Soft Systems Methodology

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 1

Problem Solving Using Soft Systems Methodology


Outline

1. Systems thinking

2. Hard systems

3. Soft systems methodology

4. The framework for SSM

5. Problem solving with SSM

6. Conclusion

7. Review question


Systems Thinking

Aristotle argued that the sum is more than its parts but Aristotle’s teleological view of the world was overthrown in the 17th century.The general model of organised complexity is that there exists a hierarchy of levels of organisation, each one more complex than the one below, a level being characterised by emergent properties which do not exist at the lower level.


Some Systems Ideas

Hierarchies of parts and wholes

The parts are connected

The whole is greater than the sum of the parts


Five classes of system

Natural Systems(Origin: the origin of the

universe and the processesof evolution)

includes man, who can create

Designed PhysicalSystems

(Origin: a man and apurpose)

Designed AbstractSystems

(Origin: a man and apurpose)

Human ActivitySystems

(Origin: man's selfconsciousness)

Transcendental systems:beyond knowledge


Hard Systems Thinking

Hard systems thinking comprises ofsystems engineeringand systems analysis

characterised by the belief that that there is a desired state, a present state and different ways of getting from one to the other.

This explains why at the start of a ‘systems’ study it is necessary to define the need, the aim to be achieved.


Hard Systems Thinking

Hard systems thinking has successfully introduced a systematic approach to decision-making in which the problem is to select from a among a number of alternatives an efficient means of achieving an end we know we wish to achieve.


Hard systems thinking

The world is made up of systems

We can use formal notations to describe them

We can use rational analysis to understand them

We identify problems in the systems and write programs to solve them


Limitations of Hard Systems Thinking

Assumes consensus

Ignores un-quantifiable variables (e.g. politics, aesthetics, culture)

Treats people as passive objects

Assumes decision makers have the power to implement solutions


Soft Systems Methodology


BackgroundThe development of organizational systems ischaracterized by having both “hard” and "soft" aspects.The hard aspects typically deal with hardware And software systems, while the soft aspects deal with organizational, political, and culturalsystems - the issues.


Background ..contThe development of organizational systems ischaracterized by having both “hard” and "soft" aspects. The hard aspects typically deal with hardware and software systems, while the soft aspects deal with organizational, political, and Cultural systems - the issues. Much has been written about how to address the hard aspect ofdesigning organizational systems, the soft or human aspect has received little attention.


Background ..cont

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) was first

introduced by Peter Checkland of Lancaster

University in his book Systems Thinking,

Systems Practice (Checkland, 1981). It is a

methodology for analyzing and modeling hard to

define and complex systems that integrate both a

technology (or hard) system and a human (soft)

system.


Background ..cont

The soft system is defined by Checkland as a

Human Activity System (HAS) and is posited to

be different from natural systems or designed

systems due to the introduction of the subjectivity

of human desires and objectives into the HAS.


Background ..contA HAS is defined as a collection of activities in

which people are purposefully engaged, and the

relationships between these activities. Checkland

proposes that the same methods used for

engineering technology may not work as well for

the more unpredictable and complex human side

of the system.


Background ..cont

SSM addresses fuzzy problems with unclear and multiple objectives and several different perceptions of the problem.

SSM recognizes that different individuals will have different perceptions of the situation and different preferable outcomes.


Background ..contIt recognizes these differences and explicitly attempts to take these into account from the outset to ensure that the results of the analysis are acceptable to all parties concerned.

SSM does not attempt to define a single right method of action but, through an iterative process, defines an acceptable improved path of action.


Background ..cont

People who are involved in the methodology include not only actors within the designated system, but also clients and owners of the system.

Because of these characteristics, it is proposed that SSM can be seen as a valuable framework for participative design activities.


Background ..cont

SSM started as a research programme aim at developing ways in which system ideas could be used to tackle ill-structured problem.

The programme assumed that the concept of a human activity system would be relevant to such problems.


Background ..contA successful outcome would be one where the people concerned felt that the problem has been solved, or that the problem situation had been improved or that insights had been gained.Took into account a hard system method which starts from an organisational definition of a system as a complex grouping of human beings and machines for which there is an overall objective.


Background ..contThe procedure then is to select that system, the engineering of which will solve the problem whose existence, perceived by the manger, initiates the activity.

The system is placed in a systems hierarchy, objectives and measures of performance are defined, and the chosen system is design, implemented and reappraised in operation.


