Brothers and sisters of the SDD community:
Just some ideas that might help in this conversation.
The evolving characteristic pertains to both IM and SDD as much as I understand. However, what SDD in my opinion has done is to introduce the notion that the Domain of Science Model (Foundations, Theory, Methodology and Applications) lies not isolated from the social environment, to whom it is oriented to serve. There is a link of the DOSM with the external environment that especially induces practitioners to reflect over the conditions which make possible the interesting moving and in movement results of any SDD workshop.
Aleco discovered by using SDD methodology the interactions between the SDD axioms which had been contributed by various thinkers all along the evolution of SDD, making clear that they manifest a transitive inter-relationship. Those connections help achieving a better comprehension of what shared intelligence and reflection mean for the conscious evolution of humanity.
Ken has discovered how Body Wisdom acts a a fundamental factor for bringing up SDD results which are really new to ground collaborative actions all around the globe. Aleco, Tom and Ken were the originators of the Institute for the Agoras of the XXI Century, and through their co-authored books many more people may appropriate a brilliant systematization of almost all SDD theoretical and practical achievements.
Tom has brilliantly exposed to the general public which are the benefits that SDD purports for the apprehension of reality. His insights are very important to anyone interested in applying SDD. He has focused his attention to the need of making Applications in the Arena a relevant input to close in the DOSM the feedback cycle with Foundations.
The application of SDD with a future perspective has been nurtured by historical events like the First Interloquium in 1994 in Guanajuato, Mexico, and later by contributions made by Aleco and Jeff Diedrich, who through their dialogue, found a practical way to make it real.
Kevin discovered the Erroneous Priority Effect and has also put attention to a phenomenon in our present, that is, to the influence of mass media over the appropriated concepts contributed by active participants in SDD workshops. This should lead us to make a distinction between original concepts and concepts subliminally adopted, but not necessarily reflected and cribed (discerned) by participants.
Iannnis, Heiner, and of course others too, paid attention to the influence of the accelerated advance in information and communications technologies, in order to scale up the benefits of SDD to big sectors of society though, in my humble opinion, this is just an area where much more research has to be made to not compromise SDD foundations.
Peter Jones has emphasized the distribution of power relationships inside the SDD processes.
John Warfield is a precious stone, a wonderful milestone. Nobody could dare subvalue his creations and the co-creations made with Aleco since the 70's: Interactive Management, Interpretive Structural Modelling, Analysis of mindbugs that could interfere with SDD original aims, and the inspired idea of the Observatorium.
If we all, and many others here not mentioned because of my ignorance or lack of memory, if we all are involved in the never-ending evolution of SDD, ¿is it worthwhile to establish differences between IM and SDD? ¿Don't they both serve to the same final purpose that originated them: the conscious evolution of humanity? ¿Wouldn't it be better for us to focus on the possible next advances by a deeper examination of the social environment influences over SDD, and viceversa? There are many insights in the future expecting for us to release them.