4/4/2016

49004 Systems
Engineering for Managers
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
- An Introduction

Last Lecture

2

We completed our introduction to systems concepts:
Definitions
Characteristics
Significance
Feedback

1

4/4/2016

This lecture

3

We will give a brief description of Checkland’s Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM);
We will indicate where it is appropriate to use;
We will distinguish it from “hard” approaches.

4

Lecture Relevant Reading
Checkland P (1993), “The Development of ‘Soft’ Systems
Thinking”,
Jackson MC (2004), “Soft Systems Methodology”,
Optional Reading: Staker RJ (1999), An Application of
Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology to the
Development of a Military Information Operations Capability for the Australian Defence Force

2

4/4/2016

“Classical” Systems Engineering

5

One way of thinking suggests… engineering begins when a need is established. the engineer’s task then provides a solution ... A “how to” oriented activity the need is expressed in terms of a system with defined objectives If there is a current situation S0 and a future, desired situation S1, then select the best of the available ways of getting from S0 to S1

so that the process becomes one of evaluating alternative solutions using models and criteria

However…

6

More often than not, for managers, the problem is ill-defined – or the need is not readily established
“What is the issue?” is the relevant question before we get to “how” to resolve it
Need a system of enquiry … which works at both the “what” and “how” level
SSM seen to be such a system of enquiry

3

4/4/2016

Soft Systems Methodology
(SSM)

7

This is Checkland
He came up with
SSM
Why?
Hard/Soft systems
Dissatisfaction with hard approaches in soft situations

SSM

8

Developed for : ill-structured or messy problems where there is: no clear view of “what constitutes the problem” no clear idea of what action to take

HOMEWORK: Look up the definition of “wicked” problems and try to come up with examples from your own experience.

4

4/4/2016

Background

First thoughts

9

10

There are two paradigms, hard and soft, based on contrasting assumptions that lead to different methodologies
Hard systems approaches are based on means-to-an-end rationality
Soft systems approaches focus on “enquiring systems” to deepen our understanding of given problematic situations.

5

4/4/2016

Systems Thinking Paradigms
Hard

11

Soft

Problems are …

Real and solvable

Ill-structured & messy, many relevant problems

End points are …

Objectively definable Unclear & ill-defined, plurality of view points

Primarily concerned with …

How should we do it. What should be done.

Systems are …

Functional statement of how things are.

Ordered, abstract thoughts of how things are - interpretive

… which look like …

Goal seeking descriptors Representations of thoughts and ideas for communicating 12

Hard vs Soft Paradigms
Hard

Soft

The real world is Systematic
…

Problematic
-multiple viewpoints and opinions

Methodologies

Systematic

Systematic

The System …

Is in the world

Is in the process of enquiry 6

4/4/2016

13

SSM and Structured Methods
SSM

Structured Methods

subjective (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

several ambiguous outcomes

one ‘correct‘ solution

Principles

14

SSM articulates a process of enquiry – it is a learning system
Cultural feasibility defines “ways forward” – constraints that must be met
Interpretive grounding of SSM implies high degree of participation of those involved
Two modes of thought: “Systems” and “Real
World” thinking

7

4/4/2016

Methodology

15

SSM is a methodology that aims to bring about improvement in areas of social concern by activating in the people involved in the situation a learning cycle.
The learning takes place through the iterative process of using systems concepts to reflect upon and debate perceptions of the real world, taking action in the real world, and again reflecting on the happenings using systems concepts
The reflection and debate is structured by a number of systematic models. These are conceived as holistic ideal types of certain aspects of the problem situation rather than as accounts of it. It is taken as given that no objective and complete account of a problem situation can be provided. Where is SSM used?

16

hWhere the people involved are aware that a problem exists, but cannot define it hWhere there are different points of view and, possibly, conflict hWhere changing one part of a system may have an unknown impact on other parts hWhere there is a combination of the above 8

4/4/2016

Basic shape of SSM*

17

yields choices of …
Relevant Systems of purposeful activity

A real world situation of concern Comparison of models with perceived real situations Action needed to improve situation *sourced from Checkland & Scholes, 1999

SSM

18

Mode 1 (1975) - a 7-stage methodology
Still the version most commonly referred to when talking about SSM

Mode 2 (1988)
Has 2 strands of enquiry – ‘logic-based stream’ and ‘cultural stream’
More of a framework of ideas for exploration rather than a methodology
Sees Mode 1 as just one option of a more general approach

9

4/4/2016

Mode 1 - continued
19

1. the problem situation: unstructured 7. action to improve the problem situation 2. the problem situation: expressed.

