=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 08:52:45 -0500
Reply-To:List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: System Dynamics Society < >
Subject: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
Dear PC Members and Other Interested Parties:
I have been asked to comment on motion #106. The motion has two quite different components. Part A of the motion takes a current activity and makes it more simple, efficient, and convenient for the home office. Part
B of the motion creates new activities. Taken as a whole these two components have many positive and some negative features that all trade off and, for me, to come to a final position was complicated. However, in sum, I do support the motion and recommend approval.
Part A of the motion: It makes the most sense to me to make the conferences as easy as possible to reach for the greatest number of people. If a conference is held in "City XYZ," and that location is a very far distance from all but one of our emerging system dynamics centers, it makes it very difficult for everyone else to attend. Fixed sites for the annual conference will make it easier to attend. We will still have international participation in the conferences (and likely more, as costs are better controlled and conference quality rises).
Efficiency at the home office will increase when organizing a conference with fixed sites. For the NYC and DC conferences, I participated in the initial investigation to identify possible sites. This included acquiring and comparing multiple proposals, narrowing down to two candidate proposals for the PC to consider, and then negotiating the contract with the hotel. The great benefit is that once these relationships have been established for the fixed conference sites, it will streamline the hotel logistics for the home office for future conferences at the same site. We would work directly with the hotel from the very beginning, and with repeat business the hotel would know our desires and the specifics of our conference. Our annual conference organization will have greater efficiencies and more uniform quality.
I can say from experience that running the conference was much more efficient in 2007, in every way--working with the same hotel and staff, same vendors, etc at the Seaport Hotel.
The choice to consider other locations, included in the motion, leaves the door open for enthusiastic groups to propose and host a conference. These sites would be compared to the fixed site.
I recognize that Part A will make it harder for some members to attract the conference to their locality. However, Part B of the motion will make it easier for more places to launch significant system dynamics activities.
The combination of Part A and Part B of this motion makes the results good for both the Society and the individual.
Part B of the motion is an aspiration but short on specifics. It offers all our emerging centers around the world an opportunity for technical assistance to build the necessary expertise in system dynamics modeling at "home." To accomplish the goals of Part B, there must be strong local initiatives by our Chapters, SIGs, members, other centers, universities, and organizations. Strong initiatives and local enthusiasm are required to make the events and the centers successful. The local system dynamics centers will need to show the Society how and where we can help. It is more efficient for a few people a year to travel to places like "City XYZ" to give focused, substantive training than to get 400 people to travel there.
It's important to learn as we go--what would be most effective? Where is the demand? What will the Society be able to do? Will the increased financial health of the Society produced by Part A be enough to channel and create more focused activities of Part B? How fast can this be put into practice?
Other considerations:
Implicit in the motion is the elimination of locally recruited sponsors.
There are disadvantages, but also some advantages. The advantages are:
--Reduce or eliminate the risk that local organizers are unable to deliver on the arrangements they promised or hold to the budget.
--Clearer conference budgeting.
Both these items will affect the registration fee.
This motion eliminates the local team's labor-intensive, one-time task of finding a hotel.
The existing organizational partnership of three components (local team, program committee, home office) is reduced to two. There may be more responsibility on the program committee, as well as the home office.
The motion removes the potential funding source of locally recruited sponsors. But, we may be able to get more sponsorship from the higher density of major businesses and users of system dynamics in Europe and
North America.
In closing, another reason that I support this motion overall is that it focuses attention on great possibilities, opens up new opportunities, and encourages strengthening the field of system dynamics. Although Part B is not yet well defined, it promises to be of great value and, to me, presents exciting potential.
Best, Roberta
Roberta L. Spencer office@systemdynamics.org
Executive Director phone (518) 442-3865
SYSTEM DYNAMICS SOCIETY fax (518) 442-3398
Milne 300, Rockefeller College
135 Western Avenue
University at Albany, State University of New York
Albany, NY, 12222, U.S.A. http://www.systemdynamics.org/
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 09:01:57 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: Bob Eberlein < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
In-Reply-To: < >
Hi Everyone,
I wanted to thank Roberta for her thoughtful comments on this and certainly would like to hear the ideas and opinions of others.
My biggest concern with this motion as it stands is that there definitively is no default location for a conference in Europe. Though it is not explicitly in the motion, Roberta's interpretation, which does make sense, is that such a location would use a hotel or integrated conference facility. In Europe, our experience with this type of Venue is limited to Palermo and Athens - the two financially worst conferences we have had. While I do think it makes good sense to investigate such locations, I think what we discover may mean we need to recast somewhat the conference, by either charging a higher registration fee or just living with substantially higher hotel costs.
That, in a sense, brings me to my second concern, which is around finances. Moving to a fixed location model may decrease some expenses, but it will also preclude a good deal of local sponsorship which has been quite significant for some conferences. So it is not really clear that there will be more resources in the form of money to pursue other goals.
I am actually strongly in favor of the intent of this motion. I just wonder if we know enough now to attempt to commit to the course of action it implies. In some sense we don't even know what that course of action is, given the uncertainty associated with the determination of a fixed or default location in Europe. Even in the US there is some ambiguity, though with New York, twice in Boston and the Upcoming Washington conference I feel we do have a pretty good handle on this.
Bob Eberlein
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 10:02:45 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: John Sterman < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
In-Reply-To: < >
Bob raises some important issues. I don't believe, however, that a conference in Europe must necessarily be held in a hotel, nor that if we do so, the appropriate exemplars for that experience are the conferences in Palermo and Athens.
Re the latter point, there are dozens of high quality, reasonably priced hotels with conference centers in Europe, many of which are close to major gateway cities with international flights. These facilities specialize in conferences for corporate, academic and other groups; with the state of the economy, we should not find much trouble finding good facilities and favorable rates.
