System dynamics is an approach to understanding the behaviour of complex systems over time. It deals with internal feedback loops and time delays that affect the behaviour of the entire system. What makes using system dynamics different from other approaches to studying complex systems is the use of feedback loops and stocks and flows. These elements help describe how even seemingly simple systems display baffling nonlinearity. Wikipedia.
News Article | May 18, 2017
Temperatures in the Arctic are increasing twice as fast as in the rest of the globe, while the Antarctic is warming at a much slower rate. A new study published in Earth System Dynamics, a journal of the European Geosciences Union, shows that land height could be a "game changer" when it comes to explaining why temperatures are rising at such different rates in the two regions. Climate models and past-climate studies show that, as the Earth warms in response to an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, temperatures rise faster at the poles than in other parts of the planet. This is known as polar amplification. But this amplified warming is not the same at both poles. "On average, warming for the entire Antarctic continent has been much slower than Arctic warming so far. Moreover, climate models suggest that, by the end of this century, Antarctica will have warmed less compared to the Arctic," says Marc Salzmann, a researcher at the Institute for Meteorology, University of Leipzig in Germany. A possible cause for the accelerated Arctic warming is the melting of the region's sea ice, which reduces the icy, bright area that can reflect sunlight back out into space, resulting in more solar radiation being absorbed by the dark Arctic waters. Scientists believe this is an important contribution to warming in the region, but it's not the only one. Changes to the transport of heat by the Earth's atmosphere and oceans to the poles have also been suggested as a possible contributor to the steep rise in Arctic temperatures. In addition, the cold temperatures and the way air is mixed close to the surface at the poles mean that the surface has to warm more to radiate additional heat back to space. These effects may not only lead to stronger warming at the north of our planet, but also at the south polar region. "I wondered why some of the reasons to explain Arctic warming have not yet caused strongly amplified warming in all of Antarctica as well," says Salzmann, the author of the Earth System Dynamics study. There had to be other factors at play. "I thought that land height could be a game changer that might help explain why the Arctic has thus far warmed faster than Antarctica," he says. With an average elevation of about 2,500 m, Antarctica is the highest continent on Earth, much due to a thick layer of ice covering the bedrock. The continent also has high mountains, such as Mount Vinson, which rises almost 4,900 m above sea level. To test his idea, Salzmann used a computer model of the Earth system to find out how the climate would react to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration. He also ran the same experiment in a flat-Antarctica world, where he artificially decreased the land height over the entire southern continent to one metre, a value similar to the surface height in the Arctic. This allowed him to compare how differently the Earth would react to an increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere if Antarctica was assumed flat. The experiments showed that, if Antarctica's land height is reduced, temperatures in the region respond more strongly to a rise in the concentration of greenhouse gases over the continent. This contributes to an increase in Antarctic warming, which reduces the difference in polar amplification between the Arctic and the Antarctic. The most significant factor, however, was a change in the way heat is transported in the atmosphere from the equator to the poles in the flat Antarctica world compared to the reference model. "Assuming a flat Antarctica allows for more transport of warm air from lower latitudes," Salzmann explains. "This is consistent with the existing view that when the altitude of the ice is lowered, it becomes more prone to melting," Salzmann explains. In the long term, this could contribute to accelerate Antarctic warming in the real world. As the region warms due to increased greenhouse-gas emissions, ice melts, reducing Antarctica's elevation over centuries or thousands of years. This, in turn, would contribute to even more warming. Please mention the name of the publication (Earth System Dynamics) if reporting on this story and, if reporting online, include a link to the paper (http://www. ) or to the journal website.
