5. Has components which interact; are connected to a degree; and which lead to effects and actions being transmitted through the system.
6. S exists in and interacts with wider systems and environments.
7. S has a boundary separating it from the wider systems and environment noted at 6. above, formally defined by the area within which the decision-taking process has power to cause action to be taken.
8. S has resources, physical and abstract, which are at the disposal of the decision-taking process.
9. S has some guarantee of continuity, and long-term stability. (after Checkland 1981a)
The Nature of the ’Problem’ and the Checkland Methodology
Soft systems methodology is concerned with problems that are ’soft’ rather ’hard’, unstructured rather than structured. ’Hard’, structured problems can be stated firmly in language which implies that a theory concerning their solution is or may be available:
"How can we spend the marketing budget for an attraction to greatest effect?"
’Soft’ or unstructured problems, however, cannot be formulated as a well-structured search for an efficient means of achieving a defined end; the ends, goals and purposes are themselves problematic. Such problems are:
“ ... manifest in a feeling of unease but which cannot be explicitly stated without this appearing to oversimplify the situation ...”
Checkland 1981a
The common conception of a problem as a well-defined "question or puzzle propounded for solution" (Chambers English Dictionary 1990) applies more to ’hard’ systems situations than ’soft’ ones. The definition of a problem advanced in Systems thinking, systems practice is:
"A problem relating to real-world manifestations of human activity systems is a condition characterised by a sense of mis-match, which eludes precise definition, between what is perceived to be actuality and what is perceived might become actuality"
1 Checkland 1981a
The definition and the diagrammatic methodology summary (Figure 2) characterises SSM as action-oriented.
The present 'problem' as defined by the study aims and objectives is even 'softer' than most of Checkland's, however. It relates to a real-world manifestation of a human activity system, but the study is not action-oriented in the way that most SSM applications are. The sense of mis match between 'actuality and what is perceived might be actuality' will be minimised to some degree by the development of knowledge and understanding of TAs; while the present 'problem'
does "elude precise definition", it is susceptible to a process of learning and conceptualisation, although the nature of the study means that the action orientation of Checkland's stages 5, 6, and 7 is inappropriate. For this reason, the methodology will be modified for use in the research, as shown at Figure 3. It will be utilised as a means of carrying out a study based upon systems thinking to the stage of production of conceptual models. This will fulfil the requirements of the first half of the study aim, and the second will be achieved primarily through reference to appropriate literature. The nature of the problem has meant that straightforward application of SSM is inappropriate, but the author recognised that it would be modified for specific situations, and indeed has done so himself (see Checkland and Scholes 1990).
With the methodology determined in outline, the next section will detail how it will be employed to fulfil the aims and objectives of the study through a programme of work.
The problem Situation u n stru ctu re d Real world_____ •— Systems thinking ( Formal system j \ concept Root definitions of relevant systems
Figure 3 - Diagram of modified SSM process - after Checkland (1981)
Study Outline/Method of Working
The three principal steps required by the study aims and objectives, as informed by the modified methodology, are:
1. The problem situation - unstructured and expressed. 2. Root definitions of relevant systems.
3. Making and testing conceptual models. These will be discussed in turn.
1. The problem situation - unstructured and expressed.
This stage, a contraction of the first two stages of SSM, directs the research to investigate the problem situation in depth without imposing a predetermined structure on it. The objective is to build up a ’rich picture’ of the situation under study, collecting information and perceptions from a wide range of sources, without the use of systems terms or concepts at this early stage (Checkland 1981a). Once a sufficiently rich picture has been assembled, the viewpoint on the situation from which the study will proceed will be selected. This first stage is primarily about displaying the situation to reveal a range of possible and relevant choices, which will in practice be done by a process of ’organised finding out’ (Checkland and Scholes 1990), often resulting in a basic structural picture of the problem situation.
As has been noted, there is very little available information with which to form a rich picture of the concept, role and work of tourism associations as part of the system for tourism development. It has thus been deemed necessary to obtain data on these groups and their relationships with other elements of the visitor industry, and this will be done by primary methods of data collection. Two methods will be used:
1. A postal questionnaire survey of a sample of TAs.
2. A case study to examine issues raised by the results of the questionnaire and conduct a more analytical study of TAs in an individual tourist destination.
