REPLY Society Strategy Development (SD6990)

[SDMAIL Dr John P Weldon]

Posted by  Dr John P Weldon <corp_dyn at iimetro.com.au>

The following SDMAIL statement from Jack Harich (29 Apr 2008) provides 
an opportunity to comment on issues central to future prospects for SD 
growth:

    '... the SD rule of don't model a system, model a problem. Or in
    science, solve the specific problem first, and then develop a more
    powerful generalization from that. The latter is the real payoff'. 

Strong indications, that all is not well with the above 'rule', are 
provided by the following:

    * The Ingalls case (/Interfaces/, K Cooper, 1980); one of the
      brightest jewels in the SD crown.
    * Corporate models that are used for system-wide activity and
      resource control, planning, budgeting, and accountability etc. 

If the 'rule' is correct, these system models are inappropriate and 
invalid, and outside the SD paradigm. However, it is much more likely 
that the 'rule' is deficient.

In some cases a genuine 'problem' can be identified of smaller content 
and scope than that of the system in which it resides. In many other 
cases the 'problem' is grounded in high interactive complexity of the 
system. This results in low effectiveness and efficiency. The 'problem' 
then is: what to do about that situation.

The 'problem' in the Ingalls case was that Ingalls was due to be closed 
down by its parent company, Litton, owing to Ingalls' induced 
insolvency. Ingalls' management had to prove in court that US Navy 
actions had caused that insolvency. The key point for the 'rule' in that 
case was that no modeling below the level of the full engineering system 
was relevant to Ingalls' stated objectives.

In the case of corporate models the 'problem' lies with the system 
itself; specifically with high levels of interactive and dynamic 
complexity, which are beyond the scope of 'manual' management (including 
general computerisation). Again, in order to address this 'problem' no 
modeling below the level of the full system is relevant for purposes of 
enhancing effectiveness and efficiency.

The 'rule' therefore needs to be substantially redefined along the lines 
below.

    If a genuine 'problem' can be identified of smaller content and
    scope than that of the system in which it resides, modeling shall be
    confined to entities (below the number needed to model the system
    itself) that can adequately explain and resolve the 'problem'. In
    all other cases modeling of the system shall be regarded as
    appropriate and necessary. 

The existing 'rule' is pernicious because it discourages modeling at 
system level in cases where that is appropriate. It also contributes to 
confusion on the part of potential clients for SD applications. The 
existing 'rule' is part of the baggage that needs to be jettisoned, if 
the SDS is to have any real prospect of growing the SD field.

Growth from the present point should not be viewed mainly in terms of 
more academic conferences, or even of graduating more SD Ph.Ds. It 
should be seen in terms of extending the coverage and influence of SD in 
the real world through quality SD applications. Modeling systems has an 
important role to play in achieving these objectives.

As a first step the SDS web site should be amended to reflect the above 
redefinition.

Sincerely.

John Weldon
Corporate Dynamics
Canberra,  Australian Capital Territory
Posted by  Dr John P Weldon <corp_dyn at iimetro.com.au>
posting date  Mon, 05 May 2008 12:50:35 +1000