News Article | May 20, 2017
I apologise for breaking into the stream of politics for some science: Temperatures in the Arctic are increasing around three times as fast as the global average, yet the pace of warming has been much slower at Earth’s other pole. A new study, just published in Earth System Dynamics, suggests the difference might – in part – be down to the great heights of Antarctica’s land surface. The article is The polar amplification asymmetry: role of Antarctic surface height by Marc Salzmann. And since it’s open-access I’m sure they won’t mind me copying from their abstract: Previous studies have attributed an overall weaker (or slower) polar amplification in Antarctica compared to the Arctic to a weaker Antarctic surface albedo feedback and also to more efficient ocean heat uptake in the Southern Ocean in combination with Antarctic ozone depletion. Here, the role of the Antarctic surface height for meridional heat transport and local radiative feedbacks, including the surface albedo feedback, was investigated based on CO2-doubling experiments in a low-resolution coupled climate model. When Antarctica was assumed to be flat, the north–south asymmetry of the zonal mean top of the atmosphere radiation budget was notably reduced… between 24 and 80%… of the polar amplification asymmetry was explained by the difference in surface height, but… might to some extent also depend on model uncertainties. So there you go. I’ll assume you’ve read the (open access) paper. And you get the idea from the image I’ve cut-n-pasted: under 2xCO24, the Arctic is hardly affected by flattening Antarctica but Antarctica warms much more. However, although this isn’t unbelievable, it kinda goes against what I thought I knew – which is to say, the conventional explanation that they quote -, so I should look for some flaw in it. As should you! Don’t take anything for granted. Ideally you’d do that by carefully reading the paper and pondering it’s arguements, but life is too short so I’ll leave that to you; I’ll just do some drive-bys1. As the abstract hints, this is not a sooper-dooper hi-rez model, and they give some evidence of not fully trusting it. I’m not going to quibble any details, but see this second pic I’ve inlined. It is the zonal average response, over 600 years vertical time. And you’ll see two odd things. One in the control runs, which I’ll come back to in a moment, and the second in the 2xCO2 runs. And that is, that the warming in the Antarctic is greater than the warming in the Arctic by about the time of, oh, year 130. By bizarre chance, the first inlined pic is from years 80-109. Had they drawn the same pic for year 570-599, it would have looked very different and (dare I say) rather less convincing. Their explanation for this is THC shutdown, which as they say simpler models are rather more prone to. Well actually they say The weaker Arctic warming in the middle of the 2 × CO2 base run (Fig. 13b) is an indication of a slowing of the ocean’s meridional overturning circulation (MOC). Such a slowdown has often been found in CO2 perturbation experiments, and it tended to be stronger in low-resolution, low-complexity models compared to state-of-the-art highresolution models. Since the CESM was run at a low resolution in this study, this finding should also not be overinterpreted. From that I deduce that they didn’t carefully look through all the diagnostics to verify MOC slowdown, but it’s a reasonable guess. Anyway, the point that MS doesn’t then link to is the polar see-saw (that’s my pic!) and it would be natural to suppose that a (relative) Arctic cooling would lead to Antarctic warming. And it is possible (though I admit to not having fully joined the dots) that this is (part of) their enhanced Antarctic warming. You might also wonder about the spin-up. Coupled models generally require some, and it looks like MS was a bit careless in this regard: It should be noted that Antarctic warming relative to the respective control run (Fig. 14a) was stronger in the flat AA than in the base model setup throughout almost the entire 600-year period. However, even though the temperature in the flat AA control run stabilized after a moderate initial warming and even though the temperature evolution from the control run was subtracted in this analysis, it cannot be completely ruled out that this moderate initial warming could have also played a role in the later development in the 2 × CO2 flat AA run. Therefore, in retrospect2, starting the flat AA 2 × CO2 run from a separate long flat AA spinup run and prescribing a more realistic gradual increase of the CO2 concentration, which would allow the inspection of the first decades of the CO2 perturbation experiments, would have been better. The last point, which I’ve now come back to, is that despite the “even though the temperature in the flat AA control run stabilized after a moderate initial warming”, I can’t see it. You’d expect some decades of warming in the Antarctic in the control run as heat is advected in as the continent is suddenly flattened. But no; at least, as I say, I can’t see it. Anyway, there you go. I enjoyed writing that. Rip me to shreds3. 1. At one point, we had a policy against drive-by reviews. Because the thick-as-pigshit management thought that having problems with your code pointed out by people who were too busy to review all your code was bad, because the darling snowflakes sometimes got offended. 2. I read that “in retrospect” as “bollocks, the referees noticed it”. 3. In memory of the Rude Mechanicals 4. Note: these are instantaneous-doubling CO2 experiments, which I thought had largely gone out of fashion, as they are somewhat less realistic that the steady-increase type.
