Soft Systems Methodology

Problem Solving Using Soft
Systems Methodology
CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 1

Outline
• Systems thinking
• Hard systems
• Soft systems methodology
• The framework for SSM
• Problem solving with SSM
• Conclusion
• Review question
Systems Thinking
Aristotle argued that the sum is more than its
parts but Aristotle’s teleological view of the
world was overthrown in the 17th century.
The general model of organised complexity is
that there exists a hierarchy of levels of
organisation, each one more complex than
the one below, a level being characterised by
emergent properties which do not exist at the
lower level.

Some Systems Ideas
Hierarchies of parts and wholes
The parts are connected
The whole is greater than the sum of
the parts

Five classes of system
Natural Systems
(Origin: the origin of the
universe and the processes
of evolution)
includes man, who can create
Designed Physical Designed Abstract

Systems Systems
(Origin: a man and a (Origin: a man and a
purpose) purpose)
Human Activity
Systems
(Origin: man's self
consciousness)
Transcendental systems:
beyond knowledge

Hard Systems Thinking
Hard systems thinking comprises of
 systems engineering
 and systems analysis
characterised by the belief that that there is a

desired state, a present state and different
ways of getting from one to the other.
This explains why at the start of a ‘systems’
study it is necessary to define the need, the
aim to be achieved.
Hard Systems Thinking
Hard systems thinking has
successfully introduced a systematic
approach to decision-making in which
the problem is to select from a among
a number of alternatives an efficient
means of achieving an end we know
we wish to achieve.

Hard systems thinking
The world is made up of systems
We can use formal notations to
describe them
We can use rational analysis to
understand them
We identify problems in the systems
and write programs to solve them

Limitations of Hard Systems Thinking
Assumes consensus
Ignores un-quantifiable variables (e.g.
politics, aesthetics, culture)
Treats people as passive objects
Assumes decision makers have the
power to implement solutions

Soft Systems Methodology

Background
The development of organizational systems is
characterized by having both “hard” and "soft"
aspects.
The hard aspects typically deal with hardware
And software systems, while the soft aspects
deal with organizational, political, and cultural
systems - the issues.

Background ..cont
The development of organizational systems is
characterized by having both “hard” and "soft"
aspects. The hard aspects typically deal with
hardware and software systems, while the soft
aspects deal with organizational, political, and
Cultural systems - the issues. Much has been
written about how to address the hard aspect of
designing organizational systems, the soft or
human aspect has received little attention.

Background ..cont
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) was first
introduced by Peter Checkland of Lancaster
University in his book Systems Thinking,
Systems Practice (Checkland, 1981). It is a
methodology for analyzing and modeling hard to
define and complex systems that integrate both a
technology (or hard) system and a human (soft)
system.

Background ..cont
The soft system is defined by Checkland as a
Human Activity System (HAS) and is posited to
be different from natural systems or designed
systems due to the introduction of the subjectivity
of human desires and objectives into the HAS.

Background ..cont
A HAS is defined as a collection of activities in
which people are purposefully engaged, and the
relationships between these activities. Checkland
proposes that the same methods used for
engineering technology may not work as well for
the more unpredictable and complex human side
of the system.

Background ..cont
SSM addresses fuzzy problems with
unclear and multiple objectives and several
different perceptions of the problem.
SSM recognizes that different individuals
will have different perceptions of the
situation and different preferable outcomes.

Background ..cont
It recognizes these differences and explicitly
attempts to take these into account from the
outset to ensure that the results of the
analysis are acceptable to all parties
concerned.
SSM does not attempt to define a single right
method of action but, through an iterative
process, defines an acceptable improved
path of action.

Background ..cont
People who are involved in the methodology
include not only actors within the designated
system, but also clients and owners of the
system.
Because of these characteristics, it is
proposed that SSM can be seen as a
valuable framework for participative design
activities.

Background ..cont
SSM started as a research programme aim at
developing ways in which system ideas could
be used to tackle ill-structured problem.
The programme assumed that the concept of
a human activity system would be relevant to
such problems.

