Communicating System Dynamics to Others

[George Richardson]

On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 07:55 AM, ALLOCAR SRASBOURG wrote:

> As a businnesman I have many other friends in business and I have too
> a board with administrators and family stock holders. While being very
> interested in SD, I have not the
> intention to talk to any of these people about SD.
>
> Why?
>
> Because I know their reaction: they will not believe me even if they
> have made the effort to understand the basics of SD.
> Now why will it be so difficult to make them believe that SD can have
> any usefulness.

Beats the heck out of me! Just show them any of a hundred or so
incredibly powerful and productive examples; show them the Fortune 500
companies that use it; show them the government agencies that use it;
show them Stermans book. If none of that reaches them, I suggest you
get some new friends.

...George

*George P. Richardson
*Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
*University at Albany - SUNY, Albany, NY 12222
*gpr@albany.edu *518-442-3859 *http://www.albany.edu/~gpr

[Lubomir Kostron]

Dear colleagues, we try to use different language - the one, which the
lay-person can uderstand: there is a well-known movie "Amelia of
Montmartre". We got it on CD so we can show just important epizodes. We also
try to (formulate and later) to present a formal model of the story, which
the movie is based on - the dynamics and changes are in the story,
represented by a model. It is much more easy to understand what model can be
used to. Did anyone of you think of such an approach? Lubomir Kostron.

From: Lubomir Kostron <kost@fss.muni.cz>

["Ray on EV1"]

J.J. Laublé
From: "ALLOCAR SRASBOURG"

It seems that this task may take some introspection. What I read from you
was that you would not approach them with the topic of SD because you know
how they would respond. If you have experienced this behavior from them in
the past, it may be due to your behavior which they have observed in the
past. It is a HUGH assumption that a whole group of people will respond in
a specific fashion. Since you have shown us the tendency to make such
leaps, maybe your friends/associates have also noticed.

Additionally, if we wished to take a very big stretch and assume that they
would respond in this fashion, that is no reason not to present the idea; it
is often advantageous to confront a obstacle head-on. They may change their
minds in 10 or 20 years. Are you in a hurry for them to learn? Or maybe
they will show us all how we are wrong. Confront!

Of course there is always the possibility that they totally understand the
situation and choose not to let objective processes drive there direction.
Such closely held companies sometimes have motives which they choose not to
expose. If they let there decision be based on a rational approach to there
publicly stated goals, they loose control. If they can keep there motives
and decision processes covered by a private board, they may feel more
comfortable in carrying out what ever actions they choose.

And then there is the dilemma that if they let the model based control run
their business, they are subject to the modelers concepts of reality or
worse, any contrivance there of. Or they could hire another team of model
auditors. Hey, maybe there are jobs out there for all of us!

Raymond T. Joseph, PE
RTJoseph@ev1.net
Aarden Control Engineering and Science

["Vittorio Raimondi"]

To a businessman interested in SD but having problems explaining its
usefulness to other "business friends", George Richardson suggests to show,
among the others, the Fortune 500 companies that use it.

I would also be very interested in finding out what Fortune 500 companies
have adopted SD (which is different from having a consultant or researcher
applying the approach to a specific project) and are still using it on a
continuous basis.
George, could you let us know where this list could be found?

In the meantime, my suggestion to the businessman is that he reads
‘Competitive Strategy Dynamics’, by Kim Warren (Wiley, 2002): the most
powerful and usable framework I have seen so far for applying SD to real
business cases (without scaring the managers that are supposed to use it!).

Vittorio
From: "Vittorio Raimondi" <vittorio_r@hotmail.com>

[R.M.Mooy@telecom.tno.nl]

I sometimes encounter similar difficulties in convincing people that SD
is a very powerful method to use in a certain situation. Im looking for
nice, elegant, yet strong examples of SD applications, the ideas behind
SD, and the power SD could have. These examples ought to be short and to
the point, so that I will be able to explain them to management (yes, Im
in consulting).

If theres "a hundred powerful and productive examples" out there - great,
but I have not come across such a collection yet. However, I suspect that
there must be some (preferably web-based ! ) resource that will suit my
needs. Can you point me to such a resource?

In general, which websites give a good overview of the (applied) field of
SD ?