Problem solving with SSM

Consider these two problems for a business:

1. We need to handle 20,000 customer orders per day, entering our system from 800 terminals based around the country.

2. Our customer complaints are increasing, and our customer retention is decreasing

What is the difference between the two?


Problem solving with SSMThe first is specific, with clear boundaries and parameters. Possible solutions are implicit in the problem. The problem could be passed to a designer who could propose and implement a solution. The second is much less clear. It describes a problem with weak boundaries and an unclear cause. In fact, it is not describing a problem, so much as two symptoms.



Until the symptoms are explored further, it is not possible to say what the problem is, let alone propose a solution.

The first example is a hard problem, the second is a soft problem.



Traditional systems analysis is based on hard problems. These problems have a clear boundary and involve tangible factors such as staff, documents, procedures, equipment, and structure. Its purpose is to propose and design a solution for a predetermined problem.


Problem solving with SSMMany business situations are less clear-cut, making a hard approach less appropriate. Peter Checkland developed Soft Systems Methodology recognizing that many problems in organizations are affected by less tangible factors. These include culture, informal interactions, and attitudes – which he terms the ‘Human Activity System’.



SSM’s purpose is to investigate, understand and identify a problem.

Its investigation may reveal a number of problems to address rather than presuppose a single root cause of difficulties.



Checkland’s definition of problem is: “ A problem relating to a real-world manifestation

of a human activity system is a condition characterised by a sense of mismatch, which eludes precise definition, between what is perceived to be actuality and which is perceived might become actuality”.

Problems were perceived as condition to be alleviated rather than problem to be solved.


SSMSoft Systems Methodology is based on systems thinking. It views the problem domain in a holistic rather than reductionist way, recognizing that the component parts are interconnected, so that a change to one part will affect the other parts. Not only this, but the problem domain itself is a subsystem of several larger systems – changes in one will affect our domain as well.


SSMAlthough Checkland coined the term Soft Systems Methodology, it is not strictly a methodology. It does not prescribe a rigid series of steps that must be followed scrupulously. Rather, it suggests a framework for enquiry, with a number of recommended techniques. The end result is an understanding of the problem domain so that a hard study can then be applied to specify a solution.


Problems and problem-solvingStructured problems can be explicitly stated in a language that implies that a theory concerning their solution is available.

Hard systems thinking are most concerned with structured problems

Unstructured problems are manifest in a feeling of unease but which cannot be explicitly stated without this appearing to oversimplify the situation.


Soft Systems Thinking

The world is made up of people doing things

Everyone has their own interpretations of the world

One way of negotiating our understandings of the world is to call some part of it a ‘system’

Then we can use rational analysis to learn about it

If we can learn about it we can use computers to help people do things better


Limitations of Soft Systems Thinking

Lack of scientific rigour

Assumes consensus can be achieved

Participative process favours the powerful

Leaning outcomes too ambiguous to serve as designs for programs


Soft Systems MethodologySSM is not to taken as a method with fixed step or a technique but rather a set of principles to be applied.

The activity numbers show a reasonable chronological sequence for describing each of the activities but this sequence doesn’t have to be followed when applying the methodology.

Experience shows that studies can start with conceptual modelling. In theory they can start anywhere.



Back tracking and iteration are essential activities so the steps should be viewed as a framework rather than a recipe.

The difference between the real world activities and the systems thinking ones is the the former necessarily involves people in the problem situation being studied.


Addresses ill-structured situations.Requires abstract/conceptual thinking on the part of the user.Suitable for what type problems (analysis) rather than how type problems (design).Requires a high degree of political and interpersonal skills from the user.



Framework for Soft Systems

The framework is illustrated next has two strands, separated by a line.

The top strand represents the ‘real world’, where the analyst moves, observes, and interviews the people working there.

Below the line is the ‘systems thinking’, where both connections and interpretations are made of the problem situation.


Soft System Methodology- framework

1.The problem situation:

unstructured

2.The problem situation:

expressed

7.Action to improveproblem situation

6.Feasible, desirable

changes---------------------------

5.Comparison of 4

with 2

3.Root definitions ofrelevant systems 4a

Formal systemconcept

4bOther systems

thinking

4.Conceptual Models

Real world

Systems thinking


SSM is a seven-stage methodology or Framework, though this view is actually challenged later by other authors, who believe this to be too simplistic a view of a real world method.