Background ..cont
A successful outcome would be one where
the people concerned felt that the problem
has been solved, or that the problem situation
had been improved or that insights had been
gained.
Took into account a hard system method
which starts from an organisational definition
of a system as a complex grouping of human
beings and machines for which there is an
overall objective.

Background ..cont
The procedure then is to select that system,
the engineering of which will solve the
problem whose existence, perceived by the
manger, initiates the activity.
The system is placed in a systems hierarchy,
objectives and measures of performance are
defined, and the chosen system is design,
implemented and reappraised in operation.

Problem solving with SSM
Consider these two problems for a
business:
• We need to handle 20,000 customer
orders per day, entering our system from
800 terminals based around the country.
• Our customer complaints are increasing,
and our customer retention is
decreasing
What is the CSC
difference between
2202 Systems Analysis and Design the two?
22
The first is specific, with clear boundaries
and parameters. Possible solutions are
implicit in the problem. The problem could
be passed to a designer who could
propose and implement a solution. The
second is much less clear. It describes a
problem with weak boundaries and an
unclear cause. In fact, it is not describing
a problem, so much as two symptoms.
Until the symptoms are explored
further, it is not possible to say what
the problem is, let alone propose a
solution.
The first example is a hard
problem, the second is a soft
problem.

Traditional systems analysis is based
on hard problems. These problems
have a clear boundary and involve
tangible factors such as staff,
documents, procedures, equipment,
and structure. Its purpose is to propose
and design a solution for a
predetermined problem.
Many business situations are less
clear-cut, making a hard approach less
appropriate. Peter Checkland
developed Soft Systems Methodology
recognizing that many problems in
organizations are affected by less
tangible factors. These include culture,
informal interactions, and attitudes –
which he terms the ‘Human Activity
System’.
SSM’s purpose is to investigate,
understand and identify a problem.
Its investigation may reveal a number of
problems to address rather than
presuppose a single root cause of
difficulties.

Checkland’s definition of problem is:
 “ A problem relating to a real-world manifestation
of a human activity system is a condition
characterised by a sense of mismatch, which
eludes precise definition, between what is
perceived to be actuality and which is perceived
might become actuality”.
Problems were perceived as condition to be
alleviated rather than problem to be solved.

SSM
Soft Systems Methodology is based on
systems thinking. It views the problem
domain in a holistic rather than reductionist
way, recognizing that the component parts
are interconnected, so that a change to one
part will affect the other parts. Not only this,
but the problem domain itself is a subsystem
of several larger systems – changes in one
will affect our domain as well.

SSM
Although Checkland coined the term Soft
Systems Methodology, it is not strictly a
methodology. It does not prescribe a rigid
series of steps that must be followed
scrupulously.
Rather, it suggests a framework for enquiry,
with a number of recommended techniques.
The end result is an understanding of the
problem domain so that a hard study can then
be applied to specify a solution.

Problems and problem-solving
Structured problems can be explicitly stated
in a language that implies that a theory
concerning their solution is available.
Hard systems thinking are most concerned
with structured problems
Unstructured problems are manifest in a
feeling of unease but which cannot be
explicitly stated without this appearing to
oversimplify the situation.

Soft Systems Thinking
The world is made up of people doing things
Everyone has their own interpretations of the
world
One way of negotiating our understandings of
the world is to call some part of it a ‘system’
Then we can use rational analysis to learn
about it
If we can learn about it we can use computers
to help people do things better
Limitations of Soft Systems
Thinking
Lack of scientific rigour
Assumes consensus can be achieved
Participative process favours the
powerful
Leaning outcomes too ambiguous to
serve as designs for programs

SSM is not to taken as a method with fixed
step or a technique but rather a set of
principles to be applied.
The activity numbers show a reasonable
chronological sequence for describing each
of the activities but this sequence doesn’t
have to be followed when applying the
methodology.
Experience shows that studies can start with
conceptual modelling. In theory they can
start anywhere.
Back tracking and iteration are essential
activities so the steps should be viewed
as a framework rather than a recipe.
The difference between the real world
activities and the systems thinking ones
is the the former necessarily involves
people in the problem situation being
studied.
Addresses ill-structured situations.
Requires abstract/conceptual thinking on
the part of the user.
Suitable for what type problems (analysis)
rather than how type problems (design).
Requires a high degree of political and
interpersonal skills from the user.