Thank you in advance,


Rutger Mooy
Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research
From: R.M.Mooy@telecom.tno.nl

["Rainer"]

>If none of that reaches them, I suggest you get some new friends.


I have learned to make my way hrough SD with a lot of patience and with results that show up rather over a long period of time.

SD has a lot in common with other products and services: one just cannot sell everything to everybody, but one has to find the audience that is interested in the ideas one wants to sell.
If people arent receptive, there is no big point in trying. Pushing it too hard rather leads to an counterintended effect (that maybe somebody has already modeled; something like policy resistence).

I usually come across people that find the idea of things being so interconnected quite interesting and understand the need of a system view. But when it comes to modeling most people just dont have a clue or they cannot imagine what to do with it.

To convince people I commonly use a job that had initially little to do with System Dynamics, as a catalyzer. Since a lot of industry cases involve some kind of system, I wait for my time to come and for the chance of presenting a "different way to aboard things". Normally somebody gets interested and opens space for further working on the issue.

In a nutshell: I believe SD has to conquer its clients slowly but surely, with patience and insistance.

I hope this was of any help.

Rainer Uwe Bode
CDH - Centro de Desenvolvimento Humano Ltda
Fone 0xx81-3361.1797
cdeh@hotlink.com.br

[Eric Melse]

Dear George,

Although I understand why you respond in this manner, I do not
subscribe to it.
I think ALLOCAR SRASBOURG certainly has a valid point, namely,
that for most business people the sense in SD eludes them.
It is something of an educational, if not intellectual, challenge to
bridge the clear and present gap between (SD) professionals and
the larger business community.
Fortune 500 companies are very lucky to be able to throw a lot
of money on projects that may, or may not, prove to be worthwhile.
There are maybe millions of companies who cannot do that, i.e. pay
for the investment required to hire professionals & consultants.

So, what do we do with that community?
Send them to the library?

I think we are obliged to make an effort to find other alternatives
that communicates better the message of SD at less a cost.

I have the opinion that this issue still begs for many answers.

Best regards
eric melse
From: Eric Melse <eric.melse@planet.nl>

["Ray on EV1"]

There probably is no business looking for SD. Business have
problems/opportunities they need solutions to. We can not expect to walk
into a business a say "See how good this company did by addressing its
problems with SD!"

The first thing to do is get to know your potential client; learn their
problems; learn their solution processes; learn how to listen to them; learn
how to use their language - not French, English or German, but what their
vocabulary is, how they express their ideas. It is difficult enough to get
a company to release funds for a project; they need to be able to totally
understand in their own words what their problem(s) is(are) and how the
solution you propose will work. In order to do this, you must not only
communicate to them in their own vernacular but you need to do it
sufficiently so they can communicate (evangelize) the solution to their
peers.

This type of activity is marketing. It is setting up a peer support
structure within your clients enterprise. How big does this support
structure have to be? Well, you could model it! Are you sufficiently
practiced at the art that you use it for our own business? If you dont use
it (in everything that you do), how can you expect to develop credibility in
others for your capabilities.

It would be wonderful if we could just pull a thousand examples off the
shelf to show to a prospective client and they would swoon over the rapture.
But not many companies will buy into an upstart concept. IBM, SAP, Oracle
have all marketed specific technologies which resulted in fads that drove
profits for themselves but little for their clients. They did this by
knowing how marketing works, designing a plan, and then executing that plan.
With enough money, you or we could start such a fade; but like the big 3
above, it would be empty and fade away. If you want to build a business, it
should have a firm foundation, a business plan, a marketing plan, an
execution plan, sufficient capital to implement the execution plan, and the
guts to go for it.

If you want to sell modeling, you must ask yourself "Am I a modeler? When I
take a shower, do I think of all the systems interacting to help me get
clean? Do I think about how I impact the people around me?"

Am I a modeler?



Raymond T. Joseph, PE
RTJoseph@ev1.net

Aarden Control Engineering and Science

[Bill Harris]

Interesting discussion. Ive found 2 particularly easy situations in
which communications on SD works, and lots more where it doesnt.

