Ventana software support forum

Posted by nooshin valibeig <nooshin_valibeig@yahoo.com>
Dear Receivers

I am in a research work and in some parts I need to measure system
thinking capability in teenagers and appreciate of someone can help
me by introducing some references and tests to do this.

If any one have some experience I will be glad to contact with him/her.

best
Nooshin Valibeig
Posted by nooshin valibeig <nooshin_valibeig@yahoo.com>
posting date Tue, 12 Jul 2005 22:13:32 -0700 (PDT)

Posted by Paul Holmstr=?ISO-8859-1?B?9g==?=m <ph@holmstrom.se>
Elliott Jaques has done a lot of work related to levels of cognitive
capacity. Gibson & Isaac are mathematicians, who found different levels of
understanding trigonometry. Reference (1) lays the foundation to understand
the stratification in thinking. Reference (2) goes deeper and intends to
provide a method in judging capacity.

1 Jaques, E., R.O. Gibson, and D.J. Isaac, Levels of abstraction in logic
and human action: a theory of discontinuity in the structure of mathematical
logic, psychological behaviour, and social organization. 1978, London:
Heinemann. vi, 313 p.

2 Jaques, E. and K. Cason, Human capability: a study of individual potential
and its application. 1994, Falls Church, VA: Cason Hall & Co. xvi, 165 p.

Regards
Paul Holmstrom
Posted by Paul Holmstr=?ISO-8859-1?B?9g==?=m <ph@holmstrom.se>
posting date Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:07:32 +0200

Posted by Martin Schaffernicht <martin@utalca.cl>
Hi Nooshin,

I would like to ask you what will be your definition of ""system thinking"".

Two examples, taken from Sweeny and Sterman (2000) and Ossimits (2002)
show how different this can be:

Sweeny and Sterman:

1. understand how the behavior of a system arises from the
interaction of its agents over time (i.e., dynamic complexity);
2. discover and represent feedback processes (both positive and
negative) hypothesized to underlie observed patterns of system
behavior;
3. identify stock and flow relationships;
4. recognize delays and understand their impact;
5. identify nonlinearities;
6. recognize and challenge the boundaries of mental (and formal) models

Ossimitz

1. Thinking in Interrelated Structures (""vernetztes Denken"").
2. Dynamic Thinking, which means a thinking which is not restricted
to grasping just snapshots of a situation, but takes into account
evolution over time.
3. Thinking in Models, which means that any systems thinker should be
aware that he or she is always dealing with a model of a complex
situation, which is usually massively simplified compared with the
""actual"" situation.
4. Systemic Action, which means the practical ability of steering systems


Some recent SD papers and articles deal with this subject:

* Kainz, D. and Ossimitz, G., 2002. Can Students learn
Stock-Flow-Thinking? An emprical Investigation. Submitted for the
2002 Conference of the System Dynamics Society, Palermo, Italy.
* Maani, K. and Maharaj, V., 2004. Links between systems thinking
and complex decision making, System Dynamics Review 20(1): 21-48
*
* Moxnes, E., 2000. Not only the tragedy of the commons:
misperceptions of feedback and policies for sustainable
development, System Dynamics Review 16(4):325–348
*
* Moxnes, E., 2004. Misperceptions of basic dynamics: the case of
renewable resource management, System Dynamics Review 20(2): 139-162
*
* Ossimitz, G., 2000. Systemisches Denken braucht systemische
Darstellungsmittel, invitede paper for the yearly conference of
the Society for Social and Economic Cybernetics (""Gesellschaft für
Sozial- und Wirtschaftskybernetik"" - GWS), Mannheim am 30.9.2000
*
* Ossimitz, G., 2002. Stock-Flow-Thinking and Reading
stock-flow-related Graphs: An Empirical Investigation in Dynamic
Thinking Abilities, 2002 System Dynamics Conference, Palermo, Italy
*
* Richmond, B. 1997. The “thinking” in systems thinking: how can we
make it easier to master., The Systems Thinker 8(2): 1–5.
*
* Sweeney, L. and Sterman, JD., 2000. Bathtub dynamics: initial
results of a systems thinking inventory, System Dynamics Review
16(4): 249–286

I would be interesting to discuss this with interested people during the
Boston conference.

