Hello JJ,
Ten years ago my favorite SD author George Richardson wrote "we require advanced modeling texts..." (SDR 12(2): 145). He observed that we have merely introductory texts in the field.
Is that note still valid today? Do you know of some advanced texts published later in response to such a note? Can Business Dynamics be considered an advanced text?
I post this topic so that I can know which books (other than Coyle's) to buy next.
MK
Advanced SD textbooks
advanced Sd books
Hi Monte
It is difficult to give an aswer about Business Dynamics.
I studied it completely 5 years ago, making with difficulty all the challenges.
Until then, I have now and then consulted the book, but I must say that it did not help me in my job.
Is it because my problems are more solvable with classic O.R. methods?
My opinion may be very peculiar.
I can only judge the book, I do not know John Sterman.
I think he is obviously a very learned man about SD and certainly other subjects too.
Now whether the reading of the book may or may not help you, is another thing.
One option is that Sterman has built many concrete models and has may be forgotten with the time, the difficulty to build usable models, and give with his book a sort of basic knowledge , but without showing how to concretely use it.
Or he may be, like many academics, very competent in academic SD, but with very little experience of concrete modelling (modelling for customers who wait for concrete results).
I think that the second has more chances to be correct, because if he was a very competent modeller, he would not have the time to teach and especially to write books (it takes a lot of work) and one does not learn about the concrete use of a discipline when teaching to students.
I do not know too if he really knows business people, otherwise he would not have written the introduction about knowing or not knowing mathematics.
I see very few business people studying a book like business dynamics. They have other problems. It is clearly for the academic world, students and teachers and even not for consultants.
In fact I have never seen in my life any SDer, only exchanging a lot of e-mails with member of the SD mailing list, reading books, having followed two distant web courses, one was with Bob five years ago. It was a good course, thanks to Bob, and in spite of the teaching assistant, who looked very lazy, probably not even reading the assignments, and giving very high notes, whatever the quality of the work. I got an A minus given by the teaching assistant, I do not know why and how.
After that course, I decided to follow another one the next year, pretending to help people on their own problems.It was the worst course I ever followed in my life, from my early childhood until now. I got an A note, still not knowing what I had done for that.
I had the intention to follow another course, but being now suspicious, I asked one of the student who intended to follow that course, to report to me, when he has finished it.
He reported that the course was even worse than the first one and that if he had in the future another course with the same instructor, he would try to avoid it by all means.
Of course I never followed any other SD course.
You can see that my experiences are varied with SD.
About good experiences I can tell the course with Bob, Vensim the software and the present forum.
About not so good experiences, is the Sd mailing list, where unfortunately one never can see any concrete problem being discussed.
The books are mostly very academic, but it is not particular to SD. Other fields suffer from the same characteristic.
Another thing I do not know, is the average quality of SDers, which I suspect to be extremely variable. I will once go to a SD conference and try to judge that by myself.
Sd is a very difficult discipline, and I prefer to make my own experiences than to loose too much time trying specific methods, unless I completely understand the applicability of it.
So I cannot give presently any other references than Coyle’s book.
I have recently bought Morecroft’s new book on SD. But I put it back on the shelf.
It may interest some people, but I do not see what is the value added to books like Sterman’s or Warren’s.
I did not read Richardson’s book. If I find the time I may try once.
One gook book would be about concrete cases, a bit like Geof’s Coyle, but where nothing would be excluded, from the opportunity study to the eventual stop after a qualitative analysis, that would give to people a taste of what a real SD study should look like.
Something I would for sure be willing to spend time on is a study like Ventana systems performs with its customers. A case not too complicated like the one on the NAS (National airspace system).
To my opinion, the best place to learn SD, is working with qualified consultants. It must look completely different than SD books look like.
Regards.
JJ
It is difficult to give an aswer about Business Dynamics.
I studied it completely 5 years ago, making with difficulty all the challenges.
Until then, I have now and then consulted the book, but I must say that it did not help me in my job.
Is it because my problems are more solvable with classic O.R. methods?
My opinion may be very peculiar.
I can only judge the book, I do not know John Sterman.
I think he is obviously a very learned man about SD and certainly other subjects too.
Now whether the reading of the book may or may not help you, is another thing.
One option is that Sterman has built many concrete models and has may be forgotten with the time, the difficulty to build usable models, and give with his book a sort of basic knowledge , but without showing how to concretely use it.
Or he may be, like many academics, very competent in academic SD, but with very little experience of concrete modelling (modelling for customers who wait for concrete results).
I think that the second has more chances to be correct, because if he was a very competent modeller, he would not have the time to teach and especially to write books (it takes a lot of work) and one does not learn about the concrete use of a discipline when teaching to students.
I do not know too if he really knows business people, otherwise he would not have written the introduction about knowing or not knowing mathematics.
I see very few business people studying a book like business dynamics. They have other problems. It is clearly for the academic world, students and teachers and even not for consultants.