Re the former point, we had fine conferences using University facilities in places like Oxford and Nijmegen; many universities increasingly seek and provide services for conferences to utilize their facilities in the summer months. There are many universities in Europe that are also located in or close to major gateway cities. It is conceivable that we could hold the conference each year in such a venue, generating the same benefits of continuity a fixed hotel site would offer.
I am confident that Roberta will be able to find many suitable potential sites and negotiate a fair and favorable deal for the society.
Certainly we will have to do some learning by doing. But under the motion, much more of what we learn will continue to be relevant for the future, whereas under the current system, most of what is learned is necessarily site-specific (local customs, arrangements, relationships with the venue staff) and does not cumulate; we are constantly reinventing the wheel, at enormous expense, time and stress for the society office. Under the motion, we will likely find that conferences will become much less expensive over time (in direct and especially the indirect costs of home office time) and that the risks of nasty surprises will fall. The resources freed up by these savings can be used to promote the field of system dynamics around the world, including holding more and more effective events in other regions than we can offer now.
John
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 11:50:00 -0600
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender:List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: Burak Guneralp < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
In-Reply-To: < >
Dear PC Members and Other Interested Parties:
I was also asked to send my comment on motion #106, the contents of which I have been thinking about for some time. My comments parallel Roberta’s on some points but deviate in others.
There are two main aspects of this motion. One is the financial side and the other is whether the conferences really translate to the increased awareness of System Dynamics (SD) in geographies where they are held. The first is not necessarily an inherent problem with the conferences at locations that are ‘remote’ as defined by the undersigned Past Presidents; the Society does not face financial loss every time a conference is held at a ‘remote’ location; if conducted well the Society can even make money as, for instance, had been the case in the Istanbul conference in 1997 (I was a member of the organizing team) and most others. Nevertheless, the risk of financial loss would be present as long as this is on a voluntary basis. It looks like from the language in the motion, the new arrangement will address this issue by holding up the proposals for ‘remote’ conferences to the standards set by the default-location conferences in North America (NA) and Western Europe (WE). Since there will always be a default site, the Policy Council will not have to wait for proposals or endorse a subpar proposal because of a lack of alternatives.
In my opinion, the second point is more substantial (and parallel's Roberta's concerns on the specifics): In hindsight, we realize that holding conferences in different parts of the world is not an efficient way to nurture the growth of SD in these different geographies. Many small events have a much better chance to make a lasting change than a single major one over a long time. The way the motion put in words, however, I would say that The Society is still running the risk of alienating itself from a large body of people actively using or simply familiar with SD in other parts of the World. We should formulate this policy not primarily as one of having conferences in one or two fixed locations in NA (and maybe WE) but as one to promote more effective integration with the rest of the World. The proposal should emphasize the new policy of frequent events as the means to achieve this integration in several parts of the World and that this is the main impetus.
I suggest, therefore, flipping the order of the two parts in the motion together with a corresponding revision of the text (I am ready to give a hand if I am asked to). I also suggest putting the third aim to the first place with an emphasis not only on the emergence of the field but also fostering good quality SD work in other geographies. This will, in my opinion, reflect better what the motion seeks (or ought to seek) to accomplish; it will also minimize the chances of this motion being perceived as ‘hostile’ to other geographies and hence facilitate to get the message across. After all, the ultimate goal is not to ensure the financial security of the Society (that is a means to the end) or just to keep volume and quality of exchanges high at a given conference, but it is the dissemination of SD all over the world while making sure that we hold the field up to the highest standards.
In line with my suggestion above, a crucial detail is how to ensure the continued commitment of at anytime, some of’ the best in the field to attend to the small events’ to take place not in NA or WE but elsewhere. The need to hammer out the details may seem unnecessary at this stage; however, this big strategic change warrants careful consideration of every detail if we really care about how to fulfill the third aim, which perhaps should be the first one as I argued above, in the proposal. On the demand side, the local organizers will need to be competent enough to make sure that these local events are successful, which is another big question mark. We should put concrete mechanisms in place or at least formulate them in detail on paper as much as possible before firmly moving on to a two-default-conference-locations system. The existing system in Europe may set an example but it will have to be tailored to be applicable in other parts of the World (By the way, I do not think not having a default site in WE is a major problem and I agree with John on this point).
I have an additional suggestion as there is a geopolitical aspect to this issue as well. It looks like, in twenty years (if not sooner), China will be a new center of political and economic power ‘in addition to NA and WE or not’ with a flourishing of scientific activity. While pursuing the policy outlined above, I do think that the Society should pay particular attention to this prospect. It is not that the SD is not known or there is not a critical mass of researchers/practitioners using SD in China. Rather, they are disconnected from the ‘core’ of the SD community (and some might say that the overall quality of work coming out of there is not very encouraging). Considering the strategy shift we are debating, this is also an opportune time for the Society to examine its relationship with the related scientific communities in this country. The Society should act now to foster the emergence of good quality SD work in China in ten or so years.
Therefore, I suggest the following schedule be included in the motion, NOT instead of the one currently promulgated but, in addition to it, as a near future alternative that is to be considered (in five years perhaps): NA-WE-China-NA-WE or NA-WE-NA-China-WE-NA-WE-China
How feasible would including China be? During these five or so years the Society can actively and carefully explore the feasibility of holding a conference every three or four years in a major (coastal) Chinese city (in terms of, among other things pertinent to the aims of the motion, the workload for the Office and the issue of sponsopship).Shanghai is the obvious candidate, but other emerging urban centers such as a location in the Pearl River Delta (PRD) are also possibilities. Beijing is also a clear candidate (If I am not mistaken the Society has already established connections with Beijing University). In comparison to NA and WE, the geographical proximity of China to India and the countries in Southeast Asia and Oceania is also a factor to be considered. The location once selected would be fixed as the ones in NA and WE.
