Notes on-Systems Approaches to Managing

Change: Part 5The Soft Systems Methodology

A Practical GuideEds. – Martin Reynolds & Sue Holwell

Chapter 5 – Soft Systems

MethodologySSM

Peter Checkland and John Poulter

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

Abstract

Primary characteristics:

• Used for ‘tackling’ messy problematic situations

• Action orientated that starts with ‘learning aboutthe situation’ and then ‘taking purposeful action’to improve it

• Each model contains a distinct ‘worldview’

• Each model is an intellectual tool kit designed to:

• Inform discussions

• Structure them

• Use the output to identify improvement

This section covers core tenets, fundamentalconcepts and, techniques of SSM

5.1 IntroductionWe live in complex times – everything is in astate of flux and situations, especially inrespect of human situations can becomeproblematic very easily.

SSM is an organised way of tacklingproblems – it is action orientated and worksto bring about improvement to a situationregardless of how hard it is to do so.

Worldviews are crucial to the SSM approach– many systems approaches do not have theability to handle the multiple perspectivesthat people bring with them to problems.

The second characteristic that makes forcomplexity is that people come withpurposeful action. Both of these two pointsare why SSM came into existence

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

5.1 Introduction (Cont.) SSM is a social learning tool that leads to action

The shape is as follows:

1. Invest time in finding out about the problem

2. Select purposeful activities that ca be used to explore the

situation – express these as activity models. Note the associated

worldview

3. Use the model in group situation as the source of questions to

clarify, explore and ‘surface’ worldviews. Generate ideas for

change and improvement

4. During discussion record the results of the ‘finding out’ about,

ideas for change their desirability and cultural feasibility. The

issue here is that people bring ‘baggage’ with them – different

worldviews . For change to happen these worldview need to be

shared and accommodated into the change.

Don’t’ be fearful of ‘clashing worldviews since they are source of

creativity, energy and ideas for change.

The above (1-4) represent a learning cycle which can be seen as being

perpetual. The more perspectives that are brought in, the greater

analytical rigour the process will have with debate and ‘more actions to

improve’

Fig 5.1

5.1.1 What can SSM be used for?

Very broad application due to the two ideas:

• A learning process that through discussion leadsto action

• The creation of ‘models of purposeful activity thatcontain questions applicable to real situations

Broad sector appeal – small to large, public, private,charity and not-for-profit sectors.

Any human situation that needs to be explored withthe desire to create ‘purposeful activity’ – and toavoid ‘everyday opinion’ (dogma)

‘What taken-as-given worldview lies behind theseassertions of opinion?

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

5.1.3 How was SSM

created

• Human centered and social research is an issue because, unlike traditional scientific research of hypothesis and testing, it was too distant from human involvement.

• Action Research, was the initial framework of choice in this field and the Systems Engineering (SE) framework devised by Bell Telephones.

• This was deemed not ‘rich enough’ so the idea of incorporated ‘worldviews’ to handle social and human complexity.

• SE was modified and, in time and the Learning for a User by a Methodology-informed Approach to a Situation (LUMAS) was created.

SSM Cycle of learning for action

5.1.4 How does SSM Differ from other systems approaches?

• S.Eng was the start – a ‘hard’systems approach that wasdevised to solve businessproblems by seeing the world as aseries of interacting systems

• SSM derived from this once theconcept of ‘worldview’ wasincluded and understood. This wasa response to managing conflictingperspectives, addressingcomplexity of human centereddesign. It is a process of inquiryorganised as a learning system.The idea of a ‘soft’ approach thatwas action oriented, emergentand intellectually driven

Fig 5.2

5.2 SSM in Practice

SSM

Everyday life

Problem situation

Flexible process

Use of systems

ideas

First comes the feeling that somethingneeds to be done, we have a situation thatis ‘problematical’. We start to probe the ideawith “What are the implications of this?,What should we do?

