SDR Reformatting

[harndp@rpi.edu (Philip Dennis Ha]

In your experiences, what is the best overview of the historical perspective
of System Dynamics. Im interested in the early years to current initiatives.
Ive be watching the traffic on the list as an observer and would like to
better understand the history, roots, etc. Im just getting into the Change
arena and SD seems like a useful tool.

Phil Harnden
ph.d. candidate
RPI
harndp@rpi.edu

[Arlen Wolpert]

On March 10 I submitted a plan to the SD Discussion
Group for reformatting the System Dynamics Review. It is shown
at the end of this email. Let me make an additional comment on
this reformatting plan:
I have been working on a system dynamics model full
time for the past nine years. The first four years were spent in
Phase I: the attempt to develop the first pass at a model. During
the past five years 25% of my time has been spent in Phase II:
trying to introduce the model and its implications. I am finding
terrific resistance in Phase II. My first hand awareness of this
resistance has made it clear that Phase II resistance is the
common lot of all system dynamicists who attempt to apply or
introduce their model. The most obvious case is the resistance
experienced by Prof. Forrester and his unsung heroic followers
associated with the World Dynamics Project.
The easy way is to publish the model produced in
Phase I and go on to the next modelling or academic idea and
avoid Phase II. Academia tends to condition the system
dynamicist along these lines. The present format of SDR further
conditions him or her in this way.
Let us be clear: Despite the fact that most system
dynamicists are situated in relatively conservative business
schools, academia, or corporate life, the truth is, at the very
essence of our field, we are involved in a revolution. While I
may be wrong, I am offering my view that we should now press
forward and make SDR a little more bold and courageous.

Arlen Wolpert
Independent Scholar
411 Franklin Street, Apt. 1008
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
Telephone: 617-547-6994
email: awolpert@world.std.com


March 10th email to SD Discussion Group:

"I believe the System Dynamics Review should be reformatted
in the following way:
1) All main articles should include the following three items:
a) Target article
b) Open Peer Commentary on the target article.
c) Target article authors Reply to the commentary.
2) In subsequent SDR issues Continuing Commentary of the
various target articles should be published with the Reply
(if possible) of the author of the target article.

This format has been used with great success in the journal,
Behavioral and Brain Sciences. It has been very effective in
clarifying and integrating issues during the coelesence (sic)
of fields now going on among cognitive neuroscience,
philosophy of the mind, linguistics, and psychology.

System Dynamics models almost always experience resistance to
acceptance, particularly from outside the system dynamics
community. The Open Peer Commentary would include, not only
relevant system dynamicists, but scientists from the field of
application. It is important to choose those scientists and thinkers
most opposed to the model and its implications. Such commentary
will bring out into the open unstated, controversial, or negative
opinions and ideas where they can be analyzed and discussed.

.... Arlen Wolpert"