Int. J. Economics and Business Research, Vol. 9, No.

4, 2015

415

Unravelling soft systems methodology

Ion Georgiou
Departamento de Informtica e Mtodos Quantitativos (IMQ),
Escola de Administrao de Empresas de So Paulo (EAESP),
Fundao Getulio Vargas (FGV),
Rua Itapeva 474 9 andar, sala 901, Bairro Bela Vista,
So Paulo 01332-000, SP, Brazil
Fax: +55-11-3262-3876
Email: iongeorgiou@gmail.com
Email: Phokion.Georgiou@fgv.br
Abstract: Soft systems methodology (SSM) has evolved into numerous
configurations, set itself on a sophisticated philosophical foundation, and
attracted much commentary. Those approaching SSM for the first time are
understandably overwhelmed by the quantity and quality of information
available on the methodology. A major challenge for novices is to acquire a
fundamental understanding of how the methodology basically functions in
itself. What is entailed in doing basic SSM? What are the essential mechanics
of the methodology? How does it function internally on a fundamental level? If
such questions remain unanswered, the assorted configurations of SSM
available in the literature risk being misunderstood and, worse, the entire
methodology risks being perceived as too confusing and therefore of little
practical value. This paper addresses the questions by presenting the
fundamental mechanics of the methodology.
Keywords: soft systems methodology;
decision-making; systemic planning.

SSM;

operations

research;

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Georgiou, I. (2015)

Unravelling soft systems methodology, Int. J. Economics and Business
Research, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp.415436.
Biographical notes: Ion Georgious interdisciplinary research spans the
problem structuring methods of operations research, network development and
analysis, and the history of decision-making methodologies. He has published
on topics as diverse as railroad transportation policy, case-based experiential
learning, decision-making for ill-structured situations, and topics in public
administration.

Introduction

Throughout its four decades of development and application, soft systems methodology
(SSM) has evolved into numerous configurations, set itself on a sophisticated
philosophical foundation, and attracted much commentary. Those approaching SSM for
the first time are understandably overwhelmed by the quantity and quality of information
available on the methodology. A major challenge for novices is to acquire a fundamental
Copyright 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

416

I. Georgiou

understanding of how the methodology basically functions in itself. Real-world

applications of SSM, undertaken since the 1970s, have brought factors to bear upon the
methodology which have led to the design of multiple configurations. As valid as such
configurations may be, however, the question still remains: What is entailed in doing
basic SSM? What are the essential mechanics of the methodology? How does it function
internally on a fundamental level? If such questions remain unanswered, the assorted
configurations of SSM available in the literature risk being misunderstood and, worse, the
entire methodology risks being perceived as too confusing and therefore of little practical
value. This paper addresses the questions by presenting the fundamental mechanics of the
methodology.
SSM developed within operational research (OR), and the pedagogic history of this
field offers evidence that focusing on the methodologys internal mechanics is not
without value. The teaching of OR became widespread in the 1960s due to a
concentration on the formal intricacies of its models and algorithms (Churchman et al.,
1957; Saaty, 1959; Drucker, 1955; Ackoff, 1956). Some noted, quite rightly, that this
concentration on mathematical constructions risked losing sight of the wider,
unquantifiable, non-technical situational characteristics which impacted equally, or even
more forcefully, upon real-world problems (Hurni, 1954; Churchman, 1979). Although
mathematical models could never substitute decision-making, however, these, and the
algorithms which powered them, deserved to be studied in themselves if only because of
the structural insights they offered to innumerably diverse real-world situations. In
addition, advocates of OR understood that the establishment of a field of inquiry requires,
in the first instance, dissemination of, and familiarisation with, the internal functionality
and mechanics of its subject matter. Only through such familiarisation is it possible to
appreciate evolving methodological nuances that arise from particular real-world
applications of the subject matter, rendering possible model development that may
incorporate them in a consistent manner.
That SSM developed within OR is not as unusual as it sounds. To be sure, the content
with which SSM deals, as well as the methodological manipulation of such content, are
very different from the intricacies of the mathematical models of OR. These very
differences, however, were perceived as necessary in the 1970s in order to ensure the
continued relevance of OR to resolving real-world problematic situations (Dando and
Bennett, 1981). Ackoff (1979), a highly-respected American professor with excellent
credentials in the practice of OR, observed to his European counterparts that the
discipline had degenerated into mathematical masturbation, unable to deal with
ill-structured messes which Ackoff defined as dynamic situations that consist of
complex systems of changing problems that interact with each other. His message was
that ORs mathematical approach was unfit to deal with the inherently multidimensional
systemicity of messes, further alleging that the field tried instead to fit problems into
increasingly irrelevant and useless methodological straitjackets. Ackoff was in effect
echoing Rittel and Webber (1973) who had, some years earlier, noted the pervasiveness
of wicked problems a term which still holds much currency (Camillus, 2008). Despite
the advances in computational and simulation tools, Rittel and Webber had noted the
need for a second generation decision support paradigm which could assist in dealing
with complexity. Although they and Ackoff awoke OR to new challenges, however, their
critiques were short on extended theoretical guidance for the development of practical
methods. Only at the close of the 1980s did such methods appear, coupled with a new
paradigm and defensible, consistent theory. They came from British OR in the form of

Unravelling soft systems methodology

417

six problem structuring methods, or PSMs (Rosenhead, 1989, 1996; Rosenhead and
Mingers, 2001). Of these, SSM is one of the most used (Mingers and Rosenhead, 2004).
As a founding member of the PSM family of methods, SSM shares in their general
philosophy. For example, it contends that the essential difficulty with complexity is not in
its resolution but in the approach taken to tackling it. Give that complexity is irresolvable
only when accompanied by disorder, the road toward resolving complexity does not lie
primarily with approaches focused upon problem solving; the road lies with approaches
that can, first and foremost, transform the disorder into some order. This implies the
imposition of structure. Ergo: the need for problem structuring. Faced with complexity,
problem structuring is decision-making. Furthermore, the decision itself is of a form that
mirrors the complexity which it addresses: it comes in the form of a systemic plan.
There is nothing unusual to this if one considers that plans are essentially decisions.
The mainstream decision-making literature, however, chooses not to mention planning
let alone systemic planning as an effective instrument or even relevant term. It prefers
to equate decisions to discrete choices (Alligham, 2002), judgement calls (Tichy and
Bennis, 2007) and the application, through technology, of probability theory, to assist
executive groups who credit the majority of their successes to intuition (Buchanan and
OConnell, 2006). This is a surprisingly limited view of decision-making. Anyone who
regularly keeps up with the news cannot have failed to notice how often the term systemic
problem crops up as a descriptor of numerous unsatisfactory circumstances. Calls for
systemic solutions are equally common in the news media, most of them coming from
executives or administrative leaders facing very real complex problems. The difference is
that, whereas systemic problems might be reported as identified, one remains
hard-pressed to find evidence of systemic solutions. In other words, whereas the former
term is used as a perception of facts, the latter is merely a cry of hope. Of all PSMs, SSM
rises to the occasion of offering systemic planning for systemic solutions to systemic
problems. Surprisingly, the SSM literature itself does not stress this and is not as clear as
it could be on how the methodology facilitates the practice of systemic decision-making.
This will be explicated in the functional understanding of the methodology that follows.