Framework for Soft Systems
The framework is illustrated next has two
strands, separated by a line.
The top strand represents the ‘real world’,
where the analyst moves, observes, and
interviews the people working there.
Below the line is the ‘systems thinking’, where
both connections and interpretations are made
of the problem situation.

Soft System Methodology-
framework
6.
1. 7. Feasible, desirable
The problem situation: Action to improve changes
unstructured problem situation ---------
---------
---------
2. 5.
The problem situation: Comparison of 4
expressed with 2
Real world
Systems thinking
4.
Conceptual Models
3.
Root definitions of
relevant systems 4a
4b
Formal system
Other systems
concept
thinking

 SSM is a seven-stage methodology or
Framework, though this view is actually
challenged later by other authors, who
believe this to be too simplistic a view of a
real world method.
 However, for this course, and in all the
practical situations in which it has been
used, the seven stages through which
SSM is applied are described as follows :

Stage 1 : Problem Situation
(Unstructured)
The problem situation: this is the
status quo before the study, and at the
start of the study. During this time, the
analyst (or problem-solver) becomes
part of the problem situation in order
to observe it as fully as possible,
remembering that his/her presence
there will have its own impact.

(Unstructured)
Note :
The Systems Analyst is not an expert of a
particular information systems or problem
types. Instead he/she acts as a facilitator.
The Client is the person who causes the
study to happen.
The Problem Solver is the person who
hopes to do something about the situation
which is perceived to be problematical.

Stage 1 : Problem Situation(Unstructured)
 The Problem Owner could be one or
several people. By considering each
stakeholder in turn very different
perspectives can be generated.
The Problem! Instead of trying to find
the problem, the inquiry is directed to

investigating the situations in which
problems are perceived.

Stage 2 : Problem Situation Expressed.
Having studied as much of the problem
situation as is feasible, the analyst
expresses in diagrammatic form what
S/he understands is happening. This will
include aspects of the Human Activity
System (HAS).

Expressed.
Checkland recommends a rich picture to
achieve this. However, techniques from
hard systems such as data flow diagrams
or object models are not sufficiently
versatile or ‘rich’.

Rich Picture – What is it ?
A rich picture is a representation of the
problem situation, typically presented in
the form of an abstract drawing, which
describes aspects of the system that are
relevant to the problem definition.

Rich Picture – Purpose?
Rich pictures are a means of capturing
as much information as possible relating
to the problem situation.
A rich picture can show boundaries,

structure, information flows, and
communication channels.

But mostly it shows the human Activity
System. This is the element that is not
included in such models as data flow
diagrams or class models.
The rich picture identifies a number of

participants and stakeholders in the
system

To get as full a view as possible of the factors
involved in the problem situation, and
especially the elements relating to politics,
attitudes and emotions.
It may be used just by the analyst to enhance
understanding,
It may be shown to the manager of the
department to communicate the analyst’s
findings.
It is an easy to follow, non-technical
description of the problem area.
Rich pictures could also be drawn by
groups of actors to explore their own
interpretations of workplace issues.

Rich Picture -scenario 1
Imagine the following scenario in an IT
department: users ask IT Support for help with
their software, the technical support engineer
enters the details on their log, and then fixes it.
Because they are appraised by how quickly
they can sign the problem off on their log, rather
than by user satisfaction, many forget to let the
users know that the problem has been resolved.
This leads to dissatisfaction.
Rich Picture – scenario 1
The following Figure is a simple rich
picture illustrating a scenario based on a
real situation in a large company where
relations between business and IT were
badly strained for many reasons.

