Soft Systems Methodology:Hard and soft systems thinking.

6.1 Introduction

In chapter 5 we looked at systems thinking and introduced the basic tenets of systems theory. In this chapter we show how systems thinking can be applied to complex organizational interventions, such as information systems development projects, using the 'soft' systems methodology (SSM).

Peter Checkland and others developed SSM at the University of Lancaster in the 1970s as an antidote to 'hard' systems thinking typified by the work of the Rand Corporation in the 1960s.

6.2 Hard and soft systems thinking

6.2.1 Organizations

The traditional view of organizations is of autonomous entities that seek to tame and control their environment while engaging in conflict and competition with other organizations. This view of organization is illustrated in the left hand column of table 6.1. Alternatively, we might take a systems perspective and view an organization as the entire set of relationships it has with itself and its stakeholders, as do Mitroff & Linstone (1993, p. 142). This view would also be consistent with the work of Geoffrey Vickers, whose notion of appreciation emphasizes relationship-maintaining and judgement rather than the 'povertystricken notion of goal-seeking' (Checkland & Casar, 1986). Looking at the right hand column of table 6.1 organizations act as verbs rather than nouns, and organization becomes an active process of maintaining identity and viability – two of the central themes in cybernetics and systems theory that were introduced in chapter 5.

Old organizational metaphor

Recast metaphor

In the age of the Internet and business to business industry portals, value chain integration, and virtual business communities, to view organizations as being constituted by networks of relationships (internal and external) with fluid and permeable boundaries – rather than as hierarchically-structured entities with fixed and clearly-defined boundaries – is highly appropriate.

6.2.2 Hard and soft traditions

In looking at systems principles we have yet to make any clear statement about the status of the systems models we might develop. Should they be models of the real world insomuch as the world behaves like a system and can therefore be 'engineered'? The 'hard' tradition sees organizations as goal-seeking entities operating in a world that is systemic, i.e., that entities with systemic properties exist in the world (table 6.2). As we did in table 6.1, we might posit organizations as relationship-maintaining entities that use information systems (and e-business applications) to understand, build, and maintain relationships. To survive, therefore, an organization needs to maintain relationships with various parties, including employees, customers, finance institutions, and competitors.

In adopting a soft approach we do not maintain that the world contains systems. When talking of the transport system or the health system (or even an information system) people tend to use the word system loosely; the transport 'system', for example, in the real-world is not organized systemically (i.e., it does not display the properties of a system). With hard systems thinking, asystematic approach is taken in the problem situation to make changes to real world systems. With soft systems thinking it is the intervention that is organized systemically and the best we can say about the problem situation is that it is problematic (and probably best perceived as being 'messy'). This is an important difference between hard and soft approaches and is the source of considerable debate and confusion between hard and soft thinkers. To show how soft systems thinking can be used to learn about a problem situation we will use the soft systems methodology (SSM) to conduct an analysis of the Barchester Playhouse case study (see appendix A for details).