Ventana software support forum

Posted by S Anders Christensson <s.a.christensson@comhem.se>

Dear Jim,

Thank you for invitation to participate in a strategic outlook for the next
50 years concerning System Dynamics Society.

In my own research here at Swedish National Defence College I focus on
finding notational systems to support individual and groups lack of to
cognitively manage dynamics, interactions and generative capabilities. This
because of that humans historical track record of cognitive development do
not take drastic steps in 50 years although development of artefacts take
drastic steps.
During Renaissance human found out how to signify depth in painting, during
1940 + we teach this in school, not just at art schools but also for 12+
years and up in normal education. Although it¹s just a matter of drawing
line from here to horizon and stick to these perspectives and aligns the
rest of figures like houses, people and so on to these perspective lines.
This tricks is an artefact but has the brain evolved to more better
comprehend 3D. I¹d say very little if any. This aligning of support line to
lead in the observers eye in a painting and with light and darkness guide a
human eye to follow the artists thoughts and during this the observer
parse¹s what the painter wants to express so that the observer is catching
the meaning, is still few to understand.
I state that every human uses models. All models are subjective. There are
two kinds of model types although; they are either implicit or explicit.
People that have not been exposed to system dynamics/thinking or math or
computer models are illiterate to express themselves and their implicit
models, or there cognitive (wetware based) models. As in all educational
process there is a large psychological steps too selfishly motivate your
self to learn the notation of system dynamics/thinking and be able to
express your implicit model in explicit notations. It¹s a resistance on both
sides. First to learn, then to allow your self to be criticised because your
models are potentially wrong, it is subjective although explicit and can be
criticised by others. The self-esteem may take severe punishment when trying
to explain or defend your just explicitly made models. Can you stand tall in
this? And learn?

Psychologically one have a problem when one is in the situation find that
you need to come to other state, but do not know how to come to this new
state. This because the contemporary state is to weekly known or stated and
you just know that you need to make a jump to a state +50 years ahead. This
End-state is as well weekly defined. Therefore we need to define an
End-State.

In my research I have fused some different approaches together into one
framwork. The civilian enterprise modelling, quality functions deployment,
QFD, NATO Effect Based Approach Operational planning, a Dynamic OODA-loop
into a framework to support strategic planning for political, economical,
civilian and military planning. Planning for an intervention in other
countries. A commander that receives a task to intervene in a country has to
have as well defined starting point from which he and his staff depart, and
staffs has to define a End State. This End-State is a text describing as if
you where there, the situation +50 years ahead. People knows how to mediate
dynamics of complex processes, or what interactions are qualitative and
quantitative relevant to consider, they know how to considered the inherent
generative capabilities participating objects brings into the dynamics. From
End-State they deduct and express finally what is the steps that are needed
to overcome the gap of present contemporary state to the targeted End-State.
This decision modelling process has its software support and has been
tested. End-State can be static, dynamically stabile, stochastic or chaotic.
Mixes between the four systems behavioural for each indicator describing
End-State will results that it is even more difficult to define End-State if
one do not understand dynamics, interactions and generative capabilities.

In many cases we, as humans do not know or are week on the understanding of
verbs operating on nouns and what this leads to. Pierce in his science
defined the first, second and the thirds on symbols in semiotics. First as I
interpret it is the visual look and this can of course be the word, symbol,
icon, what ever. To this the second or the definition is assigned to the
first. These two are storable, that is they are explicit. The third is
cognitive and is dealing with our perception or experience or own use. But
this is again implicit model¹s that are co-executing in wetware. Sentences
are heard and parsed and injected in a model, this results in a pragmatic
solution. The more knowledge or interlinked implicit model we parse against
the more we can comprehend of our surroundings. In a sense the computer Deep
BLUE that challenged Kasparow had a complex model with which the Scheck
board was parsed at each draw, the draw was a sentence, parsed by a model
and possible outcomes where then calculated and based on calculation DB draw
was issued.

Again, is our End-State +50 years ahead, what is our agreed state for us to
see? Of reasons mentioned above we need to develop the artefact or
notational systems that holds content and mediate meaning of this future
state. We need to lower the self-esteem factor to be separated and allow
subjective models as a starting point to begin relay on the contemporary
description of now. A description of now that can visualise dynamics,
interactions and generative capabilities and be altered by others. Maybe
start a web site that holds produced models and are interlinked to one and
other to which a person can inject his models using a lexical library that
models some basic nouns and verbs. WordNet is a good definition of words
candidate to be use but for a specific discipline, why not economics, law
etc?

One mans prediction is linear; a response on this gives a feedback, this
becomes non-linear prediction. This behavioural is in my mind the core why
IBM developments officers where wrong in 1956. On the contrary they opened
up for feedback and non-linearity. Allowing exponential or non-linear growth
of installed computers. Computer became smaller and smaller and now we have
laptops PDA and soon smart homes. Paradigm shifts. Other branches imagined
what the new technologies could do for them. By stating this for them self¹s
and computer vendors, in turn customers put forward additional demands on
amount of computers and additional functionalities in them. Customers own
use and how this was leveraging them and their products infected others to
do better, cheaper and faster.

So how do we design artefacts with which dynamics, interactions and
generative capabilities are supporting cognitive processes and is so common
that many people is using it to forward insights and outcome that holds
dynamics, interactions and generative capabilities in content and meaning. A
notations system that takes care of qualitative process behavioural as well
as spatial dependencies? Or is it a process we need to support. A process
that can be stopped at any step, when the process has given it¹s answer and
has fulfilled its meaning for them who stated the question. If the human
needs more specifics answers then we can resume and proceed with out process
towards a more comprehensive understanding. There is research and products
along these lines, and they may find a broader market then they have just
now. They will as well be more friendly to use and more transparent for a
user to comprehend sub-models interlinked inside it.
Maybe decision-modelling is the work form that needs to be developed as a
process inside a company. If CEO and his directors are decision modelling
and the accompanied plan is by the next decision level further rationalize
what to do and how each branch contributes to companies¹ improvements
according to QFD we will see many different types of models on each decision
level. Automation will of course come in from bottom up.

So far the rational side. Now to the descriptive, contradicting side or art
side. Is it possible to express poems, songs or other art forms with a
notational system that hold complex dynamics, interactions and generative
capabilities? Can one express a poem with Stella

Posted by ""James Lyneis"" <jmlyneis@verizon.net>

Dear Colleague,

At the 50^th Anniversary Conference of the International System Dynamics
Society held in Boston last year, President Qifan Wang challenged us to
develop a vision and strategy for the next 50 years. This challenge was
prompted not only by this significant anniversary, but also by the
numerous discussions over the past years, many on this list serve, about
the success of the field and the possible steps that might be taken to
further that success. A committee composed of Henk Akkermans, Deborah
Campbell, Joel Rahn, and Yutaka Takahashi was appointed by the Policy
Council and asked to define and address issues related to the next 50
years. Kim Warren was asked, and graciously accepted, to bring his
skills to the process. As the current president, I am pushing this
process along.

