83, Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems

Origins, development, and future prospects of a method Victor Tang1 and Samudra Vijay2 Introduction In this paper, we first introduce and define system dynamics (SD) as a method, explore its relationship to the feedback and control systems, and then trace the history and origin of SD. Thereafter we discuss SD as a methodology and suggest its place in the matrix of principles, methods and tools. We also discuss some examples and applications of the SD methodology, and highlight its ability to simulate complex socio-economic and management systems by elaborating examples, such as People’s Express. Next, we trace the journey of conceptual development of the systems approach and its logical development from systems engineering to the SD. We conclude by saying that SD has evolved as a powerful tool but of late its growth has been horizontal, and not vertical. A major conceptual breakthrough is needed to realize its full potential. System Dynamics is a method that extends beyond conventional domain of systems approach to large-scale complex engineering problems. SD deals with interaction of various elements of a system in time and captures the dynamic aspect by incorporating concepts such as stock, flows, feedback and delays, and thereby provides an insight into the dynamic behavior of system over time. As a knowledge domain, SD can be thought of as a logical extension of systems engineering (SE) and systems analysis (SA). SD explicitly takes into account the dynamic behavior that results due to delays and feedbacks in the system. Jay W. Forrester, Management professor at the MIT/Sloan School is considered to be the father of this new approach to understand and solve the problems in the business and social science domains. SD had significant intellectual impact worldwide. Most noted and controversial application of SD is the development of world models, World2 and World3, which were published in World Dynamics (1971) and in The Limits to Growth (1972) respectively. Although the World models using system dynamics attracted severe criticism from a very wide spectrum of disciplines, government and academia, they were successful in bringing some of the very vital challenges and issues being faced by mankind to the forefront of academic and political thought process. System dynamics as a method has been successfully applied in a wide variety of business and socio-economic fields to understand the problems and gain an insight into various policy interventions. We believe that SD is a powerful tool that could be applied successfully to a wide variety of problems, but development of SD needs a breakthrough to move further from where it stands today. History and Origins Jay W. Forrester, the father of system dynamics, joined MIT as a graduate student in the Electrical engineering department, and was employed by Gordon S. Brown, as research assistant in the
1 2

System Dynamics

principal author of pages 3.2 to 12. planning was a joint effort. principal author of pages 1 to 3.2. planning was a joint effort.

page 1

Notwithstanding the criticism. he designed and developed servomechanisms for control of radar antennas. Forrester started thinking of this problem in terms of the feedback loops to simulate the plant inventory and… “that first inventory control system with pencil and paper simulation was the beginning of system dynamics” (Forrester.ESD. During this period he extensively used the mathematical theory of controls and concepts of feedback and stability in real life engineering applications. SD as a methodology moved on under the guidance and leadership of Forrester. such as businesses. under the leadership of Dennis Meadows further refined the SD model of the world and presented the results from the refined model (world3) in the book called The Limits to Growth. Thereafter he headed the Division 6 of the Lincoln Laboratory. 1991). Meetings and discussion with former Boston mayor and then visiting professor at the MIT led to extension of the SD method to understand the urban housing problem in the Boston Metro area. a group of intellectuals from various countries. a team of researchers at MIT. The experience in managing large scale research projects dealing with complex engineering systems had a profound impact in shaping Forrester’s “systems thinking”. From Urban Dynamics to The Limits of Growth In 1970. Forrester’s discussions with the Club of Rome became the basis of the first comprehensive model of the world based on system dynamics. which designed computers for the SAGE (Semi-Automatic Ground Environment) air defense system for North America. using system dynamics methodology in the arena of social sciences. severely criticized. World Dynamics. Jay Forrester was invited to attend a meeting of the Club of Rome. Such a striking conclusion obviously had very strong moral. Management at the plant was unable to understand the fluctuations in the demand. He argues that the land used for creating low-cost housing curtails the availability of land for more productive and job creating structures. was well received. SAGE is one of the prominent examples of a large-scale complex engineering system. who were trying to find a solution to “…the predicament of mankind”. his book describing the world model. He further extended the use of system dynamics in the field of business management and formally articulated the SD methodology in his book Industrial Dynamics. His conclusion from modeling the urban behavior was that… “the most damaging policy was to build low-cost housing”. Forrester joined the MIT Sloan School of management in 1956. gun mounts and other military equipments. During World War II. and at the same time it also draws in more people. ethical and political dimensions.83. the first digital computer designed at the MIT Digital Computer Laboratory. The Limits to Growth attracted severe criticism – on accounts of its page 2 . leading to a vicious cycle of unemployment and greater need for low-cost housing. Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems newly found servomechanisms laboratory in 1940. published in 1971. a method to understand the dynamic behavior of various business related issues and problems. Nine months later. where he laid the foundation of system dynamics. This resulted in publication of his next book Urban Dynamics. He came across a problem faced by the household appliance plant of General Electric (GE) in Kentucky. This evoked very strong emotional response. and widely circulated around the world. Thereafter he led the design and development of the Whirlwind I. published in 1961.

