Hi, Terry,

This is just a quick note to say that I will respond to your note on systems dynamics in a day or so. I’ve been down with a cold, and between trying to stay on top of my obligations while reviewing some literature, it is taking me time to write a cogent reply.

I do, indeed, know about systems dynamics. When I respond, however, I will explain why systems dynamics is not appropriate for “understanding or predicting the dynamics of the outcomes of” the specific issue of “national change to design education in India.” One cannot use systems dynamics in every instance and systems dynamics is not appropriate for any intervention. There are several flavors of systems dynamics. While some versions of systems dynamic are suited to heuristic modeling for understanding, they may not be suited to “predicting the ways things will change over time in a highly interacting political environment.”

Predictive modeling is extremely difficult. As I will explain in my next post, systems dynamics has achieved nothing like the level of predictive capacity of physics, chemistry, or molecular biology. The predictive power of physics differs to that of systems dynamics by several orders of magnitude. There are good reasons for this, and I will explain them. The mathematical operations are not at issue. The issue involves connections between data and symbols, between symbols and what they represent in the world.

The joke about economists – “economists use this kind of modeling on limited aspects of economic systems, but there are many jokes about throwing out the data that don’t fit the theory” – wasn’t a joke about systems theory or systems dynamics. It was a joke about the notion that we have workable systems for dynamic modeling of complex adaptive structures in the real world of organizations embedded in the context of national political life that enable valid predictions.

Systems dynamics does permit valid predictions, in cases with clear boundaries and limits. I will describe these in my post.

I have myself done some work in systems dynamics. This was forty years ago when I studied organizations and agents of change for my PhD. Most people in my cohort of PhD students were headed toward careers in psychology, anthropology, or urban planning. My project team had the outliers – I was one. The others included the deputy mayor of one of America’s largest cities and the captain of an aircraft carrier earning a PhD in human behavior on the way to an admiral’s flag.

One clear aspect about the different flavors of systems dynamics is that predictive systems dynamics requires significant amounts of data. Accurate and responsible predictions usually require a large, expert project team with sufficient time to gather data and model it through many iterations well before the results are due. Relatively short-term projects do not permit this unless the financial stakes are so great that they justify investing in large teams, massive data, and heavy computing power. Frequent changes to governments, stakeholders, policies, and decision-makers affect most contexts such as those that Ranjan describes. These can benefit from visualisation for understanding and heuristic flavors of system dynamics, but they generally don’t permit or justify the costs or work required for predictive modeling.

The reason I did not think of systems dynamics in the context of your post is simple. The capacity to engage and deploy systems dynamics for predictive modeling rests on far more than educational background. The linked constraints of time, money, and quality – the iron triangle – come into play.

You specified prediction as well as understanding. To me, that ruled out systems dynamics.

I asked, “What kinds of symbols permit us to undertake dynamic predictive modeling of complex adaptive structures in the real world of organizations embedded in the context of national political life? … If you have not done this kind of work, can you suggest some responsible publications that demonstrate such a system or show it in operation?” I was hoping for working examples. None of the papers in the links you posted meet these criteria.

Neither do your papers. These papers do not involve predictive dynamic symbolic modeling of the kind you described to Ranjan or to me. Rather, they are papers stating your views about systems dynamics. They bear roughly the relation to quantitative, predictive systems dynamics that papers on philosophy of science bear to physics, chemistry, or molecular biology.

Systems dynamics has many values and uses. Some are heuristic. Some involve understanding. The most difficult form of systems dynamics involves predictive modeling. Most of the people who do this kind of work publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals. I’ve observed that the articles in systems dynamics journals are modest and limited in their claims, and the systems dynamics literature is very carefully bounded.

There are also systems dynamics people who work in consulting, government, and other fields – I’d guess that what they have in common is an appreciation of the different uses of systems dynamics and the different kinds of systems dynamics that are available for those uses.

There is also a certain measure of humility that seems to typify anyone who really works with these systems in a professional way. By the time you take on responsibility for a capital ship of more than 100,000 tons plus 80 or 90 fighter jets and advanced missile systems to protect them, you grow cautious about the power of prediction.

We had a standing joke in our team, attributed to the physicist Niels Bohr (and to others):

“Prediction is very difficult. Especially about the future.”

Yours,

Ken

Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | University Distinguished Professor | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia | [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> | Mobile +61 404 830 462 | Home Page http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design/people/Professor-Ken-Friedman-ID22.html<http://www.swinburne.edu.au/design> Academia Page http://swinburne.academia.edu/KenFriedman About Me Page http://about.me/ken_friedman

Guest Professor | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China

--

Terry Love wrote:

—snip—

One thing at a time. I’ve a post partly done on the epistemology issue. First though the dynamic modelling.

