Abstract
Scientific research has been evolving at an increasingly alarming rate. This has been triggered by the requirement of research community to provide significant answers to what seems as complex and disorderly world problematic situations. In this effect, scientists feel obligated to conduct an interdisciplinary research project aimed at increasing knowledge in all the disciplines (Bandura 2002). Such research projects are aimed at attending to the challenges the globalizations and advancement in technology present to the users and consumers of information.
The accuracy, integrity, and accessibility of information have become one of the fundamental issues that such research aims at addressing. The issues of integrity of information usage and the security of information is becoming an essentiality. The design of the information system should be able to address the challenges such as the ethical issues that have become a major headache to the researchers in the information and technology field. The ability to present a system that addressed such challenges will be an enormous milestone in addressing the challenges of the time and age.
Introduction
With various factors contributing to any issues in the current world, such variations make the world more complex and disorganized. There is need for an amicable approach in addressing and resolving such issues. It is never straightforward the case of identifying the root cause of the problem or diagnosing the problem instantly. With so much confusion often-surrounding problems, it may seem impossible to determine an appropriate solution.
In order to resolve such issues, a problem-solving approach is paramount. Moreover, the approaches should be able to take various dimensions of the issue into account. This may entail the clearly understanding what is happening and strategies or brainstorm of the possible mechanism of addressing the issue or improving the situation. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is one of the approaches (Bandura 2002).
Soft system methodolgy
Soft Systems Methodology is a product of the continuing Action Research of Prof Peter Checkland, Brian Wilson plus other researchers. It is a guideline tool to problem-solving. The effort was in recognition of the fact that not all problems are obvious and neither do they have a predictable solution.
Common misunderstandings have emerged where the method has been viewed as planned to solve soft problems such as problems involving the social and cultural aspects. On the contrary, the concept applies to both hard and soft problems. The methodology, however adopts a different approach in every problematic situation.
The ‘hardness’ or ‘softness’ is not n innate characteristic of the perceived problem, instead it relates to how the problem is viewed by those involved in seeking the solution (Checkland 1985). Each and every problematic situation comprise of both soft and hard aspects. A problem becomes a problem boy the virtue of being viewed as such by human beings. This can be equated to such a saying that “one man’s poison is another man’s meat”.
Current explanations and issues relating to soft system
Developed in 1970 by Peter Checkland with his colleagues, Soft systems methodology (SSM) was designed to provide interventions in the challenges experienced in management, organizational and policy contexts. The methodology comes in handy especially where neither the problems nor the answers are obvious.
It is closely related to the engineering system approaches. However, unlike the engineering system, it recognizes the central importance of perspective or world-view in social situations. The approach is different from the ‘systems science’ approaches that was advanced in the 1960s, and reflects more on action research in its philosophy and approach.
SSM is different from approaches of hard systems through its mode of dealing with the system concept. According to hard system approach, a ‘system’ is regarded as ontological entity-entities or objects that exist in the real world. For instance, when one talks of objects such as computer system or transport system, they mean physical things which can be described officially as well as structured to meet a certain need. SSM, on the other hand, regards the concept of ‘system’ as an epistemological entity and not ontological entity- a construction of the mind that aids in human understanding.
When we are looking at an organization as a system, for instance, the things that come in our minds include the activities that take place within that company. We think of the process of converting some raw materials into given finished products; we also think of the efforts to make profits; we also get a mental picture of a number of employees as holders of different positions within the organization. As for the case for the unemployed young graduates, they would look at the organization as a potential employer.
In essence, different people will have varied perceptions over a given organization. It is not possible for us to provide a given single instruction as either right or wrong while there are other different to understand what is going on in the environment. Therefore, it is imperative to understand the perceptions and values of different individuals to get a clear picture of what concerns them within a given system.
While trying to understand a production company, as a system, for example, we are conscious of the process of conversion of raw materials into the product. The system would therefore be composed of such stakeholders as suppliers of raw material, sugar-cane farmers, for example. We would also have customers to purchase the manufactured products.
When looking at an organization whose sole objective is to create jobs for the locals, the system would constitute a different set of elements. In this case we would be interested in the infrastructure such as improved market infrastructures to enable farmers sell their farm produce.
Improved transport system would also be of importance to allow for easy movement of people and the goods. A reliable communication network to allow timely flow of information would also be of significance. Boundary lines that are different have been drawn basing on different perceptions of people on what they perceive as the system.
The development of SSM was influenced by the need to find solutions to complex situations where the problem to be solved is not clear; and the affected group of people hold different understanding of what constitutes the problem and the possible solution.
For instance how to improve farm productivity by intensifying the use of chemical fertilizers at the same time conserving the environment; also how to realize industrialization without adversely affecting the environment in terms of pollution. A society may also be faced with a challenge of how to deal with youth gangs, who pose a threat to the community or drug abusers.
The approach to solving such challenges may take many dimensions. However, instead of solving the problem, some proposed option may actually worsen the situation. There is need to take a close look at the wider situation and the likely consequences of choosing any given approach.