Clearly it is impossible for the 1000-plus members of the Society to
jointly form a vision and strategy. Therefore we will be adopting a
process of polling the members about specific issues or aspects of the
strategy, then meeting with smaller but diverse working groups to
develop specific interim work products (for example, position papers,
model designs, models, analyses), then reviewing interim work products
with the broader group (again most likely using this list serve). In
the end, we hope to have some concrete steps that the Society can take
to support the growth of the field and the Society.

As a starting point, Kim Warren has put forth below some questions for
discussion.

I encourage as many of you as possible to participate. If in addition,
or instead, you would like to provide input in confidence, please email
directly to me and I will pass the information on to the committee.

Best regards,


Jim Lyneis
President
System Dynamics Society
jmlyneis@verizon.net

~~~
>From Kim Warren:

Like any strategy process, a key starting point is a clear sense of what
the organization is trying to achieve. Unlike a self-contained entity in
business, the public-sector or voluntary sector, the ‘organization’ in
this case includes anyone interested in seeing system dynamics develop.
I have deliberately not said ‘the SD Society’ or ‘the SD field’ or
specified what is meant by ‘develop’, because that is what we want your
views on.

We would therefore like to start a substantial and diverse conversation
with anyone and everyone interested in system dynamics to clarify what
goals the wider community should be pursuing. To start this off, we
would like everyone to consider the following question:

""It is 2028, and a special global gathering has been organised with no
other purpose than to celebrate the outstanding progress that system
dynamics has made since 2008. What achievements would make you - and
[importantly] outside observers - feel that this celebration is totally
justified, and how would you measure each of those achievements?""

I am very conscious that neither the SD Society membership, nor the
readership of this list, come anywhere near to encompassing all those
with any interest in SD, e.g. many business consultants, influential
people in public policy, and students in a great variety of educational
programs. So if you feel there are others who would have important
feelings on this question, please feel free to speculate on what you
think their views might be - or better still, forward this question to
them and encourage them to tell us directly.

Our wish here is not to emerge with the lowest common denominator of
what would satisfy the largest fraction of our community, but to capture
as widely as possible the full scope of their ambitions.

We will monitor the discussion and attempt a synthesis when it appears
that everyone’s creativity and patience have been exhausted.

Thank you.
Posted by ""James Lyneis"" <jmlyneis@verizon.net>
posting date Mon, 31 Mar 2008 11:26:03 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by ""Chip Hines"" <hines.chip@gmail.com>

I believe that the K-12 initiative is important, and should continue to
be pursued. On a related note, it seems to me that there is a great
deal of individual interest in many of the worlds great problems, but
there hasnt been enough work that demonstrates the value of individual
contributions in those issues. It seems to me that while we continue to
fight the broad management mentality that looks for the one/best
solution to a problem, there exists opportunities to show the public
that their individual efforts can significantly affect outcomes and that
waiting for big government or industry to ""solve"" the problem is not a
good strategy.

At the same time, we need much more robust tools - not just for those
making the models, but to make exploration of the issues, dynamics and
possible outcomes not only easy for the general population but enjoyable
for them.

If the profession could find ways to help voters look at the effects of
different approaches to political issues, it might both help them
understand the complexities of solutions and to better decide whom to
vote for.

Finally, I think the support of this type of interactive community
should continue - people helping people is the way that use of the
knowledge base will become widespread.

my 2 cents.

chip
Posted by ""Chip Hines"" <hines.chip@gmail.com>
posting date Tue, 1 Apr 2008 19:26:40 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>

Hi everybody.

My wish would be for the field to be more practically used, especially in
France where it is very weakly practised.

I might add that the difficulty is not to set an objective but to know how
to reach it and for that to understand first the reasons for the very slow
development of SD and especially practical SD during the last 50 years.
Regards.

Jean-Jacques Laublé Eurli Allocar
Strasbourg France.
Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>
posting date Tue, 1 Apr 2008 15:10:22 +0200
_______________________________________________

Posted by Stephen Wehrenberg <stephen.wehrenberg@verizon.net>

Like Jac Vennix, I've come to believe that the real power in SD modeling
lies not in the models but in the group model building process. No one
learns as much about the system or problem being examined as those who
participate directly in discovering the relationships of the variables
within. It is the same with strategy development, particularly using
scenarios: those who engage in the strategic conversation are the ones
who benefit and who gain profound understanding of the factors driving
strategy.

In my dream for the community we would create many more opportunities
for people to participate. I can imagine wiki-like virtual group model
building applications that would engage hundreds or even thousands of
people who are interested in solving some of the great problems of the
day. We've seen that idea emerging in the use of simulation (games) to
engage creative problem solving, but those efforts always suffer from
the same malady (IMHO) as the Sim games -- I don't play them because I
always want to get under the hood and understand the relationships of
the variables. A ""game"" where the whole purpose is to discover those
relationships would be a real breakthrough.

I've come to the sad conclusion that not everyone has the intellectual
capacity nor the desire to examine the world through the lens of SD, or
even to think systemically. That capacity, like most things, is
probably normally distributed in the population. But everyone can
engage at some level, and most people need only to be ""enabled"" by the
technology and the process of inquiry. The SD Society then would become
a community of guides, or coaches, or paladins (in the sense of
honorable knights, not the imperial palace guard), who dedicate their
careers to this purpose.

I'll grant this seems a bit idealistic, but isn't that where strategy
should begin?

Steve

--

Stephen B. Wehrenberg, Ph.D./
/Human Resource Strategy and Capability; Director, Future Force;
and Director of Executive Development, US Coast Guard
Organizational Sciences, The George Washington University
Posted by Stephen Wehrenberg <stephen.wehrenberg@verizon.net>
posting date Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:04:14 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by Martin Schaffernicht <martin@utalca.cl>

Hi all,

Kim asks what achievments in 2028 would be important for people outside
the current SD community.

Let's agree that ""system dynamics"" contains such things as

* stating clearly what one searches (problem and purpose)
* making one's ideas explicit (to model)
* subject them to critique (simulate and validate)

which enables one to think and act critically/rigorously
and also

* the way things grow and decline over time (accumulation and flow;
including nonlinearity and delays)
* the importance of closed feedback loops around us

which improve our ability to do the first three things.

Then I believe that the ""landing"" of these things in ""schools of
education"" (where new teachers are trained) would ge quite an
achievement. Not only for the SD-people, but also for educators:
/critical, systematic and systemic thinking skills/ are not very well
developed in many schooling systems, and even though nobody complains
about the lack of SD, many observe the lack of thinking competencies.
As far as SD improves these competencies, it will be welcomed not as a
thing in itself, but for its contribution to these competencies.

Of cause, there is a very long delay between the training of future
teachers and a trained teacher workforce, so it is very important to
reinforce the K-12 work ongoing; assessment studies converning thinking
competencies would help to pursuade more teachers and administrators
(outside the USA). Also I'd say that interactive material for children
and young people (not for educators) would speed the process, if it is
made available in the main languages (example: how many children speak
chinese or spanish, not english?).

