Soft Systems Methodology - Essay Example

SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY 'The module leader wishes to improve grades achieved in their module for 2007' This is the ment that we need to analyze and find a solution using SSM technique. But before doing so, let us briefly discuss the SSM technique. Soft system thinking seeks to explore the messy problematic situations that arise in human activity. However, rather than reducing the complexity of the "mess" so that it can be modeled mathematically (hard systems), soft systems strive to learn from the different perceptions that exist in the minds of the different people involved in the situation (Andrews, 2000). This action research-based, interpretive approach is strongly influenced by Vickers' (1968, pp.59,176) description of the importance of appreciative systems in dealing with human complexity. Checkland (1981), and Checkland and Scholes (1990) have attempted to transform these ideas from systems theory into a practical methodology that is called Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). Soft Systems Methodology developed by Professor Peter Checkland is a way of dealing with problem situations in which there is a high social, political and human activity component. (Checkland, 1981) This distinguishes SSM from other methodologies that deal with hard problems which are more technologically oriented. Thus, SSM can be a useful research tool for understanding problematic ELT situations. (Holliday, 1990) Hard problems are problems characterized by the fact that they can be well defined. The assumption is that there is a definite solution and we can define a number of specific goals that must be accomplished. Soft problems, on the other hand, are difficult to define.When we think of soft problems, we don't think of problems but of problem situations. It is the classic situation of it not being a "problem" but an "opportunity". Soft Systems methodology was developed for the express purpose of dealing with problems of this type.His "Soft Systems Methodology" was created through a number of research projects in industry and its application and refinement over a number of years. A leading SSM specialist in Japan, suggests that SSM can be a useful research tool in the educational context, and argues that it can be applied to any messy, problematic human situation that requires decision-making aimed at improvement (Kijima, 1999) The most important feature of this analysis of data, information and knowledge is that the act of creating information is a human act, not one which a machine can accomplish. It is the human being who can attribute meaning to the selected data. (Checkland, Holwell, 1998) SSM is divided into seven distinct stages. These are; 1. Finding out about the problem situation. This is basic research into the problem area. Who are the key players How does the process work now etc. 2. Expressing the problem situation through Rich Pictures. As with any type of diagram, more knowledge can be communicated visually. A picture is worth a 1000 words. 3. Selecting how to view the situation and producing root definitions. From what different perspectives can we look at this problem situation. 4. Building conceptual models of what the system must do for each root definitions. You have basic "Whats" from the root definitions. Now begin to define "Hows". 5. Comparison of the conceptual models with the real world. Compare the results from steps 4 and 2 and see where they differ and are similar. 6. Identify feasible and desirable changes. Are there ways of improving the situation. 7. Recommendations for taking action to improve the problem situation. How would you implement the changes from step 6. Step 1: Problem situation unstructured The initial stage consists simply of managers and/or employees (problem owner) deciding that a review or change of tasks and the way they are performed is required, and an analyst (problem solver) is called in to review and provide recommendations. Step 2: Problem situation expressed Step 1 is basically that people of the organization think there might be a problem or room for improvement, and initiates the analysis or review. In step 2, the analyst collects and sorts information and provides some description of the problem situation. There are many strategies analysts can employ when collecting facts, ranging from very informal, unstructured approaches to very formal, structured tools employed in traditional systems analysis. The step1 and step2 are an 'expression' phase during which an attempt is made to built the richest possible picture, not of 'the problem' but of the situation in which there is perceived to be a problem. (Wilson, 1990) As a general strategy, it is better to employ a selection of not too structured techniques at the beginning, and employ more structured techniques after a first impression of the problem has been defined for the purpose of eliciting detailed information or checking assumptions. Rich Pictures Rich pictures are used to provide a model for thinking about the system and to help the analyst to gain an appreciation of the problem situation. The rich picture does not attempt to model the system in any precise way. It provides a representation of how we can look at and think about the system . Rich pictures are artistic and individualistic expressions, and therefore not "right" or "wrong". However, Rich Pictures should represent structure, processes and issues of the organization which could be relevant to the problem definition, and try to give an impression of the organizational climate. A Rich Picture is not a system model or system map (which is generated at later stages). The following analysis needs to be performed on a rich picture for problem situation expressed: 1. Intervention analysis, which is an analysis, which deliberately identifies the issues that people involved in the situation think, is problematical. 