REPLY Getting a Good Problem Statement (SD6558)

[SDMAIL George Richardson]

Posted by  George Richardson <gpr at albany.edu>

On Sep 2, 2007, at 7:38 AM, SDMAIL David Rees wrote:

> Posted by  "David Rees" <david.rees at hpls.co.nz>
>
> While concept models are an important part of developing  understanding and
> engagement in the SD process it seems to me that they sit around  step 2 or
> 3.

Good point.  Lots happens before them, and lots happens after.

> There are many assumptions that go into choosing the concept model and
> rely on the modeller 'getting it right' in terms of initial  understanding.

In our experience, if concept models are used to get a conversation  started, 
there is less a need to get the concept model 'right' in  terms of 
substantive content than one might think.  Indeed, it is  useful that little 
models used to start conversations with system  dynamics tools are seen to be 
inadequate to represent the issues at  hand.  Those inadequacies jump start 
the conversation.  Having them  'too right' can actually interfere, as the 
conference paper I  mentioned in the earlier posting discusses in some detail.

> Systems Thinking in all its guises assumes everything is connected to
> everything else; we cannot model everything however so we have to make
> choices - it is these boundary choices, hopefully made with rather  than for
> the client, that is at the core of developing good problem  statements. As
> the work of Midgley and Ulrich highlight, choosing the boundaries  determines
> what's in, what's out, whose viewpoints will be considered and  whose will be
> ignored.

All good work with groups has to consider boundary issues,  stakeholders, 
power/interest considerations, and careful group  problem identification.  
Our use of concept models doesn't help with  any of that.

We think the rich problem structuring literature in soft OR, largely  
emanating from the UK, is extremely helpful.  We are particularly  
influenced by the work of Eden and Ackermann in these matters.

> Starting with concepts models is fine if the task is to engage
> someone in SD modelling.  However, if that task is to solve a  problem, and
> SD is the tool you are using, the challenge starts earlier.

The only way we use concept models is to start conversations aimed at  
using system dynamics mapping and modeling to help a group that has  
asked for our help.  That usually means they know we tend to approach  
problems dynamically with the help of feedback thought and formal  
models.  I doubt system dynamics concept models would be useful in  
any other context.

And it's worth pointing out that lots of folks handle the process  
problems we're trying to solve with concept models in entirely  
different ways.  These little models, carefully crafted, work for us,  
but others may have better ways.  The goal is helping to get a group  
started talking about their problem in ways that facilitate the  
modeling process while at the same time honoring all the intricacies  
of group process and problem-solving.  The more documented  
experiments the better.

..George
Posted by  George Richardson <gpr at albany.edu>
posting date  Mon, 3 Sep 2007 09:05:53 -0400