REPLY Getting a Good Problem Statement (SD6551)

[SDMAIL Richard Stevenson]

Posted by  Richard Stevenson <rstevenson at valculus.com>

Jack Homer writes:

> I think it is fine that Richard speaks his mind forthrightfully,  but I do think
> that maybe he is generalizing from his own experience, rather than  drawing
> conclusions from broader evidence of how we as a field are actually  doing.

For the record, my occasional comments in this forum (e.g. "The Death  
of SD" etc ) are not driven by criticism of individuals or groupings  
in the SD fraternity - but rather from my deep commitment to the  
field and my conviction and considerable frustration that  
COLLECTIVELY, SD is still selling itself very short.

In particular, "The Death" posting was deliberately provocative - and  
it did generate a degree of discussion, although perhaps not as much  
as I had hoped - and certainly little from the leaders in our field,  
which slightly disappointed me.

Of course I agree with Jack that my views are generalised from my own  
experience (how can they not be?) but I know quite a few people who  
share them - and my experience is not inconsiderable.  The fact is  
that the SD field is still (a) dominated by academics, (b) weakly  
represented in business, (c) introspective, (d) extremely poor at  
communicating.  The reasons are systemic (surprise) and simple enough  
to address from a pure SD perspective.  But who is interested and  
listening?  Apparently not the ISDS or the wider SD community.

I refer to Jay's comments at ISDC 2007 (as quoted by Jack - I had not  
seen them previously, so I assume they are verbatim).

> "Those of you who are doing good system dynamics work know that  these messages
> of despair do not represent the field, but they stand on the record  and mislead
> newcomers to the field."

I regret I was not at ISDC 2007 (personal reasons only) and would  
have been happy to respond there.  But with great respect to Jay, the  
messages are sincere. They are not "of despair", and not intended to  
"mislead".  They are intended to be challenged - constructively.

Whether my views are "representative of the field" is another  
matter.  I am quite sure they are not representative of the few  
hundred attendees at ISDC 2007.  But that is not the point - the ISDS  
is still a tiny community and the view from East Coast USA is not  
necessarily representative of the SD field as a whole, never mind the  
wider business community.

That, after sixty years, SD is still such a tiny fraternity, is  
lamentable.  For thirty years (or more) I have listened to the  
prognosis that SD is growing exponentially - but in fact it is not.   
In business it is still hardly known - or maybe even declining.    
Indeed, in a number of business schools that I visit, if SD is known  
at all it is sometimes even regarded as "yesterday's" toolset.  
A  professor at a good UK business school recently commented to me, 
"SD?  We looked at it a decade ago. Too complicated!"

Strange!  Because in the 1990's "systems thinking" was first  
adulated, then criticised as being too abstract and simplistic.  
Talk  about mixed messages!!

This is clearly not a failure of substance.  But it is definitely a  
failure of communication and organisation.  To succeed, SD needs to  
establish critical mass.  Instead it remains a "cottage industry"  
discipline - scattered thinly in universities and in small  
consultancies.  Small (i.e tiny!)  SD consultancies can survive by  
specialisation - but the larger consultancies have all found it  
difficult to establish and maintain a strong SD capability - "too  risky",  
"too few saleable days".  I know one - and only one -  
multinational company that has adopted SD as a key internal competence.

None of this should be a revelation to SD practitioners - the  
business model is just simple SD, after all.

I understand that those SD practitioners doing good work (and of  
course there is a growing number) see the world from the rosy  
perspective of their current positions and the (evidently infinite)  
opportunities out there.  The evidence, however, is that the SD  
community as a whole has currently neither the capability, nor the  
capacity, to build critical mass in the business world.

What's the answer?  Well I do have my views.  But I'll rest my case  
for the present.

Finally, to return to Jay.

> "Such messages are going unchallenged by those of you
> who understand that they are not representative of the field."


Really? Perhaps we could have a proper discussion in this forum that  
will not be censored by the moderator?  Oh - and maybe also some real  
contributions from those who either regard themselves, or are widely  
regarded, as leaders in the field?

Come on - let's stop the internal congratulations - and start to  
think about how we can make a real difference.


Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
UK
Posted by  Richard Stevenson <rstevenson at valculus.com>
posting date  Sat, 1 Sep 2007 19:07:07 +0100