I agree with Martin (SD6604) that we should introduce SD to common people, particularly children. I have a strategy: to re-define the term 'system dynamicist', and to make people want to become system dynamicists.
To date, system dynamicist has been defined as a person holding a Ph.D. degree in System Dynamics. This definition excludes Jay W. Forrester and some other members in the SDS. Moreover, it prevents people to become system dynamicists via self-trainning.
A clear reward is necessary for attracting laypersons into the field. At present, there is a clear cost of SDS membership, advanced software licence, SD books, SD literature DVD, SD conference, SD article publishing, but there is no short term reward for this investment, nor do ones can assure there will be long term satisfactory benefits from learning SD.
As most people are interested in short-term benefits and long-term gain, we need to build a new structure that can generate such behavior. Such a system might exist, but I cannot see it now.
MK
System dynamicist
System dynamicists
Hi Monte
I am not impressed at all by having or not a P.H.D. as far as concrete applications of SD is concerned.
In fact I am quite sure that there are less people that try with or without success to apply SD to concrete problems than people having a PHD on the e-mail SD list.
For me an authentic SD’er must prove real achievements in SD.
A real achievement helps directly or indirectly real problems to be solved by the use of SD.
For my point of view having not yet further information the only persons that I consider without contest to be authentic SD’er are the people that have built the SD softwares.
This is something that is without discussion concrete.
I have no prove of the competency of the others. And I would like people on the SD mailing list to prove their ability on something else than philosophical meandering, a concrete problem to solve from the start (definition of the problem) to the end (report of the satisfaction of the problem owner).
Regards.
JJ.
I am not impressed at all by having or not a P.H.D. as far as concrete applications of SD is concerned.
In fact I am quite sure that there are less people that try with or without success to apply SD to concrete problems than people having a PHD on the e-mail SD list.
For me an authentic SD’er must prove real achievements in SD.
A real achievement helps directly or indirectly real problems to be solved by the use of SD.
For my point of view having not yet further information the only persons that I consider without contest to be authentic SD’er are the people that have built the SD softwares.
This is something that is without discussion concrete.
I have no prove of the competency of the others. And I would like people on the SD mailing list to prove their ability on something else than philosophical meandering, a concrete problem to solve from the start (definition of the problem) to the end (report of the satisfaction of the problem owner).
Regards.
JJ.
Hi JJ,
This definition might impress you:
System dynamicist n. 1 a person who works in, or is skilled in the system dynamics technique. 2 a person who holds a Ph.D. degree in System Dynamics.
People with a PHD are surely system dynamicists. Others who use SD effectively are also system dynamicists. It is hard to tell which group is superior, without regarding the impact of their SD works, which may or may not relate to the level of SD knowledge.
Ragards,
MK
This definition might impress you:
System dynamicist n. 1 a person who works in, or is skilled in the system dynamics technique. 2 a person who holds a Ph.D. degree in System Dynamics.
People with a PHD are surely system dynamicists. Others who use SD effectively are also system dynamicists. It is hard to tell which group is superior, without regarding the impact of their SD works, which may or may not relate to the level of SD knowledge.
Ragards,
MK
Hi Monte,
I was curious about the source of that definition. Where did you get it?
And on the other hand, do you think that a label such as being a system dynamicist will be an efficient motivation for people? To be honest, I won't be interested in a tool or field in order just to get a label tag.
regards,
gonenc
I was curious about the source of that definition. Where did you get it?
And on the other hand, do you think that a label such as being a system dynamicist will be an efficient motivation for people? To be honest, I won't be interested in a tool or field in order just to get a label tag.
regards,
gonenc
System dynamicst
Hi Monte
You gave the definitions of an SD'er and I gave the definition of a good SD'er.
Regards.
JJ
You gave the definitions of an SD'er and I gave the definition of a good SD'er.
Regards.
JJ
Hi, Gonenc and JJ.
The definition was adapted from the entry 'artist' defined in Webster's New World College Dictionary,4th edition, p. 81. The label may be a high leverage point; it would develop a unity among SD experts, who will motivate other people. The label seems not directly linked to the motivation, but it will label experts first. This is a basis for developing a new SD institute:
The Association of System Dynamicists
which might attract the public.
A tag would make us different and dominant, providing people at least a clear target of what they can become. Even Jay labeled his field two times.
As to the definition of SD'er, that is right; however, a dictionary does not permit an entry led by a common adjective. Moreover, the word 'good' is too abstract and needs criterea, which are different among SD'ers (e.g., hard versus soft SD'ers).
A new term for 'good SD'er' would be necessary. The term 'dynamicit' is a candidate.
The definition was adapted from the entry 'artist' defined in Webster's New World College Dictionary,4th edition, p. 81. The label may be a high leverage point; it would develop a unity among SD experts, who will motivate other people. The label seems not directly linked to the motivation, but it will label experts first. This is a basis for developing a new SD institute:
The Association of System Dynamicists
which might attract the public.
