Email Discussion Detail

2010 Winter Meeting of the Policy Council
Email Discussion Detail by Date

2010

=========================================================================
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 19:33:25 -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: < >

Dear Members of the Policy Council,

Thank you for your feedback on the Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences proposal. We learned much from this discussion and did our best to refine the proposal. In spite of some strong and valid objections, we retained the essence of the proposal, that a carbon offsetting fee be included in the cost of conference registration, but that individual registrants be allowed to opt ‘out’, if they so wish.

Based upon your input, we found it useful to justify the proposal publicly, in the form of a ‘proclamation.’ At this time, we submit to you a working DRAFT, as well as a documentation of the discussion (in this listserv, and in the Environmental SIG and SD Forums) --submitted in the form of a report. (Anyone who cannot download it please contact me directly and I'll send it as an attachment.)

We submit this proposal to you in the spirit of corporate social responsibility, and to correct for a negative externality associated with hosting our conferences annually. We do not expect all to agree with this proclamation, but we promote it because we believe it represents the thinking of a majority of Society members. We trust the Policy Council with the evaluation of this initiative, and with the decision to carry it forward in the form of a motion.

This is not an emotional initiative. It is, instead, a natural evolution in the process of thinking about the global problem of climate change, and finding an actionable item that is within our reach, as a community. Individually we can do much more, and probably we should. Collectively, we can correct for an externality that is contributing to global misfortune.

We are not making a political statement per se, although not to act represents a political choice as well. It says that we do not think this is an important issue, and that we do not wish to take responsibility for our actions individually or as an organization. Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, there is no value-free viewpoint. Instead, we, as individuals, and the System Dynamics Society as an organization, must choose the values that we embrace and support.

However, since the propositions contained in the proclamation attached, are not universally held, we think the Society should provide individuals an option to withdrawal their participation, if they so wish. By choosing a mechanism that affords participants the opportunity to opt out, the Society reinforces that it wishes to be a proactive socially-responsible organization. This means that it will provide the means for individuals to participate, adopting the procedure that is most likely yield the desired result: the hosting of carbon neutral conferences.

With the utmost deference and respect, we bring this proposal to your attention and evaluation.

Aldo Zagonel (on behalf of Allyson Beall, Richard Dudley, Andy Ford, and others)
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 12:44:44 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Nathan Forrester < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences
In-Reply-To: < >

The situation with respect to the carbon neutrality of conferences is moving from bad to worse.

Although the By-laws of the Society permit the Policy Council to establish policies and procedures that, in theory, might include collecting money from members to give to another organization such as carbonfund.org, I strongly recommend that the Policy Council reject the proposal to bundle contributions to another organization into the Society's conference fee. (See my previous arguments below.)

Much worse, however, is the idea of adopting the proposed "proclamation" on climate change (see link and text below). The Articles of Organization of the Society do not authorize the Society to take positions with respect to political issues and, in fact, may prohibit such activity. Even if the Society were permitted to take such positions, it should not. No serious scientific organization would adopt political positions on behalf of its members. A true scientific organization should promote challenges to all theories to help disprove or improve them. I urge the Policy Council to reject the proposed "proclamation".

The Articles of Organization set out the purpose of the Society:

http://www.systemdynamics.org/SDS%20PC%20Web/articles.htm=20

"The System Dynamics Society, Inc. is a professional society promoting system dynamics through conventions, publications, journals and other activities. The objectives of the Society shall be:

- to identify, extend and unify knowledge contributing to the understanding of feedback control systems

- to promote the design of structures and policies to improve the behavior of such systems

- to promote the development of the field of system dynamics and the free interchange of information about systems as they are found in all fields of endeavor

- to promote the dissemination of information on such topics to the general public, and

- to encourage and develop educational programs in the behavior of systems.

To these ends, the Society proposes to conduct meetings; to publish journals, books and other materials; to cooperate with other organizations interested in the advancement of the practice of system dynamics; to stimulate research; to promote high professional standards; to promote the growth of system dynamics and to improve its practice throughout the world; and in general, to carry on activities in connection with any of the forgoing purposes..."

Furthermore, the Articles of Organization specifically prohibit certain activities:

"No substantial part of the activities of the Corporation shall be, include, or involve the dissemination or carrying on of propaganda, or otherwise attempting to influence legislation"

Arguably, the adoption of the proposed "proclamation" on climate change constitutes propaganda aimed at facilitating the passage of legislation to curb growth of population, economic development, and/or the burning of fossil fuels.

With respect to the specific content of the proposed proclamation: Very few members (if any) have studied astrophysics, geology, oceanography, biology, meteorology, and climatology to a degree that would permit an informed opinion, say nothing of certainty, about the causes or consequences of global warming. A subject as complex and poorly understood as global climate change will be studied for many decades to come. Any conclusions drawn at this time will likely seem quaint and simplistic in the future. The Society, priding itself on the understanding of complex systems, should not commit its reputation (and the reputation of its members) to what may well seem like a "flat-earth" approach before long. I would be embarrassed to have a future client investigate my affiliation with the Society and discover such unscientific hubris.

Neither the Policy Council nor any official body of the Society should make a "proclamation" about climate (or any other political topic). Individual members of the Society are free to adopt whatever stance they wish with respect to climate or other issues of importance to them. The Society is a loose association of diverse individuals and, as such, cannot have a moral position and or a scientific opinion.

-Nathan

Nathan B. Forrester, Ph.D.
President
Forrester Consulting, LLC
4070 Loomis Avenue
P.O. Box 2407
Boca Grande, FL 33921-2407

Work: (404) 551-2600
Mobile : (770) 309-0509
Fax: (404) 474-1897

To obtain a copy of the proposed "Proclamation" and related documents, go to the link below, logon, choose "Policy Council Menu", then download "Report" and/or "Support" under "PROPOSAL: Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences"

http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb

Alternatively, email me for a copy.

Main text of the proclamation:

Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences

PROCLAMATION

Whereas the System Dynamics Society (SDS) is a leader in both system dynamics and systems thinking, which capture the implications and potential drawbacks of short-term fixes against long-term solutions, we acknowledge that:

There is strong evidence to indicate that most of the global warming observed since the mid 20th century is very likely caused by anthropogenic emissions of green house gases (GHG);

There is strong evidence that global warming will cause a wide range of serious problems in countries around the world;

The economic costs of dealing with these problems have been estimated to be several times higher than the costs of curtailing anthropogenic GHG emissions.

Whereas the SDS recognizes that, although climate change is a symptom of population growth, land-use changes, and increased fossil-fuel-based industrialization; the SDS also recognizes that:

Even with zero-emission fuel sources, projected temperature increases can, in part, be mitigated by sequestering CO2;

More research, education and outreach are necessary to solve the problems of population growth, unsustainable land-use changes and fossil-fuel-based industrialization;

Conferences are a beneficial tool for the progress of research, education and outreach, and such conferences normally require members to travel significant distances;

And, currently, vehicle and airline travel are an important sources of =anthropogenic emissions of CO2.=20

Therefore, the SDS should make every effort to minimize the carbon emissions associated with its operations and conferences, in the spirit of corporate social responsibility and, thus, chooses to internalize the negative impacts of its actions.

The SDS recognizes that although carbon-offsetting markets have limitations and the practice of carbon offsetting can produce unintended consequences; this mechanism is a useful approach to reduce anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

Whereas Carbonfund.org is a carbon offset organization that is non-profit, durable and third party verified, used by reputable academic institutions, NGOs, and is endorsed by the Environmental Defense Fund, offering investment opportunities in non-carbon energy-generation projects, in the pursuit of energy efficiency, and in the prevention of forest losses, as well as reforestation.

Therefore, in consideration of the preceding, the SDS will use Carbonfund.org as a method to mitigate the carbon production of its conferences, until such time that other offsetting solutions are preferred, virtual conferences are held in lieu of face-to-face conferences, or non-carbon sources of energy are used for participant travel and any conference-related energy-consuming activities in general.

Furthermore, the SDS will include in the registration fee the individualized cost of the carbon-equivalent offsets, corresponding to the estimated overall conference-related carbon emissions divided by the number of expected attendees, allowing registrants to opt out if they so wish. The fee will be sufficient to also cover the Society Office costs for collecting the moneys and making the offsetting investments.

[Footnotes omitted]
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:40:07 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: RGDudley < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences
In-Reply-To: <002d01ca8ef7$ef46a090$cdd3e1b0$@com>

I am surprised at Nathan's comments (below) on two counts.

Firstly, I do not think of these, voluntary, payments as a donation to another organization from the SDS. The payment is for a service: offsetting the CO2 emissions of meeting attendees. Carbonfund is a broker that handles this type of transaction. The payments would be made by the individual members of the SDS. At least that is my understanding.

Secondly, although I don't see these payments as promoting a particular policy, I can see that such an argument could be made. In fact I would not object to the removal of policy-like wording if that seems offensive.

Nevertheless, it is not correct that real scientific organizations don't issue policy statements. The American Association for the Advancement of

Science, for example, lists its policy statements at http://www.aaas.org/policy_pos.shtml. Those of the American Fisheries Society are listed at http://www.fisheries.org/afs/policy_statements.html.

I think that these are both real scientific organizations. I do agree that advocacy within a scientific organization can be controversial.