2. Social analysis, identifies the roles people fill in the organization, the norms of behavior those people display and the values by which their behavior is judged. 3. Power analysis, is concerned with such issues as 'What are the commodities of power in this situation', 'How is the commodity obtained', and 'How is the commodity passed on' The rich picture is used to identify problems and inform the problem owner of the situation rather than provide possible solution. Rich pictures are usually, but not exclusively, a mixture of text and graphics and are intended to give an easily intelligible image of the organization and the major issues involved. The production of a rich picture is not the purpose of SSM but can be viewed as a by-product of the process of investigation (Lewis 1992). Step 3: Naming Of Relevant Systems. Root definitions: It is necessary to pay close attention to the formulation of names of relevant systems, and to write them in way such that a model could be built based on these names. These names are known as Root Definitions. The purpose of the root definition is to express the core purpose of some purposeful activity system (Checkland and Scholes, 1990). A root definition is expressed as a transformation process that takes some entity as input, changes or transforms that entity, and produces a new form of the entity as output. (Checkland, Smyth 1976) Producing a root definition is a two step process. 1. An issue or task is chosen from a rich picture 2. A system is defined to carry out the task or address the issue. Root definitions are written as sentences that elaborate a transformation. There are six elements that make up a well formulated root definition, which are summed up in the mnemonic CATWOE: -- Customer: everyone who stands to gain benefits from a system is considered as a customer of the system. --Actor: The actors perform the activities defined in the system. --Transformation process: This is shown as the conversion of input to output. --Weltanschauung: The German expression for world view. This world view makes the transformation process meaningful in context. --Owner: Every system has some proprietor, who has the power to start up and shut down the system. --Environmental constraints: External elements exist outside the system which it takes as given. These constraints include organizational policies as well as legal and ethical matters. . The dispositions root definitions define are expressed in terms of conceptual models, while the dispositions they induce are the source of the effects they have on the problem-solving practice (Checkland, Tsouvalis, 1997) Step 4: Conceptual Models. A conceptual model is a human activity model that strictly conforms to the root definition using the minimum set of activities. Systems thinking is applied in this development. Systems thinking is an iterative process that combines three concepts. (Checkland and Scholes, 1990). a. The Perceived world: Each one of us has our own views of the world. b. Ideas: We perceive the world through the framework of ideas that are internal to us. c. Methodology: There are many of these of which SSM is one.. Formal Systems Model : Formal Systems Thinking is applied to the development of the conceptual model. It serves as a guideline for checking the conceptual model we draw. If S represent a human activity system, then S is a formal system (Macauly, 1996). if it meets certain requirements such as : It must have some mission, a measure of performance, must have a decision making process, must have components which interact with each other such that the effects and actions are transmitted through the system, must have resources at the disposal of its decision making process. The conceptual model for a system consists of an operational system which is covered by - but bounded from - a monitoring process. This operational system consists of a core activity and whatever pre-requisite activities are required such that the core activity can be done.Conceptual modelling should and can also benefit from visual programming and object orientation (Loucopoulos and Zicari, 1992) Step 5: Comparing Conceptual Models with Reality This is the stage back to the real world, thinking above the dotted line. At this stage, conceptual models built at stage 4 will be compared with real world expression at stage 2. Four ways of doing comparison can be summarized as follows: 1. Using Conceptual Models as a Base for Ordered Questioning 2. Comparing History with Model Prediction 3. General overall comparison 4. Model Overlay Steps 6 and 7: Implementing 'Feasible and Desirable' Changes In stage 6, feasible and desirable changes are identified and discussed, and they will be put in action in stage 7. The purpose of the comparison stage is to generate debate about possible changes which might be made within the perceived