[ Hosts note: This is a response to David Lanes posting of
April 19. While debate is welcome and I do not want to
suppress voices, the material being debated is beginning to
stray from system dynamics. Additional postings on Professor
Floods work, TSI, etc need to be clearly tied to system
dynamics. ]
From: Robert L. Flood
Date: 24th April 1995
David Lanes response to questions concerning the issue
Which model/methodology should be used when, and why?
is helpful in some ways. First of all David points out that
there is a substantial debate
concerning the practical utility and theoretical standing of Total
Systems Intervention (TSI). This I would suggest is good enough
reason for people interested in model/methodology choice to consult
the literature on TSI. (The great majority of texts pass quietly
by in the night. When one does not then
there must be something worthwhile going on).
My problem with Davids
comments on criticisms of TSI is that he has for some reason chosen
only to underline adversaries. There are plenty of advocates
(see later in this note). I thought that academic debate was about
making judgements in the light of arguments from all
quarters?
Another point. David says that criticism has been at the deepest
philosophical level and makes reference to Habermas. This is true in
the sense that there are both adversaries and advocates of TSIs
early use of Habermasian thought. This reflects the
much wider modernist vs postmodernist debate in social theory which
obviously has not reached any conclusion yet, and is unlikely to for
many decades to come (if ever). So, I suggest that it is
inappropriate to write off something like TSI just because
there is another (theoretical) side of the argument.
Furthermore, as alluded to above, the early Habermasian version of
TSI has undergone substantial redevelopment in the light of the
modernist vs postmodernist debate (a healthy thing). My paper in JORS
(1995, 46: 174-191) documents the reconstitution work. The paper,
incidentally, contains a much greater range of references to the
(adversarial) criticisms of TSI than given in Davids note and shows
how some of these have been addressed. Unfortunately the paper
took quite some time to finally appear and
precedes the major reconstitution work by only a handful of months.
That work appears in Solving Problem Solving (R.L. Flood,
Wiley, 1995, June).
Solving Problem Solving presents (I believe) a refreshing new
version of TSI written mainly for practitioners, that has taken
into account criticisms and comments that have accumulated in the
literature over the years. It provides an approach to
model/methodology choice which guides the user to decide for
themselves Which model/methodology should be
used when, and why? It extends this spirit of local decision making
to questions such as What are the principles and purpose of any
approach (such as System Dynamics)? and What does emancipation
means to the user? Hopefully this will deflect from TSI slaps
round the face such as one that David was talking about -
arrogance of tone. Also this demonstrates
clearly the influence of the postmodernist side of debate on TSI
so that now it is expressed even more clearly that all decisions of
all sorts in problem solving should be locally decideable (although
widely informed). If you wish to follow up on the theoretical side
to this debate, may I suggest that you consult the following paper:
R.L. Flood and N.R.A. Romm, Post-critical Complementarism:
Theory in Action, Systems Practice, 8,
currently scheduled to appear in issue 4.
Another point about Solving Problem Solving in response to Davids
concern expressed at the practical level of TSI. The book contains
nine full case studies on the use of TSI. These applications are
written up by managers and consultants. At the end of
each case study I have asked these practitioners to contribute a
section called Reflections, in which they are asked to provide
a personal account on what TSI meant to them - good or bad.
Anyone interested in the views of TSI practitioners might want
to consult these elements of the case studies.
Case studies in Solving Problem Solving report on problem solving
in Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, Kenya, Singapore, South Africa,
Taiwan, United Kingdom, United States of America, and a country in the
Middle East. The case studies cover problem solving in air
transportation, bunker transfer, car sales, community projects,
computer site preparation, the construction industry, consumer
products, custody of offenders, entertainments, financial services,
health care, hospital administration, management consultancy,
mining, policing, search and recovery, and tourism.
And finally a quick response to Davids comment that the treatment
of System Dynamics ... is laughably ill-informed. ... Nothing here
about models as transitional objects, nothing about experiential
learning, representation of values and goals within models ....
First, our presentation of System Dynamics in the original book
(R.L. Flood and M.C. Jackson, Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems
Intervention, Wiley, Chichester, 1991) was not supposed to be a
full and comprehensive account of System Dynamics possible uses.
It was one of a selection of methods discussed in the context of
model/methodology choice, where the aim was to show a diverse range
of methods can be employed to tackle different problems according to
different purposes. One version
and given purpose of System Dynamics is presented in the Flood and
Jackson book that, given our purposes, I am entirely happy with.
What David misses in this slap in the face is that the literature
on matters such as experiential learning, representation
of values and goals, etc., is extensive and has a considerable
history in the soft systems area. These different purposes we
judged (in 1989ish when we wrote the book) were far better served
by the soft systems approaches and so chose to highlight them
as most useful when needing to manage issues such as values and goals
within models.
I am grateful to T.F. Burgess for identifying our work at the
University of Hull. I am also grateful to D.C. Lane for raising the
debate about TSI on these electronic airwaves. My very last point is
that all commentators hold a responsibility, a responsibility for
fair and balanced comments. In that spirit I will review our own
commentary on System Dynamics. I extend to the System Dynamics
community my best wishes and anticipate many more years of
productive output.
If you wish to receive the Newsletter of the Centre for
Systems Studies at the University of Hull that reports
regularly on developments such as those discussed above,
then please contact me as follows.
Professor Robert L. Flood
Centre for Systems Studies
School of Management
University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX
United Kingdom.
Fax (0)1 482 449776