Richard G. Dudley
Visiting Associate Professor
Cornell International Institute for Food, Agriculture, and Development
;
http://pws.prserv.net/RGDudley/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 14:48:18 -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: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences
In-Reply-To: <509603DA470A4852B9A6F8C3C9F4B753@DudleyDell1505>

Following Richard's comments, many scientific societies in the US (and also abroad) have adopted official positions on important public policy issues including climate change, and also a number that have programs allowing participants in their conferences to offset the emissions associated with their conferences. In addition to those Richard cites, societies with formal policies on climate change include the ACS (Am Chem Soc), APS (Am Phys Society), Am. Geophysical Union, Am. Meteorological Society and Am. Stat. Association. In addition, on 21 October 2009, a collection of the leading scientific societies in the US sent an open letter to the members of the US

Senate stating "If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced." The full letter is available at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2009/media/1021climate_letter.pdf

The societies involved include:

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

There is ample precedent for academic and scientific societies such as ours to take formal positions on and action to address important public policy issues.

Respectfully,

John

John Sterman
Jay W. Forrester Professor of Management
Director, MIT System Dynamics Group
MIT Sloan School of Management
30 Wadsworth Street , Room E53-351
Cambridge MA 02142

617.253.1951 (voice)
617.258.7579 (fax)

http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:24:34 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Nathan Forrester < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences
In-Reply-To: < >

Whether or not other groups take positions on public policy issues does not affect the proper direction for the System Dynamics Society. To the extent that other groups become embroiled in taking positions on political issues, they cease to be platforms for the formulation and testing of scientific theories and, instead, become platforms for advocacy. The advocates use whatever credibility can be gleaned from that Society's title, membership statistics, individual members, etc. to enhance their message.

The System Dynamics Society would make a grave mistake in becoming more overtly politicized. Science is not a majority-vote process. Good ideas can come from strange places. A single pariah may turn out to hold a more correct, useful, or complete theory than the majority. History is replete with examples. The Society has nothing to gain and much to lose by taking a position on any policy issue. If the Policy Council starts taking policy positions, it will be lending whatever credibility the Society may have acquired over the years to those who wish to shape political opinion – the essence of propaganda as forbidden by its Articles of Organization.

I am proud to belong to a Society whose members wade fearlessly into complex and poorly understood subject areas. I would be ashamed, however, to belong to a Society whose leadership pretended to speak for the membership on topics as contentious and poorly understood as climate-economy interactions.

Agreement amongst members is not even a desirable goal. It would mean that all other ideas have been excluded, either intentionally or unintentionally.

The Policy Council should not set foot on that slippery slope.

Nathan

[Footnotes omitted]
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:28:03 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: "Saeed, Khalid" < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences
In-Reply-To: <006701ca8f16$a4fd32f0$eef798d0$@com>

Dear colleagues,

Although I like the idea of supporting environmental agendas, I am not completely satisfied that buying carbon permits to off-set carbon generation by our conference activity will not have unintended consequences.

There are serious problems with tradable permits and the way they have been implemented.

First, while a remedial market-based policy instrument should eliminate a dysfunction through an invisible hand, tradable permits require the state institutions to carry out the measurements and determine the amount of permits to be issued. These measurements and decisions are often based on political rather than scientific grounds.

Second, enforcing permits also requires considerable oversight, which would often be the responsibility of a state agency, but in many countries such oversight is seriously compromised.

Third, the widely used grandfathered allowances in the implementation process, which have probably arisen from adversarial action, let the polluters externalize more cumulative costs on environment than the non-polluters by initially allocating permits in proportion to the initial levels of emissions in an industry. Increasing demand for these permits might largely benefit the polluter lobby.

Last, but not least, the number of permits should be decreased over time, but the adversarial action can again slow down this process and continue to benefit the grandfathered polluters.

I tend to agree with Nathan that we should focus on incisive analysis as a society and not subscribe to non-robust policy agenda but I do not have a vote on PC.

-Khalid Saeed
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 18:02:42 EST
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: NICHOLAS GEORGANTZAS < >
Subject: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences

My dear colleagues,

Neither have I any vote, but two things I would like to bring to the discussion. First, I am reluctant to convert our SDS into an activist group. If we start now, there might be a very short distance from Howard Zinn's civil disobedience directive, which I reject as 'the' means to democracy.

Second, I would like to take Khalid's argument a step further. What if 'the market' just shadows the most important dimensions of ownership?

And there is ownership of the means to production, which is vastly different from the ownership of the production system itself. Moreover, there is ownership of the political systems that produce the policies that Khalid is talking about.

Is our SDS ready to convert us, its members, from individual subjects-who, in order to survive, must within our respective countries act as obedient subjects of the polyarchy that governs us-into true citizens with catholic liberty? That is individual liberty, societal liberty and political liberty? I do NOT think so.

But I might have said too much already. So, to bring some leverage into our SDS, please, let us just stop thinking and start computing... I's all in the modeling process; no?

Most cordially,

Nikko

Nicholas C. GEORGANTZAS
Professor, Management Systems
Director, System Dynamics Consultancy
FORDHAM UNIVERSITY BUSINESS SCHOOLS
113 West 60th Street, Suite 617 - D
New York , NY 10023-7484
U.S.A.
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 17:13:59 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Jay Forrester < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences
In-Reply-To: < >

I believe that the System Dynamics Society should not lend its prestige to a particular political agenda. Such sets a precedent for many more such issues in the future.

In particular, if the general idea should be adopted, I especially object to the "Opt out" idea rather than having an "Opt in" provision. Opt out puts pressure on members. They must take action to oppose something that seems to have the authority of the Society behind it. To opt out creates the impression that one is a member of a disdained minority. If there is any opting, it should be to opt in by taking a separate action to choose the option.

I repeat here the concerns that I expressed in an earlier message because they were not adequately answered or revealed in the message from Zagonel.

Jay W. Forrester

Professor Emeritus of Management
Sloan School , MIT
Room E60-156
617-253-1571

Reply to home office:
80 Deaconess Road, Suite 442
Concord, MA 01742-4173
978-369-9372

Email:
Fax: 978-369-9372
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:10:28 +1300
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: David Rees < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences
In-Reply-To: < >

I too have no vote but find the debate intriguing, and the assumption, that taking an action is somehow political whereas inaction is not, a disturbing one.

Based on my understanding of the the scientific consensus - I am not an expert in any of the physical sciences so have to read, listen, and interpret a lot to reach a conclusion - my actions, and the actions of my fellow human beings, especially, those in the developed world is having an impact upon the climate. How much, and over what time etc is debatable, but the core proposition seems to be accepted. Furthermore, the same scientific consensus says that those who are likely to suffer the most are the poor in developing countries.

I also live in a world where some people have a vested interest in me not changing, continuing to consume etc. etc and others who have a vested interest in me making changes so as to have less impact on their lives. What choices I make has consequences either way.

Surely, whether you decide to act or not, and whether the Society decides to act or not is, amongst other things, a political decision. The science will continue to evolve, and so should we, but with our current scientific knowledge, remaining silent is as much a political act as taking some action to reduce our carbon footprint.

I, like Khalid, have concerns about carbon trading and it may not be the best option. However, I do believe that we can't hide behind the false notion that doing nothing about our carbon footprint is somehow a less political act.

Respectfully yours

David

David Rees
M +64 21 800 266
P +64 9 360 9714
A 2 Hepburn Street, Ponsonby,
P.O. Box 147 168, Ponsonby,
Auckland 1144
Aotearoa, New Zealand
E
W www.synergia.co.nz
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:07:52 -0000
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: eric wolstenholme < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences
In-Reply-To: < >

Some of the issues raised here relate to the very nature and purpose of system dynamics. I will be brief.

I do not believe that addressing symptoms and addressing fundamental causes are mutually exclusive.

Challenging symptoms is a sound way to indirectly and subtly address the need fundamental change. It introduces a learning process which acts by softening the political correctness barriers associated with addressing the fundamental changes directly. And addressing symptoms is proactive. Preaching fundamentals is static and often a turn off.

I have a wife with an incurable disease. There is currently no fundamental solution. Does this mean I should sit and do nothing rather than taint myself with flawed approaches to symptoms? Addressing the symptoms is the only strategy I have and by being proactive this could lead to teasing out a real solution.

Eric Wolstenholme
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 09:59:07 -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: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences
In-Reply-To: < >

Hello everybody,

I find this discussion stimulating and important. In the case of the ABQ conference, I paid for the fund, because I believed it is likely to have a net effect that I personally value (and even if it is small, it was quite an affordable amount of money).

In my opinion, this is a statement of my personal responsibility as a citizen of this planet. I would not like the (any) society take away this responsibility by institutionalizing such payments. This is especially so because in this Society, most hav a dynamic intuition or even understanding of the climate problem. If upon reflection, one decides to pay, that's OK; for those who prefer not to pay, the interesting thing would be dialogue - but not forcing them or attaching positive or negative value to their decision.

So while I'd rather like to preserve the possibility to make such payments and inform conference attendees of this matter, I'd not like to institutionalize it.

Best greetings from Chile,

Martin Schaffernicht

Universidad de Talca
Talca - Chile
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 13:40:59 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Scott Rockart < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences

As I see it, the proposal combines two primary issues that areseparable and quite different.

The first, about adopting a policy to pay for carbon offsets, likely shouldn't be so contentious. We may not be certain of the best way to deal with the carbon that the conference activities produce, but like any other potentially detrimental by-product of our activities (trash, noise, etc.) it seems reasonable to make an effort to minimize our output and clean up after ourselves.

