systems thinking systems

thinking systems thinking

systems thinking systems

Soft
thinking systems thinking

Systems
Methodology
History ....................................................................................................2
What do we mean by 'system?' ...................................................2
Why 'soft?' ...................................................................................3
Overview ................................................................................................4
Rich Pictures ..........................................................................................6
Root Definitions ......................................................................................8
CATWOE .....................................................................................8
Conceptual Models.................................................................................10
Monitor and Control - measures of performance .........................11
Comparisons ..........................................................................................13
Mode 2 - for sophisticated users ............................................................14
SSM and Information Systems ...............................................................14
History
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM for short) was developed by Peter Checkland
and colleagues at the University of Lancaster. It is based upon systems theory,
which provides an antidote to conventional, 'reductionist' scientific enquiry - with
its tendency to 'reduce' phenomena into smaller and smaller components in
order to study and understand them. Systems theory attempts to study the whole
picture; the relation of component
before ordering some
more paper clips I must
parts to each other, and to the wider
first consider the nature
of the universe picture - it is 'holistic.' Biology and
environmental science use its
principles widely, as do other
disciplines including systems
analysis. SSM is not, contrary to
popular supposition, an information
systems design methodology - it is
rather a general problem solving tool.
Brian Wilson, a colleague of
Checkland's at Lancaster, has
adapted the methodology for
business information analysis, and various attempts (Avison's 'Multiview,' for
instance) have been made to incorporate it into systems design work.

What do we mean by 'system?'

We use the word 'system' quite a lot in everyday language ('computer system,'
'the educational system', 'systematic;'); we even talk about 'the system' - a
vague, sinister officialdom. Three uses of the word must be distinguished:
1. a way of doing things, an organisation of resources and procedures.
2. a computer, or information system
3. (a specialised SSM use) - a conceptual organisation of resources and
procedures defined according to systems theory - more about this later.
It will be a useful discipline to check that you understand which of these three
senses of the word is being used every time the word occurs in this handout.
Checkland's 'formal systems model' identifies the properties we associate with
human activity systems:

formal systems model example - a university

a system has a purpose (or purposes) a university educates, promotes
- it exists for a reason and achieves learning - it 'transforms'
some change, or 'transformation' undergraduates into graduates
its performance can be measured, student/staff ratios, pass rates,
and it can be shown to be more, or research papers published
less efficient
there is a mechanism for control - a management structure
decision-making process

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 2

it has components - which can faculties, departments
themselves be taken to be systems
its components are related, and board meetings, shared courses,
interact
it exists as part of a wider system or education system, community
systems - its environment, with which
it must interact
it has a boundary - which defines what the dean is part of the university, the
is, and what is not part of the system mayor is not, John Dalton building is,
the town hall is not
it has its own resources staff, buildings, finance
it has an expectation of continuity, and the university expects to exist in ten
can be expected to adapt to, or years time, though it may have to
recover from disturbances accommodate government spending
cuts

Another governing principle is the idea of 'emergence' - most simply expressed

as ' the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.' When the constituent parts of
a system act together they have properties which the individual parts do not
have. You need staff and students (as well as many other things) to make a
university.

Why 'soft?'
Systems thinking has come to be characterised as either 'hard' or 'soft.' There
are fundamental differences between a man-made ('designed physical' system),
such as a nuclear reactor, and an
organisational system - a 'human designed
physical
activity' system. Where mechanical system
components are involved, their
behaviour can usually be predicted
with reasonable accuracy - these
are 'hard' systems; where human
beings are involved this is not
necessarily the case. Because
human behaviour is unpredictable,
human
organisational and management activity
problems are seldom clear cut and system
well-defined; they are normally
complex, with many indeterminable
variables - 'soft' systems. At first
glance, information systems would
seem to be 'hard' - designed physical - systems, but experience shows that they
seldom add value unless they are closely married to their organisational context,
and the people who use them. There are therefore many softer issues which are
important in information system planning, design, and implementation. 'Soft' has
another, more specialist meaning - depending on the type of person you are, and

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 3

your training and experience, you may understand 'systems' as tangible things
which are really present in the world. You may, however, understand systems
ideas as a series of intellectual constructs that we use to help us deal with the
enormous complexity of the real world. This is an interesting, but un-resolvable
argument; SSM tends strongly to the latter position.

