The best history of the field of system dynamics and its broader context
in the field of feedback thinking is
George Richardson, Feedback though in social science and systems theory.
Philadelphia: univ of penn. press. 1991.
A truly great book.
John Sterman
History of System Dynamics
-
jsterman@MIT.EDU (John Sterman)
- Senior Member
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
-
jsterman@MIT.EDU (John Sterman)
- Senior Member
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
Re Fred Nickols comments on the history of systems thinking:
George Richardson has already written a history of the idea of systems
thinking in his wonderful "Feedback Thought in Social Science and
Systems Theory" (1991, U of Penn press). This book traces the history
of the concept of "systems" and "feedback" as it migrated from the
physical sciences and engineering into the social sciences. It is much
broader than a history of system dynamics, and I recommend that anyone
contemplating writing about or just learning more about the history of
SD start with this book.
John Sterman
George Richardson has already written a history of the idea of systems
thinking in his wonderful "Feedback Thought in Social Science and
Systems Theory" (1991, U of Penn press). This book traces the history
of the concept of "systems" and "feedback" as it migrated from the
physical sciences and engineering into the social sciences. It is much
broader than a history of system dynamics, and I recommend that anyone
contemplating writing about or just learning more about the history of
SD start with this book.
John Sterman
-
D.C.Lane@lse.ac.uk
- Junior Member
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
Could I support John Stermans comments very strongly. Anyone interested in the
intellectual roots of system dynamics, its commonalities and contrasts with
various other ideas in system science and, in consequence, the areas of interest
for future research will find George Richardsons book invaluable.
I would venture to suggest that the entire History of System Dynamics
discussion might like to take a break whilst all involved go read this book.
Dr David Lane
London School of Economics.
Re Fred Nickols comments on the history of systems thinking:
George Richardson has already written a history of the idea of systems
thinking in his wonderful "Feedback Thought in Social Science and
Systems Theory" (1991, U of Penn press). This book traces the history
of the concept of "systems" and "feedback" as it migrated from the
physical sciences and engineering into the social sciences. It is much
broader than a history of system dynamics, and I recommend that anyone
contemplating writing about or just learning more about the history of
SD start with this book.
John Sterman
intellectual roots of system dynamics, its commonalities and contrasts with
various other ideas in system science and, in consequence, the areas of interest
for future research will find George Richardsons book invaluable.
I would venture to suggest that the entire History of System Dynamics
discussion might like to take a break whilst all involved go read this book.
Dr David Lane
London School of Economics.
Re Fred Nickols comments on the history of systems thinking:
George Richardson has already written a history of the idea of systems
thinking in his wonderful "Feedback Thought in Social Science and
Systems Theory" (1991, U of Penn press). This book traces the history
of the concept of "systems" and "feedback" as it migrated from the
physical sciences and engineering into the social sciences. It is much
broader than a history of system dynamics, and I recommend that anyone
contemplating writing about or just learning more about the history of
SD start with this book.
John Sterman
-
George Richardson
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
Fred Nichols recently wrote to this list the following:
"The history of system dynamics is of necessity a history of system thinking
and that is a broad, broad area, with a lengthy, rich heritage. If a history
of SD is written, I hope it will trace the broad and varied roots of SD as
well as depict "the truth" as we now know it."
I agree that it is crucial to see the history of our field (or any field) in
its appropriate historical context and I tried to provide some of that in
Feedback Thought. However, I also believe that it is essential to realize that
system dynamics as initially conceived and written about by Jay has very
limited links to the broader "systems" fields that were in the intellectual
wind in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s.
An important key to understanding our field comes from the realization that its
closest intellectual ancestors reside in engineering servomechanisms theory and
practice, not general systems theory or systems thinking ala Checkland. Jay
has been quite explicit on this, and reviewing the citation evidence and the
style of practice Jay advocated in the articles, speeches, and book he wrote
from 1958 to 1961 confirms it. Jay was well aware of Jan Christian Smuts and
the notion of holism, but he was largely unaware of (or at least unmoved by)
the general systems theory literature. Even Wieners Cybernetics was not
particularly influential in the birth of system dynamics.
