electronic warfare self-protection of battlefield helicopters - Aaltodoc

39
2.3.6 Checkland’s soft system methodology
Among the various soft systems methodologies (SSMs) Checkland’s methodology
appears to be the one that is best known and which has been most widely applied
[Sta99]. Flood and Jackson sees the transfer of the notion of systemicity of the world
to the process of enquiry into the world as Checkland’s main contribution to
scientific thinking [Flo91 p.170]. Checkland’s SSM is generally seen as a mature
paradigm, although it has evolved in several versions, from the original one
published in Systems Thinking, Systems Practices [Che81] to the more recent one
published in Soft Systems Methodology in Action [Che99]. SSM was developed as a
reaction to the failure of the “hard” engineering tradition in unstructured problem
situations [Che81 p.189, 35 Che99 p.18]. The “Root definition” and “CATWOE”
mnemonic form the base of Checkland’s methodology. Any conceptual models must
be developed from their relevant root definitions, and nothing else [Flo91 p.176]. For
the present work these can be defined according to Table 2, which indicates that
SSM could be applied to the EWSP case. However, the root definition below is not
exclusively “a human activity system” as required by Checkland [Che81 p.167].
Root definition:
A system for survivability enhancement of battlefield helicopters, including an EWSP suite.
Components of the system are complementary and interactive. Realistic combat scenarios,
intelligence and other support functions are required for the system to be effective.
C customer battlefield helicopter fleet and aircrews
A actor military forces
T transformation battlefield helicopters survivable battlefield helicopters
W Weltanschauung EWSP is of value to the survivability system
O owner military decision-makers
E environmental constraints costs, resources, technology, intelligence, knowledge, dynamics
Table 2: Root and CATWOE definitions for a holistic view on EWSP of battlefield helicopters.
The transformation and Weltanschauung—world view—are restricted to the platform.
Employing Checkland’s SSM requires awareness of four main principles: learning,
culture, participation and two modes of thought (abstract systems thinking vs.
context-related “real world” thinking). Participation of those involved is necessary if
there is any chance of bringing about successful results. [Flo91 p.171] Defense
applications of Checkland’s SSM are limited, although it has been applied to a study
on military information operations. In that study the lack of alternatives was seen as a
weakness of Checkland’s methodology, and the use of more formal graphical
representations, e.g. colored Petri nets, was discussed as a possible replacement or
supplement to Checkland’s diagrams. [Sta99] It has also been claimed that FSD
shares all steps with SSM, in addition to providing the opportunity to simulate the
model [For94]. The last claims are based only on a comparison with figure 5 in
Systems Thinking, Systems Practice [Che81 p.147]. The SSM paradigm has
developed considerably over the past two decades.
35 The terms “structured” and “unstructured” problems are used in Checkland [Che81]. The former is
typical for hard, the latter for soft systems thinking (answering the questions “How?” and “What?” as
discussed earlier). [Che81 pp.144,154-155]