System Dynamics -- Open Source Software

[joseph simpson]

Team:

I just did another search for open source System Dynamics software,
which turned up some new software packages. These new packages appear
to be very capable.


The Structural Modeling Project is beginning to complete a first-cut
analysis of structural modeling methods and techniques. These methods
and techniques are focused on system structure not system behavior.

As presented in our previous work, there are three general categories
of system structure; hierarchy, network and combined network and
hierarchy.

System Dynamics methods are applied to systems that have a feedback
loop and therefore include some type of network.

Is there any interest in exploring structural modeling as a 'front
end' to System Dynamics types of analysis. If so, does anyone know of
similar activities being performed by other groups?

This is just a very early note to see if there is any interest in this
area. If there is interest, then the task of exploring an interface
between structural modeling and System Dynamics will be added to the
to-do list.

Take care and have fun,

Joe



--
Joe Simpson

“Reasonable people adapt themselves to the world.

Unreasonable people attempt to adapt the world to themselves.

All progress, therefore, depends on unreasonable people.”

George Bernard Shaw

[joseph simpson]

Len:

Thanks for your interesting view point.

I tend to agree with the general flow and content of your message.

There appears to be strong disconnects between and among the various
approaches used to engage the world of systems.

One aspect, of systems, that I use as a primary guide, is the aspect
of complexity. In many cases, an individual can not grasp the total
system because it is beyond the capability of any single human to
fully understand the system.

Tools are used by humans to aid in the exploration of system concepts
and characteristics. Many of these tools are based on some form of
digital computer software. But language and mathematics are always
involved, whether or not computer software is used in the work flow.

I scan the availability of open source tools that are used to help
humans engage these large, interconnected systems. I have noticed an
increase in open source system tools that are used to analyze vast
amounts of data. The R language and program is one such tool. There
are now open source interfaces available that connect closed source
System Dynamics tools and these open source data science tools.

It is my understanding that theory is based on observation and
experience. Therefore, it appears that a more capable system
engagement tool chains may help move along the development of system
theory.

In any case, there is many specific domain areas that are now focused
on classical system approaches in search of new insights into very
large scale problems.

The point about faith in ones approach is very important. The
establishment of standard system concepts, attributes, and
characteristics coupled with operational metrics may help guide the
'faithful' and provide empirical evidence that may be used to
determine if their faith has been rewarded.

In many cases, it appears that people just keep doing the same thing
with out a good reason or metrics to provide standard feedback. It is
like they have a 'systems tool' and this tool is used on everything.
Which may not be the best way to approach any given situation.

Thanks again for your insights, take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe


On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 9:08 PM, Lenard Troncale <lrtro...@cpp.edu> wrote:
> Dear Joe and Team:
>
> One of the major weaknesses of Systems Awareness (combo of systems thinking and systems science) recently recognized in the group trying to respond to an invitation from Springer to write and publish an overview Handbook on Systems is that there is rather poor traditional coupling, or correspondence, or joint usability, or connections between deep systems THEORY and PRAXIS/APPLICATION methods. They seem to have evolved almost completely independently of each other even though both are based on FAITH that taking a systems viewpoint will help approach many current crisis problems.
>
> I think that the Simpson et. al. efforts at more completely developing Warfield’s Structural Modeling could bring better aspects of THEORY to the PRAXIS of Systems Dynamics. On the other hand, I view Warfield’s ISM mostly as a technique of PRAXIS/APPLICATION not theory. If SD would accept “structural modeling” as a “front end” to SD, then both areas should benefit from the synthesis and serve as an exemplar of bringing deeper theory into applications. That might well be a good advance. At present SD, for all its beautiful simplicity and adoption by so many remains rather weak on the mechanics of how systems work. It just maps systems using a couple of isomorphic patterns. If structural modeling could inform SD, then both would benefit IMHO.
>
> However, that does not mean I am on board to try all that (not within my skill or central interest set); I feel that there are deeper systems theories available to join to both SD and structural modeling to help address and solve the weakness described in the first sentence. Just expressing a thought on your suggestion.
>
> Len Troncale

>> --
>> The SysSciWG wiki is at https://sites.google.com/site/syssciwg/.
>>
>> Contributions to the discussion are licensed by authors under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Sys Sci Discussion List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to syssciwg+u...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/syssciwg.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Structural Modeling" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to structural-mode...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to structura...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Lenard Troncale]

Dear Joe and Team:

One of the major weaknesses of Systems Awareness (combo of systems thinking and systems science) recently recognized in the group trying to respond to an invitation from Springer to write and publish an overview Handbook on Systems is that there is rather poor traditional coupling, or correspondence, or joint usability, or connections between deep systems THEORY and PRAXIS/APPLICATION methods. They seem to have evolved almost completely independently of each other even though both are based on FAITH that taking a systems viewpoint will help approach many current crisis problems.

I think that the Simpson et. al. efforts at more completely developing Warfield’s Structural Modeling could bring better aspects of THEORY to the PRAXIS of Systems Dynamics. On the other hand, I view Warfield’s ISM mostly as a technique of PRAXIS/APPLICATION not theory. If SD would accept “structural modeling” as a “front end” to SD, then both areas should benefit from the synthesis and serve as an exemplar of bringing deeper theory into applications. That might well be a good advance. At present SD, for all its beautiful simplicity and adoption by so many remains rather weak on the mechanics of how systems work. It just maps systems using a couple of isomorphic patterns. If structural modeling could inform SD, then both would benefit IMHO.

However, that does not mean I am on board to try all that (not within my skill or central interest set); I feel that there are deeper systems theories available to join to both SD and structural modeling to help address and solve the weakness described in the first sentence. Just expressing a thought on your suggestion.

Len Troncale


> On Aug 8, 2017, at 7:20 PM, joseph simpson <jjs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

[Mary Edson]

Greetings Joe and Len,

While at the International Systems Dynamics Conference in Cambridge, MA, I met the INCOSE President in Brazil, George Sousa. He may be a good connection for knowledge about SD OSS. He is a Director at Eng=flux and can be reached at george...@engeflux.com.

Mary

[joseph simpson]

Mary:

Thanks for the information.

Take care, be good to yourself and have fun,

Joe

[Lenard Troncale]

Dear Mary,

Sorry to not respond to this earlier. I am teaching a 3-unit graduate class, Introduction to Systems Science (SE 510) as part of our new SE Master’s curriculum this Fall (Oct-Dec). Most all of it is on my kind of systems science (Systems Processes Theory, SPT) but I do give a 2-hour lecture on Systems Thinking and another on how ST is different from SS and their different strengths. In reading your note here, I was wondering what you meant by SD OSS. I suspect SD means Systems Dynamics, but OSS? Is it some operating system software? How does it compare to the excellent long-term effort of the Simpson’s?

Len

[David Ing]

@Len,

I've found "SE 510 (P01): Introduction to Systems Science" in the College of the Extended University at https://www.cpp.edu/~ceu/degree-programs/systems-engineering/schedule.shtml .

Is there a syllabus posted somewhere in public that we could see?  I'm curious as to what's on the mind of Lenard Troncale these days.

[Lenard Troncale]

Dear David,

Thank you for your interest. Here is the current Syllabus, but I have also included the current Schedule because it has the specific lecture topics. Remember this is for a Quarter system, that is, only 3 units for 10 weeks. There are video’s on each topic being produced in our university studio. I am interested in making this course into a completely off campus, online course or possibly a MOOC. Is there any interest in this in this Google group?

Len

P.S. This is not the only thing on my mind at this point. But a fair overview summary.