In fact I have never seen in my life any SDer, only exchanging a lot of e-mails with member of the SD mailing list, reading books, having followed two distant web courses, one was with Bob five years ago. It was a good course, thanks to Bob, and in spite of the teaching assistant, who looked very lazy, probably not even reading the assignments, and giving very high notes, whatever the quality of the work. I got an A minus given by the teaching assistant, I do not know why and how.
After that course, I decided to follow another one the next year, pretending to help people on their own problems.It was the worst course I ever followed in my life, from my early childhood until now. I got an A note, still not knowing what I had done for that.
I had the intention to follow another course, but being now suspicious, I asked one of the student who intended to follow that course, to report to me, when he has finished it.
He reported that the course was even worse than the first one and that if he had in the future another course with the same instructor, he would try to avoid it by all means.
Of course I never followed any other SD course.
You can see that my experiences are varied with SD.
About good experiences I can tell the course with Bob, Vensim the software and the present forum.
About not so good experiences, is the Sd mailing list, where unfortunately one never can see any concrete problem being discussed.
The books are mostly very academic, but it is not particular to SD. Other fields suffer from the same characteristic.
Another thing I do not know, is the average quality of SDers, which I suspect to be extremely variable. I will once go to a SD conference and try to judge that by myself.
Sd is a very difficult discipline, and I prefer to make my own experiences than to loose too much time trying specific methods, unless I completely understand the applicability of it.
So I cannot give presently any other references than Coyle’s book.
I have recently bought Morecroft’s new book on SD. But I put it back on the shelf.
It may interest some people, but I do not see what is the value added to books like Sterman’s or Warren’s.
I did not read Richardson’s book. If I find the time I may try once.
One gook book would be about concrete cases, a bit like Geof’s Coyle, but where nothing would be excluded, from the opportunity study to the eventual stop after a qualitative analysis, that would give to people a taste of what a real SD study should look like.
Something I would for sure be willing to spend time on is a study like Ventana systems performs with its customers. A case not too complicated like the one on the NAS (National airspace system).
To my opinion, the best place to learn SD, is working with qualified consultants. It must look completely different than SD books look like.
Regards.
JJ
Hi JJ,
Thank you very much for the interesting information and thinkful viewpoints.
I find BD hard to read, compared with Richardson's and Ford's books. BD looks impressive in that it contains symbolic description of SD. I like Sterman's effort. Many papers in journals refer to BD as a key methodology source.
Have you ever taken a distance course called Road Maps? I think the course is both enjoynable and useful. I felt as if Jay were teaching me step-by-step to build a model. I am looking for Chapter 11 and more. How is Road Maps if it is compared with Bob's course?
Do we really need advanced texts as George's note? There is a tendency to make SD advanced by making it more complex and formal instead of making it simple and more accessible.
Richardson's book is easy to read because he writes very plainly. He applies SD to a business problem by using DYNAMO. I simply think BD adapts from this book, but the book is not cited in BD. I am not sure the book will be much helpful for you, as you read BD already.
Best Regards,
MK
Thank you very much for the interesting information and thinkful viewpoints.
I find BD hard to read, compared with Richardson's and Ford's books. BD looks impressive in that it contains symbolic description of SD. I like Sterman's effort. Many papers in journals refer to BD as a key methodology source.
Have you ever taken a distance course called Road Maps? I think the course is both enjoynable and useful. I felt as if Jay were teaching me step-by-step to build a model. I am looking for Chapter 11 and more. How is Road Maps if it is compared with Bob's course?
Do we really need advanced texts as George's note? There is a tendency to make SD advanced by making it more complex and formal instead of making it simple and more accessible.
Richardson's book is easy to read because he writes very plainly. He applies SD to a business problem by using DYNAMO. I simply think BD adapts from this book, but the book is not cited in BD. I am not sure the book will be much helpful for you, as you read BD already.
Best Regards,
MK
Text books
Hi
BD is effectively hard to read.
I do not deny the value of BD as a reference book.
But I regreet that it has no concrete problems solved, starting from text explanation, and working through all the concrete difficulties met in a current modelling effort.
I find too that his examples look too academic and do not lookl like reality and are constructed from the course.
I am a practical man and I have practical problems to solve.
I am not excited by studying a problem that does not look real.
There are some real cases at the beginning of the book, but they are not developped into concrete models.
At the end of the book the examples are very impressive, but they are more refering to the general economic theory, than to concrete business problems and their object is to illustrate all the theory developped before.
It does not study the value of the modelling effort.
Or business people are only interested by the value of their efforts. This very critical question is completely forgotten in BD and in most books. It is not well enough addressed in Geof Coyle's book but at least the difficulties are not eluded and the value of adding or suppressing new material is clearly stressed.
I have read the first chapters of road maps. I find them very well explained. But I do not know if Jay gives in the following chapters, real problems and no examples that you find in text books that try to show how SD is valuable.
The problem is not to know is SD is valuable but to be able to construct useful models, for problems worth using the method and the effort needed!
It is true that SD is becoming more complex.
