Policy Council Winter Email Meeting Discussion (III)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 19:50:48 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: SIG/Chapter/Other awards -- motion
Hi everyone,
My only comment on the motion, which I generally support, is that it seems to me more appropriate to leave the exact amount of time that award announcements will be allotted up to the conference organizers, rather than have it explicitly written into the policy. For example, the policy could state that the time allotted will be "quite brief and at the discretion of the program chair" or some such. It is a small nit, but it seems like a strange precedent to set, defining aspects of the conference program via policy.
Otherwise, the concept makes sense to me.
Best,
Deb
My only comment on the motion, which I generally support, is
that it seems to me more appropriate to leave the exact amount of time that award announcements will be allotted up to the conference organizers, rather than have it explicitly written into the policy. For example, the policy could state that the time allotted will bequite brief and at the discretion of the program chair’; or some such. It is a small nit, but it seems like a strange precedent to set, defining aspects of the conference program via policy.
Otherwise, the concept makes sense to me.
Best,
Deb
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 21:23:28 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
In-Reply-To: <
Hello everyone,
Bob's, Martin's and Dave's comments all point again to our need for a conference site selection strategy, something we have discussed but never developed at several previous PC meetings. I hope this is a responsibility the conference site selection committee will take on, to develop and propose a strategy to the PC.
Best,
Deb
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
[mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of David Packer
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Martin Schaffernicht's note below and at least one other comment on the necessity of "making money on conferences" concerns me. I see the conference as a key strategic force for increasing the impact of system dynamics on a world that really needs it. I also see a Society that has substantial financial resources (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and a Policy Council that has discussed the resulting opportunity for investment to build the field. With inputs from Martin and from Bob Cavana, it seems that the opportunity to make some good investments in the conference space that will yield long term positive returns needs to be a key element of our strategy.
Dave Packer
In a message dated 2/14/08 4:22:02 PM, writes:
Hi everybody,
Bob's link to chapters makes me think that the international conference probably menas different things to different people.
Looking at it as president of the latinamerican chapter, I see very Desirable effects of having the conference in this region. Also from any other reference point that has to do with "diffusion" or "promoting".
However, I guess that for the Society, these are not the main goals of the conference. I may be mistaken, but I understood that the conference is an important source of revenue for the Society.
I believe that the conference has had about 400 people attending (a litte more when in the USA), with a slowly growing tendency. If the public does not grow, and the fees do not change, I guess that costs are an important factor when you look at it per year.
Only if you look at a longer period of time might it make sense to accept an expensive conference, if there is a positive-polarity link to future conferences (more attendees, higher fees...).
Is this something which has been explicitly defined? Is there something
like a "basline"? Has someone studied what the effects of promotion or diffusion or strenghtening of local (chapter) structures has been after previous conferences (and why)? Maybe this might help to figure out a balance between the short term and long term interests of the Society implied by the conferences?
Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Mensaje citado por Bob Cavana < >:
hi all,
i think one factor that seems to be overlooked in this conversation is the 'time' dimension, or even thedt' between conferences ( a very important SD concept!).
currently thedt' between conferences in USA is2 years', UK/Europe2-3 years, Asia 10? years, Middle East?, Africa?, South America?,ROW ??
perhaps we need to consider the SDS conference rotational policy, and then allow the chapters greater influence over the exact location.
for example if we (SDS) had a 5-10 year plan over which region the conference is going to be held in then chapters can start preparing for a specific year in the future.
under the current system it seems that the conferences are allocated to the best bidders, so theloser' may have to wait 10-20 years for another conference hosting opportunity if outside USA or UK/Europe.
all the best,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members on behalf of Henk Akkermans
Sent: Fri 15/02/2008 7:03 a.m.
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Dear everybody:
I understand Bob and Brian's point. However, it comes across to this Dutchman as a bit arbitrary, or one might even say imperial "divide et impera". Twice in Japan, yes, but once in Tokyo and once in Kyoto. Twice in Holland, yes, but once in Utrecht, once in Nijmegen. Many, many times in the US, but not always in New England and then not always, but repeatedly, in Boston. Three times in the UK, but once in Sterling, once in London, once in Oxford. Or is that once in Schotland and twice in England? Anyway, as I said, it appears to me to rather arbitrary to choose between cities, regions, countries or even continents. The main thing is not procedural justice but what is best for the Society, I think.
