Synthesizing soft systems methodology and human performance technology

81

P E R F O R M A N C E I M P R O V E M E N T Q U A R T E R L Y , 2 5 ( 3 ) P P. 8 1 – 1 0 5© 2012 International Society for Performance ImprovementPublished online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/piq.21125

Synthesizing Soft Systems Methodology and Human Performance Technology

Glen Scott and Donald J. Winiecki, PhD

How we understand the world in which we

live, and therefore organize ourselves to

conduct business, has changed dramati-

cally over the past 200 years and clarifying this

historical lineage will allow us to make productive

changes as we move forward.

It is a common idea that when taking account

of the origin of ideas, “each person is infl uenced by

the intellectual spirit of the times” (Brethower, 1997,

p. 29). ) at idea holds in both the premises on which

ideas and concepts are built, as well as how they are

evaluated by others in the future. Concepts, mod-

els, frameworks, or whatever you want to call what

we use to explain the world in which we live and

the organizations for which we provide our personal

resources, are built from the paradigms that were

fresh and relevant at the time they were conceived.

Regardless of contemporary developments, for the

fi eld of human performance technology (HPT), and

any fi eld oriented to the development of organiza-

tions, those basic premises arise out of concepts

from “particular point[s] in the past 200 years, in

which particular values and perceived needs were

incorporated into organizational designs and management methods”

(Winiecki, 2010, p. 35).

However, how we understand the world in which we live, and there-

fore organize ourselves to conduct business, has changed dramatically

over those 200 years and clarifying this historical lineage will allow us to

make productive changes as we move forward. Our conceptualization

of the business enterprise has evolved along with our life experiences.

Over those years, the concept of the business enterprise has gone from

Human performance technology (HPT), like other concepts, models, and frameworks that we use to describe the world in which we live and the way we organize ourselves to accomplish valu-able activities, is built from paradigms that were fresh and relevant at the time it was conceived and from the = elds of study from which it grew. However, when the frameworks used by practi-tioners grow out of similar paradigms, important things can be missed when designing solutions in performance environments simply because of their practical limitations and exclusion of issues that may warrant our attention. This article looks at the paradigms most commonly used to explain performance environments, both within HPT and by those from other = elds. From this a syn-thesized approach to solving perceived problems in performance environments is provided that introduces Soft Systems Methodology to the HPT practitioner, an approach built on premises very dif-ferent from those commonly utilized in HPT frameworks.

82 DOI: 10.1002/piq Performance Improvement Quarterly

a very mechanistic and autocratic view—infl uenced by the metaphor of

mechanics—to one that provided a more organic view of the organiza-

tion, to what many today now view as a social system, infl uenced by

metaphorically considering organizations as organisms (Ackoff , 2002).

However, HPT may have missed this turn.

As Ackoff (2002) points out, these conceptualizations have implica-

tions for how we approach change in organizations. A mechanistic view

perceives the worker as an input into processes that are designed to

function in a certain way, and just like any part of a mechanistic process

individual actors can be removed and replaced with “better machines”

for better functionality (Taylor, 1947). ) e organismic view perceives the

organization much like a living organism, with a purpose of its own that

develops organically, but exists in a larger ecology.

However, even in this more organic view, parts remain determined

much like the parts of a living body have predetermined purposes that

serve the whole. ) e concept of the organization as a social system cre-

ates diff erent challenges, challenges created internally by, for example, the

increased education of the workforce and a need for increased skills, as well

as externally from never-ending changes in the surrounding environment.

) ese changes have created a workforce the members of which no longer

see participation in an organization as merely a way to provide fi nancially

for their families, but expect to fi nd purposeful fulfi llment of their own

needs and wants, which may extend to infl uences and eff ects their orga-

nization has on the surrounding social and physical systems in which it

resides. Real-life examples of this are organizations that allow employees

to leave work early on predetermined evenings so they can coach their

children’s sports teams, tuition reimbursement for employees pursuing

educational advancement, and companies that donate to charitable orga-

nizations based on the volunteer time contributed by their employees.

) is creates a shift from the mechanistic view where parts have

merely a predetermined purpose that serves the whole, to the organic

view where individuals have unique purposes of their own in addition

to their roles within the organism, and even the possibility to operate

strategically in order to produce desired outcomes. In the former, the

organization is served by its members, and in the latter, the organization

takes on a service role for its members even while its members continue

to play their parts and the organization serves the larger systems of which

it is a part.

From the fi eld of organizational sociology, Scott and Davis (2007)

have identifi ed diff erent organizational types similar to those identifi ed

by Ackoff (2002) and arranged them into a typology that they refer to as

rational, natural, and open systems. ) is typology allows one to classify

organizational systems or their components in a way that opens them up

to analysis aimed at helping them adapt to changing conditions.

♦ Rational systems: Like the mechanistic view, organizations viewed as

a rational system are “collectivities oriented to the pursuit of relatively

Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012 DOI: 10.1002/piq 83

specifi c goals and exhibiting relatively highly formalized social struc-

tures” (Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 29). ) e goals guide the decisions about

organizational structure and design, and specify what tasks will be

performed, the people who will perform the tasks, and how resources

will be allocated. ) e formalized structure and rules governing behav-

ior are an attempt to make behavior and outcomes more predictable

and stable. ) e movement of individuals in and out of positions can be

routinized and regularized, allowing replacement of one worker with

another, similarly trained worker to occur with minimal disturbance

to the function of the organization. ) e power and infl uence of lead-

ers is determined by the defi nition of the offi ce that is held, and not by

their personal qualities.

♦ Natural systems: For those who view the organization as a natu-

ral system, the existence of a formalized structure is recognized,

but it is believed that the formal structures designed to regulate

participant behavior are greatly aff ected by the emergence of

informal structures created by individuals because of their special

qualities or interpersonal ties. ) ese informal structures are based

on the personal characteristics and relations of specifi c participants.