The second issue, taking a position (making a 'proclamation') as a Society should be contentious. Policy positions present a dilemma to all of us even as individual researchers: we need to take positions for our research to inform action yet we need to be visibly open to opposing views for our research to be conducted well and taken seriously. A Society faces an additional practical problem in that it is unlikely to ever achieve unanimity among members in belief or certainty in belief. I suggest (I'm not a council member so I can't propose) that the Society deals with its dilemma, and the additional practical challenge of variation in beliefs, by serving as a platform on which its members can endorse positions rather than as a body that directly endorses positions. For example, the Society could allow focused subgroups of policy members to produce position statements (proclamations) and use the Society's mailing lists and other resources to disseminate those statements, request endorsement by individual members, and perhaps to post those statements if they crossed some threshold level of support. A statement with hundreds of individual endorsements by society members (including, presumably, many endorsements by Policy Council members) would likely be more persuasive than a proclamation voted on by the small, albeit esteemed, group that comprises the Policy Council. Such a process would allow for a richer representation of the beliefs of the members, provide an opportunity to educate members, avoid allowing disagreement to become paralysis, and allow the Society to support good science and policy without championing any particular scientific conclusion or policy perspective.

Scott

Scott Rockart
Assistant Professor
Duke University's Fuqua School of Business
Towerview Drive
Durham , NC 27708-0120

919-660-7998 / 919-681-6244 (fax)
Email address:
Web page: www.duke.edu/~srockart
Fuqua Video: www.fuqua.duke.edu/wakeup
===================================================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:06:35 -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: < >

Just a clarification:

The focus of the discussion, as intended by the proponents, is the first point outlined by Scott: about adopting a policy to pay for carbon offsets.

The so-called second issue is simply a byproduct of the discussion that ensued early on, and it captures the justification behind the proposal. The proponents are not attached to the notion of a proclamation or to the specifics of the text thereunto. If it is to be useful to justify a decision by the Policy Council, so be it. Also, it can and should be edited. If it is actually detrimental to the initiative, particularly as we are perceived within or outside of our community, we don't need it. Also, we can change the name from proclamation to justification or something else. So long as we adequately understand and agree upon why the Society would embrace this measure

Thank you, Scott, for enlisting this clarification.

Aldo Zagonel
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:08:50 -0600
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Rogelio Oliva < >
Subject: Slate of Candidates Electronic Discussion

Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties:

Please find below the PROPOSED motion for the Slate of Candidates to take office in 2011. The full report is included and also available on the PC Menu site of the web submission system. The Policy Council will need to review and recognize the slate of candidates, and this message is to initiate online discussion. Please reply to the list to discuss.

There is separate schedule for discussion and voting on the Slate of Candidates:

January 7-28, 2010: discussion for three weeks
January 28-February 4: voting for one week

PROPOSED SLATE OF CANDIDATES TO TAKE OFFICE JANUARY 1, 2011

The Nominating Committee is pleased to nominate the following slate of candidates for Officers and Policy Council members to take office 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: Leonard Malczynski
PC 4: Markus Schwaninger

The committee received new expressions of interest in being a member of the Policy Council from more than 15 members of the Society, along with the 35 or so we had from 2008. We had extensive discussions of the candidates, and believe that the slate we have nominated represents a well qualified and diverse set of candidates. Bios for the new candidates are given below, along with an indication of the diversity of the Policy Council.

Characteristics of the Slate of Candidates:

Below is a summary of the characteristics of the 2009 and 2010 Policy Council and Officers along a number of diversity dimensions: location, profession, training, age, and gender. Location is a bit difficult because several members were born/raised/trained in one region but now work in a different region. In these cases, a balancing was attempted(e.g., placing one person from say Latin America now working in the US in the LA category, and another in the NA category). Age distribution is an estimate.

As you can see, with the exception of an increase in representation from Europe and Latin America (at the expense of all other regions), and an increase in non-MIT-trained members, the diversity of the Council with the proposed slate has remained relatively unchanged from 2009. We believe that this reflects a reasonable balance.

POLICY COUNCIL/OFFICER MIX FOR 2011/2010

Location 2011 2010
N Amer 48% 36%
Europe 36% 40%
Asia/Pac 4% 8%
L Amer 12% 12%
Africa 0% 4%

Profession 2011 2010
Academic 76% 72%
Consult. 12% 16%
Industry 12% 8%
Student 0% 4%

Training 2011 2010
MIT 28% 28%
Non-MIT 72% 72%

Age (est.) 2011 2010
<30 4% 8%
30 - 50 60% 48%
50 36% 44%

Gender 2011 2010
Male 76% 76%
Female 24% 24%

Biographies of the Slate of Candidates:

DAVID N. FORD, Ph.D., P.E. is an Associate Professor in the Construction Engineering and Management Program in the Zachry Department of Civil Engineering at Texas A&M University and a Research Associate Professor of Acquisition in the Graduate School of Business and Public Policy at the US. Naval Postgraduate School. He researches =development project dynamics, the application of real options for managing risk, resource allocation, and the management of contracted professionals. He teaches the strategic management of development projects using the system dynamics methodology and project planning, estimating and control. Dr. Ford actively works with firms in industry and public agencies to improve the planning and management of large, complex development projects. Prior his position at Texas A&M Dr. Ford was on faculty in the Department of Information Science at the University of Bergen, Norway, where he researched and taught in the System Dynamics Program. For over fourteen years he designed and managed the development of constructed facilities in industry and government. He received his Ph.D. degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and his Masters and Bachelors degrees from Tulane University. He has published in System Dynamics Review, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, European Journal of Operational Research, ASCE Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Construction Management and Economics, Defense Acquisition Review, and has contributed to several authoritative books. He is a managing editor of the System Dynamics review and a faculty advisor for the Texas A&M University student chapter of Engineers Without Borders.

ALLYSON BEALL Affiliations: Expert to the Education and Outreach Lead, Ecosystem Services Research Program, National Center for Environmental Assessment, USEPA Participatory Modeler, University of Idaho, Moscow ID Teaching Associate, Washington State University, Pullman WA

Dr. Beall’s expertise includes the use of system dynamics as an environmental problem solving methodology. Her work supports the use of collaboratively built simulation models to improve environmental decision making processes and has included projects concerned with endangered species management, watershed management and aquifer management. In addition, she is interested in using these models for improving the accessibility of scientific information to the public who may be affected by policy decisions based on that information. Her work with the EPA ESRP program includes the development of educational models that explain ecosystem services and illuminate both the impact of these services on human health and well-being and the impact of human decisions upon ecosystem services. She also works as a participatory modeler with University of Idaho Waters of the West is currently focused on the development of the Palouse Basin Participatory Water Resource Visioning Tool. As lead facilitator and modeler she is helping members of the local aquifer committee and citizens advisory group build an educational model as the first step to a decision support tool that bridges multiple jurisdictions. Partnering with stakeholders to build models helps stakeholders clarify their mental models, educate one another and helps build the capacity for collaboration in the future. Her work at Washington State University in environmental science education includes an introductory environmental science class and a NEPA environmental assessment class both of which she teaches from the systems perspective. She has a Ph.D. in Environmental and Natural Resource Science from WSU.

PETER HOVMAND is the Founding Director of the Social System Design Lab, George Warren Brown School of Social Work, Washington University in St. Louis and consults with the St. Louis VA Medical Center as a member of the Health Care Optimization (HCO) Group. Dr. Hovmand holds an Interdisciplinary Ph.D. in social science with concentrations in social work and community ecological psychology, and a cognate in feminist philosophy/women=92s studies. He also holds degrees in electrical engineering and mathematics. Dr. Hovmand studies the implementation of innovations in human service organizations and communities with specific interests in 1) understanding how implementation of innovations interact with social determinants of health to impact population level outcomes, and 2) developing participatory methods to build behavioral models with diverse stakeholder groups at the household, organizational and community =level. Application areas include health and mental health, energy and environment, domestic violence, and criminal justice systems.

He has expertise in system dynamics computer simulation modeling and group model building. His work is currently funded through the National Science Foundation, United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health including Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research and National Institute of Mental Health. Dr. Hovmand has been working on developing group model building techniques to develop models with diverse professional and community stakeholders including both domestic and international projects (rural India, Mongolia).

He is an active member of the System Dynamics Society and co-chair of the Diversity Committee. He is also a member of the Society for Social Work Research, and Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), and member of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation/National Institutes of Health sponsored childhood obesity modeling steering committee and Comparative Modeling (CompMod) network. His system dynamics research and teaching has appeared in peer reviewed journals including American Journal of Community Research, Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, and System Dynamics Review and the proceedings of the International System Dynamics Conference. He has also served as reviewer for American Journal of Public Health, European Journal of Operations Research, International System Dynamics Conference, Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, Psychometrika, Social Work Research, System Dynamics Review, and Systems Research and Behavior Science.

LEONARD A. MALCZYNSKI has a formal education in forestry, economics, software engineering and system dynamics. He began his software engineering career with the advent of the first personal computers and has worked with a variety of platforms and operating systems. His specialties are in database management systems, system dynamics modeling and geographic information systems. Over the past ten years he has concentrated on the building of system dynamics models dealing with aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, world energy consumption, water basin management, international conflict, biofuel adoption and international migration. He was a member of the Office of the Chief Economist at Sandia National Laboratories from 1998-2005. His current activities involve professional work with the System Dynamics Society, a software specialization in Powersim Studio, and development of software engineering techniques applicable to system dynamics modeling. Leonard has also taught information systems and microeconomics courses at the University of New Mexico and the College of Santa Fe since 1988. Prior to Sandia National Laboratories he spent 10 years as an independent information systems consultant in Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean as well as two years in the US Peace Corps in Niger, West Africa.

MARKUS SCHWANINGER is a Professor of Management at the University of St. Gallen (HSG), and Conference Chair of the proposed 2012 System Dynamics Conference in Switzerland. His focus at the University is on long-term challenges to society. Current research concentrates on harnessing system science to improve organizations. Scholarly achievements have included contributions to organizational modeling and design, organizational intelligence, transformation and learning, corporate and societal sustainability. Research work at the chair is on Model-based Management and Organizational Cybernetic Methodology. Within the HSG System Dynamics Group at the Institute of Management of the University of St. Gallen, projects on Theory-Building with Simulation Modeling, Simulation Based Management Education, Model-based Management with Simulation Approaches, Diffusion and Innovation Dynamics, Norm Formation Processes in Social Systems, among others, are carried out by Schwaninger or under his supervision.