problem situation. This can be seen clearly with the second method of doing comparison as discussed above. The outcome of stage 6 and 7 for both hard and soft system is the creation and implementation of a system. Generally, in these more nebulous problem situations, the eventual action is likely to be less than the implementation of a system; it is more likely to be the introduction of a more modest change. The job at stage 7 is to implement changes and put them into action. When action is taken, it might be a straightforward one. However, other situations may be encountered. The introduction of the action may change the situation so that although the originally perceived problem has been eliminated, new problem emerge. Often it is recommended that a temporary system be used to carry out the task under the supervision of the analyst, followed by a transition to the operation of the new system. Let us consider our initial Problem and try to find an optimum solution using the methodology discussed above. 'The module leader wishes to improve student grades achieved in their module for 2007' The first step is to define the "problem situation". The scenario is that the module leader wants that in the year 2007, the grades of students should improve. He sees the scope for improvement and feels strongly that the students can achieve much higher grades than what they have achieved this year. So, the key players in this situation are the module leader himself and the students. The second step is to define the important factors the key elements affecting the performance of the students. Let us first see what are the factors that do not or cannot be changed - the students, the leader, the course ware or the course material and the grading system. The other factors where we should focus on are: Motivation of students to do better, Methods of teaching adopted by the teacher, Comprehension levels of the students, the communication between the students and teachers. In our step 3, we are now ready to draw our Rich Picture. See Figure 1. As is clear from the picture, we have interactions between students and teacher, between students themselves, management and the class by way of providing the necessary infrastructure and necessary requirements such as Library, Computers with internet connections, Good ambience. By using different methods for collecting information we can define our root definitions. The methods we used are: 1.Interviews: a. unstructured, informal ("tell me what you do") b. semi-structured (questionnaire with open-ended answers) c. highly structured 2. Work observation i.e. observance of the class while being taught. 3. Formal and informal discussions. After this let us look at our root definitions or use CATWOE. In our case--- C--- the students and from them - the management of school A-the teacher and the students and the management T-the need for motivated students to the filled need of motivated students who get good grades. W---Proper training to teacher to use different methods of teaching and providing good infrastructure to students plus giving rewards/incentives to motivate students. O---Management E---The core design of courseware and grading system. Now let us develop our conceptual models based on these root definitions. Our first model is Model 1 wherein we focus on improving facilities provided to the students. 1. Set up a committee to oversee use of new aids in teaching such as audio-visual setup. 2. Training of the teacher on new methods of teaching. 3. Setting up of a well stocked library which contains all the relevant books and journals required by the students. 4. Making a group responsible for setting up group and panel discussions and inviting panelists from time to time in school premises. 5. Setting up of a computer lab where students can go and search information as and when required. 6. Assign tasks 1-5 to different people. 7. Provide definite timeframes for completion of above tasks 8. Monitor progress on these tasks. As we can see that that by improving the overall facilities provided to the students , we can expect better grades from them. The second Model or Model 2 is based on the fact that all above requirements have already been met and we still need to improve students' grades. In the second model, we examine the motivation aspects of the students. If the students are not sufficiently motivated, they will not strive hard to improve. 1. Discussions with students on how they perceive they can improve their grades. 2. Testing the comprehension levels and providing feedback of the class. 3. Checking the communication between the teacher and students. Is the teacher available for further questions or discussion after class 4. Setting up of a reward system for students wherein students getting high grades are suitable rewarded. 5. Assigning tasks 1-4 to different people. 6. Monitoring the progress of these tasks. 