Of cause this is not the only achievement, but it sure would be /one/.

Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Universidad de Talca
Talca - Chile
Posted by Martin Schaffernicht <martin@utalca.cl>
posting date Wed, 02 Apr 2008 13:23:20 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by Fabian Fabian <f_fabian@yahoo.com>

Let me express part of our dream:

Problems will be modeled helped by intelligent software that will
recognize natural language.
People will naturally make decisions thinking generatively rather
than reactively.
Visual communication will be ubiquitous.
SD will not need to be ""sold"", as value is going to be on
transformation provided, not on the tool/methodology/paradigm used.

Nice scenario, ins't it? Challenging? Of course. But dreams will make
the most from our discipline and imagination as a community, hopefully
enabling the identification of initiatives that will help materialize them.

Greetings,

Fabian Szulanski
Director
SD Centre
Instituto Tecnologico de Buenos Aires
Posted by Fabian Fabian <f_fabian@yahoo.com>
posting date Wed, 2 Apr 2008 05:48:38 -0700 (PDT)
_______________________________________________

Posted by Lees Stuntz <stuntzln@clexchange.org>

Hello,

Martin is making a point which is well taken. So far the positive
results from our efforts in this direction have been minimal. The
enormous push-back from the educational institutions is part of the
problem, the other part being our inability to figure out how to
overcome that barrier and how to teach teachers effectively in their own
language. We are struggling with these issues in K-12 and would welcome
any helpful input, energy and time that those on this list would be
willing to give. We do have a K-12 list (sporadically active). If those
of you on the SD list would like to contribute- you are more than
welcome! We need the collaboration of the professional SD people to make
initiatives like this happen.

To subscribe: Send a message to listserv@sysdyn.clexchange.org with the
line ""subscribe k-12sd first-name last-name"" as the only thing in the
message's body (no footer, no signature, etc.) The subject line is
immaterial. ""First-name"" and ""last-name"" are your first and last names.
For example, ""subscribe k-12sd Lees Stuntz"" for me.

Or just go on the Creative Learning Exchange website
(www.clexchange.org) and join listserv at the K-12 community on the
right hand top corner.

Take care,
Lees
Posted by Lees Stuntz <stuntzln@clexchange.org>
posting date Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:53:43 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>

Kim, Jim, and others,

Nice idea, Kim, to visionize about what outstanding achievements system
dynamics might have made 20 years from now. This supports Jim’s idea,
that “We hope to have some concrete steps that the Society can take to
support the growth of the field and the Society.”

But isn’t this putting the cart before the horse? Isn’t this essentially
saying that we have this tool called system dynamics, and now we want to
grow its use? To me, this comes uncomfortably close to slipping into the
goal of organization self-perpetuation. This is one of the first signs
of a bureaucracy, whose interest is no longer serving others, but itself.

Better, I suspect, would be to ask: What problem domain is it this
nascent field is trying to solve? Every field attempts to address some
problem area of importance. Over the years, fields like physics,
chemistry, and electrical engineering have accumulated a mature toolset
for practitioners to successfully solve problems.

So what kind of problem is SD trying to solve? Currently it seems to be
mostly whatever can best be solved with stock and flow models. But this
is too limiting, and may be a principle source of the limited success
the field has seen.

Is the domain *problems whose solution requires deep and correct
understanding of dynamic feedback structure?* That’s a much broader,
more customer oriented domain. Call this domain A.

A diverse set of tools can already provide a sense of understanding of
structure, like accounting, spreadsheets, stock and flow modeling, agent
based modeling, causal flow modeling, economic modeling, etc. But in so
many cases these tools fall short. Economists are still unable to
predict recessions, growth spurts, or economic crises. Most businesses
are unable to do the equivalent, except for the short term, even if they
use SD. On large social problems, society continues to be unable to
solve problems like corruption, systemic poverty, war, mal-distribution
of wealth, environmental sustainability, and urban decay/slums, although
some of these have been partially solved.

Given this state, it seems the real question is not how can the field of
SD move forward, but: *How can the maturity of problem solving tools for
domain A be increased to the point where they can solve the highest
priority problems?* This would elevate our thinking to the proper level
of abstraction, and we would be less likely to remain mired in the
mental traps and ruts we may have slipped into. This can happen to any
field. Indeed, it has happened to most. Over the centuries, countless
new promising fields have emerged. Most have fallen from the screen, to
be absorbed by others or to disappear altogether.

So what are the highest priority problems in domain A? I see two broad
classes: business management and social problems. If we looked at the
top ten problems of each and the benefits of solution to society, as
well as the costs of no solution, the results would be a landslide
towards the need to solve the world’s major social problems first.

Of course, better ability to do that would translate to better ability
to solve business management problems. Since the average business
problem is an order of magnitude easier to solve than the average social
problem, the translation would be amplified.

By the way, I just don’t feel enthusiastic about helping a field become
better at solving yet another market share problem. But I can get
excited about being able to celebrate in 2028 the achievement of being
able to reliably solve social problems like those listed above. I can
see the headlines now: “After 10,000 Years of Searching, The Key to
Eradication of Poverty Finally Found” and “Spaceship Earth Breathes Sigh
of Relief as Sustainability Problem Solved at Last.”

*The Goal*

This line of reasoning leads to a clearly stated goal: *Develop the
ability to reliably solve large, pressing social problems.*

Would it be possible to fine tune this goal even more? Yes, if there
were certain social problems that, if unsolved, made all other problems
(whether business or social) irrelevant. As far as I can tell, there are
two problems that fit this class: war waged with weapons of mass
destruction and global environmental sustainability. Either one, if not
solved, will wipe out most or all human population. Let’s call these
mega social problems. This leads to a refined goal: *Develop the ability
to reliably solve mega social problems.*

This will not be easy. It may even look impossible. But long ago, so did
solving the serfdom problem, the rule of kings problem, the slavery
problem, the women’s suffrage problem, etc. Problem solvers have already
solved an impressive collection of social problems. They have already
proved the impossible is possible. All we are doing is tackling
progressively more difficult problems, as well as ones that must be
solved much faster. This is why better tools are needed.

*Strategy to Achieve the Goal*

Next, what would be the topmost strategy to achieve this goal? “The
ability to reliably solve” holds a major clue. We would be developing
the ability to reliably accomplish something. Taking a leap, my
definition of process is a repeatable series of steps for achieving a
goal. It follows that the goal can be restated as: *Develop a process
for solving mega social problems.*

Some Society members may feel uncomfortable with this goal. It may seem
too ambitious, too impractical, or too self-righteous. But the way I
look at it is what are the world’s biggest needs at the highest level of
abstraction? What would be the most incredible contribution to science
we could make? Would not this advance be the biggest in all of science
since the invention of the Scientific Method itself? Wouldn’t it cap the
progression of science so well that we could at last proudly say that
the (false) dichotomy of the hard versus the soft sciences has been
shattered at last?

To allow those participating in this exercise to feel more comfortable
with this stretch goal, I have available a paper on “The need for a
standard process for solving difficult social problems using system
dynamics.” While it focuses only on SD, I’m sure readers can see that a
standard process would require far more than just stock and flow
modeling to accomplish the goal. The paper explains what being process
centric is all about, why modeling is a repeatable and improvable
exercise regardless of the problem domain, and presents a sample process
in order to illustrate the argument. The paper is designed to cast
