What do you think?
Rate this book
Soft Systems Thinking, Methodology and the Management of Change
Libro usado en buenas condiciones, por su antiguedad podria contener señales normales de uso
512 pages, Paperback
First published May 10, 2015
15 people want to read
About the author
Brian Wilson
162 books4 followersLibrarian’s note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 7, 2015
Soft Systems Analysis (SSM) has been around for a while as a generic problem solving (so to speak) methodology. However it has not gained widespread adoption and it probably never will. What sets it apart from other systems approaches engenders an awkward fit with most consultancy and client organizational cultures. SSM has been conceived as a way to establish a genuine learning system for investigating messy problem situations. That does away with a lot of the sacred cows in organizational life. Learning means we’re never finished with grappling with our challenges. At stake is an improvement of the problematic situation, not an optimization or final solution. It also presupposes that we are willing to draw in a human, perceptual factor. There is no objective, neutral account of a problem. Therefore we need to factor in, and seek convergence between, multiple worldviews from which problem statements are made. These modest claims are a hard sell to decision-makers who as a rule simply want to get rid of problems. Finally, what makes SSM also suspicious in traditional corporate culture (which to a large extent has colonized civil society and public service organizations) is the fact that it reasons down from purpose to activities to realize that purpose to, finally, organizational configurations to support those activities. Given that in many cases a) there is a knee-jerk reaction to start solving problems via organizational interventions and b) there is very little patience to tackle seemingly operational bottlenecks via a reflection on foundational purpose, this is a kind of reasoning that very few managers are keen to support.
Another reason, probably, behind the limited uptake of SSM is the fact that the methodology has not been codified in a consistent way. Perhaps it is to be expected from an approach that is geared towards supporting sense making and dialog rather than technical problem solving. Different practitioners make sense in different ways, even if they all claim to do justice to the methodology’s foundational principles. And so at least two SSM ‚schools’ have emerged, one associated with the practice of Peter Checkland and another one with the practice of Brian Wilson. Both were involved from very early on in the development of the methodology at Lancaster University in the UK. But their different intellectual temperaments led to distinct ways of codifying and applying SSM. Checkland’s approach has been qualified as ‚liberal’ and Wilson’s as more ‚technical’ or ‚professional’.
Personally I have practiced SSM for more than ten years and I have orientated myself mostly on Checkland’s writings. His books are easily available and on the whole well written. I also find his approach down to earth, elegant and humane. But I must admit that it is not always easy to stick to the letter of Checkland’s gospel. One of the distinctive features of his way with SSM is the central place that is allotted to the process of seeking accommodation between different perceptions of a problematic situation. However, in practice it is not always easy to secure buy-in to make these different perceptions explicit. Very often it strikes clients as a confusing process (which it is). Chances are it sheds an unfavorable light on the practitioner’s expertise. So in those cases it is prudent to settle for a consensus model (albeit one that integrates the capacity to handle, on an ongoing basis, the dilemmas and frictions in worldview that almost inevitably ensnare organizational purposes).
Working with a consensus model is one of the distinctive features of the Wilson approach. It shows his willingness to tailor SSM to exigencies of a corporate or technocratic environment that is dominated by a financial and/or engineering mindset. But in my opinion he goes too far in that direction. Reading through the present book I felt that the empowering spirit of SSM got stifled by a dour, ‚hard’ systems ethos. Wilson is very much concerned with rigor, ‚defensibility’ and securing a solid audit trail for the analysis. He also has been keen to mesh SSM with more technical, formalized approaches (systems engineering, enterprise architecting) that are often required by large organizations.
I feel that the resulting practice obscures the freshness of the underlying systems principles. An additional downside is that it leads to very complicated deliverables such as models with hundreds of constituent activities. This is fodder for systems analysts in technocratic organizations. Decision makers will have less patience with this kind of output.
So in my practice of SSM I find myself falling somewhat between the Checkland and the Wilson chairs. I guess that means that I will have to continue to experiment and take from both what I judge to be practicable and true to the spirit of my consultancy practice.
To return to the present book: it has been put together in a somewhat odd way. It starts with an extensive prolog in which Brian Wilson reminisces about the history of the systems department at the University of Lancaster (of which he is the sole surviving founding member). The prolog also includes a ‚brief consolidated review of the field’ by his co-author Kees van Haperen. The objective and status of this piece remains for me obscure. Partly it surveys differences between the Wilson and the Checkland approaches and partly it is a straightforward explanation of the methodology’s rationale. A lot of the points made in that part of the prolog are then reiterated in the book’s actual Part I which discusses SSM fundamentals. On the whole this first part is readable but the rhythm of the discussion is uneven with some (sometimes trivial) points extensively dealt with and others (more fundamental ones) glossed over (for instance, the rationale behind the ‚Enterprise’ model that is adopted by Wilson as a template for a consensus activity model is as far as I can see not explained in this book). Also numerous typos indicate that the text has not been as carefully edited as one could expect.
Part II of the book (‚Advanced Concepts’) consists of a series of sheets that refer to online resources accessible via the Palgrave website. These are examples of actual models that have been used by the authors in consulting projects. The documentation is downloadable as pdf documents but I must say that the resolution of these documents is sometimes insufficient for an in depth study of the sometimes very intricate models. This material is intended to be more sampled than read.