An annecdote that adds some credence to this: In the 1980s Jay received a call
or a letter from Magoroh Maruyama (author of the "The Second Cybertics," one of
the most widely cited articles in the social sciences, published in 1963).
Maruyama, Jay said, wanted confirmation that system dynamics came out of
Maruyamas articles about feedback in social systems. Jay said he had to tell
the fellow hed never heard of him.
The fact is that Jays initial sources are deeply embedded in the writing and
practice within a branch of engineering. The servomechanisms engineer is
fundamentally interested in the perverse dynamics generated by efforts to
control some electronic, mechanical, or fluid system. Jay repeatedly referred
to the remarkably educative experience of having a piece of laboratory
apparatus rip itself apart from uncontrolled expanding oscillations and spray
oil all over his lab coat -- a consequence of an effort at servomechanisms
control that was only partly successful. Such stories have analogs in our
efforts to manage social systems, and they form a core of what the system
dynamicist is interested in.
...GPR
embedded in the style of thought in engineering servomechanisms
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy GR383@albnyvms.bitnet
University at Albany - State University of New York Phone: 518-442-3859
Albany, NY 12222 Fax: 518-442-3398
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The history of system dynamics is of necessity a history of system thinking
and that is a broad, broad area, with a lengthy, rich heritage. If a history
of SD is written, I hope it will trace the broad and varied roots of SD as
well as depict "the truth" as we now know it."
I agree that it is crucial to see the history of our field (or any field) in
its appropriate historical context and I tried to provide some of that in
Feedback Thought. However, I also believe that it is essential to realize that
system dynamics as initially conceived and written about by Jay has very
limited links to the broader "systems" fields that were in the intellectual
wind in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s.
An important key to understanding our field comes from the realization that its
closest intellectual ancestors reside in engineering servomechanisms theory and
practice, not general systems theory or systems thinking ala Checkland. Jay
has been quite explicit on this, and reviewing the citation evidence and the
style of practice Jay advocated in the articles, speeches, and book he wrote
from 1958 to 1961 confirms it. Jay was well aware of Jan Christian Smuts and
the notion of holism, but he was largely unaware of (or at least unmoved by)
the general systems theory literature. Even Wieners Cybernetics was not
particularly influential in the birth of system dynamics.
An annecdote that adds some credence to this: In the 1980s Jay received a call
or a letter from Magoroh Maruyama (author of the "The Second Cybertics," one of
the most widely cited articles in the social sciences, published in 1963).
Maruyama, Jay said, wanted confirmation that system dynamics came out of
Maruyamas articles about feedback in social systems. Jay said he had to tell
the fellow hed never heard of him.
The fact is that Jays initial sources are deeply embedded in the writing and
practice within a branch of engineering. The servomechanisms engineer is
fundamentally interested in the perverse dynamics generated by efforts to
control some electronic, mechanical, or fluid system. Jay repeatedly referred
to the remarkably educative experience of having a piece of laboratory
apparatus rip itself apart from uncontrolled expanding oscillations and spray
oil all over his lab coat -- a consequence of an effort at servomechanisms
control that was only partly successful. Such stories have analogs in our
efforts to manage social systems, and they form a core of what the system
dynamicist is interested in.
...GPR
embedded in the style of thought in engineering servomechanisms
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy GR383@albnyvms.bitnet
University at Albany - State University of New York Phone: 518-442-3859
Albany, NY 12222 Fax: 518-442-3398
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
GR383%albnyvms.BITNET@uunet.uu.n
- Newbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
The signoff on my last note that ended
>...GPR
>embedded in the style of thought in engineering servomechanisms
may be a true statement of the mire of my life, but in fact it was an
unintended result of editing my mail message in a rush. Sorry about that
(but if it gave you a chuckle I guess one shouldnt apologize for the
chance to smile...)
.............................................................................
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy GR383@Albnyvms.bitnet
State University of New York at Albany 518-442-3859 (fax:442-3398)
.............................................................................
>...GPR
>embedded in the style of thought in engineering servomechanisms
may be a true statement of the mire of my life, but in fact it was an
unintended result of editing my mail message in a rush. Sorry about that
(but if it gave you a chuckle I guess one shouldnt apologize for the
chance to smile...)