strong lights on the shadows of impossibility, and turn them into the
possible.

However, it’s probably best to first discuss the goal, and then later
take a look at the paper, so that we don’t put the cart before the horse.

*Avoiding Repeating Your Own Mistakes*

“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” –
George Santayana, Life of Reason, 1905.

Awhile back I prepared another paper that may be of some interest. It
was an analysis of a similar organization, so similar it is somewhat SD
centric. Like the Society, they too had failed and they knew it. Like
the Society, they embarked on a self-examination and self-improvement
project. So, as part of this I prepared a paper on “Can These Best
Practices Make (name of organization) Effective Once Again?”

Sadly, the paper had little effect. It seems this organization was not
ready for a fresh viewpoint. In fact, they even shot the messenger.

Just as sadly, the organization appears to be continuing its old
methods, and is trying the same thing over and over, and hoping the
results are going to be different….

But again, to help us focus, it’s probably best to first discuss the
goal, and then take a look at this second paper.


Hope this helps us move forward,

Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:09:16 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by Doug Samuelson <samuelsondoug@yahoo.com>

This analysis strikes me as the right way to go. I would add one other major
social problem: health and wellness. We have been living, for the past 150
years or so, in a fantasy of finding technologies to wipe out all threats to
human health. The microbes are learning how to fight back, and the increasing
complexity and cost of our health care system is already imposing various
forms of rationing. Besides, we're not designed or evolved to live forever,
no matter what we do. Some of our best-intended initiatives may actually
impair health overall, by moving resources from the most cost-effective uses
to high-cost treatment of relatively low-incidence ailments -- as with the
shift of nursing care from prenatal health to AIDS in Africa. (As
horrifically prevalent as AIDS is in sub-Saharan Africa, prenatal and neonatal
malnutrition is literally ten times worse.)

Now, would the System Dynamics Society agree that it has failed? Starting from
that premise, even with strong evidence to back the conclusion, is unlikely to
win converts. I think a more accurate statement is that System Dynamics has had
some striking successes but has fallen short of the reach and impact its
founders hoped to achieve. Many professions, and many businesses and some
governments, for that matter, reach this situation. Often the question that
then moves the organization forward is, ""OK, what are we already good at that
other people want to buy?"" The next question, basically a refinement of focus
of the first one, typically is, ""Who are the friends of the people we've served
most effectively, what problems do they have that look like what we did well,
and can we get our friends to make some introductions?""

In contrast, organizations that begin with a lot of introspection tend to
generate more bickering than new useful insight. If you're not selling as well
as you'd like, reexamining the market(s) and how you're viewed there makes a
lot more sense than reexamining your own thinking in a vacuum.

So I'd start with the early successes of industrial and urban dynamics, try to
characterize what those successful efforts and the problems they addressed had
in common, and look for other opportunities like those. Urban housing and
business development is still a mess, but urban dynamics pointed the way to
some demonstrable improvements. The health care system has many similar
dynamics. We have at least a few policy-makers and corporate executives who
like what they've seen of this field. Why not start with an outreach
initiative, with a solid self-assessment built in?

-- Doug Samuelson
Posted by Doug Samuelson <samuelsondoug@yahoo.com>
posting date Tue, 8 Apr 2008 09:13:22 -0700 (PDT)
_______________________________________________

Posted by Leona Eggleston <eggleston@bedoukian.com>

I work for a manufacturing company. Business fads come and go, usually with
poor assumptions or limited scope. System Dynamics could be a lot more useful,
but it isn't being marketed in a manner that would attract the attention of
business people.

Sales & Operations Planning is a current topic that has similarities to System
Dynamics. Forecasting journals typically contain numerous articles and
seminars are well attended by people from many types of business. I think
System Dynamics could progress into everyday business literature through such a
topic. I'd like to see more non-academics recognize the value of a System
Dynamics approach.

Leona Eggleston
Posted by Leona Eggleston <eggleston@bedoukian.com>
posting date Wed, 9 Apr 2008 15:03:05 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>

Thanks everyone for the replies received so far - folk are clearly
giving the issue some serious thought.
There seems some reluctance, though, to address the question as posed,
as Jack does well with his suggestion 'to have developed the ability to
reliably solve large pressing social problems.' Rather we are getting a
lot of debate about whether it's the right question.
To recap, the basic question concerned what observable, measurable
indicators you think would cause friends of SD to have a party
celebrating its success in say 20 years from now. I've been at this
strategy-business for more years than I care to remember, and one thing
is clear - if you don't know where you are heading, it's impossible to
design a path [or paths] and course[s] of action to get there.
What makes that tricky here is the vast diversity of domains in which SD
does or could make an impact, so lots of sub-groups have their own
perfectly valid aspirations. Hence the canvassing of as wide a view as
possible of the kinds of success outcomes that would make people want a
party. I didn't want to give examples for fear of constraining
responses, but perhaps if I go wide enough ? ... here are some
top-of-head examples:
- all school-leavers can explain, and give useful examples of
stock-and-flow situations, reinforcing and balancing feedback
- most people can answer correctly the question 'If we cut use of fossil
fuels by 10%, greenhouse gas levels will [a] fall stay the same [c]
go on rising?'
- all government policy proposals that pass into force are supported by
a validated and publicly available SD model that demonstrates the
balanced solving of one or more objectives for the policy and the
avoidance of adverse unintended consequences
- system dynamics is an explicit, required component of degree courses
in X, Y, Z ... subjects
- sound system dynamics reasoning features in most refereed journal
articles in subjects X, Y, Z.

These illustrations largely cover, like Jack's suggestion, the
*capability* to deal with problems - can anyone offer examples of
objectives to have *actually solved* those problems?, e.g.
- internationally-agreed policy will already be in place that has got
greenhouse gas levels [not emission rates] reducing by X% per year
- most adults can explain how the build-up of their retirement fund will
provide a comfortable life post-retirement
- economic plans for all nations will be delivering healthy economic
growth with no net environmental damage, because they are supported by
sound SD reasoning and analysis
- health policy has already succeeded in reversing the growth in numbers
of cases of diabetes internationally, in spite of greater longevity
- there has been no episode of collective corporate strategic
foolishness [as per the dot-com and sub-prime crashes of the 2000-2010
era] for the last 10 years, because corporate plans and reporting
demonstrate sound SD foundations for corporations' performance and
strategies.

Keep them coming please.

Kim Warren
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:42:14 +0100
_______________________________________________

Posted by ""Zagonel, Aldo A"" <aazagon@sandia.gov>

Kim Warren asks: ""what observable, measurable indicators you think would cause
friends of SD to have a party celebrating its success in say 20 years from now?""

- An agreed-upon SD curriculum establishing basic, intermediate, and advanced
technique-based requirements

- A periodic ranking of all available college-level and graduate programs based
upon the fulfillment of these curricular requirements

- An adaptation of SD curriculum to pre-college education, tailoring the
technique-based requirements to the academic disciplines and grade levels

- a proactive plan to implement the pre-college curriculum in public & private
schools that tracks the number and location of schools adopting it, and some
measure of the level of implementation at each site

- increased number of Master's thesis and PhD dissertations

- increased number of annual job offerings requiring competency in SD

- increased number of annual or biannual SIG-based or regional conferences of
