QUERY Policy paradox and SD

This forum contains all archives from the SD Mailing list (go to http://www.systemdynamics.org/forum/ for more information). This is here as a read-only resource, please post any SD related questions to the SD Discussion forum.
Locked
Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@ »

Posted by Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@yahoo.com>

Dear all,

Structural confirmation is a primary test of model validity.
If model components and equations can be easily
recognized, the model would pass this test. This is not
a strong test. A big problem occurs when policies are
easily recognized but somehow impractical. All policies
can be implemented in SD models with ease, but many
of them may not be easily implemented in the real system.
We know what policies can improve the system performance,
but such policies do not exist. SD practice per see is not
consistent with the real system.

SD paradigm underestimated difficulty in parameter
adjustment in the real world. Many problems keep persist,
not because people have implemented the wrong policies,
but because they cannot implement the right ones, known as
""policy paradox"".

SD modelers represent policies as exogenous factors,
while in fact they are edogenous. We are teached to view
ourselves as a plane designer, but the system we try to
represent is usually not a plane or an object under our control.
You can modify your own plane as much as you want, but you
cannot modify the social system, becuase it is not yours.

Monte Kietpawpan
PSU
Posted by Monte Kietpawpan <kietpawpan@yahoo.com>
posting date Sun, 9 Dec 2007 20:39:01 -0800 (PST)
_______________________________________________
Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com&
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com& »

Posted by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com>

What Monte described strikes me not so much as a policy paradox as an
implementation dilemma. It is definitively not unique to System Dynamics
or even to the social systems. For example, we can make a pendulum swing
more quickly by increasing gravity. For a physical system the labeling of
which policy interventions might and might not be implementable is much
easier to accomplish, but it still has to be done.

Some time ago in looking at macroeconomic policy I came to the conclusion,
which I believe is still valid, that the only outcome that a government
can consistently achieve with a well defined intervention is hyperinflation.
That does not, of course, mean that governments stop trying to intervene.
Such intervention is ever present, and leads to results that sometimes seem
good, and sometimes seem bad.

The challenge, of course, is to find concrete actions that people are
willing to take that move toward a desired outcome. If people are unwilling
to change behavior than other action such as the development of incentive
structures, a policy of education, or forced compliance can be used.

I don't think anyone expects this to be easy. But we are are better off if
we can understand how changes will impact the overall behavior we are
interested in. So, regardless of how hard it might be to implement a policy,
we want to know if the policy will actually result in the asserted outcome.
The only way to be confident in that is to have a model that stands up to
rigorous scientific scrutiny.

Bob Eberlein
Posted by Bob Eberlein <bob@vensim.com>
posting date Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:02:33 -0500
_______________________________________________
""Ford, David"" <dford@civil.
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by ""Ford, David"" <dford@civil. »

Posted by ""Ford, David"" <dford@civil.tamu.edu>

I agree with Monte Kietpawpan that it is almost always much easier to
design a policy in an SD model than it is to implement it in practice
and that failing to include implementation aspects of policies in SD
models is problematic. However I think that including a policy in a SD
model without including the constraints, costs, side effects, etc. that
exist in practice for that policy goes against what SD considers good
modeling practice. Consider the simple policy of using overtime to bring
a late project back on schedule. It is relatively easy to model that the
amount of overtime increases with schedule pressure, but (for starters)
in practice there is a maxmimum amount of overtime possible, negative
overtime is almost unheard of, unit labor costs are higher for overtime,
and sustained overtime creates fatigue which increases rework and
reduces productivity. Good SD practice suggests that these are a part of
the policy structure in practice, as much as the response of overtime to
schedule pressure, and therefore should be included in the SD model
policy structure before the model can be considered structurally valid
with respect to the policy. The overtime example also illustrates that
most good policies are endogenous and that endogenous nature should be
reflected in the SD model. Having said that, there are often exogneous
descriptors of the policy. For example, a first equation for an overtime
policy might take the form

target overtime = schedule pressure * sensitivity to schedule pressure

where the sensitivity to schedule pressure is an exogenous parameter
that reflects different managerial styles.

As a final note, when I include implementation constraints, side
effects, etc. I am less sure than Monte Kietpawpan sounds that (at least
in my own work) I ""know what policies can improve system performance"".
That is what I often what I seek to learn. I hope, by doing so, to
change the social system for the better, one policy at a time.

Best wishes,

Dave Ford
Posted by ""Ford, David"" <dford@civil.tamu.edu>
posting date Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:02:18 -0600
_______________________________________________
Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac
Senior Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac »

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

Hi Monte.

The practicalities of implementation should be exposed in the definition of
the problem being modelled. It is not always done.
For instance in the World model, there is no reference made to the easiness
of implementation of eventual policies.
I personally think that a policy is always relative to the owner of the
problem.
And if one wants to evaluate different policies, one must identify an owner.
If the owner is a group, there will be conflicting point of views, and there
must be a hard preliminary work of finding a compromise between them.

