Soft Systems Methodology Concept Analytical Essay

One of the 21^st century’s foremost discursive aspects is the fact that, as time goes on, more and more people realize the essentially relativist significance of the very notion of methodology.

This is because, due to the recent breakthroughs in the fields of physics, psychology, cybernetics and sociology, the assumption that the practical application of a particular methodology is being concerned with discovering the de facto ‘truth’ can no longer be considered conceptually legitimate.

After all, these discoveries suggest that in this world, there is only the objectively existing reality and different informational models that describe the qualitative/discursive connotations of its observable emanations.

However, given the fact that the process of constructing methodologically sound informational models (theories) is being inevitably affected by biologically and environmentally defined cognitive predispositions, on the part of the concerned scientists, it is specifically the extent of these models’ practical usability, which should be regarded as the actual measure of their ‘truthfulness’.

Therefore, it is fully explainable why Peter Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) continues to become ever more popular, as a practical tool of addressing systemic issues with a strongly defined human factor to them – SSM appears thoroughly adjusted with the provisions of the earlier mentioned methodology-related discourse of modernity. In my paper, I will aim to explore the validity of this suggestion at length.

The main theoretical premise, upon which SSM is based, is the assumption that, unlike what it happened to be the case with non-human mechanistic systems, the dynamics within human systems (e.g., the collective of employees) are not being solely defined in regards to the qualitative specifications of these systems’ integral elements, but also in regards to the varying aspects of an ‘interconnectedness’ between the elements in question.

In their turn, the discursive features of this ‘interconnectedness’ never cease undergoing a spatial/qualitative transformation, as they reflect the process of people’s worldviews being continually adjusted, in accordance to what happened to be their carriers’ inborn cognitive predispositions and the situational quality of external circumstances, which affect the concerned individuals’ decision-making inclinations.

Hence, the SSM’s foremost conceptual postulate – those in charge of ensuring the functional integrity of a particular human system/organization, should not be concerned with finding a universally applicable ‘solution’ to what they perceive constitutes a performance-impending problem, but rather with identifying the problem’s discursive connotations.

As Checkland noted, “We had moved away from working with the idea of an ‘obvious’ problem which required solution, to that of working with the idea of a situation which some people, for various reasons, may regard as problematical” (2000, p. 15).

In its turn, this is supposed to establish objective preconditions for the extent of the affected people’s perceptual subjectivity, in regards to the problem in question, to be substantially reduced – hence, ‘empowering’ them, in the organizational sense of this word.

The SSM’s foremost methodological guiding-principles can be formulated as follows:

1. Assess the discursive significance of a particular ‘real-world’ situation by the mean of measuring the complexity of its integral parts.
2. Explore the identified relations via the applicable models of purposeful activity, based on explicit worldviews.
3. Conduct an inquiry by questioning the perceived situation, while using the models as a source of questions.
4. Formulate an approach towards improving the situation in question by identifying the scope of possible ‘accommodations’ (versions of the situation, with which the concerned stakeholders can be more or less comfortable).

Even a brief glance at these principles, allows us to pinpoint the main conceptual characteristic of SSM – as opposed to what it is being the case with the methodologies of ‘hard’ sciences, Checkland’s methodology implies its theoretical premises being the subject of a continual transformation/alteration.

This is because, while assessing the significance of ‘real-world’ situations, we invariably do it from our highly subjective existential perspectives, reflective of the essence of the relevant external circumstances, which affect the mechanics of our cognitive engagement with the surrounding reality.

Therefore, even though that the very name of Checkland’s methodological approach connotes the notion of ‘systemness’, within the SSM’s theoretical framework, this notion is not being concerned with the process of researches categorizing the essence of people’s responses to external stimuli.

Rather, it is being concerned with the process of SSM’s practitioners identifying primary and secondary motivations behind the studied behavioral patterns, as ‘things in themselves’.

According to Ledington and Donaldson, “(In SSM), The use of the word ‘system’ is no longer applied to the world, it is instead applied to the process of our dealings with the world” (1997, p. 230). The consequential steps of how SSM’s practitioners go about increasing the efficiency of a particular ‘soft’ system’s functioning can be outlined as follows:

1. Practitioner formulates the planned transformation actions justification, its aims, and identifies the scope of associated activities.
2. Practitioner selects the activities that can be executed independently of others.
3. Practitioner selects the activities, the successful execution of which depends on the efficacious implementation of the independent ones, and analyzes the qualitative essence of emerging dependencies.
4. Practitioner reduces the number of established dependencies by removing the overlapping ones – hence, outlining the most resource-efficient method towards the tranformation’s implementation.

