=========================================================================
Subject: Revisions to the Policies and Bylaws
From: SDS <
Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 21:05:51 +0000
Dear Policy Council Members and Other Interested Parties:
Revisions to the Policies and Bylaws and a report have been posted on the PC Menu page. We welcome your feedback, additional changes and improvements to these documents. To find the report and revisions, please look on the PC Menu under "Eberlein, Robert (1012) Report of the Organization and Bylaws Committee." Log in at http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb.
It would be excellent for each officer to review his/her own officer's description of responsibilities. Duties and privileges for each officer are described in POLICY 6 and BYLAW V. Current and past Members of the Policy Council, Committee members, and others interested in the PC and the Society, are also invited to review the documents. Please send any recommendations or comments on the revisions to the SDS_PC Listserv or the Committee. Thanks.
Bob Eberlein, Brad Morrison (Chair), Roberta Spencer
Organization and By-Laws Committee
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Revisions to the Policies and Bylaws
From: Martin Schaffernicht < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 23:15:32 -0300
Dear fellow PC members,
as far as VP Chapter activities is concerned, I found the section on the duties of the VP good. In the part saying "ensuring each Chapter membership maintains the required complement of Society members in good standing" , "ensuring" should be understood as meaning that the VP checks the membership status and reminds the respective chapters of any problems, which would practically be twice a year (in order to rerport to the PC on schedule).
Best greetings,
Martin Schaffernicht
VP Chapters
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Revisions to the Policies and Bylaws
From: Rouwette, E.A.J.A. (Etiënne) < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 17:10:16 +0100
Hello all,
Martin inspired me to check on the VP Member services duties. I think they are in general alright, but would include two things. In my opinion, part of the recruitment an retention of members is showing the benefit of the SD approach, and a way to do that is to keep the SD case repository (on http://cases.systemdynamics.org/ ) updated.
Second, with the section on SIGs I would include a) being a contact point (together with the Home office) and advising members that want to start a new SIG and b) asking SIGs to send in annual reports.
Thanks & have a nice weekend,
Etiënne Rouwette
VP Member services
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Revisions to the Policies and Bylaws
From: "Ford, David" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:55:12 +0000
Martin,
Thanks for your comments. Please be sure to also send them to the official PC discussion when it starts in about a week.
Dave Ford
************************
David N. Ford, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor and Urban/Beaver Development Professor
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering
Texas A&M University
LEED Green Associate
************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Revisions to the Policies and Bylaws
From: "Ford, David" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2012 20:56:14 +0000
Etienne,
Thank you for your comment. Please be sure to include them in the official PC discussion when it becomes available in about a week.
Dave Ford
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Revisions to the Policies and Bylaws
From: "Ford, David" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 22:26:21 +0000
The Society’s report by the Organization and Bylaws Committee dated Dec 22 describes the two substantive changes recommended. One of them is to remove the Exec Editor of the SDR as a voting member of the PC. The support given for that recommendation is that (except for the Founding President) it would be inconsistent with the mandate of the PC to have a non-voted-in person have the same voting privileges as those who have been voted in.
I would like to offer an alternative perspective. I assume that the Society will always chose a qualified person to be the Exec Editor of the SDR with valuable input and I don’t have a problem with the apparent inconsistency. However, I do see a case for supporting this change because the Exec Editor reports to/is responsible to the VP Publications and therefore the perspectives, etc. of the Exec Editor will be heard by the PC through the VP Publications, just like chairpersons of ad hoc committees report/are responsible to the VPs that formed or continue to sponsor the committee and they are therefore heard through those VPs. If, for some reason, the VP Publications did not reflect the needs, etc. of the SDR then there might be a case for a separate vote by the Exec Editor. But if that is the case we have mis-designed the role of the VP Publications, which I do not think we have done, and I do not expect this to happen. Therefore I support this change, although I remain open to other arguments that might change my mind.
Dave Ford
*************************
David N. Ford, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor and Urban/Beaver Development Professor
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering
Texas A&M University
Email:
Voice: 979 845 3759
LEED Green Associate
**************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Revisions to the Policies and Bylaws
From: Bob Cavana < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 01:02:04 +0000
Hi all,
I would like to suggest that the Chief Editor of System Dynamics Review becomes a permanent voting member of Policy Council.
Arguably, the Chief Editor of SDR is one of the most important positions in the System Dynamics Society.
It also needs a person in charge who basically doesnt have any other responsibility on the SDS Policy Council.
The journal is one of the main 'faces' of the society, and the chief editor is, and always has been, one of the most capable and highly contributing members of SDS.
While the VP of publications does have some responsibility for SDR among other SDS publications, the Chief Editor has the main responsibility for current SDR operations and future planning.
I do not support the suggested change, rather i would like to see the Chief Editor of System Dynamics Review becoming a permanent voting member of Policy Council.
Regards,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Reader in Management Systems
Victoria Management School
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Revisions to the Policies and Bylaws
From: Bob Eberlein < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:26:13 +0800
Hi Bob,
I am completely with you when you say:
[The Chief Editor should be] a person in charge who basically doesn't have any other responsibility on the SDS Policy Council.
That sentiment seems to be directly in conflict with the desire to have the Executive Editor be a voting member of the Policy Council and therefore have to give his or her attention to all matters that come before it.
I do want to make one thing perfectly clear, the proposed change has nothing to do with respect for, or appreciation of, the Executive Editor and the contribution he or she makes. It goes without saying, but I will say it here, the effort is tremendous and deserves the appreciation and gratitude of all in the field. Thank you George, Graham, Brian and Rogelio.
The reasoning behind the proposed change is that the System Dynamics Society is a member based organization whose governance, ultimately, is in the hands of the membership. The makeup of its governing council should therefore be as directly under the control of that membership as is practical. Having an executive position automatically be made part of the Policy Council seems inconsistent with this idea.
Bob Eberlein
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Revisions to the Policies and Bylaws
From: George Richardson < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 07:10:00 -0500
I am comfortable with the Exec Editor not being a member of the PC, for the reasons Bob (as always) cogently lays out. Certainly, the PC wants to hear regularly from the Exec Editor on the detailed state of the journal and its prospects over the coming year, but the EE need not be a member to deliver those reports.