6. feasible, desirable changes 5. comparison of 4 with 2

Real world
Systems thinking

4. conceptual models
3.
root definitions of systems 4.a. formal systems concept 4.b. other systems thinking Checkland, 1999

Methodology Mode 2

20

Improvers of situation

Real world problem situation

tasks, issues

Relevant systems models

situation

compare compare situation as culture: compare analysis of intervention
‘social system’ analysis
‘political system’ analysis

STREAM OF CULTURAL
ANALYSIS

differences between models and real world changes: systemically desirable, culturally feasible
Action to improve the situation

LOGIC BASED STREAM OF
ANALYSIS

10

4/4/2016

21

Steps 1 & 2
1.

7. Action to improve the problem situation

The problem situation: unstructured

2. The problem situation expressed

3. Root definitions of purposeful activities

5. Comparison of models and real world 6. Changes: systematically desirable, culturally feasible 4. Conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions

Stage 1 & 2: Finding Out

other systems thinking

22

gather info about structure and processes observation (e.g. watching, questionaires …) secondary data (e.g. articles, minutes…) informal and formal interviews

Summarise into a “rich” picture
Useful reference: http://systems.open.ac.uk/materials/t552/index.htm

Analysis stakeholder analysis social, analysis or roles, norms etc.. political system

11

4/4/2016

rich pictures

23

observation

coffeetime yet?

Issue or idea!

boundary

crossed swords
=friction

iconic representations - drawn together into a picture which sums up the important elements of the problem situation
Source: Jeremy Rose Presentation on SSM

Rich Pictures

24

Depict important aspects of a situation – usually via a hand drawn sketch
Typically includes;
Structural elements e.g. org structures, buildings, locations
Processes - that are always changing
Climate
Issues

12

4/4/2016

25

Source: http://systems.open.ac.uk/materials/t552/index.htm
Accessed 02/05/09

26

Step 3
1.

The problem situation: unstructured 2. The problem situation expressed

3. Root definitions of purposeful activities

7. Action to improve the problem situation

5. Comparison of models and real world 4. Conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions

6. Changes: systematically desirable, culturally feasible other systems thinking

13

4/4/2016

Stage 3: Formulating Root
Definitions

27

This helps us to select a viewpoint and identify/define relevant systems
Root definitions of systems as concise, well formulated statements. Draw out essence of What, Why, Who is to do it, Who is to benefit/suffer, constraints

CATWOE

28

Nothing to do with scared or sad little kittens.
Useful formula for constructing root definitions:

Customers – victims/beneficiaries
Actors- those who do the activities
Transformation process – the purposeful activity
Weltanschauung – the view of the world that makes the transformation meaningful (why is it being done), the assumptions being made

Owners- who can stop and start the activtiy
Environment – the constraints in the environment must be taken as given, the environment envelops and influences the system, but the system does not control it.

14

4/4/2016

General Root Definition Format

29

An XYZ [O] owned system which under the following environmental constraints
[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].
Source: Adapted from Bruce Scharlau and Judith Masthoff, University of Aberdeen

General Root Definition Format alternative

30

a system to do X by (means of) Y in order to Z what the system does - X how it does it - Y why it’s being done - Z

15

4/4/2016

Root Definition Examples

31

Source: Jeremy Rose SSM Presentation, Dept. of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University

A university owned and operated system to award degrees and diplomas to suitably qualified candidates (X), by means of suitable assessment (Y), (in conformance with national standards), in order to demonstrate the capabilities of candidates to potential employers (Z).
A university owned and operated system to implement a quality service (X), by devising and operating procedures to delight its customers and control its suppliers (Y), in order to improve its educational products (Z).

Source: Jeremy Rose SSM Presentation, Dept. of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University

32

Step 4
1.

The problem situation: unstructured 2. The problem situation expressed

3. Root definitions of purposeful activities

7. Action to improve the problem situation

5. Comparison of models and real world 4. Conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions 6. Changes: systematically desirable, culturally feasible other systems thinking

16

4/4/2016

Step 4: Conceptual Models

33

Provide an account of the activities which the ideal system must do in order to fulfil the requirements of the root definition. Use verbs to capture the model(s) the minimum number necessary to describe the activities needed to do the root defnition tasks.

Conceptual Model Example
34
Source: Jeremy Rose SSM Presentation, Dept. of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University

enrol students

educate students award degrees + diplomas to students reaching acceptable levels

design education programm es

allot resources appreciate national standards

design and carry out assessment A university owned and operated system to award degrees and diplomas to suitably qualified candidates (X), by means of suitable assessment (Y), (in conformance with national standards), in order to demonstrate the capabilities of candidates to potential employers (Z).