Developmental overview of SSM

Although SSM introduces elaborate conceptual novelty and technical language, its
advocates argue that it is but a formalisation of decision-making that might otherwise
remain implicit [Checkland, 2000a, 2000b; Bond and Kirkham, 1999; Checkland and
Scholes, (1990), p.300]. Such being the case, one should not expect anything inherently
difficult in the methodology. Difficulties in understanding it are due more to its evolving
multiple configurations and the issues which such configurations have triggered. These
are outlined below.
SSM emerged through an intricate historical and philosophical background, although
one that weaved theoretical developments with perceived practical necessities
(Checkland, 1981; Mingers, 2000). Ever since its initial development in the early 1970s,
four different major configurations of SSM have evolved, each being a reflection from
lessons learnt through its application (Checkland, 2000a). The best-known of these the
so-called seven-stage configuration is offered in two versions, one said to be more
relevant to institutional contexts whilst the other is said to be more relevant to

418

I. Georgiou

supra-institutional contexts [Checkland, (1981), pp.163, 212]. Furthermore, this

seven-stage configuration has evolved into one constituted by a logic-driven stream and
a cultural stream, whereby the impact of history on the problematic situation is brought
to the fore [Checkland and Scholes, (1990), pp.2753]. In addition, SSM has been
postulated as usable in two modes, namely, Mode 1 and Mode 2 [Checkland and
Scholes, (1990), pp.280290]. Each mode concentrates on different aspects of the lessons
learnt from the methodologys applications, with the former being associated with
interventions into problematic situations, whilst the latter is associated with interactions
between those involved in such situations. Mode 2 has also been postulated as
a meta-level use of SSM [Checkland and Scholes, (1990), p.283], although the same
could be said of what has been alternately termed the basic shape of SSM [Checkland
and Scholes, (1990), p.7] or the inquiring/learning cycle of SSM (Checkland, 2000a).
These multiple configurations may have served the methodology itself but, when it
comes to learning about it, students are at pains to find a straight-forward account of the
tools of SSM and, especially, of their interconnections. A case in point is when readers
search for such an account in the primary text of the methodology: Checklands (1981)
Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Early on in the book (p.18), for example, a summary
of SSM describes root definitions as having to be formulated based upon the mnemonic
CATWOE (all technical terms, such as these, will be discussed in full in the ensuing
sections). When root definitions are discussed in detail 150 pages later, the mnemonic
CATWOE, which serves as their source, is not mentioned. It takes another 60 pages of
theory, of illustrative cases, and of examples of root definitions, unaccompanied by
CATWOEs, before the reader finds the explanation of the intricacies and relevance of the
connection. In fairness, the presentation of the methodical interrelationships within SSM
is somewhat rectified in a recent short exposition of the methodology by Checkland and
Poulter (2006, pp.2363). The literature, however, has offered no convergence on this
books expository value indeed, little attention has been paid to it.
Faced with the evolution of SSM into multiple configurations, modes, shapes, cycles
and rich methodological novelties (Bergvall-Kareborn, 2002; Bergvall-Kareborn et al.,
2004; Basden and Wood-Harper, 2006), students are faced with a methodology that is not
prone to standardisation and offers no set definitional convergence. On the theoretical
level, the matter is complicated by the fact that SSM draws from interpretive
social science. Checkland (1981, pp.245285; 2000a) notes the precedents for such
interpretivist leanings in the decision-making literature as witnessed in the writings of
Churchman (1968a, 1968b, 1971) and Vickers (1965, 1968, 1973). To these, Checkland
adds further theoretical underpinnings to SSM, such as hermeneutics, phenomenology,
and even Habermas (1970a, 1970b) theory of communicative competence. SSM,
however, did not develop out of a purely theoretical consideration for operationalising
some interpretive stance toward problem resolution. It developed from practical
considerations in attempts to resolve very real problems, some of which are described by
Checkland (1981), whilst others are described by Checkland and Scholes (1990).
Philosophical/sociological underpinnings were thought through in conjunction with the
practical attempts and as the methodology itself evolved through its multiple
configurations. As such, a practical, initially uncomplicated (though not necessarily
simplistic) approach to SSM should be possible, and indeed is desirable.
Perhaps a straight-forward approach to SSM has been hampered not only because of
theoretical interpretivist foundations but by the numerous third-party interpretations

Unravelling soft systems methodology

419

evident in the literature. Holwell (2000), and Checkland and Poulter (2006, pp.147155)
have critiqued some of these as misinterpretations, but the remedy offered, in particular
by Checkland and Poulter, does not seem to have gone far enough in offering a clear
exposition of SSM. Furthermore, the literature repeatedly demonstrates the flexibility of
the methodology, in particular its ability to be innovatively configured for particular
contexts. For example, SSM has been demonstrated as a decision support vehicle
(Winter, 2006), an exploratory approach (Checkland and Winter, 2006), an evaluation
process (Rose and Haynes, 1999), a social science research tool (Rose, 1997), and a
formal decision-making method which offers systemic planning for systemic solutions to
systemic problems (Georgiou, 2006, 2008). It has also been described as a learning
system, as a process of inquiry, and as an action research cycle (Checkland, 2000a). In
addition, it may be used in part, in whole, iteratively or not, and even in conjunction with
other methods (Ormerod, 1995; Mingers and Gill, 1997; Sosu et al., 2008). Given
practically relevant innovative developments such as these, accusations of
misinterpretation can appear as somewhat tangental. This is especially the case when one
takes into account Checkland and Scholes (1990, p.287) more constructive advice;
namely that, given SSMs continuing evolution, and the variety of perspectives that have
been brought to bear upon it, any reported application or theoretical discussion of SSM
should, at the very least, first delineate which understanding of the methodology is being
discussed:
Since SSM can be used in many different ways in different situations, and will
in any case be interpreted somewhat differently by each user, any potential use
of it ought to be characterized by conscious thought about how to adapt it to a
particular situation.