We refer to our internal database of‘experiences’, listen to our gut, or plough inflaying around in a process of disorderedtrial and error. Or we could use SSM

SSM sees a need for purposeful action toimprove the situation. Improvement is seenin the context of the removal of tensions,answer or at least acknowledge unansweredquestions , generally make the situationbetter.

It is an organised ‘process’ of thinking basedon systems idea

5.2.1 Everyday Life and Problematical Situations

Human Centred Behaviours

• “Complexity, emotions, actions,turbulence, confusion in language, dynamicshifting changing environments …”

• All of which we bring an innate desire tosolve because we bring to it meaning. It isour perceptions that we project onto asituation that define them as ‘problematic’.In doing so we imbue a desire to tacklethem with the purpose of improvement.

5.2.2 Tackling Problematical SituationsWhat happens when weintervene?

We make judgements about the‘real-world situation’. Are theygood or bad, right or wrong,acceptable or unacceptable – wedo so by reflecting upon ourpersonal set of ‘standards’. Theseare derived from a mix of nature(genetic predisposition) andnurture (environmentalexperiences). These form our‘worldview or Weltanschauung’ –this is the most crucial aspect tounderstand in dealing with SSM

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

5.2.3 A Flexible Process• So to cope with the dynamicnature of multiple worldviews it isclear that SSM has to be a flexibleapproach.

• It is not a method but amethodology – that is a collectionof methods, defined by on-goingprinciples of behaviour adapted tothe nature of each specificsituation.

• It is a principle basedframework in which we hang allour tools on, and then select whichtool box to take with us to the nextjob. Tools hat are suited to actionorientated improvement

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

5.2.5 What is the SSM process?

A cyclical learning process where thelearning that actually happens isprimarily group / social learning.Individual learning is dependent uponthe worldview of the learner.

The image below shows a traditionalstyle of inquiry – it shows that is not alinear process, that finding out is ofteninformed through model developmentand discussion / debating.

Discussion and debating stage is wherewe are looking at the desirability of anysuggested improvement along with itscultural feasibility

Fig 5.10

5.2.6 The SSM

Learning Cycle:

Finding Out

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SAFig 5.11

5.2.6.1 Making Rich Pictures

• The type of mind an SSM practioner needs is a ‘spongelike’ approach to absorbing the situation.

• The Rich Picture methodology has moved from being a‘metaphor’ to a literal description of a visualrepresentation of a complex situation.

• Complexity implies variety, variety of relationships,perspectives and worldviews. Using a rich picture in aconsultative way is about prompting discussion –

• This is how we see it

• Let me walk you through the picture – let me know ifyou feel it is wide of the mark

• Do you think I have missed anything significant?

• It is an informal representation, a snapshot andsomething that could always be richer.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

5.2.6.2 Carrying Out Analysis One (The intervention itself)Three key roles and elements:

Client - the causer of theintervention to happen thatprompted the an investigation inthe first place

Practioner – conductor of theinvestigation facilitator who canalso be in any of the othergroups

Owners of the issues – affectedby he situation beneficiary of theoutcome – practioner choses theparticipant of the list

Fig 5.12

5.2.6.2 Carrying Out Analysis One (The Intervention Itself (Cont.)

• Named ‘roles’ rather than people because

people/group could be in multiple roles.

• Practioner role – communication and information

dissemination; accountable for resource acquisition in line

with overall ambitions

Start

• Who are the roles ‘client’ and ‘practioner’?

• Who should be in the list of ‘issue owners’?

• What are the aspirations of the clients – they should

obviously be included but NOT the sole focus. Client role

should be in the list of possible ‘issue owners’

• The broader the list of issue owners the richer the

investigation and intervention. More worldviews and a

better response to complexity.

• Nothing stopping the practioner being in the list of

issue owners

• SSM ‘c’ & ‘p’ – grapples with the ‘content of the

situation’, decides on the best processes to achieve this

• First model – the model of how to do the study

Fig 5.13

5.2.6.2 Carrying Out Analysis Two (Social)

• Human emotions cloudmanagement logic. If changethrough action is to be adoptedthe social reality of the situationneeds to be fully understood,this is where SSM addressescultural feasibility.

