SDMail Digest, Vol 20, Issue 11 (SD7203)

[SDMAIL Richard Stevenson]

Posted by  Richard Stevenson <rstevenson at valculus.com>

Jay Forrester writes:

> I have recently had occasion to reread my presidential address at the 1983
> System
> Dynamics conference, available at:
> http://www.systemdynamics.org/publications.htm

I reread it too. Forrester's address paper is as pertinent as it was in 1983. 
It
could have been written today.  So why 25 years of inaction?  I hypothesise.

I well remember the first time I met Jay.  It was at a Pegasus "Systems Thinking
in Action" conference in Boston in 1992.  He looked me straight in the eye and
asked "do you approve of what's going on here?"  He clearly did not!

The next morning, I attended a breakfast meeting for overseas delegates.  It was
lead by some USA facilitators (presumably to guide we poor overseas souls) and
comprised breakout groups who were asked to consider in half an hour (I recall)
a
topic "how can we use 'new and brighter' systems thinking to achieve the world
we
yearn for?".  I do recall that there was a lot of yearning and no substance
whatsoever.  Not a single person in my group of 15 people (even the facilitator)
had ever heard of SD - nor the SD Society.  At that point I thought - what on
earth are otherwise apparently sane people doing here?

The "systems thinking" movement - thankfully - has expired. It made a bubble of
money for some people but did a lot of damage to SD in retrospect - and held
back
the true development of the field.  And that kind of summarises my central
point.
 As things stand, SD is capable of being highjacked by interest groups.  Unless
and until SD organises around a professional body that defines its presence,
objectives and that promotes its central interests, it will always be vulnerable
to being used and abused.

This is like medicine and surgery in the 19th century.  Any hick then could turn
up with a snake oil.  Then a few enlightened people got together to define and
to
regulate good practise - and subsequently medicine has progressively built 'on
the shoulders of giants'.

Despite Forrester's reservations about SD being 'unfinished business' (of course
it is) - future development must surely be based on a professional approach. 
The
SDS has thus far failed to take a lead.

Dare I say it?  Perhaps it is precisely because Forrester and the MIT school
have
such a hold over the field, that SD has not matured much in the past 25 years. 
That is indeed my own hypothesis.

Richard Stevenson
Valculus Ltd
UK
Posted by  Richard Stevenson <rstevenson at valculus.com>
posting date  Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:59:38 +0100