...George
George P. Richardson
O'Leary Professor of Public Administration and Policy, and Informatics
Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
University at Albany, SUNY
518-364-6334
http://www.albany.edu/~gpr/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Revisions to the Policies and Bylaws
From: Bob Cavana < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 03:04:54 +0000
Hi all,
Just a couple of remarks following up on Bob E. & George's comments below:
(1) re the comment "The reasoning behind the proposed change is that the System Dynamics Society is a member based organization whose governance, ultimately, is in the hands of the membership. The makeup of its governing council should therefore be as directly under the control of that membership as is practical. Having an executive position automatically be made part of the Policy Council seems inconsistent with this idea"
- a very good point which i don’t disagree with. However, currently there appears to be two members of the Policy Council that weren’t "directly under the control of that membership ". These are the 'Founding President' and the 'Executive Editor of SDR'.
- the current PC proposal is to remove one of these positions from Policy Council, ie the 'Executive Editor of SDR'. [in the case of SDS we have only one international journal. in other larger societies they frequently have more journals]
My concern is that the Exec Editor is in an extremely important position (in some respects very important 'eyes' and 'ears' to the international academic/scholarly community). I would have thought that the insights the Exec editor has would be extremely important as a contribution to SDS Policy Council on a regular/permanent basis.
This would be in addition to the VP (publications) who would bring a different perspective to Policy Council.
Currently the Exec Editor is not a member of the Publications Sub-Committee, hence even further removed from the policy making arm of the SDS.
As you are probably aware, we have submitted a Progress Report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the “Organization of the System Dynamics Society” to this Policy Council meeting. we have made some preliminary recommendations re 'governance' issues.
I would like to recommend that you remove this item [ie removing the Exec Editor of SDR from Policy Council] from the agenda for this Policy Council meeting, and perhaps bring it up again at the July 2012 Policy Council meeting at St Gallen, when our sub-committee will be delivering its final report on the “Organization of the System Dynamics Society”.
Regards,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Reader in Management Systems
Victoria Management School
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC followup
From: Martin Schaffernicht < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 08:10:22 -0300
Dear David,
thanks for your reply! I'll try to explain what I meant with "more dialog".
A couple of years ago, the SDS started saying "the chapters are the future" and together with this motto, the ability to provide chapters with useful services became more important (it had always been important, but now especially).
However, apart the "capacity development fund", I wonder if there is much more the SDS provides which is not already provided to individual members.
What makes it worthwhile for people to put in the effort of creating and maintaining a chapter?
For individuals living in a region far off the USA, but who are interested in SD, the existence of a formally recognized organization may be attractive for they may need legitimization. In such a case, the existence of a local branch of the SDS (a chapter) is a good thing (because if you are in need of legitimization, the fact that there is a SDS thousands of miles apart is not so useful). This may be so in places where there is no SD-network of practitioners and academics yet (India, for instance) or places very far away (like China). And in countries where there already is such a dynamicist-network (Europe), a chapter may be the chance for newcomers to gain access to established dynamicists easier.
Otherwise, access to the SDR, the mail and the members-click is an individual service that does not require chapter membership.
If the above mentioned makes it interesting for individuals to become a member, what motivates regular SDS members to create a local SD organization and why would it have to be a "chapter" (and not simply an independent organization)? Being a chapter officer is extra work nobody is
paid for. Some reasons may be the following:
1) individuals who feel compelled to create a SD network in their countries (examples: Egypt, India, South Korea, China). For them, being recognized by the SDS (and being allowed to use the SDS symbols) may facilitate the process, and by granting this recognition and permit, the SDS already provides a service.
2) individuals in countries where SD is already (relatively) established (UK, Germany, Switzerland, Italy ...) may have the personal desire to contribute to the growth of the field and of the SDS, and creating/running a chapter would be a special effort (gratified by the personal satisfaction of doing the right thing). In such cases, granting chapter-ship is not really a big service the SDS provides.
Surely this list of hypothetical motivations is incomplete; if chapter-people are willing to tell us about their motivations, the list would become a good reference point for the SDS to figure out how to respond to these motives. This is an aspect that would take some dialog to develop, I believe.
I find it hard to think of services the SDS could provide specifically to chapters, beyond the benefits of formal recognition. The capacity development fund provides a very nice service to the individuals who can attend the workshops. Indirectly it benefits the chapter because it takes place under its banner. If workshop attendees become chapter members (and how much more effort this takes to become effective) remains to be seen - so we should pay attention to it.
I still believe that one recognized, the chapter officers are pretty much on their own. In some remote places, these individuals succeed in putting the thing together (China, South Korea, Latin America, Benelux, new Brazil and new Egypt chapters), and in others they don't have so much success (Russia, Greece, Pakistan) Would there have been something the SDS could have done? I cannot see what it might have been, but for sure, we can ask ourselves and discuss it. And in places where SD is already established, there are chapters with much activity (UK, Germany) and others with less (Italy, Switzerland). Same question: can something be done from outside
(the SDS) or is it rather something that must be and can only be done from inside? When I asked the chapters if there is something the SDS can help, only UK replied saying "no thanks, we do not need"; I believe this calls for some sense to be made.
My personal interpretation is that - beyond paying attention to who will be the officers and founding members when a chapter is created - not much can be done (beyond remaining rigorous with the minimum requirements of membership, activities and reporting; this however is more a self-defense thing and surely not perceived as a "service" by the chapter officers - witness the difficulty to get the reports). Maybe a friendly and function-rich web-platform would be an appreciated thing, but maybe not so.
I believe we should have clear ideas about what can be done by the SDS, and I feel that there must be more than what I've written down now. So again, in my opinion, some dialog would be helpful.
To sum up:- shall we ask the chapter officers to tell us about their motivations? - what can the SDS do for chapters and chapter officers (from "outside")?