• There is a need to ‘feel outthe situation’, gain insight intobehaviours and consider thecontext and content. Anunderstanding of Culture, whichis hard to define, is imperative ifactions are not to be resisted.

• The SSM methodology worksfor any size organisation.

Fig 5.14

5.2.6.3 Carrying Out Analysis Two (Social) - Cont.

The model is in three parts but noneshould be treated as static componentsrather dynamic elements.

• Roles: social positions that are eitherformal, titled with clear description orinformal, based on reputation and the go-to label. Informal roles are indicators ofculture

• Norms: what is an expected behaviourthat you would associate with a role?These are the ‘norms’

• Values: standards you hold behavioursto, the criteria that gets judged

• All three elements are dynamicallyinterrelated – they change at the micro aswell as at the macro level. 55 years agohomosexuality was not only illegal it wasalso culturally unacceptable. Now, 55years later the culture is to celebratediversity.

At the start of any intervention, open a file marked Analysis Two, I that file record any ‘event’ or ‘activity’ that interacts with the problematical situation – ask “have I learnt anything new about the roles, norms and values of the group?” Date and record this and build it into your reflective practice

Fig 5.15

SSM’s Analysis

Two

Fig 5.16

5.2.6.4 Carrying Out Analysis Three (Political)Finding out the disposition of power as part of the culturally feasibility of the change.

Ties directly with Analysis two through the Roles, Norms and Values

Based on Aristotle argument – the long-term health and stability of a society can only be envisioned if differing interests (worldviews) can be accommodated. This is the role of politics

Any human affair which stems from or delivers ‘deliberate action’ by humans who hold different worldviews and pursue different interests is inherently political.

How is power expressed in this situation?

Fig 5.17

5.2.6.4 Carrying Out Analysis Three (Political)-Cont.

• Using the metaphor: A COMMODITY that embodies POWER

• What are the processes by which the ‘holders’ of the power:

• Obtain

• Use

• Defend

• Pass-on

• Relinquish

• Roles have certain powers – some bestowed on them such as rank, others created through their personality (charisma) or through the power networks that surround an individual.

• Power is dynamic and highly fluid, it therefore shifts in strength overtime, it is redefined, reordered and replaced

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

5.2.4 The Use of Systems Ideas

Key learning

• Systems thinking handles real world complexity becauseit acknowledges how different elements interrelate, crossboundaries and work to change the ‘whole’.

• S – the system receives shocks from E – theenvironment. To survive there is a communication process(to know what is happening) and a control process (to directadaptive responses). The system, which may be a part of awider system therefore a subsystem, may contain asubsystem itself. This recursive layered concept isfundamental to systems thinking. To be a system it musthave emergent properties as a whole.

• These four elements are representative of the core ofsystems thinking.

• The relevance to SSM is that at the core of any systemis purposeful human activity, the nature of complexity.

Fig 5.5

5.2.4 The Use of Systems Ideas (Cont.)This model is relevant no matter the simplicityor complexity of the system. A logically linkedset of activities constitute designed to deliverpurposeful activity represents a whole.

People bring with them their worldviews so nosingle model will ever suffice.

Purposeful activity models

• Never be a ‘description’ of the real world

• Express just one way of looking at a realsituation

• Activity models created to represent amyriad of worldviews

Useful for stimulating excellent questions –about the real world, about purpose, processand activity. Prompt debate and fosterdiscussion.

Fig 5.6

5.2.4 The Use of

Systems Ideas

(Cont.)

