REPLY Renaming System Dynamics (SD6379)

[SDMAIL ybarlas]

Posted by  ybarlas at boun.edu.tr

Dear friends,

In this difficult and general discussion, I would like to urge you  to focus on
one very specific aspect of the problem, captured by several findings, most
recently by James Melhuish: 

Quoting SDMAIL James Melhuish <james at melhuish.org>:
>> Many references I have seen refer to SD as "Forrester-style modeling" or 
>> "Limits to Growth modeling".  Obviously these authors don't realize (or want
>> to use) the term System Dynamics.
>> 
>> (6)  Google search on "system dynamics" returns 59 SD references from the
>> first  100 hits (59%).  Is that good enough for us?

The above problem is real, specific, macro-level and it will become more and
more critical in the coming 'search' decades where accuracy and relevance of
search findings will become more critical.
 
I do not think we can easily say 'there is no problem' here.  I am not sure
about the best solution, but it seems like the best way would be to keep system
dynamics AND adopt a new, specific term for our specific methodology. (The name
of journal and Society should NOT change. They ARE specific). 

systemdynamics was suggested. Could be fine, but too long perhaps.  By
inspiration: 

how about sysdyn?   (A sysdyn method, sysdyn model, sysdyn approach...)
best,
Yaman Barlas
Posted by  ybarlas at boun.edu.tr
posting date  Wed, 4 Apr 2007 19:35:52 +0300