1. IMS3230 - Information Systems Development Practices
Soft Systems
Methodology
(SSM)

2. the systems approach general systems theory (e.g. Bertalanffy 1968):
to understand the nature of large and complex systems
a system is a set of interrelated elements, with inputs and outputs, and with a set of processes which convert inputs into outputs
a system has a boundary and an environment with which it interacts
a system has a purpose, and its elements interact to achieve this
systems relate to each other, and consist of subsystems
e.g. an inventory system

3. the systems approach systems have emergent properties:
the whole is greater than the sum of its parts
need to develop information systems for the organisation as a whole, not for isolated functions
the interconnectedness of systems
understand the context of information systems
avoid the reductionism of scientific analysis:
decomposition of complex structures may distort our understanding as elements may react differently when examined individually

4. the systems approach
organisational (human activity) systems are not predictable:
people’s behaviour and interpretations
organisations are open systems, interacting with their environment
e.g. competitors, government policies, customers, suppliers
organisations are complex systems:
need people with a range of expertise and experience to develop and implement information systems

5. the systems approach
the technological aspects are closed and predictable
the human aspects are open and non- deterministic:
methodologies must take into account the importance and complexity of the human element
computer solutions are not always appropriate
multiple viewpoints and solutions: which is “best”?
may require technological and also attitudinal, structural, environmental changes

6. “hard” vs “soft” systems thinking
Checkland (1981):
soft systems approaches
organisations are complex, with problems which are “fuzzy”, ill-defined, not well-structured, and where multiple points of view exist
hard systems approaches
focus on the certain and precise in situations e.g. structured approaches, SSADM
assume there is, and consider, only one point of view

7. Soft Systems Methodology
developed at Lancaster University from the early 1970s by Peter Checkland as part of an action research program
Checkland wanted to adapt the ideas of systems theory to form a practical “methodology”:
a study of methods for application in a particular situation
not a development methodology: a methodology to identify changes
human problem and process oriented, not technique oriented
a number of models built representing different viewpoints
exploration of problem situations to decide on action for desirable changes

8. “hard” systems thinking
systems exist in the real world and can be “engineered”
an objective, “correct” view exists
decomposition of systems into parts for examination and understanding: scientific method
focus on how to do things, assumes what to do is already clear
the system's objectives can be defined in advance
alternative means of achieving them can be modelled
the most desirable is selected
deterministic, goal-seeking: seek optimum choice from competing alternative solutions

9. “soft” systems thinking
systems do not exist as such, but are an abstract concept representing a way of seeing and understanding the real world: a “holon” e.g. “the education system”
the “system” is not some part of the real world but is the organised process of enquiry itself
subjective, depending on background, experience, beliefs
need to understand and explore the whole and its context
SSM is a system of enquiry and has to be participative
the role of the SSM “expert” is to help the people in the problem situation carry out their own study
models are not representations of real world activity but are constructed in order to help debate it

10. Soft Systems Methodology
“fuzzy”, ill-structured, complex (i.e. “soft”) problems are common in organisations: human activity systems
the unpredictable nature of human activity systems:
data, processes are relatively easy to model, but
to understand organisations, we need to include people in the models
the people involved may have different and conflicting objectives, perceptions, and attitudes
we need to address the “soft” aspects of problems, not just the “hard” aspects, to achieve a better understanding

11. The development of SSM: action research
to investigate and refine theoretical knowledge by active and reflective participation in a real-world situation not under the control of the researcher vs e.g. laboratory experiments
client-centred, contextual
goals negotiated with members of the organisation
not fact-finding, but a learning process
each social context is unique, no law-like generalisations about organisations vs the scientific method
insights rather than cause / effect relationships

12. Soft Systems Methodology
humans attribute meaning to their experiences and observations
we form intentions, based on how we interpret our situation, and
take purposeful action in response to our experience of the world: the experience / action cycle = learning
SSM: “the focus is on an organised set of principles (methodology) which guide action in trying to ‘manage’ (in the broad sense) real-world problem situations”
Checkland and Scholes (1990), p. 5
the “what to do” and the “how to do it” are both tackled
(problem situation, not “a problem”)

13. Soft Systems Methodology
Checkland and Scholes (1990) p. 6:
“the basic shape of the approach is to formulate some models which it is hoped will be relevant to the real-world situation, and use them by setting them against perceptions of the real world in a process of comparison. That comparison could then initiate debate leading to a decision to take purposeful action to improve the part of real life which is under scrutiny”
see Fig 1.3 p. 7