significance, including renown presenters, written proceedings and minimum ""x""
number of participants

- increased Society logistical and financial support to sanctioned SIG-based and
regional conferences

- increased annual sponsorship to the Society by targeted business areas

To suggest a few that I could quickly brainstorm.

If we could generate a long list of short bullets like these, perhaps the next
step would be to have the strategy committee refine and prioritize them. A
survey could then seek feedback and concurrence from those in the field to
assess if the list is representative of our collective aspirations (for the
next 20 years).

Aldo Zagonel
Albuquerque, NM

Posted by ""Zagonel, Aldo A"" <aazagon@sandia.gov>
posting date Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:49:12 -0600
_______________________________________________

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

> > These illustrations largely cover, like Jack's suggestion, the
> > *capability* to deal with problems - can anyone offer examples of
> > objectives to have *actually solved* those problems?, e.g.
Kim,

I started to respond and then lacked the time to give it the thought I
wanted to give, but you expressed my concern: at the most important
level, I don't care about SD.

Sure, I really enjoy modeling, and I'd be sad if I couldn't do it
anymore, but the important stuff includes all sorts of things about
using the resources of the planet sustainably, figuring out how to get
along as peoples and as nations, figuring out how to allocate resources
among people and peoples fairly and equitably, figuring out how to have
good and healthy relationships with others, and the like.

SD only counts in two ways, seen that way: it counts if it's a tool that
helps us get there (and, if so, it only counts to the extent that it
does), and it counts as a way to help some of us earn our livelihoods.
Trying to give it further meaning seems to me a bit like asking about
the strategic impact of a 12mm spanner: who really cares except the
spanner manufacturer or the person with a nut to tighten, and the latter
won't care if there's also a 12mm socket and ratchet within reach.

For me, that leads to two areas of focus --

- - What are the key problems that SD can address?

- - How can we best help?

and one realization --

- - There may be other tools that can help quite well, too (or there may
be at times tools that can help more than SD). When we push SD, we
need to think carefully of our motivations and whether they truly help
the larger goals or whether they only help us. It's fair to focus on
the business side of SD from time to time, but it's important to
realize that such is focusing on the cart, not the horse.

To take but one example:

> > - internationally-agreed policy will already be in place that has got
> > greenhouse gas levels [not emission rates] reducing by X% per year

SD can help us see the ""physics"" that shows the impact of reducing or
not reducing GHG levels, it can help us see the likely impact of various
strategies for getting there, but it may not help all of us accept the
ethical importance of making that happen in lieu of assuaging our
short-term desires to achieve other goals.

SD can help us see that attending to the commons has certain benefits,
but it may not help us see the world from anothers' frame of reference,
and it may not help us internalize why we should do something for a
group with whom we disagree over something we believe to be substantive.

If I step back one step to focus on how we can best help, then I think
I'd like to see attention here to the two issues I mentioned: how can we
use SD better in the service of such problems, and how can we stay in
business (both as internals and as externals) so that we have the
opportunity to help, with the former (using SD better) being more
important.

Given the ideas that have come by so far, I have a possibly contrarian
suggestion to address the former (someone wanted fancier GUI tools, as I
recall): we'll once again have good, readily available, text-mode
simulators, and all our simulators will store their models in plain
text.

The former helps those of us who think we think better in text (Geoff
Coyle has advocated for that, too, so I'm not the only one), and the
latter ensures that our models remain ours, not locked up in a binary
format that may become unreadable at some time and in some situations
(the analogous situation arises in some office software suites, which is
part of why I switched to OpenOffice.org several years ago).

Incidentally, I also like working with GUIfied simulators; I just don't
want to be limited to one approach.

Perhaps I should offer two clarifications, just in case:

Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com> writes:
> I started to respond and then lacked the time to give it the thought I
> wanted to give, but you expressed my concern: at the most important
> level, I don't care about SD.

One of the reasons I like SD is that I think it has the demonstrated
potential to help address many of the important problems. I just want
to ensure I don't make the means the end.

> Given the ideas that have come by so far, I have a possibly contrarian
> suggestion to address the former (someone wanted fancier GUI tools, as I
> recall): we'll once again have good, readily available, text-mode
> simulators, and all our simulators will store their models in plain
> text.

And to be even more clear, that means that the default, most full-
featured way of storing models is in plain text. Word can store text
files, and Excel can store csv files, but in neither case do the files
contain the richness for which those applications are normally used, and
I imagine only a tiny minority of users regularly stores their documents
that way.

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Fri, 11 Apr 2008 09:37:18 -0700
_______________________________________________

Posted by ""Malczynski, Leonard A"" <lamalcz@sandia.gov>

As Aldo has done in response to what Kim Warren asks: ""what observable,
measurable indicators you think would cause friends of SD to have a
party celebrating its success in say 20 years from now?""

- System dynamics is recognized as the standard approach for all
government appointed task forces that examine long-term policy questions
in the sates of Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Texas, Illinois,
Idaho, and California among others. Exceptions must be justified.

- All major K-12 school districts and every MBA program have at least
one course in system dynamics

- System dynamics is widely recognized as the standard methodology
taught in public administration collegiate programs that have
instruction in public policy analysis. In addition most of these
programs recognize collaborative modeling as an essential skill for all
graduates

- The phrase 'causal loop diagram' would be recognized and understood by
all college graduates, almost as ubiquitous as 'spreadsheet'

- Politicians regularly speak of 'systems', 'feedback', and 'delay' in
public speeches

- Causal loop diagrams are found in newspaper editorials

Ambitious enough?

Regards,
Len Malczynski
Albuquerque, NM
Posted by ""Malczynski, Leonard A"" <lamalcz@sandia.gov>
posting date Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:36:41 -0600
_______________________________________________

Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>


I think Kim is trying to nudge us along the brainstorming road, from
so-so goals to ones that are breakthroughs in terms of insight.

This is right along the lines of what Tim Hurson discusses in his book
""Think Better: An Innovator's Guide to Productive Thinking."" Here's a
relevant extract from page 71:

-------------------- Quoted Material ---------------
""Good brainstorming is different. It relies on the overarching principle
of separating creative thinking and critical thinking to generate long
lists of possibilities. Alex Osborn, the advertising genius who
'invented' the concept of brainstorming in 1941, developed a list of
four essential rules for an effective brainstorming session:

- Criticism is ruled out. Adverse judgment of ideas must be withheld
until last.

- Freewheeling is welcomed. The wilder the idea, the better; it is
easier to tame them down than to think up.

- Quantity is wanted. The greater the number of ideas, the more the
likelihood of useful ideas.

- Combination and improvement are sought. In addition to contributing
ideas of their own, participants should suggest how the ideas of others
can be turned into better ideas or how two or more ideas can be joined
into still another idea.

------------- End Quote ----------------

Kim writes ""To recap, the basic question concerned what observable,
measurable indicators you think would cause friends of SD to have a
party celebrating its success in say 20 years from now.""

Let's see if we can shift gears into the third third, where the
unexpected connections lie. This would go beyond the concept of
""observable, measurable indicators."" It would go to our ultimate dreams,
