Soft Systems Methodology is an approach to inquiry into problem situations perceived to exist in the real world (Checkland and Scholes, 1990:18). It originates from the more general field of Systems Engineering, but have departed from the tradition of "hard" systems thinking (in which the perceived reality is considered systemic and inquiry systematic) into what is referred to as "soft" systems thinking (where perceived reality is problematic and inquiry is systemic). In their discussion of SSM and information systems development, Hirschheim et al. (1995:242) point out that SSM
"is a framework which does not force or lead the systems analyst to a particular 'solution', rather to an understanding."SSM has evolved through several versions, with (Checkland, 1981) as the most widely cited. The presentation in this section is taken from a revised version of SSM found in (Checkland and Scholes, 1990).
The process of SSM is illustrated in figure 5.6. A real world problem situation is perceived to exist. This situation has a particular history, providing a richer basis for understanding the situation. Actors (would-be improvers of the problem situation in) using SSM will follow two distinct, but integrated streams of analysis: A logic-based and a cultural.
CATWOE’ is a mnemonic for a checklist for problem or goal definition (Checkland and Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, 1990). CATWOE is applied to the system which contains the problem, issue or solution, rather than to the problem or goal itself – i.e. to: ‘A system to ...’ ‘A system for ...’; or ‘A system that ...’. Such a definition should include:
C The ‘customers of the system’. In this context, ‘customers’ means those who are on the receiving end of whatever it is that the system does. Is it clear from your definition who will gain or lose?
A The ‘actors’, meaning those who would actually carry out the activities envisaged in the notional system being defined.
T The ‘transformation process’. What does the system do to the inputs to convert them into the outputs.
W The ‘world view’ that lies behind the root definition. Putting the system into its wider context can highlight the consequences of the overall system. For example, the system may be in place to assist in making the world environmentally safer, and the consequences of system failure could be significant pollution.
O The ‘owner(s)’ – i.e. those who have sufficient formal power over the system to stop it existing if they so wished (though they won’t usually want to do this).
E The ‘environmental constraints’. These include things such as ethical limits, regulations, financial constraints, resource limitations, limits set by terms of reference, and so on.
Just working through CATWOE, adding each element as you go, can lead to an unwieldy definition. It may be better to look at which are the important elements of CATWOE for any given system and use the relevant sub-set.
1 comment:
As far as the ‘theory’ is concerned this is an excellent piece of writing! But what about the ‘practice’? How did you apply the SSM approach in the training event?
What benefits does this approach have? and what are the difficulties when adopting this approach?
Post a Comment