To get to some clear air, one of the most established approach to predicting the different dynamics of organisational and systems behaviour for design purposes is System Dynamics modelling. Its been around a long time. I produced my first models for optimising design outcomes in the early 1970s. In those days, everything had to be hand coded (in my case in Algol and Fortran) and many of us came from a background in non-linear complex feedback systems and modelled things from that perspective. System Dynamics is an easier and less mathematically complex approach that originated with Forrester in Massachusetts around the 1950s. By the 1970s and 80s the Stella/IThink and Vensim System Dynamics software was available and now there are many software programs, that do a variety of system dynamics and agent-based modelling. Here in Oceania the ‘ANZSYS’ systems group runs regular conferences. I’ve been a member of ANZSYS for around 20 years. Internationally, there are many academic and practitioner societies that focus on the dynamic modelling and prediction of social, technical and organisational behavioural dynamics, particularly those situaiotns e too complex to understand and think of either in a single individual’s mind or in groups.

Thinking about your post, I realised that you asking a systems person about dynamic modelling of adaptive structures and cracking jokes is a bit like someone suggesting to you that strategy in business is a new field and pointing to the many jokes about it. To find out more about system dynamics , the Wikipedia entry is

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_dynamics

illustrates some typical small scale dynamic models. The relationship between System Dynamics and Design has been close from the System Dynamics side, but I feel has assumed a kind of design that Art and Design designers might see as unusually complex than usual. I’m guessing this is why System Dynamicists tend to be au fait with Design and yet many designers are not so aware of System Dynamics. There’s a good overview of the situation in

http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=95520

synchronistically the same year I presented a paper on similar issues (Love, T. (2003). A Fork in the Road: Systems and Design. In T. Haslet & R. Sarah (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th ANZSYS Australian and New Zealand Systems Conference. Monash University. Melbourne: Monyx. –

http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2003/systems%20&%20design.htm

You asked about my experience with systems modelling. I’ve been involved with systems modelling since the early 1970s. This has taken a variety of forms as well as creating Systems Dynamics models to gain insights in to the likely behaviours of designs. Around 2000, I started some research projects aimed at applying system dynamic modeling to theory development. Theories became the system and sub-system objects as it were. A paper on this is at
 http://www.love.com.au/PublicationsTLminisite/2002/2002%20ANZSYS_LayerSDgraphs.htm

More recently, I’ve been focusing on the meta-modelling of super-complex socio-technical systems whose behaviours are shaped by power dynamics. Initially, this has been via extending the core axioms that underpin systems modelling, mainly via extending the Law of Requisite Variety and developing new systems concepts such ‘design infrastructure’ and ‘motivational information systems’ My focus has been on ‘super-complex’ socio-technical systems comprising multiple overlapping and dynamically changing sub-systems some of which sometimes exist in part or whole outside the system boundary; the sub-system elements are owned and affect multiple, overlapping and dynamically changing constituencies in which subs-system elements and constituencies have varying purposes and roles and motivations; and throughout there is a complex and dynamically changing distribution of formal and informal power and control. This work was initiatied by a challenge from Bryn Tellefsen to provide a better theoretical explanation and foundation for Machiavelli’s political guidelines in the Prince. Thus far, I have identified around a dozen axiomatic extensions to Ashby’s Law of Requisite Variety that work in that arena of which around half are published. These provide some meta-level constructs to inform action but the work to integrate them into more formal System Dynamics modelling requires funding.

You claim ‘ it’s not clear that there is any theory for this kind of work in our present world. I know of no workable systems for dynamic modeling of complex adaptive structures in the real world of organizations embedded in the context of national political life.’ This is simply a lack of knowledge on your part of a large body of systems modelling work done since the 50s and increasingly used by governments and non-government organisations.

At the risk of another broadside from you for listing urls of examples, here is a short list of documents that describe such projects:

http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/14/1/4.html

http://www.thecornwallisgroup.org/pdf/2003_10CVIIIall2.pdf

http://www.thwink.org/sustain/glossary/SystemDynamics.htm

http://www.ie.boun.edu.tr/~barlas/EOLSS-BarlasReprint.pdf

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01441647.2010.534570?journalCode=ttrv20#preview

http://cc.ist.psu.edu/BRIMS2013/archives/2010/papers/10-BRIMS-108%20Sokolowski.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/2206953/Applying_system_dynamics_to_foster_organizational_change_accountability_and_performance_in_the_public_sector_A_case-based_Italian_perspective

http://obssr.od.nih.gov/issh/2010/files/track_sdt/Thompson_SystemDynamicsReviewVol24No4_2008.pdf

The state of play with System Dynamics is as you stated with regard to modelling work in physics, chemistry and molecular biology - except that it addresses real world complex design situations that involve people, technology, emotions and ideas AND is especially focused on those aspects of design that are difficult or impossible to manage in the mind of a single individual or collaborative group. Its foundation is based on a common vocabulary, symbols have been defined carefully, and the operational mathematics used in each field is built on progressively advanced work subjected at every stage to empirical testing, peer review, and new theory – followed by empirical testing, peer review, and another round of new theory.