First, easiest, and least likely to repeat, I once prepared a pitch to a
3rd level manager using an SD model to justify a business change to an
organization. This manager had been an electrical engineer doing work
in an area where feedback systems were widespread. I was prepared to
work through lots of stuff explaining why my recommendations were
reasonable. As soon as he saw the SD model and a copy of a graph he had
provided me showing an oscillation, he understood just what was
happening, and he only said, "Go do it!" -- leaving me with quite a few
unused slides! Of course, in that case I wasnt selling the use of SD;
I was selling a change in his organization based on a simple SD model I
had done (BTW, the real world worked essentially just like the model).
He just happened to understand feedback and structure better than
probably 95% or more of the general population, and he understood when I
put that into a business setting. So, find former engineers who have
spent much time dealing with feedback systems from both a practical and
a theoretical point of view and who are now senior managers whom you can
access.

Second, as Ray noted, its a marketing job. As I once read when
starting out, its easy to be a consultant; just announce that you are
one, and you are. Then you immediately become a full-time salesperson
who, if lucky, can do a bit of consulting on the side from time to
time. Life isnt quite that bad (thered be no consultants if it
were), but its a good attitude to take IMHO in order to survive as an
independent. Ive found SPIN Selling (the book) a good resource. Put
simply, when Im at my best, I dont sell SD; I help the other person
describe their problem to me, and I address it (assuming I can). The
fact that I may choose to use SD is very much subordinate to the fact
that Im helping them solve their problem in a collaborative fashion.
The goal is not to satisfy my career aspirations; its to help them
cause theyre the ones paying.

Third, fourth, and ... (the hard ways to communicate this stuff): for
me, its anytime Im pushing the approach or the technology rather than
sitting on the prospects side of the table collaborating with them on
solving their problems. Thats true whether the subject is SD or most
anything else I can think of, though, and its substantiated by
marketing books I read such as SPIN Selling.

> If you want to sell modeling, you must ask yourself "Am I a modeler? When I
> take a shower, do I think of all the systems interacting to help me get
> clean? Do I think about how I impact the people around me?"
>
> Am I a modeler?

And, am I a marketeer? Do I have a passion both for the modeling and
for helping the client from their point of view?

Bill
--
Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE
Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA
http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541

[Bill Harris]

J.J.,

It sounds like you may live in the Alsace (Strasbourg?); I used to live
and work in the Black Forest. I like the region: Ive been hiking in
the Vogesen and visited the chapel designed by Le Corbusier at
Ronchamps.

There are many German-language resources on SD. Check out
http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/~gossimit/linklist.php for a number of good
places to turn. Im unfortunately not familiar with the French
literature on SD or its applications.

I think a poor business climate generally makes it even more important
to address business issues from the prospects point of view, as I
posted in my other message this morning. I think Im more successful
when I am trying to help a prospect solve their problem and just happen
to be using SD than when Im trying to sell them on a new technology
first and hoping I can convince them that their acceptance of this new
(to them) idea will eventually help them with their problem. I think
most of our prospects are reluctant to take their eyes off their own
problems long enough to do all that (Im probably the same way, at least
in some areas), and we can help them by getting on their side of the
table. Of course, there will always be some early adopters who will go
for the technology (SD); enjoy it when you find them.

Bill
From: Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

[DavidPKreutzer@aol.com]

Dear Eric,

Good point Eric.

And please dont forget that a lot of system dynamics professionals have
worked for decades right in the center of real life companies applying this
technology at the highest levels with great success.

My observation is that the many forms of methodologies of MIT influenced
system dynamics as is applied by scholars and methodologies in the academic
world for their academic purposes manifests its self in such a different form
and style of communication from the business applications that some dont
recognize the connections.

Real people doing their best to make their real systems work as successfully
as they can also use system dynamics technology but from a subjective
viewpoint.
This may not at first sound the same but once you understand how these
technologies are used and develop understandable ways of communicating the
value folks are only too able to get better results in their real systems.

Twenty years ago when Arie De Geus asked me to come to Royal Dutch Shell in
London to help him integrate the MIT System Dynamics Groups approach with
scenario planning and accelerated organizational learning we soon encountered
groups of very high level managers who said to us "if this systems dynamics
is as powerful and wonderful as you say for empowering us to be more
successful in our complex systems stop talking about it just do it. Whats
holding you back?

Dont Talk - Do!

My own experience is that I had learn a tremendous amount of other approaches
to interact with these kind of people in real time where the real decision
makers are making the real decision, choices, and creating the real system
structures that are generating our current realities.

