REPLY Please Capitalize System Dynamics (SD6352)

[SDMAIL ybarlas]

Posted by  ybarlas at boun.edu.tr

Dear friends, 

This discussion on capitalizing is  related to a larger/deeper issue: the very
name system dynamics is too general and  awkward for a methodology. We, as SD
community are about two different levels of activity: 

i- we study the dynamics of all sorts of (economic, environmental, social,
business, manufacturing, ecological...) systems. Since we are not specialized
in a *specific* sector, but  dynamic feedback systems in general, it is proper
to say that 'our field of inquiry is system dynamics' (i.e. dynamics of systems).
This is fine. 

ii- but secondly we are also about a very *specific* modeling philosophy and
methodology: we use stock-flow models of problems using an endogenous, feedback
perspective and focus on improving behavior patterns (policies) rather than
point prediction, and we have a whole methodology of validity testing, analysis
and design and software to support it. This, can NOT be called system
dynamics anymore. Such a  specific philosophy and methodology can not be given
such a general name. (And terms like 'system dynamics approach' or 'system
dynamics method' are semantically and linguistically wrong too). 

I believe that this second mode of  improper use (inadequacy) of 'system
dynamics' periodically causes people to look for solutions (like 'capitalizing'
SD). Worse, people avoid using the term 'system dynamics model' (or method or
approach) altogether, or prefer 'STELLA or Vensim or Powersim 'model'
(outsiders sometimes call 'Forrester models/approach', etc). 

I believe that capitalizing System Dynamics will not quite solve the
problem. (It would be like using selectively statistics and  Statistics,
depending on how you use it).  I think system dynamics is fine in its first
usage above. BUT we need to adopt a more specific, (perhaps capitalized) name
(and possibly  an acronym as well) for our specific methodology.  Like 
'systemic feedback modeling' (SFM) or even an newly created word (like 
cybernetics). Monte Kietpawpan (SD6342)  made a very important observation:  
"...
  1. Use single term as the fields' names
  2. Be dictionary entries.

  System dynamics, by contrast, lacks these properties.
  Two words are used to name the field, and system dynamics has
   not yet become an entry of general dictionaries like  Webster's and Oxford.
  Moreover, the term 'system dynamics' means different things to
  different researchers, even among system dynamicists.
  Using system dynamics as a key word for finding SD papers,
  ones would obtain many results that are not SD papers.."

I think the observations above point to a serious problem, especially as
we enter this new  age of 'info explosion/pollution'  where searching and
finding the right information is becoming critical.  
About ten years ago I did an informal library search and reached a similar
conclusion. (I presented a little paper on it at ISDC).  The last item of my
'98 President's talk was also about this problem.  See:  
http://www.systemdynamics.org/newsletters/NewsletterDec1998.htm#PresAdd
(For your convenience I pasted the last paragraph at the bottom of this
message). 

In these past ten years, I am afraid that the problem did not go away. John
Gunkler just made a very similar observation (SD6340). 
In conclusion, I think it is worth asking creative people in our field to come
up with a unique term, terms, acronym,... that best describes our unique
methodology and can enter dictionaries. Perhaps they can be submitted at the
conference and the winner chosen as a result of a contest? 
have a great weekend!
Yaman Barlas
...
And finally, a non-scientific observation of mine (shared by many friends): It 
seems that in many publications/presentations dealing with system dynamics, 
authors avoid using the term "system dynamics." Instead, they use various terms
like "STELLA" or "DYNAMO" model, "Simulation" model, "Forrester" approach,
"Systems Thinking," etc. I am sure there are many different reasons why this is
the case: practical convenience or other concerns, scientific/technical
reasons, and some social, historical and psychological factors. From a purely
technical perspective, system dynamics means "dynamics of systems" and it is a
reasonable name for our Society in general. On the other hand, it seems like
other specific usages like "system dynamics model" or "system dynamics
approach" are awkward, non-descriptive, even linguistically incorrect. (For
those interested, I have a small library of research on the various uses,
misuses and "non-use" of "system dynamics.")  But whatever the reason, I
believe that the current situation constitutes an unnecessary communication
handicap for the
Society. In particular, it is totally unacceptable for our models and
methodology to be reduced to software names. I suggest that we should adopt a
standard name for our models and methodology and urge all members to  use it.
Examples of such terms descriptive of our methodology could be: "systemic
feedback" model (method, approach) or "systemic dynamic feedback" model...
Alternatively, we could adopt an acronym (like SDFS, standing for "systemic
dynamic feedback simulation") - although I am personally not a great fan of
acronyms. The name does not have to be perfect; the critical issue is that it
be accepted and consistently used by all members of the Society, as well as
non-members involved in system dynamics.

Posted by  ybarlas at boun.edu.tr
posting date  Fri, 23 Mar 2007 20:26:31 +0200