Rich
Picture

This picture shows the interactions between the
user and the technician, including the emotional
content of the communication. The crossed
Swords symbol on the line from User, Friday, is a
common symbol to denote a conflict. The
appraisal medium is shown by the manager being
represented as a large eye studying the log.
Again, this is a common symbol to show that
monitoring action is taking place
Other elements visible on the picture
are the communication flows, the
documentation that is maintained and
the (implicit) boundary.
There is no standard notation for rich
pictures, but there are some commonly
used symbols such as those shown in
the Figure above.

Rich Picture – Common
elements
Elements commonly shown include:
Communication flows
Documents maintained
Actors in the process
Monitoring activities (the eyeball)
Emotions such as frustration or pleasure,
conflict/harmony between co-workers,
barriers to communication
General attitudes of the actors involved.

Rich Picture
It is this mix of the formal and informal
views of the problem area that gives the
Pictures their richness.

Rich Picture - Scenario 2
The rich picture below was drawn by a
first year student at the end of the
foundation unit in Information Systems
I to help her understand the various
elements of the unit and how she made
sense of it to achieve her goals.


The rich picture can have :
an IN (or input), and an area filled with
relevant pictures of important areas,
an ON GOING (or output),
a WASTE (or wastage from the system)
and REFLECTIONS (or feedback to the
system).

This student sees that she entered the course
as a small bird and went on from the course as
a powerful eagle.
The learning journal provided a form of
feedback in the unit and stress was the waste in
the system.
The icons in the rich picture are metaphors used
for creating rapport and for communicating the
nature of shared and unshared experiences

Rich
Picture -
Scenario 3
Patching’s
rich picture
of a PUB s
a problem
situation
Patching, D.
(1990).
Practical Soft
Systems
Analysis
Building Rich Pictures :
 Use any form or imagery .Construct parts,
actors, issues, concerns.
 Do not use systems or represent situations
in terms of systems.
 Represent all elements considered to be
relevant.
 N.B. Although the ideal may be to avoid
systems thinking at this stage, the

pragmatic need to establish boundaries
may be met!

Rich Picture
Rich pictures should show the following

aspects of the problem situation:
Structure - formal organisation, physical
aspects etc.
Processes - tasks and activities
How structure and process interact
Hard and soft aspects - facts and opinions
Social roles - formal and informal; conflict
Climate and context - environment
The role of the analyst / facilitator
 Structure :
 those parts of the system that change slowly over
time and are relatively stable.
 Process :
 things that are in a state of change, such as
activities within a structure (i.e. order processing).
 Climate :
 in which structures and processes interact. This has
changed as a result of previous interaction and
thereby influences its own development (i.e.
business conditions, cultural aspects.).

 Extracting from Rich Pictures :

 Primary Tasks : which the organisation was created
to perform, or the tasks which an enterprise needs
to perform in order to survive.
 Issues : topics or matters of concern, those
subjects which are open to debate or dispute (i.e.

require justification).
 This particular stage of the method can be
iterated through on a number of occasions, at
a number of levels, using the rich pictures
generated from the first iteration to further
clarify and identify issues within the situation
of concern.
Susan's story
"I have given up a section of my life for the last 12 weeks
to Systems Analysis and design. I have given my
time, energy, frustrations, tears and laughter, a minute
fraction of my life's travel and I have been rewarded
twenty fold. Regardless of the mark on a piece of
paper at the conclusion of this unit, I have passed. I
have gained knowledge and confidence in the area of
computers. When I look back I was panicked in the
early part of the course, not in the lectures, but in the
unfamiliar areas of word processing, setting up files,
all the everyday things I employ others to do.

