5.2.1 Soft System methodology
In the early phase of systems theory, an organization was treated as a physical entity – a first order reality - which really exists and which can be defined, designed and engineered objectively (Gold 2001, p.558). This was taken as the ‘hard’ system’s approach towards the study of organization. In the context of organisational study, Checkland changed this approach of systems school. Checkland developed the concept of soft system methodology.
Soft system methodology (SSM) has been advocated as a flexible approach to problem solving in the context of complex human situations (Gold 2001, p. 558). Schön (quoted by Checkland & Scholes 1990, p.276) has said that the complex and less clearly defined problems of business management cannot be solved by technical rationality. According to SSM, it is not possible to analyse the complex problems of business through a case study approach (which it considers inadequate). The complex problems can be analysed through the trick of shifting the focus of systemicity from the world to the process of enquiry about the world. ‘In hard system, the world itself is considered to be a set of system i.e. is systemic and these set of systems can be systematically engineered to achieve objectives. But in the soft tradition, world is assumed to be problematic’ (Checkland 1999, A 49). In SSM, ‘the system’ is no longer some part of the world which is to be engineered and optimised. ‘The system’ is in the process of inquiry itself. ‘If that is formalised as a learning system which the practitioner consciously enacts, then the reflection in action becomes analysable…. Out of that more tranquil reflection, after the event, general lesson may be extracted’ (Checkland &
Scholes 1990, p. 277). In other words, ‘assumed systemicity is shifted from taking the world to be systemic to taking the process of inquiry to be systemic’ (Checkland 1999, A 49). For example, a well-defined problem such as improving the horsepower of an automobile can be handled well by hard systems. But implementing a superior quality system in an organization so that it can institutionalise the changes necessary for manufacturing of engines with improved horsepower is better handled by soft system methodology. Thus instead of trying to objectively observe the characteristics of organization, one should attempt to understand
different ways of seeing the situation. Therefore Checkland’s soft system methodology does not attempt to model the real world. He recognises that the chaos and complexity of organization is viewed differently by different members of organization. ‘He treated organization as an ongoing and dynamic arrangement of people and objects in relationship’
(Gold 2001, p.558). These different views are contributions to a debate about possible change.
They indicate what activities are necessary to achieve a purpose meaningful from a particular point of view. Thereby, the participants in a problem situation are able to learn their way to what changes are systematically desirable and culturally feasible given the meanings and relationships that currently exist in the situation (Jackson 2000). From such different views of organization, if sufficient meaning is derived, it becomes the basis for action (or non action) (Gold 2001, p. 559). That also makes SSM a learning system. Thus soft system methodology is more suitable for studying ill-defined, messy problems. Soft System Methodology had a lot in common with ‘appreciative system theory’ developed by Vickers (Checkland 1994).
Checkland started with Mode 1 approach to SSM. However, now he has shifted to Mode 2 approach. The differences between these two approaches is shown in Table 5.3
Mode 1 Mode 2
Methodology-driven Situation-driven Intervention Interaction Sometimes sequential Always iterative
SSM as external SSM as internalised model
Table 5. 3Dimensions of SSM types
Source: Gold (2001).
Mode 1 of the soft system methodology involved a seven-stage learning system using the mnemonics CATWOE (customers, actors, transformational process, world-view, owners, environmental constraints). It recognised that there are many ways to describe a situation depending on the point of view one takes. A different way of conceiving the problem situation will give rise to a different root definition. Thus a prison can be taken as a punishment system, a rehabilitation system, a system for taking revenge, a system to protect society or a system that constitutes a university of crime (Jackson 2000, p. S5). It suggested that the view which is most insightful or most relevant in exploring the situation should be selected. Often non- written ways of expressions like story telling and rich pictures (pictorial
and cartoon like pictures) aid in grasping the contentious aspect of a situation. From these, root definitions are developed which grasp the essence of the relevant system. Each root definition reflects a particular worldview of the problem situation. Later, Checkland considered the methodology driven Mode 1 too restrictive for practicing managers who are more often driven by the pressures of their environment. From their perspective, Mode 1 SSM is cut off from the day to day working of an organization. Thus he developed situation driven Mode 2 of soft system methodology. Mode 2 SSM is driven by situational logic and situational culture. The cultural stream has three types of enquiry (Jackson 2000, p. S7):
Analysis 1- It considers the intervention itself and the roles of client, problem solver and problem owner.
Analysis 2 – It is called the social system analysis. It looks at social roles, norms of behaviour and what values are used in judging the performance.
Analysis 3 - This examines the politics of the problem situation and how power is obtained and used.
Though Checkland considers Mode 1 and Mode 2 as a spectrum of possible uses and not mutually exclusive (Checkland & Scholes 1990), it has been said that ‘it is not easy to capture SSM in a way that does justice to both Mode 1 and Mode 2 (Jackson 2000, p. S8).
Also Mode 2 based SSM, where problem solvers are able to internalise the methodology, employ it as a way of thinking as an insider, has not been often used (Gold 2001, p.558).
5.2.2 Soft system methodology as action research
Since SSM involves individuals to take part in the action based on their worldview, and not simply to observe the action as external watcher, Checkland considers SSM as action research (Checkland 1999, p. A39). This realisation that all real-world problem situations are characterized by human beings seeking or wishing to take purposive action led purposeful action being treated as a system concept (Checkland 1999, p. A54). Different purposeful activities express different worldviews. Comparison between different worldviews and a perceived real situation gives rise to a set of action – action which is culturally feasible for a particular group of people in a particular situation with its own particular history (Checkland 1999, A 55).
The current SSM is based on constitutive rules which guide the process of interaction.
It is these rules which make research on the methodology possible and allow the methods and techniques which support SSM to be continually improved. At the same time, though SSM
sets out principles for method use, it does not determine their use. It provides a different response in each situation depending on the user and the nature of the situation (Jackson 2000, p. S9).
5.3 Justification of Action Research as the research methodology for this