John, writing about system dynamics (SD), which he calls "our founding
discipline," makes several observations, and calls upon list members to
"take a(nother) look" at system dynamics. John also expresses the view
that other disciplines have much to contribute but, for now, offer few
solutions, few process descriptions, and little practical help.
I share John's enthusiasm for system dynamics but on a lesser scale. I
don't share his assessment of other disciplines. Lots of them offer solid
solutions for specific problems in well-defined situations. To my
knowledge, none of them--and that includes system dynamics--offers generic
solutions to all problems.
System dynamicists are quick to assert that SD is not a way of modeling
entire systems (e.g., organizations) but is instead a way of modeling the
complexity of a specific problem. I agree. I've had an ongoing SD effort
under my wings for more than two years and it's proven its value with
certain problems involving stocks and flows and feedback loops. And,
causal loop diagrams have intrinsic value as a way of graphically
displaying complexity, whether or not they are converted to an operational
SD model.
But there is a trap in all this and it has to do with learning. One of
the things I've learned over the years is that apparently complex problems
aren't really as complex as they seem. There is, in common parlance, the
notion of "the heart of the matter." If you can get to the heart of the
matter, without being sidetracked by all the surrounding complexity, many
problems can be resolved without the aid of a tool like system dynamics.
If this weren't true, no problem of any complexity could have been solved
without system dynamics which didn't exist until Jay Forrester published
Industrial Dynamics along about 1961. History, of course, teaches us
otherwise. The story of civilization is filled with examples of complex
problems solved without the aid of system dynamics. The story of
civilization is also littered with fantastic failures, with problems
unsolved or made worse because we didn't have a tool like system dynamics.
Re(introducing) system dynamics to the LO discussions might indeed be very
helpful but the learning in a learning organization is done by people, not
by the organization, and SD, along with all the other disciplines John
mentioned, has yet to produce a workable model of people--or one of their
main artifacts: organizations. Indeed, as noted above, system dynamicists
shy away from modeling entire organizations, preferring instead to focus
on particular problems.
So, here's a suggestion, John. How about posing to the list a problem
that could be addressed by system dynamics and then
leading/facilitating/fostering/stimulating a discussion of that problem in
SD terms? I'll happily participate.
Regards,
Fred Nickols
Executive Director
Strategic Planning & Management Services
Educational Testing Service
Princeton, NJ 08541
609.734.5077 Tel
609.734.5590 Fax
Views and opinions expressed are those of the author, not ETS...
--Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>