Soft Systems Methodology in 1981 - Essay Example

STRATEGIC KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT [Insert al Affiliation] Contemporary organizations are faced with the challenge of competing on a global scale despite the continual complexity of the problems they are faced with. To survive in this corporate world, which is superficially dynamic, unpredictable, and frenzied, many companies have been forced to realize that the current economy runs on knowledge. As a result, corporations are working industriously to capitalize on knowledge and the interconnectedness of the organization’s human capital system. The use of customer-focused business units, product-focused business units, and work groups has been perceived to be the best strategies for capturing and spreading ideas and know-how within and without the organization. In lieu of this, and the unabated complexity and knowledge multiplicity of many organizations, Checkland’s (1999) assertion that “We see in the world many examples of sets of human activities related to each other so that they can be viewed as a whole” can be perceived to be factual and expressive of the inherent facts in many organizations despite the trivial reasons that some give for its disqualification. This paper will candidly and comprehensively analyze Checkland’s statement through an extensive review of literatures and drawing on concepts from soft systems thinking, intellectual capital, and communities of practice as well as knowledge management. Peter Checkland developed the SSM (Soft systems methodology) in 1981. The motive behind the development was to develop a strategy for evaluating intricate problem situations and ascertaining satisfactory improvements that suit such situations. According to Jennings and Wattam (1998), SSM helps in attaining improvement to the system through a multistage progression of information collection, explanation, examination, and discussion (p. 36). For instance, an organization experiencing a high labor turnover has to resolve the situation before it detriments the attainment of organizational objectives. From an SSM perspective, the realization that the organization is facing high labor turnover is in reality an outcome of a careful observation of the situation. Intricate details regarding the problem will be collected from various personnel including the HR managers and various departmental heads and recorded by the team of expertise contracted to analyze the situation which will ordinarily involve more other members from the organization (Ali & Akdemir, 2001, p. 336). Employees will offer their opinions and attitudes regarding the situation. The qualitative and quantitative data obtained will be compared with the consistent viewpoints observed. Through this, systematically desirable and culturally feasible changes that will help in resolving the problem will be proposed probably by the HR department and implemented by the top management (Jennings & Wattam, 1998, p. 92). This vividly indicates how various persons and departments come together in resolving the problems facing organizations. Ironically, Barton and Tursting (2005, p. 183) argue that soft thinking is more abstract and cannot satisfactorily address the difficulties encountered by businesses. It is weak and cannot address the miscellany of the human bustle system. He further argues that the differences between cultures as well as conflict of world outlooks among different individuals further incapacitates the ability of an organization to develop its intellectual capital. The relationships between employees are contentious and only a few are willing to share meaningful and imperative information. However, this is a prejudiced view of human relationships and ignores the element that in an organization, relationships mushroom out of employees will or demands (Jennings & Wattam, 1998, p. 87). In explicating the importance of knowledge-driven organizations, SSM, with human capital in its core, is perceived to be more apposite in dealing with organizational problems as compared to hard system thinking. Whereas ‘hard’ approaches can start by asking ‘What system has to be engineered to solve this problem?’ or ‘What system will meet this need?’, ‘soft’ approaches ensure a superior quality through provision of a comparison stage that further offers a structure for devising quality solutions (Checkland, 1999, p. 190). According to Ali and Akdemir (2001, p. 332), the use of natural resources, equipment, capital, and land for creation of value are outmoded; value creation in contemporary economies is centered on knowledge application. Hence, if managers manage knowledge effectively, the organization’s intellectual capital, which Ali and Akdemir (2001, p. 333) define as “knowledge that is of value to an organization”, will grow tremendously. SSM is centered on performance measurement through efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness. Efficacy ascertains the extent to which the proposed solution or transformation delivers the desired outcomes efficiency ascertains the least amount of resources required in effecting the solution (Jennings & Wattam, 1998, p. 84). Effectiveness, on the other hand, indicates how the proposed solution or transformation fits into the organization’s long-term stratagems. Considering the fact that an organization is a heuristic system that is reified to reveal human approach to situations