I fully realize there is no arithmetic solution to this luxury choice, but feel tempted to speak up for my far-away love, as one should, on Valentine's day, perhaps.
Fond regards, to everyone,
Henk Akkermans.
Op 14-feb-2008, om 17:58 heeft Brian Dangerfield het volgende geschreven:
Colleagues:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
-------------------------------------------------
David W. Packer
Systems Thinking Collaborative
7 Chestnut Ln., Bedford, MA 01730
781.275.4056
www.stcollab.com
**************
Hello everyone,
Bob's, Martin’s and Dave’s comments all point again to our need for a conference site selection strategy, something we have discussed but never developed at several previous PC meetings. I hope this is a responsibility the conference site selection committee will take on, to develop and propose a strategy to the PC.
Best,
Deb
-------------------------------------------------
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
On Behalf Of David Packer
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Martin Schaffernicht's note below and at least one other comment on the necessity of making money on conferences’ concerns me. I see the conference as a key strategic force for increasing the impact of system dynamics on a world that really needs it. I also see a Society that has substantial financial resources (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and a Policy Council that has discussed the resulting opportunity for investment to build the field. With inputs from Martin and from Bob Cavana, it seems that the opportunity to make some good investments in the conference space that will yield long term positive returns needs to be a key element of our strategy.
Dave Packer
-------------------------------------------------
In a message dated 2/14/08 4:22:02 PM, writes:
Hi everybody,
Bob's link to chapters makes me think that the international conference probably menas different things to different people.
Looking at it as president of the latinamerican chapter, I see very desirable effects of having the conference in this region. Also from any other reference point that has to do withdiffusion’ orpromoting’.
However, I guess that for the Society, these are not the main goals of the conference. I may be mistaken, but I understood that the conference is an important source of revenue for the Society.
I believe that the conference has had about 400 people attending (a litte more when in the USA, with a slowly growing tendency. If the public does not grow, and the fees do not change, I guess that costs are an important factor when you look at it per year.
Only if you look at a longer period of time might it make sense to accept an expensive conference, if there is a positive-polarity link to future conferences (more attendees, higher fees...).
Is this something which has been explicitly defined? Is there something like abasline’? Has someone studied what the effects of promotion or diffusion or strenghtening of local (chapter) structures has been after previous conferences (and why)? Maybe this might help to figure out a balance between the short term and long term interests of the Society implied by the conferences?
Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
-------------------------------------------------
Mensaje citado por Bob Cavana < >:
hi all,
i think one factor that seems to be overlooked in this conversation is thetime' dimension, or even thedt' between conferences ( a very important SD concept!).
currently thedt' between conferences in USA is 2 years', UK/Europe 2-3 years, Asia 10? years, Middle East?,Africa?, South America ,ROW ??
perhaps we need to consider the SDS conference rotational policy, and then allow the chapters greater influence over the exact location.
for example if we (SDS) had a 5-10 year plan over which region the conference is going to be held in then chapters can start preparing for a specific year in the future.
under the current system it seems that the conferences are allocated to the best bidders, so theloser' may have to wait 10-20 years for another conference hosting opportunity if outside USA or UK/Europe.
all the best,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members on behalf of Henk Akkermans
Sent: Fri 15/02/2008 7:03 a.m.
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Dear everybody:
I understand Bob and Brian's point. However, it comes across to this Dutchman as a bit arbitrary, or one might even say imperial "divide et impera". Twice in Japan, yes, but once in Tokyo and once in Kyoto. Twice in Holland, yes, but once in Utrecht, once in Nijmegen. Many, many times in the US, but not always in New England and then not always, but repeatedly, in Boston. Three times in the UK, but once in Sterling, once in London, once in Oxford. Or is that once in Schotland and twice in England? Anyway, as I said, it appears to me to rather arbitrary to choose between cities, regions, countries or even continents. The main thing is not procedural justice but what is best for the Society, I think.
I fully realize there is no arithmetic solution to this luxury choice, but feel tempted to speak up for my far-away love, as one should, on Valentine's day, perhaps.