However, for this course, and in all the practical situations in which it has been used, the seven stages through which SSM is applied are described as follows :



Stage 1 : Problem Situation (Unstructured)

1. The problem situation: this is the status quo before the study, and at the start of the study. During this time, the analyst (or problem-solver) becomes part of the problem situation in order to observe it as fully as possible, remembering that his/her presence there will have its own impact.


Note :The Systems Analyst is not an expert of a particular information systems or problem types. Instead he/she acts as a facilitator.The Client is the person who causes the study to happen.The Problem Solver is the person who hopes to do something about the situation which is perceived to be problematical.

Stage 1 : Problem Situation (Unstructured)


The Problem Owner could be one or several people. By considering each stakeholder in turn very different perspectives can be generated.

The Problem! Instead of trying to find the problem, the inquiry is directed to investigating the situations in which problems are perceived.

Stage 1 : Problem Situation(Unstructured)


Stage 2 : Problem Situation Expressed.

Having studied as much of the problem

situation as is feasible, the analyst

expresses in diagrammatic form what

S/he understands is happening. This will

include aspects of the Human Activity

System (HAS).



Checkland recommends a rich picture to

achieve this. However, techniques from

hard systems such as data flow diagrams

or object models are not sufficiently

versatile or ‘rich’.


Rich Picture – What is it ?

A rich picture is a representation of the

problem situation, typically presented in

the form of an abstract drawing, which

describes aspects of the system that are

relevant to the problem definition.


Rich Picture – Purpose? Rich pictures are a means of capturing as much information as possible relating to the problem situation.

A rich picture can show boundaries, structure, information flows, and communication channels.


Rich Picture – Purpose? But mostly it shows the human Activity System. This is the element that is not included in such models as data flow diagrams or class models.

The rich picture identifies a number of participants and stakeholders in the system


Rich Picture – Purpose?

To get as full a view as possible of the factors involved in the problem situation, and especially the elements relating to politics, attitudes and emotions.

It may be used just by the analyst to enhance understanding,

It may be shown to the manager of the department to communicate the analyst’s findings.


Rich Picture – Purpose? It is an easy to follow, non-technical description of the problem area.

Rich pictures could also be drawn by groups of actors to explore their own interpretations of workplace issues.


Rich Picture -scenario 1Imagine the following scenario in an IT

department: users ask IT Support for help with

their software, the technical support engineer

enters the details on their log, and then fixes it.

Because they are appraised by how quickly

they can sign the problem off on their log, rather

than by user satisfaction, many forget to let the

users know that the problem has been resolved.

This leads to dissatisfaction.


Rich Picture – scenario 1

The following Figure is a simple rich

picture illustrating a scenario based on a

real situation in a large company where

relations between business and IT were

badly strained for many reasons.


Rich Picture


Rich Picture – scenario 1This picture shows the interactions between the

user and the technician, including the emotional

content of the communication. The crossed

Swords symbol on the line from User, Friday, is a

common symbol to denote a conflict. The

appraisal medium is shown by the manager being

represented as a large eye studying the log.

Again, this is a common symbol to show that

monitoring action is taking place


Rich Picture – scenario 1Other elements visible on the picture are the communication flows, the documentation that is maintained and the (implicit) boundary.

There is no standard notation for rich pictures, but there are some commonly used symbols such as those shown in the Figure above.


Rich Picture – Common elements

Elements commonly shown include: Communication flowsDocuments maintainedActors in the processMonitoring activities (the eyeball)Emotions such as frustration or pleasure, conflict/harmony between co-workers, barriers to communicationGeneral attitudes of the actors involved.


Rich Picture It is this mix of the formal and informal

views of the problem area that gives the

Pictures their richness.


Rich Picture - Scenario 2

The rich picture below was drawn by a first year student at the end of the foundation unit in Information Systems I to help her understand the various elements of the unit and how she made sense of it to achieve her goals.


Rich Picture - Scenario 2The rich picture can have :

an IN (or input), and an area filled with relevant pictures of important areas,

an ON GOING (or output),

a WASTE (or wastage from the system)

and REFLECTIONS (or feedback to the system).


Rich Picture - Scenario 2This student sees that she entered the course as a small bird and went on from the course as a powerful eagle.

The learning journal provided a form of feedback in the unit and stress was the waste in the system.