News Article | May 18, 2017
Temperatures in the Arctic are increasing twice as fast as in the rest of the globe, while the Antarctic is warming at a much slower rate. A new study published in Earth System Dynamics, a journal of the European Geosciences Union, shows that land height could be a "game changer" when it comes to explaining why temperatures are rising at such different rates in the two regions. Climate models and past-climate studies show that, as the Earth warms in response to an increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, temperatures rise faster at the poles than in other parts of the planet. This is known as polar amplification. But this amplified warming is not the same at both poles. "On average, warming for the entire Antarctic continent has been much slower than Arctic warming so far. Moreover, climate models suggest that, by the end of this century, Antarctica will have warmed less compared to the Arctic," says Marc Salzmann, a researcher at the Institute for Meteorology, University of Leipzig in Germany. A possible cause for the accelerated Arctic warming is the melting of the region's sea ice, which reduces the icy, bright area that can reflect sunlight back out into space, resulting in more solar radiation being absorbed by the dark Arctic waters. Scientists believe this is an important contribution to warming in the region, but it's not the only one. Changes to the transport of heat by the Earth's atmosphere and oceans to the poles have also been suggested as a possible contributor to the steep rise in Arctic temperatures. In addition, the cold temperatures and the way air is mixed close to the surface at the poles mean that the surface has to warm more to radiate additional heat back to space. These effects may not only lead to stronger warming at the north of our planet, but also at the south polar region. "I wondered why some of the reasons to explain Arctic warming have not yet caused strongly amplified warming in all of Antarctica as well," says Salzmann, the author of the Earth System Dynamics study. There had to be other factors at play. "I thought that land height could be a game changer that might help explain why the Arctic has thus far warmed faster than Antarctica," he says. With an average elevation of about 2,500 m, Antarctica is the highest continent on Earth, much due to a thick layer of ice covering the bedrock. The continent also has high mountains, such as Mount Vinson, which rises almost 4,900 m above sea level. To test his idea, Salzmann used a computer model of the Earth system to find out how the climate would react to a doubling of the atmospheric carbon-dioxide concentration. He also ran the same experiment in a flat-Antarctica world, where he artificially decreased the land height over the entire southern continent to one metre, a value similar to the surface height in the Arctic. This allowed him to compare how differently the Earth would react to an increase in greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere if Antarctica was assumed flat. The experiments showed that, if Antarctica's land height is reduced, temperatures in the region respond more strongly to a rise in the concentration of greenhouse gases over the continent. This contributes to an increase in Antarctic warming, which reduces the difference in polar amplification between the Arctic and the Antarctic. The most significant factor, however, was a change in the way heat is transported in the atmosphere from the equator to the poles in the flat Antarctica world compared to the reference model. "Assuming a flat Antarctica allows for more transport of warm air from lower latitudes," Salzmann explains. "This is consistent with the existing view that when the altitude of the ice is lowered, it becomes more prone to melting," Salzmann explains. In the long term, this could contribute to accelerate Antarctic warming in the real world. As the region warms due to increased greenhouse-gas emissions, ice melts, reducing Antarctica's elevation over centuries or thousands of years. This, in turn, would contribute to even more warming.
News Article | April 17, 2017
In a time of political transition and uncertainty in the U.S. and abroad, questions inevitably arise about the future of the energy sector. How will the shift to a low-carbon economy play out? How much has the timeline been impacted? These questions were on the minds of many of the attendees gathered in Houston earlier this month for IHS CERAWeek, the annual conference of the international energy industry. The conclusions were both realistic and optimistic, and marked by one of the defining characteristics of the week: momentum. For a decade, MIT has played a substantial role in this conference. This year, MIT speakers included Vice President for Research Maria Zuber, the E.A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics in the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences; MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI) Director Robert Armstrong; and several other researchers, who took part in the weeklong program that also featured Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau; Laurence Tubiana, CEO of the European Climate Foundation (ECF); Patricia Espinosa, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; and executives from major energy companies, among others. This future in which carbon emissions have been substantially reduced is one that a number of speakers from diverse backgrounds heralded as inevitable, and more than that, desirable. Coupled with this momentum towards low-carbon energy was a clear interest in the technology that will make it possible. MIT representatives at CERAWeek took part in lively discussions among the many alumni in attendance — whose free participation was facilitated by MITEI Associate Director Louis Carranza and the MIT Club of South Texas — or speaking on panels. Robert Stoner, MITEI’s deputy director and the director of the Tata Center for Technology and Design, spoke at a Thursday morning panel on developing markets for powering economic development. Karthish Manthiram, an assistant professor of chemical engineering, spoke about the role of carbon capture, utilization, and storage in a