Soft System Methodology ( SSM ) was developed as methodological analysis by Peter Checkland and his co-workers working at Lancaster University and Open University in the seventiess. The thought of the SSM is to understand. place and work out the existent universe jobs.
This paper will get down with the history of SSM and its definition. Then it describes the SSM methodological analysis with a practical instance survey from the existent universe. The writer will look into the chief characteristics and benefits SSM. Afterwards the writer will show the relationship between the soft systems believing. cognition direction. rational capital and societal capital.
Soft Systems Methodology ( SSM ) is now taught and used around the universe. “SSM as an attack to undertaking the multi-faceted jobs which directors face ; in making this. it besides established the now well-recognized differentiation between ‘ hard’ and ‘ soft’ systems thinking” ( Winter. 2000 ) . Soft Systems Methodology is based on systems believing. It views the job sphere in a holistic instead than reductionist manner. recognizing that the constituent parts are interconnected. so that a alteration to one portion will impact the other parts. “Systems believing is a model for seeing interrelatednesss instead than things. for seeing forms of alteration instead than inactive snapshots” ( Frank. 2002 ) . Systems believing propose flexible linguistic communication which can spread out. form and alter the human being normal manner of believing in respect to complex affairs. Wang and Ahmed ( 2003 ) argue that soft systems enclose a broad scope of soft constituents including historical. personal. cultural and institutional factors which lays the bases of organizational acquisition.
Taking a holistic attack requires the ability to distance oneself from daily operational jobs and to see how jobs and issues are connected to the overall form that underlies peculiar inside informations and events. Senge ( 1990. cited Bonn. 2001 ) calls this attack as “systems thinking” . He argues that: “We must look beyond personalities and events. We must look into the underlying constructions which shape single actions and make the conditions where types of events become likely” . SSM is called human activity systems ( Brocklesby. 1995 ) .
SSM methodological analysis composes of seven phases and those are: 1. The job state of affairs unstructured. 2. The job state of affairs structured. 3. Root definitions of relevant systems. 4. Conceptual theoretical accounts. 5. Comparison of phase 4 and phase 2. 6. Identify executable and desirable alterations & A ; 7. Action to better the job state of affairs. These phases are shown below in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Traditional SSM Seven Stages
Phases 1. 2. 5. 6. and 7 are existent universe activities that involves existent people in the job state of affairs or the existent job that needs to be improved. These activities speak every twenty-four hours linguistic communication of the peculiar state of affairs. While phases 3 and 4 are system believing activities which may or may non affect those in the job state of affairs depending on the fortunes. It describes what complexness of the system and what and how the system ought to look like. These activities speak the linguistic communication of the system. Another manner to believe of these activities are to believe of activities 1 and 2 as the stage of happening out about the job state of affairs. stages 3. 4. and 5 contribute to do up the stage of system thought. and eventually stages 6 and 7 are the stage of taking action.
These seven phases do non stand for a individual procedure which can be followed from start to the terminal in a consecutive order and after which a right determination or an reply will be obvious. These phases are phases in a procedure and this procedure may hold to be repeated many times before a sensible adjustment or understanding may be reached.
Planing and direction is progressively debatable in the real-world environment of gyrating alteration and uncertainness. Knowledge is uncomplete. values are in difference and the determinations of others are frequently unpredictable. Problem structuring methods ( PSMs ) are now a cardinal direction accomplishment. It is the procedure of recovering information from long-run memory and external memory and utilizing it to build the job infinite. i. e. to stipulate ends. operators and rating maps etc.
The methods which have come. jointly. to be known as PSMs were developed independently from the mid 1960s onwards. What each PSM offers is a manner of stand foring the state of affairs ( that is. a theoretical account or theoretical accounts ) that will enable participants to clear up their quandary. converge on a potentially actionable common job or issue within it. and agree committednesss that will at least partly decide it. There are many types of PSMs and the more standard signifiers of the chief methods may be briefly summarized as follows:
-Strategic options development and analysis ( SODA ) : This is a general job designation method that uses cognitive function as a modeling device for arousing and entering individuals’ positions of a job state of affairs.