Respectfully Submitted by the Nominating Committee:

Jim Lyneis (Chair)
Yaman Barlas
Deborah Campbell
Birgit Kopainsky
Erling Moxnes
Rogelio Oliva

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: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:43:39 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: James Thompson < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting - Carbon Neutral System Dynamics Conferences
In-Reply-To: < >

Our primary purpose is the advancement of system dynamics methodology. If we endorse specific applications, we will devolve into bickering. The Society should not take a position on any outside matter.

Jim Thompson
=========================================================================
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 11:15:14 -0500
Reply-To:
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: System Dynamics Society < >
Organization: System Dynamics Society
Subject: Winter PC Meeting Reminder

Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties,

The System Dynamics Society Winter Policy Council Meeting is open to all.

When: January 15, 2010, 11 AM

Where: MIT Dean's Conference Room ( Sloan Building, E52-468), 50 Memorial Drive, Cambridge, MA

For the "headcount," if your name is NOT listed at the bottom of this message, and you plan to attend, please let the Society office know as soon as possible. Morning and afternoon coffee and lunch will be served. If you will not be attending, there is no need to reply.

PARKING AT MIT is available at the Hayward Parking Lot, a pass is required.

If you have not already replied to the Society office requesting a pass, please do, so that one can be arranged for you.

DIRECTIONS: http://whereis.mit.edu/directions.html

MIT Campus Map: http://whereis.mit.edu/

To get to the Sloan building (E52) from the Hayward Lot: Head South on Hayward St (towards Memorial Drive/Charles River) Take a left (heading East) on Amherst St. Amherst dead ends into Wadsworth St. Take a right onto Wadsworth and you will see the Sloan building on the North East Corner of Wadsworth and Amherst.

If you have any questions or if we can help you further with directions or hotel information please let us know.

Attendees:

David Andersen
Deborah Andersen
Robert Eberlein
Jay Forrester
David Lane
Brad Morrison
Erling Moxnes
Rogelio Oliva
Dave Packer
Jack Pugh
Aldo Zagonel

Thanks,

Erin

Erin Sheehan
Assistant to Executive Director

Roberta Spencer
Executive Director
System Dynamics Society
office@systemdynamics.org
phone +1 518 442 3865
fax +1 518 442 3398
www.systemdynamics.org
Milne 300, University at Albany
135 Western Avenue
Albany , NY 12222 USA
=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 08:32:21 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Rogelio Oliva < >

Subject: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines

Dear Policy Council Members,

Last year we received a proposal signed by a number of past presidents of the society suggesting that we ought to consider limiting the conference sites to locations in North America and Europe served by an airport with multiple intercontinental flights. I just posted the text of the original proposal together with some back-of-the-envelope statistical analysis of the impact of conference locations on conference attendance, quality, profitability, and society memberships in the host country. As supplemented materials we posted the current guidelines for the selection of conference sites.

I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the proposal and ideas on how to improve it.

Respectfully,

Rogelio Oliva

Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 10:56:24 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: James Lyneis < >
Subject: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines

Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties,

I am generally supportive of the idea of holding conferences in major North American and European gateways. However, one thing we need to consider, and budget for, is the extra workload that this will impose of the home office staff because there will likely be a reduction in local organizing effort (especially if we repeat locations regularly). I would be interested in hearing from Roberta and others regarding how much this may be.

Jim

James M. Lyneis
PO Box 121
215 Landgrove Road
Weston , Vermont 05161

=========================================================================
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 18:16:04 +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: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: <004301ca9468$f6ea99c0$e4bfcd40$@net>

Dear all,

I'm also not principally against the proposal but there are some points that I think need to be clarified/considered before such a policy is installed:

1. an important point has been raised by Jim and I just re-emphasise it here (potential effects on home office)
2. I would like to see a list of the "non-remote" sites; being located in the Netherlands it appears odd to me that Nijmegen is considered remote and Utrecht non-remote (I suppose)
3. what is the effect on SD people in Asia/Africa/South-America/Australia if we tell them that in the foreseeable future there will be no conference at their continent? -- while the effects of past conferences in these areas might not have been as we expected it, don't we risk losing all remaining SD background in these areas?
4. maybe a way to minimize this risk would be to find proponents for the proposal from these regions (i.e. Asia, Australia, etc.) -- right now, the proposers are all coming from the East cost of the US (sorry, Rogelio, for including you here, but I assume you understand my point)
5. not having local organisers anymore would perhaps also mean having lower local sponsorship (besides the work load effect on the home office)
6. not having local organisers or geographical and cultural diversity would streamline the conferences substantially -- while some might say that is no problem since from a professional point of view it doesn't matter (or is even harmful), others might say this diversity adds to the attractiveness of the conference.

Best,

Andreas

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: Wed, 13 Jan 2010 11:06:09 -0700
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: "Malczynski, Leonard A" < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

Dear Policy Council Members,

I would like to comment on the proposal by a number of past presidents on limiting conference locations and would like to encourage comments from past conference chairpersons.

Hosting and chairing the conference is a non-trivial task. Having a strong desire to give back to the system dynamics community and then expending the effort is a must for a successful conference. Holding the conference in remote' locations promotes inclusion, excitement, and commitment by local hosts and their 'geographies'.

Always holding the conference in gateway cities seems to me a 'fix that fails' to promote the goals of the System Dynamics Society. Centers of activity in SD will hopefully remain so. They came to be, first of all, by historical accident followed by intense and strenuous activity to grow and promote the methodology. As we all know, growth has its limits and our growth can only be globally increased by moving to nascent regions.

I do not see a causal relationship between profitability and quality to geography. There may be a correlation between an indicator variable (location) and conference attendance from a cursory statistical analysis. However, what is the behavioral functional form of the relationship? Does the state of the world economy or fear of contracting a communicable disease matter? Is profitability the primary goal? What has been the price elasticity of demand with respect to travel costs and conference costs?

The Society already has a policy for a default conference site in North America in the event that a strong proposal does not arise from the membership in any other place on Earth. Perhaps that default site should become a short list. Please let the 'remote' sites give it a go. Please let the remote sites show their pride and commitment. Please let remote sites cause their own historical accidents.

Respectfully,

Len Malczynski
Conference Chair ICSDS 2009 Albuquerque, New Mexico USA
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 21:50:54 +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: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

Dear Rogelio,

many thanks for the opportunity to comment on the current proposal "signed by a number of past presidents of the society suggesting that we ought to consider limiting the conference sites to locations in North America and Europe served by an airport with multiple intercontinental flights."

I find this proposal quite disturbing, as i understand that one of the society's main objectives is to encourage the spread of System Dynamics around the world. The international SD conferences have been highly successful in introducing/promoting/extending understanding/networking etc the field to a wide range of people throughout the world.

if the proposed policy had been in place when the SDS was established in the early 1980s, then the 14 sites identified as (A) below would not have had the opportunity of hosting the annual SD conference. conversely the sites listed in (B) where previous SD conferences have been held would have been regarded as 'suitable'.

i understood that the Policy Council had formulated a 'SD conferences policy' a number of years ago whereby the rotation would be something like: (i) 3 yearly rotation - North America, Europe, Rest of World (ROW); or (ii) 5 yearly rotation - North America, Europe, North America, Europe, ROW;

i am sure options (i) or (ii) above would be much fairer and help to promote SD globally much better in the future.

Naturally there will be some variation in financial surpluses/deficits, sponsorship, and attendances between the conference locations. However, i am sure there are a number of other 'hard' or 'soft' measures that the conferences can be compared also.

any comments please.

kind regards,

Bob

A/Prof Bob Cavana
Reader in Systems Science
Victoria Management School (& Chairperson of the 1999 International System Dynamics Conference, Wellington, New Zealand)

(A)"For the purposes of this analysis, conferences were divided into two categories: those meeting the guideline of being in, or near, an American or European city accessible by direct intercontinental flights, and those not meeting those guidelines (designated as ‘remote’ in the analysis). The ‘remote’ sites are:

Oslo , Norway
Keystone , USA
Shanghai , China
Bangkok , Thailand
Stirling , Scotland
Tokyo , Japan
Istanbul , Turkey
Wellington , New Zealand
Bergen , Norway
Palermo , Italy
Oxford , UK
Nijmegen , Netherlands
Athens , Greece
Albuquerque , USA "

(B) if the above sites are considered 'remote' and therefore not suitable for SD conferences in the future, then that implies that in the past only the following North American/European sites would be suitable in the future:

Boston , MA, USA
New York City , USA
Atlanta , Georgia, USA
Cambridge , MA, USA
Chestnut Hill , MA, USA
Keystone , CO USA
La Jolla , CA, USA
Cancun , Mexico
Utrecht , Netherlands
Stuttgart , Germany
Seville , Spain
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 08:50:12 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Rogelio Oliva < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

I thank everyone that has taken the time to comment on this proposal.

I do not intend to speak for all the signing past presidents, but I can address some of the questions related to the assumptions behind the statistical analysis.

Andreas states: 2. I would like to see a list of the "non-remote" sites; being located in the Netherlands it appears odd to me that Nijmegen is considered remote and Utrecht non-remote (I suppose)

The list of "not-remote" sites is indeed the list prepared by Bob Cavana, (i.e.,
Boston , MA, USA
New York City , USA
Atlanta , Georgia, USA
Cambridge , MA, USA
Chestnut Hill , MA, USA
Keystone , CO USA
La Jolla , CA, USA
Cancun , Mexico
Utrecht , Netherlands
Stuttgart , Germany
Seville , Spain

My rationale, and perhaps a faulty one, was to assess the site relative to its proximity to a major airport (the argument being made in the proposal).I have not been to every of those sites, but I just made the assessment based on distance according to Google maps. Utrech being 40 kilometers from Amsterdam airport was consider not remote, while Nijmegen, 125 kms away, was considered remote.