) ere is frequently a disparity between the stated goals and the real

goals that are pursued by the organization, between the offi cial

goals that are announced and the actual or operative goals that can

be observed to govern activities; and even if the stated goals are

visibly pursued, they are not the only goals that govern participant

behavior. Highly centralized and formalized structures within orga-

nizations are viewed as ineff ective and irrational because they waste

the organization’s most valuable resource: the intelligence and initia-

tive of participants. Organizations are not viewed simply as a means

for achieving specifi ed ends, but as an end in themselves. For some

this is because the organization is viewed as a social system that has

multiple needs that must be satisfi ed. Others believe participants

have a vested interest in the survival of the organization, as a source

of power, resources, prestige, or pleasure (Scott & Davis, 2007).

♦ Open systems: According to Scott and Davis (2007), open systems

theorists maintain that “all systems are characterized by an assem-

blage or combination of parts whose relations make them interde-

pendent” (p. 88). Systems vary in complexity and are based on the

nature of the relations of their parts. In order to better understand

system complexity, Boulding (1956) created a classifi cation of sys-

tems based on their level of complexity, allowing us to quickly

classify the system being observed. ) e following numbered list

provides a hierarchical summary of Boulding’s system types. Most

current HPT frameworks can be appropriately classifi ed as #3,

cybernetic systems.

Unlike rational and natural paradigms, which view the organization

as a closed system that is largely separate from its environment, the open


systems paradigm views organizations as open to and dependent on the

fl ows of personnel, resources, and information from outside, and at the

same time, contributing to the conditions that exist outside of itself. In

the open systems perspective, organizational systems are made up of sub-

systems as well as being contained within a larger system identifi ed as its

environment. Both subsystems and the environment in which the organi-

zation resides must be taken into account when trying to understand the

organizational system. Many systems, and in particular social systems,

are viewed as loosely coupled and “contain elements that are only weakly

connected to others and capable of fairly autonomous actions” (Scott &

Davis, 2007, p. 93). ) is is typifi ed by item #7 on Boulding’s scale as

shown below (Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 89). An example provided by Scott

and Davis (2007) of this loose coupling pertains to individuals who make

up the organization. Individuals have multiple loyalties and identities as

“they join and leave or engage in ongoing exchanges with the organiza-

tion depending on the bargains they can strike” (p. 31).

1. Frameworks: systems comprising static structures, such as the

arrangements of atoms in a crystal or the anatomy of an animal.

2. Clockworks: simple dynamic systems with predetermined

motions, such as the clock and the solar system.

3. Cybernetic systems: systems capable of self-regulation in terms of

some externally prescribed target or criterion, such as a thermostat.

4. Open systems: systems capable of self-maintenance based on a

throughput of resources from their environment, such as a living cell.

5. Blueprinted-growth systems: systems that reproduce not by

duplication but by the production of seeds or eggs containing pre-

programmed instructions for development, such as the acorn–oak

system or the egg–chicken system.

6. Internal-image systems: systems capable of a detailed awareness of

the environment in which information is received and organized into

an image or knowledge structure of the environment as a whole, a

level at which animals function.

7. Symbol-processing systems: systems that possess self-consciousness

and so are capable of using language. Humans are said to function

at this level.

8. Social systems: multicephalous systems comprising actors func-

tioning at level 7 who share a common social order and culture.

Social organizations operate at this level.

9. Transcendental systems: systems composed of the “absolutes and

the inescapable unknowables.”

So what does this all mean to the practitioner of HPT? If HPT is to

be relevant to organizations today, its practitioners must understand the

basis of the premises on which its frameworks are built; otherwise, we do

not know what our frameworks do not tell us (Winiecki, 2010; Wittkuhn,

2006). ) is is the case whether a person uses Ackoff ’s (2002) historical


view of how the conceptualization of the organization has changed over

time, or the typological view of organizational systems provided by Scott

and Davis (2007). ) ere are strong similarities between the two: Both

ask us to consider systems in a way that has historically been left fallow

in HPT.

The Need for Greater Systems Thinking in HPT

One of the core premises on which HPT is built is the claim that it

takes a systemic approach to successfully institute organizational change

(Brethower, 1997, 2006; Chyung, 2005, 2008; Pershing, 2006; Rummler &

Brache, 1995; Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999). ) e question posed here is:

From where did our view of the organizational system originate? As

Chyung (2005) points out, much of our concept of the organizational

system resembles Frederick Taylor’s Scientifi c Management, a concept

that strongly resembles Ackoff ’s (2002) mechanistic view and Scott and

Davis’s (2007) rational system. Winiecki’s (2010) investigation of founda-

tional concepts in some HPT frameworks fi nds that they most strongly

resemble that of the rational system paradigm, with a few that contain

some attributes of the natural system. What are missing are any frame-

works that recognize the complexities of the open systems or social sys-

tems view. Overall, as Rowland (2007) points out, what HPT authors

appear to mean by systemic thinking is “a broad view of parts, relation-

ships, and environmental infl uences, not necessarily recognizing systems

as human constructions” (p. 119) or even constructions that function in

multifaceted ways for diff erent constituents of the systems. ) at is, cur-

rent HPT authors and theorists and HPT frameworks assume the organi-

zation as mechanistic, rational systems.

) e point is “that we can easily get trapped within the frameworks we

set up to defi ne problem defi nitions and hence to generate mechanically

derived solutions. . . . Part of our diffi culty lies in the no longer recognized

assumptions or presuppositions we work with” (Glanville, 2007, p. 87).

As practitioners of HPT, we need to be serious about our claim to be sys-

temic (Wittkuhn, 2006) and shift toward ideas that account for changes in

the conceptualization of systems, and the roles of organizations and their

members. ) is does not mean throwing out what we have, but rather cre-

ating a synthesis of ideas and concepts that off er alternative views of orga-

nizational systems (Scott & Davis, 2007; Winiecki, 2010; Wittkuhn, 2006).