Susan's story -
continued
…..I had a string of adventures, and I have
become friendly with the systems
maintenance people at the Faculty. I wish to
heap accolades on these people, and
suggest if all students had some real
interaction with them the knowledge would
flow, and the campus would be a much
friendlier place to work and study in. I no
longer inwardly panic, I take pride in getting
into a mess and fighting my way out, and if
there are people to help me along the way,
how much richer is the experience."
Susan's story -
continued
N.B. A mature age student working as the head
of an accounting section, Susan is a hard-
working person with a very positive view of
life. She took up the challenge of university
study balancing this with a rich family and
community life in addition to her responsible
career position. As she commented in an
interview: "I have come from a stage of panic
to non-panic - this is a big step for me. I am
not really competent yet but non-panic is a
real gain. I'm not panicked by computing and
computers anymore."
Susan's story -
continued
…………In this quote and the quote above,
note the metaphors of "stage of panic to non-
panic"; "a big step"; "a minute fraction of my
life's travel"; "a string of adventures"; "heap
accolades"; "I take pride in getting in a mess
and fighting my way out"; and "knowledge
would flow".
Create a rich picture for Susan at the end
of the unit.

Stage 3 - Root definitions
Root definitions of relevant systems:
The rich picture identifies a number of
participants and stakeholders in the system.
Root definitions are a way of deriving their
individual perspectives on a problem
situation: what is their underlying belief
about its purpose?
A root definition is derived for each actor or
stakeholder. If there are 11 identified in the
rich picture, there will be 11 root definitions
derived.
Stage 3 - Root definitions (cont)
Each stakeholder may have a different
underlying perspective about why the
organization does what it does, or what its
priorities should be.
For example, in a British hospital trust, a
doctor or nurse may see their priority as
curing patients, or at least making them as
comfortable as possible. The hospital
administrator, however, may see the priority
as offering value-for-money and minimizing
operational costs.
Stage 3 - Root
definitions(cont)
These two perspectives are potentially in
conflict, but both are valid for their respective
holders.
The analyst needs to be able to recognize and
accommodate both.
A root definition is expressed in a short
sentence. This gives the sentence a rich focus
of expression.
Checkland argues that it should contain a
number of elements, to which he gives the
mnemonic CATWOE. This stands for:
CATWOE Analysis for
RD
A root definition must convey :
C - Customer/Clients
A - Actors
T - Transformations
W - Worldview
(Weltanschauung)
O - Owners
E - Environmental
Constraint(s)

CATWOE analysis
components
Customers - those who benefit from, or
are affected by the outputs from the
system
Actors - those who carry out the
activities in the system that effect the
transformation
Transformation - the transformation of
inputs to outputs carried out by the
system
CATWOE analysis
components
Worldview (Weltanschauung) - how
the system is perceived from a specific
viewpoint - the assumptions that are
made about it
Owners - those who cause the system
to exist
Environment - the world that surrounds
and influences, but over which the
system has no control
CATWOE Analysis for RD
 The elements of CATWOE emphasize the
need
to examine the problem from a number of
viewpoints.
 The Root Definition and CATWOE provide
the
analyst with a framework for ensuring that
all points of view and interest are
considered in the
requirements elicitation.
Root definitions - Example
 It must be meaningful and useful to the
situation of concern. For example :
 If we consider the church in the context of some
problem situation. We might, on the basis of
extracted evidence, interpret its purpose to be :
P1 - A ritual preserving system.
P2 - A non-accountable fund-raising
system.
P3 - A system for preserving moral and
spiritual values in the community.
P4 - A system for providing support in the
face of unanswerable questions.

Root definitions - Example
 These of course need considerable

elaboration before they can qualify as root
definitions. Some of them may sound
outrageous, but it is important to note that
at this stage their acceptability should not
be considered.
 Each root definition would have to display
relevance to the situation of concern. The

church may, in fact, be none of, yet all of,
these things.

Root definitions.
The selected and considered root

definition will have a direct and
considerable effect on the :
- Nature
- Type
- and Characteristics
of the Information System to be
developed.