In summary we have:

• A problematical real-world situation in need of improving

• Models of purposeful activity relevant to the situation but NOT describing it

• Models as a device for continued exploration and debate

• The means to consider as part of accommodating perspectives, what is desirable and culturally feasible

Fig 5.8

5.2.7 The SSM Learning Cycle: Making Purposeful Activity ModelsSSM creates an organised process for enquiry andlearning by making models of purposeful activityand using these to drive questions. The richness ofthe Root Definitions (RD) provide the basis for‘purposeful activity’. The modelling process is asfollows:

1. The PQR formula: P = what? Q = how? and R =why? So Do P, by Q in order to achieve R.Three elements that define the transitioningprocess

2. Root Definition: using the PQR formula youcan write down a RD statement. For complexideas this statement should be more abstractbut it works for just as well for simplersituations. Building the actual model cannothappen until the RD

Fig 5.18

5.2.7 The SSM Learning Cycle: Making Purposeful Activity Models (Cont.)Enrichment of the Root Definition allows for greater, deeperquestioning. RD’s were enriched by applying to them a general‘model of purposeful activity’ and given the mnemonic CATWOE.

The idea is that Purposeful activity, as defined by thetransformation (T) process and prevailing worldview (W):

• Will require people (A) to do the activities of T

• Will affect C who are either beneficiaries or victims of T

• Will take as given the constraints from E that operateoutside of T

• And that T could be stopped by people or person O

You can define T&W when model building but experiencesuggests writing out the RD from the PQR Formula first gives anoverall basis for the exploration.

CATWOE is monitored by three independent criteria:

1. Efficacy - to judge if T is actually working and producing itsintended consequences

2. Efficiency – T is being achieved with the minimum ofresources

3. Effectiveness – whether the transformation is strategicallyaligned to the higher purpose or aim

Additionally you could monitor ‘elegance’, how seamlessly thetransformation is happening; ‘ethicality’ is the moral imperativeof the transformation aligned to the values of the business

Fig 5.19

5.2.7 The SSM Learning Cycle: Making Purposeful Activity Models (Cont.)

The final consideration from the guidelines assisting inthe formulation of RD’s prior to building the model arethe definitions for (4):

• Primary Tasks (PT) – purposeful activity that couldbe mapped to the existing boundaries of anorganisational chart and assumed these boundarieswere immovable

• Issue based (IB) – purposeful activity that crossedthese boundaries, in fact looked at the activity fromthe organisational perspective and assumed thatboundaries were arbitrary and up for negotiation.

Inevitably issue-based root definitions create the mostcontention. Looking at a contentious situation whereunused resources could be shared freely will alwaysgenerate some internal friction.

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

5.2.7 The SSM Learning Cycle: Making Purposeful Activity Models (Cont.)

(5) - Putting it all together!

This is a process of logic, bringing inthe relevant stages as per thediagram and coming out with a deepRD – ideal for debate and discovery.Yet, despite this failure is just aroundthe corner.

Practioners take their eye of the balland start to lose focus on the RD.Instead they model the ‘real-world’not the ‘conceptual’ one.

If you are looking at a transformationprocess moving a businesses socialmedia strategy to a new level, youwould end up recording the existingstrategy and comparing this to themodel, which is not informative.

Fig 5.18

5.2.7 The SSM Learning Cycle: Making Purposeful Activity Models (Cont.)

The diagram shows a series of steps in

putting the process together.

Once done then check model against

guidelines:

• Ask does every phrase of the RD lead to

something in the model?

• Can every activity in the model be traced

back to the RD, CATWOE etc?

If yes then the model is ‘defensible’ that is

different from being right. Any two SSM

practioners given the same RD would come

out with a slightly different model simply

because of the worldview that they have.

The operations part of the model – you

should aim for the 7 pieces of activity (+- 2)

Nothing stopping you breaking out the

operations in to sublevels and labelling each

as 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 etc showing all activities come

from activity 6 in the parent model.

Fig 5.20

5.2.8 The SSM Learning Cycle: Using Models to Structure Discussions About the Situation and Its Improvement

• What’s SSM all about? In essence this, its about bringingstructure to discussions. Many impromptu managementmeetings, conversations and discussions happen during the day –they follow no pattern, switch between strategy and actions andflow between short and long term perspectives.