.............................................................................
George P. Richardson G.P.Richardson@Albany.edu
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs & Policy GR383@Albnyvms.bitnet
State University of New York at Albany 518-442-3859 (fax:442-3398)
.............................................................................
-
D.C.Lane@lse.ac.uk
- Junior Member
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
I would like to support George Richardsons comments but also go a
little further.
Understanding the intellectual linkages of system dynamics is not simply
to become involved in the heritage industry; one can and should be aware
of the past without being shackled down by it. However, awareness of the
ideas that constitute and define the field of system dynamics also helps us
to locate our subject in the wider movement of systems science, systems
thinking and operational research. I am very aware that some in the field
of system dynamics are wary of any engagement with other disciplines. Yes,
Forrester stepped away from OR in founding the field - and with very good
reason. Yes, much of what was going on in the systems movement when system
dynamics was created looked like airy fairy rubbish and simply annoyed
those of us interested in solving practical problems and in trying to
improve the world a little.
But.
To a large extent these judgements are no longer correct and are
damaging to system dynamics. Working in the UK I get to see system
dynamicists through the eyes of those outside the field. What I observe is
that our field is very easily perceived as being closed, supported by a
clique and unaware of what is going on elsewhere. I know that this is
unjust but it IS a reaction to our endevours. We need to describe, explain,
yes, perhaps sometimes defend what we do to others. And to do that it is
useful to know the differences and commonalities that system dynamics has
with other approaches.
Almost trivial example. Very often you will hear people say, "system
dynamics is about closed systems, isnt it? But they are boring". Now an
over-gleeful urge to press the endogenous perspective can easily lead a
system dynamicists to say that our models are closed . .. .and that we will
fight the next person who says they are boring! The more constructive
approach - for all parties - involves being aware of the intellectual
history lurking behind the comment. In this scenario the questioner has
misunderstood causal closure with closed boundaries. He/she knows from GST
and other work that closed systems - systems in which no material or energy
crosses the boundary either way - are of very little interest and
relevance; only open system seem to be applicable to interesting real world
phenomena. Now knowing that history, a system dynamicist can say that our
models are indeed open, in this sense - sources and sinks are one easy
proof of this - but take a particular view of information feedback which
seems to be helpful in addressing real problems. This usually makes the
questioner interested, open (no pun intended) and willing to exchange ideas
further. I play out this scenario about every 2 months now. It usually
works and I think that it helps the field of system dynamics. However,
there are many other ways in which we can get into such non-ideal speech
situations, when we run aground on prejudice based on a failure to
understand basic assumptions. We are not learning what other systems
thinkers have to say AND we are not getting more of them interested in
system dynamics.
I have said previously that the first place to go to find out about
these connections is Feedback Thought by George Richardson.
However, at a rather lower level, readers (if that is the right word in
the Internet) might wish to look at the System Dynamics Review, volume 10,
number 2-3 from 1994 called Systems Thinkers, Systems Thinking which
contains a range of papers from inside and outside the field of system
dynamics, considering connections and commonalities.
Finally, the second of this years numbers of the journal Systems
Research will contain a piece:
Lane, D.C. and M.C.Jackson (1995) Only Connect! An Annotated Bibliography
Reflecting the Breadth and Diversity of Systems Thinking.
This is a rapid tour of this very wide field, in terms of 68 books,
collections and articles. After a full reference we comment on each one and
try to locate it within a strand of systems activities. This is an
expansion of a piece read at the Stirling conference, the chief difference
being that there is a new section solely on system dynamics (so we can all
have fun arguing about the 9 entries that I chose to represent the field).
Enjoy!
Dr. David C. Lane
Operational Research
London School of Economics and Political Science
D.C.Lane@lse.ac.uk
little further.
Understanding the intellectual linkages of system dynamics is not simply
to become involved in the heritage industry; one can and should be aware
of the past without being shackled down by it. However, awareness of the
ideas that constitute and define the field of system dynamics also helps us
to locate our subject in the wider movement of systems science, systems
thinking and operational research. I am very aware that some in the field
of system dynamics are wary of any engagement with other disciplines. Yes,
Forrester stepped away from OR in founding the field - and with very good
reason. Yes, much of what was going on in the systems movement when system
dynamics was created looked like airy fairy rubbish and simply annoyed
those of us interested in solving practical problems and in trying to
improve the world a little.
