John Morecroft
Jay W. Forrester

Notes for Jay Forrester

John Morecroft

London Business School
April 2014

My life was changed by Jay Forrester. His influence came in two distinct ways; from personal encounters and from the research environment he created as founder and leader of the System Dynamics Group at MIT-Sloan. I spent a decade at MIT, first as a doctoral student and later as a member of faculty at Sloan. So there is much to remember. I will select a few personal stories to capture a sense of Jay as the special person and academic pioneer I came to know.

My stories are organised in three parts: early encounters, the academic environment, and contact in later years.

Early Encounters

In autumn 1975 I left England to join the doctoral program at MIT. I remember vividly arriving in Cambridge under New England’s crystal blue skies and searching out the headquarters of the System Dynamics Group in Building E40 across from the Sloan School. I was hoping to catch my first glimpse of Jay Forrester. I stepped into a colourful and spacious working area and, in a distant office, I spotted a gentleman with curly grey hair and the archetypal look of an absent-minded professor. I was surprised and a little disappointed. I’d been expecting someone more austere and intense; an image in my mind from a tiny black-and-white photograph of Jay that appears on the front cover of Industrial Dynamics. It was some days later I realised my mistake when the real Jay Forrester stepped into view with a lively and penetrating look on his face and upright stature that conveyed an instant sense of graceful authority and intellect. The absent-minded professor was someone else entirely. Such are the small-but-important first impressions and anxieties of new doctoral students.

Over the next few years Jay became a familiar presence in my life. I would not say he was a close acquaintance like a friend or contemporary. He was reserved, self-contained, clear thinking – yet welcoming. In the summer of 1977 he invited me to visit his family ranch in the Sandhills district of Nebraska. I was driving across the US with my wife Linda. We arrived at the ranch, ten square miles of rolling territory, to be greeted by Jay at the farm gate. He was wearing his cowboy hat, boots and riding gear. The contrast with his normal MIT attire (smart suit and tie) was astounding. Yet it made sense. He’d grown up among homestead pioneers and he went on to become an academic pioneer; an original thinker-and-doer, self-sufficient, fearless and rigorous. He and his wife Susan made us feel at home during our brief stay as they shared their homestead life. We strode around the grounds. Jay asked us to join him on horseback; but we were not skilled riders. He said he’d never learned to ride a bike. He told us of Nebraska storms so violent and intense that the brilliance of lightning was broken only by flashes of darkness.

Learning and Research Environment at MIT

There was a very special learning environment in the MIT System Dynamics Group at the time: hardworking, focussed, applied; yet rigorous and academic. Part of the environment was Building E40 itself – factory-like, practical, well-equipped, minimalist in décor; far from the dreaming spires of imagined academia. But more important was what went on inside Building E40. Doctoral students were dotted around an open-plan area at grey-metal desks surrounded by bookshelves and filing cabinets. Inside those filing cabinets was a remarkable collection of working papers; the so-called D-memo series containing thousands of documents about the group’s work. Graduate students were expected to contribute to the collection and it was perfectly normal for them to submit three or four major revisions of any manuscript in order to achieve acceptable clarity and quality.

Good modelling requires technical prowess, but the underpinning of mathematics and simulation should not displace clear reasoning and writing. Jay Forrester would scrutinise manuscripts of any researcher engaged in his projects. The documents would be returned covered in red comments and criticism. Another D-memo revision; another round of comments. The comments were often shared among graduate students. There were also Jay’s standard ‘tests’ for clear writing: can the document easily be read out-loud without stumbling over words and phrases; does the document make sense if only the first sentence of each paragraph is read? Another D-memo revision; another round of readability tests. You live with these criteria for years and you assume research is always conducted in this way. It is only later you realise just how special your training has been. The D-memo series (and accompanying criticism) embodied Jay’s research values with their emphasis on good writing, meticulous documentation and clear interpretation of models, equation formulations and simulations.