The icons in the rich picture are metaphors used for creating rapport and for communicating the nature of shared and unshared experiences


Patching’s rich picture of a PUB s a problem situation

Patching, D. (1990). Practical Soft Systems Analysis



Building Rich Pictures :Use any form or imagery .Construct parts,

actors, issues, concerns.Do not use systems or represent situations

in terms of systems.Represent all elements considered to be

relevant.N.B. Although the ideal may be to avoid

systems thinking at this stage, the pragmatic need to establish boundaries may be met!



Rich pictures should show the followingaspects of the problem situation: Structure - formal organisation, physical aspects etc. Processes - tasks and activities How structure and process interact Hard and soft aspects - facts and opinions Social roles - formal and informal; conflict Climate and context - environment The role of the analyst / facilitator

Rich Picture


Structure : those parts of the system that change slowly over

time and are relatively stable.

Process : things that are in a state of change, such as

activities within a structure (i.e. order processing).

Climate : in which structures and processes interact. This has

changed as a result of previous interaction and thereby influences its own development (i.e. business conditions, cultural aspects.).



Extracting from Rich Pictures : Primary Tasks : which the organisation was created to

perform, or the tasks which an enterprise needs to perform in order to survive.

Issues : topics or matters of concern, those subjects which are open to debate or dispute (i.e. require justification).

This particular stage of the method can be iterated through on a number of occasions, at a number of levels, using the rich pictures generated from the first iteration to further clarify and identify issues within the situation of concern.



Susan's story

"I have given up a section of my life for the last 12 weeks to Systems Analysis and design. I have given my time, energy, frustrations, tears and laughter, a minute fraction of my life's travel and I have been rewarded twenty fold. Regardless of the mark on a piece of paper at the conclusion of this unit, I have passed. I have gained knowledge and confidence in the area of computers. When I look back I was panicked in the early part of the course, not in the lectures, but in the unfamiliar areas of word processing, setting up files, all the everyday things I employ others to do.


Susan's story - continued

…..I had a string of adventures, and I have become friendly with the systems maintenance people at the Faculty. I wish to heap accolades on these people, and suggest if all students had some real interaction with them the knowledge would flow, and the campus would be a much friendlier place to work and study in. I no longer inwardly panic, I take pride in getting into a mess and fighting my way out, and if there are people to help me along the way, how much richer is the experience."



N.B. A mature age student working as the head of an accounting section, Susan is a hard-working person with a very positive view of life. She took up the challenge of university study balancing this with a rich family and community life in addition to her responsible career position. As she commented in an interview: "I have come from a stage of panic to non-panic - this is a big step for me. I am not really competent yet but non-panic is a real gain. I'm not panicked by computing and computers anymore."



…………In this quote and the quote above, note the metaphors of "stage of panic to non-panic"; "a big step"; "a minute fraction of my life's travel"; "a string of adventures"; "heap accolades"; "I take pride in getting in a mess and fighting my way out"; and "knowledge would flow". Create a rich picture for Susan at the end of the unit.


Stage 3 - Root definitions Root definitions of relevant systems:

The rich picture identifies a number of participants and stakeholders in the system. Root definitions are a way of deriving their individual perspectives on a problem situation: what is their underlying belief about its purpose?A root definition is derived for each actor or stakeholder. If there are 11 identified in the rich picture, there will be 11 root definitions derived.


Stage 3 - Root definitions (cont)Each stakeholder may have a different underlying perspective about why the organization does what it does, or what its priorities should be.

For example, in a British hospital trust, a doctor or nurse may see their priority as curing patients, or at least making them as comfortable as possible. The hospital administrator, however, may see the priority as offering value-for-money and minimizing operational costs.


Stage 3 - Root definitions(cont)

These two perspectives are potentially in conflict, but both are valid for their respective holders. The analyst needs to be able to recognize and accommodate both.A root definition is expressed in a short sentence. This gives the sentence a rich focus of expression. Checkland argues that it should contain a number of elements, to which he gives the mnemonic CATWOE. This stands for:


A root definition must convey :C - Customer/

Clients

A - Actors

T - Transformations

W - Worldview (Weltanschauung)

O - Owners

E - Environmental Constraint(s)

CATWOE Analysis for RD


CATWOE analysis components

Customers - those who benefit from, or are affected by the outputs from the system

Actors - those who carry out the activities in the system that effect the transformation

Transformation - the transformation of inputs to outputs carried out by the system


Worldview (Weltanschauung) - how the system is perceived from a specific viewpoint - the assumptions that are made about it

Owners - those who cause the system to exist

Environment - the world that surrounds and influences, but over which the system has no control

CATWOE analysis components


The elements of CATWOE emphasize the need

to examine the problem from a number of viewpoints.