low-carbon energy future. PhD candidate Jesse Jenkins, a researcher in engineering systems in the Institute for Data, Systems, and Society, took part in a panel on distributed resources’ relationship to the evolution of the power grid. The conference also featured MIT alumni as speakers. James Bellingham ’84, SM ’84, PhD ’88, director of the Center of Marine Robotics at Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, was one of three alumni panelists who discussed technology’s role in reshaping the energy supply chain. Fellow panelists included Ric Fulop SL ’06, co-founder and CEO of Desktop Metal, and Jon Hirschtick ’83, SM ’83, co-founder and CEO of Onshape Inc. On another panel concerning energy startups, Helen Greiner ’89, SM ’90, founder and CTO of CyPhy Works, spoke alongside another MIT panelist, Murat Ocalan PhD ’11, founder and CEO of Rheidiant. At a plenary session on climate and energy strategies post-Paris Agreement, MIT’s Zuber reminded the audience that a wide range of technologies are needed to effectively combat the climate challenge, saying, “There isn’t any one silver bullet here.” She added, “We have very separate challenges that are associated with the developed world and the developing world. We need to be investing in a range of clean technologies.” Zuber’s fellow panelists included Mohamed Jameel Al Ramahi, CEO of Masdar; Rachel Kyte, CEO and special representative of the UN Secretary-General for Sustainable Energy for All; and ECF’s Laurence Tubiana. Zuber also spoke at a dinner featuring female leaders in energy, aptly coming at the close of International Women’s Day. Panelists included Zuber; Nabilah Al-Tunisi, chief engineer for Saudi Aramco; Julia Harvie-Liddel, group head of resourcing at BP; Mary Kipp, CEO of El Paso Electric Company; and Geraldine Slattery, asset president for conventional oil and gas at BHP Billiton. Antonia Bullard, IHS Markit’s vice president for energy, noted at the end of the conference, “The largest rounds of applause I’ve heard this week were for carbon pricing and opportunities for women.” Spinach emails, electric cars, and the future of silicon Armstrong moderated Friday’s MIT plenary, “Frontiers of Science and Innovation: Future technologies to meet the energy and climate challenge.” He kicked off Friday’s panel with his co-moderator, IHS Markit Vice Chairman Daniel Yergin, by talking about MITEI’s developing Low-Carbon Energy Centers. Armstrong described the centers as a vehicle “to bring research in different disciplines together with industry to accelerate progress in the energy transition.” MIT panelists discussed how each of their research projects is contributing to low-carbon energy solutions. Panelist Michael Strano, the Carbon P. Dubbs Professor of Chemical Engineering at MIT, brought up a video of a small spinach sprout growing in a beaker in his team’s lab, its roots wrapped in cheesecloth. “We’re going to watch this spinach plant send an email,” Strano announced to the audience. In the video, a researcher’s hand depressed a yellow-colored solution into the water in the spinach plant’s beaker. Mere seconds later, thanks to a simple electronic setup already in place that connects the spinach’s solution electronically to a Raspberry Pi computer, an email showed up on the researcher’s phone. “The idea,” Strano said, “is to replace some of the electronic devices and gadgets around us with a functional living plant. We’re working out the engineering details of how you would do this with nanotechnology.” The spinach sending the email? That’s Strano’s team’s answer to the need for sensors to detect potential toxins in soil or in the atmosphere. Plants already take in an immense detail of data about their surroundings, so Strano’s team had the idea of turning a plant (any plant will do) into a sensor of sorts, that, via a simple setup like the one he displayed in the video, can send periodic updates on the soil or air quality around it. An added benefit is that plants are “doubly negative” when it comes to carbon — both made of carbon and constantly consuming it. The panel turned from replacing electronics with plants to improving the electronics themselves. Troy Van Voorhis, the Haslam and Dewey Professor of Chemistry, discussed his research into improved silicon in solar cells and technology for storing energy in chemical bonds. David Keith, the Mitsui Career Development Professor and Assistant Professor of System Dynamics at MIT’s Sloan School of Management, focused on electric cars. According to Keith, the widespread adoption of both electric and driverless cars will ensure that “driving will be safer, easier, cheaper, kinder to the environment.” First, though, certain barriers to adoption must be scaled. Keith discussed ways in which these challenges, from high costs to a need for greater proliferation of recharging infrastructure, can be overcome. Investing in energy research for the future In the post-Paris Agreement panel, Zuber discussed nuclear energy, describing innovations such as advances in molten salt reactors that will make the fission process safer, cheaper, and more efficient. She also addressed the common, half-joking criticism of fusion: that it’s always at least four decades away. “There’s been serious progress on this front, mainly due to technology innovations, particularly in the area of high-temperature super-conducting magnets. I frankly think that we are on the order of 10 years from net positive energy for a small compact reactor, not 40 years away. Once we get that, then we commercialize, and then we have a brand new industry. Then we have a completely different game.” Zuber also emphasized the importance of basic research. “We need to make a bigger push in research, and we need to make a bigger investment in the basic science that’s going to drive the technology,” she said. “We also need to make a bigger investment in early-stage development, so that we can mature these technologies fast enough.” Zuber mentioned MIT’s recent creation, The Engine, an incubator that will invest in pre-commercialization stage projects. “It’s a combination of investment in R&D and patient capital to mature these ideas so we can get them out,” she said. “We’re at the cusp of a revolution.”
