REPLY Forming a System Dynamics Institute (SD6565)

[SDMAIL Carl Betterton]

Posted by  Carl Betterton <carlb at uga.edu>

To further Kim Warren's comments about forming a System Dynamics Institute 
let me give as an example an organization that represents the project 
manager (PM). It is the Project Management Institute, hereafter referred 
to as PMI. I have watched the PMI grow to almost a quarter of a million 
members now in more than 160 countries. Let me be quick to add that PMI 
is not the only organization that represents project management, but it 
is a very significant one. As a PMI member I admire the fact that the 
organization has established some standards for project managers. PMI has 
created member certification and credentialing programs, formed an 
educational foundation that champions project management educational 
issues, published a PM Body of Knowledge, provides a host of seminars and 
other events, has a "virtual library" of PM knowledge, sponsors and 
distributes research on PM through its research department, and 
undertakes many other activities. PMI has local chapters, SIGs, and 
subgroups on areas of member interest like performance management or 
scheduling.

PMI actively promotes project management as a career field ... ooops, now 
you're thinking, "That's the big problem Carl, System Dynamics is not a 
career field like Project Management, relatively few jobs are titled 
'system dynamics specialist' or similar but there are thousands upon 
thousands of PM jobs."

And you are right. System Dynamics needs to claim a career field, and 
because of the nature of SD that career field ought to be related to the 
overall organization, as in Strategic Management or Strategy Development. 
Anyone who has made even a cursory study of project management knows that 
PM can be applied to everyday life as in planning and carrying out a 
birthday party or a two week vacation. This is not rocket science, only 
basic management applied to a "project." We're talking planning, 
scheduling, leading, and exercise of control for example. But project 
management is also useful in planning a trip to the moon, and that is 
rocket science. My point is that PM covers a wide spectrum. You can 
have a "project" in software development, highway construction, or new 
product introduction. In a way PM has no specific "home" but is 
everywhere, often in the form of a matrix organization or a temporary 
organization. System Dynamics also has no specific "home" within an 
organization but applies to every part. So a natural place for SD is 
as an extension of the top leadership, in the form of ongoing strategic 
evaluation for the organization.

So why not as a start at least, make strategy and strategic thinking the 
central organizing focus of a System Dynamics Institute. A by-line related 
to strategy could be added to the institute name, as in (just one example):  
*/System Dynamics Institute - Strategy In Motion/*

This just seems so natural to me I guess because of my background (prior to 
academia). Some may argue that a strategy focus for SD leaves out too many 
significant and interesting problems or opportunities. It seems to me that 
strands like "Why don't organizations function better,"  "Getting a Good 
Problem Statement," "Impact on National Government policies,"  and even 
"Climate Change" have a place at the strategy table for business, non-profit, 
government, and other organizations. Within academia SD might be dispersed 
much as project management has been (becoming less so due to PMI efforts) 
but it could well have legs in Strategic/Operations Management faculty of 
business schools and I can see it as an interdisciplinary study area for 
both faculty and students. Just look on our web home page and you read, 
"System dynamics ... models to confirm that the structure hypothesized can 
lead to the observed behavior and to test the effects of alternative policies 
on key variables over time." Sure sounds valuable for strategy to my ears.

Of course my comparison of System Dynamics to Project Management is very 
imperfect, but is intended to get us thinking. Why not develop and publish 
a "Body of Knowledge" about System Dynamics. Perhaps publish a Dictionary 
of System Dynamics Terms. Let's commission a few "white papers" on what SD 
has to offer (in strategy and other areas) and place them on the web for 
public consumption. How about credentials for a System Dynamics professional? 
How about revising the purpose of the society to include problem solving? 
Currently we say:   "The /System Dynamics Society/ is an international, 
nonprofit organization *_devoted to encouraging the development and use of 
systems thinking and system dynamics_* around the world. With members in 
fifty-five countries, the Society *_provides a forum_* in which researchers, 
educators, consultants, and practitioners in the corporate and public sectors 
interact to introduce newcomers to the field, keep abreast of current 
developments, and build on each other's work" (emphasis added). Encourage 
development of ST and SD to what end? Provide a forum to what end? How 
about _explicitly_ for solving some serious business, governmental, social, 
or other problems! How about applying System Dynamics in a sustained way to 
bring drinking water and basic sanitation to millions who need it for 
example?

By the way, some readers may notice that in responding to Kim's thread I am 
also in part (as a side effect) responding to Richard Stevenson and Bob 
Eberlein in "How to promote good work" (SD6555). I liked Bob's comments and 
agreed with them, but also greatly enjoyed Richard's post. The reason may be 
that I don't take his comments too seriously in that (if I am correct) his 
remarks are purposely exaggerated for the positive purpose of provocation. 
The man wants some action and response! I like it when people complain because 
they can be recruited to help implement change. Richard says the Beer Game is 
"old" - well, it is new to every student in my classes exposed to it! Hammers 
are old tools but they are indispensable ones. One thing I do agree with 
Richard on is that our web site needs a complete makeover. It was great when 
it was first established but the expectations of web design interface have 
changed quite a lot in just a short time. Let's admit it, our web site 
regardless of the content has an amateur look. Our web site does not do a 
good job of representing us as members. It should be polished and professional. 
A new web site can be part of the new System Dynamics Institute that Kim 
suggests. I suggest that we look beyond Richard's inflammatory rhetoric to see 
the grain of truth that is there. Sure we may think some of the comments 
inappropriate or even absurd, but my guess is such comments are caused by 
frustration at seeing the tremendous potential of our society being unfulfilled 
in a world that very much needs it. We have an excellent foundation thanks to 
the tireless and professional efforts of so many. Is it now time to re-energize 
and redirect our efforts, to build anew on that sound foundation, looking as 
Jay might say, at the next 50 years?

With an apology for the lengthy post, and kind regards to all.

Carl

Carl E. Betterton, Ph.D., P.E.
Assistant Professor
School of Business Administration
The Citadel
Charleston, SC  29409 
Posted by  Carl Betterton <carlb at uga.edu>
posting date  Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:19:35 -0400