essential-guide-to-qualitative-in-organizational-research

27 –––– Soft Systems Analysis: Reflections and Update ––––––Susan Walsh and Chris CleggSoft systems analysis (SSA) is a method developed by Peter Checkland and colleagues(Checkland, 1981) for investigating complex problems. The method is used to plan change inexisting systems, as well as to design new ways of working. The method has a strong pragmaticfocus and can be seen as a practical working tool. It can also be used in applied research. Aswe will describe below, the method is organized in a series of relatively formal and wellstructuredstages through which its users work. In practice, considerable iteration can take place.Systems thinking represents an overarching meta-theory for examining and understandingthe behaviour of complex entities. The underlying notion is that a system is composed of partsor elements which are themselves interconnected to form some whole. To try to convey what‘soft systems’ thinking is about, it is easiest first to discuss the meaning of ‘hard systems’. Hardsystems logic embraces the assumption that one can develop a model of the system underanalysis, and that this is non-problematic. The system has a definable set of objectives or goals.There are some identifiable alternatives to reach the goals, and it is logically possible to identifyoptimal solutions. Implicit in hard systems thinking is the idea that there are objective truthsabout the system, that reality is independent of the actors (namely not subject to separate andindependent interpretation). Hard systems abound in everyday life – consider for example,lighting, heating, and plumbing systems. Engineering disciplines typically study hard systemsof this kind. One of Checkland’s central arguments is that thinking about systems in this wayis dominant, reflecting dominant values and epistemologies within our education and training.This is not to argue that hard systems thinking is wrong, but rather that it may not always beappropriate.So what do we mean by ‘soft systems’? A central assumption is that people see and interpretthe world differently. Discrepancies in the views held by individuals are not sources ofinvalidity or ‘noise’ in the data; rather, differentiation reflects the nature of reality. People holddifferent interpretations; pluralism is the norm. Especially in complex systems, individuals orgroups are likely to construct quite different views on how the system works, what may bewrong with it, and how it should be improved.Checkland also argues that change in complex human activity systems is best achieved bydebate and the pursuit of agreement, rather than by edict and the use of power. He arguesfor analysis in an open, public and participative manner. As such SSA emphasizes participationin the method by the actors working in the system under consideration.The (soft systems) analyst is part of the situation. S/he is not a domain expert, but acts moreas a therapist working with clients, helping them analyse and address their problems. The roleis similar to that of the change agent in the tradition of action research, where the researcheris a participant in the process (as opposed to a disinterested ‘scientific’ observer) with a dualcommitment to improvements in practice and advances in theory. Using Burrell and Morgan’s