I share the concerns of Roberta and Bob in terms uncertainties involved while I also agree with John that we learn by doing. However, I do think that there are still certain aspects of the proposal that could be described and/or elaborated in a much clearer and purposeful way with not too great an effort; I am in favor of doing these changes before we move ahead with the motion.
Best,
Burak
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 08:38:30 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: David F Andersen < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
In-Reply-To: A< >
As VP Finance, I hope that the financial impact of Motion 106 does NOT become a huge issue in these discussions. Yes, we rely on conferences to support Society operations. But the ability of our members to attend the conferences (being addressed in Part A of the motions) and the Society's ability to promote and develop System Dynamics at all locations around the work (being addressed in Part B of the motions) should, in my opinion, be the focus of discussion and our decision-making.
David Andersen
=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 14:17:03 -0700
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: "Zagonel, Aldo A" < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
In-Reply-To: < >
The organization of the conferences already demands most of the resources of the Society's home office. With the change that is being proposed, the home office will bear more responsibility since it will no longer be able to rely on volunteer local hosts to help organize the conferences. Therefore, I suspect there will be fewer resources available for other services, such as organizing the activities behind part B of this motion.
Although the conferences are perhaps the most important source of revenue for the Society, conference organizers are encouraged to keep the registration fees low to increase accessibility and attendance. Unless this was to change, we will still be aiming for a very modest annual surplus (currently $25K/conference). This is hardly enough to engage meaningfully in the new activities specified in part B of this motion.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the home office and the conferences, to the extent that a meaningful portion of the conference expenses go to pay for home office services --an indirect source of revenue from the conferences on the order of $90K/conference. Apparently, this is the more meaningful injection of revenue into the Society that the conferences provide. However, this source of revenue is for services rendered to the conferences, and not for new activities associated with part B of this motion.
With the current conference location policy, people around the world can propose to host a conference. If their proposal is approved, a great deal of attention is placed upon this location during the year of its conference. This creates opportunities for interactions that would not otherwise take place. The Executive-Director of the SD Society will make one or two visits to the site prior to the conference. Local hosts have a chance to interact meaningfully with the leadership of the Society. If the local hosts are not already influential members of this community, hosting a conference does provide an opportunity to do so, whether temporarily or thereafter. Without this instrument, it is not clear how people outside of the main centers of activity will be able to draw attention to themselves and their local communities, nor enjoy opportunities to become important stakeholders in the global community.
There is no doubt in my mind that the conferences must be handled professionally, and that they should be held in central locations, be well attended, of great quality, reliable sources of revenue for the Society, etc. Therefore, there's much merit in this proposal. The proponents are wise to couple it with alternative mechanisms to embrace and incentivize scholars and practitioners outside of the main hubs of activity. However, more needs to be done to assure that there will be ample resources available for part B of this motion:
- shift to biennial conferences
- tightening home office expenses, particularly the share of the expenses billed to the conferences
- significant increase in budgeted conference surpluses (from $25K to $50K or more), coupled with targeting the majority of this new revenue source to part B of the motion
- increased conference registration fees to reflect core costs associated with the conferences
- more specifics on the new opportunities and services that will be made available as part B of the motion
The shift to biennial conferences would free up a significant amount of home office resources. Only every other year the home office would be responsible for delivering a conference. Every other year the home office would be largely focused upon part B of this motion, whether in the form of workshops or training, or supporting regional conferences. There would other benefits to this shift. Submissions to the international conference would increase in number and quality. The international conferences would become more significant to the membership. Members could focus their attention elsewhere every other year, whether organizing or attending a regional event, whether promoting their SD work in other academic and professional venues. There would be less global travel and thus less carbon emissions.
It is important to the Society to face the fact that it is not a sustainable operation, absent the services charged to conference activities. Whether expanding its revenue base or tightening expenses, particularly those associated with organizing conferences, it is important for the Society to address this issue to be able to think about putting together new resources to address part B of this motion.
If the conferences are to be held near the major hubs of activity where most of the active members reside, this means that less travel will be involved and, therefore, these attendees can afford to pay much higher conference fees. In other words, we should avoid subsidizing attendance of an elite membership residing in prosperous countries. In contrast, we could consider differentiating conference fees so that those who have to travel great distances to attend the conference continue to enjoy a subsidized and inexpensive conference fee of US$75/day (=3D$450/6).
These are some suggestions to increase resource availability for part B of the proposal, but we also need more specifics on what is being offered. What are the financial resources that will be made available annually to these new activities? How will they be dispersed throughout the world? Then, there is the question of strategy. Should more of these resources be targeted to, say, China, as opposed to Africa or South America?
Aldo Zagonel
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:06:22 +0100
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: Erling Moxnes < >
Subject: SV: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
I propose the following cost-benefit approach to think systematically about conference locations; first from the point of view of the Society, then from the point of view of the individual participant.
Society:
Costs:
Conference costs are mainly home office costs and on site costs. Roberta's email and general experience suggest that standardization leads to cost reductions. Before default sites are chosen, efforts should be made to identify the best options (for instance, as John suggests, consider low cost university facilities in Europe as an alternative to conference hotels). Since one can hardly rely on the nearest SD group to be a permanent local crew, a standard for recruiting and instructing students from anywhere should be developed.
Costs should be more than balanced by incomes. Since conference attendance is not a public good - marginal participants imply additional cost - participants understand that they have to pay. Therefore the conference fee could be set to cover all costs and considerably more than that such that the conference becomes the major source of income for the Society. (In this way the conference is different from Society web pages and electronic versions of the journal, where marginal use carries no costs). All incomes from sponsors may not be lost by using default locations. Large companies are all over the world, EU and NA research councils are not likely to object to default locations, dominant airlines at nearest hub may see interesting income possibilities etc.
Benefits:
The conference is a major place for networking and diffusion of high quality SD, provided quality is ensured through high standards and participation of insightful SDers.