tubs. The principles of System Dynamics are predicated on two major systems principles. Professor Ed Crawley.e. Water gets warm slowly after the hot water tap is turned on. This is readily observed in everyday life. Simply stated.. System Dynamics is a method. that permits the analyst to decompose a complex social or behavioral system into its constituent components and then integrate them into a whole that can be easily visualized and simulated. Simon uses the metaphor of a pair of scissors. page 3 . [2] The second is bounded rationality (Simon 1957). A method. It shows that as People’s Express fleet expanded.ESD. but to satisfice by means of fast and frugal rules that the analyst is able to capture by its understanding of the problem (Gigerenzer and Selten 2000). the “environment” as defined by the analyst. Water flows through pipes and they accumulate in reservoirs. page 4). rather concentrates on the ones that are key to the problem and its context. and tools. System Dynamics is also a rigorous modeling method that enables us to build formal computer simulations of complex systems and use them to design more effective policies and organizations. i. and other containers. SD has been slowly and steadily growing since then. head of the Aero/Astro Systems Department. flows. A well-intended policy created unintended negative consequences. many management schools around the world offer courses in the field of SD. page 5).83.” System dynamics does not pretend to address all the variables of a problem. business cycle etc. capacitors are charged. System Dynamics as a Method It is important that System Dynamics be properly as a method. we juxtapose System Dynamics against some other well-known systems (slide 11. methods. and their charge decays exponentially. Today. and had been applied to a very wide variety of problems successfully. Unfortunately. Current flows through conductors. Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems predictions and methodology both. the power of its simulation capabilities are demonstrated by the sample graphs that show the behavior of two key system parameters – customers’ perceived quality and the countermeasures from competitors. separates three distinct characteristics of the systems: principles. the passengers carried increased requiring more rookies to be hired. [1] The first is that stocks. where one blade is the “cognitive limitations” and the other the “structure of the environment. Sterman (2000) writes. which caused People’s express to increase marketing expense to sustain customer satisfaction. Many books and articles published criticizing the inappropriateness of the method and unacceptability of the results published in the book. It took a leap of ingenuity and imagination for Forrester to conceptualize analogous behavior in social systems and behavioral systems. system dynamics is a perspective and set of conceptual tools that enable us to understand the structure and dynamics of complex systems. MIT Sloan School has led the growth and spread of SD as a methodology to attack business related problems such as inventory. page 4) in the following page vividly demonstrates this point. inexperienced rookies lowered service quality. The example (slide1. System Dynamics does not pretend to optimize. To illustrate the point. Its growth has been mostly confined to the solving of management and policy related problems. This emergent system effect is clearly illustrated visually (slide 4. and delays determine system behavior. Moreover.