Agency: GTR | Branch: EPSRC | Program: | Phase: Research Grant | Award Amount: 3.44M | Year: 2013
Compared to many parts of the world, the UK has under-invested in its infrastructure in recent decades. It now faces many challenges in upgrading its infrastructure so that it is appropriate for the social, economic and environmental challenges it will face in the remainder of the 21st century. A key challenge involves taking into account the ways in which infrastructure systems in one sector increasingly rely on other infrastructure systems in other sectors in order to operate. These interdependencies mean failures in one system can cause follow-on failures in other systems. For example, failures in the water system might knock out electricity supplies, which disrupt communications, and therefore transportation, which prevent engineers getting to the original problem in the water infrastructure. These problems now generate major economic and social costs. Unfortunately they are difficult to manage because the UK infrastructure system has historically been built, and is currently operated and managed, around individual infrastructure sectors. Because many privatised utilities have focused on operating infrastructure assets, they have limited experience in producing new ones or of understanding these interdependencies. Many of the old national R&D laboratories have been shut down and there is a lack of capability in the UK to procure and deliver the modern infrastructure the UK requires. On the one hand, this makes innovation risky. On the other hand, it creates significant commercial opportunities for firms that can improve their understanding of infrastructure interdependencies and speed up how they develop and test their new business models. This learning is difficult because infrastructure innovation is undertaken in complex networks of firms, rather than in an individual firm, and typically has to address a wide range of stakeholders, regulators, customers, users and suppliers. Currently, the UK lacks a shared learning environment where these different actors can come together and explore the strengths and weaknesses of different options. This makes innovation more difficult and costly, as firms are forced to learn by doing and find it difficult to anticipate technical, economic, legal and societal constraints on their activity before they embark on costly development projects. The Centre will create a shared, facilitated learning environment in which social scientists, engineers, industrialists, policy makers and other stakeholders can research and learn together to understand how better to exploit the technical and market opportunities that emerge from the increased interdependence of infrastructure systems. The Centre will focus on the development and implementation of innovative business models and aims to support UK firms wishing to exploit them in international markets. The Centre will undertake a wide range of research activities on infrastructure interdependencies with users, which will allow problems to be discovered and addressed earlier and at lower cost. Because infrastructure innovations alter the social distribution of risks and rewards, the public needs to be involved in decision making to ensure business models and forms of regulation are socially robust. As a consequence, the Centre has a major focus on using its research to catalyse a broader national debate about the future of the UKs infrastructure, and how it might contribute towards a more sustainable, economically vibrant, and fair society. Beneficiaries from the Centres activities include existing utility businesses, entrepreneurs wishing to enter the infrastructure sector, regulators, government and, perhaps most importantly, our communities who will benefit from more efficient and less vulnerable infrastructure based services.
