INTRODUCTION 1.

0 Decision Making Overview

Decision-making is one of the defining characteristics of leadership. Its core to the job description. Making decisions is what managers and leaders are paid to do. Yet, there isnt a day that goes by that you dont read something in the news or the business press that makes you wonder, What were they thinking? or Who actually made that decision? Thats probably always been the case, but it seems exponentially more so in the opening decade of the new millennium where everything seems marked with, too big, too fast, too much, and too soon. The reality seems to be that most organizations arent overrun by good decision makers, yet alone great ones. When asked, people dont easily point to what they regard as great decisions. Stories of bad decisions and bad decision-making come much more readily to mind. Some of that is due to our tendency to notice and recall exceptions vs. all the times things go as planned. For example, youve walked along side buildings more times than you could possibly count. Yet you remember vividly the one time you got nailed by a pigeon overhead. Thats how we are about bad decisions. Were also that way because the really bad ones tend to really hurt. Its not that people dont have the capacity to make high-quality decisions in them. Decision-making is a distinctly human activity. Its what that great, big frontal lobe is for. We all make decisions all the time. But the fact that were hard-wired to make decisions doesnt by itself make us good decision-makers.

1.2 Soft System Methodology

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) was developed by Peter Checkland in the late 60s at the University of Lancaster in the UK. Originally it was seen as a modeling tool, but in later years it has been seen increasingly as a learning and meaning development tool. Although it develops models, the models are not supposed to represent the real world, but by using systems rules and principles allow you to structure your thinking about the real world. The models are either descriptive or normative, though they may carry elements of both. One of the interesting things about SSM is that it constrains your thinking in order for you to expand your thinking. Thus blowing away the idea that system thinking is always expansive. Like many other systems approaches the heart of SSM is a comparison between the worlds as it is, and some models of the world as it might be. Out of this comparison arise a better understanding of the world ("research"), and some ideas for improvement ("action"). In classic SSM the researchers begin with a real-world problem (or perhaps situation is a better word). They study the situation in a fairly unstructured way. Following this, they develop some models of that situation. The particular strength of SSM for evaluators is that it can be used to untangle the evaluative lessons from programs with multiple goals and multiple perspectives on these goals. It does so by developing specific perspectives on the program, rigorously constructs some models based on these perspectives and then compares these with real life. The classic SSM inquiry has seven stages. Some of them address the real world, and some of them perhaps the most important parts address a conceptual world.

Figure 1.1

2.0 The Seven Stages of Soft System Methodology

2.1.1 Stage 1 & 2 (The situation Defined)

The first step, very much in the real world, is to acknowledge, explore and define the situation in some way. Peter Checkland talks about the problem situation since his original purpose of developing SSM were a problem solving one. This workbook uses some of Peters original illustrations and thus uses the problem situation phrase, but it could be equally program, issue or the kinds of words we use in evaluation.

So first we decide what it is we are actually exploring. At this stage we dont define the problem but assess the general area that interests us. Take an example of something called the Sustainable Food Collaboration. The primary activity of this collaboration is developing and sustaining a method of Sustainable Food labeling on foodstuffs. Its activities are supported by labeling and auditing fees (ie assessing farms for their sustainable practices), and a grant from a major Foundation.

This is an arbitrary starting point and it may shift for instance at some stage we may choose to open out the boundary of the situation to sweep in more aspects of the Situation. It could be sustainable food production in general, or working in businesses that support environmentally sustainable products *Churchmans Critical Systems Thinking see later places much greater stress on this issue}. A bit like goal free evaluation, we are not particularly constrained by any formal definitions or organizational boundaries. We collect as much data as we can, qualitative, quantitative, by whatever method seems appropriate survey, observation, measurement.

In Stage Two the issue is expressed in some way. Checkland calls this a rich picture for two reasons. Firstly the situation needs to be expressed in all its richness. Checkland provides some guidelines as to what should be included. These are Structures, processes, climate,
4

People, Issues expressed by people and conflicts. Secondly, Checkland suggests that the best way of doing this is in a picture form. Here is an example from one of his books that expresses the rich picture of a distance learning situation.

Figure 2.1

2.1.2 Stage 3 (Root Definitions of Relevant System)

Stage three moves out of the real world and into the world of systems. This is the Stage out of which everything else grows. That is why Checkland called it the root definition stage, and is the unique and most challenging part of the methodology. The first step is to understand the concept of different perspectives that are possible to draw out of the rich picture. Checkland calls them holons - plausible relevant purposeful perspectives that can describe the real world activities. This is why SSM is fundamentally evaluative. Each holon provides a separate value base by which to evaluate the situation.

Here are some possible Sustainable Food Collaboration holons.

Ensuring consumers can be confident about the sustainable practice used to grow the product

A lever for the Foundation to pursue a broader agenda of social and economic change. A means of treating growers more fairly A means of treating the ecosystem more fairly Employing food specialists. Providing structured opportunities for people to feel more closely connected to food, cultural and local richness of sustainable produce

Providing inspiring stories about sustainable agriculture that influence policy Providing greater informed food choices for consumers Translating the theory of sustainable agriculture into practical observable and auditable processes and features.