But the people interested in SD, have very different needs.
Ventana system certainly use very well Vensim, better than you and me will ever use it.
I think there is a need for good practical books, for people convinced by the method who want to learn to use it efficiently, showing them concrete examples.
And this does not need using complex features.
I think that the main difficulty with SD, is to avoid adding a new problem to the problem you want to solve: the model without having solved the first one.
You are finally left with two problems instead of one.
BD does not cite too Coyle's book, nor does Warren's.
Warren book does not have the pretention to teach modelling but to show the range of applications of SD.
He has the honesty to tell, at the end of his book, that good modellers are very rare, and this is SD's problem.
Regards.
JJ.
BD is effectively hard to read.
I do not deny the value of BD as a reference book.
But I regreet that it has no concrete problems solved, starting from text explanation, and working through all the concrete difficulties met in a current modelling effort.
I find too that his examples look too academic and do not lookl like reality and are constructed from the course.
I am a practical man and I have practical problems to solve.
I am not excited by studying a problem that does not look real.
There are some real cases at the beginning of the book, but they are not developped into concrete models.
At the end of the book the examples are very impressive, but they are more refering to the general economic theory, than to concrete business problems and their object is to illustrate all the theory developped before.
It does not study the value of the modelling effort.
Or business people are only interested by the value of their efforts. This very critical question is completely forgotten in BD and in most books. It is not well enough addressed in Geof Coyle's book but at least the difficulties are not eluded and the value of adding or suppressing new material is clearly stressed.
I have read the first chapters of road maps. I find them very well explained. But I do not know if Jay gives in the following chapters, real problems and no examples that you find in text books that try to show how SD is valuable.
The problem is not to know is SD is valuable but to be able to construct useful models, for problems worth using the method and the effort needed!
It is true that SD is becoming more complex.
But the people interested in SD, have very different needs.
Ventana system certainly use very well Vensim, better than you and me will ever use it.
I think there is a need for good practical books, for people convinced by the method who want to learn to use it efficiently, showing them concrete examples.
And this does not need using complex features.
I think that the main difficulty with SD, is to avoid adding a new problem to the problem you want to solve: the model without having solved the first one.
You are finally left with two problems instead of one.
BD does not cite too Coyle's book, nor does Warren's.
Warren book does not have the pretention to teach modelling but to show the range of applications of SD.
He has the honesty to tell, at the end of his book, that good modellers are very rare, and this is SD's problem.
Regards.
JJ.
Hi,
I have been studying system dynamics for the past 20 months. One of the things I am currently doing is re-doing some the models made in the past by SDers. A good way to do this is to get the MIT D-Memos collection, and work through some of the models in the papers / theses made by SD experts. In my case - redoing these models is of immense help as it gives new understanding (besides clarifying old misunderstandings), and also increases one's confidence. And it's fun too.
Regards
Malli
I have been studying system dynamics for the past 20 months. One of the things I am currently doing is re-doing some the models made in the past by SDers. A good way to do this is to get the MIT D-Memos collection, and work through some of the models in the papers / theses made by SD experts. In my case - redoing these models is of immense help as it gives new understanding (besides clarifying old misunderstandings), and also increases one's confidence. And it's fun too.
Regards
Malli
Text books
Hi Malli. Redoing models already built by expert modelers is certainly a good thing.
But it does not give you the critical feed back from the application of the model to reality. These feed backs being rarely described.
It is too easy because the modelling path is already settled, and it is the choice of the modelling path that is the real difficulty.
Regards.
JJ
But it does not give you the critical feed back from the application of the model to reality. These feed backs being rarely described.
It is too easy because the modelling path is already settled, and it is the choice of the modelling path that is the real difficulty.
Regards.
JJ
Hi JJ,
Agree with what you are saying in terms of the application of the model to reality. Possibly the best way to get that is go through the apprentice route - where one gets to work with an experienced SD consultant for a number of years and learns the skills. Finding a system dynamicist to work with is another challenge though depending on where you are from geographically. A fairly big challenge in my case - as I am based out of India.
Regards
Malli
Agree with what you are saying in terms of the application of the model to reality. Possibly the best way to get that is go through the apprentice route - where one gets to work with an experienced SD consultant for a number of years and learns the skills. Finding a system dynamicist to work with is another challenge though depending on where you are from geographically. A fairly big challenge in my case - as I am based out of India.
Regards
Malli
Hi JJ & Monte,
This is with reference to Sterman's book. This weekend, I was revisiting Chapter 17 & chapter 18 - modeling the supply chain after almost 9 months. Working through the chapters once again was fantastic - it felt new (I think it was the Italian writer Calvino who defined a classic as a 'book which when you read everytime feels new'. I certainly feel that every time I read Sterman's Business Dynamics - A truly great book.