The big difficulty with groups, is that most people will not be ready to
express publicly their intimate interests, supposing they are conscious of them.
So I do not believe much in group modelling. It is most of the time unrealistic and seeing
reality otherwise than it is, is a primary fault in a modelling effort.
Regards.
Jean-Jacques Laublé. Eurli, Allocar

Strasbourg. France.
Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>
posting date Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:32:23 +0100
_______________________________________________
""Jim Thompson"" <james.thomp
Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by ""Jim Thompson"" <james.thomp »

Posted by ""Jim Thompson"" <james.thompson@strath.ac.uk>

Monte Kietpawpan writes: You can modify your own plane as much as you want,
but you cannot modify the social system, because it is not yours.

Some notable recent exceptions to this rule include Ghandi, Mandela, and
King. Although it may undercut the point, we could add big names from
commercial endeavours, such as Gates. But everyone who interacts socially
(i.e. virtually everyone) modifies the social system to a degree; some more
than others.

With system dynamics we can simulate a problem in a social system and the
conditions we would like to see change. Then we can simulate proposed
solutions to see whether, given what we know of the system, our proposals
might actually improve conditions.

Implementation is action that follows thinking, and doing usually requires
more effort than thinking.
Jim Thompson
Posted by ""Jim Thompson"" <james.thompson@strath.ac.uk>
posting date Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:39:22 -0500
_______________________________________________
""nickols@att.net"" <nickols@
Junior Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by ""nickols@att.net"" <nickols@ »

Posted by ""nickols@att.net"" <nickols@att.net>

FWIW, I see SD practitioners as extremely capable when it comes to modeling
a system and identifying changes that would lead to improved performance.
It also seems to me that SD practitioners are no better (nor worse) than
many other professional practitioners in the workplace when it comes to
implementation. Implementation, in my view, has more to do with what is
generally known as ""change management"" than it does SD and change management
has to do with people and politics and stakes and stakeholders and heat vs
light and emotions more so than analytical reason.

Just out of curiosity, where, how and when does an SD practitioner acquire
the knowledge, skills, insight, wisdom and competencies associated with
effective implementation or change management? I ask because I rarely hear
the implementation side of things discussed; instead, focus is almost always
on models and modeling.

Perhaps a well rounded SD practitioner should be one part modeler and one
part interventionist.

Regards,

--
Fred Nickols
Toolmaker to Knowledge Workers
Posted by ""nickols@att.net"" <nickols@att.net>
posting date Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:20:20 +0000
_______________________________________________
George Richardson <gpr@albany
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by George Richardson <gpr@albany »

Posted by George Richardson <gpr@albany.edu>


In the recent discussion on implementation one poster wrote:

> The big difficulty with groups, is that most people will not be ready to
> express publicly their intimate interests, supposing they are
> conscious of them.
> So I do not believe much in group modelling. It is most of the time
> unrealistic and seeing
> reality otherwise than it is, is a primary fault in a modelling effort.

The claim in the last sentence is disturbing to me and leaves what I
think is a misleading impression about the state of group modeling
building theory and practice. Fortunately, the claim can be empirically
tested, I think, by looking at the group modeling literature, our own
and others.

A search of our electronic database for publications containing ""group
model"" [thus allowing group modeling, group model building, and so on]
reveals 100 publications. The list is far from a complete bibliography
of the topic, however -- its earliest listing is a conference paper in
1992, and we know that major aspects of the process trace back to
Stenberg (1980) and perhaps even to Forrester's process with Urban
Dynamics. Of course, the database does include Vennix's 1996 book,
which won the Forrester award in 1999.

Besides the UAlbany decision and policy sciences group, which I'm most
familiar with, scholars using aspects of group modeling include: the
Center for Technology in Government at UAlbany, Vennix and his
colleagues in the Netherlands, Cavana and his colleagues in New Zealand,
Eden and Ackermann and their colleagues at the University of
Strathclyde, Bryson at the Humphrey Institute at the University of
Minnesota, the National Laboratories in the U.S. (Sandia, Argon. Los
Alamos), Hines and colleagues at MIT, Stave and colleagues at the
University of Nevada at Las Vega, and probably a host of others I am
forced to leave out (and apologize for) because of my ignorance of the
extent of good work people are doing in this area.

We have quite a strong and growing body of literature in this area, some
of which includes evaluation data on the reactions of clients (see e.g.,
Cirincione et al., Interfaces, 1991, and following articles). UAlbany
and the folks in the Netherlands try to use the same evaluation
protocols so that we have comparable assessment data. I know of no
results of those assessments, or any other literature, that concludes an
intervention was ""unrealistic and seeing
reality otherwise than it is.""

A particularly interesting line of investigation and analysis centers on
the use of maps and models emerging from groups which serve as ""boundary
objects,"" enabling diverse and contentious groups to make headway on
difficult dynamic problems and choices (see e.g., Zagonel's thesis and
conference papers).

In our contentious world, particularly the increasingly polarized
debates in the U.S., I have to place considerable hope for group
processes that can bridge ideological and political chasms between
people. Eliciting and exploring a group map or model that can serve as
such a bridge continues to seem to me close to our highest system
dynamics calling.

> Just out of curiosity, where, how and when does an SD practitioner
> acquire
> the knowledge, skills, insight, wisdom and competencies associated with
> effective implementation or change management? I ask because I rarely
> hear
> the implementation side of things discussed; instead, focus is almost
> always
> on models and modeling.
> Perhaps a well rounded SD practitioner should be one part modeler and one
> part interventionist.