This is a particularly important exigency that requires the user of SSM to stipulate, both,
the situation in which SSM is being used and the manner in which the methodology has
been adapted for use in that situation. Taking each requirement in turn, first, Checkland
(1981, pp.193194) has highlighted five different types of common situations in which
SSM is used. The one relevant to this paper concerns the use of SSM to explore an illstructured situation deemed problematic, identify its problems, and plan resolutions
against the background of multiple agents perceptions and values what is usually
understood as an action research approach that leads to an intervention to improve the
situation. Second, the manner in which the methodology has been adapted for the present
purposes is somewhat different to that usually found in the literature. A configuration will
be presented which delimits the methodologys internal functionality. Undoubtedly, such
a focus renders a functional interpretation of the methodology itself. Given the
interpretive foundations of the methodology, however, this focus offers itself for
consideration as equally valid as any one of the aforementioned application strategies.
Indeed, the focus in no way minimises nor discards the relevance of any of those
strategies, for it does not seek to substitute them but merely to offer additional analytical
assistance which any of them could incorporate.
Checkland and Scholes (1990) add that, given the inherent flexibility of the approach,
a claim for being SSM-based is probably the closest one can come to saying that one is
doing SSM. In this respect, they provide five constitutive rules, along with what they
tabulate as an epistemology, in order to define SSM sufficiently for its use to be

420

I. Georgiou

discussed coherently [Checkland and Scholes, (1990), pp.284290]. This provision of

seemingly clear criteria, against which debates could be compared for interpretative
accuracy, has been ignored by the literature. By contrast, the presentation of SSM that
follows will be justified in accordance with Checkland and Scholes guidelines in order
to posit it as being SSM-based. The configuration upon which the ensuing discussion will
be based is presented in Figure 1.
Notwithstanding the malleability of SSM, Figure 1 indicates that, if one were to focus
purely on the internal mechanics of the methodology, there is an inherent logic in the
interrelationships between its tools. In what is labeled in the figure as Phase 1, the rich
picture offers a diagrammatic description of the problematic situation under
consideration, which description also conveys information required of the three analyses,
as well as assisting in the identification of the transformations deemed necessary for
improving the situation. As will be discussed in greater detail later, the transformations
themselves, in Phase 2 of the figure, are stipulated in the format that follows the four
transformation rules of the methodology and, as a set, offer, in quite exact terms, a
definition of the problem (the stipulated inputs) as well as pointers toward its solution
(the stipulated outputs). In Phase 3, each transformation is contextualised within a
CATWOE, and the CATWOE is then expressed as a formal statement of intent in the
form of a root definition. Based on the CATWOE and its root definition, a human activity
system (HAS) is designed which serves to guide the realisation of the output stipulated in
the transformation. Once respective HASs have been designed for all the transformations,
they are interlinked to form the overall systemic plan of action for improving the situation
as a whole. This is a point which is not stressed by the SSM literature: a truly systemic
plan emerges only once respective HASs have been linked in some way. Any planning of
individual transformations, or some sub-group thereof, might indeed yield valuable
results, but systemic planning per se can only be said to occur when relations between all
respective HASs have either been at least considered or, better, incorporated into the
plan. In the ensuing discussion, mention of particular phases in SSM will refer to those
three indicated in Figure 1.
Undoubtedly, SSM is not an approach that invites singularly functional reproduction,
and the understanding above has left aside any discussion of the iterative nature of the
methodology, of the inherent flexibility in the usage of its tools, of the value it places on
comparing models with the real world situation, of its ability to structure (and, indeed,
encourage) debate about change, and of its focus upon the cultural feasibility of its results
as opposed to their purely systemic desirability. The understanding has also left aside any
considerations of the multiple Weltanschauungen in use in SSM [Checkland, (1981),
pp.215221; Checkland and Davies, 1986], and of subtleties such as issue-based and
primary-task root definitions [Checkland, (1981), pp.221223]. If such issues have been
left aside, however, it is because of the technical focus presently imposed upon the
methodology for the purpose of explaining its internal functionality. Their absence in no
way discards their relevance indeed, such relevance is assumed throughout, as would be
the case with any application strategies.

Unravelling soft systems methodology

Figure 1

Visual overview of a configuration of SSM in three phases

421

422

I. Georgiou

More pertinently, the understanding of SSM offered through Figure 1 abides by

Checkland and Scholes (1990, pp.284290) constitutional guidelines, in that the
configuration:

offers a structured way of thinking about problematic situations requiring some

improvement whose design is initially indiscernible

is expressible in terms of the language of the epistemology proposed by Checkland

and Scholes (1990, pp.288289)

follows the constitutive guidelines in that:

1 it holds no presumptions regarding any systemicity that might be inherent in the
problem context
2 it allows the user to switch between involvement in the real world and reflecting
systemically about that world (through an interplay between Phases 1 and 2 on
the one hand, and Phase 3 on the other)
3 it leads the user toward the construction of human activity systems with
particular properties
4 it allows for such human activity systems to structure debate about change as
well as to plan for improvements; and, finally

draws from published research (Georgiou, 2006, 2008, 2012), with the aim of
assisting ones understanding of the basic functionality of the approach.

Given the above, and in the words of Checkland and Scholes (1990, p.286), the
configuration of SSM thus laid out in Figure 1 lays claim to being SSM-based. It offers
what is required in order to do basic SSM, and simultaneously offers expositors a
framework for introducing SSM. In what follows, and with reference to Figure 1, each of
the three phases will be described with particular focus on what is required in order to do
basic SSM. The paper thus hopes to facilitate further explorations of the literature on
SSM through the bibliographic references mentioned.

Phase 1: the focus on context

SSM begins with the recording of contextual knowledge about the problematic situation.
The quality, relevance, and effectiveness of any subsequent resolution are a function of
the content and use of this knowledge.
The rich picture is one of the most cited SSM tools, although it is the least rigorous of
the approach (Lewis, 1992; Monk and Howard, 1998). A free-form drawing, its utility
ranges from being an ideal icebreaker to a cathartic exercise. It offers those involved in
the problem the opportunity to describe their situation without necessarily resorting to
written words, resulting in an initial visualisation. Depending on the quality of this
diagram, it can serve to inform the three analyses and even help in the identification of
Transformations in the second Phase.
Less cited, although for Checkland (2000a) of equal, if not greater, importance, are
Analyses 1, 2, and 3. Indeed, where a free-form, diagrammatic rich picture might function
as an ideal ice-breaker, it is the focal power of the analyses which generates information

