Dear Colleagues:
Ive been lurking on the SD list for well over a year and have found the
discussions to be provocative and often useful. Perhaps I can now make a
contribution regarding Benny Budimans experiences with "senior executives."
Ive learned, often painfully, the following:
1. Try to anticipate what your audiences feedback might be. Consider different
possibilities and prepare for them. Be ready to shift gears quickly.
2. Be alert to potential allies. Be especially alert to the possibility of
making allies out of "strange-bedfellows."
3. Sometimes you find your allies after the analysis and modeling are done and
you work backwards from there. People are much more receptive to a new
perspective on why theyre "right."
4. Translating into somebody elses language is not necessarily "dumbing-down."
Many times, references to SD will be met with blank stares and models will be
viewed as black boxes, but if you know the subject matter well enough, you can
and should translate the model into something the audience relates to. If you
arent sufficiently expert in the subject matter to understand the nuances of
its jargon, then use common metaphors. I use plumbing a lot.
5. Clearly, one should be alert to the needs and capabilities of ones audience.
But what to do when the "answer" is contrary to the audiences beliefs,
expectations, or interests? That is a much more challenging circumstance. If all
you give them is the "wrong answer," theyll reject it and probably you too. You
have to consciously try to figure out what they will connect with, CLDs, models,
or whatever. And youve got to keep coming back at folks over long periods.
Think of if as intellectual guerilla warfare.
Mike Moldaver (formerly of HPS) and I had an eye-opening experience a few years
ago with a very experienced senior executive. He had asked for a presentation
and a computer demo of a model for himself and a colleague. Only a few minutes
into it, he began to fidget and when asked what the problem was, he said, "I
dont care about this (expletive), just give me the answer." In contrast, we
couldnt tear his colleague away from the computer. As a result, we now always
ask ourselves before making a first presentation, which one of the two types
were going to see.
In another case, a prospective client asked us for an analysis to prove his
position was correct. We declined and then virtually dared him to use a joint
model-building process to prove his case to us. If he could, we would support
and validate his position publicly. If he could not, we would not release our
report without his OK and not embarrass him, but he had to agree to go through
the process and to make his final decision based on the results. The results
were contrary to his expectations, but he honored our agreement. Because he was
part of the modeling process, he was able to audit his own thought process and
he had learned some really important and unanticipated things in the meantime.
Hes now a convert.
During the past three years, I used a very different process for a public policy
audience, including lobbyists and legislators. After failed attempts to get
people involved in structuring the problem and models, I changed direction.
Development of CLDs, stock & flow diagrams, and the resulting model/s was in
private. The subject matter, how hospitals in New York are paid, is one about
which I am knowledgeable, but key variables were "bounced off" of a technical
advisory group in one intense meeting and off a range of people in numerous
informal one-on-one discussions. The basic framework and initial results were
presented informally to George Richardson, David Andersen, and a few others at
SUNY, Albany for their comments and criticisms. This was one of those cases
where the model-building forced radical changes in my own thinking and I believe
that my being able to say so in public helped others consider alternative views
of reality that they otherwise would not have been open to.
The results were written in lay language for two articles for a magazine aimed
at the policy/political audience. (A full report was written that included a
detailed explanation of the model and results, but I doubt that many people read
it.) Both business and organized labor responded to the articles and reversed
their historic positions. After that, it was much easier to engage people on how
the conclusions were reached.
The results have been presented to hundreds of people with considerable
expertise in the subject area, but neither SD or ST is ever explicitly
mentioned. Instead, I use presentation software (or lunch time placemats) to
walk audiences through the essential CLDs which are referred to as "plumbing." I
dont ask folks to think out CLDs or model structures from scratch. Instead, I
walk them through a much abbreviated and simplified version of the intellectual
journey that I took. Iask for their reactions/validation as the CLDs are built.
At critical junctures in the presentation, I ask audiences a personal
hypothetical question about their own decision making that leads them to
understand how the system in question can change direction (change of loop
dominance). The graphic results of 3 model runs are presented and by then they
at least understand the basics. In effect, we sneak in the back doors to their
minds.
The results after 2.5 years? First, despite ferocious lobbying by a significant
industry, a thirty year old policy and infrastructure which determined spending
of about $20 billion per year is being dismantled. Second, hundreds of people
have been exposed to CLDs and SD without even knowing it. In the long run, that
may be more important.
Best regards & thanks for listening.
John W. Rodat
Signalhealth
71207.2315@compuserve.com
Nevertheless, it seems to me