Indeed! We're so convinced about that that in our PhD program in
Decision and Policy Sciences, where our system dynamics work resides, we
require at least one course in what we used to call ""group consulting
skills."" Increasingly, we are recommending a course in ethnography
called Cultural Analysis of Organizations (Professor Mitch Abolafia) for
what it gives our students in the way of tools to enter an organization
and see and hear clearly what they need to to be helpful with a system
dynamics intervention.

The field has a long history of worrying about implementation. The
emphasis on thinking about it from the start of an intervention traces
back in our literature to an article by Roberts in his Managerial
Applications of System Dynamics (1978) (article 9).

..George

George P. Richardson
Chair of public administration and policy
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany - SUNY, Albany, NY 12222
Posted by George Richardson <gpr@albany.edu>
posting date Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:58:15 -0500
_______________________________________________
Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.co
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.co »

Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>

The implementations that have been most successful for me have been
those where the approval of the solution, allocation of resources for
the solution, and the implementation of the solution have all been part
of the original problem statement. It ensures that all of these
milestones receive their due from the beginning of the inquiry.

For example, ""What solution to problem X will secure the support of
adequate resources and the time and energy of those who will implement?""

Posed as such, I am mindful of engaging key stakeholders from the
beginning. It is possible that the solution to problem X as stated above
might be different from the ""best"" solution otherwise gleaned from a
more critical inquiry. In a good number of cases some fraction of the
best solution is better than no fraction of the best solution (should
that best solution fail to secure the support of resources and
implementers and fall flat). Success breeds success, and momentum can
carry subsequent inquiries forward.

Posing the question as such may reveal that the timing is bad and moving
forward would not be fruitful, or even counter-productive.

Such an approach is not always possible, or at least difficult. If the
problem pits one internal stakeholder against another, or if the final
approval will come from a person unknown or not accessible, then the
political process is germane. If that is the case, I use ""Political
Analysis through the PRINCE System"" by Coplin and O'Leary (ISBN
0-936826-18-5) to plot a strategy for negotiating support, resources,
and implementation.

Bill Braun
Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
posting date Wed, 12 Dec 2007 10:00:44 -0500
_______________________________________________
Jack Harich <register@thwink.
Member
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Jack Harich <register@thwink. »

Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>


One way to handle the implementation aspect of the ""solution"" the model
suggests is to not look at it that way. There is another viewpoint.

This is to first decompose the one big problem into several little
problems, each of which is much easier to solve. The decomposition I've
found most successful and reusable is these three subproblems:

A. How to overcome change resistance to adopting the proper practices of
the ""solution."" Think of the system with the problem as suffering from
organizational change resistance. When change resistance is overcome the
system will want to solve the problem just as strongly as it was not
wanting to solve it before.

B. How to properly couple two subsystems to another. Proper coupling
means the feedback loops between the two systems cause the systems to
work together in harmony.

C. How to avoid model drift. The ""model"" here is the model of the solution.

Call A, B, and C the change resistance, proper coupling, and model drift
subproblems.

In general you first solve A, then B, then C. However, your analysis
iterations will probably initially center on B, as you become familiar
with the problem.

Regarding C (model drift), as the total system with the problem evolves,
so too must the model, or the solution will become obsolete. This is
also called a self-managing solution. The term model drift comes from
Thomas Kuhn's cycle of scientific revolutions. The cycle steps are
normal science, model drift, model crisis, model revolution, and
paradigm change. I added the model drift stage, which was only implied
in his book.

Regarding B (proper coupling), suppose the problem was the diabetes
epidemic. The two systems (there are sometimes more) could be defined as
citizens and the educational system. The educational system needs to
constantly incorporate new methods based on what youth needs to learn in
its formative years, such as the right diet and exercise necessary to
avoid a susceptibility to diabetes. The educational system also needs
feedback on how well its working. When these things are happening the
two systems are properly coupled. Another example is the environmental
sustainability problem. There the human and environmental systems are
improperly coupled due to the externalized cost phenomenon, though this
is an enormous simplification.

This takes us to A (change resistance). Implementation may encounter
organizational change resistance, a barrier so common it's a
mini-industry in itself. So in your analysis you model change resistance
explicitly, usually in a separate model from B and C.

Generally the more difficult the problem, the higher the change
resistance. For incredibly difficult social problems, like
sustainability, systemic poverty and war, change resistance is the crux
of the problem. That is, we know what to do to solve the problem (the
proper coupling practices) but we cannot get the system to adopt those
proper practices.

Thus if you have not solved A, then no matter how good your ""solution""
to B is, you have not solved the total problem. Most people consider
only B as the problem to solve, which, if it's a difficult social
problem, is the perfect setup for a trap. When they try to implement
their solution to B, the one they have worked so hard on for so long,
they discover the system rejects it with surprising force and ingenuity.

An educational example of A, B, and C may be seen in Forrester's urban
decay model. The model showed how certain improper coupling practices
caused urban areas to be improperly coupled to the world around them.
This caused urban decay. The model also showed how, if new counter
intuitive policies were tried, proper coupling would occur.

