Talk:System dynamics

Archive

Old discussion has been moved to the archive

Strange

Some notes that might help to improve the page:

• It is not clear what makes systems dynamics differ from classical cybernetics, scientific modeling, systems theory, and other approaches to model complex systems. Feadback loops are, e.g., at the core of cybernetics.
• Maybe the only difference (innovation) is the application domain?
• Feadback loops do not necessarily imply nonlinearity!!!

Note by 141.35.14.148 on 2 Dec 2005

My feeling is that this is really a bunch of people using the term system dynamics to describe population dynamics and try to popularise it using non-free software packages (but with the best of educational intentions). i was invited to a course on the topic, and the convenors didn't seem to realise that in the internet era, we as a class could form a self-sustaining dynamical system...

i don't see how a positive feedback loop can not imply nonlinearity (if there's nothing else in the system). ${\frac {dx}{dt}}=Ax$ has the solution $x=e^{At}$ which is definitely not linear.

Boud 14:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You make a good point about the similarities between system dynamics and cybernetics. In fact, Jay Forrester was very well versed in control system theory, and noted the similarities with management policies. Hi work on industrial dynamics was the application of control system theory to problems in the domain of management. His second book was Urban dynamics, which has some similarity with population dynamics.

Since then, system dynamics has found appliation in many other fields.

I think the article can benefit from some examples in other fields. For example, the California management review of Summer 2001 (Vol 43 no 4) contains some example in other fields, including fire-fighting; process improvement programs and service and quality drift.

Apdevries 10:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-free is pretentious

Unless all software referenced on Wikipedia specifies its license, then I think noting "Non-free" is insulting, and often misleading, epecially if the software is of zero-cost. Don't get me wrong, I use a great deal of "free software," but for a general publication such as an encyclopedia, it's incredibly slanted to judge such matters in a limited context, when no licensing is called for.

I agree, and have culled the list of software. Apdevries 10:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I propose, the licenses be only in the fact tables of the software entries, unless it is specificially relevant to the grandparent article. Politics aside, it's poor organization to specify trivia about a link outside of a link.