Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
The real world is usually complex and messy.
Many different factors may contribute to an issue, and there may
be many different perspectives to consider while resolving it.
This means that
it's often difficult to understand the real problem or find the
root cause.
With so much confusion often surrounding problems,
determining an appropriate solution can sometimes seem almost
impossible.
To deal with issues like these, you need a problem-solving
approach that first lets you clearly see what's happening – and
then helps you think about how the situation could be improved.
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is just such an approach.
How SSM Was Developed
Soft Systems Methodology grew out of general systems theory, which
views everything in the world as part of an open, dynamic, and
interconnected system. The various parts of this system interact
with one another, often in a nonlinear way, to produce a result.
According to general systems theory, organizations consist of
complex, dynamic, goal-oriented processes – and all of these work
together, in a coordinated way, to produce a particular result.
For example, if a company's strategy is to maximize profits by
bringing new products to market quickly, then the systems within
the company must all work together to achieve this goal.
When something goes wrong within the system, or any of its
subsystems, you must analyze the individual parts to discover a
solution. In hard sciences, you can do this in a very controlled,
analytical way. However, when you add human or "soft" elements –
like social interaction, corporate politics, and individual
perspectives – it's a much more difficult process.
That's why Peter Checkland, a management scientist and systems
professor, applied the science of systems to the process of
solving messy and confusing management problems. The result was
Soft Systems Methodology – a way to explore complex situations
with different stakeholders; numerous goals; different viewpoints
and assumptions; and complicated interactions and relationships.
SSM helps you compare the "real world" with a model of how the
world could be. Through this modeling process, you can go beyond
the individual perspectives that might limit your thinking – and
you can recognize what's causing the problems within the system.
Using SSM
Because SSM deals with real-world situations, it needs to reflect
real-world problems, which often have nonlinear relationships that
are not well defined. As a result, SSM activities are also
nonlinear and not perfectly defined. Many other problem-solving
tools can be shown as flow charts with a series of clearly defined
steps. But diagrams used in SSM are more like mind maps – they
show relationships between activities, but they don't show a
linear route through them.
Checkland warns against thinking of SSM as a step-by-step process.
However, if SSM is to be useful, you need to know where to begin.
In this article, therefore, we'll give you a series of steps to help you get
started (you can abandon this stepwise approach when you're more
familiar with the methodology). To learn more about using the SSM
approach, read "Learning for Action" by Peter Checkland and John
Poulter.
Although it's easy to think of Soft
Systems Methodology as a "problem-solving approach,"
Checkland encourages SSM users to avoid thinking of a
"problem" that can be "solved" by a "solution." These words
imply that something is well defined and straightforward.
Instead, he prefers the terms problematical situation and improvements .
Here's an example: "My car won't start" is a problem that
might be solved by the solution "Charge the battery."
However, consider "People don't enjoy driving this new model
of car." This is a problematical situation for the
manufacturer, which needs to look for actions that might
improve the driving experience for customers.
Step 1: Explore the Problematical Situation
Create what Checkland calls a "rich picture" of what's happening.
This is, in effect, a mind map . It shows the main individuals,
groups, organizations, relationships, cultures, politics, and
processes involved in the situation. Also, try to identify the
different perspectives, or "worldviews," that different groups
have of the situation.
Then, among these individuals or groups, identify the "client" who
wants an improvement in the situation, the "practitioner" who is
carrying out the SSM-based investigation, and the stakeholders who
would be affected by an improvement in the situation.
Your goal, here, is to include as much relevant information as
possible on a large sheet of paper.
Step 2: Create Purposeful Activity Models
Identify the "purposeful activities" being carried out by people
involved in the situation. These are things that they're doing, as
well as the actions they're taking to improve the problematical
situation. Make note of which activities belong to which
worldview.
Then, create a "root definition" of each activity. This is a more
sophisticated description of the basic idea, and it contains
enough detail to stimulate an in-depth discussion later on.
Checkland proposes two tools for developing the root definition.
The first is called PQR:
P stands for "What?"
Q stands for "How?"
R stands for "Why?"
If you answer the above questions, you can complete this formula:
"Do P, by doing Q, to help achieve R."
The other tool is CATWOE . Use this to further improve the root
definition by thinking about the following:
Customers – Who receives the system's output?
Actors – Who performs the work within, or implements changes to,
the system?
Transformation – What is affected by the system, and what does
it do? This is often considered the most important part of CATWOE.
Worldview – What is the big picture?
Owner – Who owns the process?
Environment – What are the restrictions and limits on any
solution? What else is happening around it?