Jay’s values also emphasised applied research with real-world impact. Insights were to be gleaned from the everyday operations of business and society; backed-up by serious theory (in the form of models) and experiments (in the form of simulations). These personal values found unique expression in the group’s projects. I still remember the sense of excitement as a first-year doctoral student arriving by plane in Columbus, Indiana, headquarters of Cummins Engine Company. There I worked on the Cummins manufacturing dynamics project that Jay had originally started at the invitation of the company’s Chairman and CEO J. Irwin Miller. There was also a project with Harley-Davidson motorcycle company, plus the lingering aura of bold societal models and simulators from projects recently completed; including Urban Dynamics, World Dynamics and the Limits to Growth. Jay forged an exciting, relevant research portfolio around business and societal issues: helping responsible people to unfold the futures of their firms, cities and industries; then devising new policies to make things better.
Jay became my PhD thesis supervisor. He was not one to spend hours per week coaxing a thesis out of a reluctant graduate student. Our contact was limited; yet it was inspiring and demanding. His view of supervision was pragmatic and dispassionate. He had created a research group, and had invested the effort to carve-out legitimate ‘intellectual space’ within MIT’s competitive academic hothouse. That was his job. Now it was now the responsibility of the young researcher to deliver good work.

Contact in Later Years

If I’ve created an impression that Jay can profoundly influence one’s life and thoughts from a distance – with penetrating intellectual force – then I’ve succeeded in communicating part of his remarkable ability. Clarity of thought and sense of purpose are rare gifts and it is a privilege to have learned in the presence of someone who possesses these gifts. Jay’s distinctive intellectual force permeates his seminal books Industrial Dynamics, Urban Dynamics and World Dynamics and can be observed throughout a pioneering life: from his Nebraska homestead upbringing; to the frontier of MIT’s engineering and computing research; and onward to the new frontier of System Dynamics in management. For more details I refer the reader to biographical articles by Fisher 2005 (The Prophet of Unintended Consequences) and Lane 2007 (The Power of the Bond Between Cause and Effect).

My contact with Jay in later years was sporadic though his influence did not diminish. A few stories remain vivid enough to reveal the person behind the sharp intellect. I remember a chance conversation at MIT on the covered footbridge that connects the old Sloan School Building E52 with the Dewey Library E53. By then I was a junior faculty member at Sloan. Jay began talking about his own career; something he’d never done with me before. He recalled the time when he was leading the Whirlwind computer project at MIT’s Lincoln Labs in the late 1950s. He had needed (and found) an alter-ego in a co-researcher called Bob Everett; someone whose technical brilliance was matched by a natural ability to reach out empathetically to other members of the project team. He wished he could find someone similar again. The conversation then turned to the challenge of communicating research. He said it was vital to reliably sense, and then to believe, one’s work could be important; important enough to make a difference in the world. It was a glimpse into the pioneer’s mind set. I knew instinctively he wished me and others to find, within ourselves, the same intellectual self-sufficiency and confidence. It was a perceptive yet gentle criticism.

Another story comes from a guest lecture Jay delivered in one of my classes. I used to run a semester-long course for MBAs and PhDs on “Applications of Industrial Dynamics”. The course required students to conceptualise and build a model addressing a practical business policy problem. I thought it was important to include a lecture on model conceptualisation (the task of deciding which factors to include in a model and which to leave out). So I invited Jay to talk about his experiences. He picked two quite different examples from his repertoire of vintage projects: the corporate growth model he built for the fledgling Digital Equipment Corporation in the early 1960s, and the World Dynamics model from the early 1970s.

His lecture had a powerful effect on my students (and me too). He began by holding-up a single sheet of paper. It contained two large ovals – one labelled “company” and the other labelled “market”. Between these two ovals were lots of named connecting arrows, some going from the company to the market and some going the other way. He then went on to explain that this single page with its ovals and arrows was the result of two years model conceptualisation while he was sitting on the board of the newly formed Digital Equipment Company. He stressed that his efforts were by no means full-time. But more importantly he emphasized his need for all this elapsed time to think how best to approach the problem of representing Digital as a growth firm. Along the way he had rejected many possibilities to avoid detail unnecessary for exploring the dynamics of a firm’s growth over a ten-year period (for example he chose to ignore individual product lines, many of which would come and go over ten years). Thereafter only eight weeks were required to create the entire growth model of 200 equations.