Sorry for the length of this message - I wanted to expose the reasoning behind the report's call for "more dialog" (and I apologize for not having been clear in the report).
Best greetings,
Martin
2012/1/6 Ford, David
Martin,
First, thank you for your hard work as a VP of the SD Society. The Winter PC meeting was yesterday. Thank you also for your good report. Here is the follow-up from the meeting.
1) Concerning the chapter in Egypt. We think it is great that they are going to reinstate. When the documentation is ready (e.g. constitution) please send in your motion to recognize this chapter.
2) Concerning the chapter in Pakistan: You mentioned that they want to re-launch. We are pleased about this and encourage you to continue your efforts to help them gather the necessary support, etc. to re-launch.
3) On page two of your report ("In my opinion...") you suggest more dialogue. We discussed this but could not discern what action you were recommending be taken by whom. Can you clarify this for us, please?
4) Concerning the Chapter Development Fund: We heard from Len M who participated in the meeting that Aldo is preparing a very complete report about the Brazilian use of the funds that he will send to you (albeit late). So "stay tuned" and follow up with Aldo as needed on that. We also encourage you to support the development and submission of proposals by the Indian, Chinese, or other chapters as much as possible. If I can help by emailing someone or something, please let me know. Didn't the student chapter sound like they might do something at the meeting in DC? We would like to hear your recommendations about this Fund at the summer PC meeting.
Thanks again,
Regards,
Dave Ford
************************
David N. Ford, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor and
Urban/Beaver Development Professor
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering
Texas A&M University
LEED Green Associate
************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC followup
From: Kim Warren < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 04:50:02 -0800
Hi Martin - your thinking and suggestions look pretty sound to me. Finding out what motivates Chapter members to create and sustain a Chapter could be helpful.
You open up a separate issue, though, that seems important - "chapters are the future". Thinking about the Society's strategy raises a major difference between us and most other professions - we operate in a huge variety of fields ... environment, economics, health policy, business, defence etc etc.
A profession seems ultimately to consist of and rely on three critical elements - the professionals themselves, the knowledge they build and deploy, and the clients/users who benefit. For us, all three of these elements appear to be highly concentrated in each application domain, and the main [only?] link between us is 'the method'.
This segmentation, for want of a better word, creates a challenge for the chapters - how do we put on events for members that appeal to all or most of them? In the UK, for example, we have gently moved emphasis from year to year from a broadly 'public sector' to 'corporate' focus [though I don't think we quite realised why we had to do this]. We have also had one or two small sector focused events.
It's possible this segmentation explains why chapters can find it difficult to sustain themselves, because anything they do risks attracting only very small numbers. It's less of a problem at the Society level, because we can have streams or threads into which the different interest groups can gather.
I rather wonder then, whether we were right - Chapters are certainly important and we should help them any way we can - but maybe the future is more critically dependent on the SIGs?
Kim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC followup
From: Martin Schaffernicht < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 10:51:05 -0300
Hi Kim,
thanks for this answer - I agree that what seems to be the common denominator for our community is the "system dynamics" language we all share, and that this may be problematic for chapters (that are, to the exception of Economics, country- or language-specific).
I also agree that SIGs should not have that kind of problem.
I'd suspect that when SD starts up in a new place, it does so inside one established profession or application domain; for instance, in Colombia it was engineering, in Chile and Argentina it was business. Of course, as the local community grows, the question is how does SD spread to other professions or application domains.
So there would still be a "raison d'être" for chapters AND SIGs: if it makes sense to have an international conference where the "common language" is the theme, it also makes sense to have a cross-disciplinary local community - in charge of providing this rather methodological communication space. Therefore, whenever the focus is on "the method", chapters would be the entity to think of.
But when a chapter starts off, special attention should then be paid to how new members match with the existing SIGs, in order to draw them in. I could imagine that for someone who works in "natural resource management", SIG membership would provide domain-specific "services" that would justify the decision to stay with the SDS.
Hmm, sounds like interdependence. Which leads me to thinking that it would be interesting to know the SIG-membership of the Chapter-members (and vice versa). Intuitively speaking, should people who join a chapter be invited to also join the SIG that matches with their field of application?
Maybe VP SIGs and VP Chapters should inquire this together and elaborate a proposal.
Again, thanks for your message!
Best greetings,
Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Winter PC followup
From: "Ford, David" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2012 17:21:05 +0000
Martin and Kim,
Good thoughts. I agree that a discussion about this among Chapter (and SIG?) leaders, with perhaps a focus on how the SDS mothership can support Chapters and SIGS and how they see the relationships (I thought of conference scholarships, an annual conf-to-conf competition among Chapters, and perhaps awards to best, faster growing, etc. Chapters) would be useful.
I suggest that Martin, in collaboration with Etienne, VP Member Services re SIGs, contact the St. Gallen organizers and try to arrange a discussion on Thursday of the conference.
Dave
*************************
David N. Ford, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor and
Urban/Beaver Development Professor
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering
Texas A&M University
Email:
Voice: 979 845 3759
LEED Green Associate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: motion Biomedical System Dynamics Special Interest Group
From: Rouwette, E.A.J.A. (Etiënne) < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2012 18:30:35 +0100
Dear all,
I made a motion on recognizing the Biomedical System Dynamics Special Interest Group (BMSD SIG). Voting opens on 19 Jan and closes 10 days afterwards. Can anyone please second the motion?
Thanks,
Etiënne Rouwette
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: motion Biomedical System Dynamics Special Interest Group
From: Martin Schaffernicht < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:05:50 -0300
Dear all,
I second Etienne's motion.
Best greetings,
Martin Schaffernicht
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Associate VP Finance
From: "Ford, David" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 21:27:46 +0000
David Andersen, Vice President of Finance of the System Dynamics Society, has requested and recommended that Navid Ghaffarzadegan be appointed as Associate Vice President of Finance. Therefore, as the 2012 President of the System Dynamics Society, I pleased to name Navid Ghaffarzadegan as Associate Vice President of Finance of the System Dynamics Society.
