization that aims to lead the investment profession by setting standards for education, integrity and professional excellence"" [see www.cfainstitute.org ]. It administers a curriculum and exams supporting an accreditation program, and over the last decade its membership has I believe grown exponentially to a scale of many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands worldwide. CFAI too has spawned a large number of related educational services from other organisations.
The activities of these two bodies seem to mirror those of many professional institutes outside the management field, such as in engineering or architecture, and Institutes of course play a major role in many other management disciplines, e.g. Marketing and Human Resources. That role seems to include
- a dedicated focal point for a profession
- the definitive reference for standards and qualifications in the field
- a source of professional [vs.academic] materials
- a mouthpiece for the profession's PR
- a focal location for accessing leading professionals . and probably others.
System Dynamics may raise a few unique issues. First, the method is widely applicable across many fields, rather than being purely business focused [BSC] or investment focused [CFA]. Other rapidly successful concept-initiatives also feature a quite narrow focus, e.g. six sigma and value-based management [I don't know about institutes outside the business arena]. An SD-Institute would somehow have to straddle general education and standards both in the approach and in a diverse range of application areas.
Secondly, SD poses very demanding intellectual challenges in attaining high level professional achievement to which only a small minority could ever aspire, perhaps exemplifed by the PhDs from MIT, Bergen, Mannheim etc.. Building a much larger and stronger professional community than exists today may require a more graduated scale, perhaps akin to the 'belt' system in six sigma.
I don't know much about exactly how such institutes function, or what would be required to create a System Dynamics Institute - probably quite some cash, plus the commitment of key professionals and consulting firms in the field - but it seems an option worth considering for 'the next 50 years'. SD is too important and its contribution too valuable to wait that long to multiply its influence.


Kim Warren
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com> posting date Mon, 3 Sep 2007 10:29:15 +0100 _______________________________________________

[Carl Betterton <carlb@uga.edu]

Posted by Carl Betterton <carlb@uga.edu>

To further Kim Warren's comments about forming a System Dynamics Institute let me give as an example an organization that represents the project manager (PM). It is the Project Management Institute, hereafter referred to as PMI. I have watched the PMI grow to almost a quarter of a million members now in more than 160 countries. Let me be quick to add that PMI is not the only organization that represents project management, but it is a very significant one. As a PMI member I admire the fact that the organization has established some standards for project managers. PMI has created member certification and credentialing programs, formed an educational foundation that champions project management educational issues, published a PM Body of Knowledge, provides a host of seminars and other events, has a ""virtual library"" of PM knowledge, sponsors and distributes research on PM through its research department, and undertakes many other activities. PMI has local chapters, SIGs, and subgroups on areas of member interest like performance management or scheduling.

PMI actively promotes project management as a career field ... ooops, now you're thinking, ""That's the big problem Carl, System Dynamics is not a career field like Project Management, relatively few jobs are titled 'system dynamics specialist' or similar but there are thousands upon thousands of PM jobs.""

And you are right. System Dynamics needs to claim a career field, and because of the nature of SD that career field ought to be related to the overall organization, as in Strategic Management or Strategy Development.
Anyone who has made even a cursory study of project management knows that PM can be applied to everyday life as in planning and carrying out a birthday party or a two week vacation. This is not rocket science, only basic management applied to a ""project."" We're talking planning, scheduling, leading, and exercise of control for example. But project management is also useful in planning a trip to the moon, and that is rocket science. My point is that PM covers a wide spectrum. You can have a ""project"" in software development, highway construction, or new product introduction. In a way PM has no specific ""home"" but is everywhere, often in the form of a matrix organization or a temporary organization. System Dynamics also has no specific ""home"" within an organization but applies to every part. So a natural place for SD is as an extension of the top leadership, in the form of ongoing strategic evaluation for the organization.