7. Final evaluation of the effects it has on overall results. The next step is the Monitoring of the system: Monitoring the operational system consists of three activities (Checkland, 1981) Define a measure of performance: We can use any or all of the three E's for measurement of the operational system Efficacy - does it work Efficiency - How much of work completed given consumed resources Effectiveness - Are goals being met. Monitor the activities in the operational system, in accordance with the metrics defined in step 1. Take control action: Use the outcomes of these metrics to determine and execute action to control the operational system. Next step is to compare the models with reality and see the feasibility of the model. Let us consider Model 2 for this step. Activity in Model Exist How Who Good/bad Communication between teacher And students Yes Whether the teacher answers all queries, is open to discussions, provides feedback. Management Needs improvement. Feedback on performance Yes Are all students on the same level or do they understand what is being taught. Are they being provided feedback Observance of ongoing classes. Management Good Set up the reward system No In discussion with students and teacher Management NA Based on the comparison, following desirable changes have been identified: 1. Improving communication between student and teacher. 2. Providing appropriate feedback to students on their performance. 3. Setting up of reward system. Peter Checkland states in his book "Systems Thinking, Systems Practice", "The complexity of the universe is beyond expression in any possible notation".(Checkland, 1981) he admits that any methodology will be inadequate, but that doesn't mean that it's useless. Thus based on above discussions, we finally recommend: 1. Communication between teachers and students should be improved. For this: a. There should be more open group discussions or Panel discussions. b. Workshops should be organized where the two can interact freely. 2. Tours and excursions to real corporate environment to study real cases. This will help boost creativity and interest in students. 3. Set up a reward system to reward the high graders. 4. And a Monitoring system to check the progress of students. Conclusion: SSM deals with problem encountered by high social, political and human activity component, and can be a useful research tool for understanding problematic ELT situations. SSM is divided into seven distinct stages.The initial stage consists simply of managers and/or employees (problem owner) deciding that a review or change of tasks and the way they are performed is required, and an analyst (problem solver) is called in to review and provide recommendations. The rich picture is used to identify problems and inform the problem owner of the situation rather than provide possible solution. It is necessary to pay close attention to the formulation of names of relevant systems, and to write them in way such that a model could be built based on these names. Producing a root definition is a two-step process. Root definitions are written as sentences that elaborate a transformation. There are six elements that make up a well formulated root definition, which are summed up in the mnemonic CATWOE - Customer, Actor, Transformation process, Weltanschauung, Owner, Environmental constraints References: 1. Andrews, C.L., 2000. "Restoring legitimacy to the systems approach," IEEE Technology and Society. 19 (4), 38-44. 2. Avison, D. E., and G. Fitzgerald. 1995. Information Systems Development : Methodologies, Techniques, and Tools. 2nd ed, Information systems series. New York: McGraw-Hill. 3. Checkland, P., 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. London, John Wiley & Sons 4. Checkland, P., 1987. The Application of Systems Thinking in Real-world Problem-situations: the Emergence of Soft Systems Methodology. Gower Press. 5. Checkland, P., Scholes J. 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Toronto, John Wiley and Sons. 6. Checkland P, Holwell S, 1998. Information, systems and information systems : making sense of the field, John Wiley and Sons 7. Checkland, P. and Poulter, J., 2006. Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems Methodology, and Its Use Practitioners, Teachers and Students , John Wiley 8. Checkland, P., Tsouvalis, C., 1997. Reflecting on SSM: The Link Between Root Definitions and Conceptual Models, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14:3, 153-168, John Wiley & Sons. 9. Dang, Baylis, Patel, 1984. Modelling a Business through Soft Systems Methodology in End-User Development: a Claim and an Approach 10. Holliday, A 1990. 'A role for soft systems methodology in ELT projects'. System, 18: 77-84 11. http://www.is.curtin.edu.au/venable/isdl/prototype/chp4-.htm 12. Jackson, M. 2003 Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers 2003, John Wiley and Sons Ltd 13. Kijima, K 1999. 'Sofuto sisutemu hohoron towa nanika'. [What is the soft systems methodology]. Journal of Japan Society for Fuzzy Theory and Systems, 11, 3: 369-81 14. Lewis, P. J., 1992. 'Rich Picture Building in the Soft Systems Methodology', European Journal of Information Systems, 1(5), xx, pp. 351-360. 15. Loucopoulos, P., Zicari, R., 1992, Conceptual modeling, Databases, and CASE: an integrated view of information systems development. Wiley, New York. 16. Macaulay, L., 1996. Requirements Engineering. London. Springer. 17. Monk, A. and Howard, S. 1998. "The Rich Picture: A Tool for Reasoning About Work Context", Interactions, Vol 5, No 2 (March-April), pp21-30. 18. Smyth, D.S., Checkland, P., 1976. Using a Systems Approach: The Structure of Root Definitions. J. Appl. Sys. Anal. 1:75-83. 19.Vickers, G., 1968. Value Systems and Social Process. London, Penguin Books. 20. Wilson, B., 1990. System: Concept, methodologies and applications. John Wiley, New York Read More