I always had the impression from Forrester directly as well as from all of
his writings that this has always been a critical audience he was addressing
and intending to suggest should be and could be using system dynamics to
improve the behavior and outcomes of our real systems.

And it works great.

But most of the best most successful applications I know of are now imbedded
in the actual operating practices of real companies in their most sensitive
business operations intended to provide competitive advantage in the survival
of the fittest world.

And the business world is so "frothy" with dynamic behavior the exact
locations of the state-of-the-art in this aspect of the technology has popped
around all over the place and now has so many epicenters I cant even keep up
with them or even keep track of them all.

And a companies core success technologies are usually highly sensitive so
they are usually confidential. But enough of the basic language, form,
generic business processes,a nad even mini-application examples of some of
these I have participated in or know about are sharable.

If you are interested please let me know. You might find them useful with
your own stakeholders.

I cant imagine anyone interacting in a real system with demanding real
stakeholders wouldnt be interested in any and all approaches that can make
their job easier and more effective. And try to engage these stakeholder
use a common language and processes for their collective success. Get them
to do it for themselves. Dont let them sucker you into taking on this
responsibility as if you can do it without them. This is their work too.

One example of an explicitly system-dynamics based multi-stackholder
engagement system that I am going to release portions of soon is called
Evaluate 2.0. It adds stakeholder engagement process, a tool I call the
stakeholder role matrix, options and scenario matrices that explicit document
the viewpoints of all the critical subjective players in a complex systems,
with scenario matrices, simulations of futures for hypothesis testing, system
design, or just anticipatory learning to the classical system dynamics
simulation techniques, tools, and software.

My experience is that now other groups I know of has a better understanding
and appreciation of system dynamics than the folks who have to live in the
one they are creating for themselves.

Cheers,
David Kreutzer
From: DavidPKreutzer@aol.com

[Ilker SOYDAN]

On Wednesday, May 7, 2003, at 13:38, Raymond T. Joseph wrote:
<It is difficult enough to get a company to release funds for a project; they
<need to be able to totally understand in their own words what their problem(s)
...

As I see the conversation is hot, I have some words to utter on SDs
attractiveness to businessmen in my firm and finding the right people for
SD.

As a junior consultant of the Corporate Strategies and Consulting Department,
I have started carrying out pilot projects with the business divisions of Siemens
3 years ago. To name some;

Power Transmission & Distribution (done)
Power Generation (done)
Medical Solutions (in progress)
Corporate Strategies & Consulting
Corporate Human Resources

Through my expanding but modest experience, I saw that I could communicate
managers via the simulation GAMES that I have prepared after the model has
been completed. As I have observed during the presentations, they sometimes
seem to get lost (not often) in the models structure. However, when I show them the
GAME interface, they seem to be happier, since they have prior experince with
management flight experience from their earlier trainings. I think GAMES become
my VERNACULAR that Raymond Joseph mentioned above.

In the beginning managers cannot see the economic value added of SD approach. They
change their opinions after playing the game where they could live the experience with a
much lower cost. And I believe this point is where LEARNING occurs in real terms. (Learning
here refers to managerial learning thru just playing the game, but not
technical learning).

This experience has been mutually beneficial, both for me and the company. As I gained
practical on-the-job learning, the firm started launching SD to itself and started speaking
in terms of SD. I think it is a good example for learning organization, but there is more way
ahead to traverse.

Best regards...


A. Ilker Soydan
SD Consultant
From: Ilker SOYDAN <ilker.soydan@siemens.com.tr>

Siemens Turkey
Corporate Strategies and Consulting
Istanbul

[DavidPKreutzer@aol.com]

Bill,

I agree.

When we are brought in by clients as consultants to help them with their real
problems we must always remember that an additional criteria we should be
keeping in mind is "How useful do we appear to be, TO THEM, in helping them
improve their operating results". And hopefully, in a long-term sustainable
way.

If, as a "practitioner of modeling as learning", the prospect of placing your
clients view of your usefulness at least equal to or sometimes even higher
than your own "opinions" about methodological purity or any other criteria in
your own head then I think you have discovered you are not really a process
consultant but rather are a scholar, a teacher, a methodologist, or expert
consultant.