I worked through the entire model of the supply chain, piece by piece as sterman builds it. each piece is made, tested and sterman moves on. I continued to hold the thread with him. Finally, in chapter 18, the two stage supply chain is built with producer and supplier, and the effects of amplification, oscillation and phase lag are completely understood. Along the way, Sterman provides many holds for the novice - he urges you to look at dimensional consistency, initialize the model in equilibrium etc. This was great
Going back to what JJ was talking about some of the applications. After finishing the basic model, then there was the case in chapter 18 - this is a real model built by Nathaneil Mass for Mckinsey during a consulting assignment for a computer manufacturer. The problem is articulated in detail by Sterman - the management team is facing long delivery delays, excess inventory, phantom ordering from its customers etc...all the issues covered in the base model. And me, the novice, is holding the thread with bated breath.
However, neither the model or the model development process is there(yes - Sterman does mention the model development process a bit - about how different scenarios were tested, how the clients were an integral part of the modeling process etc, but the details are not there). While it is not within my capabilities to criticize such a great book as Sterman's, as a reader I could not but help being disappointed. What we have are two causal loop diagrams which show the very high level structure of the model. This is where I do relate in some way to what JJ is saying.
I feel that for example, if this model were shown in its entirety through the standard system dynamics method starting with the development of the reference modes & dynamic hypothesis and ending with the testing & calibration of the model, and its use by the client it would have been great for someone learning to do system dyamics. What one wants to see actually as a student, is not just the 'clean & beautiful' model, but also it's 'mess'. In other words, seeing the 'mess' becoming 'clean and beautiful' would be a great source of learning.
Just as an aside - one of the problems that I have seen in most SD books is that the development of the reference mode and dynamic hypothesis in not given sufficient coverage. This is where a messy description of the problem gets converted into the stylized presentations of SD. I think Kim Warren's Competitive Strategy Dynamics is an exception atleast as far as reference modes is concerned. He does give a great deal of importance to coming up with the performance time-charts (think that is what he calls as reference modes)
Regards
Malli
[Edited on 8-27-2007 by malli]
[Edited on 8-27-2007 by malli]
This is with reference to Sterman's book. This weekend, I was revisiting Chapter 17 & chapter 18 - modeling the supply chain after almost 9 months. Working through the chapters once again was fantastic - it felt new (I think it was the Italian writer Calvino who defined a classic as a 'book which when you read everytime feels new'. I certainly feel that every time I read Sterman's Business Dynamics - A truly great book.
I worked through the entire model of the supply chain, piece by piece as sterman builds it. each piece is made, tested and sterman moves on. I continued to hold the thread with him. Finally, in chapter 18, the two stage supply chain is built with producer and supplier, and the effects of amplification, oscillation and phase lag are completely understood. Along the way, Sterman provides many holds for the novice - he urges you to look at dimensional consistency, initialize the model in equilibrium etc. This was great
Going back to what JJ was talking about some of the applications. After finishing the basic model, then there was the case in chapter 18 - this is a real model built by Nathaneil Mass for Mckinsey during a consulting assignment for a computer manufacturer. The problem is articulated in detail by Sterman - the management team is facing long delivery delays, excess inventory, phantom ordering from its customers etc...all the issues covered in the base model. And me, the novice, is holding the thread with bated breath.
However, neither the model or the model development process is there(yes - Sterman does mention the model development process a bit - about how different scenarios were tested, how the clients were an integral part of the modeling process etc, but the details are not there). While it is not within my capabilities to criticize such a great book as Sterman's, as a reader I could not but help being disappointed. What we have are two causal loop diagrams which show the very high level structure of the model. This is where I do relate in some way to what JJ is saying.
I feel that for example, if this model were shown in its entirety through the standard system dynamics method starting with the development of the reference modes & dynamic hypothesis and ending with the testing & calibration of the model, and its use by the client it would have been great for someone learning to do system dyamics. What one wants to see actually as a student, is not just the 'clean & beautiful' model, but also it's 'mess'. In other words, seeing the 'mess' becoming 'clean and beautiful' would be a great source of learning.
Just as an aside - one of the problems that I have seen in most SD books is that the development of the reference mode and dynamic hypothesis in not given sufficient coverage. This is where a messy description of the problem gets converted into the stylized presentations of SD. I think Kim Warren's Competitive Strategy Dynamics is an exception atleast as far as reference modes is concerned. He does give a great deal of importance to coming up with the performance time-charts (think that is what he calls as reference modes)
Regards
Malli
[Edited on 8-27-2007 by malli]
[Edited on 8-27-2007 by malli]
about text books
Hi Malli.
I may have been badly understood.
Sterman’s book is a high quality academic book.
But did you really try to solve concrete cases?
You will then understand that real life is not like text books.
I like your expression about mess becoming clean and beautiful.
There is mess certainly at the beginning but it never becomes really clean and beautiful unless you put it in a text book and take away all the mess having not being really solved or being
half solved.
You are right when you write about the poor coverage on reference mode and dynamic hypothesis.
On top of that some authors prefer to build a complete CLD before starting the quantitative
modelling, some others prefer to start the modelling process sooner.
There is generally no coverage of the critical way you start exposing the problem.