Good luck,

Martin Schaffernicht
Universidad de Talca
Talca - Chile
Posted by Martin Schaffernicht <martin@utalca.cl>
posting date Thu, 14 Jul 2005 09:56:30 +0200

Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
Martin

I see these as being very similar, so much so that I see few distinctions.
(Perhaps my mental models are drawing more similarities that actually
exist.) The words for certain are different but they refer to the same,
basic concepts. Can you say more about the differences you see?

Bill Braun
Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
posting date Fri, 15 Jul 2005 08:05:14 -0500

Posted by martin@utalca.cl
Hi Bill,

I think my first answer to the query I had the tests by Ossimitz in my mind,
that focused on the ability to appreciate the behavior of stocks and flows
(not even their recognition!). To my knowledge, there are no similar studies
about the ability to deal with feedback loops, with delays or with non-
linearities. If I'm mistaken, I'd very much like to read these studies.

That's why I think that there are rather different parts of system thinking.
I do not know if it is a good idea to establish one unique model of systems
thinking (there may be as many as systems approaches); but I still think it
would be interesting to specify which aspect a study is interested in.

Now to the two lists I mentioned. In my mind, the points 1 of both lists are
almost the same.

Points 2-6 by Sweent and Sterman are System-Dynamics-specific points that may
be a morte detailed picture of Ossimitz's point 2. I do not know if there are
other specific list like this, but I would say that SD thinking is a
particular way of systems thinking, but not neccessarily the only one.

Point 3 from Osstimitz's list means being aware that a model is a model, not
the situation it models. I personally beleive that anyone dealing with models
should do so, if he's a systems thinker or not. I do not see this point in
the first list.

Managing to actually steer a system through ""systemic action"" is (to me) a
manifestation of tacit systems thinking. I do not really know how to relate
this with the first list. I believe the first list deals with the ability to
perceive and/or recognize the systemic structures that SD posits, and that
there is not an automatic translation from this recognition to action.

There is a model of the phased adquisition of steering competencies (by
Dreyfus and Dreyfus; this work has been compared with Polanyi's on implicit
integration) which makes a clear distinctin between leanring to classify a
situation and learning to act adecuatly in a situation.

I beleive that there are still other models of system thinking skills; I've
seen one by Barry Richmond (I do not have this paper, nor the reference).

Best greetings,
Martin
Posted by martin@utalca.cl
posting date Sat, 16 Jul 2005 18:54:17 -0400

Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
Hello Martin,

I see your points. Following comments by George Richardson (in The Systems
Thinker and perhaps also in SDR) I began using a ""hybrid"" modeling approach
that combined ""traditional"" CLDs with the explicitness of stocks and flows.
The result is a stock with inflows and outflows (as are appropriate) and
the remainder of the model a CLD as we are accustomed to seeing it.

This is a visual model as opposed to one fitted with equations. I cannot
recall the proper attribution but there is a growing application of such
modeling (Coyle, Hines, perhaps) and it seems to do well with bridging the
gap between what we might call a verbal approach to systems thinking and
the approach based on stock and flow models fitted with equations. The
major attraction is the explicit description of accumulations.

I've made this change over the last three to four years and, anecdotally,
students seem to grasp the idea of feedback loops much better than they did
with traditional CLDs. This may explain why I saw more similarities than
differences; the two have merged together in my thinking and use. I find it
difficult to approach SD modeling without a foundation of systems thinking,
and increasingly, systems thinking is continuously enriched by applying SD.

There are many verbal approaches to systems thinking. Ackoff has written
extensively about it. I also use a number of metaphors to communicate ST,
and, as you say, they do not explicitly reflect an SD view. As I reread
your original inquiry I realize that while there may be a distinction
between the approaches you described, the differences, for me, are
diminishing.

Bill Braun
Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
posting date Sun, 17 Jul 2005 09:06:16 -0500

Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
Martin,

Since we cannot send attachments through this list, I've sent you a copy of
Barry Richmond's article directly. It may also be available on the isee
Systems corporate website.

While I like Richmond's sensible approach very much, I would warn you that
there is NO consensus about what ""systems thinking"" is -- or, to put it
another way, there are lots of definitions each of which has its adherents.
We can't even seem to agree on a definition of what counts as a ""system.""