A safe way of attracting big food processors, users and retailers to the practice of sustainable agriculture

Helping small farms, producers and retailers maintain sustainable agriculture practice Creating a point of difference for specialist producers and retailers The Foundation fulfilling the legal obligations for dispersal of its capital
6

Creating a community where innovation is valued Delaying the death of dying communities Salving the conscience of affluent town dwellers Sustaining careers for farm development workers Providing additional income for auditing consultants

All these are perfectly valid purposeful perspectives. Although they may be undiscussible within The Sustainable Food Collaboration, or not recognized by senior management within the organization, they are still valid perspectives held by those affected by the situation and will affect the relevance and success of any intervention. For instance, it is very common that service integration designed to improve client outcomes actually increases the cost of the service because it identifies unmet needs that were previously hidden by gaps in service. So if one unspoken aim of the integration was to save money, then from some stakeholders perspectives the project has been a failure and they may even work against it working well. The basis of SSM is that trying to address all these perspectives as a whole is too complex an endeavor. Clarity is gained by addressing key perspectives separately, understanding their implications and then using those understandings when seeking to reintegrate these perspectives into a set of evaluative conclusions and suggestions for future action. What you do now is to select a particular perspective and put it through a very structured and rigorous model development process. Checkland developed the mnemonic CATWOE to help you.

The starting point is a Transformation (T). From this particular perspective, what is actually transformed from input to output? Once you have identified the Transformation, you then proceed to identify other key elements of the system.

Customers who (or what) benefits from this transformation Actors who facilitates the transformation to these customers Transformation from start to finish

 Weltanschauung what gives the transformation some meaning? Owner to whom the system is answerable and/or could cause it not to exist Environment that influences but does not control the system

2.1.3 Stage 4 (Developing the Model)

Using the root definition you draw up a conceptual model using systems conventions. There are lots of ways of doing this, but Checkland recommends that beginners follow the process below:

Using verbs in the imperative write down activities necessary to carry out the Transformation (T in CATWOE). Aim for 72 activities that are at the same scale.

Select activities which could be done at once (i.e., not dependent on others) : Place these activities in a line, and then those that are dependent on these first Activities in a line; continue until all are accounted for.

Indicate the dependencies Rearrange to avoid overlapping arrows where possible. Add a means of assessing performance and include the aspects of the environment identified in CATWOE.

Finally check whether your model demonstrates the following systems properties:

o An ongoing purpose (that may be determined in advance purposeful, or assigned through observation - purposive) o A means of assessing performance o A decision taking process o Components that are also systems (i.e., the notion of sub-systems) o Components that interact o An environment (with which the system may or may not interact) o A boundary between the system and the environment (that may be closed or open)
8

o Resources o Continuity

Foundation sponsored activities by the Sustainable Food Collaboration and their stakeholders create a set of good news stories about consumer use of sustainable agricultural products that allow lobbyists to use as part of their policy development levers. From this Ive identified the following list of core relevant activities:

Applying the process recommended by Checkland, and then doubles checking again the list of essential properties of a system I ended up with the following model:

Checkland recommends you dont spend much time in initial model building. I spent about twenty minutes from root definition to model. He considers it better to undertake the comparison stage, have the discussions, gain insights, and return to the model, rather than spend a long time on the initial model building. This reinforces his belief that the SSM process is about cycles of discussion, debate and learning rather than producing the ideal solution first time. However, the speed is not at the cost of rigour. Indeed he recommends the model to be closely inspected in ways that increase the rigour of the overall inquiry. However, others consider that the debates and discussions that surround model building are in some ways more

10

important that the. Model it. In other words similar to the debates that surround Program Logic.

2.1.4 Stage 5 Compare Model & Real World

Checkland suggests four ways of doing this :

Unstructured discussions Structured questioning of the model using a matrix approach Scenario or dynamic modeling Trying to model the real world using the same structure as the conceptual model

The second is the most common often using a matrix that looks at each component of The model and asks:

Does it exist in the real world? How does it behave? How is its performance identified and measured? Is this process any good?

So in the Sustainable Food Collaboration example we would look at the above model and the basis of that model (ie CATWOE and the root definition) and consider what actually does happen in the real world. What is present, and what is missing. What behaves similarly and what does not. The biggest and most common mistake you can make at this stage is to confuse reality with the model. Indeed the clients I mentioned earlier looked at a holon and say but it is not the purpose of this program to do this. They confuse the point. A holon is a perspective on the system; it is a way in which some people might see the program. The purpose of this

11

stage is to develop insights; in this case into the way in which the change program worked, even if breaking reducing patch protection was not an explicit aspect of the program.

2.1.5 Stage 6 Develop desirable and feasible interventions

At this point the methodology tends to stop being sequential and starts swinging back and forth through all seven stages of the methodology in order to gain the greatest leverage. On the basis of this analysis possible interventions are explored. Assessing the feasibility of these interventions is an important aspect of the methodology, and Checkland suggests several ways of doing this.

Run through the model again using different CATWOE/BATWOVE, different perspectives, different scales (i.e. model sub-systems)

Undertake different systems based analyses (e.g. system dynamics, CAS, CHAT) Owner analysis. Who fundamentally has the authority to take action? Social system analysis How do the various roles, norms and values present in the real world relate to the conceptual model?

