[Host's Note: The previous msg LO20390 was an incomplete version of
this... My apologies. ...Rick]
John writes:
>I confess that I don't understand what you're saying, Winfried. I seem to
>have lost the context. I'm going to guess at one meaning and respond to
>it, but if I'm missing your point please let me know.
Thank you, John, for your answer which is very clear. I know about the
problems of system modelling and also about the problems of instability
inherent to some systems, like the various kinds of attractors.
My starting point was: Why should manager or decision maker model systems?
The answer seems so obvious: To make better decisions. But why then is it
so difficult to convince manager to participate in such a process? I think
this is a question worth to think about also in this list.
Additionally, I believe that humans have a much better intuition on
systems than any model can show. I need to be more precise: I am not
speaking of the knowlege of the development of some parameters over time,
but of the backaction that the model of the system has on the system
itself. Thus if I experience resistance to a process (like modeling a
system) I assume, that I better search for the reasons of such resistance
and not to force my attempts (a lesson also learnt from system dynamics).
In such search, I discovered that in decision making, stability is a major
concern of managers as well as their individual (first) and corporate
(second) competitive advantage - but stability is the strongest force.
What I wanted to express in my previous mail was, that a stable system may
become unstable when different people with different individual attractors
(goals, desirable ways of the systems development) develop their models
and start to act according to their findings. I guess, that 1.) because
the loop "I think that he think that I think..." is endless, unstable in
the outcome and thus paralysing decision making and 2.) because manager
know that real systems are much more complex than any model (the scope
issue), manager tend not to trust presentations, that pretend to forecast
the development of specific parameters as soon as the prediction differ
from their own expectation.
Usually it is so easy to find one or two "what if", that changes the
result of such predictions dramatically, especially if the one who askes
does know some basics of feedback loops and system archetypes. After all,
this is the reason, why one modelled the system: To learn about the
necessary changes. But whatever you try, there will always remain what
ifs. And you have never more time to include them in your model than the
patience of your client last.
And it is always too late to say afterwards: I could have told you.
Liebe Gruesse,
Winfried
P.S.: By now, I think, that the main benefit of systems dynamics is
not to gain knowledge on systems behaviour but to provide tools to
educate or better to inspire peoples creativity.
--"Winfried Dressler" <winfried.dressler@voith.de>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <rkarash@karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>