Overview
SSM helps formulate and structure thinking about problems in complex, human
situations. Its core is the construction of conceptual models (based on the
understanding of human activity systems outlined above) and the comparison of
those models with the real world. This process can greatly clarify those multi-
faceted problems with many conflicting potential solutions, or no obvious way
forward. Conceptual models are not
systems thinking systems representations of the real world, like
thinking systems thinking
systems thinking systems a data-flow diagram - they are
thinking systems thinking
constructs which embody potential
real world systems, but, more
importantly, follow rigorously the
systems principles already discussed,
and their own well-defined internal
logic. SSM is not, therefore, about
analysing systems found in the world,
but about applying systems principles
to structure thinking about things that
happen in the world - a difficult, but
crucial distinction to grasp. It is most
usefully carried out by people
involved in the problem situation, with expert help available to guide and
facilitate.

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 4

Here is Checkland's seven stage overview, which has come to be known as
'mode 1' SSM:

situation 7 action to
1 considered improve the
problematic problem situation
6 changes:
systemically desirable,
culturally feasible
problem comparison of
2 situation models and
expressed real world 5
real world
systems thinking
about real world
3 conceptual models
root definition of systems described
of relevant systems in root definitions 4

The diagram maps out the SSM investigative procedure, making a clear
distinction between things which happen in, or which express the real world, and
systems thinking, which is conceptual. The problem situation is often expressed
in the form of a rich picture (2). Root definitions are then derived (3) - textual
statements (somewhat like mission statements) which describe potential relevant
systems to be considered. These may be primary task (which model basic, long
term functions such as the operation of a production department, or issue based
(which deal with transient, or more abstract concerns, such as the re-
organisation of an office, or a system to implement total quality management).
Conceptual models are activity models of these potential systems (4). A root
definition and a conceptual model are two expressions, one descriptive, the other
diagrammatic, of the same potential system, and should always justify and
explain each other. There are various, (normally straightforward) ways of
comparing these models with what is actually happening in the world (5). This
comparison should lead to suggestions for improvements (which will be desirable
according to the systems way of thinking of the world, but should also be feasible
in the culture of the organisation considered) (6) and action on those suggestions
(7).

This explanation implies that SSM practitioners follow a step-by-step logical

progression in their investigations. This is hardly ever the case - stages are often
re-visited, taken out of order, and sometimes omitted as the situation dictates.

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 5

Rich Pictures situation
1 conside re d
7 action to
improve the
The analysts' first task is to proble matic proble m situation
6 changes:
syste mically desirable,
'express' the problem situation - to culturally fe asible
form a rich picture. This is really a 2
proble m
situation
comparison of
models and
metaphor for 'thorough, but non- e xpre sse d real world 5

judgmental understanding' (which is real world

systems thinking
acquired through normal 3 conce ptual mode ls
about real world

investigative techniques), but has root definition of syste ms de scribed

of re le v ant systems in root de finitions 4
become associated in SSM with a
particular kind of diagrammatic representation of the problem situation. Our
business culture is number and text dominated - busy professionals often regard
time spent drawing pictures as wasted - but pictures can provide an excellent
way of sorting out and prioritising complex problem areas. Pictures also display
relationships - the way business functions work together, for instance - better
than text. Rich pictures are normally hand drawn, and may include elements of
structure (the departments of a university, for instance), or process (studying,
examining), issues, concerns, or developments (implementing a quality service).
They set down what is considered important in the situation. There are no rules;
some graphical talent obviously helps, but is not a pre-requisite since the
purpose is investigative, not artistic. Matchstick men and women are common,
sometimes with bubbles coming out of their mouths to indicate important issues,
crossed swords for conflict, eyeballs indicate something being overlooked,
inspected or supervised - you can make up your own icons as you go along.

coffeetime yet?

The discipline is simply to get something on paper - often in discussion with

others who may have different, even conflicting, ideas.