Does one need to write it in plain English as Coyle is advocating, or starting right away with
a list of variables and reference modes like for instance advocates Jim Hines in his course?
If it is a written version, how must it be written to make sure that nothing is forgotten, that there is no incoherence, that the context necessary to be told is sufficient like probable difficulty of implementation, etc…
See my recent query on the Sd mailing list about that subject.
There is to one point that I have never seen explained in any place, which is too fundamental
When one has to start a modelling work. See to the SD mailing list where I ask the same question. Sterman explains that one must quickly start the quantitative modelling process as too detect the eventual inconsistencies which can be done only completely through simulation.
He talks too about the necessity to develop the model step by step, confronting it to the reality.
But what does he mean by that?
Does one has to build a small model, use it, make changes to the actual policies, implement them and see practically the eventual results and learn from that experience to build the next step?
This question is fundamental to my opinion. Books are not clear about that. And it is a pity because depending what path one takes, the result can be completely different.
The solution is probably between the two solutions, but helping to understand to what extent the model has to be confronted with reality through real implementation (it takes a lot of time and slows down the modelling process) would be an invaluable help for modellers.
Of course a very experienced modeller will know by experience what path to follow between these two extremes. But I talk about inexperienced modellers.
I think that if you experiment concrete modelling, you will better understand these difficulties.
About my own experience, I worked for years, developing models, and not confronting them enough to reality (for the sake of rapidity and thinking that it was better to integrate all the important things all together to avoid inconsistency and irrealism).
But the problem is that you really know what are the important things only after you use you model concretely, and you risk by not making intermediate implementation, to finish with what I call a shelf model (a model that finishes on a shelf) or that it is not possible to implement or where the implementation difficulties come all together at the end. I think that monitoring the history of difficulties and results is critical.
If you do not have any results for a long time and you are suddenly confronted with high difficulties there is a high probability of stopping the effort.
Il you follow a path of continuous implementation, you get progressive results and a regular stream of difficulties, which is much more susceptible to lead to success.
In the meantime the person that will profit from the modelling effort will have tangible results progressively and will not be tempted to stop the experience prematurely.
In Coyle’s book one starts with a relative messy description of the problem and there is a continuous development, starting from a qualitative point of view and moving to a more quantitative point of view progressively.
Of course there is no explanation about intermediate implementations, or very insufficiently.
But it is at last a beginning.
I think that SD is very badly taught and that it is the first reason of the difficulty of the field to be more recognized.
I now work with extreme care, starting with very simple models and implementing fully the
policies, even if these policies are very far from a completely adapted or optimized policy to come much later on.
Regards.
JJ
I may have been badly understood.
Sterman’s book is a high quality academic book.
But did you really try to solve concrete cases?
You will then understand that real life is not like text books.
I like your expression about mess becoming clean and beautiful.
There is mess certainly at the beginning but it never becomes really clean and beautiful unless you put it in a text book and take away all the mess having not being really solved or being
half solved.
You are right when you write about the poor coverage on reference mode and dynamic hypothesis.
On top of that some authors prefer to build a complete CLD before starting the quantitative
modelling, some others prefer to start the modelling process sooner.
There is generally no coverage of the critical way you start exposing the problem.
Does one need to write it in plain English as Coyle is advocating, or starting right away with
a list of variables and reference modes like for instance advocates Jim Hines in his course?
If it is a written version, how must it be written to make sure that nothing is forgotten, that there is no incoherence, that the context necessary to be told is sufficient like probable difficulty of implementation, etc…
See my recent query on the Sd mailing list about that subject.
There is to one point that I have never seen explained in any place, which is too fundamental
When one has to start a modelling work. See to the SD mailing list where I ask the same question. Sterman explains that one must quickly start the quantitative modelling process as too detect the eventual inconsistencies which can be done only completely through simulation.
He talks too about the necessity to develop the model step by step, confronting it to the reality.
But what does he mean by that?
Does one has to build a small model, use it, make changes to the actual policies, implement them and see practically the eventual results and learn from that experience to build the next step?
This question is fundamental to my opinion. Books are not clear about that. And it is a pity because depending what path one takes, the result can be completely different.
The solution is probably between the two solutions, but helping to understand to what extent the model has to be confronted with reality through real implementation (it takes a lot of time and slows down the modelling process) would be an invaluable help for modellers.
Of course a very experienced modeller will know by experience what path to follow between these two extremes. But I talk about inexperienced modellers.
I think that if you experiment concrete modelling, you will better understand these difficulties.
About my own experience, I worked for years, developing models, and not confronting them enough to reality (for the sake of rapidity and thinking that it was better to integrate all the important things all together to avoid inconsistency and irrealism).
But the problem is that you really know what are the important things only after you use you model concretely, and you risk by not making intermediate implementation, to finish with what I call a shelf model (a model that finishes on a shelf) or that it is not possible to implement or where the implementation difficulties come all together at the end. I think that monitoring the history of difficulties and results is critical.