• By using SSM models to bring structure to the discussion weimprove outcomes. “Models do not purport to be accounts ofwhat we would wish the real world to be like” (p236) they couldnot be since they are artificial devices, with a stated worldview.

• The model is a catalyst for questioning – here is a model ofthe situation – in this case What are the job characteristics foreach stated role? What options do we have for it to take place?When is the optimum time for it to happen? What alternativesare there?

• Be light-footed with questions, move discussion on – strive tofind emotions such as excitement, peaked interest, resistancesand anger. How can we measure efficaciousness, effectivenessand overall efficiency – difficult but thought provoking questionsthat bring debate. Emotions bring learning.

WARNING – This is not about taking real-world situations andhighlighting why they DON’T work – the goal is to discuss howchange can be welcomed, sanctioned and actioned

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

5.2.8 The SSM Learning Cycle: Using Models to Structure Discussions About the Situation and Its Improvement (Cont.)

The three situations of practice

1. In a room with flipcharts on the wall showing the models. As

the discussion unfolds the models are placed into the

conversations – detailed discussion around SSM approach

unhelpful – focus on real-world model of activity useful.

2. Formal approach (most common) is to create a matrix (see

opposite) which lists down primary elements of the model

and associated questions and a summary statement about

the learning. (do not let the process become mechanical,

avoid getting bogged down – seek insight and learning

3. Use the models as the basis for an account of the purposeful

activity and compare this account with a series of real-world

accounts, enriching the model as each account comes in.

Each method can be used independently or as part of a process. This

is a learning cycle – so record and hone the models development

and let it lead to activity. People in the discussions need to have

been involved in the creation of the models. This is to support them

as being valid and relevant to the situation as it is now and change

Fig 5.22

5.2.9 The SSM Learning Cycle: Defining ‘Action to Improve’

We do not seek consensus nor abandonit as we pursue ‘accommodation’.Consensus is rare, normally relates toissues that are deemed lesscontroversial and contentious. Humansituations are complex because of thediversity of worldviews creatingdifferences of opinion therefore, in dailylife, we accommodate these if we are tomaintain the stability of the unit as awhole. Gain accommodation and we canrespond to ‘What do we do now?’

The fact that consensus is rare shouldnot be berated or regretted – becausewe want the clashing or worldviews andall the enrichment that emotionalenergy brings to problem solving.

Explore changes – note reactions. If themodel is not leading to energetic debate– change the model, abandon it andformulate a more radical Root definition

Fig 5.24

5.2.9 The SSM Learning Cycle: Defining ‘Action to Improve’ (Cont.)

Change has to be desirable and feasible for it to beaccommodated. Fig 5.25 (opposite) is self explanatory– it recognises that change has three parts:

1. Structural

2. Process

3. Attitudinal

Easiest to change is structure, it can be imposed vialegitimate authority but new structures normallyrequire new processes and shifts in attitudes if they areto be fully accepted. Usual mechanism for trying toshift attitudes is the crude and often ineffective carrotor stick mindset. This rarely works because it fails torecognise the social aspect of change, the uncertaintythat incentivised change brings in a cynical world.

Change agents must also recognise that beforeattitudes can change – we people need to be ‘enabled’to deliver actions. This may require additional levels ofchange, not directly related to the change in hand.

Criteria for judging is not an easy question to pursuesince people will have very different responses to whatshould or should not be considered a success. It isthough an area of contention and debate

Fig. 5.25

5.2.10 The Whole SSM Learning Cycle Revisited: Seven Principles, Five Actions

Seven Principles that underlie SSM

1. We deal with ‘real-world problematicalsituations’ not real-world problems

2. Stated worldviews are a prerequisite of thethinking and talking

3. Every situation will come with people’s desirefor purposeful action

4. Models of purposeful activity are prompts fordiscussion and debate, a source of questions

5. Action is dependent upon the sourcing andacceptance of accommodations

6. SSM is a never-ending learning journey aspoints (1-5) lead to action and action changesthe situation, hopefully improves it

7. SSM allows for conscious critical reflection asthe practioner becomes more able, caninternalise the process without reference to it,reflective practice becomes embedded andthe practioner becomes a ‘reflectivepractioner’.