-Soft systems methodological analysis ( SSM ) : This is a general method fro system redesign. Participants build ideal-type conceptual theoretical accounts ( CMs ) . one for each relevant universe position.
-Strategic pick attack ( SCA ) : This is a planning attack centred on pull offing uncertainness in strategic state of affairss.
-Robustness analysis: This is an attack that focuses on keeping utile flexibleness under uncertainness.
-Drama theory: This draws on the two attacks. metagames and hypergames. It is an synergistic method of analyzing co-operation and struggle among multiple histrions.
Sometimes non merely one attack is used but several. When developing an IT scheme for a big UK supermarket concatenation ( Sainsbury ) . they deployed and adapted a broad scope of PSMs in combination. Cognitive maps ( from the SODA attack ) were drawn. The following stage was to analyze each possible new IT systems in more item. for which the undertaking force members learned to utilize SSM. The rating of these possible systems was conducted utilizing the ‘comparing’ manner of the SCA. The concluding phase involved change overing the precedence portfolio of systems into a smaller figure of larger undertakings. New systems were developed and introduced over a five twelvemonth period. and were found to ensue in significant. measured benefits.
SSM has advantages and those are: the ability to work out soft jobs where hard techniques fails ; takes societal. political. and power distribution issues into consideration through the application of cultural watercourse analysis ; Support different point of views through rich images ; can be used for larning in add-on to work outing jobs ; can be used in system where there is ill-situation but there is no specific ends and aims ; allows for new and inventive solutions to be discovered ; really utile in the beginning of work outing a job to happen out about the job state of affairs and understands demands. SSM has disadvantages and those are used to work out some ill-parts of the system but it doesn’t construct a whole system ; it does non state you how to construct the system ; the power managing portion seems fancy where the directors ever have the upper manus ; direction are non so happy about the nature of unfastened ended SSM ; heavy weight and clip devouring procedure ; limited in the design of a new system.
Executives in successful administrations systematically search for ways to better the public presentation of their administrations. This motivates direction of such administrations. to obtain new apprehensions of some of the implicit in but complex mechanisms. e. g. Knowledge. that govern the endeavor effectivity. Increasingly. the cognition being captured and used by administrations is seen as the footing for the firm’s competitory advantage. Offsey ( 1997 ) asserts “As the gait of planetary competition quickens. executives realize that their border lies in more expeditiously reassigning cognition across their organisations” .
On the other manus Inkpen ( 1996 ) argues that ‘Increasingly. the creative activity of new organizational cognition is going a managerial priority… . . A failure to make cognition and pull off it as a critical organizational plus may account for the worsening public presentation of many well-established firms” . Such considerations from administrations led to the outgrowth of a new motion known as Knowledge Management ( KM ) . Knowledge direction is a cyclic acquisition procedure where SSM adds value in motive on uninterrupted and effectual acquisition ( Gao. Li and Nakamori. 2002 ) .
Many research workers view the construct of KM as about people and non engineering. Quinn ( 1992. cited Soliman and Spooner. 2000 ) believes that the economic and bring forthing power of a modern corporation lies in its rational and service capablenesss alternatively of its difficult assets. Sarvary ( 1999. cited Alvesson and Karreman. 2001 ) goes ‘There is much more to knowledge direction than engineering entirely. Knowledge direction in a concern process” . Davenport and Prusak ( 1998 ) define cognition as “a unstable mix of framed experience. values. contextual information. and adept penetration that provides a model for measuring and integrating new experiences and information. It originates and is applied in the heads of apprehenders. In administrations. it frequently becomes embedded non merely in paperss or depositories but besides in organizational modus operandis. procedures. patterns and norms” .