Unravelling soft systems methodology

423

of greater significance. The reason is that there is an underlying logic that binds the three
analyses coherently together.
The task for analysis one is relatively simple: to list what may be termed the physical
or abstract agents involved in, or who impact upon, the situation; for example, people
and organisations. Sometimes they are called actors, but since this term has quite a
technical definition later in SSM, it is best to avoid confusion and opt for the term
agents. The list may include what at first appear to be extremely abstract agents.
Consider, for example, a situation about meeting a certain demand. Demand, in this case,
would be listed under this analysis because it impacts upon the situation. Of course,
behind the concept there is probably a group of people, perhaps customers or at least
demanders, who have a demand, and if they are identifiable, they should, in turn, be
listed.
Those agents listed in analysis one are involved in the situation, and to be involved in
the situation implies that the agent enjoys some power of involvement, no matter how
minimal. Analysis three requires a description of the power enjoyed by each agent listed
in analysis one. Descriptions of power range from the possession of particular abilities, or
competences, to the aura of charisma that exudes from a particular agent and which gives
them their power to influence. The sociological and political literature is especially rich
in concepts from which to draw for defining power (notable classics include: Goldhamer
and Shils, 1939; Parsons, 1942; Abramson et al., 1958; Oppenheim, 1960). In essence: all
agents must have a power description, otherwise what are they doing in the situation?
Analysis two is not directly connected to the other two analyses, and merits a more
extended comment. In basic terms, this analysis asks: what is it like to be in this
situation? How are things done here? What sort of culture, organisational or otherwise,
permeates this situation and, to a great extent, governs it? Human decision-making occurs
within, and is influenced by, the culture and assumptions within which the problematic
situation is embedded. In other words, context cannot be ignored. Contextual
considerations are always at the forefront of SSM, and analysis two is a means for
decision-makers to note social, political, religious, cultural and historical influences
playing upon the problematic situation. Furthermore, later in Phase 3, economic, ethical,
aesthetic, and ecological considerations are brought to the fore, and it is therefore useful
to begin thinking about them now in analysis two. We may conveniently label these
considerations with the acronym PREACHEES.
PREACHEES imply that any action to be recommended in Phase 3 must be marked
by circumspection, that is, it must be well-considered, heedful of those influences listed
under the acronym, and cautious. SSM seeks contextually feasible plans by insisting on
their cultural feasibility over and above any operational desirability [Checkland,
(1985, 1981), pp.180183; Yolles, (1999), pp.323324], with the former overriding, or at
least serving to check, the latter. The realism of SSM on this point will be appreciated by
anyone who has, for example, attempted the Sisyphean task of changing organisational
culture. This is not to say that SSM bows to the status quo: for SSM, in forcing
decision-makers to think about the PREACHEES, opens room not only for debate about,
but also change in, those factors in which the problematic situation is embedded. It is
worth adding that, for those who think that historical considerations might be less open to
such debate and change, one need only cast a glance at the interpretive historical studies
in a field as seemingly straight-forward and objective as accounting (Carnegie and

424

I. Georgiou

Napier, 1996). For a good recent review of the cultural impact on organisations see
Gerhart (2009).
There is an underlying logic that highlights the relevance of the three analyses. Taken
together they indicate those involved in the situation (analysis one), the type and extent of
their power to act within it (analysis three), and their more general contextual immersion
(analysis two). In organisational decision-making, these three issues are arguably
paramount for providing a basic understanding prior to any attempts at taking action or
making decisions. At the very least, they hint at who can take what sort of decisions, and
what the contextual constraints around those decisions might be.

Phase 2: identifying transformations

The second phase of SSM is a preliminary attempt to identifying what the essential
problem(s) might be in the situation where essential is the key word. SSM advises that
one should not think in terms of problem since this concept does not get to the root of the
matter of what is problematic in a situation. Indeed, the term itself can be quite
ambiguous [Checkland, (1981), pp.154155; Landry, 1995). SSM notes that a
problematic situation implies an undesirable state which needs to be transformed into a
desirable state. It, therefore, advises that one should focus on the essential issue, in other
words, the identification of the transformations evidently required in the problematic
situation. In order to identify transformations, SSM stipulates four rules that must be
followed to the letter (see Figure 1).
The four rules appear to be simple. However, it is worth illustrating how easily one
can miss the point. Consider a soccer game. One basic input to such a game is players.
Now, players obviously contribute to the realisation of various outputs like, for instance,
goal, good game, and even entertainment. Although none of these, taken as individual
outputs, violate rule 1, all of them violate rules 2, 3 and 4. One correct output following
the transformation rules would be tired players. To take another example, if the input
were rules of the football game, one correct output would be rules adhered to.
The reason why the four transformation rules should be followed is that they do result
in something quite useful: a set of identified transformations simultaneously defines the
problem, as well as the desirable state to be attained if the situation is to be relieved of its
problematical aspects. This may be illustrated by the set of transformations in Table 1. If
someone were to ask what is the problem to be solved?, the left-hand side (the inputs)
provides the answer; for all of these things, together, constitute the problem at hand. If
someone were then to ask what would be a solution to this problem?, the right-hand
side (the outputs) provides the answer; because a complete solution will not have been
attained until all of these outputs together are realised.
It is worth noting that context plays a significant role in defining outputs. For
example, a standard response to the input of T3, in Table 1, might be to aim for top
quality of service. In this particular case, however, attention to the context of the situation
has yielded an output which stipulates a quality level that does not detrimentally affect
customers businesses. In other words, there might not be any need to attain some top
quality level, as long as the quality level that is attained does not yield the stipulated
detrimental effects. Analogically, corporate lawyers sometimes advise companies that
they need only follow the letter of the law and not attempt to go beyond it in order to
maintain a respectable corporate image. SSM advises constant attention to such subtle

Unravelling soft systems methodology

425

nuances based upon context, for, it argues, such attention contributes to rigorous problem
definition.
Table 1

A set of transformations
Input

Output

T1

Unacceptable time lag in dealing with

urgent demand

Acceptable time lag in dealing with

urgent demand

T2

Uncoordinated approach to service

provision

Coordinated approach to service

provision

T3

Poor quality of service

Quality level of service which does not

detrimentally affect customers
businesses

T4

Consequent detrimental effects to our

customers businesses

Detrimental effects to our customers

businesses are minimised

T5

Unclear expectations of our organisation

Organisational expectations clarified

T6

Unclear expectations of our clients

Client expectations clarified

T7

Unaddressed issues about the roles of

staff within the team

Issues about the roles of staff within the

team are addressed

T8

Unaddressed issues about who we will

provide a service for

Issues about who we will provide a

service for are addressed

T9

Negotiation required with various

external specialist organisations we work
with

Negotiation with external specialist

organisations realised

Note: The numbering does not indicate priority, but merely facilitates quick referencing.
Source: Adapted from a case study by Georgiou (2008)