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 6

Here is an example of a rich picture:

source: P.J. Lewis, 'Rich Picture building in the SSM,' European Journal of Information Systems

The picture expresses a university student accommodation problem situation: at

its centre is the accommodation office which is snowed under with paperwork -
computerisation may be the answer. The university holds a competitive edge
over rivals by guaranteeing beds to students, but numbers are rising. Lines
round parts of the picture represent nominal systems to be considered - the
accommodation office system is part of a wider university system. Different types
of leases are represented together with the perception of students and landlords
of each other. Taken together, the various components of the picture express
those elements of the situation which the analyst considers of particular
importance.

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 7

Root Definitions situation
1 conside re d
7 action to
improv e the
A root definition is a short textual proble matic proble m situation
6 change s:
syste mically de sirable ,
definition of the aims and means of culturally fe asible

the system to be modelled. 2

proble m
situation
comparison of
models and
Remember that it is not the real world e xpresse d real world 5
real world
that is being modelled, but potential systems thinking
or 'virtual' systems that are logical 3 conce ptual mode ls
about real world

root definition of syste ms de scribe d

and coherent (which the real world of re le v ant syste ms in root de finitions 4
seldom is) according to systems
principles. Root definitions often
follow the form:

A system to do X, by (means of) Y, in order to Z

telling us what the system will do, how it is to be done, and why it is being done
(its long term aims). Here is an example of a primary task root definition:

A university owned and operated system to award degrees and diplomas to

suitably qualified candidates (X), by means of suitable assessment (Y), (in
conformance with national standards), in order to demonstrate the capabilities of
candidates to potential employers (Z).

Clearly this is not everything a university might do - it is part of a much wider

system - and opinions may differ as to the validity of various parts of the
statement. Remember, it is not supposed to be a description of what assessment
actually does in the university, but a well-defined concept - 'if this is what
assessment is supposed to be, how would we go about doing it?' Here is an
example of an issue-based root definition:

A university owned and operated system to implement a quality service (X), by

devising and operating procedures to delight its customers and control its
suppliers (Y), in order to improve its educational products (Z).

CATWOE
Each conceptual system has at its heart a transformation process in which
something, an input, is changed, or transformed, into some new form of itself, an
output. This is normally notated:

input  output

Accompanying this transformation ('T' for short) is a weltanschauung, or

worldview - a very powerful SSM concept which defines the belief or point of
view that makes the transformation reasonable - worth achieving. Together, T

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 8

and W form the core of CATWOE analysis - a mnemonic which helps to build
coherent and comprehensive root definitions.

Here are the components:

Customers the victims or beneficiaries of T

Actors those who do T
Transformation process input  output
Weltanschauung the worldview that makes the T meaningful
in context
Owners those with the power to stop T
Environmental constraints elements outside the system which are
taken as given, but nevertheless affect its
behaviour

Although some of these terms are commonly used, they have particular
meanings in SSM which do not necessarily correspond exactly with their
everyday meanings. Each element of CATWOE will be identifiable from a good
root definition, if only by implication. Here is the CATWOE analysis for the
assessment system:

A university owned and operated system to award degrees and diplomas to

suitably qualified candidates (X), by means of suitable assessment (Y), (in
conformance with national standards), in order to demonstrate the capabilities of
candidates to potential employers (Z).

Customers candidate students

Actors university staff
Transformation process candidate students  degree holders and
diplomates
Weltanschauung the belief that awarding degrees and
diplomas is a good way of demonstrating the
qualities of candidates to potential employers
(note that there is absolutely no point in
operating this system unless you believe this)
Owners the University governing body
Environmental constraints national educational and assessment
standards

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 9

Conceptual Models
Conceptual models demonstrate situation
1 conside re d
7 action to
improv e the
proble m situation
potential activities and their logical proble matic
6 change s:
syste mically de sirable ,
dependencies. The activities, which culturally fe asible
proble m comparison of
must be expressed in a verb noun 2 situation mode ls and
e xpre sse d re al world 5
phrase ('do something,' 'eat dinner,' real world
open new factory' etc) are placed in systems thinking
about real world
rough, hand drawn bubbles. The 3
root de finition
conce ptual mode ls
of syste ms de scribe d
bubbles may be joined by arrows, of re le v ant syste ms in root de finitions 4
indicating dependence: - that one
activity is consequent upon another - it cannot be performed, unless the other
has been performed, or that it will be done poorly if the other is done poorly.