If you'll permit me to give you some hard-earned advice: Don't worry too
much about deciding what definition to use. Find one that's compatible with
what you intend to do (for now) and go with it. Academics, who often seem
not to realize that they have better uses for their time, love to fritter
away hours, days, weeks, months, even years wrangling about such things as
what ""systems thinking"" SHOULD mean. You will not, I'm afraid, solve this
problem for them (and us.) But by being a bit careful to create an
operational definition for your purposes you should be able to do something
useful.

Frankly, while I'd love to engage in the debate I just pooh-poohed, I have
decided to go another route. I think there is little debate, nor does there
need to be, about what ""System Dynamics thinking"" is about. Sure, we can
argue about some issues at the boundaries, and that's kind of fun; but
fundamentally there is consensus about what Jay Forrester and his colleagues
and students have created. Since System Dynamics is a scientific endeavor,
it IS important to have some consensus about what it is and isn't.

But ""systems thinking"" is not a scientific endeavor, in my opinion. It's a
mishmash of science (primarily from System Dynamics), pseudo-science (from
sources such as ""general systems theory"" and others), whatever Peter Senge
and his group are trying to make it (and I wish them well), the business
management ""flavor of the month,"" and ill-formed personal biases and popular
opinion -- to mention just a few ingredients. And I'm ignoring some of the
older traditions that talked about systems before Forrester.

That's not to say that people aren't doing some good, and certainly many
people are trying to do some good. I'm happy to see any progress made
anywhere in getting people to take a more systemic view of things. But to
try to throw a rope around all of what happening these days seems a waste of
time.

So, when I'm trying to do real work I try to stick within the System
Dynamics tradition -- with occasional pushes on the boundaries. And when I
talk about ""systems"" I mean nothing more or less than ""feedback systems.""
When I'm dealing with popular opinion and with people for whom this is all
new, I feel freer to use my own biases and experience about what helps and
what doesn't help them begin to see the value of System Dynamics.
Posted by ""John Gunkler"" <jgunkler@sprintmail.com>
posting date Mon, 18 Jul 2005 09:38:28 -0500

Posted by martin@utalca.cl
Hi Bill,

I find the ""hybrid"" approach very intersting. Even though the distinction
between stocks and flows does not figure in each particular list of system
thinking skills, there are certain things that can hardly be articulated
without it. I believe that the ""influence diagrams"" in Wolstenholme's book
about systems enquiry went in the same direction (or am I mistaken?).

We were just dialoguing with a friend that each of the systemic disciplines
has a ""point of view"", and SD is one of them. So depending on whom one asks,
the systems thinking skills may differ. We thought that after all, using one
name for different thinhs can be rather confusing. As long as the people in a
conversation are all from the same discipline, there is kind on a tacit
agreement about just what is meant.

Still I find it (at least intellecually) interesting to wonder how three
people - a system dynamicist, a general system theorist and a cybernetician -
would do this. What is it that they all share? Is there a common set of
system thinking skills. How do they think about ""feedback"" and the open- or
closeness of systems, for example? Is it an imperative to think in terms of
flow and state variables in order to think ""right"". Is there a trade-off
between the usefulness of the distinctin and the cognitive effort of using it
(after allo, CLDs ignore the difference)?

Have there been attempts in this direction?



Best greetings,
Martin
Posted by martin@utalca.cl
posting date Mon, 18 Jul 2005 23:58:57 -0400

Posted by martin@utalca.cl
Hi John,

thanks for the file and also for the words!

I agree that it may be better to avoid an attempt to draw up ONE definition;
mabe it is better not even to use the expression when one thinks of specific
skills.

However, the tests from the ""bathtub dynamics"" or ""feedback misperception""
point to very specific skills of perceiving and judging potential
behavior. ""Common"" people tend to fail recognizing feedback loops in
experiences like simulation games. SD proposes a way to conceptualize these
situations in a way that makes them appear, and I imagine that an experienced
dynamicist fluidly recognizes them, more or less like you recognize familiar
objects or faces. (I ignore if this has been tested.)

