Open Thinkering

Menu

Tag: Soft Systems Methodology

TB871: Comparing CSH boundaries with SSM boundaries

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category


A whimsical illustration of a serious cat sitting inside a boundary made of colorful wool. The wool is intricately looped, knotted, and has a soft, fluffy, and highly detailed texture. The cat appears deep in thought, as if pondering the meaning of the wool boundary around it. The background is minimalistic with soft pastel colors, focusing attention on the cat and the wool. The overall scene is playful yet reflective, combining a cartoonish style with realistic wool details.

In my last post I outlined Critical System Heuristics (CSH). In this one, I want to compare and contrast the 12 boundary questions that make up CSH with the CATWOE mnemonic from Soft Systems Methodology (SSM).

As a reminder, the CATWOE mnemonic helps identify and analyse the different elements of a problem situation. It stands for:

  • Client: the person or group who is the beneficiary of the system or who would be affected by the outcome of the system.
  • Actor: individuals or groups who would carry out the activities within the system.
  • Transformation: process that converts input into output, representing the main change or transformation the system is intended to achieve.
  • Worldview: broader perspective or belief system that frames how the situation is understood, influencing the way the problem is perceived and solutions are judged.
  • Owner: person or group who has the power to stop or change the system, often the one with control over resources or authority.
  • Environment: external factors, constraints, and conditions that the system operates within and cannot control.

The 12 boundary questions of Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) are designed to critically reflect on the boundaries of systems thinking and practice. These questions are grouped into four categories, each with three questions related to a specific aspect of boundary critique:

1. Sources of Motivation (Who gets what?)

  • CSHq1: Beneficiary – Who ought to be the beneficiaries of the system? (who should benefit from the system’s design and operation?)
  • CSHq2: Purpose – What ought to be the purpose of the system? (what should the system aim to achieve?)
  • CSHq3: Measure of Success – What ought to be the measure of improvement? (how should success be measured?)

2. Sources of Control (Who owns what?)

  • CSHq4: Decision Maker – Who ought to be the decision-maker? (who should have the authority to make decisions about the system?)
  • CSHq5: Resources – What conditions of success ought to be controlled? (what resources are necessary for the system’s success?)
  • CSHq6: Decision Environment – What conditions ought to be part of the decision environment? (what external factors influence the decision-making process?)

3. Sources of Knowledge (What does what?)

  • CSHq7: Expert – Who ought to be considered as an expert? (who should be consulted for their knowledge and expertise?)
  • CSHq8: Expertise – What ought to be the role of the expert? (what should the expert contribute to the system?)
  • CSHq9: Guarantor – What ought to guarantee the success of the system? (what guarantees or safeguards are needed?)

4. Sources of Legitimacy (Who suffers what?)

  • CSHq10: Witness – Who ought to be considered a witness to the system? (who should be consulted to provide an independent perspective?)
  • CSHq11: Emancipation – What ought to be the conditions of emancipation? (what should be done to ensure that those affected by the system have a voice and are not marginalised?)
  • CSHq12: Worldview – What ought to be the worldview underlying the system? (what fundamental values and assumptions should guide the system?)

If we map CATWOE against these 12 boundary questions, we end up with the following:

CATWOE TermEquivalent Boundary Judgement from CSH
Client (C)Beneficiary (CSHq1)
Actor (A)Decision Maker (CSHq4)
Transformation (T)Purpose (CSHq2)
Worldview (W)Worldview (CSHq12)
Owner (O)Guarantor (CSHq9)
Environment (E)Decision Environment (CSHq6)

With my next tutor-marked assignment (TMA 03) coming up, comparing CATWOE with CSH boundaries can be useful to zoom in and out of systems. For example, CATWOE is useful for structuring thoughts around key elements, which gives a clear picture of how the system funcitons on a practical level. However, this can sometimes miss the bigger picture, such as the broader societal impact.

By adding in CSH, it means that I’m prompted to think more critically about the boundaries of the system — e.g. who benefits, who has the power, and whose perspectives are included/left out. Using CATWOE and CSH together makes for a more well-rounded analysis, not only addressing the operational aspects of the system, but which also takes into account its wider ethical dimensions.


