Complex systems stuff..

Systems dynamics, a discipline dedicated to understanding dynamic behavior of complex systems. The discipline seems to be a central part of the curriculum at Sloan and considering that Jay Forrester of MIT founded the discipline in the 50’s, I can see why. The theory is that we can model complex systems behavior in an effort to make predictable “forecasts” in an effort to make things faster, better, cheaper - if not faster, better, cheaper, then a bit more “predictable”. The fundamental in system dynamics is mathematics, but it still seems to be focused on a parametric view of a system. One of the steps in creating the simulation is to estimate the parameters and initial conditions - by market research or by my ever so favorite “subject matter expert”. In other words, you can really make the model say whatever you or a corporate executive wants since all you have to do is alter the “parameters and initial conditions” through market research or a “subject matter expert”. Sure, you could use statistical analysis to define parameters, but we all know statistics can be very subjective. The mathematics behind the statistics are objective (after all, math is math), but the data used to generate the statistics is always subject to interpretation.

So, why talk about systems dynamics? I was just thinking about the books I need to get from the ex’s home and one of them was Jay Forrester’s Systems Dynamics textbook (as taught at Sloan, even!!!). Funny the things that the mind recalls, isn’t it? Who the hell would think about “systems dynamics” on any given day except a “subject matter expert” in “business modeling”? I’m no “subject matter expert” in “business modeling” and “business strategy”, by the way, far from it, although I do understand the “language” of “business modeling and strategy”. “Dazzle ‘em with bullshit” as a former navy boss of mine would say...

Dog years, what is a “dog year”? Why do we need to relate a dog’s age to human years? Why can’t you just say “my dog is 10 years old” and know that 10 years is OLD since dog’s average around 12 years for lifespan. Why do we have to have this silly notion that we multiply the dog’s age by seven or something like that to come up with the “human equivalency”? This is especially disconcerting since the “conversion rate” is dependent upon the average lifespan of a human - which average lifespan, man or woman? Asian, latino, or caucasian? Are we then being discriminatory if we say that the factor is based on the average life expectancy of a white male, or Asian woman? I’d say just teach everyone that dogs live about 12 years and let them deduce by themselves that a 10 year old dog is OLD. Even the notion of a “year” is relative, but based on a hell of a lot more science than “dog years”, so let’s just use the widely accepted Julian calendar “year” and do away with this “dog year” stuff...