System Dynamics | Date: 2012-10-01
A method of controlling a combination vehicle for road transport of heavy goods, said vehicle comprising a motor vehicle at the front and a trailer attached so as to be towed behind the motor vehicle, said trailer comprising:
Agency: Department of Defense | Branch: Air Force | Program: SBIR | Phase: Phase II | Award Amount: 749.93K | Year: 2010
The U. S. Air Force has identified a need to develop innovative technologies that will enable miniaturization of micro air vehicles (MAV), and future micro air weapons (MAW), to allow these platforms to be sufficiently compact to accommodate diverse deployment scenarios. Smaller airframes necessarily require that airframe components be miniaturized to provide adequate volume for mission payloads. In particular, the Air Force has earmarked flight control actuation devices as critical components requiring miniaturization. The conventional approach for control surface deflection in small air vehicle has involved the use of analog or digital servos. The Phase I program demonstrated that piezo-electric actuators could replace conventional servos and provide comparable control and manuverability during radio-controlled flight. The objective of the Phase II effort is to transition from an RC prototype aircraft to a fully autonomous, bird-size, piezo-equipped tactical MAV that exhibits payload and weight benefits relative to conventional servos, while providing the optimum control authority to precisely maneuver the air vehicle. BENEFIT: There are numerous non-military applications of the peizo-actuated control surface technology that will be logical by-products of the military applications. Camera-equipped MAVs have great potential for surveillance and monitoring tasks in areas either too remote or too dangerous to send human scouts. MAVs will enable a number of important missions, including chemical/radiation spill monitoring, forest-fire reconnaissance, visual monitoring of volcanic activity, surveys of natural disaster areas, and even inexpensive traffic and accident monitoring. Additional on-board sensors can further augment MAV mission profiles to include, for example, airborne chemical analysis. Also, RC models may be the most intriguing commercial application for piezo-actuated control surfaces. RC enthusiasts are always looking for the next “gadget” for their gas-powered and electric planes. Today’s electric flight packs generally include a pair a servos, an ESC, and an RC receiver and crystal. It is quite conceivable that future flight packs could include a pair of piezo-electric actuators and a small DC boost circuit, along with the ESC and receiver.
Agency: Department of Defense | Branch: Army | Program: STTR | Phase: Phase I | Award Amount: 99.96K | Year: 2010
This Phase I STTR effort develops and tests spectropolarimetric surface characterization algorithms for LADAR based remote sensing. A systematic approach is used which first defines the operational scenarios for which the algorithms are to work. These scenarios are then used to define requirements for LADAR hardware and algorithms which serves to focus the algorithm development effort. A library of surface material Mueller matrix measurements is used as the basis for a fundamental surface characterization investigation that will establish the ultimate potential to discriminate between different materials/classes of materials. The library used consists of existing measurement data from government and industry sources plus measurements made during Phase I to fill high priority gaps in the data library. A preliminary design of improved instrumentation (which would be built in Phase II) for measuring full Mueller matrix BRDFs will be made in order to address weaknesses in previous measurement data. Finally, a suite of algorithms will be developed to address the high priority scenarios identified at the beginning of the effort, and these algorithms will be tested on synthetic LADAR images created to represent these scenarios. Testing will be performed on SDI’s existing LEAP ATR application.
News Article | February 17, 2017
LEOPOLDSHOEHE, GERMANY, February 17, 2017 /24-7PressRelease/ -- This is the final version of Predicted Desire, a simple and easy product calculation client. From v2.0, Predicted Desire will be called Startup Product Manager. We keep this version and continue to host PD through 2017. How it works Predicted Desire will calculate your product's various cost, revenue and net profit over 48 months. Being the first ever sample of the Perfect Desire platform, it's capable of calculating basically any Formula System over time, including a Solver Algorithm capable of solving simple Differential Equations. PD will calculate all Targets, predict and graphically display a company's proceedings over the next 48 months in the reference model. Based on the set of Input Parameters and Formula, the user interface is built automatically by parsing and interpretation of the simulation models's equation system. SocialMedia Followers leading the path of Development Accompanying the Release, which went through a beta phase with a few hundred freelance testers, two SocialMedia Competitions have been started. At twitter.com/dynamic_idea, a public voting competition allows everyone to suggest, favour, and retweet new simulation ideas. Every Month, Dynamic Applications is working on the top voted idea, and it will be available one (1) month for free, at least, for the SocialMedia crowd after completion. Roadmap In parallel to @dynamic_idea, there is a Roadmap, Bug and Feature competition at @dynamic_qs, so users can as well prioritize our product Roadmap. We call it Customer Driven Development. Since our roadmap is community defined, we try to give every person in the world a fair chance to participate, supposed they can get access to a free Twitter account. This way, we are Sharing Economy. It's an experiment in Swarm Intelligence, as we define Online Democracy. Is it possible? - we say yes. About Dynamic Applications Dynamic Applications was founded on January 01, 2016. The Founder and first Software Developer of Dynamic Applications is Martin Bernhardt. He has researched not only any public information about the System Dynamics approach, but has also been working with two companies in the Strategic Asset Management market. Dynamic Applications has no flyers, sales consultants, traditional marketing, or budget. Our strategy is called Growth Hacking: we spend as much time as possible on Research and Development of the Software. Following an Agile Development approach, we're working our way all up from the very bottom. We try to make the crap we started from better, every day. We just hope there are people out there who'll find our products any useful. Dynamic Applications is a community approach. We pay with a Tweet, and define the next big thing to publish. We are Dynamic Applications. We empower people. We are Sharing Economy. Follow us to gain.