Fond regards, to everyone,
Henk Akkermans.
Op 14-feb-2008, om 17:58 heeft Brian Dangerfield het volgende geschreven:
Colleagues:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:15:21 -0500
From: Bob Eberlein <
Subject: Re: SIG/Chapter/Other awards -- motion
In-Reply-To: <004201c86f85$f3a15830$0301000a@fortuna
Hi Everyone,
I tend to agree with Deb that this motion is probably too detailed for to be adopted as a policy. I do think it is appropriate to show support for both having and announcing SIG and Chapter awards (though I don't think they particularly need permission to do this).
The conference organizers do need guidelines on what is OK and what is not OK to use conference time on - and what kind of time. Though I perceive that as the intent of this motion, I am afraid it might not really be that helpful. Having this one thing clearly spelled out with so much else left unspecified seems like it just makes things more confused.
We do need a populated awards committee to help clarify issues like this with the conference organizers. So if we can get that I think we are done.
Bob Eberlein
Deborah Campbell wrote:
Hi everyone,
My only comment on the motion, which I generally support, is that it seems to me more appropriate to leave the exact amount of time that award announcements will be allotted up to the conference organizers, rather than have it explicitly written into the policy. For example, the policy could state that the time allotted will be “quite brief and at the discretion of the program chair” or some such. It is a small nit, but it seems like a strange precedent to set, defining aspects of the conference program via policy.
Otherwise, the concept makes sense to me.
Best,
Deb
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 07:12:11 -0500
From: d andersen <
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
In-Reply-To: <
As the Society's VP for Finance I note that the Society is incorporated as a 501 C (3) corporation (this is the legal status of non-profits or "charities" in the USA) with the legal purpose of promoting the field of SD.
As such, our legal prupose should not and can not be "to make money". If that we so, we would be a for profit operation.
That said, if we do not remain financially solvent we can not meet our purpose. In the not to distant past, we have experienced confernce losses of the scale that would have threatened our existence if left unchecked for two or three years. We have worked hard to avoid ever having to repeat that situation...
David Andersen
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, David Packer wrote:
Martin Schaffernicht's note below and at least one other comment on the necessity of making money on conferences’ concerns me. I see the conference as a key strategic force for increasing the impact of system dynamics on a world that really needs it. I also see a Society that has substantial financial resources (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and a Policy Council that has discussed the resulting opportunity for investment to build the field. With inputs from Martin and from Bob Cavana, it seems that the opportunity to make some good investments in the conference space that will yield long term positive returns needs to be a key element of our strategy.
Dave Packer
In a message dated 2/14/08 4:22:02 PM, writes:
Hi everybody,
Bob's link to chapters makes me think that the international conference probably menas different things to different people.
Looking at it as president of the latinamerican chapter, I see very desirable effects of having the conference in this region. Also from any other reference point that has to do with "diffusion" or "promoting".
However, I guess that for the Society, these are not the main goals of the conference. I may be mistaken, but I understood that the conference is an important source of revenue for the Society.
I believe that the conference has had about 400 people attending (a litte more when in the USA), with a slowly growing tendency. If the public does not grow, and the fees do not change, I guess that costs are an important factor when you look at it per year.
Only if you look at a longer period of time might it make sense to accept an expensive conference, if there is a positive-polarity link to future conferences (more attendees, higher fees...).
Is this something which has been explicitly defined? Is there something like a "basline"? Has someone studied what the effects of promotion or diffusion or strenghtening of local (chapter) structures has been after previous conferences (and why)? Maybe this might help to figure out a balance between the short term and long term interests of the Society implied by the conferences?
Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Mensaje citado por Bob Cavana < >:
hi all,
i think one factor that seems to be overlooked in this conversation is the time' dimension, or even thedt' between conferences ( a very important SD concept!).
currently thedt' between conferences in USA is2 years', UK/Europe2-3 years, Asia 10? years, Middle East?, Africa?, South America?,ROW ??
perhaps we need to consider the SDS conference rotational policy, and then allow the chapters greater influence over the exact location.
for example if we (SDS) had a 5-10 year plan over which region the conference is going to be held in then chapters can start preparing for a specific year in the future.
under the current system it seems that the conferences are allocated to the best bidders, so theloser' may have to wait 10-20 years for another conference hosting opportunity if outside USA or UK/Europe.
all the best,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
on behalf of Henk Akkermans
Sent: Fri 15/02/2008 7:03 a.m.
