Soft Systems Methodology in Project Quality Management - Coursework Example

 Soft Systems Methodology in Project Quality Management Introduction A Project typically implies long term planning and commitment. Project Management is more than just managing time or money. If a project does not create value it will collapse one day for no evident reason. This is often a result of inadequate quality management. A project requires deliberate action for it to succeed. The best possible action, especially while managing construction projects, is to invest in assets. Physical assets add to private benefit as well as public good. Construction projects are always expected to create new value and momentum in society. They are directly associated with the society at large. Whether a construction company is making bridges or buildings, they affect a huge population. That is the reason why it becomes all the more necessary to apply effective strategies to demonstrate the highest potential of a plan from the very beginning. An important aspect of project management is to get the team on one wavelength, while making them ready to take a detour anytime during the project as the situation demands. Hard and Soft System Approaches A hard system approach typically assumes no change in the initial condition of a requirement. It simply quantifies the situations on the basis of this constant value of a requirement. For instance, it is decided at the beginning of the project that the building will consist of seven floors with four dwelling units on each side of the floor. A hard approach would entail critically evaluating the hardware required for the foundation, the floors, the terraces and so on. Once the calculations have been made the plan does not remain flexible. Brian Wilson (2001, p.245) quotes ‘Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is, in reality, a set of methodologies. Each methodology is represented by a set of ideas (concepts) structured in such a way that their use is appropriate to the situation being analyzed. The use of SSM as a powerful problem-solving tool requires this flexibility.’ Soft system methodology, on the other hand, assumes that every individual will have a different view about almost everything in the world. Precisely because of this reason each one will inevitably have varying understanding and evaluation of a given situation. This in turn will lead to different ideas leading to a contributive action. These ideas may not be opposed to each other but they could be adequately different to be separate from each other. This could become a serious issue while making a decision of taking the appropriate action. A hard approach ignores this rather human side of a team, and essentially a constant factor called “change”. A Soft System Methodology (SSM) approach typically uses a methodology called CATWOE, where ‘C’ stands for the “Clients” who will directly benefit or suffer from the actions of the project managers. ‘A’ is for “Actors” or the players in form of agencies, groups, institutions and even individuals who are involved in the implementation of a project. ‘T’ stands for “Transformations” meaning the processes or movements that decide what the end product is going to look like. It is the way specific products or services are going to be produced. In case of a construction project it would be the equipments that will be used during construction. ‘W’ is for “Weltanschauung” meaning the world-view. Any project cannot be considered in isolation. There are several events in the world that affect one or more dimensions of a project. This is an important checkpoint where the actual implementation of the project may be threatened and the construction team may have to take a different approach to make things work. This stage is critical as people may not be open to changing and adapting according to the existing circumstances. ‘O’ stands for the “Owners” that are usually the people whose capital is involved in the project such as the trustees and lenders. This area consists of identifying what the stakeholders want and whether they agree with the changes suggested because of certain external economic or political factors. E is for the “Environment” which essentially represents the trends and the way the technological, political, demographic, legal, natural, economic, social, ethical and competitive environments provide the context for the existing situation. There is a reason why a SSM approach does not survive alone and why it requires a hard system approach. The open-endedness and the unpredictability of the SSM are capable of making a project unmanageable. If a construction project consists of a good balance of hard and soft approaches, it is likely to make the project more predictable due to the hard approach, and more practical due to the soft approach. Brian Wilson (2001, p.6) states ‘The degree of variety in real-world problems is enormous, but it is useful to see them as lying within a spectrum which extends from ‘hard’ to ‘soft’.’ Applying Soft Systems Approach Methodology To begin with, a construction project has just a mere idea and a few sketches to depict a possibility of the idea. Next is the evaluation between the project “musts” and the project “desirables”. Some tasks have to be done and in some areas there is a choice. Deciding on priorities is one of the most important parts of planning a project. Quality assurance begins with defining the quality goals. Then it has to be followed up with the appropriate plans to achieve these goals. For instance, if a 7 storeyed building is to be constructed in a residential complex then quality right from the cement used, the mortar, the kind of paint or distemper used, the angles and various other hardware used should be considered and weighed beforehand. The quality of these materials is often a deciding factor of the level of uncertainty. The better the quality the lesser is the uncertainty. Another aspect that the soft system approach brings out is that the more diverse ideas people have the more they will question the quality of the existing processes as well as the hardware being used to give shape to the end product of the project. The most important activity in the soft systems approach is to create a debate. The soft systems approach deliberately considers the world view or the ideal view of the concerned project and the makes it debatable between the immediate stakeholders. These discussions of ideas lead to change as well as improvement in various aspects of the project. This invariably improves the quality of the end product. Skills For Implementing The Two Approaches Implementing a Soft system methodology is not simple especially when combined with the hard systems approach. The first skill required for achieving a good balance between the two is developing the ability to change. Every project is influenced by its immediate as well as global environment. For instance, if the rules and regulations associated with number of floors changes, the project will have to adapt to it smoothly. The project managers cannot continue with their initial plan. Brian Wilson (2001, p.17) states ‘Thus whereas in analyzing a ‘hard’ interpretation of a situation we would seek to develop a single validated’ model, soft systems analysis requires the development of a number of models.’ The second most important skill is to have good sense of reasoning. Another dimension to this skill is to have good negotiating skills. Obtaining the correct information is also critical to any construction project otherwise it can lead to political and legal issues. Getting together towards a common goal becomes difficult if a team lacks good team work. Team work is an indispensable skill to any project. On the other hand, a hard system approach requires specific skills such as quantitative statistics to actually quantify every aspect of the project, be it to calculate the time required for constructing first of the 7 floors of the building or the capital required for it. Conclusion Every project will have a different percentage of both types of approaches. It cannot be easily defined that the hard systems approach should be given more importance or the soft systems approach. While the hard systems approach creates unambiguous results, the soft systems approach pushes the teams to brainstorm and come up with conflicting ideas to better the end result. It can be said that the hard systems approach enhances the quantitative result of the project and the soft systems approach improves the qualitative result. In any case, one approach essentially complements the other to make a project successful. References Agre, P. E. 2000. “Infrastructure and Institutional change in the networked university”. Information, Communication and Society, vol.3, no.4, pp.494-507. Cox, G. 2008. “Enablers and barriers, intentions and use: Faculty take-up of an online learning environment”, Proceedings of 3rd international conference on e-Learning, Cape Town 26-27 June. Checkland, P. 1981. Systems thinking, Systems practice. Chichester: Wiley &Sons Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. 1990. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley & Sons. Checkland, P. & Winter, M. 2006a. “Process and content: two ways of using SSM”. Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol.57, no.12. http://www.palgravejournals.com/jors/journal/v57/n12/full/2602118a.html Cummings, R.,Phillips, R., Tilbrook, R & Lowe, K. 2005. “Middle- out approaches to reform of University teaching and learning: Champions striding between the ‘top-down’ and the ‘bottom- up’ approaches”, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol.6, no.1, pp.1-15. Deacon, A. & Jaffer, S. 2008. “Collaborative learning designs for postgraduate writing interventions”. Proceedings of 3rd international conference on e-Learning, Cape Town 26-27 Houghton, L. & Ledington, P.W.J. 2002. “The evolution of confusion: Soft Systems Methodology and social theory revisited”. Australian Journal of information Systems, vol. 9, no.2, pp.75-83. http://dl.acs.org.au/index.php/ajis/issue/view/11 Phillips, R. 2005. Pedagogical, institutional and human factors influencing the widespread adoption of educational technology in higher education. In Balance, Fidelity, Mobility: maintaining the momentum? Proceedings of ASCILITE, Perth 2005, pp.541-549 Porter, S. 2005. “Issues in the relationship between technology and practice”. ALT-J, Research in Learning Technology, vol.13, no.3, pp.231-240. Vaitheeswaran. V. 2007 ‘Special Report: Innovation’, The Economist. http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9934754 Orwig, R. "Collaborative Design of Organizational Systems" in Proceedings of the Association for Information Systems, Indianapolis, IN, 1997. Haag, S., Raja, M. and L. Schkade “Quality Function Deployment Usage in Software Development,” Communications of the ACM (39:1), 1996, pp. 41-49. Presley, A., Sarkis, J. and Liles, D.. “A Multi Criteria Justification Methodology,” Journal of Engineering Valuation and Cost Analysis (1:2), 1997, pp. 111-123 Barry M and Mayson D 2000. Informal Settlement Characteristics in a Rural Land Restitution Case: Elandskloof, South Africa. Sociological Research On-Line. 5(2) August 2000:70:2. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/5/2/barry.html Byerley M and McIntosh A 1994. Administration of Informal Settlements, in Hindson H and McCarthy J (eds), Here to Stay: Informal Settlements in KwaZulu Natal, Indicator, Durban. 167-176. Cross C R 1993. Informal Tenure in South Africa: Systems of Transfer and Succession. Rural Urban Studies Unit, Centre for Social and Development Studies, University of Natal. Cross, C R. 1994 Shack Tenure in Durban in Hindson and McCarthy (eds.) Here to Stay Informal Settlements in KwaZulu-Natal, Indicator Press University of Natal.Page 12 International Conference on Spatial Information for Sustainable Development Nairobi, Kenya 2–5 October 2001 12 Davies C J and Fourie C F 1998. A Land Management Approach for Informal Settlement in South Africa, South African Journal of Surveying and Mapping, 24(5&6) 239-246. Fourie C D 1993. A New Approach to the Zulu land Tenure System: An Historical Anthropological Explanation of the Development of an Informal Settlement.Unpublished PhD thesis, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa. Migot-Adholla, S E and Bruce J W 1994. Introduction: Are Indigenous African Tenure Systems Secure? in Bruce J W and Migot-Adholla S E (eds). Searching for Tenure Security in Africa. Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, Iowa. 1-13. Rittel, H. J., and M. M. Webber (1984). "Planning problems are wicked problems", In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in Design Methodology, Wiley, pp. 135-144. Rittel, H. W. J. & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169. Shivji I G 1998. Not yet democracy: reforming land tenure in Tanzania, Faculty of Law, University of Dar es Salaam. Underwood J 1997. Business Process Transformation - Spring 1997. Lecture Notes, Wilson, Brian (2001) Soft Systems Methodology: Conceptual Model Building and its Contribution. New York: Wiley School of Computing Sciences, University of Technology Sydney. http://www-staff.mcs.uts.edu.au/~jim/bpt/ssm.html#top United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (UNCHS) 1996. New Delhi Declaration, Global conference on access to land and security of tenure as a condition for sustainable shelter and urban development. New Delhi, 17-19 January, 1996. Read More