David N. Ford, President
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Associate VP Finance
From: Bob Eberlein < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 06:22:40 +0800
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
From: "Ford, David" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:53:23 +0000
Dear Members of the Policy Council and Other Interested Parties:
We are now entering the Second Electronic Session of the Winter Policy Council Meeting. Below please find PC e-session protocol and also the tentative schedule. Please use the listserv for discussion items. All motions will be discussed (except routine approvals of minutes, etc.) and voted on during this second electronic session. This year, the motion to approve the slate from the Nominating Committee will coincide with the other motions; there is not a separate schedule. Thanks for your participation.
PC ELECTRONIC SESSION PROTOCOL -- Report Viewing, Electronic Discussion, and Voting
A typical System Dynamics Society PC Meeting includes both asynchronous electronic communication and a face-to-face meeting. The following covers the mechanics of the electronic portion.
**Report Viewing**
To view a report please use the web submission system at: http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb
Log on using your email address and password. This is the same system used to submit conference papers. If you do not know your password you can reset it by clicking on "Forgot or have not set your password?". Please go to your User Menu page.
Scroll down to "The 2012 Winter Policy Council Meeting" and use the button "Policy Council Member." Motions are listed at the top, reports are below. Click on the links to the report or supporting materials.
If you do not see a section heading such as this, please contact the Society office. The policy council menu appears only for officers, PC members and those who have been added as guests (guests can submit reports and take part in discussion but cannot vote).
**Electronic Discussion**
Electronic discussion will be conducted using the Policy Council email discussion listserv. To send a message to this list use the email address . After you have sent this you will be asked to confirm your post. Try to use a subject that connects the message clearly to any reports or motions it may be related to. Using "Reply" on the listserv will reply to everyone on the list.
**Electronic Voting**
To vote on a motion that is open for voting, simply click on the button "details" related to the motion and then the checkbox for your vote. You can change your vote using the same process as long as the motion remains open. Your vote is visible to everyone; there is no secret ballot voting supported.
TENTATIVE SCHEDULE -- Second Electronic Session for 2012 Winter Policy Council Meeting
Accomplished: First Electronic Session (ended January 4, 2012)
Accomplished: Face-to-Face Meeting (January 5, 2012)
Second Electronic Session Tentative Schedule: (January 18 - February 26, 2012)
January 18: Minutes and motions posted on PC Menu
January 19 - February 10: Online discussion of proposed motions
February 11 - February 25: Final discussion (one week) and voting (one week).
February 26: Meeting Adjourned
1. Discussion Period: January 19 - February 10 (these dates may be extended if needed)
This electronic discussion period allocates time for "conversation" similar to the exchange of ideas during a meeting. It allows for reflection and a simple way to converge on a correct motion before it becomes a "formal" motion that will be put to a proper vote. Motions can be amended (friendly amendment) providing there are no objections. Motions can be withdrawn if agreed by both proposer and seconder, also providing there are no objections, it would be as if the motion was never made.
2. Preliminary and Final Discussions, Motions' Revisions and Voting: February 11 - 25
Please refer to the minutes (report) found under: Morrison, J. Bradley "2012 Winter PC Meeting Minutes (DRAFT) with preliminary draft motions for the discussion items." Please also see the minutes for a list of preliminary draft motions that are also open for discussion. Voting will occur for one week, February 18 - February 25. (Once a motion is formally in the system, there is one week of discussion and one week of voting.)
3. Motion to Adjourn Winter E-Meeting (Formal end of meeting February 26, 2012)
Sincerely,
David N. Ford, President 2012
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: A note on Markus Schwaninger's motion 'SD and complementary modeling approaches'
From:"Malczynski, Leonard A" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 15:51:53 +0000
Everyone,
I seconded Markus's motion because it reminded me of the difficulties in promoting the use of SD, when appropriate, at my place of work.
I have been a proponent of mixing tools or other modeling approaches in my models. I started calling this 'extra methodological' SD (I know my frame of reference!). Then it could be termed complimentary. I readily admit that part of this is workplace culture, part is tool capability, and part is my inability (through cowardice or poor communication skills) to talk some sense into my customers.
Although it may not have been the intention of Markus, I hope this discussion adds to the general thoughts on promoting SD. In a very simplistic way, I sometimes see this promotion akin to promoting the use of linear programming, agent-based modeling, or other commonly used methods. The point is to use the methods and tools (possibly a combination of them) that fit the problem at hand.
In that vein, I hope this fosters more discussion, perhaps it will get out to the SD Forum.
Respectfully,
Len
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: A note on Markus Schwaninger's motion 'SD and complementary modeling approaches'
From: Kim Warren < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:22:23 -0800
To be honest, I'm not sure why we need a committee examining this? It seems clearly 'a good thing' so why not those who understand the issue discuss it and clarify best practice for the rest of us? Are we going to be asking the PC to take a 'position' or adopt some 'policy' regarding the linkages?
In due course, I can envisage a part of our website or body of knowledge explaining the linkages and practical considerations, written by experts on the issue - but don't see this as a Committee issue.
Just to be clear, I'm in no way hostile to the issue or think it unimportant.
Kim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: A note on Markus Schwaninger's motion 'SD and complementary modeling approaches'
From: Bob Eberlein < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:47:32 +0800
Hi Everyone,
I welcome discussion on this topic, but ad-hoc committees are not created by motions, they are appointed by the appropriate Vice President. I have asked Etiënne Rouwette (VP Member Services) about this particular issue and he is willing to form such a committee if there are enthusiastic members-in-waiting.
I think the purpose of such a committee would be to look at possible connections of the Society with organizations or activities in complementary modeling areas. The merging of methodological approaches is an interesting and reasonably well represented research question, but not really part of Society governance.
In any case, to be consistent with the policies and bylaws I have marked the motion itself withdrawn (I had discussed this motion earlier with Markus but failed to take this step).