Finally, develop these into purposeful activity models. Ideally,
you'll have 5–7 steps to cover all of these descriptions for each
purposeful activity model, although you can break down individual
steps into their own root definitions and activity models.
Checkland recommends reviewing these in the light of "three E's":
Efficacy – Ways to monitor if the transformation is, in fact,
creating the intended outcome.
Efficiency – Ways to monitor if the benefits of the
transformation are greater than the cost (in time, effort, and
money) of creating them.
Effectiveness – Ways to identify if the individual
transformation also contributes to higher-level or longer-term
goals.
Step 3: Discuss the Problematic Situation
Discuss in detail each purposeful activity model. Your goal is to
find ways to improve the problematic situation. Some of the
following questions may help:
Does each part of the model truly represent what happens in
reality?
Do the dependencies and relationships between activities in the
model also exist in reality?
Is each activity efficacious, efficient, and effective?
Who performs each activity? Who else could do it?
How is each activity done? How else could it be done?
When and where is each activity done? When or where else could
it be done?
Having created a list of possible improvements, you may want to
create purposeful activity models for each one. Following the
process for doing so helps ensure that you've considered all of
the various worldviews involved, which is necessary for the
improvement to have a realistic chance of being implemented.
Step 4: Define "Actions to Improve"
The group doing the SSM-based analysis of the problematical
situation now has to agree on which actions it thinks will improve
the situation, and the group must define those actions in enough
detail to create an implementation plan.
Remember, because people have different worldviews, there won't
necessarily be agreement on which actions to take to improve the
situation. However, everyone involved should reach what Checkland
describes as an "accommodation" or compromise, so that they agree
on practical options that meet the three E's – efficacy,
efficiency, and effectiveness.
Note 1:
Change generally involves people, processes , and things . New "things" are usually the easiest to change: you can simply buy new equipment or systems. New processes need a lot of definition, but they can also be reasonably clear and straightforward to implement. Changes to people – involving culture or attitudes – are typically much more difficult. For more on this, see our article on Change Management .
Note 2:
We've presented Soft Systems Methodology here as a set of steps, but experienced SSM practitioners usually perform its activities in a repeated and ongoing manner – and they're flexible with SSM ideas, rather than following a strict process.
Tags:
Problem Solving, Skills
Many different factors may contribute to an issue, and there may
be many different perspectives to consider while resolving it.
This means that
it's often difficult to understand the real problem or find the
root cause.
With so much confusion often surrounding problems,
determining an appropriate solution can sometimes seem almost
impossible.
To deal with issues like these, you need a problem-solving
approach that first lets you clearly see what's happening – and
then helps you think about how the situation could be improved.
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is just such an approach.
How SSM Was Developed
Soft Systems Methodology grew out of general systems theory, which
views everything in the world as part of an open, dynamic, and
interconnected system. The various parts of this system interact
with one another, often in a nonlinear way, to produce a result.
According to general systems theory, organizations consist of
complex, dynamic, goal-oriented processes – and all of these work
together, in a coordinated way, to produce a particular result.
For example, if a company's strategy is to maximize profits by
bringing new products to market quickly, then the systems within
the company must all work together to achieve this goal.
When something goes wrong within the system, or any of its
subsystems, you must analyze the individual parts to discover a
solution. In hard sciences, you can do this in a very controlled,
analytical way. However, when you add human or "soft" elements –
like social interaction, corporate politics, and individual
perspectives – it's a much more difficult process.
That's why Peter Checkland, a management scientist and systems
professor, applied the science of systems to the process of
solving messy and confusing management problems. The result was
Soft Systems Methodology – a way to explore complex situations
with different stakeholders; numerous goals; different viewpoints
and assumptions; and complicated interactions and relationships.
SSM helps you compare the "real world" with a model of how the
world could be. Through this modeling process, you can go beyond
the individual perspectives that might limit your thinking – and
you can recognize what's causing the problems within the system.
Using SSM
Because SSM deals with real-world situations, it needs to reflect
real-world problems, which often have nonlinear relationships that
are not well defined. As a result, SSM activities are also
nonlinear and not perfectly defined. Many other problem-solving
tools can be shown as flow charts with a series of clearly defined
steps. But diagrams used in SSM are more like mind maps – they
show relationships between activities, but they don't show a
linear route through them.
Checkland warns against thinking of SSM as a step-by-step process.
However, if SSM is to be useful, you need to know where to begin.