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Dear everybody:
I understand Bob and Brian's point. However, it comes across to this Dutchman as a bit arbitrary, or one might even say imperial "divide et impera". Twice in Japan, yes, but once in Tokyo and once in Kyoto. Twice in Holland, yes, but once in Utrecht, once in Nijmegen. Many, many times in the US, but not always in New England and then not always, but repeatedly, in Boston. Three times in the UK, but once in Sterling, once in London, once in Oxford. Or is that once in Schotland and twice in England? Anyway, as I said, it appears to me to rather arbitrary to choose between cities, regions, countries or even continents. The main thing is not procedural justice but what is best for the Society, I think.
I fully realize there is no arithmetic solution to this luxury choice, but feel tempted to speak up for my far-away love, as one should, on Valentine's day, perhaps.
Fond regards, to everyone,
Henk Akkermans.
Op 14-feb-2008, om 17:58 heeft Brian Dangerfield het volgende geschreven:
Colleagues:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
-------------------------------------------------
David W. Packer
Systems Thinking Collaborative
7 Chestnut Ln., Bedford, MA 01730
781.275.4056www.stcollab.com
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 08:36:55 -0500
From: System Dynamics Society <
Subject: From Qifan Wang: One of criteria/ strategies for Conference site selection and President election (fwd)
From: Qifan Wang <
To:
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:00 PM Peking time
Subject: One of criteria/ strategies for Conference site selection and President election
Dear Everyone,
I was very glad to read the comments and suggestions from Bob C., Brian Dangerfield, Henk Akkermans,Martin S., Dave P. and Deb C. and would like to restate my previous idea below to share with all of you.
Recognizing the difference and the disequilibrium between the numbers of members and academic levels of SD in developed countries and developing countries and in SD society, which belongs to geography problem and may exist for another several decades, I'd suggest and explain a running mode of electing the President of SD Society and selecting the Conference site.
(Based on The Next 50 Years of System Dynamics Qifan Wang,posted to the
2007 PC winter eMeetings, January 11, 2007 )
1) A running mode of electing the President of SD Society
Suppose: we'd divide the whole into developed counties (America: A, Europe: E) and developing countries (Asia, Africa, and other countries: O). Taking 12 years for a period, and the cycling should be A E A O A E A O A E A O. As we see that there's an American president every other year (1/2), a European president every three years (1/4), and an Other's president also every three years (1/4). If taking the next 25-30 years as the transition, it should gradually transit into an equilibrium distribution of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 later on.
2) The selection of the international conference's location can refer to the election of the President.
3) These two startings may not be consistent.
All the best,
Qifan
***********************************
Past President, S D Society and China Chapter
Professor, Fudan and Tongji Universities
Dean, Development Institute of Tongji University
Vice President of Research Association of Systems Science Society of China
President, the Shanghai Club of MIT Alumni
Tel: 021-65984562(o); Email: ;
----- Original Message -----
From: Deborah Campbell
To:
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Hello everyone,
Bob's, Martin's and Dave's comments all point again to our need for a conference site selection strategy, something we have discussed but never developed at several previous PC meetings. I hope this is a responsibility the conference site selection committee will take on, to develop and propose a strategy to the PC.
Best,
Deb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members [mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of David Packer
Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 2:25 PM
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Martin Schaffernicht's note below and at least one other comment on the necessity of "making money on conferences" concerns me. I see the conference as a key strategic force for increasing the impact of system dynamics on a world that really needs it. I also see a Society that has substantial financial resources (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and a Policy Council that has discussed the resulting opportunity for investment to build the field. With inputs from Martin and from Bob Cavana, it seems that the opportunity to make some good investments in the conference space that will yield long term positive returns needs to be a key element of our strategy.
Dave Packer
In a message dated 2/14/08 4:22:02 PM, writes:
Hi everybody,
Bob's link to chapters makes me think that the international conference probably menas different things to different people.