So why not as a start at least, make strategy and strategic thinking the central organizing focus of a System Dynamics Institute. A by-line related to strategy could be added to the institute name, as in (just one example):
--System Dynamics Institute - Strategy In Motion--

This just seems so natural to me I guess because of my background (prior to academia). Some may argue that a strategy focus for SD leaves out too many significant and interesting problems or opportunities. It seems to me that strands like ""Why don't organizations function better,"" ""Getting a Good Problem Statement,"" ""Impact on National Government policies,"" and even ""Climate Change"" have a place at the strategy table for business, non-profit, government, and other organizations. Within academia SD might be dispersed much as project management has been (becoming less so due to PMI efforts) but it could well have legs in Strategic/Operations Management faculty of business schools and I can see it as an interdisciplinary study area for both faculty and students. Just look on our web home page and you read, ""System dynamics ... models to confirm that the structure hypothesized can lead to the observed behavior and to test the effects of alternative policies on key variables over time."" Sure sounds valuable for strategy to my ears.

Of course my comparison of System Dynamics to Project Management is very imperfect, but is intended to get us thinking. Why not develop and publish a ""Body of Knowledge"" about System Dynamics. Perhaps publish a Dictionary of System Dynamics Terms. Let's commission a few ""white papers"" on what SD has to offer (in strategy and other areas) and place them on the web for public consumption. How about credentials for a System Dynamics professional?
How about revising the purpose of the society to include problem solving?
Currently we say: ""The /System Dynamics Society/ is an international,
nonprofit organization *_devoted to encouraging the development and use of systems thinking and system dynamics_* around the world. With members in fifty-five countries, the Society *_provides a forum_* in which researchers, educators, consultants, and practitioners in the corporate and public sectors interact to introduce newcomers to the field, keep abreast of current developments, and build on each other's work"" (emphasis added). Encourage development of ST and SD to what end? Provide a forum to what end? How about _explicitly_ for solving some serious business, governmental, social, or other problems! How about applying System Dynamics in a sustained way to bring drinking water and basic sanitation to millions who need it for example?

By the way, some readers may notice that in responding to Kim's thread I am also in part (as a side effect) responding to Richard Stevenson and Bob Eberlein in ""How to promote good work"" (SD6555). I liked Bob's comments and agreed with them, but also greatly enjoyed Richard's post. The reason may be that I don't take his comments too seriously in that (if I am correct) his remarks are purposely exaggerated for the positive purpose of provocation.
The man wants some action and response! I like it when people complain because they can be recruited to help implement change. Richard says the Beer Game is ""old"" - well, it is new to every student in my classes exposed to it! Hammers are old tools but they are indispensable ones. One thing I do agree with Richard on is that our web site needs a complete makeover. It was great when it was first established but the expectations of web design interface have changed quite a lot in just a short time. Let's admit it, our web site regardless of the content has an amateur look. Our web site does not do a good job of representing us as members. It should be polished and professional.
A new web site can be part of the new System Dynamics Institute that Kim suggests. I suggest that we look beyond Richard's inflammatory rhetoric to see the grain of truth that is there. Sure we may think some of the comments inappropriate or even absurd, but my guess is such comments are caused by frustration at seeing the tremendous potential of our society being unfulfilled in a world that very much needs it. We have an excellent foundation thanks to the tireless and professional efforts of so many. Is it now time to re-energize and redirect our efforts, to build anew on that sound foundation, looking as Jay might say, at the next 50 years?

With an apology for the lengthy post, and kind regards to all.

Carl

Carl E. Betterton, Ph.D., P.E.
Assistant Professor
School of Business Administration
The Citadel
Charleston, SC 29409
Posted by Carl Betterton <carlb@uga.edu> posting date Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:19:35 -0400 _______________________________________________

[Richard Stevenson <rstevenson]

Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com>

I applaud Kim Warren's suggestions. Particularly valuable coming from an acknowledged thought leader in our field and in the SDS. I think that was necessary.

Kim said:

> I don't know much about exactly how such institutes function, or what
> would be required to create a System Dynamics Institute - probably
> quite some cash, plus the commitment of key professionals and
> consulting firms in the field - but it seems an option worth
> considering for 'the next 50 years'. SD is too important and its
> contribution too valuable to wait that long to multiply its influence.


I would suggest that the time is right to consider seriously the establishment of a new Institute to take SD forward.