One Alternative: Soft Systems Methodology

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland, 1999; Checkland &

Poulter, 2006, 2010) is one approach to understanding and addressing

perceived problems within organizational systems that has been pro-

vided as an alternative, or additional, perspective by authors within the


HPT fi eld (Rowland, 2007; Wittkuhn, 2006). Jang (2008) went as far as to

take the fi rst steps in exploring how some of the concepts of SSM could

be used, in conjunction with Ackoff , Magidson, and Addison’s (2006)

Idealized Design, to create a stronger systems approach to identifying

problems, rather than the linear cause-and-eff ect approach historically

used in gap analysis (Wittkuhn, 2006) and other aspects of HPT.

One of the foundational diff erences between SSM and the major

frameworks of HPT is the idea from HPT frameworks that a gap in per-

formance measures is taken-as-given—that there is a gap and it needs to

be closed—a very rational or mechanistic approach (Ackoff , 2002; Scott &

Davis, 2007). But, as Kaufman (2010) points out, we are well advised to

refrain from the notion that “the goals of business are correct and don’t have

to be challenged” (p. 37), and that includes how performance is measured

and accounted for and how these measures are applied (Winiecki, 2009).

SSM does not take the problem as described by stakeholders as

given, but instead recognizes it as a perceived problem as seen from

the stakeholders’ particular worldview with the idea that there are other

worldviews working within the organizational system that may be used

to defi ne the situation much diff erently, maybe not characterizing it as

a problem at all. Ackoff , Magidson, and Addison (2006), Jang (2008),

Rowland (2007), Winiecki (2007; 2010), and Wittkuhn (2006) believe these

alternative views should be explored and taken into account. Any action

to be taken should accommodate the people in the situation and their

concerns, and account for their particular history, relationships, culture,

and aspirations (Checkland, 1999; Winiecki, 2007). ) is approach refl ects

the conceptual changes that have occurred in organizational systems dis-

cussed earlier by taking into account the social nature of today’s organiza-

tions (Ackoff , 2002).

Hard Systems/Soft Systems

Soft Systems Methodology was developed by Peter Checkland at

Lancaster University largely due to his own disappointment with the lack

of practical relevance that the literature of management sciences, then

dominated by hard systems thinking, provided him while serving on the

management team at Imperial Chemical Industries (Jackson, 2003).

) e term hard systems is a generic name provided by Peter Checkland

to characterize the various systems approaches developed during and

immediately after World War II for solving real-world problems. ) e

approaches most commonly associated with hard systems as defi ned by

Checkland are operational research, systems analysis, and systems engi-

neering (Checkland, 1999; Checkland & Poulter, 2010; Jackson, 2003).

According to Jackson (2003), hard systems thinking presupposes that

problems in the real world can be eff ectively addressed based on the

following assumptions:


1. ) ere is a desired state of the system, and that state is known.

2. ) ere is a present state of the system.

3. ) ere are several alternative ways of getting from the present state

to the desired state.

4. It is the role of the systems person to fi nd the most effi cient means

of getting from the present state to the desired state.

Based on this, hard systems approaches require the goal of the system

of concern to be clearly established before any analysis can begin. But

Jackson (2003) points out that:

) is makes it diffi cult even to get started in many problem situa-

tions, where multiple stakeholders bring diff erent perceptions to

bear on the nature of the system and its objectives. Hard systems

thinking tends to leave the human aspect of systems aside. People

are treated as components to be engineered, not as actors whose

commitment must be won if solutions are to be implemented and

plans realized. Hard systems thinking . . . privileges the values

and interests of its clients and customers, and lends its apparent

expertise to their realization. It thus gives the façade of objectivity

to changes that help secure the status quo. (pp. 61–62)

) is idea that the human aspect is set aside in hard systems thinking

is brought home by Rummler and Brache (1995) when they point out

that: “It is interesting to describe an organization as a culture, a set of

power dynamics, or a personality. However, it is essential at some point

to describe what it does and how it does it” (p. 13). To this end, Rummler

and Brache (1995) may have it backwards when it comes to actually work-

ing with and on an organization as a dynamic system embedded in social

as well as strictly functional systems.

Checkland viewed this as inadequate in the actual practice of man-

agement, which he believed to be more about relationship building.

Unlike hard systems thinking, which “wants to produce objective results,

free from the taint of personality and vested interests” (Jackson, 2003,

p. 60), in SSM the world is viewed as very complex, problematical, myste-

rious, and characterized by clashes of diff ering worldviews. “It is continu-

ally being created and recreated by people thinking, talking and taking

action” (Checkland & Poulter, 2010, p. 199). When dealing with human

activity systems, which organizations are, the impact of personalities and

personal interests cannot be ignored or engineered. ) ey are part of the

complexity that makes up everyday life in the modern organization that

most resembles a social system.

To best sum it up, a hard systems thinker perceives the world as

one where systems reside and that can be engineered to accomplish the

desired goals; and, if engineered correctly, the people working within

those systems will behave in such a way as to optimize performance.

From a soft systems view, the world is made up of people who carry with


them a history “which determines, for a given group of people, both what

will be noticed as signifi cant and how what is noticed will be judged”

(Checkland, 1999, p. A15). ) is means any given situation in the life of

an organization will be perceived diff erently by diff erent people and is

always in a state of fl ux, creating a real world that is complex, confusing,

and always evolving. As the open system holds promise to allow new

organizational structures to be formed, it is appropriate to investigate the

potential of SSM to facilitate the sort of systems thinking and systems

doing that can help HPT do its job.

The Soft Systems Approach to Problematic Situations

The Basic Premises of SSMWittkuhn (2006) pointed out with regard to HPT that there are some

basic premises about people and organizations that must be expressed in

order to fully understand the Soft Systems Methodology:

1. When dealing with human activity systems, people act purpose-

fully upon real-world situations.

2. ) e purposeful action taken by individuals, or a group of individu-

als, is based on a particular worldview. ) is worldview may vary

within the same system or among its subsystems.