and their overall understanding, the use of efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness helps in development of human capital by embracing soft thinking (Ammann, 2011, p. 188). Ali and Akdemir (2001, p. 334) further defines human capital as the experience, abilities or skills, knowledge, attitudes, and perception of the employees. Apparently, employees are the single most important resource that an organization can use to its advantage. Businesses that invest in the personal and professional development of their employees create a more committed and motivated workforce that creates a competitive advantage for the business. With the realization that competing on price alone is a recipe for adversity, organizations are continuously striving to develop and manage their human capital through knowledge provision and information sharing (Barton & Tursting, 2005, p. 129). Within an organization, all employees, regardless of their personal interests and goals, are expected to work towards the organization’s wellbeing by being innovative and strategically renewing or re-engineering businesses processes (Barton & Tursting, 2005, p. 174). For instance, for the Korean giant electronics company Samsung to develop a new sales lead, extraction of the knowledge of its employees is fundamental. It can be attained through cooperation of various employees and heads through what can be termed as communities of practice. The policies and systems created by an organization to get work done determines the commitment and competence of the employees (Ali & Akdemir, 2001, p. 334). Due to the continual social interactions in organizations, it is becoming exceedingly difficult for people to exist in isolation; mutual relationships are truly working in the corporate arena. Supposedly, the continual exchanges ensure that when an employee leaves an organization, they do not take along their knowledge (Ali & Akdemir, 2001, p. 334). Mark (2008) believes that in discussion of the communities of practice, Etienne Wenger and Jean Lave perceived the notion of reasonable peripheral involvement to be fundamental in creation of exceptional human capital. The current tech-savvy generation has witnessed growth in online communities where people interact, a form of communities of practice, providing an ample ground for mounting social capital, supporting innovation, spreading implicit information within existent groups, and facilitating knowledge management (Mark, 2008, N.p; Etienne & William, 2000, N.p). As heightened by various researchers including Mark (2008, N.p), learning is a central aspect in today’s organizations as it fundamentally bolsters the process of human capital development. Mark (2008, N.p) accentuates Jean and Etienne’s (1998) definition of communities of practice as “A process of learning that occurs when people who have a common interest in a subject or area collaborate over an extended period of time, sharing ideas and strategies, determine solutions, and build innovations”. Though intentionality is not necessarily required in such processes, employees choose to interact with others for the benefit of the organization. A clear fact that organizations are utilizing Jean and Etienne’s (1998) conception of peripheral participation to develop human capital is the increasing number of teams in organizations. Various teams are formulated on a permanent or temporary basis and tasked with the responsibility of performing various functions. In the process, team members learn from others experience, proficiency, and expertise (Ali & Akdemir, 2001, p. 337). The knowledge and information sharing improves the proficiency of all involved in resolving a particular situation or in realizing a certain objective. This is primarily due to the sheer fact that the people in the team or group share their knowledge and proficiencies in a free-flowing ingenious way that nurtures development of new and distinct approaches to the problems faced by the organization (Jennings & Wattam, 1998, p. 162). Checkland’s (1999) statement can also be supported by considering the importance of communities of practice within the organization context. Through collaboration of various persons, it helps the organization in strategy development, development and dispersal of best business practices, and helping in recruiting and maintenance of talents, people’s specialized skills develop and eventually the human capital is ameliorated. This is common when organizations reschedule into a team-based configuration. Employees who possess functional expertise voluntarily decide to maintain peer connections via formation of groups which eventually guarantees the newly formed organization of a proficient workforce (Ali & Akdemir, 2001, p. 336). While it is evident that communities of practice gives an organization the prerequisite knowledge as well as the source of the knowledge by retaining the proficient employees, Etienne and William (2000, N.p) seem to object the idea. Their argument is centered on the claim that building and sustaining the communities is extremely difficult. Moreover, it is hard to incorporate the communities with the rest of an already established organization with policies and procedures. While their claims are true, contemporary managers are equipped with technological know-how which can help them solve the issue of resistance to interference and supervision (Etienne & William, 