This is so because, some situations are intertwined; changing one element may have knock-on effects on other aspects. A comprehensive understanding of the relationships that exist amongst situations is paramount. The role of SSM is to offer users with a guideline in developing an improved understanding of the complexity of situations’.
Processes
SSM is characterized by seven stages as follows: 1) Identification of the problematic situation that requires intervention. 2). Conducting a comprehensive research so to capture the bigger picture. 3) Perspective selection and a construction of root definitions (the major processes that need to occur within the desired system). 4) Conceptualization of a change system model. 5) Comparison of the model with the real-world situation. 6) Definitions of the changes to be made.
Review of literature
It is necessary to integrate our understanding and modeling over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales in order to address complex societal and environmental Challenges. This calls for an increase in the level of societal meaningful Science (Lubchenco 2008).
System based approaches have been critical in trying to understand humanity and our interactions with the external environment. Ludwig Von Bertalanffy is recognized for his major breakthrough in systems based approaches in the early twentieth century (Lubchenco 2008).
Ludwig Von (Biologist) together with Kenneth Boulding (economist), Ralph Gerard (biologist), and Anatol Rapoport (mathematician) further developed a ‘General systems theory’ aimed at addressing the requirement for a more integrated approach to solving societal problems. This led to the birth of Society for General Systems Research in 1954 whose name later changed to the “International Society for Systems Science (Sage 1992).
According to Checkland, in using a “Participative Approach” stakeholders are most likely to reach accommodations – a common understanding on how to address a given problematic situation. Through such approach, the company can adopt changes that are agreeable to all the stakeholders.
The model of allowing all idea(accommodation) is not same as agreement. “Consensus involves a complete agreement among the stakeholders that the proposed changes best serve all of their needs. The notion of accommodation on the other hand, recognizes that this is an uncommon state of affairs” (Schlager 1956, p. 54), and consequently values that a lot of time different people requires can only be to some extent met by cooperative schemes.
SSM Approach Vs CATWO
Checkland proposed a 7-step learning methodology approach. However this was superseded by the CATWO model, developed by Action Research conducted at Lancaster. Despite this, the methodology is still widely used because of its step-wise approach which makes it easy to be taught. In addition, the model has a barrier which runs across it to draw a difference among the 3 stages i.e.between the Real World, above the line, and Systems Thinking.
“CATWO, formulated by The Lancaster team proposes several criteria that should be specified to in order to provide a comprehensive and rigorous root definition” (Schlager 1956, p.54).
- Clients – Who are gainers or losers of this particular system? (Who would gain or lose as a result its operations?)
- Actors – all those staff members accountable for putting in practice the systems developed.
- Transformation – this is quantified based on advancement and changes that the implemented system brings in the organization(What are the contribution essentials and to which extend or in other words what sort of revolution do these input elements undergo before measureable output can be seen).
- Weltanschauung–also, know as worldview. What explicit worldview offers the rationalization to the being of this structure or system?
- Owner – Whose mandate is to change this system or review its overall performance
- Environmental constraints – what are the external constraints that should be considered?
This type of analysis elucidates the objectives of the user of the methodology. By clearly recognizing these viewpoints, the client of the technique is required to mull over the effects of any anticipated transformations on the group concerned.” Following limitations of ‘hard’ systems including operations research and systems dynamics, Peter Checkland and colleagues developed ‘soft’ system approaches to counteract limitations associated with technical assessments” (Checkland 1985, p. 34).
Advantages
System approach allows participation by all the relevant actors take part in the problem situation and interact with the analyst. The approach teases out the problem situation, which offers a good ground for creative problem solving. Some problems in real life are not well defined and cannot be solved using scientific methods hence the system approach helps in addressing them. The system approach allows for an iterative process, which allows the analyst to learn about the system and hence know how to go about it.
Disadvantages
The system approach often ignores power in the organization and this may create in the daily operations. The system relies too much on individuals’ perception and as such, it is fuzzy and cannot be easily applied in practice. Quite often, the system approach may neglect some of the forces that interact in society, such as Social constraints and group norms.
The future of integrative systems based studies
There is increasing pressure for scientists and policy makers to adopt more integrated and holistic approaches to understanding how we manage systems from the local to global scale. These include 1) advancement in Systems modeling approaches from systems biology to earth systems science. This involves qualitative network models as well as quantitative process/kinetics based approaches (Borgatti, 2009). It is the network models that have the potential to link systems biology, socio-ecological systems, and earth systems science.
2) There has been a continued improvement in data sharing between individual projects and disciplines. This has been easier by introduction of data and meta-data models To increase the sharing of data between individual projects and between disciplines. Examples of these advancements include markup languages e.g. system biology markup language
ISO 27001
Current Explanation and Issues Relating to ISO 27001
IT Governance and information security
Board corporate governance requirements have in the recent years become increasingly more defined and specific. With information technology becoming pervasive, underpinning and supporting almost every aspect of the organization, manipulation and storing of information on which the organization depends for its survival, the role of IT in corporate governance has become more clearly defined and IT governance getting to be more recognized as a crucial area for board and corporate attention.
