Recently I have been revisiting the Soft Systems Methodology, and I am once again reminded about the importance of worldview (or weltanschauung) in understanding the complexity of human situations.  And it’s not just me that feels that weltanschauung is a key concept in SSM, but also something that Peter Checkland, the father of SSM, believed. Different people will have different worldviews with one person seeing a university as a place to undertake learning whereas another may see it as a way to generate money.  Multiple worldviews are valid, but when it comes to trying to solve messy (wicked) situations then some of the contributing factors to the situation will be differing worldviews and this is where SSM is at it’s strongest as it is designed to help people with differing worldviews arrive at some intended activities which they can support.

As Checkland (2006) points out, “all problematical situations, as well as containing different worldviews, have a second important characteristic. They always contain people who are trying to act purposefully, with intention, not simply acting by instinct or randomly thrashing about”.  What SSM allows is a way of stakeholders/participants to express the purposeful activities as a model.  Now, there is an often-quoted phrase that says, “all models are wrong, but some are useful”, and SSM acknowledges this and seeks to provide tools to explore the situation in an organised way which encourages discussion about the situation and how it may be altered.

What is useful in this is that SSM provides both a methodology and tools, and this supports the FMT circle which I introduced in an earlier post.  One of the key things that is often overlooked is that systems thinking should not be about methodologies but about using the fundamentals to improve a situation.  The fundamentals can then be using to develop an understanding about which methodology may be most suitable to use, and possibly by association, which tools to us. By choosing to focus on using a specific methodology we risk one of the potential current problems with systems thinking; the “so-called” experts have started to place more emphasis on the methodologies that the fundamentals.

Once we start to focus more on the methodologies that the fundamentals, we risk placing more importance on being methodologically correct instead of making an improvement in the situation under consideration.  Boulding (1956) made the observation, “few errors are more costly than treating systems that possess a high level of complexity with models and methodologies that lack the appropriate sophistication”, which by association can be read as methodologies which are simply not appropriate.  Yes, it is probably possible to use any methodology to diagnosis and model a situation of interest but that does not mean that it is the most suitable or useful methodology.

This then highlights the value of approaches such as Critical Systems Practice (CSP), which “promote a transdisciplinary approach that provides a common language through which the insights of the different disciplines can be expressed, thus promoting fruitful communication” (Jackson, 2020).  However, and this is something that comes directly from SSM (but not uniquely from SSM), it is important to remember that in order to intervene in the situation then the investigation is “best carried out by people in the problematical situation itself, not left to an outside ‘expert”.

Now in order for the people in the problematic situation to intervene, it is necessary to provide the tools which empower them act purposely.  In some cases, these tools can be used in isolation, without an understanding of fundamentals and methodologies, as they can provide a positive response in a timely manner.  However, often the response can be improved by those using the tools, and who are part of the situation, understanding the fundamentals and the relevant methodologies.  But, sometimes, a response is critical and resources such as time, money or expertise are a luxury that is not available.  A small business, or a department of a large organisation may have a situation that demands a quick improvement and in such a case providing a tool or set of tools may enable a “better” improvement to occur.

Now if the tools provided by SSM enable purposeful activity to occur then hopefully that will improve the response to the situation.  In an ideal situation the tools will be used within an appreciation of the methodology and an understanding of the fundamentals (and will be the most appropriate).  But if all that is available are the tools, and they lead to improvement, that may be the difference between addressing a situation or leaving a situation to decline.

References

Boulding, K. E. (1956). General systems theory—The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2, 197–208. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2.3.197

Checkland, P. and Poultney, J. (2006).  Learning for Action

Jackson, M.C. (2020). Critical systems practice 1: Explore—Starting multi-methodological interventio