After explaining much more about the structure of the Digital Equipment model he then moved to his second example – World Dynamics. At this point he displayed a two-page diagram from the World Dynamics book that shows the complete stock and flow structure of the World 2 model and the coordinating network of links. He then said he’d sketched a rough first-draft of this picture on a paper napkin in an eight hour transatlantic flight from Paris to Boston, following a meeting of the Club of Rome! The contrast between the two examples was dramatic. Two years for a sector map of Digital Equipment Corporation, and eight hours for a close-to-complete structural diagram of World Dynamics. The lecture showed, in a memorable way, the unusual combination of creativity, patience and disciplined thinking required for model conceptualisation.

I returned to the UK in the mid-1980s and joined London Business School where I have pursued my academic career ever since. Jay has remained a distant but ever-present influence. Most recently I met him at the 2013 conference of the System Dynamics Society in Cambridge MA. Aged 95 he still inspires an auditorium full of conference delegates. Even among friends he is apt to surprise. With an astute comment, he switched a dinner conversation of witty anecdotes to lively debate about the future of the field. After his talk on the closing evening of the conference there followed the screening of the 2013 documentary film ‘Last Call’ with its remarkable archive footage from the Club of Rome and the World Dynamics/Limits to Growth projects. It is a testament to Jay’s creative genius and foresight that a model conceptualised more than 40 years ago still engages people today as they grapple with unintended consequences of global industrial growth. Incidentally, the latest addition to my book collection is a first edition of World Dynamics, published in 1972 and signed by Jay Forrester in 2014.


Cerasuolo, E. (2013). Last Call. A documentary by Italian film director Enrico Cerasuolo about the history, impact and main protagonists of the Limits to Growth project (accessed 17 January 2014).

Fisher L 2005. The prophet of unintended consequences, strategy+business 40, Booz & Co.

Lane DC 2007. The Power of the Bond Between Cause and Effect: Jay Forrester and the Field of System Dynamics, System Dynamics Review, 23 (2/3), 95-118.

MIT System Dynamics Group 2003. D-memo Archive Working Paper Collection on DVD, available from the System Dynamics Society

Peter M. Senge
Jay W. Forrester

Notes for Jay Forrester

Peter M. Senge
December 4, 2016

Standing in the Shadows:
Reflections on Ten Years working with Jay W. Forrester

I was in Europe when my wife Diane told me of Jay’s passing three weeks ago. In one sense, I was not surprised. 98 is a very good age for moving on. But, gradually, in the weeks since, I have, taken to thinking a good deal about our time together.

Of course, it is the asymmetry of life that we can do nothing to benefit a person once she or he has passed. But I realized in talking with Drew Jones upon my return that I would like to write a bit about the extraordinary gift of working closely with Jay for a decade – what it was like at the time and a small bit of the bounty of understanding it bequeathed to me.

Much has and will be written about Jay’s life, and I realized in talking with Drew that my long apprenticeship might provide some distinctive perspectives. Feeling like one holding a small offering stone at the base of Mount Rushmore, I hope that my musing may be of some use to those who knew Jay, as well as the great many who have and will benefit fro his legacy. And, of course, there is the extra benefit of no one left who can correct my errors…

I first heard Jay speak when he visited my Principles of Systems class my first year as a MIT master’s student, in the fall of 1970. I do not remember much of what he said, which could be attributed to the many years since past but more likely to the coarseness of the listener. In the following two years, I constructed a sort of “Cook’s Tour” in the greater Boston area of all manner of system approaches applied to large scale societal issues – at MIT, Harvard, and Boston University. With a background in engineering control systems, the tour left me more and more convinced that there was nothing quite like system dynamics.

My imagination was captured by the combination of power and breadth. I studied system dynamics analyses of companies, cities, ecosystems, and cell biology, among many. But perhaps even more striking was the elegance and intuitiveness. I gradually realized people could come to understand intuitively the forces driving behavior in truly complex systems. It seemed to me that system dynamics uniquely stood astride the rigor of systems analysis ala engineering and science and the need to engage diverse stakeholders common to many approaches to system change. While the later systems change approaches lacked rigor, the former mostly resulted in technical analyses that remained opaque to the range of people (with very different technical skills) who needed to ultimately think and work together better guided by some semblance of common understanding of complex problems.

