Theme 2

Soft Systems Thinking

Theme Overview

This theme introduces the principles of Soft Systems Thinking (SST).

Learning Outcomes

On completion of the tasks set within this session you will be able to: Understand the principles
of Soft Systems Thinking (SST);
Apply the tools and techniques of Soft Systems Methodology; and
Consider criticisms of the methodology.

Human Activity Systems/Soft Systems Activities

A common feature of an organisation is groups of people acting out social roles and trying to take
purposeful action. In Soft Systems Methodology these are termed as Human Activity Systems. These
Human Activity Systems must act based on some interpretation of the world. They will contain several
different viewpoints because individuals will interpret the world differently. Concerted action requires
consensus (or accommodation). The work of Checkland (1999) suggests that Human Activity Systems are
the focus by many interpretations of a declared 'purpose' are possible. The idea of a 'situation' as
apposed to an 'obvious' problem. he states that models of purposeful activity can provide an entry to
work on information systems. In order to be able to consider the toolkit offered by Soft Systems
Thinking a human activity inevitably needs to provide the context for thinking. This is far easier to do in
an organisational setting where there are any number of common activities that different people are
involved with. However, there is an activity that links the cohort studying this course and which offers a
fertile avenue for consideration i.e. the assessment system that forms part of the Masters experience.
Remember that this is not about one piece of coursework but considering the assessment process as a
whole e.g. the purpose; the activities; limitations; pressures; people involved, etc. The first tool in the
Soft Systems box is the creation of Rich Pictures to capture perceptions of the activity system being
explored.

Alternative Definitions

Alternative definitions are interpretations of how different people view a situation. They are attempts to
capture the essence of a system that might be useful in the given problem situation. It is the first stage
of an idealisation of what might be. In Soft System Methodology language it is often referred to as 'Root
Definitions.

The aim is construct a sentence that captures the purpose of the system.
There are three components that need to be clearly identified. These components are:

Input - what is the entering process?

It is also helpful to identify potential constraints.An example Alternative Definition for the assessment
process being explored could be: “A system for student’s work to be selected and edited in order to
produce publishable journal papers”.

Conceptual Modeling

Conceptual modeling provides minimal descriptions of the subsystems or components that would be
necessary to embody alternative definitions. Conceptual models are diagrammatic representations of
the interconnections of the activities that must be present for the alternative definition to make sense.
'Blobs' are based on verbs and the language can make them appear difficult. They enable the
development of the components of an Alternative Definition. Essentially, they are a way of promoting
thought, illiminate the gap between ideas and reality and enable a variety of views to be discussed. The
strangest concepts can contain inspiration.

Objective

To explore and understand the need to add detail to the alternative definitions that are generated
through utilising soft systems thinking so comparisons to existing systems can be made - this is part of
where knowledge creation can be enabled.

Theme Summary

There are various critisisms to Soft Systems Methodology. This is due to the fact that it does not provide
an end product. It can be open ended, presenting a danger on constantly revising the stages. The
language can be complicated and has been judged as just 'wooly thinking'. However, the novice of Soft
Systems principles is the exploration of people taking purposeful action not a description. Purposeful
action can be interpreted in multiple ways. The complexity of purposeful action will always exceed the
complexity of models as they are devices for structuring debate. Soft Systems methodology is a learning
process. It is a set of principles rather than a precise method. Soft Systems Methodology uses the
concept of the whole entity. It involves comparing abstract wholes with the real world in order to to
learn about it. Soft Systems Methodology is a learning process. Two traditions of systems thinking: hard
(systematic) and soft (systemic). Hard assumes systems in real world, soft creates systems on enquiry.
Soft Systems Methodology also uses systems as a tool (therefore subsuming hard systems thinking as a
special case). Hard systems techniques can be incorporated into Soft Systems Methodology.
Complexity Thinking and Adaptive Systems

Theme Overview

Our first theme has introduced some core ideas about strategy and the way that the subject can be
viewed in different ways. This next section considers the impact of Complexity and Complex Adaptive
Systems thinking to the subject in recent years. Building on the ideas of certainty that have already been
establshed the two tasks in this theme emphasise the role of people in strategic thinking and how this
changes the way that strategy is understood and enacted.

