REPLY Modeling the growth of System Dynamics (SD6604)

[SDMAIL martin]

Posted by  martin at utalca.cl

Designing the professional future-designer’s future.

I may be forgiven for borrowing the "designing the future" word; some of the
recent discussion about the death, future and growth of system dynamics, about
the "profession" and about the design of better organizations seem to move around
a common theme.  

The "system dynamicist" has been compared with the designer of an aircraft
(whereas the typical manager is the pilot and it is thus logical to ask: then
who designs the "organization")?  This is a powerful analogy, of which I’d like
to discuss some possible issues.  (A little qualitative model is attached to
this message in the forum at
http://www.ventanasystems.co.uk/forum/
It is full of oversimplifications, has no mention of the time structure and no
equations and awaits your comments and suggestions.)

1. From many discussions on this list, I have the impression that many
dynamicists see themselves as "solvers of (our clients’) problems".  This sounds
more like a "medical doctor" whose work is diagnosing and prescribing a cure
(and sometimes an autopsy).  True: as long as there exist problems, and as long
as concerned people ask you to do so (sometimes even without this), it is
important to help solving them.  When doing so, you are trying to augment the
outflow of the "problems" stock.  If we take an example like global climate,
this is evidently very important.  

But then, it is not the dynamicist whose actions created the problem, and those
whose actions created the problem are not dynamicists.  And usually (adult)
people do not like to be told "you should change what you are doing/believeing".
 How may times, the guy who brings the bad new is punished for the news?  So
there is some in-built limitation in the idea of the dynamicist as solver of
problems others create, and as long as we think of two separate agents (a
"patient" to create the problem and a "physician" to solve it), this will be
hard to overcome.

But it is not all there is.

2. There is another stock that we may call "potential problems"; this is a
resource that (prepared) people can draw upon to avoid problems and thus reduce
the inflow into "problems": having more people acting in ways that do not create
problems in the first place.  But this is not "solving people’s problems",
rather "teach them how to avoid problems", a bit like a medical doctor who gives
advice and teaching to "(not yet sick) patients".  However, how many people go
to their physician to say "doctor, help me not to fall sick"?  Rather, the
dynamicist as "avoider of problems other people could create" will be a sort of
"devil’s advocate" (just think of "limits to growth"): not a very easy strategy
to catch "users".  

So the analogy of the "pilot" as decision-making agent (manager, mayor ...) who
may increase the "problems" inflow and the dynamicist as "designer/engineer" who
decreases the inflow does not overcome the division into two different agents. 
The barrier mentioned above will not go away as long as the "pilot" has no
personal access to the "potential problems" stock.  Well, aircraft pilots are
not aircraft designers, but they study a lot of things about aircraft and
weather (and so on) and permanently confront themselves with problem-avoiding
training in the simulator.  However, these simulation models "model the SYSTEM",
not the PROBLEM; since system dynamics is really about problems, I’m not sure if
the analogy holds.

3. The social or "human activity" systems we are concerned with are different
from airplanes or chemical plants in one important aspect: they are made up from
conscious, interest-laden, emotion-driven and intelligent components - "people".
 Thinking of such systems like an airplane, made up from many sophisticated
components may be replaced by thinking of them as swarms of little airplanes
(each with its own pilot).  The swarm will look organized as long as each of the
planes stays synchronized; but even if there is a formal "leader", each pilot is
a "person".  

Now if each of these pilots has been trained in the "problem space", he will be
able to draw upon the "potential problems" stock.  One swarm’s pilots can even
organize a briefing and review the synchronization rules.  And so they will
avoid problems during flight (anyway they would not be able to stop action and
call in a "physician" to solve their problem).  You would not design this
organization in too direct a way, rather set up the fewest necessary
restrictions and let each pilot be "intelligent".  

