Smyth and Checkland's "soft systems methodology" is a response to difficulty in applying the approach approaches of hard systems thinking (e.g. physics and engineering) to business (human activity system) problems. Hard systems engineering tends to emphasise:

• measurables and objective criteria
• the isolation and control over variables
• top down decomposition of systems into sub-systems.

"Hard" science analysis may reveal systems with unexpected behaviour and complex feedback between components but such methods when applied to "human systems" encounter problems.

• Organisation goals may be politicised, fuzzy or even disputed. We can hardly assume that all organisational members accept the unitary views and goals of top management.
• Formal methods usually begin with a problem statement but - fixing the problem too early where people are concerned tends to conceal problems.
• The research method itself may limit the "things that will be elicited". Conclusions will reflect methods and starting positions. They are clearly affected by human perception and commitments.

Checkland's SSM approach is his distillation of experience accrued from many projects where typically in a consulting capacity he and colleagues have been involved in advising on high level problems (e.g. company market development, reaping the benefits of information technology).

Adopting an SSM approach involves recognition that the process of analysis (human interaction) is as important as precision in the data and outcomes. Following and experiencing an SSM approach will itself affect change. The participants change, the organisation may change. This arises because of the very process of exploring views about the problem and possible solutions. (SSM may frustrate directive, task-oriented people as it may be that specific goals are never reached!)

In principle, an SSM project is managed by participants with a consultant-facilitator. It covers:

1. examination of the problem situation
2. analysis of the ingredients (using a rich picture method)
3. coming to a root definition of significant facets of the system of interest
4. conceptualisation and modelling
5. comparison of concept/ideal to actual
6. definition and selection of options
7. design of action programme
8. implementation

Problem Expression

keep the project vague and wide for as long as possible - don't jump to conclusions nor assume or ignore the current situation e.g. by concentrating on idealised futures.

The analysis may involve the use of many techniques such as checklists of things to look for, question sets, models and frameworks of examination. It is important not to become fixed on the use of one technique or analytical approach only. Typically brainstorming techniques, SWOT, STEEPLE and force-field analysis may be used.

CATWOE Analysis - towards a "Rich-picture"

• Clients - (those who more or less directly benefit or suffer e.g. customers) from the machinations of the...
• Actors - the players (individuals, groups, institutions and agencies), who perform the scenes, read and interpret the script, regulate, push and improvise. Identify and examine the role of local and institutional actors .... who undertake the.....
• Transformations .... what processes, movements, conversions of X take place? What is the nature of the production and service transformations? What is the content and processes involved from ingredients to a sandwich, from mixed, varied data to information, from an idea to a performance concept or marketable product etc? What are the transformations that generate a product or a service? How are they achieved? How well are they performing?
• Weltanschauung or world-view .... what is going on in the wider world that is influencing and shaping the "situation" and need for the system to adapt?
• Owners - the activity is ultimately "controlled" or paid for by owners or trustees. Who are they and what are their imperatives? How do they exercise their ownership power? Are their other stakeholders - who claim a stake and a right to be involved i.e. as legitimate quasi-owners. Ownership and the human activity occurs within an
• Environment - the trends, events and demands of the political, legal, economic, social, demographic, technological, ethical, competitive, natural environments provide the context for the situation and specific problem arena. We need to understand these.

NB: Actors, clients, owners etc may overlap.

CATWOE analysis helps in working out a "root definition" and expressing the domain of the problem. Avoid early conclusions about who and what is "important".

Transformation Example

• (transformation) the incoming aircraft approaches from a height and a distance. The goal is safe landing on the runway.
• The actors are the pilots (human and auto), the clients - the passengers, crew, air traffic controllers, ground staff and people living under the runway,
• the owners include the airline owners and their agents (the managers)
• the environment: air lanes, traffic conditions and geographic features, regulation of landing and take-off slots at the airport, competition from other airports.
• The weltanschauung may involve the rise in passenger traffic, competition between international airports, the airport-housing environment, high concern for safety and high technology operations.

Rich Picture Diagrams

• the people involved
• the purposes they state
• their desires and fears (use think balloons).
• symbols to express environmental detail (activities, similar and contentious processes, relationships (push-pull) and transactions across organisational boundaries).
• how and where interests agree or conflict.

Rich pictures are cartoons - funny, sad, political, ... and all at once. The pictures of course are generated by the analysts and hence are selective, representative of their perceptions .... and questions.... and areas of uncertainty.