The third and final part of the book consists of a large collection of more fully worked out case studies in a variety of industries and public service environments. Also here readers are invited to sample what is of interest. As a rule the case studies discusses the project’s setting, duration and level of effort, the approach taken, outputs generated, tools used, benefits and realized. Altogether no doubt a valuable resource.
I would give the book 3,5 stars. An addition to the SSM literature is always to be welcomed. However, for reasons explained above, I am only halfway convinced by the Wilson approach. Also I think the book could have been put together more carefully. On the plus side it cannot be denied that this book constitutes a rich sediment of two long research and consultancy careers.
Another reason, probably, behind the limited uptake of SSM is the fact that the methodology has not been codified in a consistent way. Perhaps it is to be expected from an approach that is geared towards supporting sense making and dialog rather than technical problem solving. Different practitioners make sense in different ways, even if they all claim to do justice to the methodology’s foundational principles. And so at least two SSM ‚schools’ have emerged, one associated with the practice of Peter Checkland and another one with the practice of Brian Wilson. Both were involved from very early on in the development of the methodology at Lancaster University in the UK. But their different intellectual temperaments led to distinct ways of codifying and applying SSM. Checkland’s approach has been qualified as ‚liberal’ and Wilson’s as more ‚technical’ or ‚professional’.
Personally I have practiced SSM for more than ten years and I have orientated myself mostly on Checkland’s writings. His books are easily available and on the whole well written. I also find his approach down to earth, elegant and humane. But I must admit that it is not always easy to stick to the letter of Checkland’s gospel. One of the distinctive features of his way with SSM is the central place that is allotted to the process of seeking accommodation between different perceptions of a problematic situation. However, in practice it is not always easy to secure buy-in to make these different perceptions explicit. Very often it strikes clients as a confusing process (which it is). Chances are it sheds an unfavorable light on the practitioner’s expertise. So in those cases it is prudent to settle for a consensus model (albeit one that integrates the capacity to handle, on an ongoing basis, the dilemmas and frictions in worldview that almost inevitably ensnare organizational purposes).
Working with a consensus model is one of the distinctive features of the Wilson approach. It shows his willingness to tailor SSM to exigencies of a corporate or technocratic environment that is dominated by a financial and/or engineering mindset. But in my opinion he goes too far in that direction. Reading through the present book I felt that the empowering spirit of SSM got stifled by a dour, ‚hard’ systems ethos. Wilson is very much concerned with rigor, ‚defensibility’ and securing a solid audit trail for the analysis. He also has been keen to mesh SSM with more technical, formalized approaches (systems engineering, enterprise architecting) that are often required by large organizations.
I feel that the resulting practice obscures the freshness of the underlying systems principles. An additional downside is that it leads to very complicated deliverables such as models with hundreds of constituent activities. This is fodder for systems analysts in technocratic organizations. Decision makers will have less patience with this kind of output.
So in my practice of SSM I find myself falling somewhat between the Checkland and the Wilson chairs. I guess that means that I will have to continue to experiment and take from both what I judge to be practicable and true to the spirit of my consultancy practice.
To return to the present book: it has been put together in a somewhat odd way. It starts with an extensive prolog in which Brian Wilson reminisces about the history of the systems department at the University of Lancaster (of which he is the sole surviving founding member). The prolog also includes a ‚brief consolidated review of the field’ by his co-author Kees van Haperen. The objective and status of this piece remains for me obscure. Partly it surveys differences between the Wilson and the Checkland approaches and partly it is a straightforward explanation of the methodology’s rationale. A lot of the points made in that part of the prolog are then reiterated in the book’s actual Part I which discusses SSM fundamentals. On the whole this first part is readable but the rhythm of the discussion is uneven with some (sometimes trivial) points extensively dealt with and others (more fundamental ones) glossed over (for instance, the rationale behind the ‚Enterprise’ model that is adopted by Wilson as a template for a consensus activity model is as far as I can see not explained in this book). Also numerous typos indicate that the text has not been as carefully edited as one could expect.
Part II of the book (‚Advanced Concepts’) consists of a series of sheets that refer to online resources accessible via the Palgrave website. These are examples of actual models that have been used by the authors in consulting projects. The documentation is downloadable as pdf documents but I must say that the resolution of these documents is sometimes insufficient for an in depth study of the sometimes very intricate models. This material is intended to be more sampled than read.
The third and final part of the book consists of a large collection of more fully worked out case studies in a variety of industries and public service environments. Also here readers are invited to sample what is of interest. As a rule the case studies discusses the project’s setting, duration and level of effort, the approach taken, outputs generated, tools used, benefits and realized. Altogether no doubt a valuable resource.
I would give the book 3,5 stars. An addition to the SSM literature is always to be welcomed. However, for reasons explained above, I am only halfway convinced by the Wilson approach. Also I think the book could have been put together more carefully. On the plus side it cannot be denied that this book constitutes a rich sediment of two long research and consultancy careers.
Displaying 1 of 1 review