Ventana software support forum

Posted: **Fri Mar 31, 2000 10:39 am**

Kim,

Many good ideas here and I hope they get an airing to take us forward.

Another is to make conference papers available on CD for those who cannot
get there.

Not sure about Seychelles - whats wrong with Wigan or Oberhausen?

Geoff
From: "Geoff Coyle" <Geoff.Coyle@btinternet.com>

Posted: **Sun Apr 01, 2001 3:27 pm**

George Richardson schrieb:

> I am convinced we are strongest when we realize we are four or five
> constituencies which need each other: academics, consultants,
> practitioners in public and private sector employ, and k-12 teachers.

I fully agree. At the same time I am also aware of how incredibly
difficult I sometimes find it to understand what the more
management-oriented of you are saying: your language seems so far
removed from mine. This is of course no reason to split the conference
up - quite the reverse in fact. However it _is_ a reason to try to
address the disparate needs of participants. Ive been to too many
conferences where one or the other group of attendees is simply left to
sink or swim in an environment which seems to marginalise them simply
through the use of jargon.

Niall Palfreyman.
n:Palfreyman;Niall
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
org:Weihenstephan University of Applied Sciences;Bioinformatics
adr:;;Am Hofgarten 10;Freising;;85350;Germany
version:2.1
email;internet:Niall.Palfreyman@fh-weihenstephan.de
title:Dean of Studies
fn:Prof. Dr. Niall Palfreyman

Posted: **Sun Apr 01, 2001 4:49 pm**

Folks,

My reaction to the proposed reduction in the number of days that we would all
be together at future conferences was similar to George Richardsons. The
annual conference brings together for an extended period the constituencies
that George mentioned, as well as another key constituency: students and
other relative novices to the field, typically non-presenters. I would guess
this last constituency accounts for at least one-quarter, maybe one-third, of
conference attendees year after year.

Our conference should be a unified one that not only serves as an opportunity
to present academic research and consulting success stories, but also to
educate those new to the field. Education involves giving novices an
extended opportunity to see the whole spectrum of practice (academic and
consulting), as well as giving them opportunities to speak directly with
experienced modelers, as happened in Atlanta in the Ph.D. colloquium, at
poster sessions, and in some of the workshops (notably, the Modeling
Assistance Workshop). If there is any change Id like to see in future
conferences, its an increased emphasis on such educational opportunities.

Jack Homer
Voorhees, New Jersey
From: JHomer609@cs.com

Posted: **Sun Apr 29, 2001 7:32 pm**

A few of us were chatting after the conference, and someone (who doesnt
want to be named, but you know who you are!) came up with what we thought
was a neat idea that seemed worth opening up - specifically re the tension
between the needs of academics and practitioners. In the business meeting
there were calls for both (a) continued efforts to raise the academic
standards of papers, and (b) more reach and marketing to the practitioner
community, which seemed mutually incompatible.
We were sharing feelings of under-shooting the possible opportunity that
have come up on previous occasions:
- we have great ideas and approaches, but get only a tiny fraction
of the potential uptake by practitioners who could benefit
- academic papers get less thorough airing and debate than they
deserve
- academics struggle to make all papers relevant to practitioners
- practitioners struggle to find sessions that may be most valuable
to them
- we could do with more money into the Society(!)
- etc. etc.
We went round a few ideas e.g. get a separate practitioner conference going
but we thought (not sure ?) that Pegasus had found it hard to keep the
systems thinking conferences interested in SD modelling and we thought that
academics would miss the opportunity to talk to practitioners, and vice
versa ... so we thought it important to keep the two communities in close
communication.
The idea was simple - run a two-part, overlapping conference, e.g.
*** Day 1 primarily for academics (but open to any practitioners with an
interest in going deep)
- keynotes from the major experts on method
- full papers submitted for plenary/parallel sessions ... short
summaries for posters
- sessions organised for maximum discussion/challenge
- workshops on research method
*** Day 4 primarily for practitioners (but open to any academics with a keen
interest in application)
- keynotes from major experts on application
- practitioner papers submitted for selection of
plenary/parallel/poster
- sessions organised for maximum clarification of application and
evaluation of opportunity
- workshops on application
*** substantial overlap between day 2-3 for mutual academic/practitioner
interests, e.g.
- keynotes relevant to both groups
- banquet (obviously!)
- state of the union presentation and discussion
- celebration of major achievements by both groups
- sessions from youngsters interested in impressing potential
employers
- sessions from practitioners interested in impressing potential
recruits
We thought this offered a lot of potential advantages to academics ...
- better review and development of each others work
- option of less cost and time, but ...
- with the chance to speak/listen to practitioners and really drive
forward their great method
- less pressure for the inexperienced to meet the needs of two
audiences
- a process organised specifically for their benefit
- ... but that should also attract plenty of attendees (and funds!)
... and for practitioners ...
- better attention to practical needs
- less cost and time, but ...
- with the option to speak/listen to leading-edge concepts
- process organised for their benefit
- the option of day-passes to bring virgin-colleagues to be
seduced at low cost in time and money (and for consultants, to bring key
clients!) - implies organising topic/sector/industry theme-periods, e.g.
K-12 focus day-3, energy-sector on day-4 morning
- genuinely worthwhile use of time and money - to seek advice,
skills, clients, tools ...
... and generally ...
- a financially stronger event, enabling much support for our very
important non-commercial practitioner communities (K-12, environmental,
social policy)
- differential pricing reflecting the cost-constraints and
financial value to each community
- still only one event to organise, though a bit more complicated
(sorry Roberta!), but possibly with additional resources from commercial
sponsors
- keeps academics and practitioners together, to any extent that
individuals want to be
- potential for much greater attendance in total, so much greater
dissemination
- perhaps a stronger potential to keep good people in the field,
rather than moving off into practice and losing touch
Then we started betting fanciful, like getting loads and loads of money from
high-roller practitioners, holding conferences in the best locations (the
Seychelles comes to mind!) - so we stopped before we completely lost touch
with reality.
Further thoughts (courtesy of Rohita Singh) ...
- specifically invite big-name speakers to keynotes
(academic/overlap/practitioner) to inspire both communities
- quite strong streaming (military, K-12, environment, strategy,
methodology ...)
- intro sessions (and welcome events) for new-comers
Well - we thought it was a neat idea. If it really works, why not 5 days?
Any thoughts, anyone?