3. An individual’s, or group of individuals’, worldview is developed

over time by the history experienced and/or shared. Whereas these

worldviews may become stable over time, because they are based

on experienced history, they can also evolve over time as new

experiences become relevant.

4. It is the concept of diff ering worldviews that is most important to

understanding the complexity of human situations.

5. Because of the complexity of human situations, which make the

systems within which humans act mysterious and nearly impos-

sible to engineer, SSM seeks to provide a system of inquiry that can

be applied to perceived problematic situations.

6. Based on this idea, systems models are no longer used as descrip-

tions of something in the real world, but as devices based on

particular worldviews to organize debate about changes that may

bring about improvement. Under SSM, systems models become

“tools to think with” rather than objective categorization systems.

7. ) rough this system of inquiry the practitioner can help people act-

ing within a given problematic situation to discover possible solutions

that are both arguably desirable and socially feasible (Checkland,

1999; Checkland & Poulter, 2010; Jackson, 2003).

A key diff erence provided here between hard systems and soft sys-

tems is the inclusion of human relationships and worldviews. While the


core concept of what a system is and properties that make it a system may

be agreed upon, any picture of a specifi c system one draws up is taken

from a particular worldview of that system, its goals, its structure, its

properties, its activities, and its outcomes. ) is means there will always

be a number of worldviews that can be taken into account, which will lead

to a number of relevant models on which to base discussion surround-

ing the perceived problematic situation (Checkland & Poulter, 2010). As

Checkland and Poulter (2010) point out:

) ese purposeful activity models can never be descriptions of [part

of ] the real world. Each of them expresses one way of looking at and

thinking about the real situation, and there will be multiple possi-

bilities. So how can such models be made useful? ) e answer is to

see them as devices [intellectual devices] which are a source of good

questions to ask about the real situation, enabling it to be explored

richly. (p. 204, parenthetic comments added)

The Process of SSM) e process of SSM is a learning cycle, and takes an individual, or

group of individuals, from the identifi cation of a perceived problematic

situation to defi ning it and taking action to improve it. ) is cycle involves

four kinds of activity (Checkland & Poulter, 2010, p. 207):

1. Discovery of the initial situation perceived as problematic.

2. Development of purposeful activity models built from a particular

worldview and judged to be relevant to the situation for the pur-

pose of discussion and/or debate (intellectual devices).

3. Active participation in structured discussion/debate using the

activity models.

4. Defi ning and taking action to improve the perceived problem situ-

ation that is both arguably desirable and socially feasible.

Figure 1 provides a representation of SSM’s learning cycle.

While the previous description and the representation provided in

Figure 1 may give an impression of a prescribed sequence of steps, once

an investigation into a problematic situation begins using SSM, activities

within one or more steps will most likely be occurring at the same time,

as depicted in Figure 2.

Checkland and Poulter (2010) identify four ways of discovering

and learning about the problematic situation in question: (a) making

rich pictures, (b) Analysis One (the intervention), (c) Analysis Two

(social), and (d) Analysis Three (political). These are both resources

for helping the analyst understand aspects of the system that may be

missed otherwise, and at the same time subject those resources to

analysis.


Rich Pictures. ) e use of rich pictures to depict the activity involved in

a system of any kind is a core tool for any kind of systems thinking, hard

or soft. To attempt to depict the activity of a system in words is to most

certainly leave out the relational nuances of how the activity occurs.

Meadows (2008) points out that:

Words and sentences must, by necessity, come only one at a time in lin-

ear, logical order. Systems happen all at once. ) ey are connected not

just in one direction, but in many directions simultaneously. To discuss

FIGURE 1. INQUIRING/LEARNING CYCLE OF SSM

From Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice (Figure A1, p. A9). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Adapted with permission.


them properly, it is necessary somehow to use a language that shares

some of the same properties as the phenomena under discussion. (p. 5)

Within the soft systems methodology rich pictures are used to help

understand the problematic situation under investigation from the vari-

ous worldviews involving the structure, processes, and human decisions

that infl uence the outcomes. Comparing the rich pictures of activity

models derived from the worldviews of the stakeholders provides impor-

tant questions for discussion, debate, and discovery.

Analysis One (the Intervention). With Analysis One (the intervention),

Checkland and Poulter (2010) identify three elements that are brought

together when trying to improve a problematic situation with the use of

SSM: (a) the methodology, (b) the use of the methodology by a practitio-

ner, and (c) the situation. ) e practitioner adapts the principles and tech-

niques of the methodology to address the particular situation. ) ree key

roles that are always present in such situations, and must be identifi ed, are:

1. # e client: ) e person or group who caused the intervention to

happen.

2. # e practitioner: ) e person or group conducting the investigation.

3. # e issue’s stakeholders: ) e list of people regarded as being con-

cerned about or aff ected by the situation and the outcome of the

FIGURE 2. TYPICAL PATTERN OF ACTIVITY DURING AN SSM INVESTIGATION

Adapted from Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2010). Soft systems methodology (Figure 5.10, p. 208). In M. Reynolds & S. Howell (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 191–242). London, UK: Springer. © 2010 With kind permission from Springer Science + Business Media B.V.


eff ort to improve it. ) is list is from where the ideas about relevant

worldviews and models will be derived.

Analysis Two (Social). Analysis Two (social) is an area of much dis-

cussion but little understanding. It is a big reason for the complexity of

human activity systems and one of the elements ignored by hard systems

thinking. As Checkland and Poulter (2010) point out:

) e Management Science Field . . . tries to get by through con-

centrating almost entirely on the logic of situations, even though

the motivators of much human action lie outside logic, in cultural

norms or emotions. So, if we are to be eff ective in social situations,

we have to take “culture” seriously and decide what we mean by it.

(p. 213)

Figure 3 provides a diagram of the three elements identifi ed by

Checkland and Poulter (2010) that help create the social texture of a

human situation.