ESD.M.83.Lee.s right hand loop R +PE fleet PE profits + PE Marketing Expense B + + PE passengers carried - Customer Perceived Service Quality + - B1 + PE costs R % rookies + R PE + Revenues + new hires competitor counter measures source: H.Tang © slide 1 M d lin C p b o e g a a ility © slid e 4 page 4 . Yoon's left hand loop this is Mr. Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems People’s Express’ Doom Spiral this is Mr. Yoon. V.

o n e aio a go n e t e r r u d d h oy so k . The System Dynamics model of Mertern. The other critical issue is the interactions between process and physical structures such as manufacturing. System Dynamics shows the dynamic competitive behavior of firms. shorter for manufacturing. BCG prescribes a set of competitive business policies. etc. There are important factors that determine the quality of a product and a team’s the ability to meet schedules. longer for product development.83. and question marks.f w. A critical issue is the race between completing the work that needs to be done.d la s t c s lo s e y mt o eh d system dynam ics V n im ® es DN M YA O ® Se ® t lla to o ls © slide 11 Applications of System Dynamics System Dynamics has been deployed in a very wide variety of applications. Product Development. Repenning and Sterman (1997) using System Dynamics are able to show that the asynchronicity of these processes lead to dysfunctional organizational performance. rather than simple static representations. The volatility of a business’ supply chain is the bane of every firm. The crux of the issue is the different time-constants for improvements to reach steady state. The BCG model is static and omits feedback in its policy formulations. Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems System Dynam is a m ics ethod g v r mna o en e t l s se s ytm pin ip r c le s p r t no e aaio f p wr o es pimr r ay e cio s le t n v t gmc in s oin a h e a df n e ir ee s s se s yt m s p r -s se ue ytm o ht r gn o s f eeo e e u s se s yt m ineo ea ilit o t r pr b y f s se so s se s yt m f yt m n t ok o n t ok ewr s f ewr s c mues o ptr .oh r ewr s t e at a t rif cs e o o ic c nm a ds c ls se s n o ia y t m b u d dr t n l. stars. and Wiedmann (1987) introduces dynamics into the static BCG model and identifies its fatal flaws. They are either consistently short of inventory. They show how and why the BCG policy fails when competitors adopt atypical responses. A well-known portfolio model is the 2x2 BCG model. n t ok .ESD. We will illustrate only a few examples that we consider representative of the power and versatility of System Dynamics. This is page 5 . The model separates business units into cash cows. or they have an overabundance sitting in warehouses. Portfolio Simulation. dogs. such as milking cash cows to fund stars to create the future cash cows. Supply Chain. which has relative market share on the x-axis and market growth on the y-axis. fixing known problems and unanticipated problems. Löffler.

Moscardini . Xu. Mashayeki . Examples of Applications                      Business portfolio simulation Defence analysis Distribution of body fluids Rural / social economic interactions Highway construction in China Product development process Diffusion of innovation management Evaluation of assembly systems Mental models in system dynamics Commercialization of IT technology Social theory and system dynamics Outsourcing organizational impacts Epidemic interventions in Mexico Macro/micro modeling field service Interactions in a duopoly Consensus in organizations Product development and quality Nepalese construction sector Policy design in market growth Reengineering the supply chain Modeling HIV/AIDS Merten . technology. Schmid 1998 SDR V14. Clark 1999 SDR V15. this page). Galván 1999 SDR V15. 4 Ritchie. 0 Gane 1999 Eur . 2001) points out “knowledge is invested in practice and the successes that demonstrate the value of the knowledge developed. Sterman 1998 SDR V14. Carlile (2000. -Dunham. 4 Doyle. Calrk . 2 Sice . Major “phase transitions” punctuate the growth from one stage to the next. the solution to this problem is unwieldy. Repenning 2001 SDR V17. Weidman 1987 SDR V2. Bach 2001 SDR V17. 1 Black. Mosekilde . 2 Hines. moves to Systems Analysis. 4 Pardue . JOR 113 McCray.83. The levels of inventory at each stage of the supply chain. 4 Zahn . and communities of practice that have propelled this evolution. House 2001 SDR V17. 2 Alfeld 1995 Decision Dyn . and its dynamic behavior can be simulated with great precision (Sterman 2000). Löfler . 1 Bjarachya .ESD. 2 Hansen. We will address the conceptual foundations. Ford 1998 SDR V14. This progression begins with Systems Engineering. Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems particularly acute when there are multiple stages in the supply chain. Ogunlana .” For these reasons we will identify the communities of practice and what our readings suggest were their principal page 6 . Winch 1998 SDR V15. the table below is illustrative of the wide range of applications (slide 9. 1 Sterman SD 2001 Sterman SD 2001 Sterman SD 2001 © slide 9 Conceptual Developments of System Dynamics We argue that System Dynamics represents a step in the progression of the field of systems thinking. 2 Ford. Saeed 1998 SDR V14. Dillerup . Using mathematical functions. Bie 1987 SDR V2. 1 Maier 1998 SDR V14. Al -Alusi 1987 SDR V2. [See illustration below]. A more rigorous approach to the System Dynamics applications should use a meta-analysis of the published literature. 2000 SDR V16. 2 Homer 1999 SDR V15. then to System Dynamics. With System Dynamics the problem is much more readily solvable. 2 Wolstenhoklme . But in the limited format of this report.

