Soft systems methodology


Soft systems methodology is an approach to organizational process modelling 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 Lancaster University Systems Department through a ten-year action research program.

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 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 with 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.

Representation evolution

SSM had a gradual development process of the methodology as a whole from 1972 to 1990. During this period of time, four different representations of SSM were designed, becoming more sophisticated and at the same time less structured and broader in scope.

Blocks and arrows (1972)

In the first studies of what became SSM, the methodology is presented as a sequence of stages with iteration back to previous stages. The sequence was: analysis; root definition of relevant systems; conceptualization; comparison and definition of changes; selection of change to implement; design of change and implementation; appraisal.

Seven stages (1981)

In the first book written about SSM, the methodology is presented as a cluster of seven activities in a circular learning process called the seven-stage model. The seven stages are:
  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. Compare models with real-world situations
  6. Define possible changes which are both possible and feasible
  7. Take action to improve the problem situation

    Two streams (1988)

The two-stream model of SSM recognizes the crucially important role of history in human affairs. This expression of SSM is presented as an approach embodying not only a logic-based stream of analysis but also a cultural and political stream which enable judgements to be made about the accommodations between conflicting interests which might be reachable by the people concerned and which would enable action to be taken.

Four main activities (1990)

The four-activities model is iconic rather than descriptive and subsumes the cultural stream of analysis in the four activities. The four activities are:
  1. Finding out about a problem situation, including culturally/politically
  2. Formulating some relevant purposeful activity models
  3. Debating the situation, using the models, seeking from that debate both:
  4. * changes which would improve the situation and are regarded as both desirable and feasible, and
  5. * the accommodations between conflicting interests which will enable action
  6. Taking action in the situation to bring about improvement

    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 required analyzing.
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:
A human activity system can be defined as "notional system where human beings are undertaking some activities that achieve some purpose".

Books