17

4/4/2016

Formal System Model

35

Checkland’s checklist for a well-formulated system: System represented by the model has an ongoing purpose, i.e. exists for a reason, and achieves some transformation or change (emergence).
There are measures of performance so that its effectiveness may be judged.
There is some mechanism for control.
It has components that are themselves systems
(hierarchy).
It has components that interact (communication).

Formal System Definition (Con’t)

36

It exists in a wider system or systems, interacting with its environment. It has a boundary which encloses the area that the regulating mechanism has under control.
It has resources for its own use, under the control of the regulating mechanism.
It has some expectation of continuity, and can be expected to recover from disturbances.

18

4/4/2016

37

Step 5
1.

7. Action to improve the problem situation

The problem situation: unstructured 2. The problem situation expressed

5. Comparison of models and real world 3. Root definitions of purposeful activities

6. Changes: systematically desirable, culturally feasible 4. Conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions

other systems thinking

Stage 5: Comparing Models and
“Reality”

38

Aim is to generate debate about possible changes to improve problem situation
Forced to check assumptions
Various ways of doing this: compare models with current perceptions make a formal list of differences and formulate questions to explore differences scenario writing (e.g. how is the system expected to behave into the future) construct a model of the part of reality similar to the model and map between the two

19

4/4/2016

39

Step 6
1.

The problem situation: unstructured 2. The problem situation expressed

3. Root definitions of purposeful activities

7. Action to improve the problem situation

5. Comparison of models and real world 6. Changes: systematically desirable, culturally feasible

4. Conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions

Step 6: Defining Changes

other systems thinking

40

Step 5 will produce consideration of possible changes … these are captured here.
Participants discuss potential improvements worthy of consideration
Check models conform to:
Systematic desirability – fit with logic based enquiry Cultural feasibility – passed by cultural enquiry

20

4/4/2016

41

Step 7
1.

The problem situation: unstructured 2. The problem situation expressed

3. Root definitions of purposeful activities

7. Action to improve the problem situation

5. Comparison of models and real world 4. Conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions

Step 7: Taking Action

6. Changes: systematically desirable, culturally feasible other systems thinking

42

Implementation of changes that are: desirable and, feasible can classify as: attitudinal structural procedural 21

4/4/2016

Example: Cooperative Development
Agency (CDA)1

43

“Look at general operation to see how it could more efficiently serve the community in which it operated and how it might market its services in order to achieve its objectives”
SSM chosen because the study required: consideration of norms and values (cultural issues) organisational structure and processes
(systematic matters)
1. Source of example: Flood and Jackson (1991), Creative Problem Solving, Wiley.

Description

44

CDA grew out of research on job creation and economic problems
CDA has 2 offices in different towns provided by different councils
Structure:
Managed by a Board - reps from various interest groups, meets quarterly to discuss activities and decide policy
Support Committee – elected representatives of Board and CDA staff, meets monthly CDA staff meeting – weekly, to review and plan work

CDA employs 5 staff and runs as a cooperative with no hierarchical structure
Duties of staff overlap with rough division of labour
Main duties of CDA: Promotion; training; advisory service;
CDA staff not happy with “mess”, division of duties between offices meant duplication; one office remote and low workload; job allocation; job rotation; skills sharing; insecurity of funding
They “sensed” something was wrong.

22

4/4/2016

Stages 1 & 2: finding out

45

Verbal rich picture – see previous slide
Named 5 relevant systems:
Marketing System
Support Generation System
Segmented Market System
The “Top-down” System
The Image Building System

Identified problems with Marketing System as main issues Stage 3: root definitions

46

5 Root definitions identified and checked against CATWOE

ROOT Definitions:
1.

A CDA owned system aiming to transform potential cooperatives into actual cooperatives through a series of analysed planned, organised and controlled marketing activities so that both parties will benefit C=CDA and potential cooperative
A=those carrying out analysis etc. marketing activities
T=Potential cooperators into actual cooperators
W=marketing can convert potential into actual cooperators
O=CDA
E=Resources, knowledge available to CDA workers

23

4/4/2016

root definitions (cont’d)

47

2. A development worker managed system seeking to transform potential sources of support for CDA marketing activities into actual useful support provided on a continuous basis.
3. A CDA owned system aiming to improve marketing effectiveness by employing appropriate marketing techniques to reach particular identifiable groups of potential co-operators.
4. A CDA owned system seeking to recruit individuals to form cooperatives in particular fields where business opportunities exist 5. A CDA managed system aiming to improve the attractiveness of the CDA and its services to potential customers, in order to encourage more groups of people to form cooperatives

Stage 4: Conceptual models

48

CM build on basis of each RD setting out what the system must do to accomplish task defined in RD.
Example: Segmented Market Model

24

4/4/2016

49

Stage 5: Compare with “Real
World”

50

Models compared with real world described in rich picture
Each activity in each CM questions asked:
Is this activity done at present?
If so, how?