Len states:

Indeed, the statistical analysis is not enough to argue for causation, just the fact that there is an impact, and that it is significant. Building the causal argument, however, is not that difficult. Why do people don't go to remote locations? Just ask around, why aren't your colleagues going to Korea? Because it is a hassle, because it is too expensive, because I don't have the time to spend two days traveling, ... because no one that I would really want to listen to is going to attend (and there is a bunch of reinforcing loops just like that last one).

Re the quality argument, speaking as a program chair, it is a lot easier to put a quality program when all the active researchers are presenting. Going to a remote location pulls some of the important people in the field from the sample of submitted papers. Average quality of presentations drops.

While profitability is not the primary goal, the conference does play an important role on funding the society's operating expense. If going to a remote location makes attendance drop, and sponsorship is correlated with attendance, I don't think it is that difficult to make the link between attendance and profitability.

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: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:38:07 +0000
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Graham Winch < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

Hello colleagues,

I am happy to respond to this invitation to comment. I am also a past president but do not agree with this proposal. I make three points:

1. I believe there are already ample guidelines on conference site selection in place that, combined with the good sense of Policy Council members, should be adequate in ensuring that only suitable and potentially successful sites are selected without resort to these restrictive rules. The real reasons for the very few conferences deemed unsuccessful should be fully and objectively investigated.

2. While it is correctly stated that this proposal is from "a number of past presidents", it is not made clear that the group in fact comprises only US / US-based PPs. When the proposal was first mooted, all past presidents were invited to support it - it is interesting that from the signatories list it seems that no non-US past presidents were inclined to add their names.

3. The statistical analysis is far from clear-cut. Firstly, the classification of sites as "remote" vs. "non-remote"(?) is highly questionable (Let us leave aside for the moment the issue of major world cities like Tokyo, Beijing and Istanbul.) Athens and Oslo are both important European national capitals but are classed as remote, neither Seville nor Stuttgart are but are classed as non-remote; Oxford is classed as remote, but is barely an hour by direct airport transfer service from the world's busiest international airport, London Heathrow, La Jolla, CA and Chestnut Hill, MA are classified non-remote; Nijmegen is remote, Utrecht is not; Bergen is remote, but neither Quebec City nor Cancun are! Further, if the two obvious out-lyers are excluded from the figure in analysis #3, the stats are not at all convincing and a steady upward trend and a small cyclical element are obvious, but along with the anniversary conference in Boston, Oxford appears one of the best, if not the best performer.

I certainly urge the policy council to continue to focus on Europe and North America as the locations for the majority of conferences as this is where the bulk of our members are based, to consider carefully the concept and definition of remoteness, and always to select a location with convenient intercontinental travel facilities, the potential for good attendence, and a strongly committed and proven local organising team. There should also be a full "post mortem" on all conferences, especially if there is any feeling that a conference was in any way unsuccessful. If this leads to a narrowing of the range of locations, then compensatory initiatives should be considered to maintain the objective of rolling out SD further in newer geographical areas as well as in our established bases.

Regards.

Dr. Graham W. Winch

Professor Emeritus in Business Analysis
University of Plymouth
+44 (0)1548 830816
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:53:18 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Rogelio Oliva < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

Dear PC members,

While in my previous message I addressed some of the questions relative to the statistical analysis in this response I want to address an issue that most respondents have failed to address. Len comments

Hosting and chairing the conference is a non-trivial task. Having a strong desire to give back to the system dynamics community and then expending the effort is a must for a successful conference. Holding the conference in “remote” locations promotes inclusion, excitement, and commitment by local hosts and their “geographies”.

I thank Len and Aldo again for a wonderful conference in ABQ and in no way will I try to diminish the recognition they deserve or their commitment for the society. I agree that organizing the conference promotes inclusion, excitement and commitment. However, it does that for the organizing committee (not necessarily for the attendants). And while local people might be exposed to the SD, we must agree that the conference does very little to promote good SD among those local people. The goal of the society, is after all, to promote SD, and good SD practice.

If the goal is to promote better SD skills AND excitement, commitment, and inclusion in the local practitioners , wouldn't it be much more effective to organize a one-week (or two day) workshop or seminar with a good SD practitioner in that location? Wouldn't the 'local sponsors' get much more value or their effort if they were supported by the society to identify solid SD practitioners willing to go out and deliver that training?

We have attributed now two objectives to the conference (this is just an extreme example, I'm sure there are many other goals)

1) to show the best SD work, and for the practitioners to come together and learn from each other,

2) to promote excitement, commitment, inclusion in locations that are not currently centers of activity in SD.

Going to non-gateway location hurts objective 1, thus we propose for the society to look for other (perhaps more effective) ways of achieving goal 2, and remove that expectation from the conference goals.

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: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:27:25 -0700
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: "Malczynski, Leonard A" < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

Dear Policy Council Members,

Thank you to Rogelio for the support. I agree with Rogelio on the enumerated points:

1) to show the best SD work, and for the practitioners to come together and learn from each other,

2) to promote excitement, commitment, inclusion in locations that are not currently centers of activity in SD.

And agree that we need other activities besides the Conference.

I have been thinking about personal reasons to attend the conference. Attendance for me is indeed a function of travel time, program quality, expense and travel funding plus, as a weak contender, time of year. The Society will continue to have good attendance by minimizing travel time and expense and maximizing program quality. Travel funding is an individual member concern.

Comments we received about hesitation to attend during the organization of the Albuquerque conference were typically: 'my travel budget has been greatly diminished' and 'I have a fear about the swine flu'. Gateway city location may have helped the budget issue.

The best thing about this discussion is an airing of our objective functions as individuals, Society members, and Policy Council members with respect to the Conference and more.

Regards,

Len

P.S. Membership distribution by region

Region Members

World

Africa

999

N America

485

341

S America

580

Asia

4117

Europe

340

738

Pacific

Total

1039

6810

Members in persons, World in millions of persons
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:52:50 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Imrana Umar < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

Dear PC Members,

There are definitely good arguments for organizing the SD conference at locations that are relatively convenient to majority of conference attendees. There are also many professional and societies, organizations and trade associations that have dedicated conference sites and so this is not an isolated proposal.

However, the argument of "showing good SD work and for practitioners to come and learn from each other" should not be one of those arguments. In this particular case, the assumption is that the senior and well established SD practitioners, who also happen to be in positions of leadership in the SD society, are those who can and do produce good research work. If that is the case, it will then be very unfortunate if they decide not to travel to "remote" conference locations, as Rogelio argued, because of the hassle involved in traveling to those locations. At least those who listen to them go through the same hassles to travel from "remote" locations to wherever they are invited to come and listen to them. This kind of argument from the leadership of our society will therefore come across as being counterproductive to our goal and somewhat offensive to the less fortunate members of our society.

Having said this, the success of the SD society, like all other societies and organizations, is not based on the quality of papers presented at conferences, but rather on the value received from the practical application of the research work. Any good researcher who has a good work to present should think less of where he/she is presenting it and more on how it will be received and the impact it will have on society. Sometimes the best feedback one receives is from the seemingly dumb questions.

This issue of conference location is one of the symptoms of the main problem of the society - success! We all believe the SD discipline is a wonderful concept, but has not been as successful as we wish it to be and so we are trying to find a solution to this problem, without first defining what success is to the society and the reasons for not meeting our aspirations. I don't think we will like to the society's "success indicator" to be the quality of papers presented at our conferences, although that will be one of our "progress indicators". For a long time we seem to be focused on the supply side of the equation (push), I think it is about time to refocus our attention on the demand side (pull). We will be successful when the discipline is in high demand from industry and government because they see some practical value from its application and students line up to take SD courses because they see a future in making a living from it. At that point, wherever in the world we choose to hold our annual conference people from all walks of life will travel from all corners of the earth-on horses, camels, bicycles, cars and airplanes-to attend.

For now, I think locating the conference at convenient locations for majority of the attendees and occasionally taking it to a "remote" location is a good idea.

Sincerely,

Imrana A. Umar

President & CEO
Powersim Solutions, Inc.
585 Grove Street, Suite 130
Herndon , VA 20170 - USA
(+1) 703.467.0915(Direct) | 703.46.0910( Main) | 703.919.3640(Cell) | |703.467.0912(Fax)

Email: <mailto:imrana.umar@powersimsolutions.com>

Website: www.powersimsolutions.com <http://www.powersimsolutions.com/>
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 14:51:28 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: "Saeed, Khalid" < >
Subject: Re: SDSWinterPC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: <04b901ca9542$664a83a0$32df8ae0$@ >

I tend to agree with Bian. We have a pretty good oversight in place for conference locations with some flexibility to accommodate all views being expressed. There is no need to add further restrictions to it.

-Khalid
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:28:55 -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: Albuquerque Proposal

In addition to the Albuquerque Conference Report provided by Roberta, and the results of the survey provided by Etienne, please find in the PC "reports" a document entitled "Albuquerque Proposal."

Len and I wanted to convey to you our "lesson learned" from hosting a conference in the form of a proposal. But, we start by acknowledging the many contributors that made the Albuquerque Conference possible and, in our view, successful. To this we add some reflections and recommendations from the program chair, organizing chair, and conference host. We then conclude with the proposal addressing the means by which the conference finances are handled.