I believe all of these different kinds of practitioners can still find and
create ways to practice valid and useful successful system dynamics. But it
shouldnt surprise us if the language, styles, and forms of these different
areas should evolve in different ways. I think it was Sullivan who observed
"Form follows Function."

And such a discovery about yourself should not be thought of as a shameful
discovery. (LOL - how is this for turning the usual social status hierarchy
upside down?) Its perfectly okay to be whomever, you really are. But
unless both you and your clients have a clear understanding and explicit
agreement of your roles and appropriate interaction protocols then the
outcomes will probably suffer greatly.

For example, if you are an expert system dynamics consultant brought in to
help determine the integrity of the containment systems for radioactive
waste, your own professional responsibility and mathematical integrity takes
priorities over the subjective impressions of your clients. If your client
has incorrect assumptions about the dynamic behavior implied by the half life
of radioactive decay, they are either irrelevant or relevant only as part of
the "social interaction dynamics" of either the engagement or the system you
are modeling as issues to be managed or validly represented in your
mathematical model.

But in contrast, if a CEO is asking your help to improve success in his or
her business system in the style of a Process Consultant and you enter with
this attitude then you will soon discover that the executives within that
system will probably decide that you are an arrogant unhelpful dolt and you
will soon discover that in the context of that engagement their subjective
opinions of your role, usefulness, real capabilities to be helpful are going
to soon take priority over your own opinions about this or you will soon be
gone.

If such a hypothetical practitioner then complains like sour grapes that
these managers werent capable of understanding our methodological
superiority or why its impossible to have an intelligent conversation about
complex dynamic systems without the invocation of Eulers or Runge-Kutta 2 or
4 and drawing stock flow diagrams rather than causal loops then, it is really
this hypothetical practitioner that doesnt get it.

My observation is that most of the best "system dynamists" in our fields and
tradition move in and out of multiple roles such as teacher, student,
mathematician, academic scholar, advisor, process facilitator so easily and
successfully based on their own intuitions and excellent training this often
is not even an issue that gets talked about.

But I think that as the field expands to much broader domains of application,
and with practitioners for whom system dynamics is an additional complement
to their portfolio of application methodologies we should probably discuss
this more and even develop a body of application theory that can guide us all
in being both more useful and still valid in solving these complex
application context, purpose, and role issues.

Another reason I hope we can develop better collective language and theory
for this is to keep our field really unified at the highest level. Sadly, I
think confusion around these issues has driven somewhat of a wedge between
different types of practitioners and different generations of us who really
should be on the same team but have been distracted into to much "behind the
scenes bickering" about tiny "apparent " methodological issues that really
are not. But are rather in fact slight differences in personal style and
appropriate differences in implementation strategies in the order of the
modeling process that were appropriate and valid given the exact application
context of the moment.

When these valid choices are then criticized by others who were not present
or aware of the contextual issues it can lead to confusion and damaged
feelings, If external critics take the valid application choices in
extremely complicated real application environments of our context from the
real issues of the moment and then make categorical and overly generalized
and sometimes savagely hostile methodological criticisms of others who appear
to be making different choices, I know from my own experiences and
observations of cases where feelings, relationships, and our collective
reputations have been unfairly and unnecessarily hurt.

And at least in many specific cases I am thinking of in retrospect I suspect
most of us involved in such "stimulating" academic methodological debates
would probably feel much of the tangential unseen damage from such
discussions were unintended side effects not our real intents.

So let me apologize in advance if my comments here stir up old wounds. I
really do think the value of keeping system dynamics scholars, students,
experts, consultants, methodologist and even "process" consultants, in
different kinds of applications arenas, is worth the extra trouble. But we
all have to be aware that there are some natural "boundary" friction we all
should be sensitive to, tolerant of, and forgiving about if we wish to share
valuable learning insight across these many wonderful and valid sub-branches
of our collective field.

I like to imagine that I have been effective at times in all these different
roles. But I have sometimes experienced extraordinary painful and
embarrassing failures where in rapidly evolving client based situations I
respond in ways that seem appropriate and similar to past great successes
only to discover that I misfired by failing to comprehend some new or
previously unperceived aspect of the context or expectations I had
misperceived or incompletely analyzed the implications of.