But.
To a large extent these judgements are no longer correct and are
damaging to system dynamics. Working in the UK I get to see system
dynamicists through the eyes of those outside the field. What I observe is
that our field is very easily perceived as being closed, supported by a
clique and unaware of what is going on elsewhere. I know that this is
unjust but it IS a reaction to our endevours. We need to describe, explain,
yes, perhaps sometimes defend what we do to others. And to do that it is
useful to know the differences and commonalities that system dynamics has
with other approaches.
Almost trivial example. Very often you will hear people say, "system
dynamics is about closed systems, isnt it? But they are boring". Now an
over-gleeful urge to press the endogenous perspective can easily lead a
system dynamicists to say that our models are closed . .. .and that we will
fight the next person who says they are boring! The more constructive
approach - for all parties - involves being aware of the intellectual
history lurking behind the comment. In this scenario the questioner has
misunderstood causal closure with closed boundaries. He/she knows from GST
and other work that closed systems - systems in which no material or energy
crosses the boundary either way - are of very little interest and
relevance; only open system seem to be applicable to interesting real world
phenomena. Now knowing that history, a system dynamicist can say that our
models are indeed open, in this sense - sources and sinks are one easy
proof of this - but take a particular view of information feedback which
seems to be helpful in addressing real problems. This usually makes the
questioner interested, open (no pun intended) and willing to exchange ideas
further. I play out this scenario about every 2 months now. It usually
works and I think that it helps the field of system dynamics. However,
there are many other ways in which we can get into such non-ideal speech
situations, when we run aground on prejudice based on a failure to
understand basic assumptions. We are not learning what other systems
thinkers have to say AND we are not getting more of them interested in
system dynamics.
I have said previously that the first place to go to find out about
these connections is Feedback Thought by George Richardson.
However, at a rather lower level, readers (if that is the right word in
the Internet) might wish to look at the System Dynamics Review, volume 10,
number 2-3 from 1994 called Systems Thinkers, Systems Thinking which
contains a range of papers from inside and outside the field of system
dynamics, considering connections and commonalities.
Finally, the second of this years numbers of the journal Systems
Research will contain a piece:
Lane, D.C. and M.C.Jackson (1995) Only Connect! An Annotated Bibliography
Reflecting the Breadth and Diversity of Systems Thinking.
This is a rapid tour of this very wide field, in terms of 68 books,
collections and articles. After a full reference we comment on each one and
try to locate it within a strand of systems activities. This is an
expansion of a piece read at the Stirling conference, the chief difference
being that there is a new section solely on system dynamics (so we can all
have fun arguing about the 9 entries that I chose to represent the field).
Enjoy!
Dr. David C. Lane
Operational Research
London School of Economics and Political Science
D.C.Lane@lse.ac.uk
-
Bill Harris
- Member
- Posts: 31
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
David Lane wrote:
(Hosts paraphrase: That system dynamics tends to focus on closed
systems and this gives rise for disagreement.
Hosts note: I think Davids purpose here was to focus on different
uses of terminology and not give legitimacy to an oft cited criticism
of system dynamics.)
This is perhaps a simplistic and well-known (by others) view, but I see
this emphasis on endogenous influences as overall healthy. The healthy
part is that it represents self-responsibility. It says that we believe
the most likely causes of problems (and thus of their resolution) lie
within the system and thus eventually within our grasp. The opposite view,
a focus on exogenous influences, says that our troubles come from outside
and thus may not be controllable by us. That puts us as workers in a
victim role, which usually isnt very productive. (Of course, sometimes
the exogenous influences are _mighty_ powerful.)
As David wrote, this is not to claim that system dynamics is about closed
systems: far from it.
Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Productivity Department Lake Stevens Instrument Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 90
phone: (206) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (206) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298
(Hosts paraphrase: That system dynamics tends to focus on closed
systems and this gives rise for disagreement.
Hosts note: I think Davids purpose here was to focus on different
uses of terminology and not give legitimacy to an oft cited criticism
of system dynamics.)