Clearly such a body (say the SDI) would need to relate to the existing SDS but it should have a completely different constitution, with similar objectives to the two bodies described by Kim (BSC and CFAI). It should be a ""not for profit"" organisation in itself, but properly funded and professionally managed.

Kim lists the following elements of the role:

> - a dedicated focal point for a profession
> - the definitive reference for standards and qualifications in the
> field
> - a source of professional [vs.academic] materials
> - a mouthpiece for the profession's PR
> - a focal location for accessing leading professionals


.. to which I would add:

- a professionally moderated forum for serious debate about the field
- an online place where practitioners can interact in real time - without moderation
- the sole body for ""accreditation"" of SD professionals

In respect of the latter, Kim raises the extremely good point that

> SD poses very demanding intellectual challenges in attaining high
> level professional achievement to which only a small minority could
> ever aspire, perhaps exemplifed by the PhDs from MIT, Bergen, Mannheim
> etc.. Building a much larger and stronger professional community than
> exists today may require a more graduated scale, perhaps akin to the
> 'belt' system in six sigma.


About a decade ago, Cognitus created just such a formal graduated scale, for our own internal purposes. We graded practitioners on a competence scale of

- Novice
- Advanced Beginner
- Competent
- Proficient
- Expert

Naturally all such 'grading"" is potentially subjective and even contentious, so we also developed a detailed list of required competencies and achievements to attain each level - and an SD model of different routes that practitioners might follow up the grades through training and project work.

We have never published this work - and I'm sure it needs updating and developing to professional standards. But - as I have been accused of being purely negative - I will happily make the competence framework available, as a ""first cut"" at a graduated scale.

Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by Richard Stevenson <rstevenson@valculus.com> posting date Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:34:35 +0100 _______________________________________________

[Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci]

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

""SDMAIL Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com> writes:
>> In his Keynote address at the Society conference, Professor Forrester
>> made a persuasive argument that the progress of SD's influence might
>> be accelerated if it were not hampered by its status in relation to
>> most Universities' established departments [the establishment of
>> Engineering schools over a century ago may indicate a precedent]. It
>> seems unlikely that this situation will change any time soon, so a
>> search for an alternative might be fruitful. [I hope I have not
>> mis-stated Jay's point here].


Kim,

Allow me to express a different view, if you will. I see much in current business that seems to be an acceleration of the building of intellectual silos: Six Sigma, BSC, etc. (I only name those two because you did; I suspect we can all find others). That acceleration seems part of a boom phenomenon, driven perhaps somewhat by increased specialization amongst people dealing from the mentality (policy) of ""growth is good"" or ""you grow or you die."" I think we all know what can happen in things that (try to) grow forever.

Six Sigma is an interesting case, if only because I read an interesting article in Fortune about it last summer (http://www.facilitatedsystems.com/weblo ... hange.html).
In particular, that article suggests that companies which have adopted Six Sigma have fared less well than those which have not. Building SD up into a mainstream approach at the top of the hill risks putting SD in that position and risks studies showing that organizations which apply SD do less well than those which don't.

With all due respect to all that Jay and many others here (and
elsewhere) have accomplished, SD is ""simply"" feedback control theory.
Admittedly, we have to deal with strongly nonlinear phenomena, while many of our engineering colleagues can get away with linearizing their models or their systems. Admittedly, we've established some skill in creating practical models from rather complex situations and using them to make important and impressive changes (as well as processes to do that repeatably). Still, it's control theory -- the stuff that Black, Nyquist, Nichols, and others worked on in the first half of the last century, except with little of the analytical side they developed thanks to their focus on linear systems.

Lest you think I'm picking on SD, I see Six Sigma as largely Deming's
work of simple statistics with a dose of OD and other ideas mixed in.
I see BSC as a good idea to put potentially useful measures in front
of managers on a regular basis. I think both may have suffered from
what Fred Kofman has described as an ontological inversion: making the
concept (Six Sigma, BSC, etc., and their certifications) more
important than the issue (skillfully improving processes, working well
with people, managing an organization). That way, I think, lies
danger, as it does with most (all?) reification efforts.