All this occurred in the days when “Industrial Dynamics,” what Jay initially called the field, was becoming “System Dynamics,” the term Jay was coming to by the early 1970’s. Jay had just completed work on Urban Dynamics and was starting to work on the model that would become the basis for World Dynamics and later The Limits to Growth.

In the spring of 1972, preparation met opportunity when Jay offered a seminar open to about a dozen students. Looking back, I bow in eternal gratitude at the good fortune for these weekly meetings in his office. As it turned out, it was the last regular semester-long seminar like this that he would ever offer. And it opened doorways that have shaped my life.

As the seminar was ending one day in May, he asked me what my plans were. I said I had not made any plans regarding further study or employment, but that I had thought a lot about what I would like to do next. He listened and then offered to hire me to do just that. As it turned out, it was the closest I ever came to a job interview. It also taught me how Jay approached planning and hiring – he believed in hiring people with promise and giving them space.

A week or so later, he showed me where my desk was and said I should come and see him some time in a month or so to let him know how I was doing. That was the extent of my supervision.

Amidst moments of periodic panic that I had no idea what I was doing, I also developed the plan I had in mind originally – to do something that would clarify how system dynamics related to other approaches to modeling complex systems. What ensued was a remarkable year-long series of small seminars with people we invited to talk about how they thought about and built models, assessed validity, and guided application. This included thought leaders from management science, the social sciences – even from physics. We did not limit ourselves to any field since model building occurs in all branches of science – indeed is a defining aspect of what constitutes science.

It was a wonderful year that became two. As the process continued, I visited with Jay often. Whenever we could, we sat outside his and Susan’s home in Concord under a large tree. We talked about all manner of things, usually with enough of Susan’s cookies to sustain deep inquiry.

Fellowship and nonlinearity suffused our conversations. He told me how he had gotten the idea for coincident current core memory, the invention that opened the door for general purpose digital computing (and for which MIT, and Jay, eventually collected the largest patent settlement ever), reading an IEEE (Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineering) article about hysteresis, the nonlinear way an electric charge builds and saturates. In another, he pointed out that the world of linear analysis – the world I, and all good engineers, had grown up with – was like living inside a tent. “Everyone once in a while, someone pokes a hole in the tent and gazes at the non-linear world outside. They then become terrified and quickly go back inside.” I still think periodically about that terror. And wonder how much it sits behind the fears so evident in today’s world.

In one of these conversations, I asked him if he thought I should continue on to get a doctorate. His response did not really surprise me, “I have always thought that getting a PhD was for people of lesser abilities.” As I knew, he had come to MIT during the years of World War II and such matters of degrees and the like were of small consequence compared to the challenges confronting the world, which, as it turned out, he had no small impact on. Jay’s work to develop operational radar had a singular effect in turning the tide of the Pacific theatre in favor of the Americans, whose Navy had previously suffered under the relentless attack of the Japanese air strikes.

But his advice not withstanding, within a year I had decided to enroll in the doctoral program when I realized one morning while shaving that I could simply register in the program and pursue the research plan I had already made for the next few years and – and get a PhD in the process, which journey began in the fall of 1975. I was again not really surprised when Jay said he liked the idea, his own previous contrary advice not withstanding. After all, I had heard him say many times to never be surprised if his thinking changed, even when he had seemed quite set on one way of seeing things. Though I can never recall his citing it, few could rival Jay in abiding by Emerson’s famous dictum, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”

Within a year or so, I was part of the National Economic Model team that became the focus of Jay’s work for a decade, joining a core group of good fiends, Nathaniel Mass, Gil Low, and Dale Runge. Talking with Drew, I realized that I am the only person now still alive from that team. Gil and Dale both tragically died during the project. Nat sadly passed away over a decade ago, at far too young an age.

