REPLY Society Strategy Development (SD6981)

[SDMAIL Colin Beveridge]

Posted by  "Colin Beveridge" <colin at colin.beveridge.name>

> Johann Heymann wrote:
> As a business consultant with an engineering degree I agree that SD
> will only grow and prosper if we are able to convince the broader business
> community of its business value.  

Or perhaps more accurately: if we can demonstrate the business value of its
application. 

A fine but important distinction is required between the intrinsic value
(subjective) attributed to the technique (SD) and the measurable business
value (objective) actually derived from its use.
 
> Like with most mathematical modelling 
> techniques (including statistics and simulation), non-engineers and
> non-scientists have significant difficulty in understanding the
> complexities of SD.  Unless systems can be articulated in business
> terms, I suspect that there is a low probability that SD will be
> regarded as a useful technology by the business community at large.  

Perhaps the most favourable business perspective of SD is as an analytical
tool that can be applied diagnostically or speculatively to understand a
situation. Few businesses think in terms of systems - and a large proportion
of those few probably confuse systems with information technology.
Consequently any "difficult" concept such as SD will always struggle to
achieve recognition, unless and until SD becomes embedded into broader
management systems, at the component level. At which point SD becomes
subsidiary, from an identity point of view.

I honestly believe therefore that anguishing over the lack of business
recognition for System Dynamics is a complete waste of intellectual energy.
>From a business perspective I would suggest that it is far more worthwhile
to address the fundamental question: What is the value proposition of System
Dynamics and how can it be realised? 

Posted by  "Colin Beveridge" <colin at colin.beveridge.name>
posting date  Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:26:00 +0100