Hard and Soft System of Change - Coursework Example

Name Course Institution Date Hard and soft system of change In the past, it was usual for development projects to collapse soon after their completion. This resulted to interventions by organizations to implement their sustainability. Some of these projects, especially in government institutions, were passed through social systems amongst other social networks (Flood and Carson 1993). It is therefore important to understand the systems approach, their ideas and the differences between soft and hard systems; because various steps are considered when modeling a system. The hard systems should be clearly identified together with the rational elements. Any subsystem or super system ought to be noted. Most importantly, there should be a demarcation that defines the inputs and outputs of the system. This could be cumbersome in the current era because the two boundaries could inter-link (Clayton and Radcliffe 1996). Various researchers have identified systems’ theories with two main approaches. These are: hard and soft systems. The hard systems are linked to industrial and procedural systems. On the other hand, the soft systems are related to human and communal systems (Keys 1991). Hard systems involve understanding the problem solving cycle. This commences with defining the setbacks at hand and identifying what needs to be done. Later, objectives are analyzed and procedures aiming at different aims and objectives are devised. This outlines the foundation of contrasting between procedures. The next step is called system synthesis. It involves the identification of multiple and applicable strategies (Banathy 1996).System analysis entails evaluating different imaginary systems in line with the objectives at hand. The best alternative is then chosen through the process of system’s selection. Thereafter, the selected option is developed till the trial product phase. Current engineering phase includes comprehending the system, important progression of observing it and supplying information back to the design stage. Finally, the system is adjusted as need be (Jackson 2000). A different way to look at the hard system approach is to focus on the costs and benefits of substitutes programs. First, objectives are defined by explicatory aims and goals. Different related methods are obtained to achieve the objectives. It is important to note the costs to be incurred and the necessary capital to achieve each alternative. While developing a system model, a logical structure is drawn depicting interdependence of the aims, the systems, organizational setting and existing funds. Lastly, the criteria for selection are developed while interlinking objectives, expenses and assets to choose the most favorable alternative (Checkland and Scholes 1999). Hicks (1991), identifies various problems, which may result when hard systems are applied to soft systems, particularly when they entail human beings. He further confirms that this is because hard systems begin with critical recognition of the aims, problem design and managerial requirements, solving a definite issue in the conditions to which the problem is presented. With the soft systems on the other hand, it is not clear what the goals and intentions ought to be. In this case, system perception is upheld as an involvement to problem solving instead of a goal-intended approach. This is applicable in all circumstances if the assignment can or cannot be exclusively and impartially characterized. Prior to designing the service system, it is crucial to identify the responsibilities of the people in it. Checkland and Scholes (1999) identify seven stages of the soft system model of change. The first step is to explore the circumstance. One must understand what is being explored. Here, the problem is not defined; rather, the area that is of interest is evaluated. Hierarchies of purpose statements are developed such that each higher level entails the aim of the next lower level. From this purpose- hierarchy, designers select specific purpose level with which to create a system. Formulation of purpose is coupled with identification of procedures of effectiveness that point out achievement of defined purpose. Here, designers explore alternative reasons and expectations that the design might accomplish. In stage two, the issue is articulated whereby factors such as structures, methods, weather and climate, ideologies expressed by people and inconsistencies are included. Creativity is engaged, ideal solutions are made for the chosen purposes within the context of the purpose-hierarchy. Stage three is referred to as root definitions of relevant systems. In this phase, other important key elements of the system are identified (Van 1991). They involve knowing the customers who will benefit from the transformation, actors who will ease the transformation to the customers identified, knowing the transformation process from start to end, owner to whom the laid system is accountable to and the surroundings that affect but do not control the system. Designers develop solution ideas into a system of alternative solutions. Stage four underscores that theoretical models are basically deficient. Simonsen (1994) regards this formal system as a characterization of any human activity system. He further argues that this system becomes formal if; it has a recurring intention or goal, it has an evaluation of performance with a continuous decision making process, has sub-systems and mechanisms that interrelate, and presents itself in a wider systems with a boundary. Other systems can also be used as a checklist. This implies that this stage develops existing systems to guarantee its suitability. In the next stage, arguments regarding advantageous changes rather than system thinking like in the previous stages are considered. This is done by comparing the models put together in the above phases with the condition expressed in stage two. These models are theoretical depictions and analyze duties that must be articulated in the system. The main goal of this model is to question whether the activities thereof are related in the actual sense, if they are perfectly carried out and if options of acting on them could be recommended. Stage 4 is implemented in four different ways namely: informal discussion, formal questioning, comparing past events during production with the conceptual model it employed and evaluating the theoretical model and the real world. (McDonald 2000). Phase six and seven involves the execution of the changes to develop the problem. Resulting effect of the soft system model must be implementation of the advantageous and practical changes. Changes might occur in three classes: managerial structures, organizational processes and perceptions. When approaching the change process through the hard system model, it is important to consider various factors. Attitude of the whole process should be taken into account. This is because change may be perceived positively or negatively by the people it is been imposed to. If it is to the worst, it should not be implemented since it can cause