IT governance is specifically concerned with the protection of the information. protection of this information is critical as the organization’s decision is heavily pegged on its availability, confidentiality and integrity. As a result, parallel international standards related to information security have emerged and have become one of the cornerstones of an effective IT governance framework.
The information security standards
British standard Institution came up with BS7799 in 1995 as a standard to guide the development and implementation of an Information Security Management System (ISMS). On the outset, BS7799 was considered, as a technology-neutral, vendor-neutral management system. It was intended that, if accurately implemented, it would guarantee an organization’s management of effective information security measures (Hall 1962).
Those rallying for the BS7799 measures aim at addressing the challenges associated with availability, the integrity aspect and also the confidentiality of the information in an organization.. Protection covers those threats that the organization considers relevant and only to the extent that is justified financially and commercially through a risk assessment.
The Code of Practice (which uses words like ‘may’ and which deals with controls, not with Information Security Management Systems), is now recognized under the dual numbers of ISO17799 and BS7799-1 . The basis for certification schemes is specification and ISO 27001 mandates the use of ISO 17799 as the source of guidance for the selection and implementation of the controls mandated by ISO 27001.
The most recent version of the Code of Practice, and the one which must be used, is ISO/IEC 17799:2005. BS7799-2:2002 has also undergone revision and internationalization, and was replaced in November 2005 by ISO/IEC 27001:2005. The best way to keep in touch with the changes to the standards is to subscribe to 24743, the free information security newsletter that provides regularly updated FAQs on the new standards, as well as other ISMS information.
The information security and regulatory environments
ISO 27001 refers to a standard containing requirements for a company to implement an information security management system. There are two main reasons explaining the growing interest in certification to ISO 2700. These are the proliferation of threats to information this is aimed at curbing the possibility of the information landing on the wrong place or unauthorized persons having access to such information. Such incidences can have elemental effects to the institutions or the organizational functions.
In addition, the growth in the lawful and constitutional needs that are associated with information authenticity and protection. This is mostly useful when dealing with secure information. Such applications are used in the security sector, banks and credit cards etc where the transfer of information is through the protected channels accessible to few authorized individuals. This is aimed at minimizing compromising situation s that may results when the public or unauthorized persons access the information.
Information security and technology
Securing data or protecting computers from threats is normally undertaken by people with IT knowledge. This is done by assigning the users with log in credentials that regulate the person accessing the information. The ability of regulating who accesses what information also enables the It team to monitor and regulate the information flow and also be able to audit the information access and distribution in the system (Bennett, 2009). The computer user makes decisions about which threats to be protect the system from and what trade-offs between security and flexibility he or she is prepared to accept.
The usage of the computers vary and various experts do various tasks based on the [powers that the computers or the specifications of the job to be done. The variations in the usage rights also enables only certified people to access some classified information. Some of the information in the system can be very confidential and only the qualified personnel should be allowed to have access and possibly distribute such information(Schlager 1956).
Advantages of ISO 27001
The benefits of ISO 27001 emanates from its principles. These are confidentiality, integrity, accuracy, completeness, and availability. The confidentiality allows the clients to have faith in the system and trust using the system for their day-to-day business. The integrity concepts emanates from the fact that the system is able to carry out the specified instructions or transactions pertaining a given action or command instructed. The accuracy assures the users that they will not be overcharged or underpaid thus ensuring that the information validity is not compromised.
The availability of the appropriate information to the right person at the right time. ISO 27001 ensures confidentiality that is information may not be made availed or disclosed for people, entities, or processes without permission. ISO 27001 ensures integrity. The information is protected from unauthorized changes.
Conclusions
Advances in a wide range of systems focused disciplines have increased our ability understand and model socio-ecological systems from the sub-cellular to global scale. These can be classed as ‘hard’, ‘soft’ approaches, and both are required when you are studying systems across multiple spatial and organizational levels.
Here I suggest that diagramming, network theory combined with markup languages based on data and metadata standards within an analytical-deliberative framework can lead to learning and greater integration across these disparate systems based approaches. I am not suggesting that one approach or framework will address all situations, but highlighting the commonalities that will enable us to integrate across situations.
References
Bandura, A 2002, Social Learning Theory, General Learning Press- New York, New York.
Bennett, E, Peterson G & Gordon, J 2009, ‘Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem service,’ Ecology Letters, vol. 12, no.4, pp.1394-1404.
Borgatti, P, Mehra, A, Brass, J, & Labianca, G 2009, ‘Network analysis in the social sciences,’ Science, vol. 323, pp.892-895.
Checkland, P 1985, ‘From optimizing to learning – a development of systems thinking for the 1990s’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 36, no. 2,pp. 757-767.
Hall, A 1962, A methodology for systems engineering, Prentice Hall, New York.
Lubchenco, J 2008,’Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science’, Science, vol.279, no.4, pp. 491-497.
Sage, AP 1992, Systems Engineering. Wiley IEEE, New York.
Schlager, J 1956, ‘Systems engineering key to modern development,’ IRE Transactions EM-3, vol. 2. No.2, pp. 64–66.