Looking at it as president of the latinamerican chapter, I see very desirable effects of having the conference in this region. Also from any other reference point that has to do with "diffusion" or "promoting".
However, I guess that for the Society, these are not the main goals of the conference. I may be mistaken, but I understood that the conference is an important source of revenue for the Society.
I believe that the conference has had about 400 people attending (a litte more when in the USA), with a slowly growing tendency. If the public does not grow, and the fees do not change, I guess that costs are an important factor when you look at it per year.
Only if you look at a longer period of time might it make sense to accept an expensive conference, if there is a positive-polarity link to future conferences (more attendees, higher fees...).
Is this something which has been explicitly defined? Is there something like a "basline"? Has someone studied what the effects of promotion or diffusion or strenghtening of local (chapter) structures has been after previous conferences (and why)? Maybe this might help to figure out a balance between the short term and long term interests of the Society implied by the conferences?
Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Mensaje citado por Bob Cavana < >:
hi all,
i think one factor that seems to be overlooked in this conversation is the time' dimension, or even thedt' between conferences ( a very important SD concept!).
currently thedt' between conferences in USA is2 years', UK/Europe2-3 years, Asia 10? years, Middle East?, Africa?, South America?,ROW ??
perhaps we need to consider the SDS conference rotational policy, and then allow the chapters greater influence over the exact location.
for example if we (SDS) had a 5-10 year plan over which region the conference is going to be held in then chapters can start preparing for a specific year in the future.
under the current system it seems that the conferences are allocated to the best bidders, so theloser' may have to wait 10-20 years for another conference hosting opportunity if outside USA or UK/Europe.
all the best,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
________________________________
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members on behalf of Henk Akkermans
Sent: Fri 15/02/2008 7:03 a.m.
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
Dear everybody:
I understand Bob and Brian's point. However, it comes across to this Dutchman as a bit arbitrary, or one might even say imperial "divide et impera". Twice in Japan, yes, but once in Tokyo and once in Kyoto. Twice in Holland, yes, but once in Utrecht, once in Nijmegen. Many, many times in the US, but not always in New England and then not always, but repeatedly, in Boston. Three times in the UK, but once in Sterling, once in London, once in Oxford. Or is that once in Schotland and twice in England? Anyway, as I said, it appears to me to rather arbitrary to choose between cities, regions, countries or even continents. The main thing is not procedural justice but what is best for the Society, I think.
I fully realize there is no arithmetic solution to this luxury choice, but feel tempted to speak up for my far-away love, as one should, on Valentine's day, perhaps.
Fond regards, to everyone,
Henk Akkermans.
Op 14-feb-2008, om 17:58 heeft Brian Dangerfield het volgende geschreven:
Colleagues:
I find Bob Cavana has jumped ahead of me but I will re-iterate his points!!
We have had a conference in Japan once before. So, despite the journey time from the airport (to be weighed against the other advantages of a one-stop location and relative cheapness), I am inclined to suggest we try Korea this time.
Best from a UK with 14-16 deg temps mid-Feb.
Brian.
Brian Dangerfield
Professor of Systems Modelling &
Executive Editor, System Dynamics Review
Salford Business School
University of Salford
Faculty of Business, Law & The Built Environment
Maxwell Building
The Crescent
Salford M5 4WT
U.K.
Tel: (44) 161 295 5315
Fax (44) 161 295 4947
-------------------------------------------------
David W. Packer
Systems Thinking Collaborative
7 Chestnut Ln., Bedford, MA 01730
781.275.4056
www.stcollab.com
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:17:24 -0300
Reply-To:
From: Martin Schaffernicht <
Organization: Universidad de Talca
Subject: Re: From Qifan Wang: One of criteria/ strategies for Conference site selection and President election (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <
Hi everyone,
Qufan Wang suggests a rule that would assure a certain sequence of country groups to be the origin (or residence) of the Society's presidents. I understand that this would be a policy that helps to overcome the mentined disequilibrium between developed and developing countries.
I may be ignorant of previous explanations, but I do not find it obvious how the proposed policy would have a positive net effect on the disequilibrium (and an acceptable number of side effects of other aspects of the development of the Society and SD).