cook dinner study BIT

eat take BIT
dinner examination

7-9 activities usually makes for a reasonably understandable model. If more

detail or complexity is required, then the system may be modelled at a higher
level of resolution. (This is equivalent to levelling in a data flow diagram). Any
activity in a conceptual model may be taken to represent a system in its own
right - for instance we could take the activity study BIT, describe it with its own
root definition, and then make a new conceptual model of this root definition. In
this way it is possible to decompose complex activities into considerable detail
without losing sight of how the component parts fit together.

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 10

Here is a conceptual model built from the assessment root definition outlined
above:

design
enrol students education
programmes

appreciate
educate allot
national
students resources
standards

award design
degrees + diplomas
and carry out
to students reaching
assessment
acceptable levels

It is not possible to say whether this model is correct, though some models are
obviously more logical and coherent than others. Its value lies in the resulting
debate and consensus, and the comparison with the real world that it is now
possible to make.

Monitor and Control - measures of performance

According to the formal systems model - every human activity system, as we
commonly understand the meaning of the word must have some ways of
evaluating its performance, and ways of regulating itself where the desired
performance is not being achieved. It is normal to make these monitoring and
control mechanisms explicit in a conceptual model, and in particular to establish
measures of performance. SSM describes these in terms of efficacy, efficiency,
and effectiveness, which, like the terms in CATWOE, have specialist, well-
defined meanings:
1
E - efficacy - does the system work - is the transformation achieved?
2
E - efficiency - a comparison of the value (not necessarily monetary) of the
output of the system and the resources needed to achieve that output - in
other words, is the system worthwhile?
3
E - effectiveness - does the system achieve its longer term goals? -
(closely allied, therefore, with the Z of the root definition)

It is an essential discipline to say how, for any given system, the three E's will be
measured.

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 11

Here are the measures of performance for our assessment system:

1
E - efficacy - are degrees and diplomas awarded?
2
E - efficiency - how many degrees and diplomas, of what standard, are
awarded for the resource consumed?
3
E - effectiveness - do employers find the degrees and diplomas a useful
way of assessing the qualities of potential employees?

Here now is the complete conceptual product that has been built up:

A university owned and operated system to award degrees and diplomas to

suitably qualified candidates (X), by means of suitable assessment (Y), (in
conformance with national standards), in order to demonstrate the capabilities of
candidates to potential employers (Z).

C candidate students E1 are degrees and diplomas

A university staff awarded?
T candidate students  degree holders and E2 how many degrees and diplomas,
diplomates of what standard, are awarded for
W the belief that awarding degrees and the resource consumed?
diplomas is a good way of demonstrating the E3 do employers find the degrees
qualities of candidates to potential employers and diplomas a useful way of
O the University governing body assessing the qualities of
E national educational and assessment potential employees?
standards

design
enrol students education
programmes

allot appreciate
educate
resources national
students
standards

award
design
degrees + diplomas
and carry out
to students reaching
assessment
acceptable levels take control
action
monitor for
E1, E2, E3

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 12

Comparisons
Once the SSM practitioner has situation 7 action to
several root definitions, with 1 conside re d
proble matic
improv e the
proble m situation
6 change s:
accompanying conceptual model, syste mically de sirable ,
culturally fe asible
CATWOE, and measures of proble m comparison of
performance (which together 2 situation
e xpressed
mode ls and
re al world 5
constitute rigorous and defensible real world
conceptual systems) (s)he is ready to systems thinking
about real world
look at the problem situation again. 3
root de finition
conce ptual mode ls
of systems de scribe d
The aim is to compare the defensible of re le vant syste ms in root de finitions 4

conceptual version of what might happen, with what really does happen in the
situation. At this stage it is often easy to spot activities which are poorly done, or
not done at all, and make recommendations for improvements. Comparisons
may be simply set out in tabular form:

is it done in the real situation? comments,

activ ity
how is it done? recommendations
e n ro l
s tu d e n ts

e d u c a te
s tu d e n ts

The activities in the conceptual situation 7 action to

improv e the
1 conside re d
model are set out in the left hand proble matic proble m situation
6 changes:
column, with proposed changes in syste mically de sirable,
culturally fe asible
the right hand column. More 2
proble m comparison of
situation models and
complex tables may be developed to e xpre sse d real world 5

suit the situation. This comparison real world

systems thinking
will normally lead to suggestions for 3 conce ptual models
about real world

real-world improvements based on root definition of syste ms describe d

of re le v ant syste ms in root de finitions 4
the logic of the conceptual model.

