REPLY How to promote good work (SD6572)

[SDMAIL Kim Warren]

Posted by  "Kim Warren" <Kim at strategydynamics.com>

Whatever one thinks of how well the 'establishment' serves this
community, we should recall that virtually all that commitment is
voluntary and done for the love of it - a point I know Richard himself
has  made before. [I permit myself to comment, accepting that I myself
should do more!] As a relative new-comer to the field, I found [and
still do] those folk exceptionally welcoming and generous with their
time and encouragement, and remarkably patient with the errors and
misunderstandings.

It is also worth noting that without the 'Boston group' only a small
fraction of the Society's activities would happen. With so many strong
professionals originally emerging there over so many decades, it is
hardly surprising that the region has developed the critical mass of
resources to do more than groups based round other focal points. I have
not come across a single case of an outsider being discouraged from
getting involved - quite the opposite - and if we think something should
be happening that isn't, it's up to us to get on with it rather than
complain that 'they' are not doing so.

Richard's personal contacts whose politically-incorrect submissions have
been excluded from discussion may not want to be named, so could he at
least give us a precis of the key themes of those contributions, so we
can all see the kinds of ideas that have been denied to us? 
Picking up on some of the other complaints about the discussion list.
First, it is hardly reasonable to argue on the one hand that
contributions are over-moderated, and then complain about rambling and
inconclusive discussions. No-one has to read stuff they are not
interested in, such as technical discussions - that is what threads are
for. I also feel it would be a sad day when novices feel they cannot ask
basic questions for fear of looking dumb. I'd bet that for every person
who asks a basic question and gets a helpful answer there are many more
thinking 'thanks for asking that one - I'd been wondering the same
myself'.

As regards promoting good work in the business arena .. Unless much is
happening that I don't know about, the problem is quite the opposite of
the assertion that good work is being ignored or excluded - rather, very
little business-oriented work, good or otherwise, seems to be offered
up. There are some great professionals out there doing great work, but
we see very little of it, either submitted to the Review or to the
conference. As a reviewer for both, the thin trickle of material is a
continuing disappointment. Even the new 'applications' award at the
conference, specifically intended to encourage exactly such
contributions, received very few entries, though thankfully those
received were all great. Confidentiality can be a problem - one
submission I know of had to be so heavily disguised that it lost the
great value in the original work. And maybe modesty plays a part amongst
the excellent practitioners out there - but building a stronger public
profile may need a bit less modesty and a lot more showing off!

The conference is a great place to feature practical work, and for a
serious professional - who after all will have done all the real work on
a project already - the extra time needed to fulfil the quite modest
requirements is trivial. This is important, as each year a hopeful band
of new enthusiasts arrives from the business field, keen to find out
about the great work the experts are doing - so if we don't see them
again, perhaps it is evidence that they are not finding what could and
should be there.

I would accept there is something of a barrier in the requirements for
papers in the Review. It is an academic journal, and has to meet basic
standards to be taken seriously. [But if you think it's tough getting
into the System Dynamics Review, just try Harvard Business Review!] Even
then, I believe reviewers try to be supportive of contributors who
clearly come from a non-academic background by suggesting where they can
find previous work on which they can develop their articles .. often
pointing them to other sources that would be helpful in their practice!
Nevertheless, perhaps a System Dynamics 'magazine' would be popular, in
which shorter pieces could be published - volunteers welcome, including
from outside Boston! This would also of course need practitioners to
contribute.

Kim Warren
Posted by  "Kim Warren" <Kim at strategydynamics.com>
posting date  Tue, 4 Sep 2007 21:34:34 +0100