I suppose the president hs to preside over the whole Society, and there will be other issues (not only the disequilibrium) that require his attention. I'd hope that if the disequilibrium is recognized as an important issue, only individuals who promise progress will arrive at the presidency. But then it would not be so important which country the president comes from (or lives in). On the other hand, if the country of origin or residence becomes such a strong criterion, wouldn't this diminuish the stock of individuals from which to chose the president?
I do agree that there is a disequilibrium. Id' say this has something to do with time (the SD- movement started in the USA first), language (I'd bet the ease of working in english has an influence), stage of development (size of the stock of academics and consultants) and some cultural aspects. The question is then: how to assure the growth of SD in the lagging parts of the world is the fastest desirable growth? I believe this depends strongly on the availability of material (books, software, models, simulators) in the local language AND a stock of people who are prepared to teach this to schoolkids and adults. Again, the stage of advance of the school-movement in the USA is the fruit of many years of work with the help of influential people. In Chile we are just starting now, so: how many years may this take, and what does it depend on? It is only my opinion, but I believe that if the Society can give support to this kind of work, it will help to reduce the disequilibrium without compromising other important issues.
Best,
Martin Schafernicht
System Dynamics Society escribió:
From: Qifan Wang <
To:
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:00 PM Peking time
Subject: One of criteria/ strategies for Conference site selection and
President election
Dear Everyone,
I was very glad to read the comments and suggestions from Bob C., Brian Dangerfield, Henk Akkermans,Martin S., Dave P. and Deb C. and would like to restate my previous idea below to share with all of you.
Recognizing the difference and the disequilibrium between the numbers of members and academic levels of SD in developed countries and developing countries and in SD society, which belongs to geography problem and may exist for another several decades, I'd suggest and explain a running mode of electing the President of SD Society and selecting the Conference site. (Based on The Next 50 Years of System Dynamics Qifan Wang,posted to the 2007 PC winter eMeetings, January 11, 2007 )
1) A running mode of electing the President of SD Society
Suppose: we'd divide the whole into developed counties (America: A, Europe: E) and developing countries (Asia, Africa, and other countries: O). Taking 12 years for a period, and the cycling should be A E A O A E A O A E A O. As we see that there's an American president every other year (1/2), a European president every three years (1/4), and an Other's president also every three years (1/4). If taking the next 25-30 years as the transition, it should gradually transit into an equilibrium distribution of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 later on.
2) The selection of the international conference's location can refer to the election of the President.
3) These two startings may not be consistent.
All the best,
Qifan
***********************************
Past President, S D Society and China Chapter
Professor, Fudan and Tongji Universities
Dean, Development Institute of Tongji University
Vice President of Research Association of Systems Science Society of China
President, the Shanghai Club of MIT Alumni
Tel: 021-65984562(o); Email: ;
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 17:19:12 +0000
From: Graham Winch <
Subject: Re: From Qifan Wang: One of criteria/ strategies for Conference site selection and President election (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <
Hello all,
I am a Past President and not a current PC member - I generally avoid joining in these discussions as I am happy to leave deliberations to the current PC members. However, I felt I had to respond to Qifan's message.
I am naturally opposed to any quota system for individual appointments in any sphere. While it is obviously healthy that presidents should come from a range of geographic regions (and other demographic criteria), I believe the paramount criterion for every presidential election must always be the "best person for the job". Incidentally, I think the spread of presidents over the years has been broad and generally reflective of the Society's membership.
I am happier with quotas or cycles for the conference. Maybe the membership data contradicts this, but I think that an alternating pattern of Americas (including Canada and Latin/South America from time to time) and Europe, with occasional visits to Asia, Australasia, Middle East, maybe Africa in due course, also reflects society membership, and the pattern over the years has also worked pretty well.
I also thank David for reminding us that while we always have to be mindful of Society finances, and the critical role conferences play in these, our objectives concern serving members and developing the field.
Regards to all, Graham
Dr. Graham W. Winch
Professor Emeritus in Business Analysis
University of Plymouth
+44 (0)1548 830816
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 09:32:18 -0800
From: Deborah Campbell <
Subject: Why rotate the presidency?
