Ventana software support forum

Posted by ""Jim Thompson"" <james.thompson@strath.ac.uk>

The threads on Society Strategy Development have included much to do with the
course of system dynamics methodology, which is another matter entirely.

Why does the Society need a strategy? Its policies – its structure – determines
its behaviour and its structure has been robust under all conditions since
inception:

- Learning is the principle that binds the Society.

- Leaders are trusted to serve the members and do not govern.

- The only requirement for Society membership is a desire to learn system
dynamics.

- Interest groups are autonomous except in matters affecting other interest
groups or the Society as a whole.

- The Society and interest groups have one purpose–learning system dynamics.

- The Society never lends its name, finances or endorses an outside enterprise.

- The Society as a whole and the interest groups are self-supporting and decline
outside contributions.

- The Society’s administrative functions support the needs of the Society and the
interest groups.

- The Society has no opinion on outside matters and should never be drawn into
public controversy.

We organise conferences and publish a journal which present interesting material
that is salient to the methodology. We distribute materials sanctioned by the
Society such as the Beer Game and the MIT System Dynamics Group Literature
Collection. In short, we create a world forum for the free exchange of ideas,
judging only the quality of the thinking and its presentability.

What would we change? About the only change I can recommend is a sanctioned body
of literature to supplement the work presented in our Journal. If there were a
review board, similar in form to the Journal reviewers, who would approve select
books, it would help someone unfamiliar with the methodology who desired to learn
more.

These are policy characteristics of other healthy organisations, too. Why would
we change?

Jim Thompson
Posted by ""Jim Thompson"" <james.thompson@strath.ac.uk>
posting date Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:50:51 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by ""Zahed Sheikh"" <zahed.sheikh@gmx.com>

Dear Richard,

I have been reading this thread for a long time and wanted to ask a simple
question. I understand that you advocate the formation of a professional body
that can regulate the use of SD and compile best practices and even provide some
sort of certification. Why can't a group of people like yourself begin putting
such an organization together? This organization should not be viewed as
competing with the SD society. It should define its mission and goals as a
complementary body and it should seek support from all players in the field.
Regarding the strong hold that Forrester and MIT have, my feeling is that they
have not stopped anyone else from trying to get ahead. MIT group is just trying
to do the best they can and like all people they want to maintain their lead.
There is nothing wrong with that. The field is wide open for others to expand and
build. We can't ask MIT to slow down or stop so that we can catch up.

I hope that you manage to put a team of like-minded individuals together and
start the professional body of SD. This can become a great addition to the
existing organizations. If such an organization has merit, it will be successful
and will move the field forward. We don't have to destroy the exiting platforms
in order to create a new one.

Best

Zahed Sheikh

President

Simtegra, LLC.
Posted by ""Zahed Sheikh"" <zahed.sheikh@gmx.com>
posting date Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:12:04 -0400
_______________________________________________

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

I have just received a worrying personal email that gives cause to build
on Bob's comments below.

It comes from one of the many young, expert, committed and highly
enthusiastic members of our community, and says in summary that much of
the recent dialogue about the Society and the people who work hard to
run its activities have been destructive, personally hurtful and grossly
inaccurate. He worries that many of the great young people in the field
will be made to feel depressed and demoralised by this negativity,
poisoning the very well of energy and intellect on which the future
depends. If I can quote one line from this message ... ""If this kind of
stuff can be hurtful to me, who already earned a PhD and found a job in
SD ..., imagine what it does to people who are considering a career in
System Dynamics, sponsoring a conference or paying for a project?""

I would hope by now that everyone with feelings of resentment to throw
around has now got everything off their chests, so could I please ask
for any future contributions regarding the Society's strategy to be
exclusively constructive - and preferably specific and detailed. Believe
it or not, I am reading all this stream and picking out items I can see
that might be helpful. [If I'm wrong on this and there are still folk
out there with horror stories about how their great efforts to take the
field forward have been destroyed, perhaps you could direct them
straight to me, on the promise that I will treat them discreetly and
make what constructive use of them I can.]

Please also bear in mind Bob's comment that the Society is run largely
by volunteers [though supported of course by Roberta and her
hard-working team], and that no-one and no group to my knowledge has a
'policy' of rejecting or obstructing initiatives that would help take
the field forward. There is no 'they' who 'ought' to be doing things -
there is only 'us', and things will only happen if 'we' get on and make
them, and that includes impatient professionals.

Kim
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:25:19 +0100
_______________________________________________