Abstract for: A Rose By Any Other Name? The change from ‘industrial dynamics’ to ‘system dynamics’ and its deeper significance for the field

Starting an SDM course might involve talking about how the field emerged. It should also involve reference to ‘Industrial Dynamics’ - but then explaining why that book has the ‘wrong’ name. A common approach to this anomaly is to observe that, “The name change came in the late-60s” before swiftly moving on. This paper instead pauses and considers quite what happened with the name of the field. This account is derived solely from the written record, meaning MIT memos, transcribed speeches and published papers and books. The distinct advantages of this approach are that the sources used are contemporary and are readily available - so other researchers can check and draw their own interpretations. The main conclusion is that when the name ‘system dynamics’ finally appeared in 1970 it had a much deeper significance: it reflected the fact that the applicability and potential of Forrester’s ideas were not fully appreciated in the 1950s. In fact it took some years of work for many researchers to explore, clarify and develop them, and to grasp their versatility and hence their reach. The change from ‘industrial dynamics’ to ‘system dynamics’ is an indication of a profound shift in ideas about what the field is, a deeper understanding of what it could do and might do in the future. That is its real significance for the field and for all who work in it.