Soft systems methodology

Soft systems methodology (SSM) is an approach to organizational process modeling (business process modeling) and it can be used both for general problem solving and in the management of change. It was developed in England by academics at the University of Lancaster Systems Department through a ten year action research program.[1]

Overview

The methodology was developed from earlier systems engineering approaches, primarily by Peter Checkland and colleagues such as Brian Wilson. The primary use of SSM is in the analysis of complex situations where there are divergent views about the definition of the problem. These situations are "soft problems" such as: How to improve health services delivery? How to manage disaster planning? When should mentally disordered offenders be diverted from custody? What to do about homelessness amongst young people?

In such situations even the actual problem to be addressed may not be easy to agree upon. To intervene in such situations the soft systems approach uses the notion of a "system" as an interrogative device that will enable debate amongst concerned parties. In its 'classic' form the methodology consists of seven steps, with initial appreciation of the problem situation leading to the modelling of several human activity systems that might be thought relevant to the problem situation. By discussions and exploration of these, the decision makers will arrive at accommodations (or, exceptionally, at consensus) over what kind of changes may be systemically desirable and feasible in the situation. Later explanations of the ideas give a more sophisticated view of this systemic method, and give more attention to locating the methodology in respect to its philosophical underpinnings. It is the earlier classical view which is most widely used in practice.

There are several hundred documented examples of the successful use of SSM in many different fields, ranging from ecology, to business and military logistics. It has been adopted by many organizations and incorporated into other approaches: in the 1990s for example it was the recommended planning tool for the UK government's SSADM system development methodology.

The general applicability of the approach has led to some criticisms that it is functionalist, non-emancipatory or supports the status quo and existing power structures; this is a claim that users would deny, arguing that the methodology itself can be none of these, it is the user of the methodology that may choose to employ it in such a way.

The methodology has been described in several books and many academic articles.

SSM remains the most widely used and practical application of systems thinking, and other systems approaches such as critical systems thinking have incorporated many of its ideas.

The 7-stage description

7-stage representation of SSM:

  1. Enter situation considered problematical
  2. Express the problem situation
  3. Formulate root definitions of relevant systems of purposeful activity
  4. Build conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions
  5. Comparing models with real world situations
  6. Define possible changes which are both possible and feasible
  7. Take action to improve the problem situation

CATWOE

In 1975, David Smyth, a researcher in Checkland's department, observed that SSM was most successful when the Root Definition included certain elements. These elements, captured in the mnemonic CATWOE, identified the people, processes and environment that contribute to a situation, issue, or problem that you need to analyze.

This is used to prompt thinking about what the business is trying to achieve. Business Perspectives help the Business Analyst to consider the impact of any proposed solution on the people involved. There are six elements of CATWOE[2]

Customers - Who are the beneficiaries of the highest level business process and how does the issue affect them?
Actors - Who is involved in the situation, who will be involved in implementing solutions and what will impact their success?
Transformation Process - What is the transformation that lies at the heart of the system - transforming grapes into wine, transforming unsold goods into sold goods, transforming a societal need into a societal need met?
Weltanschauung - What is the big picture and what are the wider impacts of the issue?
Owner - Who owns the process or situation being investigated and what role will they play in the solution?
Environmental Constraints - What are the constraints and limitations that will impact the solution and its success?

Human activity system

A human activity system can be defined as 'notional system (i.e. not existing in any tangible form) where human beings are undertaking some activities that achieve some purpose' (Patching, 1990).[3]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Checkland, P.B. (2001) Soft Systems Methodology, in J. Rosenhead and J. Mingers (eds), Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Chichester: Wiley
  2. ↑ "Business Open Learning Archive". Chris Jarvis for the BOLA Project. Retrieved 2009-04-09.
  3. ↑ Patching, D. (1990) Practical soft systems analysis, Pitman

Further reading

Books

Articles

Criticism

External links

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the 8/11/2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.