2000, N.p). Computer-based systems presently help managers to combine the right people, use nontraditional ways to measure the value of the community as well as provide infrastructure for the communities to thrive. What’s more, Ammann (2011, p. 183) explicates that the development of intellectual capital is attributable to the transformation, including transfer and conversion, between the various domains of intellectual capital; individual competence, internal structure, external structure. For instance, the organization’s external structure is enhanced by utilization of resources from the individual competence domain as well as the internal structure domain. Apparently, individual competence is also enhanced through utilization of resources from the internal and external structure domains (Ali & Akdemir, 2001, p. 334). All these contribute to knowledge development and enhancement of personal competencies. Knowledge is a vindicated accurate belief which is ordinarily bound to an individual, and has an aspect of intent and purpose as explained by Ammann (2011, p. 185). As knowledge and responsibilities are shared through teamwork in an organization, the knowledge hardly changes; it is only the dimension that changes. The conversion of knowledge, which comes as a result of knowledge sharing, helps an employee to transform from an incompetent person to an expert in a specific sphere. Hence, it is through effective management and conversion of knowledge derived from activities such as social interactions within the organization that an organization can develop its intellectual capital. Noteworthy, having a highly developed intellectual capital implies that employees are competing using the soft thing approach. Their productivity and approach to issues is enhanced thus boosting the productivity and competency of the entire organization. Ammann (2011, p. 188) indicates how socialization is important in developing the intellectual capital of an organization. Socialization, the coming together of various individuals within the organization, transfigures the tacit knowledge of employee ‘A’ into tacit knowledge of employee ‘B’ (Ammann, 2011, p. 188). The success of socialization in human capital development is due to the fact that human beings learn by doing. Similarly, by maintaining work relationships, employees may obtain conscious or latent knowledge from their colleagues, convert it to tacit knowledge through a process that Ammann (2011, p. 188) terms as explication. While Barton and Tursting (2005, p. 124), propagate the idea that socialization affects knowledge retention in the memory and hardly contributes to development of employees proficiency, Ammann (2011, p. 188) candidly indicates that explicit knowledge is converted to internal knowledge leading to an integration of competencies and experiences in an individual’s mind. The integrated competencies and experiences empower the employee to be more competitive and reasonable in their approaches to organization and business challenges. In any activities that an organization undertakes in an effort to develop intellectual capital, human-to-human associations are substantial (Ammann, 2011, p. 186). Taking the example of customers and employees in a business setting, devising a contact scheme for employees and customers will help the customers to contact specific or rather appropriate employees of the organization if and when required (Mark, 2008, N.p). Such exchanges strengthen the customer-employee relationships. Consequently, the overall reputation of the organization is enhanced making the organization more attractive to potential employees. The large pool of potential employees provides an ample opportunity for the organization to choose the most competent employees. Also, handling the customers’ business needs becomes easy as employees are acquainted with their needs, tastes, and preference (Checkland, 1999, p. 207). The acquaintance with the customers’ needs and experiences stems from the interaction which can also be obtained through computerized customer feedback systems, and can be memorized by the employee, and used for the long-term benefit of the organization. Apparently, the situation happening in most organizations is that enlightened firms are basing trust on their employees, and are continuously displaying the enthusiasm and inclination to learn from their proficiencies and involvements (Ali & Akdemir, 2001, p. 336). In the process of continuously striving to improve the quality of the organization’s human capital, organizations are allowing employees to challenge existing practices, ideas, and truisms (Ammann, 2011, p. 186). More and more employees thus end up engaging in brain work as compared to the traditional scenario where physical work was the norm. However, a critical challenge in the present world is that many individuals choose to accumulate knowledge individually and use it to their own advantage rather than for the advantage of the entire corporate world. Their decision is motivated by researchers such as Goldsmith, Morgan, and Ogg (2004, p. 14) who believes that knowledge accumulated by a single individual makes the individual more productive than sharing the knowledge with colleagues. Moreover, others think that with the advent in technology and increased need for organizations to secure their information, organizations may not meet the challenge of securing their information resulting