Stocks, flows, CLDs, +/-, Ss/O...

[John Wolfenden]

Isnt this a great discussion! CLDs or Stock/Flow - what is it to be? I
feel I should chip in with my own two bobs worth as we have found some
interesting things in the work here.

Some colleagues and I have been active in the public policy and planning
area, particularly as it pertains to questions of sustainable environmental
management. We have developed an approach in which stakeholders are taken
through a systematic process of understanding the big picture of the
problem area. This is followed by successive iterations in which a greater
clarity of system description is added at each step. It works as follows:

1. Initial chat with client group to determine their overall needs and
problems.

2. A system mapping workshop in which modified CLDs are used to sketch out
the problem. We dont use any direction indicators, nor attempt to
distinguish stocks and flows. Rather, we draw circles representing
issues/ideas/stocks/flows etc and interconnecting lines indicating
relationships.

3. This rough system map is then converted to a qualitative SD model using
iThink and presented to the stakeholder group as an embodiment of their
thoughts as previously expressed and captured in the system map.

4. As the qualitative model is explored, greater levels of understanding
develop among stakeholders, and the model is improved.

5. The qualitative model is then converted to a coarse quantitative model
using available data and guestimates. This is then taken to the
stakeholder group and used to assist them to further refine their system
knowledge. The model coevolves here too.

The whole process is undertaken as an exercise in organisational learning.
We have found the rough system mapping undertaken at step 2 to be about the
most complicated first step that we can take based on feedback from
participating groups. We are working with stakeholder groups, which
include professional staff, community people and elected officials. The
diverse mix seems to demand a very simplified approach. We have tried
various combinations of the above, but at present believe that what are
doing now isnt too bad. However, we are endlessly tweaking the
arrangement and modifying it to suit different target groups.

regards


John


------------------------------------------------------------------
John Wolfenden
Centre for Water Policy Research
University of New England, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia
Phone 61 67 732420 Fax 61 67 733237 email jwolfend@metz.une.edu.au
Mobile 0412 245 234

Postgraduate Coordinator, Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological
Economics
Member New England Ecological Economics Group
- see web pages at http://www.une.edu.au/cwpr/neeg.html

[Bill Braun]

Hi Phil,

I have to chuckle at the apparent circular nature of our conversation
here...it seems that every time one of us builds upon the thoughts of
another we complete another circle, where we note the attractive attributes
of CLD, then SD, then hybrids, etc.

I asked George in a previous note if this does not beg for some "new"
modeling conventions. It seems that there are so many solid attributes of
each one and we (appropriately) nitpick the weaknesses.

Is this a step in the right direction or an invitation to greater ambiguity
in modeling?

Bill
---------------------------
From: Bill Braun <medprac@hlthsys.com>
Medical Practice Systems Inc. (216) 382-7111 (Voice)
and The Health Systems Group http://www.hlthsys.com
Mergers - Planning - Management Services
Marketing - Managed Care - Education & Training

[Bill Braun]

This is a good, detailed description of the thought I had on the way into
work this morning. Behavioral and attitudinal issues lends themselves well
to CLDs, and quantitative dynamics lend themselves well to SD.

I like Johns transition methodology, how he moves from CLDs to SDs.

Bill
Bill Braun <medprac@hlthsys.com>
---------------------------
Medical Practice Systems Inc. (216) 382-7111 (Voice)
and The Health Systems Group http://www.hlthsys.com
Mergers - Planning - Management Services
Marketing - Managed Care - Education & Training

["James L. Ritchie-Dunham"]

In wrestling with the issue of the value added to clients from causal loop
diagrams (CLD) versus stock-flow (S-F) diagrams, I have come to the
following ideas.

Causal mapping enables free-form representation of ones mental model,
keying on creative, self expression. Causal mapping is about capturing
(descriptive) and exposing an expert mental model.

S-F diagrams require systematic analysis of ones mental model logic. S-F
diagramming is about operationalizing (normative) how the world does work.

Though there is much overlap in the techniques used to facilitate and
develop both CLDs and S-Fs, it seems to me that CLDs generate creative
thinking and S-Fs generate analytical thinking.

I am not stuck to this and would be interested in hearing more comments on
it as this is an issue that we deal with when applying SD with clients.


James L. Ritchie-Dunham
SDSG, L.L.C.
The Strategic Decision Simulation Group
504 W. 35th St.
Austin, TX 78705
(512) 371-3511 Voice
(512) 371-3068 Fax
E-mail: jimrd@sdsg.com
http://www.sdsg.com/