If you do not have any results for a long time and you are suddenly confronted with high difficulties there is a high probability of stopping the effort.
Il you follow a path of continuous implementation, you get progressive results and a regular stream of difficulties, which is much more susceptible to lead to success.
In the meantime the person that will profit from the modelling effort will have tangible results progressively and will not be tempted to stop the experience prematurely.
In Coyle’s book one starts with a relative messy description of the problem and there is a continuous development, starting from a qualitative point of view and moving to a more quantitative point of view progressively.
Of course there is no explanation about intermediate implementations, or very insufficiently.
But it is at last a beginning.
I think that SD is very badly taught and that it is the first reason of the difficulty of the field to be more recognized.
I now work with extreme care, starting with very simple models and implementing fully the
policies, even if these policies are very far from a completely adapted or optimized policy to come much later on.
Regards.
JJ
Advanced SD textbooks
Hello all,
it is very interesting to follow your discussion on whether there are SD textbooks to be found that are not only useful for the acedemics but -and this seems to be relevant in this discussion- also usable for practioneers on solving their to be faced with problems?
I would say that there certainly are some on the market and John' "Business Dynamics" is surely one of them. Of course it is rather large, heavy and you wouldn't have time to read everything. As I had a chance to talk with John earlier that year during a workshop at MIT on exactly the questions of use of SD covering practical problems.
He certainly is involved in such research topics and there can be found several excellent papers on his website (http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/OldFiles/www/). He is very eager to connect the academic world to the "wild" business world and I can highly recommend the course on "Business Dynamics: MIT's Approach to Diagnosing and Solving Complex Business Problems".
If you are interested in further literature with just glance give it a try on http://www.amazon.com/Ralf-Lippold-s-bo ... 30-2642508
Best regards
Ralf
it is very interesting to follow your discussion on whether there are SD textbooks to be found that are not only useful for the acedemics but -and this seems to be relevant in this discussion- also usable for practioneers on solving their to be faced with problems?
I would say that there certainly are some on the market and John' "Business Dynamics" is surely one of them. Of course it is rather large, heavy and you wouldn't have time to read everything. As I had a chance to talk with John earlier that year during a workshop at MIT on exactly the questions of use of SD covering practical problems.
He certainly is involved in such research topics and there can be found several excellent papers on his website (http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/OldFiles/www/). He is very eager to connect the academic world to the "wild" business world and I can highly recommend the course on "Business Dynamics: MIT's Approach to Diagnosing and Solving Complex Business Problems".
If you are interested in further literature with just glance give it a try on http://www.amazon.com/Ralf-Lippold-s-bo ... 30-2642508
Best regards
Ralf
Ralf Lippold
I don't know whether"Dynamic Modeling for Business Management: An Introduction" by McGarvey and Hannon can be seen as an advanced SD textbook. From my point of view, I feel the book provides useful and reusable examples of models but it is kind of lacking in theoretical arguments and pholosophical elements of SD. Both of them are scrutinized systematicaly in Prof. Sterman's "Business Dynamics."
With regatd to SD modeling, only practice makes perfect. My mentor , Henk Akkermans, an active Duth system dynamicist, has made remarkable achievements in applying SD to applied research and practical consulting. When I first met him, he told me two quick routs to master SD. First, read through each chapter of BD. And not only read but also build the models. Second, glance over classical papers, especially those related to the field you want to apply SD to.
Personally, since I want to model product development process, first I have to read papers written by Nelson Repenning and David Ford. Besides, take supply chain for example, I find that case study research with empirical simulation can provide useful insights for one wants to dig into a specific topic or figure out how to make full of use SD in a specific setting.
I'm just in my apprenticeship of SD and gonna begin to learn SD as a Ph.D. student under the supervision of Prof. Rogelio Oliva and Prof. David Ford. Not until I touched SD did I fall in love with the method (or field?). I'm more than happy to receive and collect any available opinions here.
As JJ mentioned before, really good SDers are scarce. Upon this I believe "SD at the Design-Science Interface: Past, Present and Future" (Akkermans and Romme, 2003) provide some perspectives and reflections.
[Edited on 4-8-2008 by xhoward]
[Edited on 4-11-2008 by xhoward]
With regatd to SD modeling, only practice makes perfect. My mentor , Henk Akkermans, an active Duth system dynamicist, has made remarkable achievements in applying SD to applied research and practical consulting. When I first met him, he told me two quick routs to master SD. First, read through each chapter of BD. And not only read but also build the models. Second, glance over classical papers, especially those related to the field you want to apply SD to.
Personally, since I want to model product development process, first I have to read papers written by Nelson Repenning and David Ford. Besides, take supply chain for example, I find that case study research with empirical simulation can provide useful insights for one wants to dig into a specific topic or figure out how to make full of use SD in a specific setting.
I'm just in my apprenticeship of SD and gonna begin to learn SD as a Ph.D. student under the supervision of Prof. Rogelio Oliva and Prof. David Ford. Not until I touched SD did I fall in love with the method (or field?). I'm more than happy to receive and collect any available opinions here.