to a scenario where such information is used against certain individuals or organizations particularly by competing firms (Barton & Tursting, 2005, p. 81). Such a perception towards knowledge sharing is antithetical, and limits the ability of employees to cooperate more effectively in problem-solving and execution of tasks as well as limits the globe’s ability to share intellectual capital. Since the Car Analogy illuminates that the customers’ expectations are often too higher, and every so often bewilder an organization due to the organization’s inability to deliver, analytical thinking, as explicated by Dr. Russell Ackoff, helps the organization to devise ways of meeting the expectations. As a system, an organization is contained within a larger system. Taking analytical thinking into perspective, employees must, therefore, study parts of the system to understand the entire organization. An organization, for instance Apple Inc., is not a summation of its departments, but is rather a product of the interaction of its various departments including sales and marketing, personnel, finance, accounting, and purchasing departments (Jennings & Wattam, 1998, p. 109). Application of analytical thinking enables the employees to individually contemplate the challenges facing the various parts of the organization, and consequently come up with the best solutions (Etienne & William, 2000, N.p).. The aforementioned departments individually and collectively work towards the fulfillment of customer expectations. In the process of meeting the expectations, many exchanges occur between various departments and staff members bolstering, unity, participation, and eventually, the efficiency of intellectual capital is enhanced. Apparently, from the foregoing explication, intellectual capital can be described as the collective value of a firm’s human capital, and primarily mushrooms from relationships with employees, managers, or customers. Organizations are striving to attain success by translating the potential of their human capital into practical know-how. While increasing a firms’ intellectual capital, an important intangible asset, traditionally implied increasing the workforce through hiring, contemporary organizations accentuate the expansion of the competency of employees rather than numbers (Ali & Akdemir, 2001, p. 335). This is ostensibly attained through personnel training and development through various methods such as institution-based training and work-based training where employees obtain knowledge by experiencing the real issues faced by the organization (Etienne & William, 2000, N.p).. A clear and profound analysis of all employees within an organizational setting reveals that they are all working towards improvement of the organization by striving to meet predetermined goals and objectives. This enhances their competency in specific as well as other fields or departments in the organization. From the above elucidation, although some researchers are contentious about the role of human interactions in developing intellectual capital, the various literatures analyzed candidly supports Checkland’s (1999, p. 115) assertion that various sets of human activities are related and can thus be perceived as a whole. As organizations strive to develop intellectual capital through effective management of knowledge and utilization of communities of practice, managers must learn how to relate with and manage the proficiencies of subordinates. The insubstantial argument that social interactions hinder the advancement of human capital due to the difficulty of fitting the communities of practice within the organization can easily be overlooked and all organizations should embrace knowledge sharing (Ali & Akdemir, 2001, p. 337). Moreover, organizations should focus on creating opportunities for dialogue, allowing and encouraging various levels of membership, as well as combining excitement and familiarity. Additionally, brainstorming offers the employees an inordinate opportunity to shape their learning experiences and bolster their skills, aptitude, and capability, and should thus be embraced. Reference List Ali, T. A. and Akdemir, A. 2001. IntellectualCapital. Journal of business information management. Retrieved from http://www.opf.slu.cz/vvr/akce/turecko/pdf/Akpinar.pdf Ammann, E. 2011. A Hierarchical Modeling Approach to Intellectual Capital Development. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management, Vol. 8, issue 2 (pp.181-191). Retrieved from http://www.ejkm.com/issue/download.html?idArticle=257 Barton, T & Tursting, K. 2005. Beyond Communities of Practice: Language Power and Social Context. Cambridge University Press Checkland, P.1999. Soft systems methodology in action: A 30-year retrospective. Etienne, C. W. and William, M. S. 2000. Communities of Practice: The Organizational Frontier - HBR. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2000/01/communities-of-practice-the-organizational-frontier Goldsmith, M., Morgan, H. J., & Ogg, A. J. 2004. Leading organizational learning: Harnessing the power of knowledge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Jennings, D., & Wattam, S. 1998. Decision making: An integrated approach. London: Financial Times Pitman Pub. Mark, T. 2008. Communities of Practice (Lave and Wenger) | Learning Theories. Retrieved from http://www.learning-theories.com/communities-of-practice-lave-and-wenger.html Read More