4. The designer - pilot analogy should not make us think that system dynamics
shall be a profession limited to the "design" activity.  Since the social world
is mainly made up of pilots, patients and the like, the "potential problems"
stock (one of the two treasures of system dynamics) has to be made available to
them.  This means that the dynamicist community has to do a lot of education,
producing all kinds of artifacts to interact with (books, comics, movies,
simulation games...), for the general public, for children, for educators and
for the other professions (the "pilots").  By using these artifacts, people will
change their mental models (more than by being told to do so).  So the basic
insights and ideas of system dynamics would spread over the non-specialist
population - slowly but steadily, and some day one could say "we are all
dynamicists now (a bit)".

Then the "everyday system dynamicist" should be expected to be someone who
causes fewer problems (like a French shoemaker with nice shoes). Looking at
things and seeing stocks that can be increased and decreased, being sensitive to
feedback loops, asking yourself about the time horizon, about delays, about
things you do not know or cannot be sure about, this can become part of your way
of living, even if you are not specially skilled at simulation model validating.

5. But who governs the inflow into the "potential problems" stock? Well, this is
the other task of the "professional system dynamicist".  There is a "general
constructs" (like the typical "S"-shaped growth and its generic feedback-loop
structure) stock and a "modeling techniques" stock, that the professional
dynamicist would have to nourish.  These two stocks are the second "treasure" of
system dynamics; they may be less accessed by the "everyday system dynamicist",
but they are the resources for nourishing the "potential problems" stock.  (I
should stress that the "everyday dynamicist" also needs a minimum access to the
other two treasures in order to allow him to think on his own.)

6. Also, the "professional dynamicist" will work as "problem avoider" and
"problem solver", aiding others (with his special "modeling techniques"
treasure); thus the "problems" outflow will also be the "solved problems"
stock’s inflow, and new material will nourish the "general constructs" stock.

7.  The "potential problems" stock would really be sub-indexed, since these
refer to rather specific areas, like "organizations", "cities", "health",
"education" and others.   So the "professional dynamicist" would also be in
charge of "family tree" inquiry, synthesizing general constructs and specifying
generic potential problems.

8. So it seems to me that system dynamics (have you sometimes wondered if it
should be called "problem dynamics"?) is one name given to two professional
areas: those who feel the call for system dynamics have to develop the treasures
and share at least one of them: the "potential problems", and also sometimes to
solve other people’s problems.  I believe the first part of it is doing quite
well: "modeling technique" is growing, and so is "general constructs".  I
believe the "physician" mode is quite developed, too; and if it is the case that
it is not growing as fast as it could, then this is the consequence of not
having developed a sufficient stock of "everyday dynamicists" able to exploit
the "potential problems" stock (and to constitute the growing demand for
"professional dynamicists").

However, I feel like there most of the "big fishes" in system dynamics
concentrate on the things described under points 5 and 6 (above).  This is what
you can publish in journals and this is what allows to do consulting.  I have
wondered for some time now why the founder of the field appears to be the only
one who has gone to point 4, helping to grow the "everyday dynamicist" stock. 
Yes, there is an education SIG, yes there is wonderful material (at least in
English language), yes there are quite a few people working in "educational
stuff".  But how many universities have pedagogical units with full professors
who actively research and develop system dynamics as a part of material
developed and teachers trained?

If the little model with "generic constructs", "modeling technique", "potential
problems", "problems", "solved problems", professional dynamicistes" and
"everyday dynamisists" is conceptually valid, then the community of system
dynamics should search for more people to work at growing the inflow to
"everyday dynamicists" (and lessen the "problems" inflow).

I would not like the practitioners amongst you to feel bothered by this: it is
not necessary to have fewer of you.  But I believe it is necessary to have more
highly visible system dynamics "believers" interested in developing the inflow
into "everyday dynamicists".  

Shouldn’t this be part of system dynamic’s growth strategy?  

Best greetings,

Martin Schaffernicht
Posted by  martin at utalca.cl
posting date  Sun, 09 Sep 2007 20:02:36 -0400