The Root Definition and CATWOE provide the

analyst with a framework for ensuring that all points of view and interest are considered in the

requirements elicitation.

CATWOE Analysis for RD


It must be meaningful and useful to the situation of concern. For example :

If we consider the church in the context of some problem situation. We might, on the basis of extracted evidence, interpret its purpose to be :

P1 - A ritual preserving system.P2 - A non-accountable fund-

raising system.P3 - A system for preserving moral

and spiritual values in the community.

P4 - A system for providing support in the face of unanswerable questions.

Root definitions - Example


These of course need considerable elaboration before they can qualify as root definitions. Some of them may sound outrageous, but it is important to note that at this stage their acceptability should not be considered.

Each root definition would have to display relevance to the situation of concern. The church may, in fact, be none of, yet all of, these things.

Root definitions - Example


The selected and considered root definition will have a direct and considerable effect on the :

- Nature

- Type

- and Characteristics

of the Information System to be developed.

Root definitions.


Root definitions template

A [O] owned system which under the following environmental constraints which it takes as given [E] transforms this input [i] into this output [o] by means of the following activities [T], the transformation being carried out by these actors [A] and directly effecting the beneficiaries or victims [C]. The worldview which makes this transformation [T] meaningful contains at least the following elements among others [W].


Example of root definitions

Let’s take Patching’s example of “The Pub as a System”

The Pub has been losing customers and money - but nobody knows why

A rich picture shows different viewpoints about The Pub - that of the customers, the community, the brewery, the landlord, the employees, the police .


Patching’s rich picture of a PUB

as a problem situation

Patching, D. (1990). Practical Soft Systems Analysis


Customer root definition

C - The casual and regular visitors to The PubA - The employees, visiting entertainers, customersT - Customer needs (for socialising and reasonably priced drinks) identified and satisfiedW -A pub is a place to have an affordable night out and socialise with friendsO - The publicE - Legal restrictions, fashions in drinks and entertainment, the local community etc.


Customer root definition

A system owned by the public, and operated by the employees, visiting entertainers and customers of the public house, that identifies and satisfies the needs of customers for affordable drinks and entertainment, in an environment that influences customers socialising and drinking preferences, constrained by legal requirements and local opinion effecting the provision of pub facilities.


CATWOE – IT help example.

USER

C- End users

A - IT support staff

T- Look after my system

W - My system must always be available

O - IT manager

E - My clients need me to provide immediate

information and response - a very competitive marketplace

IT SUPPORT

C - The business

A - IT support staff

T - Respond to calls

W - We can correct any fault quickly

O - IT manager

E - Appraisal criteria, relations between business and IT, IT workload



In this example, the CATWOE are not mutually exclusive, but they do show the different perspectives of the two actors, and their priorities in the situation. The environment factor of IT support, appraisal criteria, together with weltanschauung, indicates the nature of the disagreement between the two. This was one of the sources of the bad relations between the two sides in real life.



The CATWOE elements for a stakeholder can then be combined to form a simple one or two sentence statement. In the case of the user, it might read as:



‘IT support staff are responsible, under the direction and approval of the IT manager, for looking after the end-users’ computer systems, because I (and the other end-users) need the computer system to be available in order to do our job. This is a competitive environment, if I can not answer the queries swiftly, we will lose business.’


CATWOE

While the root definition is an important statement that stakeholders can understand, the important part of the analyst’s task is eliciting the CATWOE elements from each individual. Compiling CATWOE and the root definition are the first stage in the systems thinking strand, and in understanding the Human Activity System


Stage 4 - Conceptual model:The root definitions represent an individual’s perspective of what the business/system is trying to achieve. The next stage, also in the systems thinking strand, is to propose an ideal view of the activities that should be followed in order to realize that perspective. At the initial drawing, there should not be too many activities shown, somewhere between five and 10 is sufficient. Each activity could be decomposed in more detail later.


Stage 4 - Conceptual model:

This is an ideal schematic for each actor/stakeholder.

• If one stakeholder has a particular perspective, then there must be, in principle, a set of activities to be performed that will meet the perspective.

• The conceptual model is a simple diagram that represents the activities. There will be one conceptual model drawn for each root definition.