In this article, therefore, we'll give you a series of steps to help you get
started (you can abandon this stepwise approach when you're more
familiar with the methodology). To learn more about using the SSM
approach, read "Learning for Action" by Peter Checkland and John
Poulter.
Although it's easy to think of Soft
Systems Methodology as a "problem-solving approach,"
Checkland encourages SSM users to avoid thinking of a
"problem" that can be "solved" by a "solution." These words
imply that something is well defined and straightforward.
Instead, he prefers the terms problematical situation and improvements .
Here's an example: "My car won't start" is a problem that
might be solved by the solution "Charge the battery."
However, consider "People don't enjoy driving this new model
of car." This is a problematical situation for the
manufacturer, which needs to look for actions that might
improve the driving experience for customers.
Step 1: Explore the Problematical Situation
Create what Checkland calls a "rich picture" of what's happening.
This is, in effect, a mind map . It shows the main individuals,
groups, organizations, relationships, cultures, politics, and
processes involved in the situation. Also, try to identify the
different perspectives, or "worldviews," that different groups
have of the situation.
Then, among these individuals or groups, identify the "client" who
wants an improvement in the situation, the "practitioner" who is
carrying out the SSM-based investigation, and the stakeholders who
would be affected by an improvement in the situation.
Your goal, here, is to include as much relevant information as
possible on a large sheet of paper.
Step 2: Create Purposeful Activity Models
Identify the "purposeful activities" being carried out by people
involved in the situation. These are things that they're doing, as
well as the actions they're taking to improve the problematical
situation. Make note of which activities belong to which
worldview.
Then, create a "root definition" of each activity. This is a more
sophisticated description of the basic idea, and it contains
enough detail to stimulate an in-depth discussion later on.
Checkland proposes two tools for developing the root definition.
The first is called PQR:
P stands for "What?"
Q stands for "How?"
R stands for "Why?"
If you answer the above questions, you can complete this formula:
"Do P, by doing Q, to help achieve R."
The other tool is CATWOE . Use this to further improve the root
definition by thinking about the following:
Customers – Who receives the system's output?
Actors – Who performs the work within, or implements changes to,
the system?
Transformation – What is affected by the system, and what does
it do? This is often considered the most important part of CATWOE.
Worldview – What is the big picture?
Owner – Who owns the process?
Environment – What are the restrictions and limits on any
solution? What else is happening around it?
Finally, develop these into purposeful activity models. Ideally,
you'll have 5–7 steps to cover all of these descriptions for each
purposeful activity model, although you can break down individual
steps into their own root definitions and activity models.
Checkland recommends reviewing these in the light of "three E's":
Efficacy – Ways to monitor if the transformation is, in fact,
creating the intended outcome.
Efficiency – Ways to monitor if the benefits of the
transformation are greater than the cost (in time, effort, and
money) of creating them.
Effectiveness – Ways to identify if the individual
transformation also contributes to higher-level or longer-term
goals.
Step 3: Discuss the Problematic Situation
Discuss in detail each purposeful activity model. Your goal is to
find ways to improve the problematic situation. Some of the
following questions may help:
Does each part of the model truly represent what happens in
reality?
Do the dependencies and relationships between activities in the
model also exist in reality?
Is each activity efficacious, efficient, and effective?
Who performs each activity? Who else could do it?
How is each activity done? How else could it be done?
When and where is each activity done? When or where else could
it be done?
Having created a list of possible improvements, you may want to
create purposeful activity models for each one. Following the
process for doing so helps ensure that you've considered all of
the various worldviews involved, which is necessary for the
improvement to have a realistic chance of being implemented.
Step 4: Define "Actions to Improve"
The group doing the SSM-based analysis of the problematical
situation now has to agree on which actions it thinks will improve
the situation, and the group must define those actions in enough
detail to create an implementation plan.
Remember, because people have different worldviews, there won't
necessarily be agreement on which actions to take to improve the
situation. However, everyone involved should reach what Checkland
describes as an "accommodation" or compromise, so that they agree
on practical options that meet the three E's – efficacy,
efficiency, and effectiveness.
Note 1:
Change generally involves people, processes , and things . New "things" are usually the easiest to change: you can simply buy new equipment or systems. New processes need a lot of definition, but they can also be reasonably clear and straightforward to implement. Changes to people – involving culture or attitudes – are typically much more difficult. For more on this, see our article on Change Management .
Note 2:
We've presented Soft Systems Methodology here as a set of steps, but experienced SSM practitioners usually perform its activities in a repeated and ongoing manner – and they're flexible with SSM ideas, rather than following a strict process.