Within this model of social texture, the elements are defi ned as

follows:

♦ Roles: ) e social positions that mark diff erences between members

of a group or organization. ) ese can be formally assigned and

recognized, or informal roles that develop over time.

♦ Norms: ) e expected behaviors associated with, and helping to

defi ne, a particular role. We expect people to act in particular ways

based on their role in the workplace or in society as a whole.

♦ Values: ) e standards, or criteria, by which behaviors within a

particular role are judged (Checkland & Poulter, 2010). We judge

a person’s eff ectiveness in a role not only by the outcomes generated,

but by whether their behaviors meet the criteria we would expect to

observe based on their role in the organization or society as a whole.

Analysis # ree (Political). In Analysis ) ree (political), power is identi-

fi ed and explained through the metaphor of commodities held by par-

ticular individuals. ) e goal is to begin to identify commodities held in a

particular situation by an individual that signal the possession of power.

) ese may include a particular role one occupies, personal charisma,

membership in a particular group or on a particular committee, regu-

lar access to powerful people within the organization, having particular

intellectual authority and/or reputation, control of and/or access to

particular information, and claims on status symbols like titles, corner

offi ces, assistants, and so forth. Once you begin to identify these com-

modities of power, then you want to begin to identify what the processes

are for obtaining, using, protecting, defending, passing on, and relin-

quishing these commodities.


) e information gathered in phases Analysis Two and Analysis # ree

allow one to begin to map the contextual nuances of a particular cultural

setting. ) is information is used to help the practitioner understand what

may or may not be socially feasible as a solution to the problematic situa-

tion under investigation.

Creating Purposeful Activity ModelsAs stated previously, the purpose of creating purposeful activity

models that depict the problematic situation from the various world-

views of the issue owners is to use them as a basis for asking questions

that can help identify accommodations that are arguably desirable and

socially feasible. Since each model is created according to a particularly

declared worldview, any single model is only one way of looking at the

complex reality of the given situation. As such, they exist merely as devices

to make sure “the learning process is not random, but organized, one

which can be recovered and refl ected on” (Checkland & Poulter, 2010,

p. 218). Altogether, however, assembling an understanding of a problem-

atic situation from multiple vantage points allows the analyst to more fully

understand, think through, and in turn intervene in that situation in a

manner that is both desirable and feasible.

In order to help the process of developing purposeful activity models as

viewed through the perspective of a particular worldview, the practitioner

FIGURE 3. SSM’S MODEL FOR SOCIAL TEXTURE OF A HUMAN SITUATION

Adapted from Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2010). Soft systems methodology (Figure 5.15, p. 215). In M. Reynolds & S. Howell (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 191–242). London, UK. Springer. © 2010 With kind permission from Springer Science + Business Media B.V.


must begin with the development of a root defi nition of the situation. ) e

guidelines for developing this root defi nition, as provided by Checkland

and Poulter (2010), are as follows:

1. Answer the What? How? Why? questions involving the human

activity involved in the problematic situation by use of the PQR

formula. According to this formula, a person or group does P, by

Q, in order to achieve R, where PQR answer the questions: What?

How? Why?

2. Utilizing the information gathered by asking the questions pro-

vided in the PQR formula allows the practitioner to then write out

the root cause as a statement. ) is root cause statement describes the

purposeful activity being modeled as a transformation process

where some entity is transformed into a diff erent state. Whether

the purposeful activity is concrete or abstract, the idea of transfor-

mation always holds.

3. ) e mnemonic CATWOE (Customers, Actors, Transformation

process, Worldview, Owner, and Environment) is used as a general

reference for elements necessary in the creation of any purposeful

activity model. ) e basic idea here is that purposeful activity defi ned

by a transformation process (T) and a particular worldview (W):

a. Requires people (A) to do the activities that make the

transformation (T).

b. ) is transformation will aff ect other people (C) outside of the

process in a way that either benefi ts them or victimizes them.

c. ) e environment (E) provides various constraints from

outside the process.

d. Any of this could be stopped or changed by a person or

group of people (O) regarded as the owner(s).

Also helpful during this process is to consider how the performance

of this transformation will be measured or judged. ) ree criteria always

relevant are: effi cacy, effi ciency, and eff ectiveness (where effi cacy tells

us whether the transformation is producing its intended outcome, and

eff ectiveness tells us whether it is helping us achieve some higher-level

or longer-term aim). Some circumstances may also include elegance and

ethicality.

4. Make the distinction between Primary Task (PT) and Issue-based

(IB) defi nitions. Issue-based defi nitions involve purposeful activ-

ities that “cut across organizational boundaries” (Checkland &

Poulter, 2010, p. 223). As a general rule, investigations should

always include a mixture of both types.

5. Once the previous tasks have been completed, step fi ve is to begin

developing the conceptual models. While fl exibility is sometimes


warranted, Checkland and Poulter (2010) provide the following as

an example sequence that has worked for them:

a. Assemble the guidelines included in the PQR formula, the

root defi nition, CATWOE, etc.

b. Write down three types of activities:

i. ) ose that concern the thing being transformed

ii. ) ose that do the transforming

iii. ) ose dealing with the transformed entity

c. Connect the activities using arrows to indicate dependency

of one activity upon another.

d. Add the monitoring control activities.

e. Check the model against the guidelines assembled in (a)

above to insure every phrase in the root defi nition leads to

something in the model, and every activity in the model can

be linked back to something in the guidelines.

Once conceptual activity models have been developed from the vari-

ous worldviews identifi ed as belonging to issue owners, a process of dis-

cussion/debate can be pursued that leads to accommodations that are

arguably desirable and socially feasible. ) ese are not compromises, but

accommodations, implying that a solution is found that all involved can

live with. Any accommodation involving change in human activity situa-

tions includes changes to structures, processes, or procedures; and most

likely includes all three (Checkland & Poulter, 2010). ) e activity models

thus produced are oriented not only to the rationalized idealized way the

system should operate, but also to the ways the system does operate, all

with a focus on understanding the system, its members, and contingen-

cies faced by the system and its members.