Oddly enough, the biggest challenge for me personally that recently I have
appeared to be getting worse at not better is in certain kinds of dual roles
where people want me to "facilitate" them to discover and learn to use
system dynamics tools and approaches in the process of working on their real
live team issues. This Learning By Doing" style used to be my best most
successful role.

But I have been working so intently and hard for the last couple years on
some methodological extensions that I find the urge to shift into lecture
mode or even worse bulldoze groups into complying with the new "higher order"
rules and suggested procedures of my methodological extensions, too powerful
to resist. And team learning and performance suffers.

Yesterday, I was so disappointed with my non-empathetic treatment of a really
innocent participant who got in the crossfire of on of my best "most
brilliant" methodological pontifications that I concluded I may have now
become too old and opinionated to be an effective team learning facilitator
any more.

I am increasingly finding that my own opinions about methodology are
appearing more interesting and better thought out than anything my clients
and students appears to be talking about. This is no doubt a warning sign.

Just like the sad cases of the young athletic superstars who are no longer
able to keep up with their younger competitors I am now hoping maybe I can
find a job as a teacher or coach. Or maybe just enjoy real modeling as
learning facilitation by watching videos or new younger players. But this is
a sad moment for me.

I am harboring some small hope that if I exercise more, loose, weight,
destress and simplify my life, and deal with some heath issues such as Sleep
Apnea that may be an alternate hypothesis for why I am finding my clients and
students to be more annoying, and less interesting than usual. But if not,
I may have to face the fact that I no longer have what it takes to stay on
the very demanding front lines of trying to do this work while flying all
over the place, with such a variety of audiences.

So I have great sympathy and admiration for the courage and challenges those
of you are who choose similar paths are facing. Many times I have been
envious of those lucky few who have tenure at universities and can
concentrate so much more intently on pure methodology than those like us so
misfortunate as to have to work for a living. LOL (This is a joke! LOL to
me this means laughing at loud -- for me the joys and fun of being able to
share such arcane and apparently lofty insights about such big issues always
seems so funny I cant help laughing.)

Cheers and Good Luck,
David
From: DavidPKreutzer@aol.com

["Jim Hines"]

A. Ilker Soydan wrote "...the firm [Seimens] started launching SD to
itself and started speaking in terms of SD."

Question to A. Ilker: Would you describe the process underway at your
company to launch SD and where Seimens is now in the process? E.g. did
it start within an internal consulting group? Did you hire people
experienced in SD? Did you send people to training programs? How are
people within Seimens first becoming aware of SD? How is expertise in
SD spreading? How far has it spread to date? To what extent has it
"permeated" the company -- or, as Barry Richmond might have asked: To
what extent has it become the water in which the fish swim, and so no
longer excites much comment among the fish.

Thank you.

Jim Hines
jhines@mit.edu

[Ilker SOYDAN]

Jim Hines asked several questions on Sunday, May 11, 2:02 am about SD in
Siemens Turkey:

<Would you describe the process underway at your company to launch SD and where Seimens
<is now in the process? E.g. did it start within an internal consulting group?

SD started in my company with my interest into the approach. It started with me and my director.
(A part of the in-house consulting department). Currently, I can call myself "successful" in making
my colleagues (consultants) think systemically. I tried to vaccine the concept of Stocks & Flows.

To begin with, I have prepared a proposal before starting to the project. Then we had ( me+my director )
interviews and meetings with the business unit directors. (We had/ have prior knowledge about their business
processes, problems and needs) Thanks God that we are an electrics-electronics company We have
lots of engineers. My experience started with the application side, then the theory. Although the opposite
always seem to work, it became an interesting way for me for learning. I could digest the points better
where I felt difficulty in the projects.

In brief, I can say that we are at the very beginning of SD in Siemens. We want to achieve a "smooth transition"
from traditional thinking to systems thinking, but of course we need TIME.


<Did you hire people experienced in SD?

We did not hire experienced people YET. I began SD here when I was an undergraduate, but I was under
supervision. I dont know what my director is planning about the department (which acts as an "incubator" for
higher level management) in terms of growth We are planning to build a professional collaboration with SESDYN
(Socio-Economic System DYNamics) of Bogazici University so that we could attach ourselves to academic
improvements and also we want the academic side to have an opportunity for their projects to be applied in Siemens.
Thanks again to Prof. Yaman Barlas.


<Did you send people to training programs?

