REPLY How to promote good work (SD6560)

[SDMAIL Richard Stevenson]

Posted by  Richard Stevenson <rstevenson at valculus.com>

Bob Eberlein wrote:

> Jay was troubled by the lack of thoughful responses by experienced  people,
> and so am I. Mr. Stevenson has not put forward any proposal about what
> should be done, but simply leveled criticism at what is being done.  Without
> thoughtful responses such provocations are indeed a waste of time  and can
> only leave one with a sense of despair.

Actually, that's absolutely not true.  In the past (and on various  occasions) 
I have suggested the need for (inter alia):

*    an independent, professional body to establish, promote and  
     regulate standards in SD - managed to Professional Institute 
     standards.

*    a body that could actively promote SD - and associated methods and  
     tools -  to business.

*    a body that is not hamstrung by rigid academic publication  
     requirements, to act as a filter and a "showcase" for more (much,  
     much more) good SD work.

*    an online interactive forum for practitioners to share their ideas  
     and work.  An SD "Facebook", for example?  The technology to  
     facilitate such a forum is virtually free these days.

*    a "repository" of basic SD structures, categorised by (e.g.)  
     industry and topic.  I have even offered to contribute from decades  
     of front line client case work to support such an enterprise.

*    etc, etc.  I had hoped these ideas were not simply criticism.   
     "Despair" stems from frustration - and it is not the prerogative of  
     the current SD establishment.

The SDS does not presently fulfil any of these needs.  Now, I fully  
understand that the SDS was not established to be a professional  
body.  But the world has moved on and apparently the SDS has not.  
I  do not expect the SDS itself to transform.  Rather I seek views from  
fellow practitioners (from within the SDS) as to what might actually  
be done to fill these needs, possibly by forming a new body.  There  
is room for both the SDS (largely academic) and a Professional  
Institute (largely business).

> It is not because Mr. Stevenson is right that I, and I assume  others, have
> not responsed more forcefully. Rather it is because so many of the  things he
> says are patently wrong, or do not seem to have a constructive  purpose, that
> there has been only silence.


Reprise my comments above.
Right or wrong - we can argue about that but probably to no purpose.   
It is still true that there is a "politically correct" academic  
culture in the SDS that discourages constructive, controversial debate.

> On bahalf of all of my colleagues who have been working for years  and decades
> to build up the System Dynamics Society let me just say how absurd Mr.
> Stevenson's claims are. I can think of no single individual that  has done work
> for the Society with the intent of any sort of self promotion or  any expectation
> of personal reward. I have seen a lot of people do an amazing  amount of work
> over a lot of years. Those people come from around the globe, many  of course
> from the USA and the UK, but it is hardly limited to that.


At no time have I criticised any individual.  Indeed I have been very  
careful not to - I have great respect for all individuals who have  
supported the SDS over the years - as I have myself, both in respect  
of personal membership, conferencel contributions and voluntary  
donations from my company Cognitus.

My comments (and my frustration) are directed purely at the  
inadequacy of the SDS to move beyond its initial remit to fulfil the  
wider business role required in the 21st century.

This email forum (listserve) is a prime example - it is not  
constructive, nor efficient, nor modern, to communicate with other  
practitioners in this "stepwise" and arbitrarily regulated manner.

> As far as censorship goes - I have to take personal responsibility  for that.
> I post to this list things that are relevant and interesting. I do  not post
> things that fail to meet those, what I consider quite low, thresholds.

Well, with great respect, the standard of what gets published here  s
eems fairly random!

To be fair to Bob - to run such a forum is  evidently a labour of  
love.  However, what is "relevant and interesting" seems a somewhat  
personal perspective.  Indeed, Bob's comments illustrate my point  
perfectly - it surely cannot not be the remit an individual, no  
matter how committed, to oversee a professional forum in this rapidly  
globalising world?  These days, you can have it one of two ways (or  
indeed both, preferably).

First, a forum for serious professional debate that meets clearly  
defined and written standards.  This should of course be moderated,  
but not on individual whim.

Second, an open online discussion forum where "everybody and anybody"  
can interact and share ideas and interests about SD and all related  
matters.  This would be self-regulated, in the main.  There are  
hundreds of successful online examples of such specialised forums.

> I am not sure that Mr. Stevenson's latest post quite meets that  standard. In it is
> nothing new from what he has already posted beyond the suggestion  that there
> are a number of people who share his views. Still, I am hoping this  time there
> might be some concrete ideas that come of the thread. Certainly if  a group
> of people desire an alternative forum in which to discussion  matters apart
> from what appears on this list, news of such a forum would be both  interesting
> and relevant.


Hmm.  Just as I was composing this reply, I received Kim Warren's  
most thoughtful contribution on "Forming an SD Institute".  This is  
very welcome.  If my comments have been in any way constructive in  
leveraging this debate, I rest my case.

Finally, I am open and willing to interact and engage with all like- 
minded practitioners who share my interest to move SD into the "next  
fifty years".  We must look forward - not only to the past.


Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
Posted by  Richard Stevenson <rstevenson at valculus.com>
posting date  Mon, 3 Sep 2007 16:02:17 +0100