SSM is one of the more widely used systems methods. The driving force behind its development and increasing application across many domains, but particularly information systems, has been Peter Checkland at The University of Lancaster in the UK (Checkland, 1993). You heard Peter Checkland talk about the reasons for developing SSM in Week 6 which I will not repeat here, but I will mention some of the underlying ideas which permeate soft system thinking in general, ideas that you have already encountered in this course.
First, soft system thinking does not assume that problems are out there in the world in a real sense. Working from a soft perspective there are no objectively given problems. This does not mean that the world is not full of difficult and complex issues which need to be managed but it is important to realise that different people may see different problems in the same situation and come to different conclusions as to their nature. It is, perhaps, misleading to talk of the context as though it were objectively agreed upon and accepted by all parties and stakeholders. Rather it is more appropriate with soft systems thinking to describe those involved in messy contexts as problem owners – this makes a clear relationship between the context and those who are experiencing it. A context is the combination of the external world together with the way it seems to the observers or participants, some of whom may not even see any problem at all in the given context.
Second, soft systems thinking assumes that problems are much less structured, and much messier than some users and advocates of reductionist science would accept. Indeed a key feature of many situations is that they are unbounded, unclear and uncertain and that the observer may be unsure if there is a ‘problem’ except for those within the situation believing something is ‘not right’. This is why the term ‘problem context’ or ‘problem situation’ – rather than just ‘problem’ – is used to describe what confronts that analyst.
A third consideration to keep in mind is that just as problem definition is a construct of our own creation, so are ‘solutions’. A group of people may agree on the nature of a given problem, yet disagree (violently in some cases) as to what constitutes a solution. The aim is to move from the present state of affairs to a desired state of affairs when no one has a map to work from.
Fourth, it is important that the situation is investigated and analysed before any decision on the desirability of a specific form of solution or medial activity is taken. In this sense the role of the systems analyst (the title usually ascribed to the person attempting to understand the nature of a systemic problem) can be viewed, at least initially, as much more akin to a therapist than a technical expert. The analyst encourages participants or stakeholders in the exiting context to examine their own perceptions of the context and its interconnections with others. Such a review will include an analysis of objectives, the role of the client within the context and the role of other stakeholders. SSM is concerned with what is meant by a problem and what action (new or pre-planned) would mean to those engaged in the context.
Having set out these basic features of SSM I now want to present to you two different pictorial descriptions of SSM as given by Checkland (and one of his colleagues) himself and as shown in Figures 7 and 8.
Allow approximately 10 minutes for this activity.
Look at these two pictorial descriptions and use the free response box below to note down what you see as being clear distinctions between them in the light of what has been covered so far in this week, or indeed earlier weeks.
Figure 7The seven-step activity model of SSM as articulated in the 1980s (Checkland and Scholes, 1990, p. 27).
Figure 8An ‘iconic’ pictorial model of the process of SSM as articulated in the 1990s (Checkland and Scholes, 1990, p. 29).
The original use of SSM as exemplified by Figure 7 was mainly in terms described by Peter Checkland as a ‘highlighted study’ which had an unconsidered and limiting model of intervention (in terms of this course a limiting model of engaging with complexity). This limiting model of intervention involved outsiders:
It is this series of activities which the seven-step (or stage) model has perpetuated and which resulted in many people using it systematically rather than more creatively or systemically. The formal use of the seven-stage version of SSM has been termed Mode 1 use by Checkland and Scholes.
When Jim Scholes, then a business planning and control manager, began using Checkland’s Mode 1 version of SSM in his day-to-day work he realised that his mode of use was very different to the intervention model described above. Subsequently the original, or Mode 1 use of SSM has been described as ‘using SSM to do a study’ (the four-step intervention using the seven-stage model) compared to ‘doing work using SSM in everyday situations’. The differences have practical implications. The former involves mentally starting with SSM and using it to structure what is done. In contrast, the latter involves mentally starting from what is to be done (the situation) and making sense of it by mapping it on to SSM, or making use of it through SSM (see Table 2).
Allow approximately 5 minutes for this activity.
Using the free response box below, describe how the different processes shown in Figures 7 and 8 relate to the different balls of the juggler metaphor that you were introduced to in Week 1’s introductory video.
Table 2 sets out some distinctions which an observer might make between Mode 1 and Mode 2 use of SSM by a practitioner.
Table 2 Possible distinctions between Mode 1 and Mode 2 use of SSM by a practitioner
Mode 1 | Mode 2 |
Method-driven | Situation-driven |
Intervention | Interaction |
Sometimes used only as a linear sequence | Always iterative |
SSM as an external recipe | SSM as an internalised model |
(Adapted from Checkland and Scholes, 1990, p. A36)
Checkland and Scholes (1990) characterise Mode 2 as occurring when the systems practitioner interacts in the events (practices) and ideas (theories) which unfold over time. Another way of saying this is that the practitioner is a participant in the situation rather than being external to it (and it is for this reason that the history of the practitioner – called a tradition – was drawn to your attention). I have set these two modes of using SSM out as if they are two categories but Peter Checkland (personal communication) says that:
‘It ought to be made clear that Mode 1/Mode 2 are not two categories; they define a spectrum; they are ideal types; any actual study will be somewhere on the spectrum. The ‘Mode 2’ concept arose naturally as, with experience, two things came together:
Mode 2 was thus an emergent development arising experientially not a designed development.’
Both the evolution of a method/methodology and its use in practice is a learning process flowing from experience in action outlined in Figure 3. SSM, like other approaches, is a learning process that can be mapped on to a learning cycle as Peter Checkland himself has done in Figure 9.
Figure 9SSM as a learning system