Systems Thinking - Approaches

Introduction to two approaches.............................................................................1

Hard systems approach ........................................................................................1

Soft systems approach .........................................................................................2

Soft and hard systems thinking: two different pairs of spectacles ......................4

References and Acknolwedgements ....................................................................5

1 Introduction to two approaches

Over the years, a number of approaches have been developed to use systems
thinking and improve our capability to manage and improve systems. Here, we
describe two generalized approaches: hard systems and soft systems
approaches. In general, we can say that the soft systems approach is a learning
process designed to determine what needs to be done in an ill-defined problem
situation, and hard systems approaches are used to determine how to make
improvements to a better-defined problem.

2 Hard systems approach

The hard systems approach was developed to maximise the efficiency of a
system in terms of amount of output per given input. The purpose of the system is
not in dispute, and the measure of efficiency is usually not questioned. It is an
approach with begins with the definition of the system and the measure of efficiency,
and then proceeds by looking for technical solutions to optimise the system. When a
new system is designed, the outputs and measures of efficiency are compared with
the old one. The hard systems approach is often one of quantification (often
quantitative models are developed as part of the system description).
Examples of the hard systems approach are to be found in the work of the
International Agricultural Research Centres such as IRRI and ICRISAT in the 1970s
and 1980s.
In the ICRISAT microwatershed programme, a system of field-level water catchments
and cultivation methods such as tied ridging were designed to improve water use
and production in semi-arid areas. Measures of efficiency were amount of crop
produced per rainfall amount and per area. However, the suggested improved
system was rarely adopted, as farmers found that the benefits did not outweigh the
difficulties and increased labour requirements of the cultivation methods
recommended.
Under the IRRI Cropping Systems Programme, a number of more intensive cropping
patterns were designed and tested according to the agro-ecological conditions
particularly the length of the growing season which determined if it was technically
feasible to grow a second crop of flooded rice or upland crop (such as maize, or
ICRA Learning Materials Defining the System Systems Thinking Approaches - 1/5

soybean) after the first crop of rice in the same season. The measures of efficiency
used to compare the old traditional system with the new improved cropping
system were amount of rice produced or the income gained from the crops. These
programmes - like many of the changes promoted during the green revolution met
with mixed success: many of the new cropping patterns in countries such as the
Philippines and Indonesia were adopted by farmers (often with heavy incentives)
and did indeed dramatically improve production of staple food crops such as rice, but
detractors point to the difficulties faced by small farmers in buying inputs, the
resulting disadvantaged position of these farmers, the loss of biodiversity implicated
by widespread adoption of a few varieties of the major crops, as well as other
negative effects. The intensive debate about the merits and drawbacks of these new
crop technologies - green revolution - which raged during the 1970s and 1980s,
show that different people have quite different ideas about what constituted success
or improvement in agriculture and rural livelihoods.

Adapted from Wilson and Morren, 1990

3 Soft systems approach

Recognising the difficulty associated with learning about and improving complex real
world situations, Checkland and his colleagues at the University of Lancaster in the
UK developed what they termed soft systems methodology or SSM (Checkland,
1981; Checkland and Scholes, 1990). Adaptations of this methodology have
increasingly been advocated and used in environmental management and rural
development projects.
One of the main sources of learning using SSM occurs when we compare the the
current situation - the existing what - and the future vision - the ideal what. In SSM
the existing what is visualized in a situation summary (or rich picture, because it
includes diverse elements and viewpoints) and the future vision in a conceptual
model. It is only after making these comparisons that discussion of how things could
be improved occurs. Learning occurs with each cycle of the SSM activities. One of
the important features of SSM is its focus on repeated cycles of learning to arrive at
new and better appreciations of complex situations.