Image: DALL-E 3 (prompt: Create a series of three 16:9 format image prompts to go with a blog post. Be really creative. For example, you could have a crying cat (CATWOE!) playing with a ball of wool which forms a kind of ‘boundary’ on the floor. Ensure you don’t use any text. Experiment with a range of illustrative styles.)

TB871: Exploring Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category


I made some notes on Chapter 5 of Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide and then fed them into GPT-4o to summarise.

 Close-up of an audio mixing console with knobs and faders.

In systems thinking, Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is as an approach for tackling complex, problematical situations. Developed by Peter Checkland and John Poulter, SSM is an action-oriented process of inquiry that helps users navigate from understanding a situation to taking action to improve it. The methodology leverages the concept of conflicting worldviews to stimulate energy and ideas for change (Checkland & Poulter, 2006, pp.202-203).

SSM’s never-ending cycle

A core tenet of SSM is its iterative nature. As practitioners take action to improve a situation, they inevitably alter the circumstances, prompting a continuous cycle of learning and adaptation. This cycle, which can be used in any human situation requiring purposeful thinking and action, ensures that SSM remains relevant over time.

Taking action to improve a problematical situation will of course itself change that situation, so that the learning cycle could in principle begin again (Ibid., p.203). Describing a situation as ‘problematical’ rather than ‘a problem’ acknowledges its complexity, dynamic nature, multiple perspectives, and the focus on ongoing improvement rather than a singular solution.

Applicability and recoverability

SSM is versatile, finding use across a wide range of human activities. It can be applied to various contexts, from small businesses to large organisations, and from the private sector to public services. The methodology is particularly valued in social research for its ‘recoverability’, a concept distinct from the ‘repeatability’ found in scientific research. In social contexts, each situation is unique, making the ability to ‘recover’ the research process through explicit frameworks crucial (Ibid., p.206).

LUMAS model

The LUMAS model (Learning for a User by a Methodology-informed Approach to a Situation) provides a structured way for users to tailor SSM to their specific needs, ensuring that the approach remains flexible and contextually relevant (Ibid., p.207).

Addressing conflicting worldviews

Unlike other systems approaches, such as the Viable System Model (VSM), SSM places a strong emphasis on the existence of conflicting worldviews. This acknowledgment is critical because it reflects the reality of human interactions, where differing perspectives are the norm. By incorporating these diverse viewpoints, SSM facilitates a more holistic and inclusive process of change (Ibid., p.207).

Core systems concept

At the heart of SSM is the idea that any system is an adaptive whole that survives through time by adapting to changes in its environment. This concept underscores the need for systems to be both desirable and culturally feasible, ensuring that proposed changes are sustainable and embraced by those involved (Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p.212).

SSM Cycle

The SSM learning cycle consists of four distinct types of activity:

  1. Finding out: understanding the initial problematical situation.
  2. Model building: creating purposeful activity models relevant to the situation.
  3. Using models: questioning the real situation using the models to find desirable and feasible changes.
  4. Taking action: implementing changes to improve the situation

(Ibid., pp.216-217).

Techniques for finding out

SSM employs several techniques to understand problematical situations deeply:

  1. Rich Pictures: creating a visual representation of the situation in accordance with a particular worldview or conceptualisation.
  2. Analysis One: identifying the client, practitioner, and issue owners
  3. Analysis Two: exploring the roles, norms, and values within the situation
  4. Analysis Three: examining power dynamics and political aspects

(Ibid., pp.221-228).

Root definitions and CATWOE

Root definitions are a crucial part of SSM, defining the purposeful activities within the system. The CATWOE analysis (Customers, Actors, Transformation process, Worldview, Owner, and Environmental constraints) helps in considering all critical aspects of these activities (Ibid., pp.228-232).

Seven principles of SSM

The methodology is underpinned by seven principles, which guide practitioners through the process and ensure that SSM remains adaptable in various contexts. These principles emphasise the importance of understanding multiple perspectives, engaging in continuous learning, and maintaining a flexible approach to problem-solving. The seven principles are:

  1. Structured flexibility: Maintaining flexibility within a structured approach (Ibid., p.244).
  2. Real-world focus: Emphasising real-world problem situations.
  3. Worldview clarification: Making explicit the different worldviews involved.
  4. Social process: Understanding the social nature of the methodology.
  5. Iterative learning: Recognising that learning is an iterative process.
  6. Organised reflection: Structuring reflection on the situation.
  7. Action to improve: Focusing on taking action to improve situations.