Nonaka ( 1991 ) suggests that there are two types of cognition: tacit. which is embedded in the human encephalon and can non be expressed easy ; and explicit cognition. which can be easy codified. Researchers argue about the importance of the above two types of cognition. While some focal points on pull offing expressed cognition. others argue that more accent is to be given to pull offing the tacit cognition. Mintzberg ( 1989. cited Soliman and Spooner. 2000 ) argues “The strategic informations bank of the administration is non in the memory of its computing machines but in the heads of its managers” .
In order to transform the above two types of cognition within the house into a valuable plus. cognition. experience. and expertness must undergo some KM Procedures that may include formalisation. distribution. sharing. and application of cognition. Von Krogh et Al. ( 2000a. B ) identified a six measure KM procedure that starts with creative activity and progresses to knowledge gaining control and storage. knowledge polish. cognition distribution. cognition usage. and monitoring of the full procedure.
Theories such as: Theory Y ( McGregor. 1960 ) . Management by Objectives ( Drucker. 1965 ) . strategic planning by Mintzberg and Porter ( 1970s ) . Entire Quality
Management by figure of quality gurus such as ( Deming. 1986 ; Juran and Gryna. 1993 ; Crosby. 1979 ; Feigenbaum. 1991 ) . and Learning Organization ( Senge. 1990 ) . are all stand foring the development in the tools and patterns in the direction field during the 20th and twenty-first century. As a consequence of the uninterrupted attempt of seeking the competitory advantage. new construct of direction has emerged. underscoring on the importance of pull offing consistently and explicitly the organisational rational plus. “As a consequence the direction community has come to recognize that what an organisation and its employees know is at the bosom of how the organisation functions” ( Davenport. Prusak. 2000 ) .
Drucker ( cited in DeTienne & A ; Jackson. 2001 ) supports the same position and mentioned that “We know that the beginning of wealth is something human: cognition. If we apply knowledge to tasks we already cognize how to make. we call it productiveness. If we apply knowledge to tasks that are new and different. we call it invention. Merely cognition allows us to accomplish these two goals” . The value of the organisation’s cognition should be recognised. so that cognition is managed as an plus ( Rowley. 1999 ) . Kannan and Aulbur ( 2004 ) argue that rational capital. knowledge direction and intangible assets are of import factors in finding the value of an organisation. as reflected in the growing of the cognition direction industry. Intangible assets such as good will. patents. hallmarks. rational capital and client lists are going cardinal assets in many of today’s corporations. particularly in the engineering industry. With the turning influence of intangible assets. their appraisal is going more of import and the standards for their appraisal should besides go on to develop to assist extinguish any abnormalities that may originate. This is indispensable in protecting the credibleness of comptrollers and the stockholders of corporations.
“Intellectual capital can be defined as rational resources that have been “formalized. captured and leveraged” to make assets of higher value” ( Prusak. 1998 cited Kannan and Aulbur. 2004 ) . Rastogi ( 2002 ) defines IC as “A firm’s holistic art and potency for making value” . IC refers to rational stuff such as rational belongings. cognition. information and experience that can be used to make wealth. Intangible assets are innately hard to mensurate and include a big figure of organisational and single variable ( Kannan and Aulbur. 2004 ) .
Intellectual capital may be both the terminal consequence of a cognition transmutation procedure or the cognition itself that is transformed into rational assets of the house ( Dzinkowski. 2000 ) . Three extra signifiers of capital have became popular constructs in the new economic system of the past mark old ages: market capital. rational capital. and knowledge capital ( Tymon and Stumpf. 2003 ) . Management is of import in organizing. fosterage and heightening rational capital to do it productive. There is some incompatibility and confusion between the footings KM and IC. There is an copiousness of literature on both. each covering with the same issue that the value of cognition as an organisational plus ( Egbu. 2004 ) .
Intellectual Capital consist of Social Capital: Relationships within and outside the administration ; Human Capital: The people within the administration ; Structural Capital: The procedure and operations of the administration ; Customer Capital: Value of external relationships.
