Prof. Forrester writes in the paper "System Dynamics and the Lessons of 35 Years" as follows:
"The untimate success of a system dynamics investigation depends on a clear initial identification of an important purpose and objective."
Here I am confused between two concepts: purpose and objective. Some people say that they are the same thing, but the above writing suggests that they are not.
My question is:
What are the distinction between the terms purpose and objective in the context of system dynamics?
Purpose and Objective
Purpose and objective
Hi
For me purpose and objective is not the same.
You can have two people agreeing on the same objective and having
separate purposes.
Reaching an objective has always a purpose.
So an objective is something more concrete and the purpose more abstract and
more general.
You may want to loose weight, this is an objective, but you can have many purposes:
being healthier, being more attractive, etc…
But in the phrase of Jay, the word to concentrate upon is ‘important’.
What important means?
I think there will be many definitions for important.
For me important means that the result of the modelling effort that is equal to the outcome less the efforts needed is important enough.
That means that one must be able to evaluate the outcome with sufficient precision and the efforts needed too. There are three things that must be verified: is there a potentiality of theoretical result? Is it possible to model concretely the problem with the possibilities currently available and with a reasonable cost? And is it possible to implement the policies recommended by the model, the total outcome being with no doubt and with a large margin of error above the cost of the efforts needed by the three phases?
The three points should be verified one after the other, with no illusion, no a priori, no influences.
And you can have a theoretical result possible, but have not the possibilities to reach it, and have the possibility to find the right policies with a model, but not be able to implement concretely the solutions.
Regards.
JJ
For me purpose and objective is not the same.
You can have two people agreeing on the same objective and having
separate purposes.
Reaching an objective has always a purpose.
So an objective is something more concrete and the purpose more abstract and
more general.
You may want to loose weight, this is an objective, but you can have many purposes:
being healthier, being more attractive, etc…
But in the phrase of Jay, the word to concentrate upon is ‘important’.
What important means?
I think there will be many definitions for important.
For me important means that the result of the modelling effort that is equal to the outcome less the efforts needed is important enough.
That means that one must be able to evaluate the outcome with sufficient precision and the efforts needed too. There are three things that must be verified: is there a potentiality of theoretical result? Is it possible to model concretely the problem with the possibilities currently available and with a reasonable cost? And is it possible to implement the policies recommended by the model, the total outcome being with no doubt and with a large margin of error above the cost of the efforts needed by the three phases?
The three points should be verified one after the other, with no illusion, no a priori, no influences.
And you can have a theoretical result possible, but have not the possibilities to reach it, and have the possibility to find the right policies with a model, but not be able to implement concretely the solutions.
Regards.
JJ
objectives and purposes
Hi Monte
Another consideration.
In the phrase of Jay there is something else that must be interpreted: the word clear.
What is clarity?
For me clarity of objective and purpose are not the same.
An objective is ‘objective’, related to objects. Objects can generally be measured.
So for me the clarity of an objective is the ability to measure it. Something that can be measured has always a high level of definition.
A purpose is subjective related to people, then the notion of purpose clarity is more subjective and will depend on people and is more subject to ill definition and meandering. It is still necessary to reach a good level of clarity of purpose, because an objective without clear purposes will not be supported by anybody.
For instance increasing the understanding about a problematic situation is not an objective, but a purpose because the notion of understanding is vague, subjective and difficult to prove unless related to some objectives more measurable.
For instance if I pretend to have understood the working of something in my business, but
am unable to apply it to some measurable objectives, how can I be sure that I have really understood the problem and most important how can I prove it to someone else? Another thing about the word ‘initial’.
Jay writes ‘initial’ because it forbids a too high level of imprecision, right at the beginning of the modelling effort. It pretends to my opinion that the effort of clear definition must be made at the beginning, which means that the modelling process must not take place until the right level of definition of the objective and purpose is obtained.
Regards.
JJ
Another consideration.
In the phrase of Jay there is something else that must be interpreted: the word clear.
What is clarity?
For me clarity of objective and purpose are not the same.
An objective is ‘objective’, related to objects. Objects can generally be measured.
So for me the clarity of an objective is the ability to measure it. Something that can be measured has always a high level of definition.
A purpose is subjective related to people, then the notion of purpose clarity is more subjective and will depend on people and is more subject to ill definition and meandering. It is still necessary to reach a good level of clarity of purpose, because an objective without clear purposes will not be supported by anybody.
For instance increasing the understanding about a problematic situation is not an objective, but a purpose because the notion of understanding is vague, subjective and difficult to prove unless related to some objectives more measurable.
For instance if I pretend to have understood the working of something in my business, but
am unable to apply it to some measurable objectives, how can I be sure that I have really understood the problem and most important how can I prove it to someone else? Another thing about the word ‘initial’.
Jay writes ‘initial’ because it forbids a too high level of imprecision, right at the beginning of the modelling effort. It pretends to my opinion that the effort of clear definition must be made at the beginning, which means that the modelling process must not take place until the right level of definition of the objective and purpose is obtained.
Regards.
JJ