Hence, the essential components of SSM’s paradigm, commonly abbreviated as CATWOE:

Customers – individuals that may be potentially affected by the intended transformation, Actors – individuals in charge of the transformation’s implementation, transformation – the efficiency-facilitating process, ‘Weltanschauung’ – the qualitative aspects of the concerned parties’ worldviews, Owners – individuals capable of preventing the desired transformation from taking place, Environmental constraints – external circumstances, capable of affecting the pace of the transformation’s implementation (Hardman and Paucar-Caceres 2011).

By remaining thoroughly observant, as to the discursive implications of an interconnectedness between these elements, SSM’s practitioners are expected to be able to come up with a circumstantially justified plan for applying changes to the functioning of just about any ‘soft’ system.

The validity of SSM’s conceptual provisions can be easily illustrated in regards to what accounts for the specifics of a post-industrial living in Western countries, which in turn causes more and more middle-level managers to experience difficulties while on the line of executing their professional duties.

For example, even today, it represents a commonplace practice among many of these managers to believe that the extent of employees’ efficiency positively correlates with the amount of money they are being paid. However, it now became a well-established fact that the practice of increasing employees’ salaries does not necessarily result in increasing the quality of their professional performance.

The reason for this is apparent – as time goes on, people’s attitudes towards the very notion of ‘professional satisfaction’ continue to attain qualitatively new subtleties.

Whereas, the prospect of receiving an adequate salary may serve as a perfectly sound performance-stimulating incentive for individuals that suffer from economic hardships, this cannot be the case, once those that enjoy comparatively high standards of living are being concerned.

This is because, in full accordance with Maslow’s ‘theory of needs’, after having satisfied their ‘first-order’ existential desires (e.g., securing well-paid jobs and buying houses/apartments), people move on to seek the satisfaction of their’ second order’ and ‘third order’ desires, such as attaining self-actualization, for example (Sadri & Bowen 2011).

Therefore, there can be no much sense in expecting financially well-off employees to continue aspiring to be qualified for increased salaries as their foremost priority in life, which would provide managers with a rationale to persist with referring to employees, as individuals thoroughly preoccupied with making money.

This, of course, creates discursive prerequisites for specifically SSM to be used; within the context of how contemporary managers strive to improve the quality of employees’ performance, as the utilization of this methodology is well capable of identifying the ‘weltanschauung’-related aspects of many employees’ existential agenda, undetectable by ‘hard’ systemic methodologies.

The SSM’s very theoretical premise establishes objective preconditions for this to be the case, “In contrast to ‘hard’ approaches… SSM concentrates on learning from organizational and contextual ambiguity and appreciating socially conditioned problem situations with a view to changing relationships and making improvements” (Jacobs 2004, p. 140).

The fact that, as of today, a number of currently deployed performance-enhancing strategies are being concerned with providing employees with essentially psychological incentives (such as allowing them to participate in the decision-making process), as the foremost mean of ensuring the integrity of their professional commitment, substantiates the validity of this statement.

Checkland’s SSM can also be successfully resorted to, when the issue of increasing the hospitalized patients’ recovery-chances is being at stake.

After all, it does not represent much of a secret that the majority of healthcare professionals in Western countries continues to assess the extent of their professional adequacy in regards to the measure of their willingness to adhere to the provisions of specifically Western (orthodox) medical paradigm, which stipulates the rationale-based ‘measurableness’ of physicians’ performance.

This is the reason why many orthodox physicians do not even look forward to meet with their patients personally, in order to be able to diagnose them and to prescribe them with a particular drug. All the diagnosis-seeking individuals have to do, is to show up at the hospital, to provide the required blood and urine samples, and to come back to this hospital in a few days of time, in order to get their drug-prescription.

The fact that the drug-prescription will be provided to these individuals needs not to be doubted. This is because, as of today, the health workers’ career-prospects are still being assessed in regards to the strength of their enthusiasm in prescribing patients with as many conventional drugs, as possible (Reast, Palihawadana & Dayananda 2008).

However, this mechanistic approach to treating patients can hardly be considered appropriate, because it does not take into account the patients’ (often irrational) expectations, as to how they should be treated. This especially appears to be the case when the ethnically visible individuals are being concerned.