This is perhaps a simplistic and well-known (by others) view, but I see
this emphasis on endogenous influences as overall healthy. The healthy
part is that it represents self-responsibility. It says that we believe
the most likely causes of problems (and thus of their resolution) lie
within the system and thus eventually within our grasp. The opposite view,
a focus on exogenous influences, says that our troubles come from outside
and thus may not be controllable by us. That puts us as workers in a
victim role, which usually isnt very productive. (Of course, sometimes
the exogenous influences are _mighty_ powerful.)
As David wrote, this is not to claim that system dynamics is about closed
systems: far from it.
Bill
--
Bill Harris Hewlett-Packard Co.
R&D Productivity Department Lake Stevens Instrument Division
domain: billh@lsid.hp.com M/S 90
phone: (206) 335-2200 8600 Soper Hill Road
fax: (206) 335-2828 Everett, WA 98205-1298
-
jsterman@MIT.EDU (John Sterman)
- Senior Member
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
System dynamics models are models of thermodynamically open systems
(energy and information are exchanged between the system and its
environment).
Forrester used the term closed boundary to refer to the focus on
feedback loops. Good system dynamics models are open system models in
the thermodynamic sense but do not rely on exogenous time varying inputs
to create the dynamics of interest.
To avoid the confusion David Lane addressed, we should (correctly) refer
to SD models as open system models that endogenously generate their
dynamics.
John Sterman
jsterman@MIT.EDU
(energy and information are exchanged between the system and its
environment).
Forrester used the term closed boundary to refer to the focus on
feedback loops. Good system dynamics models are open system models in
the thermodynamic sense but do not rely on exogenous time varying inputs
to create the dynamics of interest.
To avoid the confusion David Lane addressed, we should (correctly) refer
to SD models as open system models that endogenously generate their
dynamics.
John Sterman
jsterman@MIT.EDU
-
"Prof. Khalid Saeed"
- Junior Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
What are SD models? Just wished to add that these are not models of any
system per se, but of problems/processes/patterns. If we see parameters
as inputs, they fall under the definition of open systems. If we look at
feedback context, they are closed. The fact is they are abstract systems
that exist only in rlation to the problem they represent.
Khalid
Prof. Khalid Saeed
saeed@ait.ac.th
system per se, but of problems/processes/patterns. If we see parameters
as inputs, they fall under the definition of open systems. If we look at
feedback context, they are closed. The fact is they are abstract systems
that exist only in rlation to the problem they represent.
Khalid
Prof. Khalid Saeed
saeed@ait.ac.th
-
D.C.Lane@lse.ac.uk
- Junior Member
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
(Moderators note: 2 replies here on the history of SD.)
If Phil would care to send me his address I
will mail him a document which briefly
describes the evolution of ideas in the SD
field
Dr. David C. Lane
Operational Research
London School of Economics
Houghton Street
London
WC2A 2AE
D.C.Lane@lse.ac.uk
------------------------------------------
From: "Monus,Paul,PA" <MONUSPA@olima.usaref.msnet.bp.com>
Jay Forester has published some good papers on this. One I liked was
"Systems Dynamics and lessons of 35 years, in *Systems based Approach to
policymaking* edited by Kenyon B. DeGreene, Kluwer Academic Publisheres
Norwell MA 34pp, available from MITs SD group for $4.00 as publication
D-4224, and another one D4165 "The beginneing of Systems Dynamics" Banquet
TAlk at the SD Society Conf. Suttgart, Germany, July 1989, 16 pp, $3.
You might want to ask for the whole publication list available. I have read
about half of what they offer, and many of them are great.
Write me offline if you want to discuss further.
Paul Monus
monuspa@olima.usaref.msnet.bp.com
(Moderators note - to order publications from the System Dynamics
Group at MIT contact:
Ms. Nan S. Lux
System Dynamics Group
30 Memorial Drive, 3rd Floor
E60-383 MIT
Cambridge MA 02139
email: nlux@mit.edu
some of these publications are also being put on the sysdyn.mit.edu
internet site.)
