REPLY SD Impact on National Government Policies (SD6184)

[System Dynamics Mailing List]

Posted by  Richard Stevenson <richard at cognitus.co.uk>

I'm sure this thread is approaching a conclusion but hope to add one  more 
perspective.  In particular I'd like to suggest some home truths  for the 
SD community and to suggest one way forward.

Eric Wolstenholme wrote "I would argue that using the society as an  
indicator is not representative
of the growth of the field. It might be the only quantification we  have but
I perceive Jack's figures to be the tip of the iceberg, certainly in  the UK.
There are many, many users of ST and SD who do not see the society as
relevant to their needs, since it does not have the status of an  accredited
'chartered' body that is essential to practice."

Eric and I worked together for over a decade to train nearly 2000  managers 
in ST and SD.  So there is certainly far more interest out  there than there 
might appear from inside the society.  But it is my  strong impression that 
interest fades quite quickly because SD does  not build upon itself - there's 
no way for interested but busy  managers to practise their embryonic skills 
in isolation.

An issue here, as Eric point out,  is that there is no SD  “profession” to 
support them - that term implies organisation and  strong self-regulation.  
The international System Dynamics Society  has a tiny membership and acts as 
a forum rather than a management  organisation; it does not attempt to set 
standards, nor to regulate  the practise of SD.

So the term “SD community” is here used instead to describe  practitioners in 
the field - mainly academics, software companies and  “consultants”.  SD 
practitioners tend to behave like cats – they co- exist (just about) but hunt 
alone, with different personal and  commercial motives and different ideas of 
how to apply the tools in  the business world.

There is a real independent tendency at the heart of the SD  community. Academics 
vie with each other – often seeming to become  ever more obscure.  Independent 
software companies design and market  progressively more complex (and hence less 
useful?) simulation  software, none of which is compatible.  And SD consultants 
abound  with widely differing capabilities, competing fiercely for clients  and 
certainly rarely collaborating.  The impression is of a jungle –  to the detriment 
of system dynamics overall.

 “Herding cats”…is a phrase I have heard used by SD practitioners  themselves to 
 describe the nature and behaviour of the SD community.

If SD really is as powerful as its practitioners believe, we need to  question 
why most business managers are still ignorant and  disinterested.  I suggest a 
number of reasons that are largely the  responsibility of SD’s own proponents 
and practitioners.

(a)  Incomprehension and ingrained resistance to systemic thinking in  the 
     business world,
(b)  Lack of standards and inconsistent behaviour within the “SD  community” 
     itself,
(c)  Conflicting SD software standards and damaging competition  between 
     software vendors,
(d)  Poor consulting practices and fragmentation across the  consulting 
     industry,
(e)  Lack of market focus in developing SD applications.

I could go on.  It is the SD community itself that must bear the  responsibility 
for slow growth.  Hardly a good advertisement for the  method itself!

So what to do?  Well, speaking personally, I am more committed than  ever to the 
ideas of SD but have ceased to "sell" SD itself as a  solution to anything.  The 
"bottom-up" approach (including strategy  dynamics) may be intellectually appealing 
to some managers, but sadly  it just doesn't stick.

Rather, I believe the future is to "wrap" SD into  more familiar  management issues 
and use it to enhance, rather than replace,  existing toolsets.  In particular, I 
believe SD has much to offer to  integrate tools such as balanced scorecards, 
strategy maps, resource- based strategy and DCF valuation.  Indeed, it is the 
"missing link"  in the value-based management toolset.

The prime market ? Probably the Chief Financial Officer, who is  increasingly 
responsible for strategy and value management.  In  particular, in capital 
industries (having long asset life cycles) it  is increasingly challenging to 
balance short/long term thinking and  to balance the interests of different 
management groups and other  stakeholders.  Regulation (both forward and 
retrospective) also  places huge new pressures on CFOs.

In partnership with a qualified CFO, I am founding a new organisation  to progress 
these ideas.  We will not be a traditional SD consultancy  but rather we will network 
with highly qualified international  practitioners from a number of disciplines, 
including SD, to deliver  value-based solutions.  We will also build on two decades 
of front- line SD strategy consulting and teaching experience with blue chip  
organisations.

I will be pleased to hear from qualified and experienced SD  practitioners having 
sympathy and interest in these ideas.  We are  looking to build an international 
network of top-flight practitioners  to take SD - and related disciplines - forward 
in value-based  strategic management.

Richard Stevenson
Cognitus Ltd
High Mill Farm
Markington
Harrogate
HG3 3NR
UK
Posted by  Richard Stevenson <richard at cognitus.co.uk>
posting date  Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:52:50 +0000