As JJ mentioned before, really good SDers are scarce. Upon this I believe "SD at the Design-Science Interface: Past, Present and Future" (Akkermans and Romme, 2003) provide some perspectives and reflections.
[Edited on 4-8-2008 by xhoward]
[Edited on 4-11-2008 by xhoward]
-
karankhosla
- Senior Member
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:12 am
I have been working through the six books published by Springer Publications "Modelling Dynamic Economic/Biological/Business etc Systems". There are hundreds of examples in iThink format; over the past six months I have been converting each model into Vensim.
After reading Professor Sterman's book, I felt a little overwhelmed, but these MDS books have made practical modelling quite a lot of fun. Sterman and the MIT Course (Roadmaps) are essential for learning the ground rules, but too as Mr. Jacques said, theory has to be matched with practice.
After reading Professor Sterman's book, I felt a little overwhelmed, but these MDS books have made practical modelling quite a lot of fun. Sterman and the MIT Course (Roadmaps) are essential for learning the ground rules, but too as Mr. Jacques said, theory has to be matched with practice.
Advanced Textbooks
Hi JJ,
thanks for sharing your opinion.
I agree with you that from reading and undestanding a model done by others and building a model on your own it's a completely different matter. And I feel myself frustrated when I try to build something new.
Apart from academics, did you see examples of SD in real-life?
So, it's something you can do as a job?
I found the application of SD to organizational learning fascinating, but I really don't know if it's possible to use it with executives. SD is not my job, I'm a business consultant, and I teach a course at University. So in my life I deal with managers all the time...
Cheers
G
thanks for sharing your opinion.
I agree with you that from reading and undestanding a model done by others and building a model on your own it's a completely different matter. And I feel myself frustrated when I try to build something new.
Apart from academics, did you see examples of SD in real-life?
So, it's something you can do as a job?
I found the application of SD to organizational learning fascinating, but I really don't know if it's possible to use it with executives. SD is not my job, I'm a business consultant, and I teach a course at University. So in my life I deal with managers all the time...
Cheers
G
advanced textbooks
Hi Duilio
It is difficult to give any advice about textbooks.
It depends on the job you are doing and what kind of customers you have.
Most Sd books are for people dealing with public customers who are certainly less hard nosed than business people.
The reason is that public people do not play with their own money.
I have honestly not done any SD application that has delivered a significant added value. But SD has helped me to better think about a problem.
All the models that I have built so far gave me policies that I was able to demonstrate later on using more simple methods.
I am actually building a model and I am trying to solve the problem in parallel using simple static methods, even qualitative.
One interesting thing to do, is to study models made by others, for instance models published in the SD conference, and try to verify if for each model, there was a clear purpose and it that purpose was fulfilled by the model. And then see if it was not possible to get to the same conclusion by more simple methods. The fact that a model has many loops does not prove that there is any true complex dynamic related to the purpose of the model, which is the real justification of using system dynamic. To understand the dynamic of the model, one must study each loops individually and see what it is useful to relative to the purpose and if it can be replaced by a more static method.
About the fact of being specialized in SD, It depends on what customers you have. If you are only teaching students and can make it a living, why not teach SD. The subject is interesting. Of course if you have to help business people, they do not mind SD and want their problem solved and do not mind if it is with or without SD.
I think too that if you want to succeed in helping business people, you must understand that the business world is more irrational than rational, and believing that the business world is too deterministic will not be well understood by your clients and they are right.
Being originally a scientific but having mainly been in the business, I think that the business world needs more a free thinker than a rationalist that will be unable to step out of the rut that his rationality will have dug.
So the difficulty is to take the best from rational methods like SD, and leave the bad which is thinking that the world can be fully understood and predicted and be able to use the opportunities of life that
are always unexpected.
One other thing about SD text books is that they do not give any information about the economics of
SD modelling. How much it costs relative to the value it generates?
This is totally forgotten and it is the most important thing to study, if one wants to build useful models. This is what makes me think that the SD community is not really concerned by the utility of
SD and this is why SD is rarely used.
I know plenty of SD'ers but have never heard of any final user of the method, except myself.
Regards.
JJ
It is difficult to give any advice about textbooks.
It depends on the job you are doing and what kind of customers you have.
Most Sd books are for people dealing with public customers who are certainly less hard nosed than business people.
The reason is that public people do not play with their own money.
I have honestly not done any SD application that has delivered a significant added value. But SD has helped me to better think about a problem.
All the models that I have built so far gave me policies that I was able to demonstrate later on using more simple methods.
I am actually building a model and I am trying to solve the problem in parallel using simple static methods, even qualitative.
One interesting thing to do, is to study models made by others, for instance models published in the SD conference, and try to verify if for each model, there was a clear purpose and it that purpose was fulfilled by the model. And then see if it was not possible to get to the same conclusion by more simple methods. The fact that a model has many loops does not prove that there is any true complex dynamic related to the purpose of the model, which is the real justification of using system dynamic. To understand the dynamic of the model, one must study each loops individually and see what it is useful to relative to the purpose and if it can be replaced by a more static method.