Bob Eberlein
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: voting Proposal Biomedical SIG
From: Rouwette, E.A.J.A. (Etiënne) < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2012 15:49:01 +0100
Hello all,
The following motion is now open for voting :
Motion 104: Proposal Biomedical SIG. Motion by Etiënne Rouwette, seconded Burcu Tan Erciyes
TO VOTE ON THIS MOTION :
1.. http://www.systemdynamics.org/cgi-bin/sdsweb
2.. Click on the button "Policy Council Menu"
3.. Find motion and click on "details"
Voting closes on January 29, 2012. Please note, you can change your vote until the closing vote day. All votes are shown. All dates are midnight Albany time.
Thank you,
Etiënne
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: SDS Strategy Working Group
From: "Ford, David" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 14:41:05 +0000
To facilitate the development of our Society's strategy I am pleased to create the Strategy Working Group ad hoc committee with Kim Warren as the chair. The purpose of this committee is to develop the Society's strategy, including the appropriate inclusion of various parts of the Society's leadership and membership. This committee will report to me in my role as the President and to the Society's Strategy Committee, who will provide oversight, guidance, feedback, and support. Kim may, at his discretion, add, reduce, and change the membership of this committee as the strategy development process requires.
Dave Ford
President, 2012
*************************
David N. Ford, Ph.D., P.E.
Associate Professor and
Urban/Beaver Development Professor
Zachry Department of Civil Engineering
Texas A&M University
Email:
Voice: 979 845 3759
LEED Green Associate
**************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: "Ford, David" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:09:15 +0000
Dear PC Officers, Members and Other Interested Parties:
The Awards Committee presented its report (full report is available on the PC Menu). Please find below an excerpt from the report about "Regularization of Lifetime Achievement Award Rationale" along with a proposed/friendly motion. Since this is not a routine matter and has not yet been discussed, I bring this to the PC Listserv for discussion and your input. Replacing our existing Lifetime Achievement Award with an Innovation Award, as I understand this motion would do, is not a small change for our Society or one that we should make without adequate reflection and discussion. Therefore I encourage you to ask questions, comment, and make suggestions.
FROM THE AWARDS COMMITTEE REPORT: The committee discussed at length the need for a lifetime achievement award, evident in its appearance twice on an ad hoc basis. It was also recognized that currently many members have created eminent lifetime work, which does not fit into any of our current award criteria. At this time, all regular awards of the society are given for a single article and none recognizes an individual for outstanding contribution made through a body of work done over an extended period of time that has led to new thinking in the field or has bridged it with a new application area or has influenced education and learning per se in a profound way. Recognizing a similar need, the community service award was regularized a few years ago after having been given on an ad hoc basis a few times.
AWARD COMMITTEE PROPOSED ACTION ITEM: The Awards Committee recommends regularizing the lifetime achievement award by creating an "Innovation Prize" (a placeholder name for the award) to be given to an individual or a group for outstanding contribution to the field achieved by dedicated work done over an extended period of time on a specific topic. Since the criteria for such an award would be very different from any of the current prizes a separate ad hoc committee for its administration should be formed.
Thank you,
Regards,
David N. Ford,
President 2012
System Dynamics Society
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: Bob Eberlein < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 07:37:16 +0800
Hi Everyone,
The intent of this motion, as I understand it, is to get the sense of the Policy Council on whether or not it makes sense to create a committee to prepare the award details and then present a formal motion for the approval of the award.
I think it would be useful to hear from as many as possible what your thoughts are on this. I myself am of a mixed mind.
On the one hand I agree with the sentiment. With the exception of the Outstanding Service Award (which is for support of the community, not (direct) contributions to the field) every other award is for a single publication (book or paper). Having an award that would allow recognition of other activities and cumulative impact would be useful.
On the other hand, it is yet another award and each additional award does detract somewhat from the awards that already exist. How many is too many? Everyone probably has a different threshold on that. I myself feel there are already a good number of awards.
Bob Eberlein
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: "Martinez-Moyano, Ignacio" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:01:14 -0600
My first reaction is very similar to that of Bob. I am not sure if we need/want more awards.
Probably we need to think about the awards as a whole and identify/define a "set" that we think is good to have to maintain a level of "creative tension" in the community.
These are just preliminary thoughts...
Ignacio J. Martinez-Moyano
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: David Lane < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:56:07 -0000
I too am concerned about the number of awards that are given.
I do sometimes wonder whether, to outsiders, we look like a closed group that meets together every years to give each other awards. Of course, *we* know that there have always been good reasons for the awards. But recall that the Society has only 1100 members. How many awards are needed?
David
D. C. Lane BSc MSc DPhil FORS
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, LONDON WC2 2AE, Britain
Tel: (UK)(0)20 - 7955 - 7336
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: Lees Stuntz < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 09:20:59 -0700
Am I wrong? I thought that this award was proposed in place of the lifetime achievement award and so would not cause the awards to proliferate, except that it might be give more often.
Can someone clarify?
Lees Stuntz
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: "Ford, David" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:43:43 +0000
It is my understanding the Lees is correct, that the proposed award would replace the (albeit not often given to date) Lifetime Achievement Award and therefore the motion would not increase the number of awards.
Regardless, the suggestion to take a larger look at the Society's portfolio of awards warrants serious consideration.
Dave Ford
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: Yaman Barlas < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:38:12 +0200
Dear friends,
There are indeed some pros and cons about the proposed new award. Reading different emails and examining the list of current awards, I am inclined to think that pros outweigh the cons. There are currently three regular non-student awards and one regular student award (Dana Meadows) listed at SDS website. This number does not indicate an award inflation to me. On the other hand, ad-hoc awards may give a false impression of award inflation. To be specific, there is a link named 'other awards' at our web site that lists the following awards:
2011 Lifetime Achievement Award
2011 System Dynamics Society Outstanding Service Award
2009 System Dynamics Society Outstanding Service Award
2005 Lifetime Service Recognition Award
1998 Lifetime Achievement Award
1997 Lifetime Service Recognition Award
Note the minor differences in wording. Actually to me these are just two types of awards: SDS Service Award and Lifetime Achievement Award.
