This report presents a first look study at the field of System Dynamics. The objective of the study is to perform a model-based policy analysis in order to investigate the future advancement of the System Dynamics field. The aim of this investigation is to determine what this advancement should look like and how that can be accomplished. Several steps were taken to reach the objective. First, actor groups who had a stake in the future of the System Dynamics field, even if they are outside of the System Dynamics field, were identified through a network analysis and an actor analysis. These analyses ensured that no crucial group was ignored. Members of these groups were then consulted, through over forty interviews, on their views about how the System Dynamics field would advance and what positive advancement would look like. These interviews were analyzed resulting in the identification of five main perspectives called collaboration, oversimplification, broad System Dynamics and domain support, academic growth engine, and no problem. The first three of these viewpoints were further specified into System Dynamics models and used for policy testing based on criteria determined from the interviews. From interviewee responses, five policies were identified for testing: 1) certification programs for practitioners of System Dynamics & clear labeling of System Dynamics types, 2) broadening the power base of System Dynamics, 3) setting up beneficial platforms for practical applications of SD, 4) including less traditional applications of System Dynamics in the System Dynamics Review (the main academic journal of System Dynamics), and 5) improving the network benefits of Special Interest Groups (these groups are within the System Dynamics Society, which is the main authority on System Dynamics). These policies were tested on the basis of six Key Performance Indicators as identified through interview questions. Following from this preliminary investigation, five policy combinations were identified to have the best relative effect considering the three models and all Key Performance Indicators: 1) all policies are enacted, 2) all policies except \including less traditional applications of System Dynamics in the System Dynamics Review" are enacted, 3) all policies except \setting up beneficial platforms for practical applications of System Dynamics" are enacted, 4) all policies except \certification programs for practitioners of System Dynamics & clear labeling of System Dynamics types" are enacted, and 5) all policies except \certification programs for practitioners & clear labeling of SD types" and \including less traditional applications of System Dynamics in the System Dynamics Review" are enacted. While no policy combination clearly showed an improvement across all perspectives and all Key Performance Indicators, the analysis of the models did show that policies that might work well for one perspective did not always work well for another. Further, each perspective was found to be credible and thus, no single perspective can reasonably removed. Therefore it is a main conclusion of this study that all valid perspectives should be considered while determining long-term strategy.