REPLY Forming a System Dynamics Institute (SD6568)

[SDMAIL Richard Stevenson]

Posted by  Richard Stevenson <rstevenson at valculus.com>

I applaud Kim Warren's suggestions.  Particularly valuable coming  
from an acknowledged thought leader in our field and in the SDS.  I  
think that was necessary.

Kim said:

> I don't know much about exactly how such institutes function, or what
> would be required to create a System Dynamics Institute - probably  quite
> some cash, plus the commitment of key professionals and consulting  firms
> in the field - but it seems an option worth considering for 'the  next 50
> years'. SD is too important and its contribution too valuable to wait
> that long to multiply its influence.


I would suggest that the time is right to consider seriously the  
establishment of a new Institute to take SD forward.

Clearly such a body (say the SDI) would need to relate to the  
existing SDS but it should have a completely different constitution,  
with similar objectives to the two bodies described by Kim (BSC and  
CFAI).  It should be a "not for profit" organisation in itself, but  
properly funded and professionally managed.

Kim lists the following elements of the role:

> - a dedicated focal point for a profession
> - the definitive reference for standards and qualifications in the  field
> - a source of professional [vs.academic] materials
> - a mouthpiece for the profession's PR
> - a focal location for accessing leading professionals


.. to which I would add:

- a professionally moderated forum for serious debate about the field
- an online place where practitioners can interact in real time -  without moderation
- the sole body for "accreditation" of SD professionals

In respect of the latter, Kim raises the extremely good point that

> SD poses very demanding intellectual challenges in attaining
> high level professional achievement to which only a small minority  could
> ever aspire, perhaps exemplifed by the PhDs from MIT, Bergen, Mannheim
> etc.. Building a much larger and stronger professional community than
> exists today may require a more graduated scale, perhaps akin to the
> 'belt' system in six sigma.


About a decade ago, Cognitus created just such a formal graduated  
scale, for our own internal purposes.  We graded practitioners on a  
competence scale of

- Novice
- Advanced Beginner
- Competent
- Proficient
- Expert

Naturally all such 'grading" is potentially subjective and even  
contentious, so we also developed a detailed list of required  
competencies and achievements to attain each level - and an SD model  
of different routes that practitioners might follow up the grades  
through training and project work.

We have never published this work - and I'm sure it needs updating  
and developing to professional standards.  But - as I have been  
accused of being purely negative - I will happily make the competence  
framework available, as a "first cut" at a graduated scale.

Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by  Richard Stevenson <rstevenson at valculus.com>
posting date  Tue, 4 Sep 2007 10:34:35 +0100