Root definitions template
A [O] owned system which under the
following environmental constraints which it
takes as given [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].
Example of root
definitions
Let’s take Patching’s example of “The
Pub as a System”
The Pub has been losing customers
and money - but nobody knows why
A rich picture shows different viewpoints
about The Pub - that of the customers,
the community, the brewery, the
landlord, the employees, the police .
Patching’s rich
picture of a PUB
as a problem
situation
Patching, D. (1990).
Practical Soft Systems
Analysis
Customer root definition
C - The casual and regular visitors to The Pub
A - The employees, visiting entertainers,
customers
T - Customer needs (for socialising and reasonably
priced drinks) identified and satisfied
W -A pub is a place to have an affordable night out
and socialise with friends
O - The public
E - Legal restrictions, fashions in drinks and
entertainment, the local community etc.
Customer root definition
A system owned by the public, and
operated by the employees, visiting
entertainers and customers of the
public house, that identifies and
satisfies the needs of customers for
affordable drinks and entertainment, in
an environment that influences
customers socialising and drinking
preferences, constrained by legal
requirements and local opinion effecting
the provision of pub facilities.
CATWOE – IT help example.
USER IT SUPPORT
C- End users C - The business
A - IT support staff A - IT support staff
T- Look after my system T - Respond to calls
W - My system must W - We can correct any
always be available fault quickly
O - IT manager O - IT manager
E - My clients need me to E - Appraisal criteria,
provide immediate relations between
information and business and IT, IT
response - a very workload
competitive marketplace

In this example, the CATWOE are not
mutually exclusive, but they do show the
different perspectives of the two actors, and
their priorities in the situation. The
environment factor of IT support, appraisal
criteria, together with weltanschauung,
indicates the nature of the disagreement
between the two. This was one of the sources
of the bad relations between the two sides in
real life.

The CATWOE elements for a
stakeholder can then be combined to
form a simple one or two sentence
statement. In the case of the user, it
might read as:

‘IT support staff are responsible, under the
direction and approval of the IT manager, for
looking after the end-users’ computer
systems, because I (and the other end-users)
need the computer system to be available in
order to do our job. This is a competitive
environment, if I can not answer the queries
swiftly, we will lose business.’

CATWOE
While the root definition is an important
statement that stakeholders can understand,
the important part of the analyst’s task is
eliciting the CATWOE elements from each
individual. Compiling CATWOE and the root
definition are the first stage in the systems
thinking strand, and in understanding the
Human Activity System

Stage 4 - Conceptual model:
The root definitions represent an individual’s
perspective of what the business/system is
trying to achieve.
The next stage, also in the systems thinking
strand, is to propose an ideal view of the
activities that should be followed in order to
realize that perspective.
At the initial drawing, there should not be too
many activities shown, somewhere between
five and 10 is sufficient. Each activity could be
decomposed in more detail later.
Stage 4 - Conceptual model:
This is an ideal schematic for each
actor/stakeholder.
• If one stakeholder has a particular
perspective, then there must be, in principle,
a set of activities to be performed that will
meet the perspective.
• The conceptual model is a simple diagram
that represents the activities. There will be
one conceptual model drawn for each root
definition.
Conceptual model:
The conceptual model has a very simple
notation – the activity itself is shown as a
bubble, with the activity named (use an
imperative verb to denote the activity) and a
line that links it with the other activities.
Take the following root definition for a retail
outlet: ‘A store where buyers and sales staff
ensure that customers have only the latest
fashions available at all times.’ The Figure
shows what the conceptual model for this root
definition might be:
Figure for the
Conceptual
Model

Conceptual model:
The conceptual model identifies what
the System needs to accomplish
including its activities and their interactions.
These activities describe what has to
happen for the system to meet the goals
and aims defined in the root definition.

Conceptual model:
 Once the models have been created,
further resolutions of detail will help to
drive the possible hows for what is
being done.
 Check the root definitions and the
conceptual models map. Together they
form a mutually informing pair of
statements :
 What the system does.
 How the system does it.

Stages 5 & 6 : Comparison & Identification of
Desirable and Feasible Changes
Comparison of 2 and 4:
This returns us to the ‘real world’. The ideal
view in the conceptual model is compared
with the activities actually in place, and any
mismatch identified as a ‘problem’ rather
than the symptom. Checkland does not
prescribe any one technique for making this
comparison; that is left to the analyst.

