and desirable changes."
(Checkland, 1981, ppl66 ff). Checkland emphasises that these stages are not to be interpreted as a rigid sequence of instructions; they may be ordered, and repeated, as considered relevant in each case. His own examples illustrate that the process may result mainly in learning processes and in redefinitions of problems by participants, and that it can prove difficult to arrive at agreed "feasible and desirable changes". In one example quoted, Checkland comments that:
"the implications of the work were that structural changes to the organisation were required. Getting wind of this,
the Managing Director decreed that proposed changes must be procedural only."
(op.cit. p.182).
Checkland sums up his view of the difference between 'hard' and 'soft' systems design methodologies with another illustration:
"A RAND-type systems analysis of a weapon system will always produce a definition of a weapon system. Analysis using the 'soft' methodology might suggest disarmament, turning the other cheek, or political negotiation."
He concludes (op.cit., p . 191) that the existence of different experiences and perceptions in any 'human activity system' are "the characteristic of the real world
which forces the methodology to become a means of organising discussion, debate and argument rather than a means of engineering efficient 'solutions'."
In many respects, Soft Systems Methodology would appear to offer a sound basis for the development of user- involvement, in a 'human-centred' sense. The existence of different priorities and interests is acknowledged; ways of enabling different parties or 'stakeholders' to debate and negotiate are proposed. Yet Checkland himself comments that "in practice, defining changes which are
'culturally feasible' has led to rather conservative use of the methodology." (Op. cit., p.281).
principle" (op.cit. ,p.281) . But indications that the issues are more substantial are provided by Mike Jackson (1982, 1985). Soft Systems theorists have succeeded in rejecting the functionalist emphasis on consensus and control which is implicit in Structured and in Socio- Technical approaches; instead, they adopt an interpretivist position, drawing on phenomenological social theory and hermeneutics. The emphasis is "not on
any external 'reality', but on people's perceptions of reality, on their mental processes rather than on the objects of those processes." (Checkland, 1981, Chapter Eight).
Jackson argues that in this perspective, unconstrained debate between stakeholders is seen both as the means for achieving change, and as the criterion for validating the Soft Systems approach (1985, p . 144). But such unconstrained debate could only take place among participants with equal access to power and resources: conditions not typical of most situations encountered by systems analysts, as some of Checkland's own examples illustrate. Jackson concludes that the interpretive, subjectivist approach taken by soft systems theorists does not enable them to develop analyses of the social structures within which both inequalities of power and individual 'world-view' are constructed. Therefore, the debate and the participation proposed by the methodology are vulnerable to remaining under the control of powerful stakeholders, obstructing any potential major change in the status quo (Willcocks and Mason develop a similar
view: op.cit., p. 78).
Checkland has acknowledged these points, but comments that "it is the nature of society that this will be so," (1981, p.283); he considers that using Soft Systems methods can still be "emancipatory for the actors concerned."
(op.cit.).
The Soft Systems methodology does propose a breadth of involvement and debate not envisaged in either the Structured or the Socio-Technical approaches; however, Jackson concludes by emphasising the need to distinguish between social systems in which conditions for 'unconstrained debate' do prevail (a small, community organisation, perhaps?) and those characterised by major inequalities in power, status and access to resources. He suggests that Soft Systems would be an entirely appropriate methodology in the former, but for the latter he proposes that new approaches be formulated, drawing on Habermas, and this is discussed in its own right in Chapter Four.
Discussion:
Three important, general points emerge from the above review of three systems analysis and design methodologies. Firstly, these methodologies cannot be seen simply as neutral 'techniques'; each reflects a specific view of scientific theory and practice, and of
social systems. Although these models remain largely implicit in the Structured and the Socio-Technical approaches, their effects can be observed in the practices recommended (LSDM), and in case-study accounts (ETHICS).
Secondly, all three methodologies emphasise the importance of user-involvement, for successful systems development and implementation. But none establishes a basis for involvement which can be unambiguously available to a wide range of systems users; they do therefore remain vulnerable to failure, in the form of incomplete analysis of a situation, or of conflict and dissatisfaction among users at the point of implementation. The Structured approach, for instance, addresses the manager as 'user', in practice, leaving aside issues of clerical skill, knowledge or job satisfaction. The Socio-Technical approach does acknowledge these points, addressing a wider range of 'users'; however, there are no safeguards to prevent token or manipulative forms of participation, in which the achievement of increased job satisfaction could be undermined by the emphasis on raising productivity. Soft Systems approaches also run the risk of promoting manipulated or constrained forms of debate and participation, by underestimating the nature and the significance of conflicting interests between 'users' or stakeholders.
Thirdly, the Structured and Socio-Technical methodologies generally treat the categories of knowledge, skill and
experience as given or unproblematic. However, the literature reviewed in Chapters One and Two demonstrated how strongly all three are shaped and perceived in ways which reflect power relations - including those of gender.
In addition, Human-Centred Systems research has drawn on analyses of tacit skill and knowledge (Polanyi, 1967; Wittgenstein, 1963) to suggest that there are always aspects of work which cannot readily be computerised (see Introduction and Chapter F o u r ) . In the context of clerical work, therefore, this is likely to result in substantial areas of informal knowledge and communication remaining invisible to the uncritical systems analyst
(Goranzon, 1982; Goodman and Perby, 1985; Murray, 1986).