If Phil would care to send me his address I
will mail him a document which briefly
describes the evolution of ideas in the SD
field
Dr. David C. Lane
Operational Research
London School of Economics
Houghton Street
London
WC2A 2AE
D.C.Lane@lse.ac.uk
------------------------------------------
From: "Monus,Paul,PA" <MONUSPA@olima.usaref.msnet.bp.com>
Jay Forester has published some good papers on this. One I liked was
"Systems Dynamics and lessons of 35 years, in *Systems based Approach to
policymaking* edited by Kenyon B. DeGreene, Kluwer Academic Publisheres
Norwell MA 34pp, available from MITs SD group for $4.00 as publication
D-4224, and another one D4165 "The beginneing of Systems Dynamics" Banquet
TAlk at the SD Society Conf. Suttgart, Germany, July 1989, 16 pp, $3.
You might want to ask for the whole publication list available. I have read
about half of what they offer, and many of them are great.
Write me offline if you want to discuss further.
Paul Monus
monuspa@olima.usaref.msnet.bp.com
(Moderators note - to order publications from the System Dynamics
Group at MIT contact:
Ms. Nan S. Lux
System Dynamics Group
30 Memorial Drive, 3rd Floor
E60-383 MIT
Cambridge MA 02139
email: nlux@mit.edu
some of these publications are also being put on the sysdyn.mit.edu
internet site.)
-
Donella.H.Meadows@Dartmouth.EDU
- Junior Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
For the record in the discussion of an SD history:
Dana Meadows has been thinking and talking of writing a history of SD for
years, but has no opportunity to do it in the foreseeable future.
If I DID write a history, I would want it to be not official and academic, but
journalistic and accessible to the interested lay reader. To my mind the
perfect model would be James Gleicks Chaos. It would talk about the people
and personalities, but it would really be a history of IDEAS and INSIGHTS.
I hope somebody writes it someday.
Dana Meadows
Dana Meadows has been thinking and talking of writing a history of SD for
years, but has no opportunity to do it in the foreseeable future.
If I DID write a history, I would want it to be not official and academic, but
journalistic and accessible to the interested lay reader. To my mind the
perfect model would be James Gleicks Chaos. It would talk about the people
and personalities, but it would really be a history of IDEAS and INSIGHTS.
I hope somebody writes it someday.
Dana Meadows
-
lino@ian.ge.cnr.it (Nicola Bianc
- Junior Member
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
If I am not mistaken, I was the first person in this list to raise
the issue of the history of System Dynamics (by saying this I am not
seeking to gain credit).
I wish to put forward a few considerations (and assertions) which I
hope will make a constructive contribution to this debate and course
of events (decision-making, production):
- a trivial observation: history is a science (or a discipline, or a
methodology, as you prefer) which, like all sciences, presents
serious uncertainties that require specific expertise. For this
reason, it is vital that the subject be dealt with by qualified
professionals.
- The testimony of those directly involved in events
to be "narrated" is important but is not "history"; rather, it merely
constitutes a historical source.
- There is no single History with a capital "H", but a series of
different "histories" which, while respectful of truth and
objectivity, are as numerous as the different aspects that can be
considered and stressed, together with the inevitable
interpretations.
- I fully back the proposal that the System Dynamics Society should
fund a team of experts to examine this matter. However, in my opinion
it is crucial that the sources (testimony of leading figures, minutes
of Board meetings of the Society, transcripts of debates and
roundtable discussions held at conferences) be made public (available
to whomever requests them) in order to avoid two problems: firstly,
that what might become the de facto "official" history of the field
should end up being maliciously labelled as hagiography; and
secondly, that others may build up their own "history" according to
the areas they consider most worthy of examination (in observance of
the truth expressed in the documents). While I recognize that there
may be problems of confidentiality connected to the protection of
reputations and professional interests, I nonetheless believe that
the intellectual rigor which the System Dynamics community has always
demonstrated should lead it to abandon this tendency (where it
exists).
- I am not a full-time historian, but I would like to point out that
institutes like mine have the expertise to carry out the proposed
work.
- Finally, I believe that the approach to historical work should
envisage and facilitate the construction of a formal model (a System
Dynamics model) covering two areas: the evolution of methodology and
of software tools (inside history), and the dynamics of the
scientific community (outside history).