ICRA Learning Materials Defining the System Systems Thinking Approaches - 2/5

The ways in which SSM has been applied continue to evolve. However a generalized
approach consists of something like the following steps or phases:
1. Explore the problem in an unstructured way using spray diagramming
to gather wide range of ideas from different people with an interest in
the situation.
2. Visualize the existing problem situation using diagrams to summarize
the situation (situation summaries or rich pictures), to help
understand the context and relationships surrounding the problem
situation.
3. Identify relevant systems and develop descriptions of these, including
information on:
The transformation process
The beneficiaries, or important stakeholders
The owners, or influential stakeholders
The perspectives that shape the system
The environment within which the system operates
4. Develop conceptual models of systems expressing ideal or improved

scenarios, including inputs and outputs, components, boundaries and

feedback linkages.
5. Compare the conceptual models of future ideal scenarios with the
existing problem situation as expressed in the existing situation
summaries.
6. Explore feasible and desirable change through a process of debate
and negotiation, comparing existing and future scenarios.

7. Take action to solve the problem or to realize the future desired

scenario.

adapted from Checkland and Scholes, 1990

ICRA Learning Materials Defining the System Systems Thinking Approaches - 3/5

4 Soft and hard systems thinking: two different pairs of

spectacles
We can summarise the above by saying that hard systems thinkers take the world as
being systemic. They consider systems to exist and to have a clear purpose and
well-defined boundaries. Negotiations on the purpose of the system or its boundaries
are not searched for. Hard systems analysis is useful in the case of mechanical or
relatively simple administrative or biophysical problems and is thus concerned with
settings in which clear-cut goals can be set, performance maintained and
implementation achieved. Hard systems thinkers experience biophysical but also
social phenomena as constant, regular, reoccurring and predictable.
Soft systems thinkers argue that problems will occur when hard systems thinking is
applied to problem situations in which human perceptions, behaviour or action seem
to be dominating factors and where goals, objectives and even the interpretation of
events are all problematic. A soft systems thinker experiences phenomena, including
the social ones, as dynamic, chaotic, changing and unpredictable. Soft systems
thinkers do not take the world to be systemic but think it is sometimes useful to deal
with it as if it were systemic. They consider soft systems to be deliberate or
negotiable social constructs, in that soft systems exist only to the extent that people
agree on their goals, their boundaries, their membership, and their usefulness.
These differences between the two types of thinking are summarized in Table 1
(following page) :

ICRA Learning Materials Defining the System Systems Thinking Approaches - 4/5

Table 1 Hard and Soft Systems Thinking Compared

Hard system thinkers

Soft system thinkers

Philosophical approach

Postivist

Constructivist

Ontological position
(about the form and
nature of reality)

Reality exists

Multiple perceptions of reality

Systems do exist and do have a

clear purpose and well-defined
boundaries

Systems do exist only to the

extent that people agree on the
goals, the boundaries and their
components

Epistemological
position

Observations are not coloured

by subjective aspects of the
scientist or his/her instruments

Neutral observations are

impossible

How are phenomena

experienced?

Biophysical and social

phenomena are experienced as
constant, regular, reoccurring
and predictable

Biophysical and social

phenomena are experienced as
dynamic, chaotic, changing and
unpredictable

Research design

Strong focus on the testing of

hypothesis

Less focus on the use of

hypothesis

Focus on the use of quantitative

methods

Focus on the use of qualitative

methods

Focus on improving current

problem

Focussing on how to realise a

desired future situation

Objective knowledge

Socially constructed knowledge to

increase our understanding for
more effective action

(about the relationship

between the researcher
and the researched)

Purpose

Generalisations
Maximising efficiency

Particularities or generalisations
for one particular context
Innovations

5 References and Acknolwedgements

Checkland, P. and J. Scholes 1990. Soft systems methodolodgy in action. Wiley and
Sons, Chichester, UK.
Wilson, K. and G.E.B. Morren Jr. 1990. Systems approaches for improvement in
agriculture and resource management. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.
This learning resource was prepared by Richard Hawkins, using material from
Annemarie Groot.

ICRA Learning Materials Defining the System Systems Thinking Approaches - 5/5