These reflections and recommendations are offered in the spirit of improving the quality of the annual conferences to all attendees, strengthening the Society Office with resources, and enhancing the experience of hosting a conference, while promoting innovation, discretion, responsibility, flexibility and accountability.

At this time our proposal is simply food for thought. We have no intention of submitting a motion to this effect. But, we welcome discussion on this proposal as subsidy to the work that the Meetings Committee does, particularly from those with previous experience hosting the conference.

Anyone who's planning on hosting a conference might benefit from this read as well.

Best,

Aldo Zagonel and Len Malczynski

PS: Anyone who's not able to retrieve the proposal, please send me an email ( <mailto:aazagon@sandia.gov>) and I'll attach it in my reply.
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 16:36:34 -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 -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

I think my comments align somewhat with Umar's and Khalid's. However, I think the proponents are on to something and we ought to listen and work with them in a constructive manner:

I'd like to sidestep for a moment the specifics of the proposal submitted by Rogelio Oliva on behalf of some of the Past Presidents of the Society to express some general impressions on the theme of promoting "successful" conferences.

Success is a multidimensional construct that has been poorly established or measured. More effort should be placed in defining it and measuring it, so that we can establish which of the previous conferences were successful and why, and which were not successful and why not.

It is argued that remote locations are less likely to hold successful conferences than those that are at, or very close to, major international airport hubs. While this may be true in principle, there are proven exceptions. I suspect the Nijmegen and Albuquerque Conferences are among the most successful (absent clearly defined criteria to judge), and yet they might be regarded as remote locations.

A number of factors must be weighed in when choosing a site (and perhaps more importantly a host and program chair!). The remoteness of the location is certainly one of them. The guidelines currently in place take much of this into account and perhaps need only minor adjustments to minimize risk.

It seems to me that one of the factors that will help to minimize risk is increased professionalization. Active recruitment of sites and hosts, and excessive reliance on local organizing committees is risky business. In most cases, local organizers will be doing this for the first time, and are unlikely to want to repeat it due to the amount of volunteer work required. There is a steep learning curve and small incentive for learning. On the other hand, the Society Office is in charge of the conferences every year and has reached a high level of proficiency.

But it is difficult for the Society Office to avoid reliance upon a local organizing team when the conference is held in a different location every year. For this reason, it would be highly beneficial to use repeat locations, such as the Seaport Hotel in Boston. The Office dealt with the same issues and in many cases with the same people in 2005 and 2007. If we were to negotiate two contracts simultaneously, we probably would get a better rate as well.

If the site repeats, than it becomes a burden for the "same old (local) suspects" to have to offer their volunteer support year after year, or every other year. Therefore, there is a trade off. If we repeat sites, we cannot draw upon volunteer hosts/organizers. Personally, I don't see this as a major problem, because I am in favor of increased professionalism, meaning increased reliance on the Society Office to put things together, with minimum reliance on unpaid volunteers (except for reviewers, thread chairs and program chairs). Of course, in order to face this challenge, the Society Office must be funded adequately.

I think if we repeated sites frequently, and relied on the Society Office to put together the conference in those sites, as long as we chose the sites carefully, those would be certainly "successful" conferences.

But I think we should also allow local hosts to propose, well in advance, to host the conference, and with adequate financial sponsorship and personal commitments. Instead of being the rule, this would be the exception to the rule. Instead of recruiting sites and hosts, the Society would entertain such requests on an exceptional basis.

I suspect not much needs to be changed to implement such an approach. What we need is to agree to hold a couple of non-consecutive conferences in an "ideal" location in North America, and another two in an equally ideal location in Europe. Once the contracts are signed, any other sites of interest must step up if they want to be considered, sooner rather than later, to avoid being postponed. Prospective hosts would have to demonstrate strong financial support and personal commitment to persuade the Meetings Committee. The location would have to the judged adequate. The Policy Council would have to see it in the interest of the Society to call for the exception. In the absence of all of this, "ideal" locations would be contracted well in advance, at good prices, with a simple rotation between North America and Europe. Those locations could be Boston and London, or something else. For example, for 2011, it seemed more desirable to have the conference in Washington, DC than in Boston, even though there was not a concrete proposal or firm host in either location.

I think we ought to listen and work with the proponents in a constructive manner to see if we can find a good solution to eliminate or greatly reduce the ongoing risk involved in hosting our annual conferences using recruitment of proposals and reliance on local volunteers. I recommend greater reliance on professionalization and repeating venues which constitute a proven location, coupled with some flexibility to "improvise" when it makes good sense to do so.

Aldo Zagonel
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:12:15 -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: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

Dear Friends,

I have now had a chance to read all the emails on the proposal regarding conference locations. Thanks to all for their comments. I am unfortunately unable to attend the meeting tomorrow as I am out of town, so I'm offering these thoughts by email.

All of us who signed the proposal are strongly and passionately committed to the goals that Len, Rogelio, Bob and others have articulated, including promoting and building the field of system dynamics around the world. We all believe it is important to support the development and diffusion of SD outside Europe and North America. The question is what is the best way to do so.

The data suggest to me that holding our annual conference in remote locations is not effective in achieving the goals of building the field of SD, and imposes significant costs on the society, both financial and nonfinancial, that hamper the overall health of the field. Those costs, in turn, reduce the rate at which the field can be developed outside Europe and North America. Conferences in remote locations (defined here as locations far removed in travel time and cost from those locations where the bulk of members and activity take place) generate much smaller surpluses for the society, and some have led to large financial losses. The reduction in financial resources then restricts our ability to offer workshops, boot camps, and other events in those regions that could be specifically tailored to maximize the development of the field. Conferences in remote locations appear to impose a higher burden on the home office, limiting the ability of Roberta and her team to provide services to chapters and members throughout the world, including those in remote locations.

I believe it would be more effective for the society to organize custom, focused workshops, conferences, "boot camps" and other events in remote locations. These can be specifically tailored to the needs of these regions, can be designed to foster follow up, training, reciprocal visits of longer duration, and other activities that can help build critical mass and lead to sustained success in those regions. Early in the history of the field, such focused workshops were important in building critical mass in regions where SD was not yet common. For example, Dennis Meadows organized several workshops on SD in the early 1970s in Denmark, which led to the development of important centers of SD activity in Denmark and Scandinavia. These were not conferences like our annual conference, but smaller, focused on inviting promising scholars and others, and had an explicit goal of developing the SD skills and capabilities of the participants. Such focused workshops are I believe much more likely to produce lasting impact, build local capacity and help develop the critical mass of quality SD work that can then not only be self-sustaining but start to grow through the various positive loops that build a field. As another example, the Santa Fe Institute summer school, a several week boot camp in complexity theory and modeling, is highly effective, and SFI now operates one in China. Similar boot camps are offered in behavioral deision making in Germany and in several other relatively new disciplines that, like SD, are seeking to expand their membership and impact. They do so by creating workshops and boot camps that attract the most promising young scholars as participants and the best experienced people as faculty and leaders.

As you all know well, the leverage points for sustained beneficial change in complex systems are often far from the symptoms of a problem. By holding our conferences so often in remote locations, we have been attacking the symptoms (low membership and participation in those locations). Unsurprisingly, this symptom-oriented approach has not worked, and also generates the unintended consequence of weakening the overall growth of the field, the quality of work, and the resources available to build the field throughout the world, including regions outside Europe and North America.

I am confident that we can do better for the society in general and 'remote' locations in particular. Holding the annual conferences in major gateway cities in Europe and North America will likely free up the time and resources needed to develop the programs that can make a difference in other regions.

Thanks

John
=========================================================================
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2010 19:53:49 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Dennis Meadows < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to endorse the views advanced by John Sterman in relation to the criteria for locating the annual meeting.

I believe it is important to support professional advancement of current members in the Society, and I also believe it is important to support the diffusion of system dynamics to new regions. These are two important, but very different goals. It is a serious mistake for the Society to try and achieve both goals with the same instrument - the annual meeting. We must recognize that one instrument cannot achieve all goals.

Over the past ten years paid average membership in the Society has been:

By Region:
North America 45%
Europe 35%
Rest of World 20%

By country:
China 9
Germany 55
Greece 9
Italy 20
Japan 24
Netherlands 32
New Zealand 10
Norway 26
Thailand 1
Turkey 8
UK 87
USA 412

The annual meeting should be held in a site that minimizes the collective cost of all current Society participants. I believe that means it should alternate between the US and Europe. Certainly the specific criteria for identifying accessible sites could be improved. Access is not only a function of the airport, it is influenced also by the quality of the public transportation system linking the airport to the conference site. Therefore the Netherlands, for example, has many accessible cities, even though it has only one really convenient airport - Amsterdam. But acknowledging that the criteria may be improved is not a reason to discard the goal.

To encourage the diffusion of the field, we must develop some procedure for enlarging the numbers of skilled system dynamics professionals in other countries. Holding the conference in those countries does not achieve our goal. The Society's data on membership demonstrate this fact. Instead we should organize intensive one to two week teaching conferences in countries where there is a chance to recruit and develop important new practitioners of our methods. I have done that. It works. And I will personally be happy to offer a number of one to two week training seminars in System Dynamics in the next two years, if the Society can decide where they would be most useful and give me a local partner.

I have never observed that attending a conference gives some novice a professional level of competence in system dynamics. But a two week teaching conference can convey useful skills - it brings many people to a level from which they can sustain their own learning.

I went to Albuquerque. It was a productive meeting, and I could afford to pay the cost of access. I am not going to Seoul, because I am retired, and I cannot afford the time or the money involved.

The Society's data on membership do not support the theory that holding a meeting in a remote country permanently raises the number of Society members in that country. On the other hand, it is clear that remote meetings increase the cost of the session and reduce the participation by the most skilled members. So what is the reason for holding meetings in remote areas?