I cannot say that all the work was fun. Indeed, the most memorable, and undoubtedly important, times were pretty painful. Starting full time on the team after completing my doctorate in the spring 1978, I worked on a combination of model development and testing, and writing. To my surprise, the later proved the greatest challenge.

Once Jay and I were drafting together the chapter introducing the monetary features of the model and the approach to inflation. Well, “drafting together” might be a bit of an exaggeration. I drafted and Jay corrected. Indeed, I can vividly still see printed drafts returned from Jay covered with what seemed more red than black. These bloody battlegrounds were the site for my gradually realizing that I had escaped almost twenty years of formal education without ever actually learning to write. Of course, I didn’t know this. I actually like my writing. But, then Jay would show me the topic sentence for the paragraph tucked away in the middle of the fourth sentence. Or worse, point out that no topic sentence could be found no matter how much one looked.

Given how closely together our self-expression and sense of identity tend to reside, it is no wonder that my confidence found itself reaching new lows in this whole process. Jay must have been at least a bit concerned about how I was doing. For, one day, in an unusual display of compassion, he said to me in the midst of an especially down moment, “I too once had to go through this process. My experience is that you only have to do it once.” On that inspiring note, I went back to working on my thirteenth draft of the chapter.

Indeed, Jay was right. After a few calendar months, which felt more like a few years, my writing became decidedly clearer. Topic sentences stood out. Sentence structures became shorter. Paragraph structures transformed from circuitous meander to clear progressions. Passive verbs (often used in tenses that might never even have existed) gave way to active ones. And the red ink thinned to where the underlying text became once again legible.

I cannot say I ever remember Jay complementing me on the progress. Indeed, we had a saying among the team: “He never tells you that you are right. He just stops telling you the ways you are wrong.”

But, I knew I was learning to write. Just one small debt I owe to my mentor – one of many.

Many of these lessons I learned more from how Jay was than from anything he set out to teach me explicitly. Many years later, when my own work evolved to increasing attention on developing personal and shared vision, I knew from whom I had learned this. Indeed, I never met someone so able to clarify a truly aspirational aim and pursue it relentlessly.

Sitting behind the capacity to envision digital computation, invent system dynamics, and build the first endogenous computer simulation model of how the industrial-age paradigm of growth was shaping the world’s deepest problems, were two personality threads that seemed to entwine strangely in the system called Jay. The first was remarkable intuition and confidence to follow a path that seemed right to him. The second was almost complete indifference to what others thought of his efforts. While this confluence probably characterizes many creative personalities, but, in distorted form, it also defines fanatics, people entirely convinced they have the answer and closed to all others.

A visitor to our group one day offered a key to differentiating the two. After spending an afternoon with Jay, this gentleman, also a unique thinker and innovator, remarked later that night, “I have never met a person so able to not know.” He continued, “I know much of what I shared with Jay he did not understand, yet this did not seem to bother him in the least. It was like he could just sit and hold each idea, like a rock. Most people would have become uneasy or felt compelled to pretend that they understood or agreed.” Indeed, I believe this is especially true of people, like a great many academics, who have a lot invested in all that they know.

When this man said this, it immediately took me back to something that had struck me repeatedly as a student around Jay. He was the first professor I had ever met who regularly prefaced his comments about a subject with a comment like, “I do not really understand this very deeply…” As I heard this again and again from him, it gradually occurred to me how rarely I heard it from others at the university. Indeed, Jay had a remarkable gift for simply sitting with intellectual water and oil – conflicting bits of data, different interpretations of data, different people’s views about a complex subject – and doing absolutely nothing to resolve the conflicts. Holding rocks…

It was several years later that this subtle capacity was brought into sharp relief when, while Diane and I were hiking in the Alps, we met an older Hungarian couple and hiked for a while together. Eventually, we learned that, as a young physicist, he had been at Niels Bohr’s famous physics institute in Copenhagen. While we walked on, he shocked us with the comment that, “Many of the young physicists around Bohr actually were not entirely convinced how bright he was.” He often didn’t seem to have much energy to engage in the intellectual duals that define a high-powered academic environment. Although few said it out loud, many of these young superstars of the emerging quantum revolution thought Bohr a bit slow. As we walked on, he then said one thing that I have never forgotten, “But when he understood he really understood.”