Kim Warren
From: Kim Warren <kim@strategydynamics.com>

Posted: **Tue Jul 31, 2001 4:12 pm**

Kim wrote:

>The idea was simple - run a two-part, overlapping conference, e.g.
>*** Day 1 primarily for academics (but open to any practitioners with an
>interest in going deep)
>*** Day 4 primarily for practitioners (but open to any academics with a keen
>interest in application)
>*** substantial overlap between day 2-3 for mutual academic/practitioner
>interests

In my unanalytical gut I am deeply distressed by such a proposal.

I am convinced we are strongest when we realize we are four or five
constituencies which need each other: academics, consultants,
practitioners in public and private sector employ, and k-12 teachers.
Each group grows in numbers and sophistication from the work of the
others. What hubris to think any one of these groups could stand
alone.

Id say hold fast to the goal of a Society within which these threads
freely talk with each other. Do not let the short-term
attractiveness (sic) of univocal conferences delude us into thinking
that would be best for the field in the long term.

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

Posted: **Wed Aug 01, 2001 9:43 pm**

I agree with George Richardson when when he wrote:

>I am convinced we are strongest when we realize we are four or five
>constituencies which need each other: academics, consultants,
>practitioners in public and private sector employ, and k-12
>teachers. Each group grows in numbers and sophistication from the
>work of the others. What hubris to think any one of these groups
>could stand alone.

Kim Warren wrote:

> In the business meeting
>there were calls for both (a) continued efforts to raise the academic
>standards of papers, and (b) more reach and marketing to the practitioner
|community, which seemed mutually incompatible.

I believe these objectives are not incompatible. The "academic
standards of papers" addresses two issues: 1) the quality of models
on which papers are based, and 2) the quality of presentation of
research or a consulting study. Both of these should be of strong
interest to the practitioners as well as the academic participants.

There has been an ongoing discussion of the quality of modeling and
concern that poor models may discredit the field. The poor models
are just as likely, or even more so, to arise from the practitioners.
And it is the work of practitioners that can most easily lead to
discrediting system dynamics because such work is for practical and
important purposes. If it is done poorly, or if it leads to damaging
results, we can expect that the reactions of clients will be
especially negative, strongly expressed, and most damaging to the
field.

The practitioners should be just as interested in the quality of
presentation of results as anyone else. In fact they have even more
at stake. We hear repeated laments that consultants are not able to
persuade clients of the importance of system dynamics work. To a
significant extent, poor communication (poor quality or papers and
presentations) leads to lack of persuasion.

I believe that all constituencies in the Society should be interested
in improving the quality of work, quality of models, and the quality
of presenting results.

I suggest that there be explicit discussion of the various aspects of
quality. As evidence of the need, recall the number of papers at the
conference that were dull, gave the listener nothing to carry away
and use, and were supported by graphics that could not be read from
the distance at which the audience sat.
--
From: "Jay W. Forrester" <jforestr@MIT.EDU>
---------------------------------------------------------
Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management
Sloan School
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Room E60-389
Cambridge, MA 02139

Ventana software support forum

Thoughts for future conferences

Thoughts for future conferences

Thoughts for future conferences

Thoughts for future conferences

Thoughts for future conferences

Thoughts for future conferences

Thoughts for future conferences