Synthesizing Soft Systems Methodology and HPT

Wittkuhn (2006) points out that his challenge for practitioners of

HPT to look beyond their own frameworks based on similar premises

and to those like SSM that view the organization and its systems from

a diff erent paradigm is not to say our current frameworks should be

abandoned. Rather, it is to provide us with more alternatives, to be able

to see things that may be obscured by our current frameworks. Scott

and Davis (2007) argue that, while all three of the organizational systems

paradigms (rational, natural, and open) are built on diff erent premises,

organizations that exist in the real world must probably contain features

of all three.


By synthesizing the methodologies of SSM with the frameworks

of HPT we can begin to approach problematic situations in a way that

exposes the complexity of human activity systems and how diff ering

worldviews can limit the success of our interventions if they are not taken

into account, all without losing the strength current HPT models provide.

In other words, synthesizing SSM into HPT frameworks and practices

will allow us to build upon the historical basis of rational systems but

modify it in order to accommodate what is now understood to be a more

globalized and interconnected world.

We hazard that most HPT practitioners take the problem descrip-

tion provided by the client as given and right and then seek to change

behavior to recover the desired state. By integrating SSM methodologies

into the process of inquiry, we can account for the human aspect of the

activity systems in which we interface, including the social and political

elements of the organization and local environment that may otherwise

cause rationalized eff orts to fall short of our desired result.

One example of synthesizing SSM with commonly known HPT models

is through its use in conjunction with the Behavior Engineering Model (BEM)

(Gilbert, 1996). By beginning with the methodologies set forth by SSM we

learn about the complexity and social context involved in the problematic

situation. Many worldviews are taken into account and modeled so that they

can be more broadly understood. With root defi nitions and activity models

developed refl ecting the various worldviews involved in the problematic situ-

ation, enlightened discussions can occur that move toward accommodation.

) is is often where the BEM can be very eff ective with helping those involved

in the conversation understand the environmental and personal repertory

elements that impact a given performance situation. Accommodations can

be eff ectively framed using HPT frameworks such as BEM, but with a better

understanding of how those accommodations will be received based on the

knowledge acquired through the methodologies of SSM.

Whereas the boxes of the BEM help us understand the environmen-

tal and personal repertory elements of performance behavior and how

certain interventions, if done correctly, can have a diff usion of eff ect

on other elemental boxes, Soft Systems Methodologies provide us with

the understanding of what is happening between and on the lines that

divide the boxes through our understanding of the diff ering worldviews

and the social and political context of the organization.

E. ectiveness of a New-Hire Training Program in a Sales Organization: Case Example

To show how SSM and HPT frameworks work in synthesis we pro-

vide the following example.

A sales organization began a new-hire training program 2 years ago.

Prior to this training program, managers hired and trained members


of their own sales team individually. Because the managers had vary-

ing knowledge, capacity, and motives to support training and to off er

performance supports for the sales job, the eff ectiveness of new sales

agents, and the speed at which they developed the necessary skills to

succeed in sales, varied by store, sometimes creating large disparities

in the performance of agents between stores. A new-hire training

program was systematically designed, developed, and implemented

to create a process for learning and integration that was structured

and consistent across the organization. Professional trainers were

put in place in centralized locations within each sales market for

the purpose of conducting regular training classes. By creating this

program the organizational leadership expected to see an increase

in sales performance as well as higher levels of employee retention.

After 2 years and a large investment of time and resources in the

training program the organization has seen little lift in sales per-

formance and no change in employee retention. Managers have

expressed concern that new hires are not coming out of the train-

ing prepared to enter the sales fl oor, resulting in extra time and

eff ort from them and the current sales team. ) e trainers, after

spending time in the store and observing sales agents in action, are

concerned that many of the skills and processes provided during

the new-hire training are not being used once the sales agent leaves

the classroom. It was determined that, based on these reactions, a

potential problematic situation exists regarding the eff ectiveness

of the new-hire training program and performance supports for

sales agents.

) e following provides an outline of an intervention commissioned

by the company owner and CEO with respect to the new-hire training

program for sales agents.

Analysis One (the Intervention)) e following elements exist for this problematic situation:

♦ # e client: the CEO of the company

♦ # e practitioner: an outside consultant hired by the organization’s CEO

♦ # e issue owners: company CEO, trainers, sales managers, sales

agents

Analysis Two (Social)A fi le is created at the beginning of the investigation for transcribing

information learned that relates to the social and cultural aspects of the

organization. ) is fi le becomes a single archive for storing and facilitating

review of details related to social and structural aspects of the organiza-

tion and phenomena within the organization, including:


♦ Values important to the organization, which in this case may

include sales volume, customer follow-up, operational integrity, etc.

♦ Formal roles, such as the sales agent, manager, trainer, CEO, etc.

♦ A description of various expectations for people who fi ll the formal

roles and how they are expected to act and/or interact with other

people in the organization.

♦ Informal roles and how they develop. ) is may include high sales

producers, or people who take care of the operational aspects of the

sales process and make sure the store is open on time, is clean, and

that operations run smoothly.

Analysis Three (Political)Like Analysis Two, a fi le is open and maintained over the course of

the investigation, with additions as necessary, and continually referenced

in order to facilitate discovery and understanding of aspects in the poli-

tics of the organization. ) is includes:

♦ Status in the organization:

♦ Because it is a sales organization, people with sales background

may have a stronger voice in organizational issues, irrespective

of whether their current position is sales related or the issue in

question relates to sales activities.

♦ People who have, or are perceived to have, a personal relation-

ship with the owner or someone holding a particular position

within the organization may possess informal power among

their peers.

The Transformation Process (Doing P, by Q, in Order to Achieve R)) e transformation process that is under investigation in this current

problematic situation involves the training of new sales agents. ) e PQR

defi ned by this transformation process is:

P: training of new sales agents

Q: by the use of a designed training program

R: in order to achieve higher sales productivity more quickly

Root De7 nitions Using CATWOE

Trainers. ) e following defi nitions are provided from the worldview of

the trainer:

♦ Customer: ) e sales managers and the new sales agents.