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 13

Mode 2 - for sophisticated users
Experienced SSM practitioners now tend to view the seven stage model as
rather rigid and prescriptive. Two trends are evident: firstly the tendency to use
the SSM resources described above as a toolbox, from which to select
appropriate means for tackling a wide variety of organisational tasks: secondly
the emergence of a second, parallel stream of analysis - 'cultural enquiry.' This,
at present less well developed than the 'logic' stream, revolves around three
forms of analysis:

Analysis 1 - analysis of the intervention itself, recognises that intervening in a

problem situation is itself a problem! It clarifies the roles of client (the person who
commissioned the study, problem solver(s), and problem owner(s).
Analysis 2 - 'social system' analysis which examines the culture of the situation
studied in terms of roles (the social position of people in the problem situation),
norms (their expected behaviours) and values (beliefs about the merit of those
behaviours of role holders).
Analysis 3 - 'political system' analysis which examines power and how it is
expressed and exercised in the problem situation.

SSM and Information Systems

SSM has been used widely in the IS field; but more commonly for information
management, information strategy, and business analysis work than for
computer system design. Brian
Wilson (1990) has developed an
extension of the methodology for
business information analysis. A
number of primary task systems, with
a wide spectrum of W's are modelled
- this results in a wide variety of
activities which should cover most of
the formal and informal activities
carried out by the business. Then a
consensus primary task model is put
together, which involves those activities that most of the people in the problem
situation agree are fundamental. Each activity (there may be a large number) is
examined in turn, and the information inputs (information which is necessary to
carry out the activity) and outputs (information which results from carrying it out)
are specified in the form of information categories. This gives a broad picture of
information requirements which may then be mapped on to the existing
information systems to identify duplication and shortcomings.

Paul Lewis (1994) gives a good account of the value of soft systems thinking in
information system development work, as well as developing ‘interpretive’ data
models directly from soft systems models. However, It is not common to design

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 14

an information system using SSM alone. There is no tried and tested way of
developing entity relationship models, data flow diagrams, entity life histories, or
any other conventional systems analysis structure from SSM products - root
definitions, conceptual models, rich pictures. Its real influence has been to
highlight what is missing from traditional structured systems analysis and design
- the ability to cope with multiple conflicting viewpoints, and to rethink a business,
rather than automate processes (which may be profoundly unsatisfactory, or
may not exploit the potential of the new technologies) to achieve (at best) an
incremental gain. Its strength and weakness derive from two factors:

its ability to include human complexities in analysis - vital for building

successful systems, but leading to a degree of ambiguity intolerable to the
system builder
its exclusively logical approach - most systems analysis starts by
documenting what currently happens, then 'logicalises' what has been
discovered' - which offers a reasonable chance that the resulting information
system will do what is currently being done better, but usually precludes any
fundamental rethinking.

JR, 25/01/11

References and further reading:

Avison, D. E. and 1990 Multiview Blackwell

Wood-Harper, A. T.
Checkland, P., and 1990 Soft Systems Methodology in Wiley
Scholes, J. Action
Checkland, P., and 1998 Information, Systems, and Wiley
Holwell, S. Information Systems
Lewis, P.J. 1992 'Rich Picture Building': European
Journal of Information Systems,
Vol 1, No. 5
Lewis, P.J 1994 Information System Development Pitman
Patching, D. 1990 Practical Soft Systems Analysis Pitman
Stowell, F. (Ed) 1995 Information System Provision - the McGraw Hill
contribution of SSM
Wilson, B. 1990 Systems: Concepts, Wiley
Methodologies and Applications

Paper By Jeremy Rose Department of BIT, the Manchester Metropolitan University 15