Soft Systems Methodology:Beyond the basic form of SSM

6.4 Beyond the basic form of SSM

A successful SSM intervention is characterized by a genuine engagement with the problem situation, the participation by those affected, and cycles of learning. The seven-stage model of figure 6.2 may give the impression that all that needs to be known about the situation can be found out in stages 1 and 2. In practice, however, there needs to be regular revisiting of the problem situation as understanding grows, perceptions change, and the situation unfolds. The developed form of SSM (Checkland & Scholes, 1990) contains a cultural stream of enquiry that runs in parallel to the logic-based enquiry of stages 3, 4, and 5 of the seven-stage model in figure 6.2. The cultural stream supports stages 2, 6, and 7 in particular, and involves three analyses: the intervention, the social system, and power.

Analysis 1: the intervention. This is the analysis of the intervention itself, recognizing that intervening in a problem situation is itself a problem! With regard to the SSM intervention, this analysis clarifies the roles of the client, the problem solvers(s) and the problem owner(s). The client is the person who commissioned the study or caused it to take place and who can often be  identified in the real world situation. The problem solvers are those who wish to do something to improve the problem situation. Depending on how the problem solvers formulate their models there can be different and multiple problem owners. Clarifying roles is a useful way of generating ideas about which of the infinite number of possible models that could be constructed below the line are likely to have greatest relevance for informing understanding of the real world situation.

Analysis 2: the social system. The social system analysis examines the situation using roles,norms, and values. Roles reflect the social position of people in the problem situation. A role may be defined by the institution, such as lecturer, programmer, or graphic designer, but can also be given less formally, such as 'Java guru', 'hacker', or 'good guy'. Norms relate to the expected behaviours of the people in the roles, and values reflect the local beliefs about the merit of the behaviours of the role holders.

Analysis 3: political system. The political analysis is concerned with power – the process by which the differing parties reach (or do not reach) an accommodation. In SSM, power is explored by finding out how power is expressed in the problem situation. One way to do this is to look at the commodities of power, such as formal authority, personal charisma, and external reputation.

It is fair to say that SSM is weaker in analyses 2 and 3 – social and political systems – than it is in the logic-based analysis. This has led to the criticism that SSM tends to support the status quo, that it is weak in addressing issues of power from a critical perspective. Furthermore, it can be argued that in pushing the systemic aspects of SSM below the line opportunities for applying cybernetic 'laws' in the real world (as would be the case with the Beer's Viable Systems Methodology) are missed out in SSM. There is much debate amongst academics and SSM practitioners about the underpinning philosophy of SSM, but it is outside the scope of this chapter (see Flood & Jackson, 1991 for a critique of SSM).

6.4.1 Using SSM to support IS Development

Two approaches to the incorporation of SSM into the development of information systems are grafting and embedding. On the face of it, the simplest way is to simply front-end, or graft, SSM on to an existing methodology, as has been done with SSADM (structured systems analysis and design methodology). With regard to Object-Oriented methods, such as UML (Universal Modeling Language), a similar approach could be adopted, i.e., conduct an SSM analysis before commencing with the analysis and design of an information system. This approach is rather mechanistic and reminiscent of the step-wise refinement of the waterfall life-cycle approach to IS development. A second approach is to embed traditional methods, such as SSADM and UML, into SSM and to view the IS development process as just another SSM intervention, albeit with specialist activities embedded within it.

There are numerous examples of the application of SSM to IS development including Lewis (1994) who uses SSM as a basis for interpretive data modeling, Stowell and West (1994) who link SSM conceptual models to the data flow diagrams of structured systems analysis, and Savage and Mingers (1996) who have combined SSM with Jackson Structured Design.

Our view is that the strength of SSM is as an enquiring framework to support an exploration of a problem situation with the aim of defining and building support for an intervention to improve that situation. Although there may be value in linking SSM more explicitly with traditional system development techniques, such as data and process modeling, there is an everpresent danger that the value of systems thinking will be overwhelmed by the technical rationality of software engineering.

Summary

• In hard systems thinking the world is assumed to be systemic (having the properties of a system). In SSM the process of enquiry is organized according to systemic principles (as described in chapter 5) and the problem situation ('real world') is perceived as a mess.

• The messiness of the problem situation is represented using a rich picture diagram.

• SSM can be applied as a seven-stage model to gain insight into the differences between the real world and systems thinking about the real world.

• Experienced users of SSM tend to use systemic principles to guide the intervention rather than relying on a systematic application of the stage model.

• For IS developers SSM helps hidden and unarticulated assumptions about the problem situation to be expressed and can help developers think in terms of radical change and breakthrough.

• SSM has been criticized for weaknesses in addressing critical aspects of organizational change related to power and vested interest.

Exercises

1. Create a rich picture diagram of the research student admission problem situation (appendix B). Be sure to portray the context and the issues in the problem situation rather than just the process flow.

2. Study the research student admission case (appendix B) and specify ten or more primary task transformations that could inform discussion about the role and purpose of the admissions process.

3. Take one of the primary task transformations for the research student admissions process and develop a CATWOE and root definition.

4. Develop a conceptual model with two levels of hierarchy for your primary task root definition and CATWOE. Specify the success criteria E1–E3 at each level.

5. What ethical issues might arise as a result of the analysis and the intervention? How might these be addressed?

Further reading

Calton, J. and Kurland, N., (1996). A Theory of Stakeholder Enabling: giving voice to an emerging postmodern praxis of organizational discourse. In: Boje, D., Gephart, R. and Thatchenkery, T., editors. Postmodern Management and Organization Theory. Sage, California.

Checkland, P., (1995). Model Validation in Soft Systems Practice. Systems Research, 12(1): 47–54.

Checkland, P. and Casar, A., (1986). Vickers' Concept of an Appreciative System: A Systemic Account. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 13.

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, Chichester.

Checkland, P. and Holwell, S., (1998). Information, Systems and Information Systems – making sense of the field. Wiley, Chichester.

Flood, R. and Jackson, M., (1991). Creative Problem Solving, Total Systems Intervention. Wiley, Chichester.

Lewis, P., (1994). Information Systems Development. Pitman, London.

Mitroff, I. and Linstone, H., (1993). The Unbounded Mind, breaking the chains of traditional business thinking. Oxford University Press, New York.

Savage, A. and Mingers, J., (1996). A framework for linking Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and Jackson System Development (JSD). Information Systems Journal, 6: 109–129.

Stowell, F. and West, D., (1994). Client-led Design. McGraw-Hill, Maidenhead, UK.