Provided the conference produces healthy net revenue, this can be used to subsidize public goods such as web pages and an open access version of the journal. It can also be used to promote diffusion of SD to areas outside NA and Europe with currently little SD activity - as suggested in the motion. Burak makes the point that this should be the first and central point in the motion.
Participants:
Benefits:
The quality of the program and the possibility to connect with colleagues should matter the most. Whether the location is a new and exiting place every year may matter to some potential participants. However, it is not obvious that this is the type of participant that the Society should strive to attract. (Once in NA or Europe, one could travel to other places before or after the conference.) For the most desired participants, perceived benefits must exceed total costs of participating.
Costs:
By choosing NA and European default sites, average travel costs are minimized. It is not only the location of the hub that matters, also room, food, and local travel costs matter. The total costs of participating also include the conference fee. This leads me to the following amendment of the motion, in line with Aldo's suggestion: Conference fees should be differentiated according to travel distance. For everyone outside NA and Europe it would seem self-serving if we who belong to the central area rule out all other locations for the conference. To be true, it does not necessarily help participants from Latin America and Africa if the conference is occasionally held in for instance China. Every fifth year in China would not make a tremendous difference for Chinese participants either.
However, even if we did not choose default locations in NA and Europe, we should differentiate the conference fee to attract front runners for diffusion of SD around the world. These are important people to involve in SD networks in order to reach long-term goals for the Society. Along with differentiated conference fees, it is also important to ensure both high and low cost accommodation (this can be obtained by having options for low cost hotels, dormitories, and allowing sharing of rooms in expensive hotels).
My two cents - or my benefits and costs,
Erling Moxnes
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 23:04:47 +1300
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: Bob Cavana < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
In-Reply-To: < >
hi all,
i was going to refrain from commenting further about this issue, but i would like to make a few 'updated' (!) suggestions:
(1). have a three year fixed cycle for the international SD conference:
yr 1 - Boston, USA [eg Seaport Hotel]
yr 2 - Europe [let European SD chapters sort out suitable 'permanent' venue(s)]
yr 3 - Other [subject to competition from any SD chapters/SIGs around the world, incl East Coast USA & Hawaii, and possibly in conjunction with other related societies eg ISSS]
(2) raise the SD conference fee by between 20-50%. i think a comparison international conference fees will show SD conference fees are 'relatively' low [simultaneously provide 'generous' support for students & people from 'low income' countries; and go for 'low cost' venues & 'main centres' for easier transportation access.]
(3) acknowledge the fact that international SD conferences at the occasional 'remote' locations are enormously beneficial for those communities (and people near those communities). when we had the conference in Wellington, New Zealand in 1999 it stimulated activity in systems thinking & system dynamics quite extensively in the Australasian region (not just NZ!).
Finally, let us keep the SD focus 'global' & 'international' and on 3 year cycle outlined in (1) above, we might continue to have international SD conferences around the world. Now that the SD conferences run for about 6 days, there are workshops on the Sunday, Thursday & Friday thus providing additional benefits to participants & host communities.
all the best,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Reader in Systems Science
Victoria Management School
P.S. Membership distribution by region
Region Members World
Africa 18 999
N America 485 341
S America 50 580
Asia 99 4117
Europe 340 738
Pacific 47 36
Total 1039 6810
Members in persons, World in millions of persons source: Malczynski, Leonard A [ ]
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 10:59:04 -0000
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From David Lane < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
A number of colleagues have asked about the membership distribution of the Society.
From the data that Roberta provided, I get the following:
Region %
N America 41.4%
Europe 35.1%
Asia 10.0%
Latin 5.0%
Australasia 4.2%
Near & Middle East 2.5%
Africa 1.9%
Regards,
David
D. C. Lane BSc MSc DPhil FORS
Reader in Management Science
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, LONDON WC2 2AE, Britain
Tel: (UK (0)20 - 7955 - 7336
Fax: (UK) (0)20-7955-6885
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 12:08:28 +0100
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: "Badr.OMBA01" < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
The question is what is the impact of the conference location over the percentage of the membership distribution in the past? and what will be the impact over the distribution in the future?
Regards,
Walid Badr
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 15:26:15 +0100
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: Andreas_Größler < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
In-Reply-To: < >
Dear colleagues,
here a few comments/suggestions from my side. Point 6 below is the most important one (in case you are in a hurry):
1. Having two default conference sites appears useful from a VP Meetings point of view, since the situation has occured in the past that there was not really a proposal at hand when one was needed. Furthermore, every new location brought along some additional risk since we didn't know the infrastructure, motivation, etc. really well...
2. I like the fact that the conference location process is still open for sites outside the default location pair. This gives an important message for the rest of the world.
3. Thus, the PC could decide on accepting a proposal from somewhere else if it is "good" enough. While we don't have valid criteria for what constitutes this "goodness", I assume they will evolve over time. One personal remark: although the financial aspects of the conference are very important for the society, they are still the means to an end.
Thus, from my point of view, not every single conference needs to be a success in terms of yielding high income for the society (while, of course, in the long run the society depends on this stream of income).
4. Part B of the motion is important. Having this more clearly and concretly would of course help... (so, how would the society's support for dissemination activities in other parts of the world would look like?)
5. It should be emphasised (in the motion if it can be amended or in our
discussion) that the two default sites can and most probably will be
extended or changed after some years -- so, China might come in, or
India, or Brazil, or somewhere else. Right now, I would refrain from
bringing in a third region...
6. Having a default site means more than just having a name of a city that can easily be reached. It also means having a hotel/university/conference centre and much more: knowing the contact persons for accomodation, AV equipment, foods&drinks, room layout, local habits, training student supporters, etc. etc. So, in some respect, I would doubt that we actually really have even one default site now (yes, Boston and the Seaport Hotel, but even that obviously depended to a great share on local organisers, which we then probably don't have anymore). The bottom-line of this: while home office work might decrease in the long run when the default sites are implemented and running smoothly, I expect them to be increased in the process of identifying and implementing these sites. Again, this might be OK and beneficial in longer terms, but we should be open and clear about it's short-term implications.
