Application and Evaluation of SSM as a Problem Solving Methodology

Authors Avatar

Abstract:

This report is amid at the explanation of the theoretical application of the soft system methodology, this is done in the first half of the report. The latter section focuses on the implication of SSM on Newport Business School. The analysis of NBS is carried out as my reflective experience under the Soft System Methodology.

Table of content

1) Introduction:

Soft system thinking is a form of systematic thinking that understands realities as the creative construction of the human beings (Jackson, 1999). It generates and works with an evolving appreciation of the people’s point of view and intentions. Hence, the soft system thinking is concerned with a situation as they are defined through “action concept” (Checkland, 1981) which insist that the realities and the authentic action cannot be solely represented through the scientific system models as in other form of systematic thinking, like Hard System Thinking. The models can be implied as “a pair spectacles” through which one can “look and interpret reality” (Reason, 2001). Hence, problem solving techniques under the soft system thinking adhere to a qualitative approach as based upon Soft System Methodology (SSM).

SSM rests on the assumption that the resolution of complex problem relies on the innate subjective views of the participants in the situation. It efficiently deals ill-structured situations where there is an absence of clarity in the definition of the problem. SSM problem solving approach accommodates changes in three dimensions – “attitudes, structures and procedures” (Beckford, 1998).

The analysis of the Newport Business School manifests a set of “ill-structured” problems, which calls for the changes under the dimensions of SSM. The analysis is the appreciation of the “student” as the participant, carrying out SSM.

2) Soft System Methodology:

Soft System Methodology is the brainwave of Professor Peter Checkland. The methodology was devised as a result of “consultancy work” (Platt, 1995). Hutchings (2006) explains this development as an approach which can be accessed in the situation where Hard System Methodologies are fruitless. He writes,

When confronted with complex real world problems which cannot be defined solely in the scientific terms, Checkland was forced to abandon the classic system engineering thinking which could not describe fully the situation he faces. This led to a fundamental reappraisal of the classics “hard” approach and the subsequent development of the Soft Methodology”.

        

Hence, SSM is classified as “a generic methodology” (Wilson, 1992) which should be adapted to any given situation. It deals with “fuzzy” problem situations – situations where people are viewed not as passive objects, but as active subjects, where objectives are unclear or where multiple objectives may exist (Rosenhead, 1989). This is explained as human activity system (HAS) - a collection of activities, in which people are purposefully engaged, and the relationships between the activities (Platt, 1995). Hence SSM is a qualitative technique that can be used for applying System Thinking to non-systematic situations. It follows its progression in seven stages as laid down by Checkland in seven stage model “which is considered by most people to be the SSM” (Platt, 1995). The seven stages are incorporated into two parts: the real world and systems thinking, as illustrated in Figure 1. The diagram is divided into two halves. The upper half (Stages 1, 2, 5, 6, 7) are activities that take place in the ‘real world’ “that is they are based on the knowledge and experience of the participant of how things are to them” (Beckford 1998) and therefore should involve people in the problem situation. The bottom half (Stages 3,4,4a,4b) are ‘systems thinking’ activities which are carried out in the language of systems and may or may not involve people in the problem situation, depending on the circumstances of study (Johnson, 1999).

Join now!

In Stage 1, the problem situation may arise with number of people feeling uncomfortable. Thus “problem owners” (stakeholder of the problem) explore the situation more likely to say, “unstructured the situation” with a view to make improvements (Reason, 2001). This problem situation is expressed in Stage 2, attempting to avoid the structuring of the situation that would close down the original thinking. In this stage SSM uses diagrams or models as a means of talking about a reality, rather than models of reality (Bennetts et al., 2000: 192) Hence the situation is perceived through rich pictures. Rich pictures are the problem ...

This is a preview of the whole essay