ones that pushed the envelope of what is possible.

I'd like to share my ultimate dream. It's a measurable goal expressed in
SD terms.

My ultimate goal is *a permanent race to the top* as described in the
last chapter of the Dueling Loops book, at
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/articles/ ... s_Book.htm. The
chapter is titled ""The Tantalizing Potential of a Permanent Race to the
Top"" and is available as a separate download. This runs only 13 pages.

Notice page 182, which lists:

""The Critical Mass Components of the New Model of Social System
Engineering:
Component 1 - System Dynamics
Component 2 - The Boundaries of Memetics
Component 3 - The Fundamental Principles of Memetics
Component 4 and 5 - Memetic Calibration Techniques and Fundamental
Social Control Model Parts""

So as you can see, SD is but one piece of the puzzle. But it is THE
piece on which the others build.

Isn't system dynamics really social system engineering by another name?

Memetics, by the way, let's us more accurately describe and manage the
soft variables which have been discussed on this list lately.

The permanent race to the top goal incorporates most of the other goals
expressed so far in this thread, because these tend to be symptoms of a
system that is running well. They are side effects of achieving a higher
goal.

This goal is a step beyond the goal of ""the ability to reliably solve
large, pressing social problems."" That goal is actually self-limiting,
because it's forces us to think in terms of solving particular problems.
Better is to redesign the system so that it automatically solves them
for us. The human system itself becomes the ultimate problem solver. We,
as mere mortals, essentially transfer *the capability to solve problems*
to something else.

And then we are out of a job.

SDMAIL Bill Harris wrote:
>
> SD can help us see the ""physics"" that shows the impact of reducing or
> not reducing GHG levels, it can help us see the likely impact of
> various strategies for getting there, but it may not help all of us
> accept the ethical importance of making that happen in lieu of
> assuaging our short-term desires to achieve other goals.
A keen observation.

The ""impact"" is what the System Improvement Process (SIP) calls the
proper coupling subproblem. In the case of the environmental
sustainability problem, the human system is improperly coupled to the
greater system it lives within, the environment. The relationship
between the two systems lacks the proper feedback loops for the two
systems to work together in harmony. See this definition:
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/ ... upling.htm

""Making that happen"" is the what SIP calls the change resistance
subproblem. That is, we may know the proper practices to achieve proper
coupling, but we don't want to adopt them. We are resisting change. In
the case of the global warming problem, change resistance has proven to
be the crux of the problem. There is extreme resistance to getting all
the nations of the world to commit to a highly aggressive series of
targets to lower GHG emissions to acceptable levels in time to avoid
catastrophe. See this second definition:
http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/ ... stance.htm

Decomposing a problem into two or more easier problems is required when
the problem is difficult. Otherwise one is attempting to analyze and
solve two or more intertwined problems at once, without realizing it.
This is a surefire route to failure.

Optimum, reusable problem decomposition is something a formal problem
solving process excels at. Until SD practitioners start routinely using
a formal, mature process on difficult problems, they will continue to
see relatively low success rates.

Bill, you say SD ""may not help all of us accept the..."". It will help if
one's analysis is driven by a process that fits the problem. Ideally the
process should fit it so well that solving even big hairy ""impossible""
problems becomes a pleasure, instead of the nail-biting chore it is today.

And you say ""accept the ethical importance of making that happen."" If
you've read the Dueling Loops paper, then you can see that an SD
analysis has already identified a possible way to make this happen. Once
The Race to the Top among Politicians loop goes dominant, politicians
will now be competing on virtue, that is, how to optimize the common
good of the system for all. They will be using the truth, instead of
falsehood and favoritism, to do this.

While terms like ""ethical importance"" are popular, I tend to think in
terms of agent incentives and strategies. A dominant race to the top
would cause the dominant agents in the system to behave ethically
correct, as defined by the system.

""...in lieu of assuaging our short-term desires to achieve other goals.""
- The Dueling Loops analysis shows how those with short term interests
(for-profit corporations and their allies, notably the rich) have seized
control of the human system by exploiting the inherent structural
advantage of the race to the bottom. If we push on the right high
leverage point, then we can make the race to the top go dominant, and
the system will flip into a new mode, where the long-term best interests
of humans will be the system goal.

SD has immense capability. But if the process driving it doesn't fit the
problem, then applying SD to anything but easy problems will tend to
fall short. If fact, it may fall so short so often that users may start
to feel as if they are missing something, and are lost on an aimless
plateau....


Jack
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:11:39 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by Stephen Wehrenberg <stephen.wehrenberg@verizon.net>

Aldo's list below is a good start toward identifying the criteria that
would allow for a celebration of the process of SD modeling, but I got
the impression from Kim's post that he was trying to generate the list
of successful uses of SD -- more content than process. Was I wrong, Kim?

Personally I'd just be happy for a headline in the Washington Times
(somewhat conservative) and the Washington Post (somewhat progressive)
newspapers, on the same day, that said something like ""Limits To Growth
was right after all!""

Coincidentally, we'd celebrate that on Jay Forrester Day.

Steve

Stephen B. Wehrenberg, Ph.D./
/Human Resource Strategy and Capability; Director, Future Force;
and Director of Executive Development, US Coast Guard
Organizational Sciences, The George Washington University
Posted by Stephen Wehrenberg <stephen.wehrenberg@verizon.net>
posting date Sat, 12 Apr 2008 10:03:55 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by Brian Crowe <brian_crowe@i-worx.com>

I am an engineer and a professional consultant to senior management of
companies in the telephone industry. My clients ask me a number of
highly complicated technical questions, and invariably they ask me what
the long term financial impact of a technical or business process
decision based upon my technical recommendations is likely to be. My
answers to the later flavor of question depend heavily on creating and
demonstrating a dynamic system model. My clients do not fully
appreciate a dynamic system model, but they invariably believe many (but
not all, and sometimes not even most) aspects of what a model reveals -
they usually grasp the sensitivity analysis elements. There is clearly
value in a proven methodology and well honed tools, but fine tools have
only limited value until they are used to solve relevant problems... I
think that we are being asked to identify ""big"" problems to use SD to
solve.

Before I ramble a bit, I want to acknowledge many constructive and well
thought contributions to this thread of discussion. Rather than cite
and quote each one, let me just say that I have read every post, they
are all thoughtful, and many of us here are on common ground.
Politicians and zealous advocates frequently dance around their issues
without quantifiable tools to demonstrate the benefits they are striving
for. Here are four questions - problems begging for SD solutions to
provide credible direction to governments, universities and corporations:

1) Are governments and corporations investing prudently in research
today? What is the ""critical mass"" of investment necessary? I believe
that too little in total is invested by most National governments, and
many individual grants and investments are inadequate to be effectively
utilized for the stated purpose aside from paying salaries and
incrementally expanding labs.

What level of Government investment in research is optimal - what
percent of GDP per researcher is optimum, for example? What absolute
size of grant award or investment is optimal for a certain scale of
problem space in a certain phase of its solution? What ratio of award
to universities vs. university-industry collaborations vs. established,
unaffiliated corporations is optimal? What is the optimum ratio of
initial awards vs. awards based on a measure of past progress?

2) Will the current objectives of medical research benefit the global
