Posted by
ybarlas@boun.edu.tr <
ybarlas@boun.edu.tr>
Dear friends,
This discussion on capitalizing is related to a larger/deeper issue: the very name system dynamics is too general and awkward for a methodology. We, as SD community are about two different levels of activity:
i- we study the dynamics of all sorts of (economic, environmental, social, business, manufacturing, ecological...) systems. Since we are not specialized in a *specific* sector, but dynamic feedback systems in general, it is proper to say that 'our field of inquiry is system dynamics' (i.e. dynamics of systems).
This is fine.
ii- but secondly we are also about a very *specific* modeling philosophy and
methodology: we use stock-flow models of problems using an endogenous, feedback perspective and focus on improving behavior patterns (policies) rather than point prediction, and we have a whole methodology of validity testing, analysis and design and software to support it. This, can NOT be called system dynamics anymore. Such a specific philosophy and methodology can not be given such a general name. (And terms like 'system dynamics approach' or 'system dynamics method' are semantically and linguistically wrong too).
I believe that this second mode of improper use (inadequacy) of 'system dynamics' periodically causes people to look for solutions (like 'capitalizing'
SD). Worse, people avoid using the term 'system dynamics model' (or method or
approach) altogether, or prefer 'STELLA or Vensim or Powersim 'model'
(outsiders sometimes call 'Forrester models/approach', etc).
I believe that capitalizing System Dynamics will not quite solve the problem. (It would be like using selectively statistics and Statistics, depending on how you use it). I think system dynamics is fine in its first usage above. BUT we need to adopt a more specific, (perhaps capitalized) name (and possibly an acronym as well) for our specific methodology. Like 'systemic feedback modeling' (SFM) or even an newly created word (like cybernetics). Monte Kietpawpan (SD6342) made a very important observation:
""...
1. Use single term as the fields' names
2. Be dictionary entries.
System dynamics, by contrast, lacks these properties.
Two words are used to name the field, and system dynamics has
not yet become an entry of general dictionaries like Webster's and Oxford.
Moreover, the term 'system dynamics' means different things to
different researchers, even among system dynamicists.
Using system dynamics as a key word for finding SD papers,
ones would obtain many results that are not SD papers..""
I think the observations above point to a serious problem, especially as we enter this new age of 'info explosion/pollution' where searching and finding the right information is becoming critical.
About ten years ago I did an informal library search and reached a similar conclusion. (I presented a little paper on it at ISDC). The last item of my
'98 President's talk was also about this problem. See:
http://www.systemdynamics.org/newslette ... tm#PresAdd
(For your convenience I pasted the last paragraph at the bottom of this message).
In these past ten years, I am afraid that the problem did not go away. John Gunkler just made a very similar observation (SD6340).
In conclusion, I think it is worth asking creative people in our field to come up with a unique term, terms, acronym,... that best describes our unique methodology and can enter dictionaries. Perhaps they can be submitted at the conference and the winner chosen as a result of a contest?
have a great weekend!
Yaman Barlas
...
And finally, a non-scientific observation of mine (shared by many friends): It seems that in many publications/presentations dealing with system dynamics, authors avoid using the term ""system dynamics."" Instead, they use various terms like ""STELLA"" or ""DYNAMO"" model, ""Simulation"" model, ""Forrester"" approach, ""Systems Thinking,"" etc. I am sure there are many different reasons why this is the case: practical convenience or other concerns, scientific/technical reasons, and some social, historical and psychological factors. From a purely technical perspective, system dynamics means ""dynamics of systems"" and it is a reasonable name for our Society in general. On the other hand, it seems like other specific usages like ""system dynamics model"" or ""system dynamics approach"" are awkward, non-descriptive, even linguistically incorrect. (For those interested, I have a small library of research on the various uses, misuses and ""non-use"" of ""system dynamics."") But whatever the reason, I believe that the current situation constitutes an unnecessary communication handicap for the Society. In particular, it is totally unacceptable for our models and methodology to be reduced to software names. I suggest that we should adopt a standard name for our models and methodology and urge all members to use it.
Examples of such terms descriptive of our methodology could be: ""systemic feedback"" model (method, approach) or ""systemic dynamic feedback"" model...
Alternatively, we could adopt an acronym (like SDFS, standing for ""systemic dynamic feedback simulation"") - although I am personally not a great fan of acronyms. The name does not have to be perfect; the critical issue is that it be accepted and consistently used by all members of the Society, as well as non-members involved in system dynamics.
Posted by
ybarlas@boun.edu.tr
posting date Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:26:31 +0200 _______________________________________________