You wrote that you have not yet seen anything like this in design. That depends on the areas of design in which you have been looking. It has been there all the time, and I’m sure very little of this is new to MP.

I’ll post the response to your question on epistemology and theory next.

—snip—


Ken Friedman wrote to Terry Love:

—snip—

Your latest note to Ranjan has some bearing on the question you have not yet answered concerning epistemologically adequate theory. You write to Ranjan, “…I’ve found that organisational planning issues are so complex that they require symbolic visualisation. Understanding or predicting the *dynamics* of the outcomes of any intervention (such as national change to design education in India) involves predicting the ways things will change over time in a highly interacting political environment. This can often only be achieved by dynamic modelling and then watching the outcomes of the modeller play out to see what is likely to happen at different times.”

Ranjan has actually been working with such systems. Like most of us, he has had some successes and some failures. That’s why he advocates humility.

You’re suggesting that Ranjan should use dynamic modeling with abstract symbols. What kinds of symbols do you suggest? It seems to me that this points back to earlier threads on cliometrics. Or it may involve some kind psychohistory as practiced by the fictional mathematician Hari Selden in Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series.

While this works in science fiction, it’s not clear that there is any theory for this kind of work in our present world. I know of no workable systems for dynamic modeling of complex adaptive structures in the real world of organizations embedded in the context of national political life. To be sure, economists use this kind of modeling on limited aspects of economic systems, but there are many jokes about throwing out the data that don’t fit the theory.

What kinds of symbols permit us to undertake dynamic predictive modeling of complex adaptive structures in the real world of organizations embedded in the context of national political life? Have you actually done work of this kind, or is this merely a suggestion? If you have done this kind of work, have you published it in any form that allows others to understand and test your methods for themselves? Or, if you have not done this kind of work, can you suggest some responsible publications that demonstrate such a system or show it in operation?

These kinds of symbolic modeling work in disciplines such as physics, chemistry, or molecular biology. Scientists in those field have established a common vocabulary, symbols have been defined carefully, and the operational mathematics used in each field is built on several centuries of progressively advanced work subjected at every stage to empirical testing, peer review, and new theory – followed by empirical testing, peer review, and another round of new theory.

I don’t see anything like this in design, and I am not sure that this is even possible. That’s why Herbert Simon described design science as partly heuristic and partly rigorous. It’s also why effective designers work with stakeholders, and why they prototype and trial whatever they design through repeated iterations.

On numerous occasions, your posts suggest that there is an epistemologically valid theory of design allied to some form of dynamic symbolic modeling that allows people to design complex adaptive systems such as organizations embedded in political systems. You have repeatedly stated that design students can’t do this kind of work. While I agree with you that design students can’t do this work, the nature of this is not clear. What is it? How does it function? Who does it?

You have also stated that nearly none of us on this list can do this kind of epistemologically valid work using dynamic symbolic models for predictable outcomes. As I understand it, you argue that our problem is that we are lodged in or burdened by what you describe as an atheoretical discourse.

In contrast, you argue for a theory-driven discourse. Your posts seem to claim that you engage in theory-driven discourse and you suggest – without stating so directly –that you can indeed practice design by using epistemologically valid theory and work using dynamic symbolic models for predictable outcomes. What you have not done is to describe this kind of work or show that you have done it.

So I’ll ask again: How do you define epistemologically valid theory? What is your list of specific, interlocked criteria for epistemologically valid theory?

What kinds of symbols permit dynamic predictive modeling of complex adaptive structures in the real world of organizations and political life? Have you actually done work of this kind? If you have done this kind of work, have you published it? If you have not done this kind of work, do you know of any publications that demonstrate such a system in operation or even in theory?

—snip—

Terry Love wrote to M P Ranjan

—snip—

What kind of visualisation are you envisaging?

Mostly, I’ve found that organisational planning issues are so complex that they require symbolic visualisation. Understanding or predicting the *dynamics* of the outcomes of any intervention (such as national change to design education in India) involves predicting the ways things will change over time in a highly interacting political environment. This can often only be achieved by dynamic modelling and then watching the outcomes of the modeller play out to see what is likely to happen at different times. Some non-designers may be better skilled in these areas of visualisation than design students?

—snip—

M P Ranjan wrote:

—snip—

Wonderful post that brings a lot of clarity and it echoes many of my own experiences with big transformational design action that w have attempted here in India, very political and in some cases with a lot of conflict. Perhaps that is why w have been advocating humility as a desirable quality for design students and designers as well.

I am meeting the Academic Council of the Ahmedabad University today and hopefully our new course on Design Thinking for non design students will be approved today. The brief outline is available on my Academia,edu archive if anyone is interested. My real question is how can we introduce visualisation to non design students who do not have skills in drawing? Are there any references that you can share or experiences of such actions as I find this a real challenge as we go forward. Modelling and visualisation re such an integral part of my courses in design thinking and this is a first time for me to focus on non design students from commerce, management and the sciences and humnities etc.

—snip—





-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------