The instrument of defense was a massive system of radars. Now. flows.83. We consider SAGE to be the exemplar of systems engineering. anti aircraft guns. The community of practice was engineers. and computers all networked so that it would operate as a purposeful system. the systems have less to do with artifacts created by engineers. this page). It is important to note. scope and complexity so they performed large-scale functions in the civilian sector. Systems engineering migrates or “spreads” (Hughes 1998) into the civilian sector and industry. flows. Hughes and Hughes 2000). and the institutions that employed them were organizations in the military-industrialuniversity complex. The engineering challenge was to construct the system and operate it. that systems as artifacts grew in size. Systems Dynamics is a step in a progression System Dynamics System Dynamics grounded rationality grounded rationality networks of stocks. Examples of these include the ESS#5 computer controlled telephone switching system. The page 7 .  communications  adaptive systems  servomechanisms © slide 10 Systems engineering had its roots in MIT (Hughes 1998. delays networks of stocks. we will venture a hypothesis of the next stage to follow System Dynamics (slide 10. The engineering team had substantial experience in servomechanisms acquired during WW II to build such a system from the bottoms-up. Our class readings suggest that their core motivations were problem solving to meet important and urgent national objectives. Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems motivations. By extrapolating these three vectors into qualitatively new directions and by discussing the resultant phase transitions. However in terms of societal impact. the migration of systems into the civilian and industrial sectors for strategy and policy were the more seminal events. The goal was the air defense of the United States. and the large private data networks of large global enterprises. but more to do with strategy. delays integrative integrative Systems Analysis Systems Analysis reduction and simplification reduction and simplification interfaces and interoperability interfaces and interoperability tops -down tops -down Systems Engineering Systems Engineering construction and operations construction and operations feedback and control feedback and control bottoms -up bottoms -up  social sciences  behavioral sciences  computers.ESD. and organizational control by means of the systems discipline. however. Systems Analysis represents the “next” wave of growth. policy.