But when Forrester started publishing, he encountered severe change
resistance. For example:

""The conclusions of our work were not easily accepted. I recall one full
professor of social science in our fine institution at MIT coming to me
and saying, ‘I don't care whether you're right or wrong, the results are
unacceptable.’ So much for academic objectivity! Others, probably
believing the same thing, put it more cautiously as, ‘It doesn't make
any difference whether you're right or wrong, urban officials and the
residents of the inner city will never accept those ideas.’ It turned
out that those were the two groups we could count on for support if they
became sufficiently involved to understand. That is a very big ‘if’—if
they came close enough to understand. Three to five hours were required
to come to an understanding of what urban dynamics was about."" - From
http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/papers/D-4165-1.pdf

In the urban decay crisis problem, change resistance was so small that
all it took to overcome it, one group at a time, was ""three to five
hours"" of exposure to the model. Rather than explain the whole model,
all Forrester explained was why present solutions had no effect or made
the problem worse, and how alternative solutions that had not been tried
could make it better and why.

But Forrester and others never addressed C, the model drift subproblem.
The urban decay crisis was merely resolved down to a problem. It was
never entirely solved. We still have slums all over the world. We even
have occasional riots, such as those recently seen in France. But we do
not have anything like the US urban decay crisis of the 1960, when
scores of people were slain in riots, such as 34 in the Watts riot alone.

As another example, a friend is a business consultant. He uses a
repeatable process for assessment, strategy development, etc. He feels
that most business problems fall into three categories: change
management, project management, and communication. From the perspective
of A, B, and C, his change management category is A and project
management is B.

Now you may wonder, what about C? Well I asked him, what about strategy?
Isn't that missing from your categories? He replied ""That's a whole
'nother story."" But I feel that if he had a fourth category called
strategy management, it would be C. That is, for a system to avoid model
drift, it must continually fine tune its strategies, the ones that lead
to continual updating of the solutions to A and B.

Hope this helps,

Jack Harich
Systems Engineer
Posted by Jack Harich <register@thwink.org>
posting date Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:21:40 -0500
_______________________________________________
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
Senior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci »

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

""SDMAIL nickols@att.net"" <nickols@att.net> writes:
>Just out of curiosity, where, how and when does an SD practitioner acquire
> the knowledge, skills, insight, wisdom and competencies associated with
> effective implementation or change management?

Hi Fred,

Some, perhaps many, of us have feet in both (many) camps, in the spirit
of needing more than one tool in the typical toolbox.

I fell into change management shortly after getting started in SD. I
was a manager and then an internal consultant who needed more tools to
achieve the goals I had set for myself (and which had been set for me)
in my organizational setting. Those tools I picked up (action research,
action science, OD, ...) gradually led me in the direction you're
describing. In my case, necessity and curiousity, mixed well, were the
parents of learning.

As to how, I did take a course in AR, I took various short courses in
change management and consulting skills, I read a /lot/, and I did a lot
of action research and action learning surrounding action science,
change management, and personal mastery, to use a Fifth Discipline term.
As you know, no matter where one is, there's still a long ways to go.

Of the whole lot, I think action science may have been the hardest to
internalize -- it certainly felt that way at the time. Then again, I
had five years in a university and multiple years designing circuits and
systems to cultivate my feeling for feedback systems.

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Wed, 12 Dec 2007 08:32:11 -0800
_______________________________________________
Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.
Junior Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom. »

Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>

I have 15 years experience as a manager in industry, 18 years as a
management consultant working mainly with change and organizational
development. My interest in SD came 12 years ago when I read ""Learning by
modeling"" and realized that SD could be used not only for policy modeling
but also for integrating modeling into a powerful change process.

A lot of great work has been done in group modeling. However, some of it
focuses on using the participants for knowledge elicitation. I am at a
fairly senior age taking up doctoral studies and I hope to be able to
contribute on working with groups to achieve not only new policies but also
actual change.

Regards
Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmström <ph@holmstrom.se>
posting date Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:33:11 +0100
_______________________________________________
Ralf Lippold <ralf_lippold@we
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Ralf Lippold <ralf_lippold@we »

Posted by Ralf Lippold <ralf_lippold@web.de>

Fred,

you just have triggered one of my personal drivers why I got into SD
last year:

personal curiousity how to solve complex problems in which I am
sometimes a direct active part of.

Especially in large organizations, large scale projects (acted as a
project leader during the big flooding in Germany in Dresden in 2002)
and processes where persons are mainly envolved with their personal set
of mental models the results of action change is difficult as the
dynamics of actions (including the socalled unanticipated sideeffect)
are not easily seen. Seeing and understanding the connection between the
action today and the outcome tomorrow is a first step into systems
thinking.

Please apologize the rather lengthy comment at this point.

Example for personal experience around the use of SD:

1. The story is build around a rather good public transport planner
(Metro, http://nanika.net/Metro/index-en.html) for PDAs
2. I provided data (manually by hand;-( as a text file) for several
cities in Germany, especially Dresden (during the flooding to provide
costless city information for helpers from outside Dresden)
3. The initial data collecting was easily done (from scratch)
4. BUT future changes and corrections of bus/tram lines is very time
consuming and so isn't done frequently
5. This is leading to customer dissatisfaction over time (even though
the tool is freeware, it depends on words of mouth to be spread around
and finding new supporters)

So the question was -and still is- how can the process of updating be
more qualitative and efficient in order to hold the program and the
provided data up-to-date?