Thanks,
Andreas Größler
VP meetings
Dr. Andreas Größler, Associate Professor ** Nijmegen School of
Management ** Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands ** Phone +31
24 36 16287 ** Fax +31 24 36 11933 ** Home office +49 6206 950926 **
Mobile +49 172 6503138 **
http://www.ru.nl/businessadministration/koppeling/grossler_a/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 13:42:12 -0600
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: Burak Guneralp < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference(Part A and Part B)
In-Reply-To: < >
While the crux of my previous message is that the motion should, first and foremost, address the dissemination of high-quality System Dynamics all around the World (i.e., Part B), I need to make a clarification on a relatively minor point. On considering China as an additional near- or medium-term fixed location possibility, the periodic sequence as it appeared in my previous message is misleading. My apologies for the confusion. I should have written as follows: NA-WE-China or NA-WE-NA-China-WE-NA-WE-China
I would also like to highlight that this (or a geographically less specific version) can be included in the motion as a near- or medium-term possibility, the feasibility of which to be actively evaluated in the next, say, five years.
Burak
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 20:29:29 +0200
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: Yaman Barlas < >
Subject: Motion #106 in HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Dear friends,
I have been following this discussion with interest. Allow me to add some 'historical' dimension to this important process. In such a historical perspective, it will be easier to see what is REALLY NEW IN the current motion 106 (PART A), and so what the members are really asked to vote for/against.
Some years ago, faced with another conference loss, PC had formed a 'conference site selection committee' and asked to look into alternative systems. I was part of the committee and a non-voting member of PC, so I recall the discussions and some results in both bodies. In a nutshell, we proposed that: i- there be some default sites in North America and Europe, and ii- these default sites be chosen alternately as the conference sites, UNLESS there are some proposals that PROVE that they are CLEARLY SUPERIOR to the defaults. (I naturally do not remember the exact wording, but this was the essence). This proposal (which I was actively involved in preparing, and defending in PC) was voted yes by the PC. BUT in several years that passed since this decision, I am sorry to say that we repeatedly violated this very system in the PC, by accepting the populist path of accepting 'average' non-deault proposals. In several such discussions in the PC, I found myself in a small minority that argued in vain that we were accepting very risky proposals, and in all these cases our very own system was saying that we should go with a default site NA/EU site. A factor that complicated the problem was the feedback effect: as we were chosing these 'average' proposals, we were delaying forever the task of finding and fixing good NA/EU sites ('Shifting the burden'). Thus in several years, we completely forgot our own 'new' system and reverted back to the old one.(Another standard feedback disorder).
So, compared to our current ('forgotten') system, what is really new in motion 106? I would submit that the essence in both is almost the same. Motion 106 in a sense reiterates, reminds us of our current system. Perhaps the only aspect new in motion 106 is a bit more pronounced emphasis on the default sites and more burden of proof on alternative proposals. Our track record indicates that this new emphasis is called for, else we would once again revert to the old(est) system, by ignoring the deafults and start simply chosing among 'any' alternatives.
In this sense, motion 106 is not a radically new system, so I am supporting it, as I was supporting the previous one (in place, but not quite implemented). Voting yes to this proposal would really be a call to adhere to our current system. Note that in Motion 106 (as well as the current system), alternative proposals would still be evaluated objectively and would be chosen by the PC, IF THEY ARE SHOWN TO BE SUPERIOR TO THE DEFAULTS beyond reasonable doubt. I believe that finding such sites and preparing such proposals is POSSIBLE. But in recent years, we have not had many such proposals, largely because there was not much motivation (i.e. no strong default competition). I am expecting that with the new system (current one activated), we would: i-either choose a very strong alternative site (superbly proven finances and spronsorships, low cost travel and stay, and a very strong local team committment), ii- or else go with the default. This would be a win-win situation for the Society and the field in my view.
best wishes
Yaman Barlas
Note: perhaps the Society can send us the wording of the current system.
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 17:03:44 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: System Dynamics Society < >
Subject: Results of voting: Motion 102
Motion 102
Subject: Slate of Candidates to take office on January 1, 2011
Proposed by James Lyneis, Seconded by: Erling Moxnes,
FORMAL MOTION:
The Policy Council is asked to recognize and accept the SLATE OF
CANDIDATES TO TAKE OFFICE ON JANUARY 1, 2011: President-Elect: David Ford,
Secretary: Brad Morrison (re-appointment), VP Finance: David Andersen (re-appointment), VP Chapters: Tim Haslett (re-appointment), PC 1: Allyson
Beall, PC 2: Peter Hovmand, PC 3: Len Malczynski, and PC 4: Markus
Schwaninger.
RESULTS OF VOTING:
YES: 23
NO: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
NO VOTE PLACED: 2
Voting close date: 2010.02.07 this motion only. For all other motions the voting start date is 2010.02.16.
Roberta L. Spencer
Executive Director
SYSTEM DYNAMICS SOCIETY
Milne 300, Rockefeller College
135 Western Avenue
University at Albany, State University of New York
Albany, NY, 12222, U.S.A.
phone (518) 442-3865 fax (518) 442-3398
email: office@systemdynamics.org
http://www.systemdynamics.org/
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2010 11:50:51 -0300
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: Martin Schaffernicht < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
In-Reply-To: < >
Hi all,
I will try to explain I do not believe the international conference is a strong vehicle for diffusion outside areas where some specific conditions are met. These conditions seem to be:
- the presence of a robust local community that is already operating;
- strong English in the communities that we'd wish to attract.
while this was certainly the case in 1999 (Wellington), I'd have serious doubts when it comes to Latin America (I believe that was Cancun). If "diffusion" is measurable as a rise in projects, publications or society membership, one could probably verify this.