14. Soft Systems Methodology
Checkland and Scholes (1990), pp
no automatic assumption the world is systemic: conscious choice to take a part of the world as a system to be engineered
distinguish between unreflecting involvement in the everyday world and conscious systems thinking about the real world: the SSM user is conscious of moving from one world to another many times
in systems thinking holons are constructed: purposeful human activity systems embodying emergent properties, layered structure, processes of communication and control
holons are used to enquire into the real world in order to articulate a debate or dialogue intended to define changes deemed desirable and feasible

15. Soft Systems Methodology
the situation is a product of a particular history
the improvers are the users of SSM
the focus is the search for one (or more) “world view”: a set of assumptions about reality
the world view is extracted from the problem situation through debate on the purpose of the organisation
the world view forms the basis for describing system requirements
implemented changes will change the nature of the problem situation as perceived: continuous cycle of learning

16. Evolution of SSM Two “modes”: mode 1: Checkland (1981)
7 stage model, is the most well-known version
mode 2: Checkland and Scholes (1990)
developed from further action research
two interacting streams of structured enquiry together lead to changes:
- logic-based stream: holons
- cultural analysis stream
mode 2 is more a “framework of ideas”:
the version of mode 1 is seen as just one option

17. Stages of SSM: 1. the problem situation: unstructured
(See Fig 24.1, p. 471 in Avison & Fitzgerald (2003))
explore the problem situation: to understand the “real” causes
problem owners: those on whose behalf the study has been initiated
actors: those taking part in the situation, other stakeholders
analysts attempt to reveal many possible views of the situation
the structure of the problem situation: physical layout, reporting structure, formal and informal communication patterns
activities carried out
climate: relationships between structure and activities

18. Stages of SSM: 2. the problem situation: expressed
express the problem situation more “formally”
no particular way prescribed, but rich pictures are often used as a communication technique
elements include:
clients, actors, tasks, the environment, problem areas, conflicts, concerns, controlling bodies, other stakeholders, relationships, issues
exploration, discussion, communication: to help move from thinking about the problem situation towards thinking about what can be done about it

19. Rich pictures
graphical representation of the organisation or work area
self explanatory and easy to understand
a subjective process: there is no “correct” picture
“hard” facts: e.g. activities, departmental boundaries, physical and geographical layout, product types, resources,
“soft” facts: concerns, conflicts, socio-organisational roles, political issues, relationships, employee needs,
rich pictures help:
- to identify what is really important in the situation
- people understand their role in the organisation
- to define aspects of the organisation to be addressed by the information system

20. Primary tasks and issues
Rich pictures also help to identify primary tasks and issues
primary tasks
tasks the organisation must perform as part of its purpose: what is central to this organisation?
the boundaries of primary task systems coincide with a real world manifestation:
e.g. a functional boundary as in a personnel system
issues
topics or matters of concern or conflict
generally the boundaries of issue-based systems do not map on to real world boundaries:
e.g. a system to resolve disagreements about resource usage

21. Stages of SSM: 3. root definitions of relevant systems
the problem solver imagines and names “relevant systems”: a way of looking at the problem situation which provides useful insights
a system is a perceived, meaningful grouping of people, objects and activities
e.g. problem theme = conflicts between two departments
a relevant system = a systems that redefines departmental boundaries
identify one or more relevant systems for each problem theme
a subjective process, several relevant systems should be identified, both primary task systems and issue-based systems

22. Root definitions a root definition is created for each relevant system
relevant systems are a focus for debate and exploration
root definition:
a concise, verbal definition expressing the nature of a purposeful activity system regarded as relevant to exploring the problem situation
useful in exposing different views
(see examples: Avison and Fitzgerald 1995, pp )
expresses the core purpose of a “purposeful activity system” and is always a transformation of some input entity into a new form of entity (output)
use the CATWOE checklist to ensure that six essential characteristics are included

23. Root definitions the CATWOE checklist:
who is doing what for whom, to whom are they answerable, what assumptions are being made, and in what environment is it occurring?
C ustomers = victims or beneficiaries of T
A ctors = those who do T
T ransformation = the conversion of input to output
W eltanschauung = the assumptions, the world view which makes T meaningful in context
O wner = those who could stop T
E nvironment = elements outside the system which it takes as given

