|
Message:
I believe that the hope of treating systems thinking (as distinguished from system dynamics modeling) as well defined, operationalized, and measured is not consistent with the nature of systems thinking. Systems thinking is an amorphous area and means different things to different people. It does not have an underlying theory or structure. Worse, it is based on intuitive understanding of systems, which is usually shown to be incorrect when the systems thinking discussion is converted to actual simulation models for verification and analysis. I believe that the drift toward systems thinking and away from explicit simulation is apt to be harmful to the understanding of systems.
The above email quite properly asks for a well defined description of
systems thinking. I am skeptical that such can be generated. But
any attempt should be evaluated in terms of what is being taught, if such can be defined, and how correctly it prepares students to understand the important aspects of real world systems. The only way that I see to determine how much students have advanced in understanding real-world systems is to test their ability to work with and understand the behavior of actual simulation models that allow bringing real-world dynamics into the laboratory for manipulation and evaluation.
I will be much interested in seeing the explanations and defenses that may be offered for systems thinking.
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Jay W. Forrester
Professor of Management
Sloan School
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
|