Organization such as Skandia describes rational capital through measuring of new indexs. A balance scorecard for mensurating public presentation on fiscal capital and assorted rational capital dimensions is presented to Skandia direction ( Bucklew. 1999 ) . Bucklew ( 1999 ) argues that rational capital additions company value and makes concern operations more efficient. Beside that he arguers that the sharing of competences requires direction of information which indicates that both information direction and rational capital are related. The Intangible Asset Monitor was developed by Karl Erik Sveiby as a presentation format that displays indexs for internal direction information intents ( Sveiby. 1997 ) .
Success in the 21st century will be more societal and relational than it has been since kins were the prevailing societal construction of society. Tymon and Stumpf ( 2003 ) argue that societal capital is the stock of accrued resources that one can entree based on the relationships that can help or be leveraged in carry throughing an terminal or fostering a chase. The stock of accrued resources that can be accessed via these relationships is what we define as societal capital. “These resources include information. thoughts. leads. concern chances. fiscal capital. power. emotional support. good will. trust. and cooperation” ( Baker. 2000 ) .
Social capital can be defined as the existent and possible resources embedded within. available through. and derived from the web of relationships possessed by an person or societal unit. In this definition. societal capital comprises both the web and the assets. which may be mobilized through that web. Since rational capital is by and large created through a procedure of uniting the cognition and experience of different parties. it is dependent upon exchange between these parties. ( Nahpiet. 1997 ) .
The worker is farther alienated from other people. since capitalist economy transforms societal dealingss into market dealingss. and people are judged by their place in the market instead than by their human qualities. Peoples come to see each other as hypostatizations – as worker or as capitals – instead than as persons. In the writer sentiment. the societal dealingss of capital that arise are between those who own the agency of production. and those who must work. This entails a relation non merely of belongings. but besides of power. The dealingss are characterized in category battles which leads to development. by pull outing excess labor. and therefore to disaffection of the worker.
It is the potency of societal capital to take to new penetrations ( rational capital ) through the interactions among a diverse group of sure others in covering with an issue. Knowledge workers skilled in the usage of societal capital acknowledge this interactive potency. Much of the grounds of the relationship between societal capital and rational capital high spots the significance of the relational dimension of societal capital. In peculiar. research identifies many ways in which aspects of relationships influence the motive of parties to prosecute in cognition creative activity through exchange and combination.
“It is both normative and descriptive in nature in an effort to see the full cognition rhythm. The model is normative in that is prescribes specific KM processs ( or undertakings ) . and it is descriptive in that it identifies properties of KM that influence its success or failure organisational civilization. acquisition. scheme. cognition classifications” ( Rubenstein – Montano. Liebowitz. Buchwalter. McCaw. Newman and Rebeck. 2001 )
Harmonizing to several research workers. societal capital can act upon professional success ; aid workers in the occupation hunt procedure and make a better portfolio of employees for the organisation ; ease the exchange of resources between units ; estimulate invention. rational capital creative activity and the efficiency of multidisciplinary squads ; cut down the rotary motion of employees and back up the creative activity of start-ups ; and beef up dealingss with providers. regional web production and inter-organizational acquisition.
There is one of import and critical facet. which contributes to the effectivity of the transportation of cognition within any house. which is the civilization of the administration. Goh ( 2002 ) argues that “one cultural dimension critical to knowledge transportation is co-operation and collaboration…The existing of a strong co-operative and collaborative civilization is an of import requirement for cognition transportation between persons and groups” . Developing a civilization that encourages sharing and reassigning of cognition is a really of import function of the direction of any administration.
A civilization that should be built on trust and transparence between all persons within the administration. a civilization that will honor persons who portions their cognition and reassign it to their equals within the administration. a civilization that encourages acquisition of different competencies required by the house. and a civilization that encourage horizontal communicating flows through the set uping cross-functional squads within the administration. should be encouraged. Such civilizations would be achieved through the leading committedness of the administration. and through paying attending. as suggested by Devanport and Prusak ( 1998 ) . to the amateur cognition workers who perform the different cognition work. and besides by the creative activity of a Chief Learning officer place within the company.