There is a large degree of overlap in the literature on Complexity and Complex Adaptive Systems so it is
helpful to offer a frame of reference before we get too involved in the tasks. A good way to help think of
the distinction is as follows:

Complexity - the underpinning theory

We are interested in the way that these ideas are of relevance and potential value to the way that
strategic thinking is conducted. Essentially, the core idea is:

“If organisations are seen as complex evolving systems, co-evolving within a social ‘ecosystem’, then
our thinking about strategy and management changes” (Mittleton Kelly, 2000)

Complexity Thinking

Complexity thinking is a large subject area in itself and a full discussion is beyond the scope of this
module. This section will focus on the key elements as they affect strategic thinking.

Inevitably, there are core ideas that need to be explored to see how strategy has been influenced in
recent years and they revolve around the idea of inter-relationships and degrees of certainty. "when a
physical or chemical system is pushed away from equilibrium, it survives and thrives while if it remains
at equilibrium it dies. The reason is that when far-from-equilibrium, systems are forced to experiment
and explore their space of possibilities and this exploration helps them discover and create new patterns
of relationships and different structures” (Lewin, 2001) The Lewin quote introduces a fundamental
condition into our thinking about organisations - change. Complexity challenges the notion that
equilibrium should be the goal by suggesting that this is where signs of torpour emerge, leading to a
state of comfort and thus stagnation. Indeed, if the central notion of co-evolution is accepted then
change is inherent within any situation. This is particularly useful when thinking about strategy as the
organisation is seeking to make sense of internal and external factors in order to determine the
direction and scope that is at the heart of the Johnson, Scholes and Whittington definition. Thus, if we
only focus on internal analysis this does not mean that the woder world is going to stand still and wait
for us to finish. Our actions will have an impact on the actions of others and vice versa. Being more
attuned to this idea means we are more likely to be thinking about what these impacts may be and how
we can look to shape them in our favour. Essentially, the ideas of complexity theory establish that we
are part of systems (an idea we will return to in the second section of the module) and thus change is an
inevitable part of this. Is the challenge then for companies to be on the balls of their feet able to adapt,
rather than heavily flat footed and unresponsive? This question does raise a consideration about the
nature of the organisation, which the following task looks to explore:

Task 1 – Food for Thought

Consider to what extent organisations you have worked for are certain planners or comfortable
with adapting.
What are the reasons for your choice?

Complex Adaptive Systems

The elements of Complexity Theory are valuable in providing a basis on which to develop our thinking
about strategy. The Schools that were the focus of the Mintzberg & Lampel paper from Theme 1
illustrate the rise of emergent thinking and learning as challenges to the more traditional orthodoxy.
Yet, the discussion so far is yet to really explore the role of people in the way that strategic thinking
develops. Business is a social activity so it is instructive to look at the ways in which people are engaged
in the strategy process. We will consider the enacting of strategy in the next theme; here the aim is to
examine the way that strategy is impacted by social systems. Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) build on
the underpinning Complexity Theory to explore and make sense of how groups operate. For strategic
thinking the frame of reference is understandably organisations. A key challenge is presented in the
following quote: “Whether, knowingly using the principles of complexity the industrial partners can
create organisations, which can co-evolve with their changing environment and recreate themselves as
they grow, thus reducing the need for constant imposed restructuring”? (Mittleton-Kelly, 2000)
Evolution involves change as an accepted element though not necessarily one that is fully controlled.
The idea of adaptive behaviour is that change becomes part of the culture rather than something that is
seen as a reaction to events. The use of 'imposed' in the Mittleton Kelly quote introduces a critical
aspect of CAS thinking. To what extent are people engaged in the strategic process as opposed to being
the recipients of strategic directions? The use of a company example is the best way to consider the idea
of CAS and some of the issues that emerge from its adotpion. Semco is a Brazilian company that has
changed from a more traditional approach to running the company in favour of a more involved and
shared style.