♦ Actors: Trainers, new sales agents, managers.


♦ Transformation: New employees with no knowledge of the orga-

nization are exposed to and develop a working knowledge of the

organization’s policies, systems, products, and sales process that

prepares them for performance on the sales fl oor.

♦ Worldview: ) e new-hire training program provides the new

employee with basic knowledge of the organization’s policies and

exposure to the systems used in the sales process, products sold,

and the sales process so they can function eff ectively and confi -

dently on the sales fl oor.

♦ Owner: Company CEO.

♦ Environmental constraints: Classroom does not refl ect the real-life

sales fl oor and not all customer scenarios can be mirrored in the

training systems.

Based on these defi nitions, a root defi nition based on the CATWOE

defi nitions provided above may be as follows:

Trainers facilitate a week-long new-hire training within a classroom

setting that is designed to provide information and skills necessary

to function eff ectively and confi dently on the sales fl oor. ) is train-

ing includes the company history, policies, systems, products, and

sales process.

Managers. ) e following defi nitions are provided from the worldview

of the sales manager:

♦ Customer: ) e outside customer that visits the store for products

and/or services.

♦ Actors: Trainers, new sales agents, managers, current sales staff .

♦ Transformation: New employees with no prior knowledge of the

organization, its produces, its systems, or its sales processes are

provided the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful on

the sales fl oor.

♦ Worldview: New sales agents who go through the new-hire train-

ing program are provided the knowledge and skills to become

successful on the sales fl oor, allowing managers to focus on sales

performance rather than providing this knowledge and training

to their new employees. However, they are coming out of training

ill-prepared for conducting sales, with poor product knowledge

and limited skills in the use of the computer systems necessary for

completing sales.


♦ Environmental constraints: Classroom does not refl ect the real-life

sales fl oor and not all customer scenarios can be mirrored in the

training systems.


) e managers’ root defi nition may read as follows:

) e training class is conducted by the trainers and is designed

to provide new sales agents with knowledge and skills necessary to

enter the sales environment prepared to assist customers with the

services and products to be provided by the organization, allowing

managers to focus on other activities and responsibilities necessary

to promote sales activities among their sales teams.

Sales Agents. ) e following defi nitions are provided from the world-

view of the sales agents:

♦ Customer: ) e person who comes into the store looking for product

and/or service.

♦ Actors: Trainer, manager, current sales staff , new agent.

♦ Transformation: Training and post-training support from manage-

ment and peers that provide me the knowledge and skills to sell the

products and services the organization provides so I can earn my

desired level of commissions.

♦ Worldview: ) e organization provides new-hire training that is

designed to help me understand the organization and its policies and

rules, and have a working knowledge of the products, systems,

and sales process so that I can be successful. Once in the store I

should seek help with applying product and with systems. My peers

are busy with their own customers and generating commissions of

their own and seldom want to help for fear of missing out on a sale.

My manager is often not available, and when he or she is, is usually

annoyed that I don’t know.


♦ Environmental constraints: Classroom does not refl ect the real-

life sales fl oor and not all customer scenarios can be mirrored in

the training systems. Peers and/or manager are not always avail-

able or willing to help once I get out of training and into the real

world.

) e root defi nition provided by the CATWOE of the sales agents

might read as follows:

Training is provided during the fi rst week of employment that

allows the new sales agent to learn about the company and the

systems, products, and sales process that will help the agent be suc-

cessful as a sales agent. While the information and skills acquired

in the training are benefi cial, there was a lot of information to

remember. Agents develop comfort using these skills in the safety

of the training class, but once they enter the sales fl oor it is diffi cult

to remember and apply everything.


Measurement) e effi cacy, effi ciency, and eff ectiveness of any process developed for

training new sales agents will be measured based on the level of sales the

agents are able to generate, and the speed at which they are able to reach

an acceptable level of sales.

Conceptual ModelingOnce the root defi nitions are developed, conceptual models that rep-

resent each can be developed. Figure 4 provides one of the conceptual

models developed in this case example from the root defi nition provided

from the trainer’s perspective.

In this example of the conceptual model, the system under consid-

eration is measured by “sales productivity.” Because this represents how

the system’s eff ectiveness is monitored and controlled, it resides outside the

environment and infl uences the entire system (Checkland & Poulter,

2010).

Other conceptual models are developed in similar fashion, but dif-

fer based on the root defi nitions provided by the managers and sales

agents. ) ese models are intended to be informal and adaptive, used as

tools of inquiry and learning through discussion and debate. Checkland

FIGURE 4. CONCEPTUAL MODEL FROM TRAINER'S ROOT DEFINITION


(1999); Checkland and Poulter (2006; 2010) often present these models

in freehand to underscore their intended informality and openness to

adaptation.

Overall, the defi nitions and conceptual model are intended to pro-

vide prototypes for how members of each stakeholder group should

be approaching their specifi c roles in relation to other stakeholders in

the system. ) ese prototypes are intended to be an idealization of what

is expected and desired. Coaching, structured discussion, and actions

should be undertaken when experiences of actual members do not meet

these expectations and desired orientations.

Structured Discussion and Action to ImproveIt is during the process of discussion, debate, and the development

of actions, both arguably desirable and socially feasible, that HPT frame-

works can be eff ective. While the complexity of human activity systems

found in organizations often requires open system approaches such

as SSM, the structured concepts available in HPT frameworks such as

Gilbert’s behavior engineering model (BEM) can help us formulate pro-

cesses and/or tools that provide greater support for the activities and

FIGURE 5. GILBERT'S BEHAVIOR ENGINEERING MODEL

Adapted from Gilbert, T. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance (p. 88). Washington, DC: Inter-nation Society for Performance Improvement. This material is reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.


performance of the actors within the system under investigation. ) is is

consistent with the idea that even within open organizational systems, it

is possible and perhaps desirable to have and support natural and even

rational subsystems (Winiecki, 2010). Figure 5 provides a reference to the

BEM and rational system model developed by Gilbert (1996).