Answers tabulated and summarised

25

4/4/2016

Main comparisons
1.

planning and organisation – ad-hoc which caused inefficiencies in allocating and using resources and poor prioritisation

2.

market understanding is by guesswork

3.

marketing activities get ignored because of time available 4.

Little work in understanding people’s perceptions

5.

Agency needs an “image”

6.

need to consider other means of advertising

7.

51

monitoring and control activities are carried out instinctively but are inadequate.

Stage 6: Changes

52

Ask “how” questions:
How might the activity be done?

desirability and feasibility of each how was then debated by staff
Displayed in tabular form

26

4/4/2016

Stage 7: Action

53

Recommendations made to CDA in terms of: attitudinal change structural change procedural change

Attitudinal Change

54

During course of SSM:
CDA accepted that marketing was important
Viewing system as a marketing system then became natural this paves way for structural change

27

4/4/2016

Structural Change

55

Recommended: assigning an individual to a marketing supervisor role accepted that a greater division of labour was required Procedural Change

56

Following design to improve planning and organisation or marketing activities:
1. should be regular examination of secondary data to better understand marketing environment
2. an annual marketing audit should be undertaken
3. CDA should review target market segments
4. make use of existing supporters
5. Monitor people’s attitudes to CDA
6. improve presentation and advertisements
7. arrange demonstrations to potential coperators
8. must undertake some “top-down’ work

28

4/4/2016

57

Pros of SSM
The ability to address soft problems where hard techniques fail Takes social, political, and power distribution issues into consideration - cultural stream analysis
Support different viewpoints through rich pictures
Can be used for learning in addition to addressing problems
Can be used in messy situations needing improvement.
Allows for new and imaginative “solutions” to be discovered
Very useful in the beginning of solving a problem to find out about the problem situation and elicit improvement requirements. Criticisms of SSM

58

SSM addresses some “ill-parts” of a system but it doesn’t build a whole system
It does not tell you how to build a system- in the classical engineering sense
Management are not always comfortable with the open ended nature of SSM.
Can be time consuming.
Limited in the design of a new system.

29

4/4/2016

Other Soft Systems Methodologies
59
Attributed to:

Methodology and Key Points

Churchman

Social Systems Design (SSD)
Holistic Perspective drawn from Dialectic Debate
Thesis;
Antithesis;
Synthesis
Interactive Planning (IP)
Objectivity, Participative Principle, Principle of Continuity, and Holistic Principle
Formulate the Mess; Ends Planning; Means Planning; Resource Planning
Design of Implementation and Control

(1970)
Ackoff
(1972)

Checkland

Soft System Methodology (SSM)
Learning, Culture, Participation, Two Modes of Thought, and CATWOE Analysis
Enter Situation; Express the Problem Situation; Formulate Root Definitions
Build Conceptual Models; Compare Models with Real-world Action
Define Possible Changes; Take Action to Improve the Problem Situation

(1979)

Mason & Mitroff
(1981)
Ulrich
(1983)
Warfield
(1980)
Linstone
(1984)

Strategy Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST)
Adversarial, Participative, Integrative, Managerial Mind Supporting
Group Formation; Assumption Surfacing; Dialectical Debate; Synthesis
Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH)
Dialectical Solution on What ought to be done
12 Critically Heuristic Categories; Polemical Employment of Boundary Judgments
Interactive Management
Science of Generic Design underpinned by the Law of Universal Priors (for situational and cognitive complexity)
The Planning Phase; The Workshop Phase; and The Follow-up Phase Total Systems
Technical, Organizational and Personal Perspectives (TOP) Dialectical Solution on What Multiple
Perspectives
Technical perspective (scientific and technological)
Organizational perspectives (unique group or institutional view)
Personal perspectives (individual, the self view)

Source: Fay Sudweeks – Systems Theory and Methodologies

Summary

60

In this session we looked at SSM:
Suitable for messy situations
Strong “learning cycle” thrust
Emphasis on “weltanshaaung”

We contrasted SSM briefly with hard systems approaches.

30

4/4/2016

Next Lecture

61

We commence our study of “System Dynamics”.

Group Formation

31

4/4/2016

Requirements

63

Group size – minimum 4 to maximum 5 people
Form your group
Collect a group number form from lecturer
Fill out the group member details in both sections of the form
Tear off the bottom half and return to lecturer. Remember your group number.
Log on UTSOnline, go to Groups Folder and click on your group number to enroll in your group online.

32