Conceptual model:The conceptual model has a very simple notation – the activity itself is shown as a bubble, with the activity named (use an imperative verb to denote the activity) and a line that links it with the other activities.

Take the following root definition for a retail outlet: ‘A store where buyers and sales staff ensure that customers have only the latest fashions available at all times.’ The Figure shows what the conceptual model for this root definition might be:


Figure for the Conceptual Model


The conceptual model identifies what

the System needs to accomplish

including its activities and their interactions.

These activities describe what has to

happen for the system to meet the goals

and aims defined in the root definition.

Conceptual model:


Once the models have been created, further resolutions of detail will help to drive the possible hows for what is being done.

Check the root definitions and the conceptual models map. Together they form a mutually informing pair of statements :

What the system does.How the system does it.

Conceptual model:


Comparison of 2 and 4:

This returns us to the ‘real world’. The ideal

view in the conceptual model is compared

with the activities actually in place, and any

mismatch identified as a ‘problem’ rather

than the symptom. Checkland does not

prescribe any one technique for making this

comparison; that is left to the analyst.

Stages 5 & 6 : Comparison & Identification of Desirable and Feasible Changes


In Stage 5, the conceptual model is compared

with the real world system to highlight possible

areas where changes are necessary. This

conceptual model will identify where problems

or deficiencies exist between what is happening

(the 'rich' picture) and what is desirable (the

'root definition') as defined by the models.



In Stage 6, changes to address the gaps

Between the conceptual model and the real

world identified in Stage 5 are introduced and

evaluated for feasibility. These alterations

may include changing the way certain

activities are completed, or could result in

the identification of activities not currently

Achieved in the real world



(Consider the output of Stages 3 & 4 with expression of Stage 2).

This is one of the most important stages of the methodology. At this stage the intellectual ideas have to be reconciled with the real or action world ideas.

This stage may generate desirable and feasible changes for Stage 7 or require the reiteration of Stages 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.



Problems encountered at this stage should not be

underestimated, which is why political and

interpersonal skills on the part of the user are

important. It is at this stage that the negotiations

between the problem solver and the problem owners will

take place, also as part of the iterative nature of the

methodology. The purpose of these is to create the

Climate for change, to allow the desirable and feasible

changes to be enacted in Stage 7.



Finally, in Stage 7, recommendations

for Change are implemented. These

changes then result in a modification

of the problem situation. This new

situation may then lead to a new cycle

of the methodology.

Stage 7 : Taking Steps to Initiate Changes.


This stage is equivalent to the implementation stage of other methodologies (i.e. what steps should be taken to implement the desirable and feasible changes?)



The underlying assumption in SSM is that the identification of the desirable and (culturally) feasible changes in the previous stage will have created a climate for change which will overcome any problems at this stage. As a result any appropriate implementation strategy can be adopted.



SSM is strong in systemic analysis (i.e. in the problem formulation phase).

Clients concerns are used to determine the domain of inquiry.

SSM considers the different world views of the participants to determine the rationale for the situation of concern.

The reality of the expressed problem is questioned, and if necessary the problem is re-expressed.

Conclusion


SSM searches for different states/solutions, all of which can be relevant, and critically examines them.

SSM seeks to consider all aspects of the organisational environment, not just the problem situation.

SSM constructs a number of relevant notional systems, maps them against the current state and then discusses the most relevant solution with the client(s).

SSM seeks to develop a relevant rather than a right system.

Conclusion


Criticisms made about SSM

Technically-oriented critics complain that SSM doesn't actually tell you how to build a system, that there is no real method

Management oriented critics worry that the open ended nature of SSM makes it impossible to manage

SSM assumes that all members of the enterprise have choice, in fact equal choice - SSM ignores issues of power

SSM imposes values of openness and "niceness" which are more suitable to middle class academics than to managers or workers.


Soft and hard systems methods

soft systems methods hard systems methodssubjective (interpretive) philosophy objective philosophy

systems + sociological theory base computer science + systems theory

flexible methodology rigid method

organisational problem- solving focus data, process, database, technical focus

creative/intuitive scientifically analytical

analyst is facilitator analyst is expert

participative analyst dominated

organisational learning outcomes computer design outcomes

several ambiguous outcomes one ‘correct‘ solution


Review Questions

Outline the main aspects of Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology

Soft Systems Methodology

Documents

Transcript of Soft Systems Methodology