In-Reply-To: <
Martin eloquently describes the stage of SD adoption in Latin America and the issues Latin America faces growing the field of SD, and what might be done to address them, then says, "It is only my opinion, but I believe that if the Society can give support to this kind of work, it will help to reduce the disequilibrium without compromising other important issues."
Martin, someone like you -- who comes from Latin America, understands the current situation in LA, and knows how to support the growth of SD there -- is the best person to explain the need for, lobby for, and implement the kind of support necessary to grow SD in LA. Much research has demonstrated that local development work is best done by those who live in and understand the local region -- not those who live somewhere else.
This is the connection between which region the President comes from and the belief that she will make important progress while in office for her geographical region.
Best,
Deb
-----Original Message-----
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
[mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of Martin Schaffernicht
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:17 AM
To:
Subject: Re: From Qifan Wang: One of criteria/ strategies for Conference site selection and President election (fwd)
Hi everyone,
Qufan Wang suggests a rule that would assure a certain sequence of country groups to be the origin (or residence) of the Society's presidents. I understand that this would be a policy that helps to overcome the mentined disequilibrium between developed and developing countries.
I may be ignorant of previous explanations, but I do not find it obvious how the proposed policy would have a positive net effect on the disequilibrium (and an acceptable number of side effects of other aspects of the development of the Society and SD).
I suppose the president hs to preside over the whole Society, and there will be other issues (not only the disequilibrium) that require his attention. I'd hope that if the disequilibrium is recognized as an important issue, only individuals who promise progress will arrive at the presidency. But then it would not be so important which country the president comes from (or lives in). On the other hand, if the country of origin or residence becomes such a strong criterion, wouldn't this diminuish the stock of individuals from which to chose the president?
I do agree that there is a disequilibrium. Id' say this has something to do with time (the SD- movement started in the USA first), language (I'd bet the ease of working in english has an influence), stage of development (size of the stock of academics and consultants) and some cultural aspects. The question is then: how to assure the growth of SD in the lagging parts of the world is the fastest desirable growth? I believe this depends strongly on the availability of material (books, software, models, simulators) in the local language AND a stock of people who are prepared to teach this to schoolkids and adults. Again, the stage of advance of the school-movement in the USA is the fruit of many years of work with the help of influential people. In Chile we are just starting now, so: how many years may this take, and what does it depend on? It is only my opinion, but I believe that if the Society can give support to this kind of work, it will help to reduce the disequilibrium without compromising other important issues.
Best,
Martin Schafernicht
System Dynamics Society escribió:
From: Qifan Wang <
To:
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 6:00 PM Peking time
Subject: One of criteria/ strategies for Conference site selection and President election
Dear Everyone,
I was very glad to read the comments and suggestions from Bob C., Brian Dangerfield, Henk Akkermans,Martin S., Dave P. and Deb C. and would like to restate my previous idea below to share with all of you.
Recognizing the difference and the disequilibrium between the numbers of members and academic levels of SD in developed countries and developing countries and in SD society, which belongs to geography problem and may exist for another several decades, I'd suggest and explain a running mode of electing the President of SD Society and selecting the Conference site.
(Based on The Next 50 Years of System Dynamics Qifan Wang,posted to the 2007 PC winter eMeetings, January 11, 2007 )
1) A running mode of electing the President of SD Society
Suppose: we'd divide the whole into developed counties (America: A, Europe: E) and developing countries (Asia, Africa, and other countries: O). Taking 12 years for a period, and the cycling should be A E A O A E A O A E A O. As we see that there's an American president every other year (1/2), a European president every three years (1/4), and an Other's president also every three years (1/4). If taking the next 25-30 years as the transition, it should gradually transit into an equilibrium distribution of 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 later on.
2) The selection of the international conference's location can refer to the election of the President.
3) These two startings may not be consistent.
All the best,
Qifan
***********************************
Past President, S D Society and China Chapter
Professor, Fudan and Tongji Universities
Dean, Development Institute of Tongji University
Vice President of Research Association of Systems Science Society of China
President, the Shanghai Club of MIT Alumni
Tel: 021-65984562(o); Email: ;
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 10:14:37 -0500
From: Ginny Wiley <
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
In-Reply-To: <
I've tried to stay out of this discussion, as I'm no longer on the pc. But...having been on the PC for a term and then VP chapters for several terms, I want to weigh in.