Phase 3: systemic planning

Thinking in context continues in the third phase of SSM. Prior to explaining such
thinking, however, some considerations on planning must be addressed. The third phase
of SSM concerns the planning for the resolution of all the identified transformations.
Discussion and debate is highly encouraged by SSM throughout this phase to ensure the
development of a plan which is not only systemically desirable but especially culturally,
that is contextually, feasible. An additional challenge, however, is the matter of having to
plan for all transformations.
If one is faced with a small set of transformations, such as those given in Table 1,
planning for them all might be clear and easily manageable, and the design of a systemic
plan might not appear a daunting task. In complex problems, however, it is not unusual to
uncover many more transformations; tens, say, or hundreds. One can imagine that the
messes Ackoff was fond of discussing would yield such numbers. As Rittel and Webber
(1973) noted, in such cases it become[s] less apparent where problem centers lie, and
less apparent where and how we should intervene even if we do happen to know what
aims we seek. Here, then, those involved in the situation will be skeptical of the viability
of tackling all transformations without some methodological guidance on how to choose
between them. More pertinently, in large-scale, complex change-management projects
that require a route-map involving hundreds of transformations, decision-makers will

426

I. Georgiou

need to make informed decisions as to which transformations are best handled first, and
how such handling can lead to the consideration of further transformations. This is not
merely an issue in delineating priorities, as the following questions reveal:
1

Which transformations act as prime causes to the problematic situation?

Which transformations depend on others for their own ultimate resolution?

Which transformations are affected by relatively large numbers of other

transformations?

Which transformations affect relatively large numbers of other transformations?

Which transformations are central to the problematic situation?

Which transformations might belong to subsets that may initially be tackled

independently from other transformations?

Which transformations might belong to subsets that may initially be set aside whilst
other transformations are being tackled?

Might there be evidence of partial effects, total effects, and indeterminate effects in
the relations between transformations?

Although by no means exhaustive, the list of eight questions indicates the range of issues
surrounding the resolution of multiple transformations, and serves to warn that such
resolution needs to be approached carefully and might therefore require methodological
guidance. In essence, what is required is some idea of how the identified transformations
are interrelated. Such an idea must be made explicit if adequate problem resolution is to
occur.
Methodological guidance on dealing with large numbers of transformations has only
recently begun to appear in the literature (Georgiou, 2012). It suggests a
multi-methodological approach that incorporates another PSM along with graph theory
into SSM as analytical tools for assisting in the initial choice of transformations. The
present discussion need not dwell on the intricate guidelines offered therein. It will
assume, instead, that discussion and debate have run their course, that either all or a
justified subset of transformations have been chosen for planning, and accordingly move
on to the manner in which SSM recommends the design of a systemic plan. The first step
toward such a plan is the contextualisation of transformations.

5.1 The contextualisation of transformations

In SSM, the contextualisation of a transformation is formed by following a mnemonic:
CATWOE [Checkland, (1981), pp.223227; Bergvall-Kareborn et al., 2004]. Figure 1
provides the terms of this mnemonic. It is important to underline that these terms are to
be understood as technical terms of SSM, with no relation as to how the words might be
understood in other contexts. For example, a customer (C) in SSM is only ever an agent
who will benefit or lose from the transformation (T) being realised. An actor (A), in turn,
is any agent who will actually do the transformation (T) in contrast, that is, to an agent
who merely delegates the work to be done and who, due to this power of delegation,
might actually be an owner (O). Each terms technical meaning is borne out by its
associated specific question, the answer to which will define the term in the context of the

Unravelling soft systems methodology

427

problematic situation at hand. As indicated by the arrows in Figure 1, the answer to each
question is sourced in the knowledge gathered from the first phase. For instance,
customers, actors and owners are sourced in analysis One with reference to their
respective abilities as given in analysis three. The Weltanschauung and the environment
are deducible from the descriptions in analysis two, and especially from the details
offered by the PREACHEES.
Essentially, the CATWOE indicates that the realisation of a transformation (T) cannot
be planned unless one understands who is involved and how they are involved (C, A, and
O), why this transformation should be done (W), and the immediate restrictions which
should be taken into account when thinking about, and planning for, this transformation
(E). It is important to stress that the restrictions to be stipulated under the environment (E)
are those that are immediately related to the transformation (T) under consideration. The
configuration of a transformation is analogical to the configuration of a maximisation or
minimisation linear programme: both are liable to constraints that are immediately
affecting the core issue at hand. It is such constraints in the immediate vicinity of the
transformation that are of interest here, and not some wider environmental concerns.
The relevance of Weltanschauung (W) is central to the CATWOE. This is a German
word roughly translatable as world-view. It is useful to think of it as asking for a reason, a
perspective or a justification for doing the transformation: Weltanschauung basically asks
the question why?. For SSM, it is not enough to simply identify a transformation as
desirable: it is equally relevant to offer a reason as to why the transformation is to be
done. This is because any transformation can be planned in different ways, each of which
varies according to the reason given for doing the transformation. Consider, for example,
the transformation in Table 2.
Table 2

An example of how the choice of Weltanschauung influences the operationalisation of

a transformation
Transformation
card-index research database computerised research database
Weltanschauung 1

A computerised database speeds up research

work, and in general renders it more efficient

Weltanschauung 2
A computerised database makes it easier to
take on trips to conferences because it can be
saved and used in a laptop computer

Operational influence of Weltanschauung 1

Operational influence of Weltanschauung 2

The transformation designed according to this

Weltanschauung will consider criteria of
speed and efficiency of use.

The transformation designed according to this

Weltanschauung will focus upon portability,
and does not imply the inclusion of speed and
efficiency in the computerised output.

The two different Weltanschauungen in Table 2 point to respectively different viable

solutions: one solution would stress speed and efficiency, while the other would stress
portability. Of course, all three criteria might be deemed desirable, in which case a third,
incorporative Weltanschauung could be associated with the transformation. One must
bear in mind, however, that, since a Weltanschauung can indicate desirable criteria for a
resolution to the problematic situation, the more criteria included, the more difficult it
might be to implement a viable solution due to an emerging incommensurability between
objectives. As these issues emerge, additional and distinguishable Weltanschauungen

428

I. Georgiou

might be proposed. Indeed, SSM encourages a rich debate that addresses multiple
possible Weltanschauungen [Checkland, (1981), pp.215221], and has even developed
three different types of Weltanschauungen, respectively addressing the level of
CATWOE, the level of understanding of the problem situation as a whole (to which one
transformation is but a part), and finally the beliefs and assumptions held by those
involved in the problematic situation concerning the wider reality (Checkland and
Davies, 1986). SSMs extensive focus on Weltanschauung is not only due to its effect on
the design of the final plan for operationalising change (as illustrated in Table 2). It is
also because the exploration of Weltanschauungen is a significant means for learning
about a situation, not unlike learning about the culture of a country as a means for
understanding its more overt characteristics, such as its architecture or its judicial system.
For reasons such as this, SSM has been described as a learning system (Checkland,
2000a).
For T1 in Table 1, an example of completed CATWOE is given in Box 1.
Box 1

An example of a completed CATWOE

CATWOE for T1

Customers: urgent demand, customers businesses; possible lack of focus on other types of
demand
Actors: staff/team
Transformation: unacceptable time lag in dealing with urgent demand acceptable time lag
Weltanschauung: An acceptable time lag should increase quality of the service so that
detrimental effects to customers businesses are reduced, and organisational and client
expectations are met
Owners: organisation, clients
Environment: Staff roles and market issues (we must decide who we will provide a service
for); uncoordinated approach to service provision; capacity; operational strategy
Source: Adapted from Georgiou (2008)

From the CATWOE example in Box 1, it is worth noting the following points, for they
reinforce how CATWOE elements are devised and how they may point to what lies in the
future problem resolution.

