REPLY SD Impact on National Government Policies (SD6151)

[System Dynamics Mailing List]

Posted by  Bill Harris <bill_harris at facilitatedsystems.com>

I've just found the time to read through this discussion.  I've seen
many good ideas; I'll perhaps add a few to the fray.  I realize there
are exceptions to each claim I make; I'm largely making
broad-brush-stroke claims.  I also realize some of you have already
written similar ideas; I offer these in the hopes that the different
wording or association with other ideas might be useful.

1.  There seems to be an undercurrent of "Sell them on SD, and then
    they'll come to us when they have a problem to solve, we'll solve
    it, and all will be good."  I have seen (and have, on certain days,
    shared) that feeling, but it doesn't mesh with my experience with
    decision makers.  They have a problem to solve, they need it solved,
    and they don't really care about the methodology.  Selling the
    methodology may seem to many as selling snake oil or asking for a
    religious conversion, and it may make decision makers wary.

2.  I wonder if there's a bit of a time frame issue.  Sometimes decision
    makers want answers now, in this meeting or in this week.  Sometimes
    modeling takes longer than that.  I like Jay's suggestion of
    publication to a broad audience for that reason.  Assuming some of
    us can find the time and money to support the development and
    marketing of such publications, we've taken the time of modeling out
    of the critical path for the decision makers.

3.  We're, not surprisingly, talking to a wrong but very comfortable
    audience.  Few here will ignore us.  Few will question the soundness
    of our reason.  But few here will have the power to change things.
    The audience that decides is elsewhere.  They don't (yet) know much
    or anything about SD or other systems thinking approach.  They don't
    think they need to care.  Some of them are at the highest levels in
    business and government; others are simple citizens, as we are.
    Those are the folk with whom we need to engage.  They will ignore
    us, at least sometimes.  They won't bow down to our knowledge and
    wisdom.  But, if we can help them, they may include us.
    
    If we want to have these conversations with more well-placed
    audiences, I suggest we need to do more listening than talking.
    _SPIN® Selling_ offers some suggestions.

4.  There's more to systems thinking than SD (!).  Those other aspects
    of systems thinking are by no means limited to CLDs and archetypes!
    There is a broad spectrum of systems thinking and systemic
    approaches to problem solving and decision making; I've been told
    that many of those are found more readily in countries outside the
    USA.

    While, as someone noted, SD is hard and thus may attract those who
    specialize, we shouldn't forget the old saw about the carpenter with
    only a hammer seeing every problem as a nail.  Other systems (and
    non-systems) methodologies come with their own worldviews.
    Sometimes those other tools fit a problem better than SD; sometimes
    SD fits better.  

    _Sometimes_ we can address issues better by making use of multiple
    methodologies on the same problem.  For example, I sometimes find
    benefit in applying SSM's focus on varying perspectives when
    creating SD models.  I think we maximize our utility and thus our
    acceptance when we focus on problem solving, not SD application.
    That may mean we need to learn more methodologies, or it may mean we
    need join with others who do master those methodologies.  I don't
    think we can categorize (limit) all those methodologies up front,
    for that again would be a focus on the method, not the problem.

    Thinking back to my days as an electrical design engineer and,
    later, as a production engineer, we didn't rely on one approach to
    design circuits or solve circuit problems.  We'd use simple rules of
    thumb, complex mathematics, prototype circuits, simulations, or
    whatever else worked.  

    If we sell SD and simulation as _the_ way to go, then we become the
    analogy of the simulator vendors.  That's fine, if that's where we
    want to be, but we're even more removed from the major decisions
    that way.

    Of course, the only way we could use rules of thumb reliably was
    because we had built circuits, done the complex math, simulated
    circuits, and the like, so we had a good idea of the limitations of
    each approach.  Perhaps that's a key difference.  In SD, we tend to
    regard simulation as the core; in engineering, we regarded working
    circuits as the core.  Perhaps more of us should get more involved
    in the real-world aspect of issues, using simulation and other
    approaches as the tools.  And, yes, I do realize the important value
    simulation has in the problems we address with SD.

5.  Do we really want SD to be accepted like SixSigma?  See
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/y46j2k or curiouscat's comments to
    http://preview.tinyurl.com/y77a7k, and think of boom and bust
    patterns.

6.  I wonder if we sound as if we have the smart answer and we're bummed
    that those in power don't.  Hmm.  We're smart, they're dumb.  Will
    sounding like that cause them to want to listen?  

    It seems to me being effective involves learning how to get into
    power positions ourselves or how to connect with those already in
    power positions effectively.  See http://preview.tinyurl.com/y3qul3
    for perhaps one piece of the puzzle.

Just a few thoughts; I do welcome your reactions and insights.

Bill
- -- 
Bill Harris                   
Facilitated Systems 
Posted by  Bill Harris <bill_harris at facilitatedsystems.com>
posting date  Sat, 06 Jan 2007 13:12:48 -0800