A tag would make us different and dominant, providing people at least a clear target of what they can become. Even Jay labeled his field two times.
As to the definition of SD'er, that is right; however, a dictionary does not permit an entry led by a common adjective. Moreover, the word 'good' is too abstract and needs criterea, which are different among SD'ers (e.g., hard versus soft SD'ers).
A new term for 'good SD'er' would be necessary. The term 'dynamicit' is a candidate.
Originally posted by Monte
Hi JJ,
This definition might impress you:
System dynamicist n. 1 a person who works in, or is skilled in the system dynamics technique. 2 a person who holds a Ph.D. degree in System Dynamics.
People with a PHD are surely system dynamicists. Others who use SD effectively are also system dynamicists. It is hard to tell which group is superior, without regarding the impact of their SD works, which may or may not relate to the level of SD knowledge.
Ragards,
MK
system dynamicist
Hi Monte
The SD society should organize to have some feedbacks about the concrete effects of SD on real life over the time.
One idea, but there can be many others probably better, it is a question of imagination and experience:
Create a group whose name could be for instance: group of SD practitioners reporting their experience. It would be better to find a shorter name, while still meaning the same thing.
Anybody could adhere to the group with the obligation to report any concrete work that has been done using SD with or without other techniques, whether soft or hard, qualitative, quantitative or mixed.
The exact definition of the problem as stated by the customer should be given right at the beginning of the work with the name of the client, with eventually some later modifications and the appreciation of the work by the client at the end of the work after a request from the group.
The adherent could or could not justify his eventual failure.
This should be the minimum.
Further explanations could be given or not.
If the SD society discovered a client having worked with one of the adherent and having not been reported, the adherent should be excluded from the group, to avoid adherent reporting only their successes.
The adherent could tell freely anyone that he is a member of the group, and the client could or could not depending on the politicy of the group, ask the group the history of the applications reported to the group by the adherent.
The advantage of this would be to procure to the SDS statistics of the evolution of the number of cases solved and the satisfaction of the customers. It would permit too ‘good’ SD’ers to prove how good they are.
Of course as it is, it is still simplistic, and should need to be improved, and particularly the quality of the information should be verified and falsifications avoided and what informations should be made public or who could get information and what information.
There are many organisations that are able to help the building of such a system (quality certifying organisations for example).
The advantage is that it is completely free, easy to implement and it is not based on diplomas but on real works.
It is not based on a certification that is difficult to define and to deliver.
A study of field having had the same problem to solve and having found a solution would be
Interesting too.
Before all I have given a solution without having clearly explained the objective.
I should have clearly exposed the possible objectives of such a group, and the definition of the group should change accordingly to the change of objectives.
The group should be built in a way that SD'er who know they are good, be tempted to adhere to the system.
Other groups could be formed like: group of SD teachers reporting their results etc…
Regards.
JJ
[Edited on 25-9-2007 by LAUJJL]
[Edited on 25-9-2007 by LAUJJL]
The SD society should organize to have some feedbacks about the concrete effects of SD on real life over the time.
One idea, but there can be many others probably better, it is a question of imagination and experience:
Create a group whose name could be for instance: group of SD practitioners reporting their experience. It would be better to find a shorter name, while still meaning the same thing.
Anybody could adhere to the group with the obligation to report any concrete work that has been done using SD with or without other techniques, whether soft or hard, qualitative, quantitative or mixed.
The exact definition of the problem as stated by the customer should be given right at the beginning of the work with the name of the client, with eventually some later modifications and the appreciation of the work by the client at the end of the work after a request from the group.
The adherent could or could not justify his eventual failure.
This should be the minimum.
Further explanations could be given or not.
If the SD society discovered a client having worked with one of the adherent and having not been reported, the adherent should be excluded from the group, to avoid adherent reporting only their successes.
The adherent could tell freely anyone that he is a member of the group, and the client could or could not depending on the politicy of the group, ask the group the history of the applications reported to the group by the adherent.
The advantage of this would be to procure to the SDS statistics of the evolution of the number of cases solved and the satisfaction of the customers. It would permit too ‘good’ SD’ers to prove how good they are.
Of course as it is, it is still simplistic, and should need to be improved, and particularly the quality of the information should be verified and falsifications avoided and what informations should be made public or who could get information and what information.
There are many organisations that are able to help the building of such a system (quality certifying organisations for example).
The advantage is that it is completely free, easy to implement and it is not based on diplomas but on real works.
It is not based on a certification that is difficult to define and to deliver.
A study of field having had the same problem to solve and having found a solution would be
Interesting too.
Before all I have given a solution without having clearly explained the objective.
I should have clearly exposed the possible objectives of such a group, and the definition of the group should change accordingly to the change of objectives.
The group should be built in a way that SD'er who know they are good, be tempted to adhere to the system.
Other groups could be formed like: group of SD teachers reporting their results etc…
Regards.
JJ
[Edited on 25-9-2007 by LAUJJL]
[Edited on 25-9-2007 by LAUJJL]