Recently, SDS Service Award was made regular with a standard name. I suggest that it would be good if we do a similar standardization to the Lifetime Achievement Award. So I support the proposal and I suggest that we get rid of the 'other awards' list. There will then be four general awards with a meaningful, non-overlapping coverage, plus a main student award.
Finally, I do support EMPHASIZING the notion that instituting a regular award should NOT mean giving the award every year; an award should be given only if there is a candidate who truly deserves it.
thanks and best wishes
Yaman Barlas
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: Kim Warren < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 08:59:25 +0000
I do not understand what problem this proposal is intended to fix. The Lifetime Achievement award does exactly what it says - recognising an individual for an extended contribution of fundamentally important work. Changing the title to Innovation Award sounds to me to devalue what iotherwise a most prestigious and rarely granted honour.
So I cannot see a case to change anything.
Kim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: John Morecroft < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:39:45 +0000
I fully agree with Kim on this point.
John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: David Lane < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:50:32 -0000
I feel that there are two separate points here, process and content, if you will.
In Content terms, I'm not sure that 'innovation' says 'long term contribution' to me.
In Process terms, there was some administrative confusion about who had the authority to give this award. I think that this tidies that up and it very helpful.
Regards,
David
D. C. Lane BSc MSc DPhil FORS
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, LONDON WC2 2AE, Britain
Tel: (UK)(0)20 - 7955 - 7336
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: John Sterman < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:27:27 +0000
David makes an important point.
Personally, I would prefer to keep the name "Lifetime Achievement Award". I also believe we need to regularize the process for granting the award. Personally, I would prefer not to establish a separate committee, but would ask the Forrester Award committee to handle this. That committee has an international membership of senior people in the field, and, by virtue of their experience with nominations and selection for the JWF award, have (and new members develop) a broad and deep understanding of the best work being done in the field.
John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: Yaman Barlas < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 15:53:11 +0200
I have not noticed either that there was en explicit suggestion to change the name. I too think that Lifetime Achievement is a much better term than Innovation (to represent the spirit of the award). So as a non-voting member, hew is my informal 'vote':Keep the L.A. (award or prize) name, but regularize the award. Also have a permanent (not ad hoc) committee for the award. (This committee can be the JWF award committee. Or another permanent committee that handles the Application Award or SDS Service Award. Are there different committees for these?)
Yaman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: "Saeed, Khalid" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:13:21 -0500
Folks,
The proposal is to regularize the LTA (.... a rose by any other name) and to set up a separate committee for delineating criteria for this award and possibly also selecting its winners, as we did for community service award. John makes a good point about this not being a retirement award that the name LTA makes it sound.
Khalid
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: Kim Warren < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:20:28 +0000
Might it work to add it to the remit of the JWF committee, rather than set up yet another? That group always has to wrestle with the issue of 'single contribution' vs. 'body of work' in any case.
I see the point about LTA sounding a bit like retirement, but the award criteria and recipients should show that's not the case [that, and I can't think of a better title !]
Kim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: Bob Cavana < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:45:20 +0000
Hi all,
As an alternative, the SDS Awards Committee might like to have a look at the Awards/Membership systems for 'related' societies, eg the Australia & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) & the Operational Research Society of UK (http://www.theorsociety.com/Pages/Society/SocietyHistory.aspx)
For example the Australia & New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) has a number of Awards, presented in conjunction with its Annual Conference in December each year. It also recognises outstanding scholarship, education, and service to the organisation.
Some of these awards are as follows:
Life Fellows
Formerly known as Life Membership, ANZAM awards Life Fellowship in recognition of meritorious service in advancing the objectives of ANZAM. Life Fellowship is conferred on the recommendation of ANZAM’s Executive Committee at an Annual General Meeting of the Academy. This is the most prestigious honour which ANZAM awards to members for outstanding service and leadership to the field of management education, research, and practice.
http://www.anzam.org/about/awards/membership-awards/
Service Recognition
ANZAM also recognises specific services to the Academy including the Conference Convenor role and Research Fellows.
Recognition for ANZAM Conference Convenor – to recognise and acknowledge the major contribution of the Conference Convenor to ANZAM for their time, expertise and commitment to organising ANZAM’s annual conference, a certificate is presented at the ANZAM Conference Award ceremony.
[In December 2011, we celebrated our 25th Annual Conference in Wellington, New Zealand!]
Research Fellow Recognition – to recognise service to ANZAM at the end of each three year term, a plaque is presented to Research Fellows upon finishing their term of appointment.
http://www.anzam.org/about/awards/service-recognition/
Fellow Membership
Formerly known as Distinguished Membership, Professional Members can be nominated as a Fellow by another ANZAM Member of Professional level or higher. Self-nominations will also be accepted, but all nominations will be assessed according to the criteria outlined below. Nominations (or applications) must be a maximum of 5 pages with appendices containing evidence for statements in the nomination of no more than 10 pages. These nominations must be lodged with the ANZAM Secretariat at least 6 weeks prior to the Annual General Meeting for formal ratification at this meeting.
Guidelines
Guidelines for Approval of ANZAM Fellow Nominations
The Membership Sub-committee of the ANZAM Board will consider all nominations for Fellows and make recommendations to the full ANZAM Board. Nominees must have been Professional members of ANZAM for at least five (5) years and their applications will be evaluated across all of the following criteria; however nominations must demonstrate exceptional performance in at least three of the five criteria as follows. Of these three, the Membership Committee will be prepared to weigh truly outstanding contributions in one particular area against more limited involvement in the other two.
1. A significant research contribution to the management discipline as evidenced by books, refereed papers in major journals, awards for research, the practical use of research findings by the management profession. Particular attention will be paid to the following aspects:
* Evidence of research quality through citation analysis
* Honorary awards
* Recognition from the practitioner community
* Editorship of journals, Conference organisation (relevant to the broad management discipline)
* International reputation in a certain area
* Prestigious fellowships or visiting lectureships
* Successful research grant awards
* Prize winning publications
* Influential reports to government
2. A significant contribution to management education. This educational contribution would be evidenced by such things as teaching awards, the successful use of innovative teaching methods and the writing of case studies and management texts and the mentoring of PhD students.
