REPLY SD Impact on National Government Policies (SD6162)

[System Dynamics Mailing List]

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

Hi Pamela.
I would have liked to answer too many of the mails of this thread, but it is impossible.
But I think like you that people are mostly interested by events of their current life.
The most common example of SD application the beer game is not going to
generate enthusiasm. So I tried to look for an example that is very close to people's
preoccupation.

I think that one can find many.

Being in the rental car business I have observed that often the people's conversation is related to their car.
I have started a very simple model about the problems that generate the use of a car.
There is quite a lot of dynamic around it (amount of money borrowed,
possibility of refunding the money, cash available, time of conservation etc.)
I posted the model at the SDSBSIG web site, and asked for any interest, but
did not developed the model further on, nobody having manifested any interest in it.
There are plenty of good ideas, but when it comes to doing something, it is
different.
Regards.

Hi Bill

I completely agree to your view of the problem.

> 1. There seems to be an undercurrent of "Sell them on SD, and then .

  This is fundamental. SD as a methodology if you try to explain it, will
generate suspicion. It is better to use SD and then to reformulate the
understanding in plain English which is the best way to communicate.

> 3.  We're, not surprisingly, talking to a wrong but very comfortable

       I have noticed from the beginning that the specificity of the
audience of this list biases strongly any consideration whatever the subject studied.
It is sad that on this list there are very few end user (the one who
decides to by or not to and who will suffer if his problem is not solved). A good thing too
do would be to accept discussions with people who are against SD.

> 4. There's more to systems thinking than SD (!).  Those other aspects.

      Absolutely right. I would just add why system thinking? System
      thinking will already look like a religion for some people. Why just not say thinking?
      About the other aspects I would like to point out the difficulty when
     you use SD is to isolate the exact benefit you get from the method as John Gunkler
     reported it in a previous mail and the absolute necessity to work on that subject.
      I am just starting to study the problem of a new SDer wanting to
      start as a consultant.
      Will his first strategy have an impact on the dynamic of his career
      and does SD really add some understanding.
      To do that practically I first make a report with Word on the problem
       and try to analyse the situation with the simple tool of common language.
       I note too the time spent doing the analysis.
       I have already started and found how powerful is already a well
       conducted reflection.
       After some time, I resume the conclusions of this first study.
       After that I can go towards different directions.
       I can simply make some calculations with an ordinary tool or by hand
       to refine the analysis.
       After that second step, I note the new understanding and make a new
       report modified of the appreciation of the problem plus the time taken. It is too a way to appreciate the
       added value of quantifying things even if it is at a very low level.
        At this stage, if I feel that I have the problem is still not very
        clear I can start using  a more sophisticated but still qualitative technique like cognitive
        mapping.
       I may use a tool like decision explorer or simply the sketching capacity of Vensim.
       I use or uns not techniques explained in the last book from Ackermann 'visual
       thinking'.
       After that I do the same and rewrite or modify the general report
       eventually and try to evaluate the added value and the time spent.
      I do not think that SSM would help me in this situation, although I
      find the philosophy of the method very interesting but more adapted to concretely
      implementation or finding a consensus of action when people with different world views are
      concerned by the problem.
      After that I have different choices.
      The simple one is to eventually use a spreadsheet and make a simple
      static model.
      I can do it, note the time and the added value modifying the report
      eventually.
      I will do exactly the same job with Vensim, using it in a static way,
     and trying to evaluate if staying static Vensim has some advantages on a spreadsheet.
     I have until now not been able to differentiate the advantages of
     both products of course only static.
     Vensim should be more powerful, it has dimension verification, reality
      check that can work too in static mode, optimization (like excell), sensivity
      analysis, synthesim Etc.   But Excel is easier to use.

       After that new experience I note the added value and the time taken.
       At every step I try to evaluate the utility to go to a more
       sophisticated technique and write it down. It is absurd to use a more sophisticated
       technique if one does not expect in advance a possibility of added value.
       So I can decide to stop at any stage.
        At this time I can decide to use a more sophisticated technique like
        multicriteria.
       Multicriteria is not very difficult to apply and can give insights.
       I still take note of the time plus the added value if any.
       I could use other techniques, but I prefer to use techniques I am
      familiar with.
      It is then time to go to a dynamic method like SD.
      I can first draw a CLD and then a CLD with stocks and do the same,
     taking note of the added value and the time taken.
     Then I go to the quantitative SD.
     I do not try to build a dynamic model representing all that I have
     studied so far qualitatively or quantitatively, because I would get a monster, and
     be unable to analyze it.
     I start very simply, trying eventually different starting models,
     and report as usual the time and the added value.
    I think that if at this stage I cannot find a simple model that I
    can get some added value from I prefer to stop and think that SD is not very appropriate to
    the problem.
    If I can get some added value, I modify the general report on the
    problem, take note of the time taken and think about the utility of adding some more
    material to the model  and why. I take note of the why, do it, write down the added value
   if any and the time taken. And so on, until the added value seems weak compared to
  the time taken. And this situation can come very quickly.
  This process to my opinion is not so long as it looks.
  The great advantage is that it avoids the risk of being drowned by
  any technology, forces at every step to go back on earth, writing down in plain
  language the conclusions and reports the utility of the work.  Above all, you the user is the
  thinker and not the computer or the software.

  I have started the process with the SD consultant problem, and any
 body interested in participating to the process is welcome.
 One thing too, is anybody able to tell in advance, if there is a lot
 of dynamic in the consultant problem or not?
 One more remark. It is not possible to draw any general conclusion
from this experience as the results will be dependant on the problem studied and may vary
considerably with other problems. But it seems however interesting to do and may
help in finding some ways to use SD more appropriately more often and avoid the big
enschilada as Jim Hines like to call them, that may have caused a lot of damage to
the field.
Another remark; if there is no added value in one step, I try to
understand why and find out if it is due to the method used or to my fault and
eventually try  a new one.
Other remark, in the process I can of course change my goal. which is an added value, if the change of
goal is judicious.

>6.  I wonder if we sound as if we have the smart answer and we're bummed.
       This is somewhat the mentality on this list. We are very clever and
       the other people are too stupid to understand our method. This is a very bad approach to
       convincing people.
       Regards.
       Jean-Jacques Laublé Allocar
       Strasbourg France.
Posted by  Jean-Jacques Laublé <jean-jacques.lauble at wanadoo.fr>
posting date  Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:09:58 +0100