I organized Balaton Group meetings for 25 years. We settled on one conference site, a small hotel in rural Hungary. The economies of doing that permitted us to subsidize the travel and hotel costs of people from remote areas. The result was much lower costs of organization and much higher average quality of participants. I believe the same option should be chosen by the Society.

Regards,

Dennis Meadows
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 12:55:03 +0100
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Erling Moxnes < >
Subject: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference, journal and an attempt at the big picture

Dear all,

From the discussion about location there seems to be considerable agreement that the Society's goal is to contribute to the diffusion of high quality SD. At the same time the Society needs income to pay for services to members and equally important to everyone else. A large fraction of Society services is information that can be classified as 'public goods' (excuse me for using economics jargon which I think is appropriate in this case). To maximize benefits to members and others, public goods should be priced at zero. To maximize diffusion we therefore need to get our income where it does not hurt diffusion very much and supply information for free where this has the greatest positive effect on diffusion.

What are the main services and income sources? Here are the five main items I can think of this early morning in Boston:

Conference (International conference and local seminars and courses)
Journal (printed and electronic version, restriced or open access)
Society sales items (beer game etc)
Society web site material (open access and restricted to members)
Newsletters to members

Where can we generate income, where diffusion and where quality?

Conferences are not public goods, costs increase with attendance. To get the benefits of mingling and inspired talks, people must attend. The proceedings are free to everyone and is the public good part of the conference. People know they have to pay to cover costs, therefore there is a potential for the conference to raise money for the Society - as we know from experience. In order to increase incomes we should consider increasing fees, particularly for those that see the highest net benefits from attending and that are not very price sensitive. With the current localization practise of the int.conference and even more so if we concentrate to few locations, the latter reasoning implies that those who have low travel costs should pay higher fees than those with high travel costs. This reasoning also implies that in order to charge as high fees as possible, we should design conferences such that they maximize perceived benefits by participants (program, culture, scenery, spectacular travel etc.) and minimize participant costs (all costs of transportation including travel time and waiting, accomodation and food, visa trouble etc). Society membership should qualify for rebates to stimulate membership. Finally, conference costs should be minimized by a professional organization that build on experience, that can locate low cost conference rooms and AV equipment etc. As pointed out earlier, the int. conference could be supplemented by local arrangements.

The SDR generates income since it is one, I assume major, reason to be a Society member. The journal in its electronic form is a public good. Open access journals are said to lead to doubled number of citations. It would be surprising if that was not the case, given that quality and recognition does not change. My impression is that today's researchers do not leave their desks to go to the library and they are reluctant to spend time and money to download articles for which they have to pay. The fewer subscriptions a university can afford the stronger these tendencies. Journal cost are, I assuming this early morning, mostly related to printing, promotion of the journal by the publisher, and publisher profits. We should consider going to open access for the electronic journal, and if we keep the printed version that should be priced fairly high.

Society sales are typically not public goods and generate good income.

Society web site material represents public goods that ideally should be open access. By restricting some of the material, that could be used as a reason to pay membership dues.

Printed newsletters carry costs of printing and shipment and is therefore naturally restricted to members.

Finally, a major reason to become a member of the Society should be that this is a way to contribute to the production of public goods that help fulfil the goals of the Society. Maybe we could do an even better job to explain this. Our sponsors already understand. Most members may not understand that with no Society, there would be no public goods to enjoy.

Erling
========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 19:12:30 -0000
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Brian Dangerfield < >
Subject: Conference locations

Dear All:

I offer some comments on the conference location debate:

Firstly, the Society has visited this issue before, perhaps 8-10 years ago and the outcome then was to defeat the proposal.

In other words we adhere to the statement on our website: "The System Dynamics Society has a long tradition of international conferences in diverse locations".

I havn't the slightest doubt that to maximize Society revenue and to give the Home Office least organizational anxiety we should hold the annual conference only in N America. However, what sort of signal would that send to the RoW? Even if we extend that to include select locations in Europe, it undermines our claim to be an international society, not an Anglo-Saxon one. One reaction may be for a 'remote' location to offer to stage their own conference since SDS policy would be to rule them out. Further, restricting the number of locations may result in local sponsor fatigue.

I asked a colleague here who attends the International Symposium on Forecasting (ISF) what their policy was. This is what he said: "The International Symposium on Forecasting (ISF) has indeed many things in common with the SD conference. In fact, the entire society is pretty similar in terms of focus, journal, number of members etc. The ISF alternates between North America, Europe and the rest of the world. There isn't an exact pattern but things seem to work as follows":

North America
Europe
North America
Europe
Rest of the world
Rest of the world
North America
Europe
North America
Europe
Rest of the world
North America .....

Have a look also at: http://forecasters.org/isf/past-isfs.html

He continued: "ISF, for example organised something in Santander, Spain that was perceived as a remote place (little or difficult international access etc). However, I found out through many discussions that the event in Atlanta (which I didn't attend) was in fact even worse (much worse) in terms of access to other locations, nightlife etc since it was organised in a campus in the middle of nowhere. Santander though was a cosy small Spanish place that everybody quite enjoyed. The same goes for Nice actually; that is not a metropolitan place or anything near Paris, but it was an enjoyable event".

I ran a report to discover, over the past three years, the origins of SDR new manuscript submissions:

USA 80; UK11; Australia 6; India7; Spain 7; Taiwan7. All the rest were at 5 or, in many cases, just one or two.

It's all down to perceptions and the interpretation of signals. Despite all the very sensible comments made by the proponents of the new policy I fear a negative dynamic may be set in train amongst the excluded.

Finally I would like to comment on the use of 3rd party conference organisers. My experience is that the Home Office are uneasy about dealing with local conference organisers who, by their very existence, are in business to make a profit. A team of local volunteers (as at present) would seem to offer the best mode of operation. I accept this may assume a local group of SD 'supporters'.

Best wishes

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 Jan 2010 14:37:46 -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: Conference locations
In-Reply-To: <9AAD2D5FBB83834AA6DAA36C66CE71883C184B@ISD-

thank you brian for your comments.

A few quick observations:

1. Our goal is not revenue maximization, but maximizing the growth, quality, and diffusion of SD worldwide (not just in NA and Eur).
2. We are not proposing that the rest of the world outside be "excluded"; rather, our proposal will generate the resources and capability to provide more and especially more effective activities and workshops in the rest of the world.
3. while some of the local organizing teams for our conferences have done enormously well, worked hard, and put on excellent conferences, others have not. The variance in this capability is far too high and imposes enormous and largely unforeseeable burdens on the home office (Roberta and her team). Current practice means that different local teams are used in each case, so what is learned by one is not readily transferred to any other. Under the proposal, the home office would take on more control and be able to work with selected vendors/organizers, who would be able to learn over time. The expectation is that these scale economies and learning effects would lead to great efficiencies and higher and more uniform quality.
4. There would be more, not less, scope for local groups anywhere in the world to propose and then perhaps organize and deliver high quality workshops focused on the needs of their particular regions.

Thanks

John
=========================================================================
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 15:10:23 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: John Sterman < >
Subject: Fwd: Message from Mike Radz

Dear Colleagues,

I am forwarding this note from Michael Radzicki for your consideration, at his request.
John

Hi John:

My comments on conference locations (below) were bounced back yesterday. Could you please post them to the SD listserv for me?
Thanks.
Mike Radz

>----- Forwarded Message -----

From:
To: "List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members" <
Cc:
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 6:52:21 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines

Dear Colleagues:

For what it's worth, here are my views on the issue of conference location...

For many years I felt that one of the primary missions of the annual conference was "outreach" for the field. Indeed, among many other things the annual conference provided a vehicle for bringing SD to the attention of people who had perhaps heard about it but had never seen it in action. Money, I felt, was of secondary importance (we weren't a profit driven corporation with shareholders after all).

However, in more recent years I have changed my opinion. At this point in time I feel that the sustained fiscal health of the Society is of paramount importance and hence that the annual conference should be used to provide the most "stress-free" source of revenue possible. This seems to occur when the conference is held according to the NA-Euro rotation. A predictable flow of abundant conference revenue relieves the central office of the need to raise money from other sources (e.g., sales).

As to "outreach," some of you may remember my presidential address in Nijmegen in which I argued that the Society's chapters and SIGs are the future of the field. I think that these entities can be very effective in conducting outreach. My experience in economics is a case in point. For years I was unsuccessful in getting economists to attend the SD conference. On the other hand, when the economics chapter of the Society has shown-up at economics conferences, presented some papers, run the beer game, etc., very good things have happened. Similarly, I think that chapters organized along geographic lines can conduct very successful regional conferences, workshops, etc., that can bring SD to the curious. Of course, SD luminaries can always be invited to these events as featured speakers, etc.

Finally, if/when times change and predictable flows of abundant conference revenue can be generated darn near anywhere in the world, I am all for rotating the conference site all around the globe.

Cheers.

Mike Radz
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 03:43:25 -0800
Reply-To: Khaled Wahba < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Khaled Wahba < >
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

Dear all and happy new year (a little bit late)

I found out that it makes no sense to me while reading all views regarding this subject specially most of them coming from N American and European(i.e. western educated) thoughts and just act as passive as I am. Maybe it is not bad idea to listen to my view as African-Arab person who is physically outside the circle of NA-Euro targeted locations.