3. A significant contribution to management practice through senior leadership positions in public or private sector organisations over a period of at least ten years.
4. A significant and successful leadership role in the management school or department of a university in the Australia and New Zealand region. This leadership role would be evidenced by the length of time that the leadership role had been undertaken, the standing of graduates in academic and/or professional roles, the successes of staff members with respect to research and teaching, career placement of graduates from programs under the nominee’s responsibility.
5. A significant leadership role in the management discipline as evidenced by the taking of leadership positions in the academies and practitioner organisations, with evidence of significant individual contribution which has led to changes and advancement in these organisations. Another form of leadership would be playing a significant role in organizing the Academy’s annual conference.
6. A significant advocacy role for the management discipline through widely recognised contributions to government panels and/or taskforces, high-level industry panels of inquiry, Senate inquiries, or similar.
ANZAM Membership Fees for 2012
http://www.anzam.org/members/fellow-membership/
The Fellow category for ANZAM is very similar to the:
Fellow of The OR Society
Fellow of The OR Society (FORS) is for those with a significant record of achievement extending over ten years or more in O.R.. Admission to the category of Fellow indicates a very high level of achievement in, and/or a major contribution to operational research. Candidates must have a minimum of ten years’ experience in O.R., which could include periods in masters’ level training, practice, management, research or education.
Entrance to the CandORS grade is free, but applicants to the higher grades pay a non-returnable application fee and an annual supplementary membership fee in addition to the relevant membership subscription.
http://www.theorsociety.com/Pages/Membership/Grades.aspx
Maybe we have to look a little wider at this stage as System Dynamics is progressing towards 'mature professional' status after celebrating our 50 year history in Boston recently.
Regards,
Bob
A/Prof Bob Cavana
Reader in Management Systems
Victoria Management School
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: Erling Moxnes < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:35:44 +0100
I agree with keeping the LTA name as it is, and keeping up the high standards.
It seems most efficient that the Forrester Award committee administers the LTA award since this committee has seen many nominations to the Forrester Award, has read many candidate papers, and has developed a sense of quality standards.
Since the LTA award does not have to be given within five years after publication, the Forrester Award committee can also keep a backlog of LTAs and hand out occasional LTA awards in years with no Forrester Award. If so, more conferences will benefit from having an award ceremony.
Erling
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: James Patrick Thompson < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:09:59 +0800
It may not be possible to resolve the myriad of issues via email in a short period of time. If we could perhaps defer decision until after we've had a chance to meet in person, I'd appreciate it.
How the Lifetime Achievement Award got its name is interesting but, looking forward, I think a name such as Life Fellow or Distinguished Service conveys my understanding of its practice. The process for determining nominees and awardees should be memorialised so that those who are unfamiliar with the award can look it up. That could be done in a short paragraph. Again, we should be in no rush.
JT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: David Lane < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 13:59:48 -0000
A number of observations:-
1) The idea of our giving Fellowships was actually raised with me just recently by a former President (and JWF winner) so I am glad to see it put into play.
2) However, I do think that that would have to be seen as part of an accreditation package that might be discussed in the next few months.
3) As far as I can see a decision has been made that this issue does not fall within the purview of the JWF committee: we are asked to consider a new mechanism for awarding it. Having said that, good communication with that committee will obviously be needed - but should not prove problematic.
Regards,
David
D. C. Lane BSc MSc DPhil FORS
London School of Economics and Political Science
Houghton Street, LONDON WC2 2AE, Britain
Tel: (UK)(0)20 - 7955 - 7336
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: Kim Warren < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:25:31 +0000
David L's point sounds right to me. As I understand it, Fellowship is generally treated as a top-experience-level "certification" in a field - very different from a life-time achievement award, which bigger societies than ours would only grant to an exceptional minority, even amongst their Fellows.
So I would support excluding Fellowship from this current debate.
Kim
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: "Ford, David" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members <SDS-PC@LISTSERV.ALBANY.EDU>
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:44:46 +0000
There has been lots of very good discussion about this award. Thanks to all who have participated. It has provided valuable input to the next phase in addressing this issue. Bob Eberlein has suggested that there is "very strong support for regularizing this award, either in lieu or in addition to the Forrester award." and that the next step is to form an ad hoc committee to develop and put forth a formal proposal. I agree. However, I do not want to cut off discussion before everyone has had an adequate opportunity to voice their opinions. Therefore, I request that any additional discussion to this List Serve about this issue happen by the end of tomorrow, Wednesday, February 1.
To move us forward, effective Thursday, February 2, I appoint Khalid Saeed as the chair of an ad hoc committee to develop and put forth a formal proposal to the Policy Council concerning a Lifetime Achievement Award. I hope that we can receive and discuss that motion adequately to vote on it at the summer Policy Council meeting in St. Gallen.
David Ford
President, 2012
**************************
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Antwort: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: Markus Schwaninger < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 11:14:45 +0100
Dear colleagues
Referring to Bob's question if we do not create too many awards:
The number of awards we have got is not excessive. We are still within the magical number seven plus or minus two (see list of SDS awards below).
One experience with a case similar to the SDS: At my (small) University, 12or more awards are bestowed on the dies academicus ("academic day") each year, and during one single ceremony. Each award has a well-defined identity and ambit. This way we are creating many heroes, not only one.
Even more important, an award is something that motivates, ex ante and perhaps even more ex post.
Question: will this be a sponsored award?
Kind regards,
Markus Schwaninger.
List of the Seven SDS Awards:
“Internal” Awards: Jay Wright Forrester Award, Dana Meadows Award,
System Dynamics Applications Award, System Dynamics Society Outstanding
Service Award
“External” Awards: Lupina Award, Barry Richmond Award, Best Poster Award
---------------------------------------------
Prof. Dr. Markus Schwaninger
Institute of Management (IfB)
University of St. Gallen
Dufourstr. 40a, 4. Stock
CH-9000 St. Gallen
E-mail:
Tel.: ++41 71 224 23 82
http://www.ifb.unisg.ch/
-----------------------
Von: Bob Eberlein
An:
Datum: 28.01.2012 01:01
Betreff: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
Gesendet von: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members
Hi Everyone,
The intent of this motion, as I understand it, is to get the sense of the Policy Council on whether or not it makes sense to create a committee to prepare the award details and then present a formal motion for the approval of the award.
