In response to: “Never the strongest: reconciling the four schools of thought in system dynamics in the debate on quality.” — System Dynamicists versus problems, not versus fellow System Dynamicists!

The recent article published in this journal by Clancy et al. (2023) presents a very troubling view of the System Dynamics community as a group of warring successor states led by powerful generals, instead of the largely unified and community-led field that it is. I believe that it is wrong to amplify or encourage (even if inadvertently) the formation of “political parties” within the field based largely on an appeal to the authority of specific individuals. Individuals who express their opinions and make calls to action derived from their unique experiences do so as part of a process that is necessary to nourish the underlying democratic nature of the field. To me, the field of System Dynamics is a living community of individuals, guided by the experiences of each other and who are seeking understanding through the great lens of what I refer to as feedback-oriented thinking. Within this community, ideas and practice thrive or die based on their usefulness to those who call themselves System Dynamicists. It is the community, along with the people who use and act upon the work products of the individuals within the community, that determines what the bar for quality truly is. Through this lens, the debate about quality, or what I would prefer to call the evolution of the standards for fitness for purpose, is one where individuals express their views and perspectives on what has either made them successful, or in the case of failure, what would have made them successful or has led them to failure. Ideas on quality are not conceived in a vacuum, but instead are forged through the hard-earned experiences of individuals within the community. For the sake of this community, I appeal to this journal to please not enable the development of political parties or gate-keeping in System Dynamics. Instead, the journal should function as the mechanism through which System Dynamicists share what has made their work succeed or fail, and through that exercise let those authors help the rest of us be successful in our future work. To my fellow System Dynamicists, I believe that quality within our field does not fall neatly into any of the categories presented by Clancy et al. (2023): quality in the general sense, as hard as it is to define at that level of abstraction, crosses the boundaries drawn in the article. I believe that if, as a field, we want to find growth and future relevance, then we are going to have to embrace the living and therefore evolving nature of the community that we are all so lucky to have a small place within. We need to cultivate a System Dynamics community of critical thinkers who can take the advice and experiences gifted to them by any of their fellow community members and turn it into actions and work products that create successes, and sometimes failures, that as a group we can use to form and shape future practice. Therefore, to all my fellow System Dynamicists, I ask that you reframe this debate on quality as System Dynamicists versus problems, not versus fellow System Dynamicists. William (Billy) Schoenberg is a lead software engineer at isee Systems inc. and a Researcher at the University of Bergen. He holds a PhD in System Dynamics from the University of Bergen. He is a key member of the team that designs and develops Stella Architect and the isee Exchange. He has always been fascinated by the relationship between structure and behavior and is especially interested in communicating the nature of that relationship.