24. Stages of SSM: 4. building conceptual models
develop a conceptual model for each root definition:
an informal diagram of something relevant to the situation
not a model of the situation, but a diagram of the activities of what the system described by the root defintion will do
conceptual models are used to structure enquiry into the problem situation, not for checking that the model matches the real world
the process of building root definitions and conceptual models is an iterative process of debate and modification moving towards an agreed definition

25. Conceptual models Checkland & Scholes (1990)
assemble and structure the minimum necessary activities to carry out T
base this on logical contingency:
to convert raw materials into a finished product, you first need to obtain the raw materials
identify the monitor and control activities and the operational activities
structure similar activities in groups together
use arrows to show logical contingency
See Avison & Fitzgerald (1995) pp for some examples

26. Stages of SSM: 5. comparing conceptual models with perceived reality
this debate creates new perceptions of reality, suggests new relevant systems, and concentrates thought on possible changes
use informal discussion, formal questioning, scenario writing based on operating the models, trying to model the real world using the conceptual model
formal questioning supported by creation of a matrix comparing activities in the model with the activities in the real world
the aim is to compare the models with the real world to find an accommodation between different interests in the situation which is seen to be an improvement of the initial problem situation
not a “solution” in the hard systems thinking sense

27. Stages of SSM: stages 6 & 7 6. assessing feasible and desirable change
analysis of changes proposed in Stage 5 to create proposals for those considered feasible and desirable
may or may not involve the development of an information system
7. action to improve the situation
recommend action to improve the situation
no methods described for implementing “solutions”:
changes must be systemically desirable: truly relevant to the situation
and culturally feasible: perceived as meaningful within the particular culture and its world view

28. SSM mode 2 Checkland and Scholes (1990)
two streams of structured enquiry unfold through time interactively:
- logic-based stream
- cultural analysis stream
the stream of cultural enquiry
- analysis of the intervention
- social system analysis
- political system analysis
all three cultural analyses complement the logic-based stream

29. SSM mode 2: cultural enquiry stream
analysis of the intervention: “Analysis One”:
intervention in in a problem situation is itself problematical
useful to analyse roles in the study:
who has the role “client”: why have they requested the intervention?
who has the role “would-be problem solver”: their perceptions, knowledge and readiness to make resources available
who has the role “problem owner”:

30. SSM mode 2: cultural enquiry stream
social system analysis: “Analysis Two”:
uses a model of a social system as a continually changing interaction between three elements:
roles, norms, and values
“role”: a social position recognised as significant, e.g. team captain
“norm”: characterises a role, e.g. expected behaviours
“value”: used to judge performance of a role, e.g. beliefs about what is good and bad behaviour
(the engineering company example)
the account of the social system will never be complete or static

31. SSM mode 2: cultural enquiry stream
political system analysis: “Analysis Three”:
politics: “a process by which differing interests reach accomodation”
what are the commodities through power is expressed in this situation?
e.g. formal authority. personal charisma, intellectual authority, external reputation, access to information, membership of particular groups
how are these commodities obtained, preserved and passed on?
analysis three enriches cultural appreciation from analyses one and two
tacit level (the real politics) vs explicit level of analysis

32. SSM and information systems
Checkland and Scholes (1990) suggest:
develop an information flow model
define information categories and data structures
design of an information system
SSM could enrich the information requirements definition steps of other methodologies

33. Soft Systems Methodology
for fuzzy, ill-structured problem situations
for problem exploration
not prescriptive or technique-oriented
action research oriented: experience in use of SSM helps to refine the methodology
used in different ways by different users in different circumstances
is it just a “front end”?
practicality? Is it too vague?
is it just consensus seeking?

34. SSM: criticisms too subjective:
- all viewpoints are considered equally valid
- ignores political and social structures conditioning people’s views
- ignores power relationships that constrain people’s actions
assumes improvement can occur just by changing people’s views without changing the social structures that shape our views
ignores issues of conflict and coercion and the difficulties of avoiding superficial consensus

35. SSM: criticisms
exploration of world views should be an ongoing process, posing difficulties in practical situations of moving from abstract debate to pragmatic problem solving
e.g. Flood and Jackson (1991) p. 189
argue that SSM “resolves” this difficulty by merely leaving closure of the debate “to the prevailing power structures as reflected in the dominant culture of the organisation”
Flood, R.L. and Jackson, M.C. (1991) Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Wiley, Chichester

36. References
Prescribed text:
Avison, D.E. & Fitzgerald, G. (2003). Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools. (3rd ed), McGraw-Hill, London.
Chapters 4.1, , 24.1
Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, Chichester.
Refer to additional references in the readings at the unit web page and in the prescribed text