After all, as opposed to what it is being the case with Western (White) patients, who expect to be ‘cured’ by the mean of swallowing the prescribed drugs, many representatives of racial minorities in Western hospitals expect to be ‘healed’, in the holistic sense of this word – hence, their often clearly defined reluctance to be injected with drugs.

This, of course, does suggest that it is being only the matter of time, before SSM will be widely used in the field of healthcare, as well. After all, it now becomes increasingly clear to more and more people that it is no longer acceptable to evaluate the varying extent of patients’ well-being solely through the spiritually arrogant lenses of Western euro-centrism.

Finally, SSM appears thoroughly adjusted to serve as a tool for increasing the effectiveness of advertising/marketing campaigns, because it insists that it is specifically the non-quantifiable aspects of consumers’ ‘mental wiring’, which define these people’s buying choices.

The validity of this suggestion can be well observed in regards to what accounts for the main difference between Western advertisement posters, on the one hand, and Oriental (Asian) ones, on the other. Whereas, Western advertisement posters tend to place the advertised object at the center, Oriental posters most common place the advertised object in the corner.

Western

Oriental

This is because, as Bower observed it, “(Asians) make little use of categories and formal logic and instead focus on relations among objects and the context in which they interact… (Westerners) on the other hand, adopt an ‘analytic’ perspective. They look for the traits of objects while largely ignoring their context” (2000, p. 57).

If we were to address the issue of increasing the commercial appeal of an advertising campaign/poster (designed to target multicultural audiences), in accordance with the provisions of conventional systemic methodologies, the fact that the people’s perception of the surrounding reality and their place in it reflects the particulars of their ethnocultural/racial affiliation, would not be acknowledged.

This, of course, would prevent us from considering the factor of people’s perceptual ‘otherness’, within the context of how we would go about tackling the task.

As a result, the final product’s (advertisement campaign/poster) effectiveness would suffer a great deal of emotive shortcomings. This, however, would not be the case if, while elaborating on the expected properties of the proposed poster/campaign’s commercial appeal, we would remain fully observant of the SSM’s conceptual provisions.

Nowadays, Checkland’s SSM continues to be criticized on the ground of its presumed lack of a scientific legitimacy.

After all, it often does prove rather impossible for the SSM’s practitioners that conduct an inquiry into the discursive essence of a particular ‘soft’ systemic phenomenon in question, to ensure the predictability of the expected outcomes.

At the same time, however, there are a number of good reasons to think of SSM, as such that provides us with the glimpse into what would be the nature of ‘things to come’ in the field of a sociological/managerial research.

This is because, despite the earlier mentioned SSM’s downside, the model does insist that it is specifically the methodology (reflective of the specifics of the concerned researchers’ unconsciously constructed worldviews), which defines the actual method and not vice versa.

It is turn, this presupposition appears thoroughly correlative with what contemporary psychologists and neurologists know about the functioning of a human brain. This is exactly the reason why, as time goes on, we will be witnessing more and more instances of SSM being put into a practical use. I believe that this conclusion adheres to the initially proposed thesis perfectly well.

Works Cited

Bower, B. 2000, ‘Cultures of reason’, Science News, vol. 157 no. 4, pp. 56-58.

Checkland, P. 2000, ‘Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective’, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, vol. 17 no. 3, pp.11-58.

Hardman, J. & Paucar-Caceres, A. 2011, ‘A soft systems methodology (SSM) based framework for evaluating managed learning environments’, Systemic Practice & Action Research, vol. 24 no. 2, pp. 165-185.

Jacobs, B. 2004, ‘Using soft systems methodology for performance improvement and organizational change in the English National Health Service’, Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management, vol. 12 no. 4, pp. 138-149.

Ledington, P. & Donaldson, J. 1997, ‘Soft OR and management practice: a study of the adoption and use of soft systems methodology’, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 48 no. 3, pp. 229-240.

McKinney, R. 2009, ‘The neuroscience of certainty’, Philosophy Today. vol. 53 no. 4, pp. 414-421.

Reast, J., Palihawadana, D. & Shabbir, H. 2008, ‘The ethical aspects of direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs in the United Kingdom: physician versus consumer’, Journal of Advertising Research, vol. 48 no. 3, pp. 450-464.

Sadri, G. & Bowen, R. 2001, ‘Meeting employee requirements: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs is still a reliable guide to motivating staff’, Industrial Engineer, vol. 43 no. 10, pp. 44-48.