REPLY Getting a Good Problem Statement (SD6532)

[SDMAIL Jean-Jacques Laublé]

Posted by  Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble at wanadoo.fr>

Hi everybody

Bill Braun writes and I thank him for his answer:

< I strive to keep
<their eye on the problems they should solve,

That seems a very wise methodology that would normally support the
second choice I proposed: starting with a small model that is within the
understanding of the problem owner and the capacities of the people that 
implement the solutions, and from a first experience, broaden the scope 
and adapt the model to it.

It is exactly what I am doing now.

<Related to that, I opine that problem statements should
<include three things: (1) reference to the problem symptom

Sounds good too. But is group modelling enough to avoid the risk of
loosing the support of people who control the resources or fail to be
implemented?

I think that following strictly what is exposed in the first paragraph seems
enough as it necessitates group modelling or at least group participation and if the
modelling is a step by step process, where people having the understanding
and the capacity are taken into consideration, it cannot fail.

It seems to me that the brilliant solutions failed because the conditions
exposed in the first paragraph were not met.

Was it the case?

<Finally, resist "how" questions. Such questions assume at

I am not sure of having fully understood this.
It should mean that generally people do not have the solution.
But what about people having good ideas but fearing to take action, or
not knowing to implement them?
And what about the risk of proposing a solution that has already been tested
and that has a great chance to be rejected?
What about learning from the past experiences, even if one has not
participated to the experience?

I ask questions, without giving answers.

I know that wanting to understand fully past experiences can be exhausting,
and risky because of a potential misunderstanding.

But one can take a middle strategy approach, listening to eventual
propositions or experiences and deliberately deciding to ignore them,
explaining eventually the reason of this behaviour.

Finally I reformulate the question that was not well explained in my first
mail.

Should one thrive for a complete model before
trying to apply the policies, the first solution, or should one start with a
simple model first that will be eventually easier to understand and to
implement, implement it, take actions with the proposed policies, and after
having learned from that experience, eventually broaden the scope as you
mentioned, and build a second model, with the same scenario than the first
step?
If the two options seem possible, what are the reasons to choose between them.
When reading the first paragraph, it is the second solution that should be
favored.

This question is important for me, because some authors like Sterman writes
about a step by step process, starting relatively quickly with a small
quantitative model, like in the Vensim modelling guide but what is really in the steps is not clearly mentioned.

Does one has to use concretely the model after each step, implementing the solution even if
it is far from perfect and incomplete, and learn from that experience before going to the 
next step, or build a model step by step, testing it progressively but waiting until it is 
finished to implement the policies?

Regards.

Jean-Jacques Laublé Eurli, Allocar
Posted by  Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble at wanadoo.fr>
posting date  Tue, 28 Aug 2007 19:12:35 +0200