Based on the knowledge gained through the inquiry process of SSM,

there are several areas within the BEM that might lead to a desirable and

feasible accommodation. ) ese include:

1. A training program for managers designed to improve their knowl-

edge and ability to provide training support for their sales team,

including both new and experienced sales agents. ) is would

impact the knowledge element of the managers’ BEM.

2. A competency dictionary and development chart for the sales role

initiated for each new sales associate. ) rough the training and

post-training support phase of his or her employment, the trainer

and then the associate’s assigned manager and peers will use this

document to track the development of knowledge and skills consid-

ered requisite for success in sales. ) is provides an evolving record

of the associate’s development and highlights what knowledge and

skills require more performance support along the way. As such,

this document provides a mechanism for tracking and assessing

knowledge and skill development, as well as the sales agent’s ability

to use such knowledge and skills toward the development of sales.

Conclusion

) e historical frameworks of HPT have proven themselves to have

substantive utility for improving performance in organizations. However,

as the world of organizations is changing, so must the frameworks we use

to diagnose and operate on organizations in order to eff ect improvements.

) e authors’ goal is to help practitioners of HPT understand the premises

on which our current frameworks are built and begin to see how creat-

ing a synthesized approach with other methodologies that are built on

diff erent premises can strengthen our work in positively infl uencing orga-

nizational life and performance. Our goal is not to advocate throwing out

the frameworks developed within HPT over the past half century, or to

negate its worldview. Real life is complex and it is this complexity that

makes it vibrant and exciting. To remove complexity from reality is to

run the danger of destroying the very essence of life itself (Nelson, 2007),

for it is not from equilibrium and the steady state of things that growth

and advancement occur; rather it is from the edge of chaos and disequi-

librium where creative advancements are discovered (Wheatley, 2006).

By embracing the complexity of human activity systems created by the

social and political aspects of the unique culture that each provides, rather

than trying to put it aside or engineer it away, we can enrich the experiences


of the actors involved and in the process improve organizational performance

by creating solutions that are both desirable and feasible.

ReferencesAckoL , R.L. (2002). The corporation as a community, not as a corpus. Re& ections, 4(1),

14–21.AckoL , R.L., Magidson, J., & Addison, H.J. (2006). Idealized design: Creating an organization’s

future. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Boulding, K.E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management

Science, 2(3), 197–208.Brethower, D.M. (1997). Research and development origins of performance systems.

In R. Kaufman, S. Thiagarajan, & P. MacGillis (Eds.), The guidebook for performance improvement: Working with individuals and organizations (pp. 29–43). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass PfeiL er.

Brethower, D.M. (2006). Systemic issues. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 111–137). San Francisco, CA: PfeiL er.

Checkland, P. (1999). Soft systems methodology: A 30-year retrospective. New York, NY: Wiley.

Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: A short de3 nitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2010). Soft systems methodology. In M. Reynolds & S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 191–242). London, UK: Springer.

Chyung, S.Y. (2005). Human performance technology from Taylor’s scienti= c management to Gilbert’s behavior engineering model. Performance Improvement, 44(1), 23–28.

Chyung, S.Y. (2008). Foundations of instructional and performance technology. Amherst, MA: HRD Press.

Gilbert, T. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance (tribute ed.). Washington DC: International Society for Performance Improvement.

Glanville, R. (2007). Designing complexity. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(2), 75–96.

Jackson, M.C. (2003). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Jang, H.Y. (2008). Reconsidering human performance technology. Performance Improvement, 47(6), 25–33.

Kaufman, R. (2010). From myths to creating a new future: A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Performance Improvement, 49(2), 37–45.

Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

Nelson, H.G. (2007). Simply complex by design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(2), 97–116.

Pershing, J.A. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 5–34). San Francisco, CA: PfeiL er.

Rowland, G. (2007). Performance improvement assuming complexity. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(2), 117–136.

Rummler, G., & Brache, A. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Scott, R., & Davis, G. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.


Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E.J. (1999). What is human performance technology? In H.D. Stolovitch & E.J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology (2nd ed., pp. 3–23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/PfeiL er.

Taylor, F. (1947). Scienti3 c management. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Wheatley, M.J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world.

San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Winiecki, D. (2007). The others’ values: On the importance of new ways of looking, seeing,

knowing and acting for performance technologists. Performance Improvement, 46(9), 32–37.

Winiecki, D.J. (2009). Shadowboxing with data: A framework for informing the critical analysis of performance and performance measures. Performance Improvement, 48(2), 31–37.

Winiecki, D.J. (2010). Rational, natural, and open: Organizational system typologies and their relevance for performance improvement professionals. Performance Improvement, 49(5), 35–41.

Wittkuhn, K.D. (2006). Quantulumcunque concerning the future development of performance technology. In J.A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 1274–1285). San Francisco, CA: PfeiL er.

GLEN SCOTT

Glen Scott holds a master of science degree in instructional and per-

formance technology from Boise State University. He has held a variety

of positions over his 25 years of business experience, including opera-

tions management, human resources, and performance improvement.

He currently serves as executive vice president of human resource and

performance for a wireless retailer. Research interests involve the cre-

ation of performance environments that are collaborative, productive,

and fulfi lling.

E-mail: [email protected]

DONALD J. WINIECKI

Donald J. Winiecki, PhD, is a professor in the Instructional &

Performance Technology Department in the College of Engineering

at Boise State University. He holds a doctor of philosophy degree in

sociology and a doctor of education degree in instructional technology.

He teaches courses in needs assessment and ethnographic research in

organizations.

E-mail: [email protected]

Synthesizing soft systems methodology and human performance technology

Documents

Transcript of Synthesizing soft systems methodology and human performance technology