The Process View

SSM targets existing systems. The focus is on investigation and definition of the existing features of the organisational and how these interact externally and internally with the system as a whole (hence "holism") and sub-processes. Consider too the situational and organisational "climate" (efficient, tense, wet, cold, hot, neurotic, sloppy, democratic, sulky, joyous ...).

After problem examination and definition, SSM participants "should" be able to "see" the organisation

• differently and more fully
• differentiate levels and sub-problems of the whole.
• They will have researched "facts", positions and viewpoints at varying levels of detail
• They will have articulated many "problem" statements, some major and some trivial.
• They will have debated the evaluated assumptions about the trivial and the major

Root Definition

A root definition defines both what is agreed and what is still unresolved plus associated things.

Conceptual Modelling

• the wild and fanciful
• defining the musts and the desirables
• evaluating and choosing
• agreeing criteria for choosing & deciding. A "best" model may be proposed and the criteria maybe implicit .... but be clear about what the criteria are and what has been systematically left out of the formula!

Five Es for Decision Criteria

• efficacy (will it work at all?)
• efficiency (will it work with minimum resources?)
• effectiveness (does it contribute to the enterprise?)
• ethics (is it sound morally?)
• elegance (is it beautiful?)

Originally the approach was fairly formal - SSM was first presented as a regular, prescriptive, staged, logical model. But today a softer, looser, more flexible process approach with fewer steps is suggested. The loose "process of engagement model" recognises the importance of related management and support activities. Root definitions, rich pictures and "idealised" solutions need to be in sufficient detail to enable practicalities and implementation issues to be evaluated. Resource demands and performance measures need to be articulated. However a complete specification unlikely as the "ideal" is unlikely to be fully implemented - as it stands. Identifying implementation steps is the next phase.

Compare the Concept with the Current

The current system exists. It does something. The adage "if it works, don't change it" may string to mind but.... questions now arise

• why aren't we doing it the "ideal" way?
• what reasons explain our current practice and behaviour?
• how do we, at present, measure up to the ideal given the criteria of efficiency, effectiveness, ethics and elegance and group/political opinion?

Agree on Changes

• retrace our footsteps and go over our synthesis
• reevaluate the insight gained from each stage
• examine how proposals may affect and be received by stakeholders.
• in what way will changes for which there is no consensus/agreement result in problems?

The outcome is that there is some agreement - permission to move.

Action/Implementation

The final outcome will not completely match the planned change. It will be interesting to see how close they are.

Does an SSM project ever finish .... it doesn't need to as it embodies learning - the human learning and adaptation philosophy. There may be convergence. Issues debated early on may dissipate. Implementation discussions may focus more on participant confidence, ability and understanding of the enterprise.

Criticisms of SSM

• It is not a "how to build a system guidebook". It is heuristic not algorithmic.
• There is no real method. But then many other, more prescriptive "methodologies" don't work. SSM does encourage commitment and it provides a forum to bring diverse interests together.
• The open endedness makes it difficult to manage. An SSM project is unlikely to be a complete success or a failure but it should reflect a natural, evolutionary approach.
• SSM can too easily ignore environmental and structural determinants and questions of power. Organisational members do not have equal choice and it is naive to think that everyone can openly discuss problems, perceptions and needs. Yet open, willing and supported discussion is more likely to open up organisation culture - encouraging learning and joint problem solving.
• Openness and togetherness are implicit and explicit values of SSM .... not easy values in a confused, conflict and contradiction-oriented or power-centred organisation.

Further Links on SSM

• http://www.sfc.keio.ac.jp/~masanao/Mosaic_data/ssm.html
• Resource papers in Action Research - Bob Dick and Pam Swepson
• Dr. Quan C. Dang: Modelling Business through Soft Systems Methodology
• Softs Systems Methodology in the World Wide Web
• Google search on "soft systems methodology"

Reading

• Smyth, D.S., Checkland, P.B. (1976). Using a Systems Approach: The Structure of Root
  Definitions. J. Appl. Sys. Anal. 1:75-83. (see www.isss.org/2000meet/papers/20088.pdf)
• Soft systems methodology in action / Peter Checkland, Jim Scholes.
• Systems thinking, systems practice / Peter Checkland.
• Checkland P, Howell S, 1998, Information, systems and information systems : making sense of the field, Wiley
• Patching D, 1990, Practical soft systems analysis, Pitman