In decision. the SSM plays of import function in measuring the design a system to carry on cognition direction which is the rational capital of the house. Firm’s civilization and administration construction from the leading point of the position are the cardinal factors for interchanging and sharing the cognition which is the rational capital and treated as an assets.
Alvesson. M. and Karreman. D. ( 2001 ) Odd Couple: Making Sense Of The Curious Concept Of Knowledge Management. Journal Of Management. Studies. 38:7. November 2001. pp. 0022-2380.
Bonn. I. ( 2001 ) Developing Strategic Thinking as a Core Competency. Management Decision. Vol. 39 No. 1. pp 63-70.
Brocklesby. J. ( 1995 ) Using Soft Systems Methodology to Identify Competence Requirements in HRM. International Journal of Manpower. Vol. 16 No. 5/6. pp. 70-84.
Davenport. T. and Prusak. L. ( 1998 ) Working Knowledge. Cambridge. Ma: Harvard Business School Press.
Egbu. C. O ( 2004 ) Pull offing Knowledge and Intellectual Capital for Improved Organizational Innovations in the Construction Industry. An Examination of Critical Success Factors. Engineering. Construction and Architectural Management. Volume 11. No. 5. pp. 301-315
Frank. M. ( 2002 ) What is “engineering systems thinking” ? Kybernetes. Vol. 31 No. 9/10. 2002. pp. 1350-1360.
Gao. F. . Li. M. and Nakamori. Y. ( 2002 ) Systems Thinking on Knowledge and Its Management: Systems Methodology for Knowledge Management. Journal of Management. 6 ( 1 ) pp. 7-17.
Goh. S. G. ( 2002 ) Pull offing Effective Knowledge Transfer: An Integrative Model and some Practice Implications. Journal Of Management. Vol. 6. No. 1. pp. 23-30.
Nonaka. I. ( 1991 ) “The Knowledge Creation Company” . Harvard Business Review. November/December. pp. 96-104.
Inkpen. A. C. ( 1996 ) Making Knowledge Through Collaboration. California Management Review. Vol. 39. No. 2. Fall 1996.
Kannan. G. and Aulbur. W. G. ( 2004 ) Intellectual Capital Measurement Effectiveness. Journal of Intellectual Capital. Vol. 5 No. 3. pp. 389-413
Nonaka. I. ( 1991 ) The Knowledge Creation Company. Harvard Business Review. November/December. pp. 96-104.
Offsey. S. ( 1997 ) Knowledge Management: Associating Peoples to Knowledge for Bottom Line Results. Journal Of Knowledge Management. Vol. 1. No. 2. December 1997.
Soliman. F. and Spooner. K. ( 2000 ) Strategies for Implementing Knowledge Management: function of human resource direction. Journal Of Knowledge Management. Vol. 4. No. 4. 2000. pp. 337-345.
Tymon. W. G. and Stumpf. S. A. ( 2003 ) Social Capital in the Success of Knowledge Workers. Career Development International. 8/1. pp. 2-20
Von Krogh. G. Khijo. K. . and Nonaka. I. ( 2000a ) Enabling Knowledge Creation. How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. Oxford University Press. New York. NY.
Von Krogh. G. . Nonaka. I. . Nishiguchi. T. ( Eds ) ( 2000b ) Knowledge Creation. A Source Of Value. Macmillan. New York. NY.
Wang. C. L. and Ahmed. P. K. ( 2003 ) Emotion: The Missing Part of Systems Methodologies. Kybernetes. Vol. 32 No. 9/10. pp. 1283-1296
Winter. M. ( 2000 ) The Relevance of Soft Systems Thinking. Human Resource Development International. Vol. 3 No. 3. pp 377-383