The ‘light-footedness’ of SSM

A distinctive feature of SSM is its ‘light-footedness’. This quality allows practitioners to handle complex situations without becoming bogged down by rigid procedures or overly formalised structures. It encourages an agile and responsive approach, suitable for the unique demands of each situation (Ibid., p.250).

SSM offers a rich framework for addressing complex, messy situations. By embracing conflicting worldviews, encouraging continuous learning, and emphasising adaptability, SSM provides a powerful tool for making meaningful change in an ever-changing world.

References

Checkland, P. & Poulter, J. (2006) ‘Soft Systems Methodology’, in Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (eds.) Systems approaches to making change: a practical guide. 2nd edn. Milton Keynes: The Open University/London: Springer, pp.201-253.


Image: Yomex Owo

TB871: Perplexity and Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

Note: this is a post reflecting on one of the modules of my MSc in Systems Thinking in Practice. You can see all of the related posts in this category


‘Perplexity’ is a word that not only feels nice in the mouth, but gains you a decent score in Scrabble. It’s a term which refers to something being puzzling, because a situation is intricate or complicated.

In terms of systems thinking, situations of interest are often complex and ill-defined, and therefore ‘perplexing’. It’s difficult to know what the actual problem is.

My area of practice is community development and wellbeing, within which I have identified various systems, including ‘a system to support education and information.’ Within this, I have identified a system to support lifelong learning in the context of library services.

Libraries cater to a broad spectrum of community members, each with unique requirements and expectations. The sheer diversity involved, especially in an increasingly multicultural landscape can make it challenging to point to a particular ‘problem’. For instance, library staff might focus on providing comprehensive resources, while what community members might want a whole range of diverse services from study support to social gatherings.

Resource constraints can further complicate this situation. Limited budgets and staffing can lead to conflicts around prioritisation, making it difficult to maintain up-to-date resources and technology. Additionally, the rapid pace of technological change necessitates continuous updates and training, which can strain already limited resources.  

In this kind of situation, it’s difficult to know how to move forward. There are different needs and agendas of stakeholders, and these can often clash. For example:

  • Library staff: aim to provide a broad range of resources and programmes, but face constraints in funding and personnel.
  • Community members: have diverse needs such as job skills training, study support, and educational support for children.
  • Local government: focuses on budget constraints and measurable outcomes, potentially at the expense of innovation.
  • Educational institutions: seek collaboration for resource sharing and support for students, which may not always align with the library’s broader community focus.

These conflicting priorities can lead to misunderstandings and a lack of coordinated effort, making it difficult to define and address the core issues effectively.

Soft Systems Methodology

Flowchart showing the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) with interconnected steps addressing problematical situations and involving various worldviews.
SSM as a methodological approach to improving problematical situations of interest (The Open University, 2020)

The module materials describe Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) in the following way:

SSM is an approach developed by Peter Checkland to address complex problematic situations applied across a wide set of domains where part of the perceived issue is that the problem defies definition. More explicity, SSM is a ‘methodology’ (in contrast with VSM, which is a ‘model’). This ‘methodology’ is like a ‘recipe for action’ – a set of instructions to follow for carrying out agreed action – in a complex situation of interest. The recipe is not, however, a fixed method, but rather it is a flexible framework within which you can follow your own path.

[…]

From a STiP perspective, methodology can best be described as the ‘conscious braiding together of theory and practice in a given situation, as a context specific enactment’ (Ison, 2017, p. 167, italics added). So for our purposes SSM, whilst nominally called a methodology, can best be understood as ‘a methodological approach’, where its application in specific contexts with or without other tools can be understood more specifically as methodology.

(The Open University, 2020)

In a library context, therefore, we need to do at least a couple of things:

  1. Make boundary judgements: we need to decide what to include (i.e. what to prioritise) and what to exclude (i.e. what can be deprioritised, being addressed later or not at all)
  2. Engage multiple perspectives: to gain a holistic view of the situation, we need to acknowledge that each stakeholder’s viewpoint contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the problem.

SSM is ultimately about learning alongside stakeholders, trying something which may improve a situation of interest, seeing what happens, and then continuing along that path, or trying something else.

References

css.php