As I feel responsible for the Dresden -worked with the public transport
comany for quite some time and know the city for about 14 years now- the
idea of switching the data input procedure to a web-based one where the
updating could be done on a standard basis by supporters around the world.

The benefits would be:

1. Less stress for supporters to provide data (short-term)
2. Leas stress importing the updated data for the persons in charge of
the program itself (short-term)
3. Increasing quality of data and smaller time delays of updates
compared to actual data (mid-term)
4. Word-of-Mouth (more users and supporters worldwide)
5. As the quality stabilizes over time businesses, galeries, museums
could put there own information, adversiment in the city files

BUT as this whole process involves several stakeholders, such as
programmers, supporters, users, museums, businesses, city councils, etc.
and the program itself is seen as freeware there seems to be rather
solid resistance to change the way the data is imported.

So how can one change the diffferent mental models of the people
involved (the main actors such as programmers and supporters) in order
to get the change take off? What mental models hinder them to change the
system to the better? What are ways to overcome the resistance?

Similar cases occur probabyl for all of us in their daily life (either
work, private, sports, education, etc.) and so I was quite happy to step
into the field from the outside being a practioner seeing the whole
picture.

As I had no knowledge of ST and SD alike I am learning on that as much
as I can and use the new insights in direct discussion with friends,
colleagues, students and experience SD pratictioners. It is a constant
learning experience with ups and downs (sometimes there are really deep
valleys and you don't see how you could get up the steep slope across
the next visible mountain of no-knowledge).

> Just out of curiosity, where, how and when does an SD practitioner acquire
> the knowledge, skills, insight, wisdom and competencies associated with
> effective implementation or change management? I ask because I rarely hear
> the implementation side of things discussed; instead, focus is almost always
> on models and modeling.

There probably will be no one big great ""implementation shot"" in SD as
it is more a learning journey (as Jay Forrester would put it:-)) and one
has to see the vision to constantly work on the personal knowledge
accumulation concerning SD (and other fields alike).

Quite often for most people system dynamics is just a fancy set of tools
to build simulations and so it is even more difficult to overcome their
mental models or better make them think about their own mental models,
reflect on them and change their view over time.

Set mental models -in any form- are really THE CHALLENGE in order to get
sustainable change rolling;-)

I guess we all are still on a journey and it is a great feeling to be in
the group.

This were my -more than 5- cents on the question raised.

All the best

Ralf
Posted by Ralf Lippold <ralf_lippold@web.de>
posting date Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:21:10 +0100
_______________________________________________
Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac
Senior Member
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jac »

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

Hi everybody.

Fred Nickols mentionned the lack of information about implementation.
It would be interesting too that people discuss about the justification
of using SD and the expected added value of studying the problem
dynamically with feed back loops, and if the expected value was effective a sufficient time after the
implementation of the policies.

About my perception of group modelling,
there is no scholarly foundation to my belief,
and all the books published in the world will not change my experiences.
And I do not pretend to represent anybody else than myself.
My belief comes from multiple life experiences during
more than 35 years of working in business.

These experiences are not about group modelling but about dealing with
groups and the difficulty to really know what the people think and if
it is mastered, the difficulty of dealing with sometimes completely different
personal interests and world views.
Regards.
Jean-Jacques Laublé


Regards.
Jean-Jacques Laublé. Eurli Allocar
Strasbourg France.
Posted by Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble@wanadoo.fr>
posting date Thu, 13 Dec 2007 12:45:23 +0100
_______________________________________________
""Sheldon Friedman"" <sheldon
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by ""Sheldon Friedman"" <sheldon »

Posted by ""Sheldon Friedman"" <sheldon.friedman@comcast.net>

Posted by Sheldon Friedman sfriedman@sjc.edu

I have to agree with George Richardson's comments about working with groups. I
have found that members of groups working to develop a model are concerned
about expressing their opinions, but not afraid to do so. Having a background
in Organizational Development gives the modeler the ability to manage group
process and conflict. I am reminded, I believe, of what Barry Richmond wrote
about working with a team-someone to manage process and someone to manage the
model.

It seems to me that the big problem goes back to system dynamics as part of
organizational change. Overcoming the inertia of the past and getting new
policies accepted is the hard part.

Sheldon Friedman
St. Joseph College
1678 Asylum Avenue
West Hartford CT 06117
Posted by ""Sheldon Friedman"" <sheldon.friedman@comcast.net>
posting date Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:41:35 -0500
_______________________________________________
<richard.dudley@attglobal.net
Member
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by <richard.dudley@attglobal.net »

Posted by <richard.dudley@attglobal.net>

I agree with George's response. But we do see, in some contexts, some backlash
to group approaches for problem solving. I don't know that this occurs with SD
approaches, but it could.