About the fact of being specialized in SD, It depends on what customers you have. If you are only teaching students and can make it a living, why not teach SD. The subject is interesting. Of course if you have to help business people, they do not mind SD and want their problem solved and do not mind if it is with or without SD.
I think too that if you want to succeed in helping business people, you must understand that the business world is more irrational than rational, and believing that the business world is too deterministic will not be well understood by your clients and they are right.
Being originally a scientific but having mainly been in the business, I think that the business world needs more a free thinker than a rationalist that will be unable to step out of the rut that his rationality will have dug.
So the difficulty is to take the best from rational methods like SD, and leave the bad which is thinking that the world can be fully understood and predicted and be able to use the opportunities of life that
are always unexpected.
One other thing about SD text books is that they do not give any information about the economics of
SD modelling. How much it costs relative to the value it generates?
This is totally forgotten and it is the most important thing to study, if one wants to build useful models. This is what makes me think that the SD community is not really concerned by the utility of
SD and this is why SD is rarely used.
I know plenty of SD'ers but have never heard of any final user of the method, except myself.
Regards.
JJ
In fact I have never seen in my life any SDer, only exchanging a lot of e-mails with member of the SD mailing list, reading books, having followed two distant web courses, one was with Bob five years ago. It was a good course, thanks to Bob, and in spite of the teaching assistant, who looked very lazy, probably not even reading the assignments, and giving very high notes, whatever the quality of the work. I got an A minus given by the teaching assistant, I do not know why and how.
Regards
Floyd
____
dossier surendettement
[Edited on 10-22-2009 by Floyd21]
Regards
Floyd
____
dossier surendettement
[Edited on 10-22-2009 by Floyd21]
Advanced Textbooks and Value of SD in Business
I have found the books by Hartmut Bossel (available in English) a great addition to the standard Anglo-Saxon texts out there. His basic introduction to systems and modeling is very rigorous and gives a good intro into modeling in general. Quite valueable is the inclusion of a chapter on the mathematics of dynamic systems and a bit of control theory which is quite readable. This adds rigor to the things you will find mentioned in the footnotes in Sterman (2000).
To add value to business I would strongly suggest reading Kim Warren's Strategic Management Dynamics (2008). Building a core strategic architecture for strategic/business questions can be done in a "couple of days" (with all the caution on the validity of findings...).
Regarding costs vs. value of SD I would mention that SD is adaptive in the same way the feedback systems that are modeled are: You might reasonably start out high level and then start to more and more refine your model (e.g. by working on the sub-systems). By always having the last high-level-model built ready for use this will help in addition with using tests on validity/sensitivity to decide whether it is worth to continue (e.g. to become more detailled).
I find this a big advantage of SD. SD heavily depends on the way it is practiced.
I strongly agree that the value of SD should be more explicitly tested. Where are the studies that show how different models have performed (validity of recommendations, effort vs. value). Probably this is difficult as most people are stuck in their world of modeling/thinking.
One last word on usefulness: Looking at the way stress tests are done in banking or on how certain decisions are made in policy there should be great use for dynamic feedback-models, shouldn't there? Also regarding business people and public policy: Let's face it everydeay business decisions may not be the greatest intellectual brain teasers and since business systems are adaptive and (often) self-stabilizing one might say that you can "manage to manage" with more testosterone than cerebral capacity... But again, strategic problems in business and strategic planning are very interdependent - I cannot see why SD should not prove valueable here?
Kind regards,
Guido
To add value to business I would strongly suggest reading Kim Warren's Strategic Management Dynamics (2008). Building a core strategic architecture for strategic/business questions can be done in a "couple of days" (with all the caution on the validity of findings...).
Regarding costs vs. value of SD I would mention that SD is adaptive in the same way the feedback systems that are modeled are: You might reasonably start out high level and then start to more and more refine your model (e.g. by working on the sub-systems). By always having the last high-level-model built ready for use this will help in addition with using tests on validity/sensitivity to decide whether it is worth to continue (e.g. to become more detailled).
I find this a big advantage of SD. SD heavily depends on the way it is practiced.
I strongly agree that the value of SD should be more explicitly tested. Where are the studies that show how different models have performed (validity of recommendations, effort vs. value). Probably this is difficult as most people are stuck in their world of modeling/thinking.
One last word on usefulness: Looking at the way stress tests are done in banking or on how certain decisions are made in policy there should be great use for dynamic feedback-models, shouldn't there? Also regarding business people and public policy: Let's face it everydeay business decisions may not be the greatest intellectual brain teasers and since business systems are adaptive and (often) self-stabilizing one might say that you can "manage to manage" with more testosterone than cerebral capacity... But again, strategic problems in business and strategic planning are very interdependent - I cannot see why SD should not prove valueable here?
Kind regards,
Guido