As someone who got into SD while living in Latin America, the international conference has been an opportunity for networking and picking up what is going on. Therefore conference quality and the presence of key people was always of first importance. This means the conference is an important instance for people who have alredy been attracted to SD and who want to advance in the field, obtaining input and feedback from more advanced people.
Therefore I believe that the conference ought to be held where strong communities assure that these "more advanced people" will be there. Currently
I think that is NA and WE - if in some time, China is one of these places, OK. So the society should monitor areas which promise to develop. It would be useful to think about criteria like the number of universites that offer
programmes in SD (and others, more related to publications from researchers and practitioners).
The initial "diffusion" should be the function of other components of the society - I am thinking of the chapters. I can only use the example I know, the Latinamerican chapter (where I live and work). I believe it is our task to generate the conditions that would make Latinamerica a "remote area" where the international conference can go.
In this effort, of cause we could use help from the society. I don't know if this is possible, but any help to make available SD material in the local language would be truly helpful, since it lowers the burden for many people.
Also, probably it would be helpful to ease the financial burden of attending the international conference for young researchers. (This could include sponsering school teachers.)
Maybe the topic "diffusion" would merit its own discussion; as far as I'm aware, we did not define what "diffusion" means (probably at the different levels of the education system). However, I think under the motion, the international conference will become more attractive.
As for the "remote areas", the society should clearly define the conditions that have to be met in order to host the international conference.
Best greetings,
Martin Schaffernciht
Chile
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 16:24:35 -0700
Reply-To:List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: "Zagonel, Aldo A" < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences
In-Reply-To: < >
Update on Carbon Neutral Proposal:
A voluntary carbon neutral program was initiated for the first time at the Albuquerque conference in 2009. In response to comments following the conference, several of us proposed that the Society continue the practice of allowing participants to purchase offsets for the average carbon emissions associated with conference travel and attendance. Our proposal allowed participants to make up their own minds. Those who did not wish to contribute would elect an opt-out option when registering.
We sent the proposal to the SD Forum, and the environmental special interest group's LinkedIn site, and a serious discussion ensued. Later this fall, the proposal was opened for discussion with the Policy Council via this list serve. It was also discussed at the face-to-face meeting in Boston. There were many comments, both in favor and opposed to the proposal. The main argument in favor was that the Society should strive to internalize the impact of our conferences. Given the current state of carbon policy, this may be done by adding the cost of offsets to the registration fee. Some argued that this constituted a political act, and that the Society should not commit to a political action. Others pointed out that not acting is also a political act.
To act or not to act? Those arguing for inaction voiced concern over the extra work at the Society's home office and the difficulty in verification of carbon offsets. Some argued that focusing attention on carbon policy is a distractive activity, one that shifts the focus away from the root problem of industrial and population growth. A few argued that the scientific basis for curbing greenhouse gas emissions is too speculative to warrant action. And finally, several argued that offsets are a good idea, but buying offsets should be a personal choice, not a choice for the Society.
The discussion left us with the impression that there is no clear consensus in favor of the proposal. Although the discussion was vigorous, it appeared that the participants were limited to a small fraction of the Society membership. Therefore, we decided it was not appropriate to put the proposal to a Policy Council vote this winter. Instead, we will continue to offer the voluntary web link on the registration site for those who wish to offset at the 2010 conference.
Meanwhile, we encourage continued discussion of the Society's position on carbon neutral conferences. The coming years may see important changes in carbon policies adopted around the world. We would hope that the USA and other nations with large, uncontrolled emissions pass legislation to put a price on their emissions. And in the meantime, we hope that conference participants will "vote with their wallets" by purchasing the offsets needed to reduce the climate impacts of the Society's conferences.
Allyson Beall, Richard Dudley, Andrew Ford, Aldo Zagonel, and others
February 10, 2010
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 16:30:44 +0800
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: yanhelen < >
Subject: Motion #106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part B)
In-Reply-To: < >
Dear PC members and Other Interested Parties:
On behalf of the China chapter, I'd like to express our opinion for motion #106.
We do agree that fixed sites for the annual conference will make it easier to organize. And as Roberta said, Part A of the motion takes a current activity and makes it more simple, efficient, and convenient from the home office side.
If other chapters show their intention to hold the annual conference, they can propose their desire in advance. The home office can evaluate the location according to the financial objective, facilities and transportation etc. As we know, the number of participants is one of the major considerations; an investigation of the number of forthcoming participants would be a pre-requisite to apply for conference venue. Once the location is approved, the enthusiastic groups can start working on the preparation of a conference.
China chapter is trying to improve the development of SD in China and has the desire to hold the conference in Shanghai when conditions permit, say, 5 years later. If the home office consider our intention and propose the financial requirement, facilities and logistics etc, we can prepare and estimate our qualification in advance. We suggest that the society can make an investigation or inquiry on holding the conference in Shanghai in 2015 to see how many positive response we can get.
We are glad to see that Burak proposed to consider China as an additional near- or medium-term fixed location possibility, which was also advanced by Prof. Qifan Wang several years ago. In making it feasible, the conference in
2015 can serve as a pilot project. If the conference successfully meets the society requirements, China may apply to become a fixed location.
Regards,
Haiyan Yan
China chapter representative
Associated Professor, Head of Business Administration Department,
Management School, Shanghai Institute of Foreign Trade
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 15:21:27 -0300
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: Martin Schaffernicht < >
Subject: Re: Motion #106 (Concerning the diffusion of system dynamics)
In-Reply-To: < >
Good afternoon,
A feeling does not leave me like something is not being made explicit concerning the relationship between the international conference, diffusion of system dynamics (SD) and other issues. Especially since I read the contribution from Yaman, I wonder if history will repeat itself. In my opinion, there is no shared (explicit) mental model of "diffusion of SD" and as a consequence, we lack transparent criteria for assessing if this or that "remote" area would qualify for hosting the international conference.