An interesting discussion of this problem with regard to groups formed to solve
natural resource issues is the interestingly titled paper ""Arguing About
Consensus""

Kenney DS. 2000. Arguing About Consensus: Examining the Case against Western
Watershed Initiatives and Other Collaborative Groups Active in Natural Resources
Management. Natural Resources Law Center, University of Colorado School of Law,
Campus Box 401, Boulder, CO 80309-0401. This is available from a number of
web sites including the following:
http://www.cde.state.co.us/artemis/ucb6 ... TERNET.pdf

I think that the details George presented indicate that research into SD group
approach has helped develop ideas that avoid the problems presented in the
""Arguing About Consensus"" paper.

Richard
Posted by richard.dudley@attglobal.net
posting date Thu, 13 Dec 2007 22:28:46 -0500
_______________________________________________
""James Lyneis"" <jmlyneis@ve
Junior Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by ""James Lyneis"" <jmlyneis@ve »

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

Fred Nickols writes:
> Just out of curiosity, where, how and when does an SD practitioner acquire
> the knowledge, skills, insight, wisdom and competencies associated with
> effective implementation or change management?

As George Richardson points out: ""The field has a long history of worrying about
implementation. The emphasis on thinking about it from the start of an
intervention traces back in our literature to an article by Roberts in his
Managerial Applications of System Dynamics (1978) (article 9).""

In fact, Ed Roberts taught a course at MIT called ""Applications and
Implementation of System Dynamics"" as far back as 1969 (I don't want to admit
my age, but I took that course). His teachings drew not only on his consulting
experiences with the firm he and Jack Pugh founded in 1964 (Pugh-Roberts
Associates, now part of PA Consulting), but also on the evolving research on
change management. The course involved group's of students executing a consulting
project under Robert's guidance. The paper Richardson cites was first published
in 1974.

Until relatively recently, successors to the original Applications and
Implementation course were part of the System Dynamics course sequence at MIT.
Jim Hines and I now co-teach a similar course called ""Real World System Dynamics""
in the WPI System Dynamics Distance Program. Topics include the process of
developing models working with clients and the change management and group-
modeling literature, as well as the student consulting project. And for those
of you interested in the evolution of the Pugh-Robert's approach, it is described
in my paper ""System Dynamics For Business Strategy: A Phased Approach,"" System
Dynamics Review Vol. 15, No.1 (Spring 1999).

Jim Lyneis
Posted by ""James Lyneis"" <jmlyneis@verizon.net>
posting date Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:06:29 -0500
_______________________________________________
Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.co
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.co »

Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>

Some thoughts without reading the paper Richard recommends (and which
has captured my interest):

I wonder if our concept of accountability would benefit from a mental
model change? Accountability is commonly taken to be something expected
by others (by virtue of being imposed or implied). What about
accountability that is chosen for oneself?

Consensus then is less a question of ""am I willing to buy this over my
reservations or objections?"" and more a question of ""do I see this as
the work of my heart, and do I wish to engage?"" If not, I can refuse,
and seek out my chosen accountability elsewhere.

Chosen accountability puts group problem solving and modeling is a
different light.

It might start with an invitation: ""I invite you to help solve this
problem."" Let people know much will be expected of them, and that they
will be asked to set aside their self interest in service to the larger
whole. Everything of value carries a price and must be paid.

Those who show up will be ready to work. They might talk about others
who ought to be there to help, and ask, what invitation would bring
them into the group?

Bill Braun
Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
posting date Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:04:44 -0500
_______________________________________________
""Saeed, Khalid"" <saeed@wpi.
Junior Member
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by ""Saeed, Khalid"" <saeed@wpi. »

Posted by ""Saeed, Khalid"" <saeed@wpi.edu>

Implementation is an important aspect of any policy design. Without attention
to implementation process, policy recommendations would only issue a moral
statement. A modeling exercises excluding policy implementation mechanisms may,
however, be able to identify important entry points into a problem and lead
eventually to the design of a cogent implementation strategy. A complementary
modeling exercise can often be conceived to explore such implementation
strategies. Domain knowledge is extremely important for such explorations,
hence, it is important for us modelers to colonize a policy domain where we
can apply system dynamics.

In general, any implementation strategy must recognize the scope and
limitations of the institutions in place for designing an intervention and
not assume the intervener has unlimited power. For example for public policy,
incentives, deterrents, use of information, fiscal and expenditure
instruments, services, possibilities for creation of new institutions, etc.,
available to a governance system must be targeted as instruments of
implementation. Power as an instrument of implementation would invariably
require strengthening of power institutions, which might have the unintended
consequence of maintaining strength of those institutions taking precedence
over the original policy goals.

A long time ago, I outlined the need to explore implementation process
separately from identification of entry points into a system to avoid creating
overly complex models that unfortunately turn into black boxes. Following
paper is still relevant:

Saeed, K. 1992. Slicing a Complex Problem for System Dynamics Modeling. System
Dynamics Review. 8(3).


Khalid
Khalid Saeed, PhD
Professor of Economics and System Dynamics
Social Science and Policy Studies Department
WPI, Worcester, MA 01609
Posted by ""Saeed, Khalid"" <saeed@wpi.edu>
posting date Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:09:20 -0500
_______________________________________________
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
Senior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci »

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

""SDMAIL Bill Braun"" <bbraun@hlthsys.com> writes:
> > I wonder if our concept of accountability would benefit from a mental
> > model change? Accountability is commonly taken to be something expected
> > by others (by virtue of being imposed or implied). What about
> > accountability that is chosen for oneself?