Political analysis. How is power expressed in the situation being studied?

2.1.6 Stage 7 Actions to Improve the Situation

This is where the methodology comes full cycle, and maybe starts a new cycle (rather Like the cycles of expansive learning in Cultural-Historical Activity Theory).

12

2.2 Benefit of Soft Systems Methodology

Soft systems methodology can be utilized as a tool to enhance an analysts understanding of a problem situation during the early stages of investigation and also at subsequent stages of the development process where clarifications need to be made. The methodology provides clarity in potential areas of weakness, as well as an overview of the situation and a way of identifying relationships that may not initially be apparent through hard techniques. A structured or hard approach to such a task would inhibit the learning process that is to take place and would not allow for the situation to be viewed as a whole.

SSM is a methodology that can be used in an effective and practical way by a broad scope of users. Which have made visible, Example however that research on SSM is mainly conducted in the UK and Australia as far as its geographical spread is concerned. This may be due to the fact that SSM has its roots in the English and Australian soft or research community in which the evolution of SSM as a methodology to penetrate problem situations is centre of debate.

2.3 Limitations of Soft System Methodology

Unfortunately, as many writers of this topic have suggested, there is no best methodology that can be applied to all problem situations. (Jackson & Keys and Wood-Harper cited in Avison & Taylor 1997, p. 76) It would seem difficult, if not impossible to implement a hard systems approach to an ill-defined problem situation where the analyst is unsure of the finer details of the current working system. There are also problems with selecting methodologies on the basis of certain characteristics of the systems development project even though it has now become a common way of choosing methodologies. To further explain this concept, the following example will be used. A common feature of many information systems development projects is that they are multi- faceted, that is,
13

information systems are complex and usually have numerous different aspects that contribute to making the system a whole. In such a case, the application of methodologies from more than one class would seem appropriate. Information systems projects may also assume different characteristics during the course of their development i.e. a project may initially be classified as unstructured and ill-defined and hence, a soft systems technique would be suggested here. At a later stage during the development process, the project may advance to a higher level and consequently achieve clear requirements and objectives. At this stage, a more hard approach would deem more appropriate. With that said, there is also the view that certain system development methodologies are complementary towards each other. Then again, analysts are limited by the methodologies that they have familiarity and experience with. So it may be easy to say choose a methodology that matches the characteristics of a problem situation but for an analyst, the task may not always be that straight forward as they may not always be able to choose the appropriate methodology that the situation merits. But then there is the counter argument that every situation is unique, so although experience may assist in some aspects, analysts essentially learn as they go along. Another limitation of using methodology classifications is that only a brief description of problem situation types are given as a result, there is only a limited number of problem situation types, and features that may be important to the choice of methodology undertaken are omitted in the classification. For example, one major oversight from the classification description is the consideration of the organizations culture. Culture plays a crucial role in determining the effectiveness and success of an approach as peoples different cognitive styles will reflect how certain methodologies are better than others. Other characteristics that perhaps should have been taken into consideration and that are likely to influence the methodology choice include the time scale allocated to the development process and other such constraints that will directly affect development. So despite the benefits that information systems development methodologies can bring, problems may arise as a result of the oversimplification of the characteristics and classification of problem situations.
14

15

3.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, analysts need to carefully identify the basic characteristics of the environment in which the information system is to be developed in and from this select a methodology or methodologies that will assist in identifying certain aspects of the system. The five different problem situation types help in facilitating this process. A soft systems approach is most effective in cases where the problem situation is ill defined and lacks clear objectives. The alternative hard approaches are more suited to problem situations where essentially the aim is to construct a best possible solution to address the circumstances.

16

Appendix
a) Lewis P, Information-Systems Development, London: Pitman, 1994.

b) Lynch M, The Use of Soft Systems Methodology in Multi-Voiced Groups, in: Anon (Ed) Organizing in a Multi-voiced World, Leuven, Belgium 46 June 1997, Brussels, The European Institute for Advanced Studies in Management and K U Leuven, Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, 2/2, 1997.

c) Lewis, P.J. (1992). 'Rich Picture Building': European Journal of Information Systems, Vol 1, No. 5.

d) Lane DC (1999). Social theory and system dynamics practice. Eur J Opl Res 113(3): 501527. | Article |

e) Lane DC (2000). Should system dynamics be described as a 'hard' or 'deterministic' systems approach? Syst Res Behav SCI 17: 322. | Article |

f)

Lane DC (2001a). Rerum cognoscere causas: Part IHow do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories and the voluntarism/determinism debate? Syst Dyn Rev 17: 97118. | Article |

g) Lane DC (2001b). Rerum cognoscere causas. Part IIOpportunities generated by the agency/structure debate and suggestions for clarifying the social theoretic position of system dynamics. Syst Dyn Rev 17: 293309. | Article |

h) Ledington P and Donaldson J (1997). Soft OR and management practice. J Opl Res Soc 48: 229 240. | Article | i) Wilson, B. (1992), Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications, Wiley, Chichester, .

17

18