I think it would be useful to hear from as many as possible what your thoughts are on this. I myself am of a mixed mind.
On the one hand I agree with the sentiment. With the exception of the Outstanding Service Award (which is for support of the community, not (direct) contributions to the field) every other award is for a single publication (book or paper). Having an award that would allow recognition of other activities and cumulative impact would be useful.
On the other hand, it is yet another award and each additional award does detract somewhat from the awards that already exist. How many is too many? Everyone probably has a different threshold on that. I myself feel there are already a good number of awards.
Bob Eberlein
-----------------------
On 1/28/2012 5:09 AM, Ford, David wrote:
Dear PC Officers, Members and Other Interested Parties:
The Awards Committee presented its report (full report is available on the PC Menu). Please find below an excerpt from the report about "Regularization of Lifetime Achievement Award Rationale" along with a proposed/friendly motion. Since this is not a routine matter and has not yet been discussed, I bring this to the PC Listserv for discussion and your input. Replacing our existing Lifetime Achievement Award with an Innovation Award, as I understand this motion would do, is not a small change for our Society or one that we should make without adequate reflection and discussion. Therefore I encourage you to ask questions, comment, and make suggestions.
FROM THE AWARDS COMMITTEE REPORT: The committee discussed at length the need for a lifetime achievement award, evident in its appearance twice on an ad hoc basis. It was also recognized that currently many members have created eminent lifetime work, which does not fit into any of our current award criteria. At this time, all regular awards of the society are given for a single article and none recognizes an individual for outstanding contribution made through a body of work done over an extended period of time that has led to new thinking in the field or has bridged it with a new application area or has influenced education and learning per se in a profound way. Recognizing a similar need, the community service award was regularized a few years ago after having been given on an ad hoc basis a few times.
AWARD COMMITTEE PROPOSED ACTION ITEM: The Awards Committee recommends regularizing the lifetime achievement award by creating an "Innovation Prize" (a placeholder name for the award) to be given to an individual or a group for outstanding contribution to the field achieved by dedicated work done over an extended period of time on a specific topic. Since the criteria for such an award would be very different from any of the current prizes a separate ad hoc committee for its administration should be formed.
Thank you,
Regards,
David N. Ford,
President 2012
System Dynamics Society
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: "Saeed, Khalid" < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 12:40:42 -0500
Dear colleagues,
To respond to Markus’s query, the proposed award is at this time unsponsored and does not carry any monetary reward.
As Lees points out, this award is proposed in place of lifetime achievement award and the proposal is to regularize it rather than give it on an ad hoc basis. This is the only scholarship award of the society that recognizes an innovative individual for contribution to the field based on an extended body of work with realized impact.
All three of society’s existing awards for scholarship: JWF, DM and Applications are given for a single article with time limits that require assessment on basis of promise rather than realized impact. They also recognize the article rather than an individual and multiple authors with tangential or transient interest in the field can receive these awards. I think these awards are important mechanisms for drawing people to the field and motivating them to create outstanding writings. And I have great regard for their winners and for the hardworking committees that select them.
The Awards Committee saw a clear need to recognize our innovative and committed members whose extended work has impacted the field in a profound way. The ad hoc conferment of lifetime achievement awards is an evidence of such a need. Such an award is expected to be given after the impact of the recipient’s contribution has been established and thus the work cannot be tied to time limits. The criteria for the award must therefore greatly differ from the criteria of the existing awards and the Awards Committee can set up a group to draw these criteria.
As for the frequency of the award, no award has to be given every year. JWF award has been skipped several times and I do not see proliferation to be an issue. Also, as Dennis points out, the recipients of our awards stand tall on basis of their work irrespective of the awards they receive. Hence, there should be little fear that proliferation will lessen their achievement in any way.
Khalid Saeed
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Antwort: Re: SDS Award Committee Proposes New Award - FOR DISCUSSION
From: John Sterman < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2012 20:45:48 +0000
Dear Colleagues,
Many good points have been made in this thread. My own view is similar to Khalid's. The fact that the awards committee has chosen to honor two people with a Lifetime Achievement award is evidence that there is a need for an award that is not tied, as the JWF and applications awards are, to a particular work, but recognizes a broader set of contributions to the field. However, the fact that the LA award has been given only twice is also significant.
I agree with Dennis that increasing the number of awards per se does not detract from past awards, but that "Lowering the standards that are used to grant awards will certainly detract from past awards." I believe a regularized award to take the place of the "Lifetime Achievement" award should not be given often. We have given the LA award only twice. Moving from the ad hoc process we have now to a more regularized one should not lead people to imagine that the LA award, however, it is renamed, will be given substantially more often than it has been in the past.
In particular, the LA award is not something to be given merely because someone has reached a certain age, or is retiring. It has been, and should continue to be, awarded sparingly, for significant and distinctive scholarly contributions to the field.
John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: From Dennis Meadows: thoughts about a new award category
From: Dennis Meadows < >
Reply-To: List for System Dynamics Society Policy Council Members < >
Date:Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:50:10 -0500
Dear Colleagues,
I receive communications from the listserv, but I have so far never responded, since I did not believe I had anything special to contribute. But the exchange about the new award does involve an issue about which I have some relevant information. It was stated that: each additional award does detract somewhat from the awards that already exist.
I do not believe that is true. The main function of the awards is to legitimate award recipients both to members of the Society and to outsiders. Lowering the standards that are used to grant awards will certainly detract from past awards. Raising the number of awards will not.
I received the J Forrester award long ago. It would not make the slightest difference to me, if the Society develops a new award category, as long as it is based on high standards. A key element of the award strategy must be acknowledgement of the fact that any particular award may be withheld in years when there are no candidates who meet the standards.
Dennis Meadows