Definitely I can see two main issues in this discussion, which I can just comment on namely; cost and diffusion of SD. Cost issue to me is definitely affecting the diffusion of SD, but I will not focus much on this, since it is obvious issue and we might still have a little disagreement, but I am sure quantitatively and objectively can easily be proven that cost is getting higher or lower when the conference is held outside the circle or within the circle. But my focus is on the second issue which is the Diffusion of SD. Again it is my personal view but backed up with my observations and talks to my students (MBA, MSC, DBA, etc) in different occasions. To start with, I had the dream to bring the International Conf to Egypt, my home (it is not bad idea at all, right?). And people will like very much to go to Egypt to see Pyramids, Museums, Ancient Egypt in Luxor, Diving in the Red Sea, etc. But where is the SD in this portfolio? I found out, it would be only a victory to myself that I can claim to anyone that I am the one who brought the SD conf to Egypt (wow, anyway impressed?). But who gained with me? I think no one! Cost still will be high, people will spend most of their time to plan their internal tourism visits all over Egypt. And it would have consumed a lot of energy and effort from the organizers with the office team in US. All my students will want to go to the places where SD is born or places where the big names (academics or practitioners) in the field are still carrying out many activities in the SD field. When the participants are back to their home and talking about their experiences during their participations in the conf, they will talk about SD and not about the place or their touristic experiences (they can get it in another context anyway). They will talk about their nice short talk with the big names, they will talk about the minds they met and about the thoughts they gained, they will show photos with X and Y. They will talk about X who has attended his or her session, they will talk about Y who has asked him or asked her about his/her work, they will talk about the university or the institute/graduate school which organized the event etc

These are diffusions to me or to my students! Diffusion to me as well means that those big names can navigate the world (if possible) with reasonable fees to talk about and disseminate the SD. I am a someone in thevfield of SD, but still I have a commitment to help in the diffusion of the SD in my country Egypt and the region. I just got the invitations to conduct workshops, seminars and short talk about SD in Dubai, Pakistan and Egypt and I tend to accept them with minimum fees to achieve the goal of Diffusion. But do you think, the SD community will accept me as a presenter on its behalf talking about SD? I think we are missing something here! I think I should not talk about SD or conducting workshops about SD unless I am certified from the SD community (the society at least), or at least I have to be noted that I should say that this workshop does not reflect the view of the SD community, and it is all about myself view.

Maybe the certification issue will help in the Diffusion of the SD (I am benchmarking the Project management certification as an example). Anyway I have a lot to say about this, but it is not the scope of this subject.

Dear All, in summary: Having the conference held every year in N.America specially Boston is not bad idea at all (to me is the best option) but also in Europe where still the many founders and famous contributors of the SD are around is always attractive to me. Holding the conf outside the circle will turn to be a touristic event (I like it anyway, but not through the SD). So, in conclusion the location must make sense with respect to the SD and only SD. The above view is reflecting my pure personal thoughts and never meant to criticize or support any argument. It is just another view.

Regards

Khaled Wahba, PhD
Assistant Professor
Faculty of Eng., Cairo Univ.
Director | RITI, Cairo, Egypt (www.riti.or)
CEO | TAYA IT, Cairo, Egypt (www.tayait.com)
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 07:57:52 -0500
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Dennis Meadows < >
Subject: From Dennis Meadows - Conference location guidelines
In-Reply-To: < >

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing about the policy governing the location of the annual meeting

I wish to share my own perceptions about my personal criteria for attending a meeting and about the goals that I perceive in others when they advocate some policy on the issue of conference location.

I am retired. Therefore like many people in the less developed nations, I am not affiliated with any institution that will pay my conference expenses. I pay them personally, so I consider each trip very carefully. The factors I consider when deciding if I will go to a specific System Dynamics conference are:

The possibility to gain interesting new ideas from the formal sessions
The possibility to discuss my work and others' work informally
The possibility to see old friends and former students

All of these are correlated positively with the number of experienced professionals that will be attending the meeting. In my experience, more professionals attend meetings when they are held in Europe or in the United States.

I am also motivated to go to a meeting when there is a chance that my ideas, workshops, or speeches might be useful to others at the meeting. This correlates with the number of long-term members who will be attending. Having a large audience of people who are not professionally active in System Dynamics, merely attending a single meeting then returning to their existing career, is not interesting to me. In my experience holding the conference in a remote site increases the fraction of the participants who are temporary visitors.

The touristic potential of the conference site is totally irrelevant to me.

On the basis of these criteria, I go to all the meetings in the United States, many of the meetings in Europe, and, until now, none of the meetings in other regions.

Most arguments in favor of world-wide conference venues seem to be based on the assumption that it is important to spread interest, expertise, and activity in System Dynamics to other regions. I espouse that assumption, I personally spend quite a bit of time helping people acquire the knowledge they need for professional practice in System Dynamics. But I do not do it by inviting potentially interested people to a conference. I do it by organizing intensive (that means 8-10 hours a day) one to two week workshops with relatively small groups of participants where one-on-one, hands on instruction is possible.

Unintelligent, uncommitted, distracted managers can organize a poor conference anywhere. Smart, dedicated, full-time organizers can create a useful conference almost anywhere, though it will be very much simpler and less expensive for them to do it in a central site. The administrative and financial demands on our Society office staff are lower when the meeting is held in central locations, even better when it is held again and again in the same facility.

When the Policy Council discusses this issue, it will be important that they frame their decision to be appropriate for the circumstances that will prevail over the next decade rather than the conditions we experienced recently. The days of cheap and convenient air travel to remote locations are gone.

For 25 years I organized an annual meeting for a group of people from 25 nations that shared my interest in modeling and sustainable development. We always met in the same location, typically at the same hotel. The economies we realized from that permitted us to provide substantial subsidies to people who did not otherwise have the financial resources personally or organizationally to join us. To build regional support and to extend our kind of work we tried twice to hold a related meeting in a remote site - in Thailand and in an African nation. Both times were expensive and in effectual. So we switched over to organizing special workshops in those areas. That achieved our goals of diffusion much better than trying to hold the annual meeting in different places.

The Society's membership data base shows two facts. First, almost 80% of our members are in Europe and North America. Second, holding the meeting in a country outside Europe and North America does not lead to a permanent and significant increase in Society members in that country.

Taking all the above into consideration, I advocate a policy that would conduct the annual meeting alternately between North America and Europe, with a strong preference for finding a small number of facilities that we use repeatedly.

Cordially,

Dennis Meadows
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:49:14 +0100
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: "Badr.OMBA01" < >
Subject: SDS Winter PC Meeting -- Conference location guidelines

Dear Al,

Happy New Year,

At the beginning, I would like express myself and many people in Egypt thanks to Dr. Khaled, we got to know only about SD when Dr. Khaled succeeded to add it to the curriculum of MSM - MBA outreach program in Cairo, Egypt.

SD diffusion in the Middle East countries may be achieved if:

1. Governmental and big organization in the region got satisfied that SD is applicable as a feasible DSS and important tool could help them overcoming many of their (local nature) problems. This may happened by adopting a successful important project/s in the region. AND,
2. A certified well trained local SD staff became available, whom will have an opportunity to apply their knowledge and learning in those local project/s, and could be the starting point of creating a SD community in the region. AND
3. Professionals in SD adopted communicating local successful projects to the society in the region.

I disagree with the idea that "conducting the conference in Egypt will be different only because of the tourism nature of Egypt, and no gain of conducting the course there". I think conducting the conference in Egypt could have a very positive impact towards SD diffusion in the region, such as and not limited to the following:

1. Draw the attention of governments and big organizations in the region, specially if it's accompanied by a well designed marketing campaign.
2. Although many people studied or got to know about SD in Egypt through attending courses and workshops of Dr. Khlaed and other institutes in Egypt, but most of them have no income through working in SD, they are welling to attend the conference, but investing a lot of money in travel and accommodation in addition to conference fees prevented them from attending and participating in the conference events. many local and regional people are expected to participate in the conference if it's conducted in Egypt.
3. Conference never take place in the region, conducting the conference for the 1st. time in the region could be an excellent communication opportunity with the society here.
4. The conference could be less cost if conducted in Egypt comparing to NA or Europe if the promoter, in cooperation with the SD society, was able to well arrange useful agreements with hotels and tourist companies, and to arrange an agreements with important sponsors.

I think conference in a country like Egypt will be very unique and the most successful one.

WALID BADR

Assistant Vice President
Financial Advisory
Corporate Finance Department
Dallah Tower- P.O. Box 8021
Jeddah 21482 KSA
Tel: +966 2 6710000 - 3447
+966 2 6731100 - 220
Fax: +966 2 6736622
Mob: +966 544410164
=========================================================================
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 05:49:49 -0600
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Sender: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
From: Rogelio Oliva < >
Subject: Second electronic discussion period open

Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties,

The minutes for the 2010 Winter Policy Council face-to-face meeting have been posted on the Conference Web Submission System, Policy Council Menu, in the section with the other reports. Secretary Brad Morrison is the author. Log in to the Policy Council Menu at http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb.

Based on the face-to-face meeting and other inputs, a series of motions and other discussions will now be initiated. Draft motions have and will be made on the Policy Council Menu. Members who wish to bring a motion for consideration should post a proposed motion to this listserv for discussion and refinement from now until February 15. At the conclusion of this discussion period, final motions are then posted for electronic voting. All discussion should be done using this listserv.

The schedule is the following:

January 23 - February 8: Online discussion of proposed motions, including any non-binding straw polls on motions.
January 28 - February 4: Electronic vote on State of Candidates(separate schedule)
February 9 - 23: Formal posting of (revised) motions and final discussion and voting. (Once a motion is formally in the system, there is one week of discussion and one week of voting.)
February 24: Formal end of meeting.

Please let me know if you have any comments or questions.

Rogelio

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Feedback ]

2010 Winter Meeting of the Policy Council Email Discussion Detail by Date

2010

2010 Winter Meeting of the Policy Council
Email Discussion Detail by Date