budgeting) to the Pentagon. they centralized control and accrued unprecedented power. and consultants. Forrester. mathematicians relentlessly pushed the intellectual envelope of systems analysis into policy and strategy. We believe that he made a significant contribution in popularizing and democratizing systems. this page). His models draw immediate attention and substantial criticisms from many directions. programming. It appears that systems analysis became a practice. as well as a means to accrue control and power. Boldly. PPB (planning. invents system dynamics. a “think tank” with its economists. Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems exemplars of this spread include McNamara and the Whiz kids at the Ford Motor Company. Johnson’s War on Poverty created new opportunities for RAND and system analysts to spread their dogma.83. These ideas are summarized below (slide 19.ESD. with his vast experience and knowledge of systems and his prodigious ability to invent and reconceptualize ideas into more innovative and creative concepts. McNamara’s tenure in the DOD and transplanting his favorite control and power accrual mechanism. business and strategy analysts in industry. he applies it to major and highly visible national and global issues in the domain of social and behavioral science.f w. Regardless of the merits or praise from his detractors or admirers. where by implementation of systems analysis. Forrester had decisively migrated systems analysis into the realm of social sciences. RAND. Computers. Elitism began to creep into systems analysis.d l y t c s lo s ea s ine r t e t gaiv c m u it s o mn ie o pa t e f r cic e gn esa t ec ti ge g n i e r t h utn d e m ay -in u ty -a a e ictia ilit r d sr c dm r d go p i t e ein t ui n r u s n h s s it to s t in t n s h kak e ego p int ec ilia s co lit r u s h iv n e t r e ego p g v r mn in t uio s lit r u s o en e t s it t n u i es yr s ac es nv r it e e r h r b sn s c n u a t u i e s o s lt ns b sn s a a ss u i e s n ly t © slide 19 page 8 . The communities of practice now include academic researchers. government and the civilian sectors. accelerated this migration. sophisticated software and large communications networks fueled and turbocharged the spread system analysis into industry. Comparisons and Contrasts c net a o c pu l f u d to s o n ai n S se s ytm E g e rn n in ei g S se s ytm A a ss n ly i S se ytm Dn m s ya i c s r o e hn m ev mc a is s b il a do eae ud n pr t b to s -u ot m p mt md ls ah o e e o o ic c nms go n e r to a y r u d d ai n lit so k .

are worthy of note. We think this is important because it signals another qualitative shift in systems thinking. For example. In 1990. an improvement factor of 1012. One of the most interesting examples discussed by Coyle is the demise of the Mayan population. Lohr (2001) in his column in the New York Times reports on Paul Horn’s (IBM VP for Research) computing vision of “autonomic” systems. … This article briefly reviews that debate and then discusses some of the problems and risks sometimes involved in quantification. Similarly.” Coyle’s writes in his paper: The tradition. genetic and in 1940 it took 109 joules to process one computer operation. It is significant because it is indicative of a shift in thinking. Finally a research agenda is proposed to determine the wide balance between qualitative and quantitative models. there are developments in computing that are sufficiently dramatic that they could also potentially be another source of fuel that will drive the next stage of systems thinking. Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems Recent Conceptual Developments In this section we discuss some “leading indicators” that are potential signals that could tell us the new directions of the next stage of systems concepts. one might call it the orthodoxy. and selforganization. there are nascent technologies that will fuel and propel current systems thinking into the next stage. indeed. in 1960 it took 1018 atoms to store one bit of information.” and “… accuracy must be achieved before precision is useful.” What is remarkable about this paper is that the authors use concepts from biology find analogs for organizational learning and behavior. capable of learning. in system dynamics is that a problem can only be The sources of analogy for systems thinking are including biology. As in every systems stage of the past. and policy guidance given. These systems will be highly adaptive. In addition. Horn reports on work that IBM is doing on systems whose analogs are biological. Elsewhere1 IBM reports that it is developing a computer system with one million processors that are capable of processing concurrently. Those problems are exemplified by an analysis of a particular model. The first “leading indicator” is a paper by Coyle (2000). Elsewhere. which turns out to bear little relation to the real problem it purported to analyze. in 1990 that took only 109 atoms. Horn (1999) reports on the dramatic technological progress that is abetting this kind of new thinking.83.can. “… there is a sharp distinction between the ‘exact’ and the social sciences… exactness and accuracy must be measured not in terms of the number of decimal digits. where he shows that the quantitative results of the models defy logic. that took only 10-3 joules. In the same vein as Hines and House (2001). through the aegis of a fully quantified model.ESD. 1 wysiwyg://139/http:/iserver. The authors state. They use the notion of mutation and recombination in their investigation. This is consistent with Forrester (1975) where he writes. Some qualitative models are then reviewed to show that they can. lead to policy insights and five roles for qualitative models are identified.html page 9 . but that the logic of the model is plausible and assists in deepening understanding. This paper represents a shift from the dominance of quantitative analysis towards qualitative analysis. The second paper is by Hines and House (2001) on the subject of ““policy formation that is consistent with what is known about evolutionary processes and what is known about human psychology. in our opinion. There are two papers in System Dynamics that have been published recently that.