I totally agree with Bob Cavana, Martin Schaffernicht, Dave Packer, and the others who support a conference strategy of inclusion and outreach. While I agree with some of the cautions David Anderson raises, I think we can take responsibility to see that conference losses in a given year would NOT go "unchecked" for two or three years.
In point of fact, every time we have a conference in Europe or in North America our colleagues in the pacific rim and in South America make the expensive trek (often with unfavorable currency exchanges) to share in the community of the conference. We've talked about the growth in chapters as a strong indicator of the health of the society, yet we continue to ignore, what to me, is our responsibility to serve our global members (and potential members).
I certainly want our conferences to be profitable over some reasonable period of time, but think we have an obligation to consider a responsible global strategy.
Best,
Ginny
Ginny Wiley
President
Pegasus Communications, Inc.
Email
Voice 781-398-9700 Fax 781-894-7175
http://www.pegasuscom.com
-----Original Message-----
From: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
[mailto:SDS-PC@listserv.albany.edu] On Behalf Of d andersen
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2008 7:12 AM
To:
Subject: Re: 2010 Conference
As the Society's VP for Finance I note that the Society is incorporated as a 501 C (3) corporation (this is the legal status of non-profits or "charities" in the USA) with the legal purpose of promoting the field of SD. As such, our legal prupose should not and can not be "to make money". If that we so, we would be a for profit operation.
That said, if we do not remain financially solvent we can not meet our purpose. In the not to distant past, we have experienced confernce losses of the scale that would have threatened our existence if left unchecked for two or three years. We have worked hard to avoid ever having to repeat that situation...
David Andersen
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008, David Packer wrote:
Martin Schaffernicht's note below and at least one other comment on the necessity of "making money on conferences" concerns me. I see the conference as a key strategic force for increasing the impact of system dynamics on a world that really needs it. I also see a Society that has substantial financial resources (hundreds of thousands of dollars) and a Policy Council that has discussed the resulting opportunity for investment to build the field.
With inputs from Martin and from Bob Cavana, it seems that the opportunity to make some good investments in the conference space that will yield long term positive returns needs to be a key element of our strategy.
Dave Packer
In a message dated 2/14/08 4:22:02 PM, writes:
Hi everybody,
Bob's link to chapters makes me think that the international conference probably menas different things to different people.
Looking at it as president of the latinamerican chapter, I see very desirable effects of having the conference in this region. Also from any other reference point that has to do with "diffusion" or "promoting".
However, I guess that for the Society, these are not the main goals of the conference. I may be mistaken, but I understood that the conference is an important source of revenue for the Society.
I believe that the conference has had about 400 people attending (a litte more when in the USA), with a slowly growing tendency. If the public does not grow, and the fees do not change, I guess that costs are an important factor when you look at it per year.
Only if you look at a longer period of time might it make sense to accept an expensive conference, if there is a positive-polarity link to future conferences (more attendees, higher fees...).
Is this something which has been explicitly defined? Is there something like a "basline"? Has someone studied what the effects of promotion or diffusion or strenghtening of local (chapter) structures has been after previous conferences (and why)? Maybe this might help to figure out a balance between the short term and long term interests of the Society implied by the conferences?
Best,
Martin Schaffernicht
Mensaje citado por Bob Cavana < >:
hi all,
i think one factor that seems to be overlooked in this conversation is the time' dimension, or even thedt' between conferences ( a very important SD concept!).
currently thedt' between conferences in USA is2 years', UK/Europe2-3 years, Asia 10? years, Middle East?, Africa?, South America?,ROW ??
perhaps we need to consider the SDS conference rotational policy, and then allow the chapters greater influence over the exact location.
for example if we (SDS) had a 5-10 year plan over which region the conference is going to be held in then chapters can start preparing for a specific year in the future.
under the current system it seems that the conferences are allocated to the best bidders, so theloser' may have to wait 10-20 years for another conference hosting opportunity if outside USA or UK/Europe.
all the best,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Victoria Management School
[and still more]