Bill B.,

Several ideas come to mind from your note, which may be a bit of a
diversion from your original idea but which may be useful.

Is what you're describing better called (personal) responsibility?

One of the benefits an OD approach brings the world, similarly to that
of SD, is helping us talk at a lower level on the so-called ladder of
abstraction -- in other words, helping us be more concrete in our
descriptions. I wonder if accountability and responsibility are some
of those words high enough up on that ladder so that it's not really
clear to us what they mean -- or, rather, that it's clear to all of us
but we each have different understandings. I wonder sometimes if a
moratorium on using the word ""accountability"" would help.

Sometimes I think accountability is used synonomously with punishment
or the threat of punishment. Punishment, of course, is a ways still
up that ladder, as it has a wide range of potential implementations,
ranging from (in a corporate setting, for example) your boss saying
""Don't do that again"" with a smile all the way to getting fired,
getting fired and getting sued, or getting fired and getting charged
with a crime. If I were defining this (externally-imposed
accountability) in an SD model, I might call it ""management pressure.""
In the public sector, accountability often seems to mean the threat of
getting fired or not getting re-elected.

Thinking of the range of levels of management pressure brings up the
idea I want to toss out. Years ago, I did a model of an expense
management problem (http://facilitatedsystems.com/expmgmnt.pdf and its
references describe the project and a related model). I realized that
there was one parameter in the model I didn't know: how much a manager
would change her spending habits in the next period, based on spending
variance in this period. I decided to make that a free parameter, I
decided it represented ""management pressure"" (you might call it
""accountability""), and I decided to analyze the sensitivity of the
policy recommendations to that parameter.

In good SD practice, I should ask you to write down now what you
think I discovered, for some may find it tempting later to say the
result is obvious, and it would be interesting to see if it is. So
write down your prediction! :-)

You've written it down, right? :-)

I tested two basic policies (plus some variations): the existing
one, which created the problem, and a revised policy, which worked
(both in the model and in real life).

I discovered that management pressure didn't have much impact at all
on the behavior engendered by the revised policy.

Management pressure had significant impact on the behavior
engendered by the existing policy. If the simulated management
pressure were high, then spending variance was initially quite
improved, but then it got much worse. Overall, increased management
pressure (accountability) made things noticeably worse. (At this
point, I imagine the ""that was obvious"" group is thinking of root
locus plots.)

Reduced management pressure (accountability) under the existing
policy actually made things somewhat better.

Out of that, I devised a hypothesis that has served me well:

A manager's primary responsibility is to craft an organizational
system that achieves the (good) goals of the organization
(http://facilitatedsystems.com/weblog/20 ... s-job.html).

If a manager succeeds at that task, it may not matter too much if
that manager is a hard or gentle taskmaster, as long as she
doesn't do things that disrupt the workings of the organization's
social system.

Because managers are fallible, they can't guarantee they always
succeed in their primary task. Thus a gentler approach (reduced
management pressure) may be a wise and risk-reducing approach, for
it won't hurt performance if you get the system right, and it may
help performance (relatively) if you get the system wrong.

Incidentally, that model also has implications for why using a
credit card may be riskier than using cash for personal purchases.
See the articles for more.

> > Those who show up will be ready to work. They might talk about others
> > who ought to be there to help, and ask, what invitation would bring
> > them into the group?

Back to the central focus of your note, take a look at the precepts of
Open Space, one of which is something to the effect of ""Whoever comes
are the right people"" (e.g.,
http://www.awcnet.org/awcconf06/handout ... space1.pdf).

Bill
- --
Bill Harris
Facilitated Systems
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Sat, 15 Dec 2007 09:54:22 -0800
_______________________________________________
Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.co
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.co »

Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>

Bill Harris wrote:
> Sometimes I think accountability is used synonomously with punishment
> or the threat of punishment.
Hi Bill H.,

Forgive me for taking a single sentence out of context. I think you are right
on the mark and it summarizes my mental model succinctly. Your observations
match my experience - accountability is often used as a club, either as a
threat or to deliver actual beatings.

Of late I've soured on the phrase ""personal responsibility"" insofar as it is
usually used as a club by one segment of society pointing out the
deficiencies of another segment of society. I (truly) cannot recall the last
time I heard someone say, publicly, ""I can see my behavior as personally
irresponsible, and I must change.""

I used the term ""chosen accountability"". This flips the source of
accountability from exogenously applied to endogenously adopted (or chosen).
When we couple chosen accountability with a promise I make to you (for
example, as my peer in an organization or team) I now come from quite a
different place - I'll venture to guess what you call personal
responsibility.

Allowing that ""chosen accountability"" is accessible (in the context of the
levels of abstraction to which you made reference, an important point in my
opinion) I see its connection to SD at two stages. One, during interviews
leading up to a dynamic hypothesis it may be useful to speak to people in
terms of what they have chosen (or not) in the context of decision making.
Two, during policy analysis I also see possibilities for talking about
chosen accountabilities.