There are two beneficiaries listed under customers: urgent demand and customers
businesses, one reflected in the T itself, the other in the W.

The potential loser from this T is also listed as being other types of demand, since
concentrating on meeting this particular T might veer resources away from the
requirements for meeting those other types of demand.

The W is quite explicit about the criteria for success of the T: the T will be deemed
successful if it increases the quality of service to a level that minimises detrimental
effects to customers businesses and if it meets the expectations of the organisation
and its clients (where clients with expectations are not to be confused with the
customers who have businesses).

The W indicates that the organisation and its clients set expectations, but the role of
these entities is enhanced by their having been listed as Owners. In this
understanding, they can stop or change the T, and indeed, due to their expectations,
may dictate policy on how it should be undertaken.

Unravelling soft systems methodology

429

Finally, the E indicates various immediate constraints that must be taken into
account. Some of these might perhaps require their own resolution for this particular
T to be undertaken. Note, for example, how the uncoordinated approach to service
provision listed under E has actually been highlighted in Table 1 as a transformation
(T2) to be planned. This indicates a close link between T1 and T2. Since the
resolution of the uncoordinated approach will ease the ability to meet urgent demand
within an acceptable time lag, the eventual action plan for T2 will most probably feed
into that of T1, making for the beginning of systemic approach to the resolution of all
Ts in the final action plan for change.

In brief, then, a completed CATWOE is required for each transformation identified in the
problematic situation. The elements of the mnemonic are ultimately sourced from the
analyses, and each element furnishes information which will guide the eventual planning
and execution of the respective transformation.

5.2 Root definition

A completed CATWOE is basically a list. As with any list, the manner in which the
CATWOE elements interrelate is open to wide interpretations. In order to minimise the
range of such interpretations, SSM requires, for each CATWOE, a single, integrative,
descriptive statement. Such a statement is known as the root definition. This may be
understood as a statement which, in referring to a particular T, describes what is to be
planned in order to render the T operational. Basically, for any T, if someone were to ask
what are you planning for?, the root definition provides the answer.
The format of the root definition is somewhat unusual. First, it must always be only
one sentence, no matter how long. This is to ensure the tightest possible integration of
logic. Second, it must integrate only the elements listed in the CATWOE and nothing
more. And, third, it must always begin with the words A system that, with the
possibility of adding an adjective before the word system. For the CATWOE in Box 1,
an example of a root definition is given in Box 2.
Box 2

An example of a root definition (planning statement)

Root definition for T1

A staff-operated system that defines and maintains an acceptable time lag for dealing with
urgent demand, in accordance with organisational and client expectations and staff roles, in
order to ensure a quality of service which does not detrimentally affect customer businesses, in
an environment where there is an uncoordinated approach to service provision, and where
capacity and operational strategy play a relevant role.
Source: adapted from Georgiou (2008)

The root definition states what is required of the T as set within a particular context
(constituted by C, A, O and E) and as driven by some intention (W). The utility of the
root definition, therefore, lies in its being able to describe what the elements of the
CATWOE point toward. As such, the root definition may be seen as a planning statement
which provides an overarching description of the operational system to be designed for
the respective transformation.
In summary, a CATWOE is designed for each transformation, followed by a root
definition that accounts for all the elements of this CATWOE. The information
documented in the three analyses feeds the C, A, W, O and E. In other words, whatever

430

I. Georgiou

C, A, W, O and E are, they must be traceable back to the three analyses. Indeed, the
ability to trace content and logic in SSM is paramount to ensuring a defensible ultimate
plan. Once transformations have received their respective CATWOEs and root
definitions, the foundation has been laid for systemic planning. The root definition in
particular, in answering the question regarding the purpose of the required plan, opens the
door toward the content of the systemic plan.

5.3 Human activity systems

The design of HASs requires a leap into the future in that future activities must by
stipulated that will ensure the resolution of transformations as contextualised in
respective CATWOEs and stated in associated root definitions. The purpose of all SSM
work thus far has been to offer as much confidence as possible in the stipulation and
processing of such future activities.
An individual HAS is constituted by a set of linked activities which will realise its
respective transformation. In accordance with SSMs insistence upon the importance of
context, the activities themselves must be considered not only in light of their
interrelationships and how these will help in realising the transformation; their viability
must also be considered against those factors indicated previously in the PREACHEES
acronym. For instance, radical activities might be deemed operationally desirable. If,
however, contextual factors render them questionable, then their inclusion yields a
questionable plan. Against this background occurs the design of any one HAS for a
transformation. The more technical guidelines for such a design are as follows:
1

For each CATWOE and accompanying root definition, identify tasks that will
operationalise the respective transformation.

Consider the interrelationships between the tasks in order to identify the precedent
and successor activities.

Design a network diagram of the activities, with the final activity being the right
hand side of the transformation in question (its output).

Enclose the network diagram by drawing a boundary around it, thus creating a HAS.

Identify the control criteria against which progress will be measured for ensuring that
the activities achieve their desired outcome.

Place the control criteria as a monitoring sub-system linked to the HAS.

The inclusion of control criteria in steps 5 and 6 is a basic tenet of system theory: any
system of activities, once underway, must be open to monitoring to ensure that it meets
the requirements for which it was designed. Any discrepancy between work-in-progress
and the stipulated control criteria requires the taking of some action in order to ensure
that the transformation is completed according to the criteria.