The ""connoisseur"" simply sees these structures but the ""beginner"" has to
follow explicit rules and analyze the situation in order to detect them. If
the game situation does not provide these rules, it should be expected that
geginners perfom bad. I do not know if the same type experiments have been
done with experiences dynamicists; how much better would they do?

There are ""models"" about how ""beginners"" turn into ""conoisseurs/experts"" that
may be used to develop training material for beginners. I suspect that would
be a good complement to other activities like those presented in
the ""Playbook"" by Linda Booth Sweeny and Dennis Meadows.

Well, sorry for the overload of stuff that may seem rather distant from
concrete-problem-solving ... but this exchange helped me to see a liitle
clearer.

""Saludos""
Martin Schaffernicht
Posted by martin@utalca.cl
posting date Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:16:43 -0400

Posted by Justin Lyon <justin1028@yahoo.com>
Martin,

You asked: ""Is it an imperative to think in terms of
flow and state variables in order to think ""right"".""

Probably not, but it's so simple to add in stock and
flow thinking into discussions, that it's a shame not
to do it.

For example, when I worked at Wabash College, I used
Kim Warren's ideas around the customer conviction
chain to create a simple chart for tracking the
college's prospective student recruitment. We could
send out say 25,000 emails (purchased from the
companies that administer college entrance exams) and
watch the impact on the flow rate of young men (it's
an all-male college), from Unaware (a stock) to Aware
(another stock) -- we knew when they opened the emails
and whether they went on to visit the college's web
site. Actions that we took to indicate their
transition.

By focusing our attention on the flows, we could agree
on different marketing tactics to drive the different
flows and fill up (or drain) our various 'buckets'
(stocks of customers in different states).

Eventually, we even extended it to think of some
students and alumni as 'Apostles' or 'Ambassadors' of
the college's brand. Others were more 'Fickle' and the
college even had a few brand 'Terrorists!' As you
might expect being one of the last all-male colleges
in America!

I suppose we could have simulated it with myStrategy
or something, but we never did. It was enough just to
gather the data and add it to the chart every month.

Sure, I could have done a causal loop diagram, but the
power of charting the numbers on the graphs on top of
the flows and stocks was more powerful (for me) over
time. Check out Kim's stuff and let me know what you
think.

Is what I was doing systems thinking or system
dynamics or strategy dynamics or just good science
applied to a marketing challenge? I don't know.

My $0.02.

Best,
Justin
Posted by Justin Lyon <justin1028@yahoo.com>
posting date Tue, 19 Jul 2005 12:28:49 -0700 (PDT)

Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
Hello Martin,

I can do no better at finding the intersection between the academic and the
pragmatic than John Gunkler's comments. John presents a continuum of views
of systems thinking that should serve you well. Good advice to boot.

Bill Braun
Posted by Bill Braun <bbraun@hlthsys.com>
posting date Tue, 19 Jul 2005 07:13:02 -0500

Posted by ""Fred Nickols"" <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Another variation on systems thinking traces to the work of Katz & Kahn (see
The Social Psychology of Organizing) and the earlier work of Allport which
defines systems not as collections or assemblages of parts but as recurring
cycles of events, as closed loops. That also ties to William Powers'
control theory, which is very much a view of human behavior as a closed loop
control system (see Behavior: The Control of Perception).

Anyway, just about 30 years ago all that led me to write and publish a brief
ditty or poem titled ""The Systems View."" It appeared simultaneously in the
OD Practitioner and in the NSPI Journal.

Anyone who is interested in my take on ""the systems view"" and, by
implication, systems thinking, can find a copy of that poem at the following
link:

http://home.att.net/~discon/systems_poem.pdf


Regards,

Fred Nickols
www.nickols.us
nickols@att.net
Posted by ""Fred Nickols"" <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
posting date Wed, 20 Jul 2005 14:31:51 -0400

Posted by Markus Schwaninger <markus.schwaninger@unisg.ch>


In his mail, one contributor writes about ""pseudo-science (from sources
such as ""general systems theory"" and others)"". That statement is
misplaced. Consider the original works on GST and the calibre of their
authors, e.g. Bertalanffy, Boulding, Gerard, Miller, Rapoport.

Sincerely,

MS.
Posted by Markus Schwaninger <markus.schwaninger@unisg.ch>
posting date Thu, 21 Jul 2005 16:16:46 +0200