Even without simulation. and processes 8x106 threads concurrently versus the maximum of 5000 today. One strong criticism is that the early models of System Dynamics “have not stood the test of time. delays networks of stocks. social studies. we hypothesize that the next stage of systems thinking will resemble autonomic systems (slide 14. genetic m self organizing and learning self organizing and learning System s Dynam s ics System Dynam ics grounded rationality grounded rationality networks of stocks. physical sciences. Forrester states.ESD. It processes 109 instructions per second. but it will continue to run and repair the applications that are damaged by this destructive physical act.83. Such a dynamic framework provides a common foundation beneath mathematics. flows. biology.  com munications  adaptive systems  servom echanisms © slide 14 Summary and Conclusions System Dynamics is an effective and useful method for the analysis of complex systems. source of information. Putting all these ideas together.” But System Dynamics is not without strong critics from many quarters. System dynamics can provide a dynamic framework to give meaning to detailed facts. and human response. which can then be simulated to develop insight into its dynamic behavior. Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems This system is 1000 times more powerful than the Deep Blue that defeated Kasparov in a celebrated and visible chess match. IBM reports that a chain saw can cut through the system. System Dynam s ics: Next Breakthrough? System s Autonom s ics System Autonom ics com plexity m plexity m anagem anagem ent ent com biological. delays integrative integrative System s Analysis s System Analysis reduction and simplification reduction and simplification interfaces and interoperability interfaces and interoperability tops -down tops -down System s Engineering s System Engineering construction and operations construction and operations feedback and control feedback and control bottom -up s bottoms -up  biology  behavioral sciences  computers. this page).” and have failed in their page 10 . genetic m etaphors etaphors biological. flows. integrating the subsystems and parts into a whole. the causal diagrams improve the understanding of the structure and the key determinants of system behavior. history and even literature.

the omission of important technological change variables in Forrester’s early models presented an incomplete view of the problem. Tang page 11 . Gain $2. Gain $1. Furthermore. some are useful.” In the realm of social sciences. however. We find this beyond our means to address. However. We believe that it is through rational debate that a deeper understanding is developed and how methodologies improve. “All models are flawed. The very notion of a model is simplification and abstraction. having made such an analysis and decided on tails. We believe that System Dynamics needs another Forrester to drive its next stage of conceptualization where it will be able to solve even more intractable problems. where the method is applied more widely. we would bet on tails since it has a higher pay-off. its applicability has been demonstrated in a wide variety of applications. the omission of important social variables. It is safe to say that no model can include all the variables that would make the representation closed and complete. Otherwise. However.50 if call heads and heads come up. particularly in social science. Another strong criticism is the omission of key variables in the early Forrester models in Urban Dynamics.00 on a fair coin toss. and extend the system boundaries thus and so. and we lose the bet. it is always appropriate to have some humility and conservatism in one’s claims. Undoubtedly. System Dynamics is a useful and effective method for the investigation of complex social systems. there is no pay-off. y. it is possible that heads comes up. Another criticism is the “arrogance and hubris” in which the results were perceived to have been presented.50 if call tails and tails come up. We believe that in these situations it is useful to ask: “suppose we include variables x. this is horizontal growth. and z. we2 believe that this is a specious argument. Over the past decades. No one can predict the future. Bet $1. It is fair to say that in any circumstance. 2 V. There are some indicators where these breakthroughs may come from. what new insight can we get?” Deming is attributed with saying.” We agree. good decisions can have bad outcomes. there are few and rare exceptions in new breakthrough thinking. The mitigating factor. Question: was the decision a bad one? Not at all. and we anticipate them eagerly. in our opinion with limited research and investigation. We believe that it is more meaningful to debate the issues and gain a deeper understanding of the problem that argue the merits of prediction.83.) It is important to separate analysis/decisions from results. The following is a simple example to illustrate the point.ESD. we believe is a serious defect. This is a stylistic issue. But. (Although we unconditionally agree that prediction is the sine qua non for the physical sciences. As rational beings. is that the very existence of the model with all its flaws was able to surface meaningful debate of the problem that was studied. Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems “predictive powers. and The Limits to Growth.