Unravelling soft systems methodology

Individual systemic plan (human activity system) for the transformation T1,
unacceptable time lag in dealing with urgent demand acceptable time lag

Note: The numbers of the activities are only for ease of reference and do not indicate priorities or sequences.
Source: Adapted from a case study by Georgiou (2008)

Figure 2

431

432

I. Georgiou

The control criteria of SSM are given in Figure 1. They ask five respective questions, the
answers to which provide a baseline for monitoring progress for any given HAS. Each
control criterion focuses upon a particular issue of the transformation: its processes and
their output; the resources being used; how this transformation contributes to, or affects,
the overall strategy of which it forms a part; whether this transformation is in tune with
the social responsibilities of the organisation; and, whether the transformation is being
undertaken in accordance with socio-cultural sensibilities. Taken together, the 5Es
address the economic, ethical, aesthetic, and ecological considerations of the
PREACHEES acronym.
Following these guidelines, Figure 2 is an example of a possible HAS for setting an
acceptable time lag (T1), as identified in Table 1, contextualised in Box 1, and stated in
Box 2. It offers various sequentially related activities which are deemed as required in
order to achieve the transformation in question. A feedback loop also indicates that
operational strategy (activity 12) and the expectations of the organisation and the clients
(activity 14) mutually inform each other.
Once respective HASs have been designed and agreed upon for all transformations,
they are linked together to form the overall systemic plan. Such a plan may be understood
as the decision that is to be followed in order to resolve the situation (in other words, in
order to realise all the outputs stipulated in the original transformations). Such a plan of
interlinked HASs is known as a supersystem since it is constituted by individual HASs,
each of which is, in itself, a subsystem of the overall decision. Since this renders
inter-transformational dependence explicit, it is only at the level of the supersystem that a
plan may be appreciated as truly systemic.
Guidelines for the linking of HASs are available in the literature, focusing upon
concepts such as conceptual linking, analytical linking, and the aforementioned
incorporation of graph theory as analytical tools in SSM (Georgiou, 2006, 2008, 2012).
They show that the linking of HASs not only adds structural relationships between them
but can also change structural relationships within them. Such changes are what bring
about the final touches to a systemic plan designed to realise multiple transformations.

Conclusions

Taking its cue from the initially functional approach to OR which led to this fields
widespread dissemination, this paper has offered a functional introduction to SSM. Such
an introduction has been missing in the literature, despite the fact that SSM has been
developing ever since the 1970s. It has been argued that without such a functional
understanding of the methodology, students are at pains to understand the historical
developments of SSM, the basic manner in which the methodology works, its consequent
nuances as reported in the literature, and what it ultimately offers in terms of decision
support when faced with problematic situations of non-trivial complexity and uncertainty.
The configuration of SSM presented here is a consequence of the functional focus, and is
therefore necessarily different to those configurations reported in the literature. Although
it may assist in the real-world practice of SSM, it is by no means offered as more
effective than those other configurations reported in the literature this is a matter for
practitioners to decide. For an initial introduction to the methodology, however, the
configuration presented here has been argued to be more didactic. Indeed, based upon

Unravelling soft systems methodology

433

this configuration, SSMs internal functionality can be summarised quite succinctly as

involving three Phases which respectively:

record an understanding of a problematic situation

identify the required changes to enable resolution

design models for operationalising these changes.

Given the focus of this paper, the configurations success will be a function of how it can
facilitate the learner in approaching the extensive bibliography on the methodology, of
which key readings have been referenced throughout the discussion.
As to the relevance of SSM itself to real-world problematic situations, and hence to
the relevance of studying the methodology, one need only glance at how administrative
decision-makers have increasingly seen their world unfolding. Ever since the 1970s
(Belasco et al., 1973), organisational, administrative and otherwise managerial tasks have
become less well-defined and more ambiguous, requiring more flexibility coupled with
rigorous understanding of context. Standards against which success is measured have
become at best pluralistic and at worst unstable. Knowledge of organisational and wider
environments is characterised by uncertainty. Opportunities for collecting more
data/information/facts are constrained, a consequence of the so-called information
revolution having offered quantity but little structural order as Simon (1997,
pp.226227) noted: Science does not advance by piling up information it organises
information and compresses it. Rosenhead (1989), in introducing PSMs in the late
1980s, described problematic situations as increasingly plagued by multiple,
simultaneous and equally necessary objectives, measurable in respectively different
dimensions. The multiple types of variables inherent to such situations preclude overall
optimisation. The age of purely technical solutions is, therefore, over if, indeed, it ever
existed except in the minds of mathematically-inclined analysts. Interests, opinions and
judgements that proliferate in information-age problematic situations require a rigorous
approach as to their viability. In other words, subjectivity ought to be analysed in a
manner analogically ruthless to the manner in which quantitative analysis treats the
exactitude of numbers. Systematic processes of decision support are required without
being limited by the scientific methodology of quantification. Indeed, quantification must
be appreciated anew as offering decision support and, hence, neither as the primary nor
the sole basis for decisions. Where there is a dynamic interaction of non-independent
problems, indicating the presence of a complex system requiring conceptual structure in a
manner that permits analysis without ignoring systemic integrity, and where such
contexts are compounded by the presence of actors who are not necessarily hierarchically
related, and not necessarily in agreement with each other, and whose decisions impact in
various degrees and in different aspects of the situation, the relevance of SSM cannot be
underestimated. If in the post-modern world hard-systems problems are the central
issues of the past and soft-systems situations are the key concerns of the future (Kay and
Foster, 1999), and if decision-making requires the application of rigorous imagination in
contexts where decisions must be made in the absence of clear facts (Bennis and
OToole, 2005; Georgiou, 2008), then, in such a world, the place of SSM is assured.