economy in the long term? It may come to pass that when you (or your
social system) run out of money and can no longer afford comprehensive
medical services, well, you die. In the mean time, you are unemployed
and unemployable for a potentially significant and growing percent of
your lifetime, and a substantial and growing portion of your savings may
be spent in the process of living what may become an undesirable quality
of life for an extended period of time.

There are a great many tangential issues here - almost too many to
list. What is the optimum retirement age, and how does one quantify
""optimum""? What is the optimum lifespan, and again, how does one
quantify optimum? What is the optimum level of healthcare before and
after retirement (and how to quantify that)? What are the optimum
ratios of healthcare that is preventive vs. proactive vs. reactive?
What are optimum levels of investment in medical research? What is the
impact of consuming individual savings and National tax revenue when it
is dedicated to healthcare in lieu of some unrelated investment for
other purposes? Is there a detrimental micro (local) or macro (global)
social strain between medical services ""haves"" and the ""have nots"" that
could lead to unstable societies and civil and global conflict?

3) Are conventional intellectual property concepts such as patents still
beneficial to the global economy in either the short term or the long
term today? I believe that the current patent systems are broken and
need to be largely redefined.

What is the optimum lifetime for a utility patent in a highly technical
area such as bioengineering or nanotechnology? What period of IP right
provides the greatest total benefit to the patent holder and to 3rd
parties exploiters? Is this lifetime different for different technology
areas? What is the impact of unexploited (warehoused) patents that tend
to stymie commercialization by third parties either for fear of
infringement of from suits brought for financial damages due to
infringement? Is there a benefit to administratively ""expire"" an
unexploited patent, and what demonstrates a tangible exploit, and in
what period of time? Is there a benefit to a real, global patent system?

4) What is the likely impact of the growing cost of hydrocarbon-based
energy on future global economic growth? What is the best strategy to
offset hydrocarbon reliance with other energy sources? I am sure that
no one really knows...

Is there a critical cost for a unit of power above which global
economies are likely to contract in the near term? Is there a critical
rate of cost increase for a unit of power beyond which global economies
are likely to contract in the near term? Is there an optimum
replacement rate of alternative energy sources for hydrocarbon energy
sources? What is the optimum mix of energy sources for some specific set
of consumers? What are the most valuable reduction strategies, and how
does one measure the value? Reuse strategies? Recycling strategies?
How do these strategies vary by country or region? How do these
strategies impact the accumulation of greenhouse gases and other
pollutants? What is the relationship between global warming, global
economic growth and global quality of life.

These problems are like ""onions"" - there are layers upon layers of
detail to model and analyze. These problems all require a model to
determine some point of optimization according to a set criteria that
may not be broadly accepted or even identifiable today, and the criteria
may not be uniformly held in society. It is my view that SD is a prime
methodology to answer these questions, and I think that these four
questions are examples of vital questions to answer in the coming two
decades if the world is to be a better place for most of us to live in -
and many of us to retire in...

Brian Crowe
President, TELE-WORX
Posted by Brian Crowe <brian_crowe@i-worx.com>
posting date Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:10:15 -0500
_______________________________________________

Posted by ""Don Frazier"" <dr.don.frazier@gmail.com>


I think a celebration would be in order if:

-A new ISO certification exists for companies that can demonstrate the
policy implications for all the (positive or negative) demand signals
their firms may face: Ramp, Step, Spike, Random, or Flat.

-A new stock rating has been developed for companies who have automated
80% of their operational business decisions based on embedded SD models

-Commercial Banks who require SD models for all new business loans can
qualify for federally backed, lower interest rates.

-A formal category for SD analyst has been added to the government's
occupational classification system.

-Finally, bankruptcy filings require SD supported proof of exogenous
causality.


Don Frazier Ph.D.
Posted by ""Don Frazier"" <dr.don.frazier@gmail.com>
posting date Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:17:16 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by Jay Forrester <jforestr@MIT.EDU>

On Apr 13, 2008, at 7:26 AM, SDMAIL Stephen Wehrenberg wrote:
> Personally I'd just be happy for a headline in the Washington Times
> (somewhat conservative) and the Washington Post (somewhat progressive)
> newspapers, on the same day, that said something like ""Limits To Growth
> was right after all!""

Perhaps we are already part way there!!! On Monday, March 24, 2008, the
Wall Street Journal had a front page article under the headline, ""New
Limits to Growth Revive Malthusian Fears."" In a full page of text,
there were scattered references to the ""Limits to Growth"" book. ""...the
resource constraints foreseen by the Club of Rome are more evident today
than at any time since the 1972 publication of the think tank's famous
book, 'The Limits of Growth'."" And, ""Dennis Meadows, one of the authors
of 'The Limits to Growth,' says the book was too optimistic in one
respect. The authors assumed that if humans stopped harming the
environment, it would recover slowly. Today, he says, some
climate-change models suggest that once tipping points are passed,
environmental catastrophe may be inevitable even 'if you quit damaging
the environment'.""

Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management
Sloan School, MIT
Posted by Jay Forrester <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
posting date Sun, 13 Apr 2008 15:13:25 -0400
_______________________________________________

Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>

Jack has the purpose here just right. The ultimate aim is to end up with
the widest possible set of plausibly achievable outcomes, along with
some equally plausible actions and policies to bring them about - rather
different than the common purpose of strategy to 'close down' on hitting
one or two key objectives.

Intriguingly, as this discussion develops, it rather looks like SD
itself can be just the tool for accomplishing this widely expansive
future - not something that any other strategy tools I know of could do.
Keep the ideas coming !

A focus on outcomes is certainly important, but no harm in also raising
intermediate achievements that may be necessary pre-cursors to those
outcomes.

It occurs to me that I may be making an assumption that could be
'steering' others' contributions - which I am trying not to do - that
assumption being that 'we' want SD to have widespread and substantial
impacts on the world around us. I am just working on a strategy for
another professional association - coincidentally almost identical in
scale to SDSoc - and their over-riding purposes are to serve the
interests of their professional members and to grow that number. If
anyone has wishes of that kind for the future of SD, please don't
hesitate to throw them in.

Kim
Posted by ""Kim Warren"" <Kim@strategydynamics.com>
posting date Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:28:27 +0100
_______________________________________________

Posted by Brian Crowe <brian_crowe@i-worx.com>

I am focused on problem solving in my business, and System Dynamics
modeling is just one tool I have in my ""toolbox"" - sometimes, my most
valuable tool.

Real world problems are ""messy"" - I refer to the following as social
""soft"" modeling considerations. Here is what I face in a nutshell:
- Human factors inputs in the real world are often irrational - I
approximate these model elements as a combination of random values and
damped oscillations.
- Real world behaviors inexplicably tend toward certain outcomes not
unlike ""strange attractors"" in chaos theory - I don't know how to
explain this phenomenon with the SD methodology or predict it with a SD
model very well - it just ""happens"" in the real world.

SD models illustrate cause and effect - they help in policy formation
and decision making for my clients, but they don't solve problems. My
clients typically ask me, ""What is the solution space?"" for a system
that has been reduced to two or three obvious degrees of freedom. From
my perspective, a goal seeking or optimization process would be highly
valuable to develop and refine in the SD methodology and in available