(I've been conducting conversations in my organization over the last four
months with front-line people [care givers and administrative folks] and
no one has surfaced puzzlement with the term, ""chosen accountability"". I
think it may be, now that I think of it, that I initially introduce the
concept of accountability in exactly the way you described it.)

Your thoughts on OD are helpful. They speak to the juncture at which I see
myself at present, trying to make some sense out of the intersection of OD
and SD.

Good learning, thank you, Bill.

Bill Braun
Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
posting date Sun, 16 Dec 2007 08:08:54 -0500
_______________________________________________
Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci
Senior Member
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by Bill Harris <bill_harris@faci »

Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>

""SDMAIL Bill Braun"" <bbraun@hlthsys.com> writes:
> > Forgive me for taking a single sentence out of context. I think you are right
> > on the mark and it summarizes my mental model succinctly. Your observations
> > match my experience - accountability is often used as a club, either as a
> > threat or to deliver actual beatings.

Just a brief note: see point 8 of Deming's 14 points
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards ... _14_points).

Bill H.
- --
Bill Harris
Facilitated Systems
Posted by Bill Harris <bill_harris@facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:01:35 -0800
_______________________________________________
""E.Rouwette"" <E.Rouwette@fm
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 3:39 am

QUERY Policy paradox and SD

Post by ""E.Rouwette"" <E.Rouwette@fm »

Posted by ""E.Rouwette"" <E.Rouwette@fm.ru.nl>

I think George gives a very nice overview of the areas of research on group
modelling. In my PhD research I tried to understand the ""implementation issue""
better. To do that, I first looked at published case reports of group model
building interventions. It turned out that a wide variety of techniques and
methods were used in the process of modelling and engaging the group. In
describing the results of the interventions there were more commonalities and
terms such as learning/ mental model change, consensus, commitment and
implementation were frequently used.

I then tried to find out about the relations between process elements and
various outcomes. Since my background is in psychology I selected theories from
that field (but there are undoubtedly many other approaches one could take
here). A theory by Ajzen explains behavior and commitment on the basis of 1.
attitude, 2. perceptions of norms and 3. perceptions of control. I assumed there
concepts are influenced in modelling sessions. When for example simulating a
model reveals unexpected levers for improving system behavior, it seems that
perceived control would increase. Another example: a participant in group
modelling reveals positive outcomes of a certain policy option. If these
positive outcomes were previously not known to me, hearing them might make my
attitude towards that option more positive. To understand how the group process
changes attitude, perceptions of norms and perceptions of control, I used a
theory on persuasion by Petty and Cacioppo.

I tested these ideas in five modelling projects in my dissertation and again in
two others after that. Experimental control is low in this type of research so
the results should be interpreted with caution. The outcome however was that
there were many instances in which change in commitment occurred during the
modelling project, and this change could be traced back to changes in the
variables in the Ajzen model, and those in turn again to information exchanged
in the sessions. Again, this is really not the definite test of these ideas but
it does look promising as a start. An unexpected result was that in many cases
participants initially did not recognize their own learning. In other words:
when asked afterwards ""Have you learned anything from these sessions?"" they
would say ""no"". But their pretest and posttest of attitudes etc. did show
differences. When shown these differences, some respondents answered ""Oh yes, I
did change my opinion and yes, I do think what happened in the modelling
sessions might be the cause of that"". I was surprised about this and if this was
an isolated result, I would tend not to attach too much importance to it.
However, there are many studies in psychology that show 1. people do not have
insight into whether or not they have learned and 2. if they have learned,
people have even less insight into what triggered their learning.

Sorry about this long mail. Here are some references on the above:

A review of 107 group model building cases: Rouwette E.A.J.A, Vennix J.A.M.,
Mullekom T. van. (2002). Group model building effectiveness: a review of
assessment studies. /System Dynamics Review/ 18(1): 5-45.

The conceptual model on impacts of group modelling (and the relation to Ajzen
and Petty and Cacioppo): /Process and outcomes of modeling: an attempt at
formulating a conceptual framework. /E. Rouwette, J. Vennix. In R.L. Eberlein,
V.G. Diker, R.S. Langer, J.I. Rowe (Eds.) Proceedings System Dynamics
Conference, New York, 2003, cd-rom: 1-24.
http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferenc ... RS/340.pdf

On implicit learning and decision making, and verbal reports of learning (this
is fascinating stuff by the way!):

NISBETT RE, WILSON TD

TELLING
http://apps.isiknowledge.com:80/WoS/CIW ... ct&doc=9/3

MORE THAN WE CAN *KNOW* - *VERBAL* *REPORTS* ON *MENTAL* PROCESSES
http://apps.isiknowledge.com:80/WoS/CIW ... ct&doc=9/3

PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW 84 (3): 231-259 1977
http://apps.isiknowledge.com:80/WoS/CIW ... et_doc=9/3

Wilson TD. 2002. ""Strangers to ourselves. Discovering the adaptive
unconsciousness"". Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Thanks,

Etienne Rouwette
Posted by ""E.Rouwette"" <E.Rouwette@fm.ru.nl>
posting date Mon, 17 Dec 2007 13:52:14 +0100
_______________________________________________
Locked