If we keep adding new disciplines (and I think we will, absent some major transition), then, if we don't figure out how to incorporate SD into our thinking processes (along with all the rest), we run the risk of fewer and fewer getting better and better at something no one eventually cares about. When I was a practicing engineer, I wasn't a control systems designer (even though there are such things); I was an analog circuit designer, a digital circuit designer, a feedback engineer, a test and measurement engineer, .... Many of the things I did wouldn't have been possible if I had only been one of those.

If we're to improve the quality of thinking, discourse, and progress against some tough problems society faces, I posit that we need thinkers who can blend together multiple approaches as needed to address the problems at hand. Yes, we'll need people with deep expertise in control theory (SD) for certain problems, we'll need a broader range of those with reasonable expertise in SD and other fields for a broader range of problems, and we'll need a still broader range of those with some appreciation for what we're doing but who lack the skill to do it. But what we need fundamentally is critical thinkers with a broad array of tools in our toolboxes, not critical thinkers each armed with one 10mm spanner. (One challenge is that it is indeed more challenging to apply SD than to apply a number of other tools.)

If I thought that we were in danger of losing the recipe for learning how to do technically expert SD, I might agree that a special institute could help. As it is, I don't see that, and I think that we'll have more of an impact if we focus more on making problems go away and less on making SD grow big. I do think it's appropriate to have people doing research in and getting PhDs in SD; I think it's just important not to make SD more important than it is.

I realize I may have glossed over important issues, and I welcome dialog in developing a deeper understanding of these ideas that Kim has shared and I have commented on. In particular, Kim, I'm not stating that you're wrong, but I am saying that I have a view that seems to differ.

Thoughts?

Bill
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:23:43 -0700 _______________________________________________

[Scott Rockart <srockart@duke.]

Posted by Scott Rockart <srockart@duke.edu>

The idea of a multi-level accreditation system in SD (administered by the society or some other group) sounds right to me. Specifically, I believe:

1) We could agree on a body of testable knowledge that would make up the
basic levels for such a system (e.g., notational accuracy in various
kinds of system diagrams, ability to recognize the possible behaviors
of various simple systems, knowledge of basic formulations, the ability
to identify basic modeling errors) as well as more advanced levels (e.g.,
the ability to integrate data and models) and even some sub-specialties
(e.g., knowledge of prior academic research, data, trends, and published
practitioner work on specific topics).
2) We could create objective examination materials relatively quickly for
the basic levels using existing materials and perhaps with leadership
from those currently offering distance learning materials.
3) We could fund the exams and oversight with test fees and sales of
preparation materials.
4) All of us would benefit from this as it would: help us identify holes in
our own knowledge: improve the quality of discourse and work in SD and
various subfields; act as a resource that encourages and improves
university and private programs; provide a way for more people to make
independent progress in the field.
5) Such an exam ought to start out with the SD Society: It is the largest
body in the field; it holds a well-attended annual meeting where more
advanced exams could be given; it has subgroups that could develop
specialized/field exams; and it has the big advantage of already existing.
We could begin testing the idea with a voluntary (fun and evaluative)
online exam called ""Do you know SD?""

Of course, I've glossed over the many concerns about standardized tests and institutional demands of developing and supporting such a system. What do others think? Is this feasible and advisable? Why have past suggestions that we do such a thing not led to fruition? Is anyone currently offering such a system? What are the risks of putting such a system in place. I think those involved in consulting supported training programs (e.g., those with Vensim) and other distance learning (e.g., those at Worcester and those involved in Roadmaps) could give us some great perspectives.

Scott
Posted by Scott Rockart <srockart@duke.edu> posting date Tue, 04 Sep 2007 11:25:43 -0400 _______________________________________________

[""Chawla, Chander"" <Chander.]

Posted by ""Chawla, Chander"" <Chander.Chawla@t-mobile.com>

Can we do something similar to the Santa Fe Institute? Furthermore, the literature I have read on Complex Systems and Complexity suggests ideas similar to what we discuss in the System Dynamics world.

Cordially,

Chander Chawla
Posted by ""Chawla, Chander"" <Chander.Chawla@t-mobile.com> posting date Thu, 6 Sep 2007 10:21:05 -0700 _______________________________________________