Even if what follows is a little long, here I go trying to make my point:
“Diffusion” of SD may mean different things to different people; still, I believe there are some things that will always be part of it.
At stage zero, no one uses SD (for his own practical needs, for clients or for research), no one studies it and no one teaches it. Then there will be a stage one with “some” individuals studying and/or using SD; however, unless some people teach it (or make learning possibilities available), there will be little growth.
Once there are people in teaching positions (in general this will be universities), they may initially be rather isolated. There may be first (shorter, introductory) SD courses. Later on, collaboration between several individuals will lead to whole study programmes, which will lead to new generations of “dynamicists”, some of whom will turn into teachers of SD (and thus speed up the process). Probably this is when these individuals decide to organize as “chapters” (though the chapters seem to be rather diverse).
One could use the number of these people, the number of (isolated) courses and the number of whole programmes as indicators for the “diffusion” of SD, maybe complemented by the number of research, professional and teaching publications. So when one selects a given area (say, USA, Europe, China, Latin America), one could attempt to monitor how SD progresses over such stages.
What can help this process? Is the international conference one of these helps? If so, at which stage?
Assuming that the stage model makes sense, I believe the international conference is helpful from the moment on where a critical mass of practitioners exists (maybe not always a “chapter”, but I’d guess that in general there should be an organizational structure like a “chapter”). In these cases, there will be a sufficient number of students, practitioners and scholars from the area to make the conference a good one (with sufficient “benefit” for all the participants, be they from the specific area or from the “default” areas).
So wouldn’t it make sense to define a stage model with specific indicators?
Then the “society” would not only be able to specify the criteria that any given area has to satisfy in order to host the international conference. If it can be said that a good conference needs good papers, which are submitted by consultants, scholars and students (in alphabetical order), then one criterion may be the number of likely submissions from such individuals in the host area, weighted by a reasonable rejection rate. One can then compare this number to the likely number of papers that will not be submitted by individuals from the default areas (which can be approached by looking at historic registers). One can also ask: how many of these individuals will be “boosted” by their conference presentation to develop their work into a journal publication (and similar products)?
Beyond this, one can also start to discuss what specific help is useful for areas that have not yet achieved such an advanced stage. In my opinion, learning opportunities are a key issue, and this involves not only people who teach, but also printed and digital material. This may be of little importance as long as one looks at graduate programmes in universities; but those of us who believe in K-12 efforts and undergraduate teaching will agree that the language is a substantial barrier. In most of the areas that would be “less developed” in a stage model, normal people (like school kids, school teachers and undergraduate lecturers) are not comfortable with the English language and will refrain from anything requiring it.
Most of the books, DVDs and software are not part of what people are willing to use, as long as it’s in English. And since most of the current users of SD (in the English speaking world) have to make a living out of work done for clients who pay or for a business school or school of engineering, who will generate these materials? I’m aware that this issue is beyond the scope of the conference-site motion – I only try to argue that it is important to develop a reference model describing the stages of “diffusion” and each stage’s indicators. (Of course, the sketch I’ve outlined above is much too primitive – it’s just to illustrate the point.)
As for the conference site selection rules, people living and working outside the USA and Europe need such criteria and indicators as reference, and as long as the PC uses them with rigour and transparency, this would be a just process.
Let me close with a reflection on several topics related to the international conference and its sites. “The chapters are the society’s future”; as far as chapters are mainly organized by (groups of) countries, this is connected to the stages of diffusion of SD. Specifically the chapters that cover huge areas and/or populations, can make big contributions to the overall diffusion of SD and of course they have an interest in being able to host the international conference.
In this thread, we have been talking about China. However, there are other chapters, too. Take the example of the Latin-American chapter; it covers the countries where “Spanish” is the main language (these are MANY people), and since its beginnings it has been able to develop quite a bit of activity, and it has “diffused” quite successfully (though some countries are more advanced than others). And there may be others that don’t come to my mind now.
The “society” is certainly interested in having these areas get to a stage of “diffusion” where the international conference can indeed go to everybody’s satisfaction. Again, I believe that defining the stage model of diffusion and the indicators and criteria is in the best interest of the society and those chapters whose members aspire to host the international conference.
So I suggest that defining such a model is an important aspect for making the motion successful. And I’d be willing to put in some time to help developing it.
Best greetings from Chile,
Martin Schaffernicht
=========================================================================
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:05:04 -0600
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: Rogelio Oliva < >
Subject: Voting Opens on Tuesday, February 16
Dear Policy Council Members: Motions to be voted on for this meeting are listed below. Voting opens on February 16, 2010.
101: Minutes Approval
103: 2011 Conference Program Chair Appointments
104: 2012 conference location: Switzerland
105: 2012 Conference Program Chair Appointments
106: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and Part
B)
TO VOTE ON THESE MOTIONS:
1. http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb
2. Click on the button "Policy Council Menu"
3. Find motion and click on "details"
ONLY CURRENT OFFICERS AND POLICY COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN VOTE (alphabetical order):
David F. Andersen, Vice President Finance
Deborah Lines Andersen, Vice President Publications
Enzo Bivona, Policy Council (2008-2010)
Laura Black, Policy Council (2010-2012)
Brian C. Dangerfield, Executive Editor
Robert L. Eberlein, Vice President Electronic Presence
Jay W. Forrester, Founding President
Andreas Groessler, Vice President Meetings
Burak Guneralp, Policy Council (2008-2010)
Tim Haslett, Vice President Chapter Activities
Susan Howick, Policy Council (2009-2011)
Birgit Kopainsky, Policy Council (2009-2011)
David Lane, President Elect
Ignacio Martnez-Moyano, Policy Council (2010-2012)
J. Bradley Morrison, Secretary
Erling Moxnes, Past President
Rogelio Oliva, President
Joel Rahn, Vice President At Large
Etienne A.J.A. Rouwette, Vice President Member Services
Agata Sawicka, Policy Council (2009-2011)
Martin Schaffernicht, Policy Council (2010-2012)
Imrana Umar, Policy Council (2008-2010)
Kim Warren, Policy Council (2010-2012)
Lars Weber, Policy Council (2008-2010)
Aldo Zagonel, Policy Council (2009-2011)
Rogelio
Rogelio Oliva
Associate Professor
Mays Business School | Wehner 301C - 4217
Texas A&M University | College Station, TX 77843-4217
Ph 979-862-3744 | Fx 979-845-5653 |
http://iops.tamu.edu/faculty/roliva/
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:15:43 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members< >
From: J Bradley Morrison < >
Subject: Results of Voting Motions 100 – 106
To Members of the Policy Council Listserve:
The formal voting period of the Winter PC Meeting has come to an end as of February 26, 2010. Voting is now closed, and the voting system is turned
off.