434

I. Georgiou

References
Abramson, E., Cutler, H.A., Kautz, R.W. and Mendelson, M. (1958) Social power and
commitment: a theoretical statement, American Sociological Review, Vol. 23, No. 1,
pp.1522.
Ackoff, R. (1956) The development of operations research as a science, Operations Research,
Vol. 4, No. 3, pp.265295.
Ackoff, R. (1979) The future of operational research is past, Journal of the Operational Research
Society, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp.93104.
Alligham, M. (2002) Choice Theory: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Basden, A. and Wood-Harper, A.T. (2006) A philosophical discussion of the root definition in soft
systems thinking: an enrichment of CATWOE, Systems Research and Behavioral Science,
Vol. 23, No. 1, pp.6187.
Belasco, J.A., Glassman, A.M. and Alutto, J.A. (1973) Experiential learning: some classroom
results, Academy of Management Proceedings, pp.235241.
Bennis, W.G. and OToole, J. (2005) How business schools lost their way, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 83, No. 5, pp.96104.
Bergvall-Kareborn, B. (2002) Enriching the model-building phase of soft systems methodology,
Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.2748.
Bergvall-Kareborn, B., Mirijamdotter, A. and Basden, A. (2004) Basic principles of SSM
modeling: an examination of CATWOE from a soft perspective, Systemic Practice and
Action Research, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp.5573.
Bond, C. and Kirkham, S. (1999) Contrasting the application of soft systems methodology and
reflective practice to the development of organizational knowledge and learning a review
of two cases in the UK National Health Service, Proceedings of the 1999 ACM SIGCPR
Conference on Computer Personnel Research, New Orleans, Louisiana, pp.242252.
Buchanan, L. and OConnell, A. (2006) A brief history of decision making, Harvard Business
Review, Vol. 84, No. 1, pp.3241.
Camillus, J.C. (2008) Strategy as a wicked problem, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 86, No. 5,
pp.99106.
Carnegie, G.D. and Napier, C.J. (1996) Critical and interpretive histories: insights into
accountings present and future through its past, Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp.739.
Checkland, P. (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Chichester: Wiley.
Checkland, P. (1985) Achieving desirable and feasible change: an application of soft systems
methodology, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 36, No. 9, pp.821831.
Checkland, P. (2000a) Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective, Systems Research
and Behavioral Science, Vol. 17, No. S1, pp.S11S58.
Checkland, P. (2000b) The emergent properties of SSM in use: a symposium by reflective
practitioners, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.799823.
Checkland, P. and Davies, L. (1986) The use of the term Weltanschauung in soft systems
methodology, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Vol. 13, pp.109115.
Checkland, P. and Poulter, J. (2006) Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft
Systems Methodology and its use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students, Wiley, Chichester.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester.
Checkland, P. and Winter, M. (2006) Process and content: two ways of using SSM, Journal of the
Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, No. 12, pp.14351441.
Churchman, C.W. (1968a) The Systems Approach, Dell, New York.
Churchman, C.W. (1968b) Challenge to Reason, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Churchman, C.W. (1971) The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Books, New York.

Unravelling soft systems methodology

435

Churchman, C.W. (1979) Paradise regained: a hope for the future of systems design education, in
Bayraktar, B.A. et al. (Eds.): Education in Systems Science, Taylor and Francis, London.
Churchman, C.W., Ackoff, R.L. and Arnoff, E.L. (1957) Introduction to Operations Research,
Wiley, New York.
Dando, M.R. and Bennett, P.G. (1981) A Kuhnian crisis in management science?, Journal of the
Operational Research Society, Vol. 32, No. 2, pp.91103.
Drucker, P.F. (1955) Management science and the manager, Management Science, Vol. 1,
No. 2, pp.115126.
Georgiou, I. (2012) Messing about in transformations: structured systemic planning for systemic
solutions to systemic problems, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 223, No. 2,
pp.392406.
Georgiou, I. (2006) Managerial effectiveness from a system theoretical point of view, Systemic
Practice and Action Research, Vol. 19, No. 5, pp.441459.
Georgiou, I. (2008) Making decisions in the absence of clear facts, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 185, No. 1, pp.299321.
Gerhart, B. (2009) How much does national culture constrain organizational culture?,
Management and Organization Review, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp.241259.
Goldhamer, H. and Shils, E.A. (1939) Types of power and status, American Journal of Sociology,
Vol. 45, No. 2, pp.171182.
Habermas, J. (1970a) On systematically distorted communication, Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary
Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.205218.
Habermas, J. (1970b) Towards a theory of communicative competence, Inquiry: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 13, No. 1, pp.360375.
Holwell, S. (2000) Soft systems methodology: other voices, Systemic Practice and Action
Research, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.773797.
Hurni, M.L. (1954) Observations on operations research, Journal of the Operations Research
Society of America, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp.234248.
Kay, J.J. and Foster, J. (1999) About teaching systems thinking, in Savage, G. and Roe, P. (Eds.):
Proceedings of the HKK Conference, University of Waterloo, Ontario, 1416 June,
pp.165172.
Landry, M. (1995) A note on the concept of problem, Organization Studies, Vol. 16, No. 2,
pp.315343.
Lewis, P.J. (1992) Rich picture building in the soft systems methodology, European Journal of
Information Systems, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp.351360.
Mingers, J. (2000) An idea ahead of its time: the history and development of soft systems
methodology, Systemic Practice and Action Research, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp.733755.
Mingers, J. and Gill, A. (1997) Multimethodology: the Theory and Practice of Combining
Management Science Methodologies, Wiley, Chichester.
Mingers, J. and Rosenhead, J. (2004) Problem structuring methods in action, European Journal of
Operational Research, Vol. 152, No. 3, pp.530554.
Monk, A. and Howard, S. (1998) The rich picture: a tool for reasoning about work context,
Interactions, MarchApril, pp.2130.
Oppenheim, F.E. (1960) Degrees of power and freedom, The American Political Science Review,
Vol. 54, No. 2, pp.437446.
Ormerod, R. (1995) Putting soft OR methods to work: information systems strategy development
at Sainsburys, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 46, No. 3, pp.277293.
Parsons, T. (1942) Max Weber and the contemporary political crisis: I. The sociological analysis
of power and authority structures, The Review of Politics, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp.6176.
Rittel, H.W.J. and Webber, M.M. (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning, Policy
Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp.155169.

436

I. Georgiou

Rose, J. (1997) Soft systems methodology as a social science research tool, Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp.249258.
Rose, J. and Haynes, M. (1999) A soft systems approach to the evaluation of complex
interventions in the public sector, Journal of Applied Management Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2,
pp.199216.
Rosenhead, J. (1996) Whats the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods,
Interfaces, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp.117131.
Rosenhead, J. (Ed.) (1989) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World: Problem Structuring
Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, Wiley, Chichester.
Rosenhead, J. and Mingers, J. (Eds.) (2001) Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited:
Problem Structuring Methods for Complexity, Uncertainty and Conflict, 2nd ed., Wiley,
Chichester.
Saaty, T.L. (1959) Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Simon, H.A. (1997) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in
Administrative Organizations, 4th ed., (First edition published in 1947), Free Press,
New York.
Sosu, E.M., McWilliam, A. and Gray, D.S. (2008) The complexities of teachers commitment to
environmental education: a mixed methods approach, Journal of Mixed Methods Research,
Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.169189.
Tichy, N.M. and Bennis, W.G. (2007) Making judgment calls, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85,
No. 10, pp.94102.
Vickers, G. (1965) The Art of Judgement: A Study of Policy Making, Chapman and Hall, London.
Vickers, G. (1968) Value Systems and Social Process, Tavistock Publications, London.
Vickers, G. (1973) Making Institutions Work, Associated Business Programmes, London.
Winter, M. (2006) Problem structuring in project management: an application of soft systems
methodology (SSM), Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57, No. 7,
pp.808812.
Yolles, M. (1999) Management Systems: A Viable Approach, Financial Times Pitman Publishing,
London.