Holding rocks. Understanding that emerges in its own time, or fails to do so – two subtle capacities that were so deep within Jay that he may have just taken them for granted.

Eventually, my own path diverged from what I am suspect he might have preferred, and we saw each other less regularly, a natural process that occurs for mentees and mentors. Yet, looking back now, the paths seem less separate, more like two ways up the same mountain – at least to my reckoning. Cultivating vision. The importance of mental models – we actually took this term from Jay’s Industrial Dynamics, published in 1959. Seeing systemic causes of problems and new systemic structures needed for new possibilities. None of these ideas could have possibly had the resonance they eventually had within me without the gift of this time being so close.

In the end, one only hopes to have been a good student. I know he was a great teacher.

Peter M. Senge
Cambridge, Massachusetts
December 2016

David Schmittlein
Jay W. Forrester

Notes for Jay Forrester

David Schmittlein

John C Head III Dean
MIT Sloan School of Management
November 2016

To the members of the MIT Sloan community:

At MIT invention and innovation occur at the boundaries of disciplines and they purposefully and rigorously address the world’s greatest challenges and opportunities. There are few better illustrations of this than the work of Professor, Jay Forrester. Jay passed away on Wednesday, November 18, at the age of 98, leaving behind three children, four grandchildren, and two great grandchildren. He also leaves decades of unique and distinctive contributions to MIT, to his many students, and to the world.

Trained in electrical engineering, Jay joined the MIT community in 1939 as a member of the School of Engineering, and made important contributions to the war effort through his work on servomechanisms. After the conclusion of WWII, Jay began work that would establish his legacy as a pioneer in digital computing. While directing MIT’s Digital Computer Lab, Jay led the development of Whirlwind I, one of the first high-speed digital computers. He invented and holds the patent for magnetic core memory, the dominant form of random access memory (RAM) for decades—core memory even flew to the moon on the Apollo missions.

To our School’s incredible fortune, in 1956 Professor Forrester came to MIT Sloan. He wrote of this transition, “People ask why I left engineering to go to management. There were several reasons. By 1956, I felt the pioneering days in digital computing were over. That might seem surprising after the major technical advances of the last 30 years. But I might point out that the multiple by which computers improved in the decade from 1946 to 1956 in speed, reliability, and storage capacity, was greater than in any decade since. Another reason for moving to management was that I was already in management. We had been running a several-billion dollar program [the SAGE national air defense system] in which we had complete control of everything.” Jay brought engineering concepts and principles with him to MIT Sloan, applying feedback systems and digital simulation to gain a better understanding of the counterintuitive behavior of social systems. As the founder of the field now known as System Dynamics, Jay will forever be remembered for creating a new way of understanding complex systems in any domain, and for his many contributions to management education and research.

Jay’s broad and lasting legacy can be seen across MIT Sloan’s faculty, the curriculum that we teach, the work of our alumni, and the traditions of our community, from operations management and the famous “beer game” to models providing deep insight into issues from organizational change to climate change and beyond. Please join me in offering his family our condolences. More details about a community celebration of Professor Jay Forrester will be shared soon.


David Schmittlein | John C Head III Dean
MIT Sloan School of Management

China Chapter 2016
Jay W. Forrester

Notes for Jay Forrester

China Chapter of
System Dynamics Society
November 2016

On behalf of Chinese SD scholars, SD students and those with interest to SD, we would like to express our deepest sorrow for the loss of Professor Jay Wright Forrester. The sad news, both in English and Chinese, passes on China social network and instant massage groups, where many people shared their great shock for the passing away of Professor Forrester on November 16, 2016. We still can’t believe that we have lost such a pioneer in SD and such a nice leader and teacher.

Professor Forrester’s contribution in the field of System Dynamics is invaluable. His works, such as “Industrial Dynamics”, “Principles of Systems”, and “Urban Dynamics” are still widely used in teaching and researching. Even though many of us have not met him in person, we all respect and admire him in our heart.

Please accept our deepest grief for the great loss. We will remember him always.