News Article | February 15, 2017
CARY, NC, February 15, 2017-- Mindy Schrager has been included in the Platinum Anniversary Edition of Who's Who in America. While inclusion in Who's Who in America is an honor, only a select few in each professional field are chosen for this distinction. As in all Marquis Who's Who biographical volumes, individuals profiled are selected on the basis of current reference value. Factors such as position, noteworthy accomplishments, visibility, and prominence in a field are all taken into account during the selection process.Recognized for three and a half decades of invaluable contributions in the fields of Quality, Process, Programs, Change, Operations Management, Teamwork and more, Ms. Schrager parlays knowledge of change and transformation into Systems of Change, LLC, a business she founded in 2015. After earning a Bachelor of Arts degree from Dickinson College and an MBA from Babson College, including studies in France and Switzerland, she began her career at Nolan Norton and Company first as an Analyst, then as a Consultant in Information Technology Management. Subsequently, she moved to Logos Corp, a machine translation start-up where she managed a variety of roles ranging from sales support and customer satisfaction measurement to human resources. During her next eight-year adventure at Motorola ISG, she created the division's customer satisfaction and non-product quality programs as well as a call center for customers' non-technical issues. Next, Ms. Schrager moved into Financial Services at Fidelity Investments first as Director of Boston Phone Site Quality, then Director of Bill Payment as it migrated to the web and a third party provider. In early 2000, she took on senior roles in Operations, Process, and Program Management at Ardent/Ascential Software acquired by IBM in 2005, working there until 2015.Complimenting her degrees and corporate experience, Ms. Schrager studied transformational approaches and earned an Associate Certified Coach credential from The International Coach Federation, and an Integrative Coach certification from JFK University and The Ford Institute of Transformational Studies. She also is a certified Cultural Transformation Tools consultant with Barrett Values Center, Systemic Family and Organizational Dynamic Practitioner through The Institute of Integrative System Dynamics, and Voice Dialogue Practitioner through Voice Dialogue Connection. She is a member of the National Association of Female Executives, International Coach Federation, Triangle OD Network, American Society for Quality, and the Association for Talent Development.During her years in the quality field, Mindy co-authoredandfor the ASQ (American Society for Quality) National Conference, in addition to starting ASQ's Boston Chapter's Non-Product Quality Committee and the Boston Chapter of the Association for Quality and Participation. She recently authored the bookand created a blog series. Additional Who's Who honors: Finance and Industry, American Women, Emerging Leaders, in the World since the 1980's, in America, in the East since the 1990's, and more recently, in the South and Southeast since 2010.About Marquis Who's Who :Since 1899, when A. N. Marquis printed the First Edition of Who's Who in America , Marquis Who's Who has chronicled the lives of the most accomplished individuals and innovators from every significant field of endeavor, including politics, business, medicine, law, education, art, religion and entertainment. Today, Who's Who in America remains an essential biographical source for thousands of researchers, journalists, librarians and executive search firms around the world. Marquis now publishes many Who's Who titles, including Who's Who in America , Who's Who in the World , Who's Who in American Law , Who's Who in Medicine and Healthcare , Who's Who in Science and Engineering , and Who's Who in Asia . Marquis publications may be visited at the official Marquis Who's Who website at www.marquiswhoswho.com