Real world problematic

situations

Stated worldviews

Purposeful actions

Models for debate and discussion

Action requires accommodations

Never ending learning cycle

Conscious critical reflection

5.2.10 The Whole SSM Learning Cycle Revisited: Seven Principles, Five Actions (Cont.)

• The four previously alludedto activities of finding out,making models, discussing anddebating leading to definingactions is joined by a 5th

activity that sits outside themain process. It is ‘about’ theprocess and not as suchembedded within it. It is adeliberate piece of work.

• It sits at a meta-level andensures that the practice oflearning is embedded bycapturing and thenrepurchasing the informationfor increased richness

Fig 5.26

5.3.1 Craft Skills in SSM Use

Craft skills are skills that we acquire through a process of developing know-how. They can be enhanced through traditional learning but the pure acquisition is gained through experience, watching and being mentored garnering both explicit and tacit (unexpressed) knowledge.

SSM is open to the user’s own ways of working - what is necessary is a willingness to be informed through action, to consider and at times revise your own learning. These craft skills can be informed if:

• You remain fully conscious to the learning throughout the process. Deliberately engaging with SSM whilst maintaining an observational perspective

• Don’t let in any thoughts of ‘solving’ a situation or finding an ‘optimum’ way since human situations are not wholly replicable. Nothing ever happens two=ice in the same way. If you find yourself thinking about logic over emotion then the situation is not a human one.

• Do not impose structure let the situation talk back – your role is to listen, to dance with it. Stay positive in forming judgements but do not hang-on to them. Relinquish them and pass them back.

• No imposed methodology will ever replace free thinking. Our aim to create unique steps on the road to improvement. SSM can structure your thinking also team thinking. SSM process is a major contributor to team cohesion and understanding. It builds shared language and concepts.

• Give away the approach – do not hang on to ownership of SSM let the team run with it. It might become a part of their problem solving tool kit.

• Suspend the idea that you know where things are heading – you don’t so be happy with that

• Pave the way for ownership of action – some of the outcomes may be above the pay grade of those present. Get buy in from those who hold the purse strings and power, make them aware of the possibility and build a process that permits an accommodation

• This should never feel like work - if it does shake it up. Put in some contentious root definitions. This needs to be fun, serious fun

5.3.2 Approaching SSM: The Mindset

Western thinking is nearly always based around ‘substantive content’ – focusing in one the central subject and not concerning yourself about ‘how to think about this’.

30 years of SSM use and development has taken SSM into the realms of a thinking tool – an explicit way of thinking about a complex situation of interest.

When approaching an SSM piece of work follow these guidelines:

• Reflect that most discussions are not very good at all therefore what you bring, even in a crude format is liable to be more valuable

• Know that hen using SSM the discussions take on a far more coherent format, deepening the level of thinking

• Accept that there is no full proof methodology which will lead to ideal outcomes. You are instead on the road to improvement.

• Know that the methodology should be treated a set of principals that need to be tailored to the needs of the situation and players

• Know that the best way to learn is to dive in and use it

• Know that even crude attempts will unlikely break the model. SSM is highly resilient

• Know that simply understanding the situation is never enough – action is the ultimate goal

This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

SSM Basic Outline

Fig 5.29

End of Part 5

Notes by James Cracknell BA (Hons.)

As part of TU811 OU Course Systems Tools for Managing Change

Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (2010) Introducing Systems Approaches, in Martin Reynolds, Sue Holwell (Eds.) Approaches to managing Change: A Practical Guide. London: Springer in association with The Open University