Results of voting: Motions 100 -- 106:
Source: http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb
Motion 100: Subject: Replace VP Members Position
Proposed by: Erling Moxnes, Seconded by: Robert Eberlein
Voting open date: 2009.12.08 Voting close date: 2009.12.08
Formal Motion: Erling Moxnes, President 2009, with the concurrence of the Nominating Committee nominates Etienne Rouwette to replace Krystyna Stave as the VP Members until the end of the term. The remaining term is January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011.
Notes on supporting material: Krystyna Stave's original term was (2009-2011); Krys resigned at the July 2009 PC Meeting.
Motion 100 Passed (Y:22/N:0/A:0/NV:3)
Motion 101: Subject: Minutes Approval
Proposed by: J. Bradley Morrison, Seconded by: Rogelio Oliva
Voting open date: 2010.02.16 Voting close date: 2010.02.16
Formal Motion: That the minutes of the 2009 Policy Council meeting in Albuquerque be accepted as posted on the Society web site.
Notes on supporting material: Minutes can be found at: http://www.systemdynamics.org/PolicyCouncil/2009/summer/index.html
Motion 101 Passed (Y:15/N:0/A:0/NV:10)
Motion 102: Subject: Slate of Candidates to take office on January 1, 2011
Proposed by: James Lyneis, Seconded by: Erling Moxnes
Voting open date: 2010.01.28 Voting close date: 2010.01.28
Formal Motion: The Policy Council is asked to recognize and accept the SLATE OF CANDIDATES TO TAKE OFFICE ON JANUARY 1, 2011: President-Elect: David Ford, Secretary: Brad Morrison (re-appointment), VP Finance: David Andersen (re-appointment), VP Chapters: Tim Haslett (re-appointment), PC 1: Allyson Beall, PC 2: Peter Hovmand, PC 3: Len Malczynski, and PC 4: Markus Schwaninger.
Notes on supporting material: The formal final approval is scheduled for the Summer Policy Council meeting in Seoul, Korea. (Full report is below.)
Motion 102 Passed (Y:23/N:0/A:0/NV:2)
Motion 103: Subject: 2011 Conference Program Chair Appointments
Proposed by: Andreas Groessler, Seconded by: Robert Eberlein
Voting open date: 2010.02.16 Voting close date: 2010.02.16
Formal Motion: Appoint Jim Lyneis and George Richardson as Program Co-chairs for the 2011 Conference.
Notes on supporting material: Location: Washington, DC. For more discussion on the overall organization of the conference program, see 2009 Winter Meeting report titled Conference Organization Guidelines by Robert Eberlein.
Motion 103 Passed (Y:17/N:0/A:0/NV:8)
Motion 104: Subject: 2012 conference location: Switzerland
Proposed by: Andreas Groessler, Seconded by: Robert Eberlein
Voting open date: 2010.02.16 Voting close date: 2010.02.16
Formal Motion: Accept the proposal from the System Dynamics Group, University of St. Gallen to hold the 2012 conference in St. Gallen, Switzerland
Motion 104 Passed (Y:16/N:0/A:1/NV:8)
Motion 105: Subject: 2012 Conference Program Chair Appointments
Proposed by: Andreas Groessler, Seconded by: Robert Eberlein
Voting open date: 2010.02.16 Voting close date: 2010.02.16
Formal Motion: Appoint Elke Husemann and David Lane as Program Co-chairs for the 2012 Conference.
Notes on supporting material: See 2009 Winter Meeting report titled Conference Organization Guidelines by Robert Eberlein for more discussion on the overall organization of the conference program.
Motion 105 Passed (Y:16/N:0/A:1/NV:8)
Motion 106: Subject: Changes in the location of the annual conference (Part A and ParY Y)
Proposed by: David Lane, Seconded by: Jay Forrester
Voting open date: 2010.02.16 Voting close date: 2010.02.16
Formal Motion: PART A: That the Society move to a conference location policy which has two default locations, one in North America and one in Europe. Location outside these will be considered; this will be done on a case by case basis, the essential requirement being that any alternative offers significant improvement in expected benefits to the Society and the field when compared with the default. PART B: The Society should examine and develop other mechanism for promoting and strengthening the field in other locations.
Notes on supporting material: Please see the full motion under the Reports, listed alphabetical by author Lane, David.
Motion 106 Passed (Y:12/N:0/A:3/NV:10)
END OF MOTIONS, 2010 Winter Policy Council Meeting
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Morrison, Secretary
Sat Feb 27 18:04:22 2010
NOTE: links to Email Discussion Detail and Minutes of Face-to-Face Portion of 2010 Winter Policy Council Meeting can be found on the main PC Winter Meeting Page<http://www.systemdynamics.org/PolicyCouncil/2009/winter/index.html>.