Thank you for your attention.
Nicola Bianchi
CNR - Centre for the History of Technology
Genoa, Italy
the issue of the history of System Dynamics (by saying this I am not
seeking to gain credit).
I wish to put forward a few considerations (and assertions) which I
hope will make a constructive contribution to this debate and course
of events (decision-making, production):
- a trivial observation: history is a science (or a discipline, or a
methodology, as you prefer) which, like all sciences, presents
serious uncertainties that require specific expertise. For this
reason, it is vital that the subject be dealt with by qualified
professionals.
- The testimony of those directly involved in events
to be "narrated" is important but is not "history"; rather, it merely
constitutes a historical source.
- There is no single History with a capital "H", but a series of
different "histories" which, while respectful of truth and
objectivity, are as numerous as the different aspects that can be
considered and stressed, together with the inevitable
interpretations.
- I fully back the proposal that the System Dynamics Society should
fund a team of experts to examine this matter. However, in my opinion
it is crucial that the sources (testimony of leading figures, minutes
of Board meetings of the Society, transcripts of debates and
roundtable discussions held at conferences) be made public (available
to whomever requests them) in order to avoid two problems: firstly,
that what might become the de facto "official" history of the field
should end up being maliciously labelled as hagiography; and
secondly, that others may build up their own "history" according to
the areas they consider most worthy of examination (in observance of
the truth expressed in the documents). While I recognize that there
may be problems of confidentiality connected to the protection of
reputations and professional interests, I nonetheless believe that
the intellectual rigor which the System Dynamics community has always
demonstrated should lead it to abandon this tendency (where it
exists).
- I am not a full-time historian, but I would like to point out that
institutes like mine have the expertise to carry out the proposed
work.
- Finally, I believe that the approach to historical work should
envisage and facilitate the construction of a formal model (a System
Dynamics model) covering two areas: the evolution of methodology and
of software tools (inside history), and the dynamics of the
scientific community (outside history).
Thank you for your attention.
Nicola Bianchi
CNR - Centre for the History of Technology
Genoa, Italy
-
"fred nickols"
- Junior Member
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
I monitor this list closely but I have not contributed to date. However, the
current discussion regarding the history of system dynamics prompts a comment.
The history of system dynamics is of necessity a history of system thinking
and that is a broad, broad area, with a lengthy, rich heritage. If a history
of SD is written, I hope it will trace the broad and varied roots of SD as
well as depict "the truth" as we now know it.
Fred Nickols
Exec Dir, Operations
Educational Testing Service
Princeton
current discussion regarding the history of system dynamics prompts a comment.
The history of system dynamics is of necessity a history of system thinking
and that is a broad, broad area, with a lengthy, rich heritage. If a history
of SD is written, I hope it will trace the broad and varied roots of SD as
well as depict "the truth" as we now know it.
Fred Nickols
Exec Dir, Operations
Educational Testing Service
Princeton
-
Arlen Wolpert
- Junior Member
- Posts: 12
- Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am
History of System Dynamics
There is a well written and exciting book just
published by Simon and Schuster, "The Invention
that Changed the World" by Robert Buderi.
It tells "the great and largely untold story
of the colorful band of brilliant scientists
who created the microwave radar systems that
not only helped win World War II but set off
a veritable explosian of scientific achievements
and technological advances that have transformed
our daily lives."
The book will be of interest to the list because
out of this explosion emerged the field of
system dynamics.
Arlen Wolpert
Independent Scholar
411 Franklin Street, Apt. 1008
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
Telephone: (617)547-6994
email: awolpert@world.std.com
published by Simon and Schuster, "The Invention
that Changed the World" by Robert Buderi.
It tells "the great and largely untold story
of the colorful band of brilliant scientists
who created the microwave radar systems that
not only helped win World War II but set off
a veritable explosian of scientific achievements
and technological advances that have transformed
our daily lives."
The book will be of interest to the list because
out of this explosion emerged the field of
system dynamics.
Arlen Wolpert
Independent Scholar
411 Franklin Street, Apt. 1008
Cambridge, MA 02139 USA
Telephone: (617)547-6994
email: awolpert@world.std.com