Below are some of the memories, thoughts and reflections from the members of China Chapter.

Sincerely yours,
China Chapter of SDS

It was a great shock getting to know that Prof. Jay W. Forrester passed away. I have met Prof. Forrester in SD conference several times and I am looking forward to hearing his talk next year. However, it is impossible now. But the method he developed and the role model he set will continue to guide me in the future. The best way to remember him is do good research work using System Dynamics and spread the method to more people.
—— Ying Qian, Shanghai University, Member of SD Society from China Chapter

Deeply cherish the memory of Jay W. Forrester,Continuing explore the mechanism of dynamic and evolution for the complex world and system.
—— Jianguo Jia, Member of SD Society from China Chapter

System Dynamics opens up a new world to me. We lost a visionary, but the way we see the world will go on. R.I.P.
——Haiyan Yan, Shanghai University of International business and Economics, China Chapter Representative

System thinking, based on System Dynamics the field which Prof. Jay W. Forrester founded sixty years ago, is a kind of new language and innovative thinking methods for modern leaders and managers. It benefits all of us and lets your name live forever in our minds. R.I.P.
—— Zhaoliang Qiu, Member of SD Society from China Chapter

You lead me into the nonlinear complex world with system thinking, system structure decision system function in 2000 year. Since then, System dynamics to be my effective and amazing research tools. I will continue the road to System Dynamics with my students. Heaven has a great master of system science, R.I.P.
—— Dong Mu, Beijing Jiaotong University;Zhiping Du, Beijing Wuzi University

Prof. Forrester passed away peacefully, however his great minds System Dynamics will be handed down from generation to generation.
—— Wang Chao, Beijing University of Technology

Thank Prof. Forrester for bringing us into SD world, which initiated a new horizon and new methodology to understand the complex world.
—— Yijun Huang, Beijing University of Posts &Telecom

Prof. Forrester will always live in our hearts, who created the System Dynamics providing a new method for the human exploration of complex world. We will continue to move forward in the field of System Dynamics.
—– Bibin Leng, Member of SD Society from China Chapter

We will commemorate Prof. Forrester his foundation and remarkable contribution to System Dynamics.
—— Xiaojing Liu, Ph.D. student from The University of Auckland

Thanks for Prof. Forrester’s remarkable contribution to System Dynamics. We will try our best to systematically master the SD method and successfully apply it in our research.
—— Liqing Li, Jiangxi Science and Technology Normal University

Mourn Pro. Forrester! Thanks to his invention of the SD method that will bring us into a world of scientific research. We will continue to carry forward it in our research.
—— Jing Mu, Tianjin University of Science and Technology

Dr. Forrester’s life and work changed the way we understand our world and its phenomena, his legacy will live on for years. May he rest in eternal peace.
—— Chang Liu, Ph.D. student from Nanchang University

Agricluture and Food Chapter
Jay W. Forrester

Notes for Jay Forrester

Agriculture and Food
Special Interest Group
System Dynamics Society
November 2016

With this email the Agriculture and Food special interest group would like to express our deepest sympathies with the SD community and to Jay Forrester’s family. Jay’s pioneering efforts, dedication and impetus for courage in our lives and in our work have deeply moved us as individuals, friends and as a society. With all kindness, love and longsuffering we wish remembrance of happy memories and a continued perseverance to be brave, bold and courageous! In doing so, we will, in some small way, honor Jay Forrester’s memory and legacy, upon which we so humbly now continue to carry on.

With all gratefulness and heartfelt condolences,

The Agriculture and Food Special Interest Group

Hector M Menendez
Lucia Avila
Alberto S Atzori

Jay W. Forrester

Notes for Jay Forrester

Naiyi Hsiao

Secretary in General,
Chinese System Dynamics Society, TAIWAN (CSDS)
November 2016

All members in Chinese System Dynamics Society, TAIWAN (CSDS) would like to express our sincere condolence for Prof. Forrester. Founded in 2010, CSDS has dedicated to promoting practice, research and teaching in System Dynamics Modeling and Systems Thinking. We may arrange a series of activities that reflect thoughts and contribution via the rich work of Prof. Forrester.