software tools.

If the Society could focus on these elements in its future work, SD
models would become more useful to solve Big, real world problems with.
Who here is working on ""soft"" modeling concepts? How about optimization
and goal-seeking? I think this is useful ground for future work.

My thoughts from a practitioner point of view -

Brian Crowe
President, TELE-WORX
Posted by Brian Crowe <brian_crowe@i-worx.com>
posting date Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:02:38 -0500
_______________________________________________

Posted by Doug Samuelson <samuelsondoug@yahoo.com>

Posted by Brian Crowe <brian_crowe@i-worx.com>
>I am focused on problem solving in my business...

I think you could substitute the name of almost any technical method for ""System
Dynamics"" in this comment, and it would still be spot on. Certainly the same
considerations apply to operations research, the field I know best. Solving
the reduced-form math / OR / stat / simulation / SD / whatever problem is of
no value whatsoever until the solution is translated back into the language
in which the question was asked, complete with detailed guidance about
implementation.

Older fields, such as statistics, quality control, economics, and -- to a
lesser extent, in my opinion -- OR, have scattered bits of wisdom about how to
embed the technical work into successful problem-solving efforts. I think the
quality management literature is perhaps the best place to start -- Juran,
Crosby, Feigenbaum and Godfrey come to mind offhand. There might be a good
opportunity here for both improvement of practice and contributions to the
academic literature: how can we identify best practices from other fields and
apply them to SD projects.

-- DS
Posted by Doug Samuelson <samuelsondoug@yahoo.com>
posting date Thu, 17 Apr 2008 08:11:06 -0700 (PDT)
_______________________________________________

Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz>

hello Brian,
you raise some interesting points in your email.
i would like to briefly touch on a couple of your points.

(1) you ask ""Who here is working on ""soft"" modeling concepts? ""

You should have a close look at the System Dynamics Review and also the past
proceedings of the International Conferences of the System Dynamics Society
http://www.systemdynamics.org/society_a ... #PastConfs

There you will find some great work from many researchers in the system dynamics
community working on ""soft"" modeling concepts.

You may also wish to refer to my book with Kambiz Maani, which also incorporates
soft modeling concepts:

Maani, K.E. and Cavana, R.Y. (2007). Systems Thinking, System Dynamics:
Managing Change and Complexity. (2nd ed). Pearson Education NZ (Prentice
Hall), Auckland.

(2) you also state: ""Real world behaviors inexplicably tend toward certain
outcomes not unlike ""strange attractors"" in chaos theory - I don't know how
to explain this phenomenon with the SD methodology or predict it with a SD
model very well - it just ""happens"" in the real world"".

While i was on research and study leave at the University of Western Sydney,
Centre for Systemic Development, i worked with a number of colleagues there
on a project involving systems thinking (qualitative system dynamics) and
complexity thinking (& theory). We started out with a qualitative system
dynamics study, but soon realized the complexity of the project required us
to draw on the tools of complexity theory (including the development of
attractors). This research is reported in:

Woog R, Cavana RY, Roberts R, Packham R, (2006). 'Working at the interface
between systems and complexity thinking: insights from a market access
design project for poor livestock producers', Systems Research &
Behavioural Science, 23, 6, pp. 727-741.

We are carrying on with this line of research but unfortunately progress has
not been to rapid at this stage!

I hope these comments and references are helpful.

kind regards,
Bob

A/Prof Bob Cavana
Reader in System Sciences
Victoria Management School
Victoria university of Wellington
New Zealand
Posted by ""Bob Cavana"" <Bob.Cavana@vuw.ac.nz>
posting date Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:28:57 +1200
_______________________________________________

Posted by Brian Crowe <brian_crowe@i-worx.com>

I might use SD to help answer questions from my clients concerning the
repercussions of my recommendations. Two areas that push significant
complexity into a SD model concern human learning systems and human
decision making systems. In these areas, I defer to conversations with
my client in lieu of a highly complex and unvalidated model that I am
not expert enough to create and demonstrate credibly. It would be
useful to have a ""clearing house"" of validated models to draw upon -
this requires something called a ""description language"". There has been
some discussion on this here already, and I think that it would be
something valuable to work on in the SD Society.

I appreciate the follow-on remarks from Bob and Doug. It would be great
if CNN reported that scientists applying principles of System Dynamics
have shaped sweeping improvements in K-12 education systems worldwide,
for example. I am still ""brain-storming"" here, and would like to build
upon Bob and Doug's suggestions to draw on other fields of science to
augment SD work in the two problem areas I noted above.

Human learning is not a linear system - it is step-wise in character as
the student encounters plateaus of understanding and experiences
epiphanies and reaches the limits of teaching resources and their own
abilities. Human learning is incomplete, and that has consequences.
And knowledge is forgotten and must be refreshed... In the US, there is
no tailored feedback loop in K-12; a missed problem on an exam rarely
prompts a return to fundamental principles. It would be interesting if
an education crusader waved their SD model in an official's face that
demonstrates the dramatic impact from the addition of a new feedback
loop. I am sure that much of this work has been done, but it has not
effectively made its way to a ""customer"" - Doug, thanks for your
comments here regarding the value of best practices in other fields - we
may need to look to outside experts, and Juran would have had something
to say regarding K-12 education quality improvement.

Human decision making instances in a population appear as a skewed bell
shape on a time line, and it may be skewed either side of a mean time,
and there may be several peaks of decision making activity over time.
The emergence of consensus has a life cycle. Early decisions are often
the result of exuberance and late decisions are often the result of fear
of consequences (both factors are elements of risk aversion). Apathy,
prejudice and incomplete information contaminate the decision process in
both quality and timeliness. The Presidential campaign here in the US
comes immediately to mind... I would be interested to know who of the
trio of candidates uses an SD model in their planning - I bet at least
one of the candidates uses a SD model, but they may not recognize it for
what it is.

These elements of social SD models are perplexing for an unsophisticated
modeler like myself, and failure to capture nuances properly results in
a poor model that might fail to illustrate the tendency toward certain
irrational outcomes and behaviors that I compared to ""strange
attractors"" - Bob, thanks for your comments here regarding complexity
theory's relationship to SD. It might be highly valuable to draw a
complexity theorist and a psychologist into a modeling project on
decision making processes.

A particular application of decision making that I personally find
fascinating is human conflict. Human conflict on any scale is often the
result of contaminated learning and irrational decision making that
overrides rational behavior assessments. That might become something
very valuable to model, too.

Human systems are often linear and ""steady state"" to a point. When
human systems are perturbed past a threshold, some element of behavior
becomes unstable and seeks a new steady state behavior. I frankly have
no idea where to start modeling this aspect of behavior transition with
SD methodologies. Mastery of this phenomenon in an SD model would help
answer a lot of interesting questions and solve new kinds of problems.
There is surely significant SD development in the Human systems space
that I am unaware of, but I also suspect that there is a lot of work
that remains in this area. It may be vital to draw experts and best
practices from other fields of science into our work as often as we can
to make progress - and to make that progress visible outside of our
society and to an audience of potential SD users.

I am sorry to be so long winded - I tend to convey too much information
in one ""dose""... Thanks for reading my posts.

Brian Crowe
President, TELE-WORX
Posted by Brian Crowe <brian_crowe@i-worx.com>
posting date Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:08:18 -0500
_______________________________________________