W.. System Dynamics Review. Rescuing Prometheus: Four Monumental Projects that Changed the Modern World. 1961.. Cambridge. K. Industrial Dynamics. 6. Prentice Hall. J. 2000. R.. WW II and After. 20. Sterman. Cambridge. K. E. Vol. Carlile. P. The Limits to Growth. N. No. MA. 1999.. Sterman. 8. Winter.. System Dynamics Review. 1998. N. MIT Sloan School of Management Working Paper.A.S.L. 2. 42-47. 1987. Lessons and Ideas from 30 Years Experience. P. page 12 ..P. MIT Sloan School of Management..W. Meadows. D. 6. 12. 1973. R. MA.. Randers.C. Urban Dynamics.P. G.. Cambridge MA. J. 1998. Cambridge. Systems. J. 3.. Simon.P. Cambridge. Bounded Rationality. Research-Technology Management..P. W. 1987. J. S. The practice of System Dynamics: Milestones. 156159. 13. 3. Experts.Y.R. MIT Press. Freemam.D. G. Decision Analysis: Practice and Promise. Jan-Feb. New York Times. G. Gigerenzer. 1997. Cole. Pavitt. System Dynamics Review. edited by Y. No. Fall 2001 Research Seminar in Engineering Systems References 1. MIT Sloan School of Management. Hughes. Management Science.679-695. D. Industrial Dynamics.H. 2. 5. Rebentisch. 1. System Dynamics Review. 14 Obvious Truths. Howard. Behrens.Y. Vintage Books. 16.R. H. R. Hines.M. J. Can There Be a Science of Complex Systems? in Unifying Themes in Complex Systems. 2000. MA. 1988. Summer. New York. Lohr. Vol..W. Cambridge. The MIT Press. 1996. T. Vol.A.P.L. Universe Books. Selten (editors).S. Merten. Hughes. 19..J. MA. 4. 2001.D. 3. 2001. No. New Economy. Perseus Books. Bar-Yam. MA. 10. Getting Quality the Old Fashioned Way: SelfConforming Attributions in the Dynamics of Process Development.R.. 1972. A. 14.. Systems Engineering: An Approach to Information Based Design. Portfolio Simulation: A Tool to Support Strategic Management. 17. 9.D. Pegasus Communications. MA. N.. T.. Vol. Vol. New York. MIT Press. H. 17.A. Boston. The Source of poor Policy: Contolling Learning Drift and Premature Consensus in Human Organizations.W. A Pragmatic View of Knowledge and Boundaries: Boundary Objects in New Product Development. Repenning. 14. Upper Saddle River. Löffler. 2001. 2000. J. Irwin McGraw Hill.83. N. M. C. 1961. Meadows.ESD. Paper Manuscript. Ma.. October 15. Hughes. Forrester. No. Wiedman. 11.. House. Jahoda. MA. Universe Books. pp. Information Technology Will Change Everything. 2. 18. pp. 1999. J. pp. Carlile. J. MA. 1961. Coyle. 15. Forrester. Horn. Forrester. 4. Hazelrigg. P. 2001. Forrester. New York. MIT Press. and Computers: The Systems Approach in Management and Engeneering. P. Paper Manuscript. Cambridge. 7. Cambridge. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a Complex World. Models of Doom: A Critique of The Limits to Growth. 21. Spring. 34. Into the Black Box: The Knowledge Transformation Cycle. Waltham. No.Y. N.. J.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.