The company gave support to my training very much. Last year I was financed by Siemens for the Palermo
Conference which was my first experience. I had great pleasure meeting many people, especially in the
posters area where I was one of the responsible volunteers. I was inspired by this favor of my company very much.

The company has a modest library and softwares related with SD. Plus, we have a soft library on our intranet
where there are lots of articles, presentations, assignments and solutions for beginners etc. I hope I will be at ISDC
in New York this year in the name of my company.


<How are people within Seimens first becoming aware of SD?

There are multiple ways:

1) As we are consultants, we propose them to solve their problems which they apply us to solve with SD. We
first give them primary "educative" material about SD and its uses/ tenets. Then we give them an outline about
the solution. How it will be solved is explained in detail and main project module time schedules are set and
presented. They feel more comfortable when they see the steps.

2) We have also a company magazine called "Dialogue" (published quarterly) where I had chance
to talk about SD and the on-going projects.

3) In addition, there are word-of-mouth internal ads of SD via managers. Especially for "market" (important for the
company) projects in which we try to get the future volume for market.

4) During the data collection, I contact many people from varying departments such as Controlling, Human Resources,
Quality Management etc. I tell them about the project and SD in brief so that they get aware of SD. I mostly feel as
if I were a marketer for SD. We should be both a modeler and a marketer concurrently.


<How is expertise in SD spreading? How far has it spread to date? To what extent has it "permeated" the company
<-- or, as Barry Richmond might have asked: To what extent has it become the water in which the fish swim, and so
<no longer excites much comment among the fish.

After the GAMES pre-mentioned, I assure that they are playing with it and asking them questions about the runs/ reasons.
SD is currently forcing the "semi-permeable cell membrane" and still in progress. Because there is a continuous "osmosis"
process where SD knowledge/ experience flows to the internal structure of the company gradually. It has not become the water
that the fish swim in, but I dream it to be in a "moderate" period!

I hope I could make a clearer picture of SD in Siemens Turkey.

Thank you.

Ilker Soydan
ilker.soydan@siemens.com.tr

[Bill Harris]

DavidPKreutzer@aol.com wrote:

> unless both you and your clients have a clear understanding and explicit
> agreement of your roles and appropriate interaction protocols then the
> outcomes will probably suffer greatly.

David,

Well said!

Your distinction between and inclusion of both process and expert
consultants is important, methinks. Even in the expert case, perhaps
the client is still hiring the consultant for something other than SD.

Youve enunciated the case for the process consultant; for the expert,
they want to know if that radioactive mess you mention will cause
problems for future generations. They may not care what methods you use
except to be able to assure themselves youre using defensible and
highly plausible methods. Whether youre using Vensim or Goldsim may
not matter, as long as youve justified your capabability.

More explicitly, theyre expecting an answer youll stand behind. If
you have to use SD or physics or geology, thats fine; they want the
answer.

Harkening back to Geoffrey Moores models (not of the executable sort --
see Crossing the Chasm), there are some number of innovators who will
want to use (or want us to use) SD because they see a strategic
advantage. If you are in that situation, great. I think (and Moore
claims) they are far more rare than the pragmatists well help most of
the time.

Bill
From: Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
--
Bill Harris 3217 102nd Place SE
Facilitated Systems Everett, WA 98208 USA
http://facilitatedsystems.com/ phone: +1 425 337-5541

["Thompson, Jim A142"]

The 2003 ISDC Business Roundtable received a number of questions about
Communicating System Dynamics to Others. Our experienced panel will respond
to your on-the-spot follow-up questions at the Roundtable session scheduled
for Wednesday from noon to 1:30 PM.

Our panel includes Jonathan Coyle (HVR Consulting., UK); Nathan Forrester
(Georgia-Pacific, US); Alan Graham (PA Consulting, US-UK); Michel Karsky
(KBS Consulting (France); Nathaniel Mass (US); and Frank Schoeneborn
(Heidelberg Group, Germany).

If you want to start another thread, please email me with your questions or
observations.

I hope to see all of you at the Business Roundtable.

Jim Thompson
Economic & Operations Research
CIGNA HealthCare
900 Cottage Grove Road A142
Hartford, CT 06152
Phone: 860.226.8607
Fax: 860.226.7898
email: jim.thompson@cigna.com