Lastly, the terms in which these methodologies are commonly described and compared provide an interesting reflection of dichotomies which have strong gender associations in Western cultures. The 'hard' methodology - SSADM - is the one which situates itself most clearly within engineering traditions, stressing logic, rationality and control: values which have become strongly associated with masculinity, in Western cultures. The term 'soft systems' is used to refer to a methodology for analysing situations which lack clear structure and definition, thus requiring the social skills of communication and negotiation - often (though not exclusively) associated with femininity. Thus the focus is on an opposition between 'hard' and 'soft', rather than on interdependence (c.f. Linn, 1987; and Greenbaum, 1987, discussed in Chapter Four).
Many recent research publications illustrate a continuing preoccupation with design methodology and with user- involvement, in computer science. Avison and Wood-Harper, for instance, suggest that it is unrealistic to search for one systems development methodology to deal with increasingly diverse organisations and requirements. They propose a 'Multiview' approach, using elements of all three of the methodologies reviewed above, and adding prototyping techniques. Soft Systems would provide guidelines for the initial analysis phase, for example, while Structured-style functional decomposition would be used in information modelling, followed by using Socio- Technical methods to consider user requirements in their organisational context (see also Avison and Fitzgerald, 1988). But this approach tends to minimise differences between methodological approaches, treating them as neutral techniques instead: both the theoretical and the practical difficulties referred to above remain to be addressed.
Land et al undertook a thorough survey of systems development approaches, as part of an EC-funded study of social control (1983). They comment that "only slowly is
it dawning on systems designers that the success of a computer system cannot be assured if it is not acceptable to its users" (p. 161). They add that existing research has tended to concentrate either on ergonomics from the individual point of view, or on what they call the economic effects of IT; little attention has been paid to
the quality of jobs and of working environments, particularly in the UK.
On the basis of their own case-studies, Land and his colleagues emphasised that further research is needed to examine how factors such as management goals and styles, trade union policy and systems development methodologies interact. They regarded participative and experimental design approaches as "most likely to lead to the introduction of satisfactory systems... there is strong evidence to suggest that more conventional approaches are based on inadequate models of organisational realities, and can result in the introduction of degrading systems
(op.cit., p.225).
Finally, Friedman and colleagues surveyed attitudes and experiences among managers in data-processing departments in the UK, US and Europe in the early 1980s (1984, 1985). They point out (1985, p . 204) that it is rare for
'textbook' methodologies to be adhered to rigorously. Although patterns varied between the countries studied, they detected a general shift towards more flexible patterns of systems development. For example, more managers were seeking to recruit computing personnel with 'generalist' backgrounds, such as Arts or Humanities degrees; integrated analyst-programmer posts, and team- based work, were on the increase - breaking down some of the boundaries between low-level programmer posts and those with more scope for creativity; and there was
increased evidence of 'user-involvement' - largely at management level, except in Scandinavia, where unions' creation of 'data shop steward' roles had established broader forms of involvement.
Friedman et al identified a combination of economic and political factors as having contributed to these changes, including pressure both from trade unions and from computer-literate managers; they also cited the falling cost of computer hardware, and the increasing availability of 'Fourth Generation' software languages, facilitating user'designer collaboration through prototyping techniques. This last point was emphasised in a report sponsored by the Institute of Data Processing Management in 1986:
"Most of the principles of systems development built up over the years would have to be abandoned to use 4GLs effectively. The idea of the 'system life cycle', for example, with its set stages.,, is not suited to 4GL work:
'We found it was frequently replaced by a continual process of incremental development in which the... stages become indistinguishable from one another...' '... the users of computer systems will be less beholden to experts and will become responsible for their own systems development.'"
(Reported in the Financial Times, 20.11.86).
In Chapter Six, I return to the issue of 4GLs in systems development, in the context of a case-study example.
■ Conclusion:
At the beginning of this chapter, I noted an increasing concern within computing, about reportedly high rates of failure and difficulty associated with large-scale information systems. Recent research has suggested that a failure to address 'social factors' in systems development underlies these patterns, and that the current phase of computer systems development is characterised by 'user relations' constraints, more than by hardware or software constraints. The question of identifying systems analysis and design methodologies which can successfully promote user-involvement is an important and topical one, therefore. It is also important from a gender perspective, since women are largely defined as the users of systems rather than their designers. It is important to examine whether an increased focus on 'user relations, in computer science, can offer new opportunities to analyse - and perhaps improve - women's experience of office computerisation.
A review of three prominent methodologies indicated a number of problems, however, which prevent them from establishing a secure basis for use r-in volvement in general, or for women clerical users' involvement in particular. 'Structured' approaches tend to reproduce the narrow, technicist focus associated with the early phases of computing, marginalising or rendering invisible user concerns and organisational complexity. In practice, the 'users' represented here (and only partially) are managers - although this remains implicit. The Sociotechnical
systems methodology offers a far more comprehensive approach to user-involvement, recognising the existence of different parties, and proposing a range of specific techniques. However, again the emphasis here remains with management; it is assumed that the goals of increased productivity and increased job satisfaction can be pursued without substantial conflict. Lastly, Checkland's Soft Systems methodology does address both the issue of how systems development problems and boundaries are defined, and the existence of different and unequal 'stakeholders' within organisations. He relies, however, on the resolution of differences through 'unconstrained debate', in a form which could not easily transpire in most conventional organisations.
In more general terms, I also noted that the language in which these methodologies are commonly described and compared reproduces a familiar gendered dichotomy: 'hard' techniques - logical, controlling - are contrasted with
'soft' skills like communication, rather than the two being seen as interdependent.
In conclusion, some general surveys and studies were summarised. These indicate both that formal methodologies are rarely adhered to thoroughly in systems development, and also that there are trends towards greater flexibility and variety of approach, in terms of the recruitment and the practices of systems developers. These themes are considered again in Chapter Four, in connection with recent interdisciplinary initiatives.