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

348 –––––––––– QUALITATIVE METHODS IN ORGANIZATION STUDIES ––––––––––––––––––Third, the process of bringing about real change in organizations reveals a possible tensionbetween analysis and facilitation and implementation. SSA requires that the researchers havesome awareness of skills in organizational change and development. Thus, the success of theendeavour will, in part, be influenced by how the researchers manage the management ofchange process, for example, selling the method and the research process to the identifiedstakeholders. This can be difficult at times for the reasons previously identified. Until thestakeholders get used to the terminology and the use of diagrammatic forms of datarepresentation, SSA can feel very alien and disconnected from personal experience. Directreflection upon not only the method but one’s skills to implement the method is invaluable.Finally, SSA and Checkland’s work have many passionate devotees, and there is a themepresent within the literature of ‘people doing it wrong’ (Holwell, 2000; Checkland, 1999).This is interesting and potentially contradictory given first the method’s complexity andsecond the refrain present in the literature about the need to capture diversity and thatdifferences in understanding and application will inevitably emerge. We suspect that it maybe very easy to ‘do SSA incorrectly’ but that seeing how participants differentially take up themethod is one of the pleasures of using it.CONCLUSIONS ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––SSA is primarily a method for analysing, discussing and planning change in complex systemsinvolving human activity. It is highly pragmatic and organized in a series of iterative stages.The method is broadly participative, provides a structure for managing and coping withcomplexity and change, encourages the use of imagination and innovation, and requires logicalanalysis. It is also a useful research tool, especially for those working in an action researchmode. Thus, it helps organize complex research projects, especially when incorporatingdifferent forms of data from different sources. SSA is not theory specific. Overall, it can be avery powerful and a useful addition to the skill set of people involved in research anddevelopment.REFERENCES ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––Burrell, G. and Morgan, G. (1979) Sociological Paradigms and Organizational Analysis, London: Heinemann Educational Books.Checkland, P.B. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Checkland, P. (1999) ‘Soft systems methodology: a 30 year retrospective’, in P.B. Checkland and J. Scholes (1999) Soft SystemsMethodology in Action, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Checkland, P.B. and Holwell, S. (1998) Information, Systems and Information Systems, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Flood, R.L. (2000) ‘A brief review of Peter B. Checkland’s contribution to systemic thinking’, Systemic Practice and ActionResearch, 13 (6): 723–31.Holwell, S. (2000) ‘Soft systems methodology: other voices’, Systemic Practice and Action Research, 13 (6): 773–97.Lehaney, B. and Ray, J.P. (1996) ‘The use of soft systems in the development of a simulation of out-patient services at WatfordGeneral Hospital’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 47: 864–70.Mingers, J. (2000) ‘An idea ahead of its time: The history and development of soft systems methodology’, Systemic Practiceand Action Research, 13 (6): 733–55.Naughton, J. (1984) Soft Systems Analysis: An Introductory Guide, Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Symon, G.J. and Clegg, C.W. (1991) ‘Technology-led change: a study of the implementation of CADCAM’, Journal ofOccupational Psychology, 64: 273-90.