Questionnaire Survey
The purpose of this is to gain an initial impression of the activities and role of TAs in England and Wales. To this end, the sample survey will seek to obtain quantitative and qualitative information about variables identified as significant in the study of voluntary associations, including:
the range of interests and activities of TAs, their geographical area of operation, and any previous or anticipated changes in these
the structure of the groups and the nature of their membership linkages associated with TAs, both internal and external (after Pickvance 1986)
The questionnaire will yield original empirical data on the population of TAs in England and Wales. While much of this will be quantitative, enabling description of these groups, some qualitative data will also be collected, and more will be obtained during the case study.
While the questionnaire survey data will enable a good initial picture of TAs to be drawn up, they will offer little about the day-to-day operation and role of TAs within individual community-scale tourism development systems. The data will be at a high level of aggregation and, while providing a valuable insight into the national picture, will inevitably reveal little of the complex interactions between the private, public and voluntary sectors and the market for tourism.
A detailed appreciation of how TAs work as part of the tourism development system is critical in order to better understand their role and ability to develop and promote local tourism products. To this end an intensive study will be carried out in an identifiable destination area, for which the questionnaire sample survey will have provided a recognised means of obtaining a useful sampling frame for the linked case study (Hakim
1987). Case Study
The purpose of this stage is to carry out an original in-depth study of voluntary tourism groups working within a defined area, adding qualitative data to the essentially quantitative information derived from the questionnaire. The case study, located in a rural area, will contribute to the accumulation of a ’rich picture’ of TAs.
A programme of interviews held with key actors in the local tourism development system will aim to produce information designed to complement that collected in the questionnaire survey.
The case study will concentrate on assessing the day-to-day activities of the groups under study, and will pay particular attention to their relationships with other elements of the local/regional tourism development system, as guided by systems theory.
Use of case study findings - the case study material will make a significant contribution towards the ’rich picture’ of the problem situation for subsequent derivation of root definitions and conceptual model-building. However, the findings of this final stage of data collection will be treated as illustrating the particular structure and operation in an individual destination rather than as a definitive account of TAs because of the wide range of likely variation in local set-ups and their environments. While the number and widespread distribution of TAs suggest that they fulfil a common role in the tourism development environments, and might thus be expected to share certain characteristics, each individual group is oriented towards particular local needs and opportunities as perceived by the membership and/or officers, so the detailed findings of the case study process will be locality-specific. Much of general applicability will however be established to add to the more generalised findings produced by the survey.
So the data collection stage of the study will build up a ’rich picture’ of the situation under study. It will fulfill Checkland’s prescription for the first two stages of the methodology by taking the perceptions of the real-world problem situation from an unstructured to an expressed form. Concepts of structure, function and process and the relationships between these attributes will be employed in the resultant analysis (Checkland 1981a).
2. Root definitions of relevant systems.
After the end of the problem expression stage, succinct base definitions of the systems selected for modelling are generated in the second stage of the method of working. While these root definitions must clearly be relevant to the problem, this doesn’t imply that the systems selected are necessarily optimal, or that the definitions bear too much resemblance to real-world operations or needs; they should provide a concise definition of a human activity system from a particular point of view, a specific outlook on the problem situation, couched in systems terms, and should aim to be radical (Checkland 1981a). The suggested test of the efficiency of the definitions is simply whether or not they are useful for the task in hand.
3. Making and testing conceptual models.
The final stage of the modified SSM process is concerned with description. The systems under study are regarded as purposeful entities which receive inputs and transform them into outputs. The root definition will have outlined the activities conceived as a transformation process; the third stage of the method of working revolves around building a model of the activity system needed to achieve the transformation described in the definitions.
From this stage will emerge an account of what the system must do to accomplish the base system purposes outlined in the root definitions. The account will not attempt to describe real-world TA activity systems in detail: instead, it should consist of a minimum list of verbs covering the necessary activities for system, structured in a logical sequence. Detailed examples of such model building exercises are readily available in the literature (Checkland 1979; Patching 1990).
Given the importance of the conceptual model-building stage of the methodology, some validation of the output of this stage is necessary. SSM acknowledges that there are:
"...only defensible conceptual models and ones which are less defensible..." Checkland 1981a
- and it is important to ensure that the conceptual models are not fundamentally deficient. This is done by comparison with the ’formal system’ model noted earlier.
SSM users are not restricted to the concepts and concerns of the Checkland methodology. There is specific provision for the introduction of other relevant systems thinking during the conceptual model-building stage; this is possible because SSM is a methodology rather than an inflexible technique. Elements of the systems concepts outlined earlier in this chapter will be brought into this stage of the study, offering further insights into the systems under study from a systems analysis perspective.