In Stage 5, the conceptual model is compared
with the real world system to highlight possible
areas where changes are necessary. This
conceptual model will identify where problems
or deficiencies exist between what is happening
(the 'rich' picture) and what is desirable (the
'root definition') as defined by the models.

In Stage 6, changes to address the gaps
Between the conceptual model and the real
world identified in Stage 5 are introduced and
evaluated for feasibility. These alterations
may include changing the way certain
activities are completed, or could result in
the identification of activities not currently
Achieved in the real world

(Consider the output of Stages 3 & 4 with

expression of Stage 2).
 This is one of the most important stages
of the methodology. At this stage the
intellectual ideas have to be reconciled
with the real or action world ideas.
 This stage may generate desirable and
feasible changes for Stage 7 or require
the reiteration of Stages 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6.

Problems encountered at this stage should not be
underestimated, which is why political and
interpersonal skills on the part of the user are
important. It is at this stage that the negotiations
between the problem solver and the problem owners will
take place, also as part of the iterative nature of the
methodology. The purpose of these is to create the
Climate for change, to allow the desirable and feasible
changes to be enacted in Stage 7.

Stage 7 : Taking Steps to Initiate
Changes.
Finally, in Stage 7, recommendations
for Change are implemented. These
changes then result in a modification
of the problem situation. This new
situation may then lead to a new cycle
of the methodology.

Changes.
This stage is equivalent to the

implementation stage of other
methodologies (i.e. what steps
should be taken to implement the
desirable and feasible changes?)

Changes.
 The underlying assumption in SSM is

that the identification of the desirable
and (culturally) feasible changes in the
previous stage will have created a
climate for change which will overcome
any problems at this stage. As a result
any appropriate implementation
strategy can be adopted.

Conclusion
 SSM is strong in systemic analysis
(i.e. in the problem formulation phase).
 Clients concerns are used to determine
the domain of inquiry.
 SSM considers the different world
views of the participants to determine
the rationale for the situation of
concern.
 The reality of the expressed problem is
questioned, and if necessary the
problem is re-expressed.
Conclusion
 SSM searches for different states/solutions,
all of which can be relevant, and critically
examines them.
 SSM seeks to consider all aspects of the
organisational environment, not just the
problem situation.
 SSM constructs a number of relevant notional
systems, maps them against the current state
and then discusses the most relevant solution
with the client(s).
 SSM seeks to develop a relevant rather than
a right system.
Criticisms made about SSM
Technically-oriented critics complain that SSM
doesn't actually tell you how to build a system, that
there is no real method
Management oriented critics worry that the open
ended nature of SSM makes it impossible to manage
SSM assumes that all members of the enterprise
have choice, in fact equal choice - SSM ignores
issues of power
SSM imposes values of openness and "niceness"
which are more suitable to middle class academics
than to managers or workers.
Soft and hard systems
methods
soft systems methods hard systems 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
organisational learning outcomes computer design outcomes
several ambiguous outcomes CSC 2202 one ‘correct‘ solution

Systems Analysis and Design 108
Review Questions
Outline the main aspects of

Checkland’s Soft Systems
Methodology

Soft Systems Methodology

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Soft Systems Methodology

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Problem Solving Using Soft

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 1

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 3

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 4

includes man, who can create

Designed Physical Designed Abstract

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 5

 and systems analysis

characterised by the belief that that there is a

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 7

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 8

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 9

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 10

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 11

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 12

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 13

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 14

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 15

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 16

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 17

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 18

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 19

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 20

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 21

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 24

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 27

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 28

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 29

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 30

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 31

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 33

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 36

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 37

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 38

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 40

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 41

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 42

the problem, the inquiry is directed to

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 43

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 44

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 45

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 46

A rich picture can show boundaries,

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 47

The rich picture identifies a number of

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 48

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 50

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 52

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 53

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 55

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 56

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 57

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 58

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 59

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 60

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 61

systems thinking at this stage, the

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 63

Rich pictures should show the following

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 65

 Extracting from Rich Pictures :

subjects which are open to debate or dispute (i.e.

CSC 2202 Systems Analysis and Design 67