adverse results. Benefits and costs of effecting change should be considered. The organization must check on their budget allocation. It may be expensive to administer if resources are not allocated prior (Scholes 1999). Better still, the strategy, mission and vision of the organization should rhyme or should be flexible enough towards the change hoped for. Lastly, it is crucial to note the environment at which the implementation is been done. This may include the political set up, customers, economy and social factors (Hicks 1991). Lewis and Zibarras (2013) present a case where a retailer faces stiff competition from new groceries and well-stocked high street retailers. The shop is old fashioned and only serves a small portion of the population. There is the need to upgrade customer services and bring in new stock that will appeal to customers rather than push them away: yet this business owner has no idea of how to make this possible. This means that change should be urgent and inevitable. Through consultation, a program is set up in three stages to implement the desired results. The first stage involved projects which were clear in their goals, timeframe and resources were available. This is hard system of change. The resources included developing staff and improving the system of choosing employees and training them. The viability project of opening a grocery department in the business is completed. Upon doing this, the retailer changed the human resource processes and finally implemented the grocery department at the last stage; this was after evaluating its feasibility. This case study demonstrates that it is possible to administer both soft and hard systems of change hand in hand with no adverse effects. Banathy (1996) confirms that sustainability can no longer ignore human dimension and social dynamics that are core elements in development of any business. In cases like agriculture, sustainable development is a philosophy based on human goal and understanding of the long term impact of the activities on the environment and other species. Sustainability is maintained by offering different paradigms. A paradigm shift is a change from one way of thinking about something to another which requires changes both in the hard and soft systems. Sustainability in agriculture is also maintained by relating farmers’ attitude and their admirable farming practices. Sociologists have executed hypothetical framework and experimental models to confirm the relationship between sustainable agricultural attitude and behavior. The framework directs policy makers and researchers on how to devise and implement sustainable agriculture (Lichtfouse 2010). There is the need to notify practitioners, researchers and decision makers on the social impact while evaluating development sustainability. This is because they assess factors that affect development measures and give recommendations based on their research findings. Social impact assessment suggests what social amendments are possible and what procedures may be necessary to set up supportive social institutions, crucial for promoting and sustaining admirable systems (Lichtfouse 2010). Various experts argue that change could be the only solution to crises in business and the world today. A firm that does not adapt or adjust to the diversity of the environment, technology, education, communication trends among others is likely to close down. Competitors take advantage of what their rivals do not know or what they do not major in, and turn it to business opportunities. Formalized and inflexible organizations are rigid towards their rules and procedures. Employees detest such working environments since there is no job satisfaction. This has detrimental effects on the organization. Work rules may be so rigid such that employees are unable to help each other while on the job or they may fear implementing new procedures that can improve performance (Suzuki and Dressel 2003). As much as rigidity in an organization may cause undesired affects, it is important to point out that there are benefits attaching to it. Inflexibility may enhance perceptions of fairness and procedural justice. This is because rules and regulations make individual and organizational expectations clear and decrease role ambiguity and conflict (Hicks 1991). Therefore, it is upon the management of any organization to assess when change is necessary and how it should be implemented. Most importantly, it is important to test the change process before implementing it. During the implementation process, documentation is necessary. This includes processes carried out before, during and after the change has been executed. Lack of documenting the change executed could result to problems since not everyone in the organization may understand or know preceding changes. Finally, while implementing change both through the soft and hard system, people within the system must understand the benefit of the change executed. Innovation managers should communicate to them not only how the change is beneficial to the firm but to employees as individuals (Furnell 2008). List of References Banathy, H.1996. Designing social systems in a changing world. New York [u.a.: Plenum Press. Blaich, W.2008. The benefits of behavioral research to the fire service: Human behavior in fires and emergencies. Lincoln, Ne: IUniverse, Inc. Checkland, P.1981. “Systems Thinking, Systems Practice.” New York: Wiley Checkland, P., & Scholes, J.1999. Soft systems methodology: A 30-year retrospective. New York: Wiley. Clayton, H., Radcliffe, J.1996. Sustainability - a systems approach; Earthscan: ISBN 1 85383 3193 Flood, L., & Carson, R.1993. Dealing with complexity: An introduction to the theory and application of systems science. New York: Plenum Press. Furnell, S.2008. Securing information and communications systems: Principles, technologies, and applications. Boston: Artech House. Hicks, J.1991. “Problem Solving in Business and Management” Thompson Business Press (Ch. 12) Jackson, C.2000. Systems approaches to management. New York, NY [u.a.: Kluwer Academic/Plenum. Simonsen, J.1994. An Introduction: Computer Science/Roskilde University, spring Lewis, R., and Zibarras, L.2013. Work and occupational psychology: Integrating theory and practice. London: SAGE. Katonono .2011. Hard and Soft Models of Hrm. Available at http://www.studymode.com/essays/ Keys, P.1991. Operational research and systems: The systemic nature of operational research. New York: Plenum Press. Manwani, S. and British Computer Society.2008. IT-enabled business change: Successful management. Swindon: British Computer Society. McDonald, S., HCI 2000, Human Computer Interaction Conference, and People and Computers Conference. (2000). People and computers XIV - usability or else: Proceedings of HCI 2000; [human computer interaction 2000]. London [u.a.: Springer. Midgley, G. 2000. Systemic Intervention: Philosophy, methodology, and practice, New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Suzuki, T., & Dressel, J. 2003. Good news for a change: How everyday people are helping the planet. Vancouver, B.C: Greystone Books. Van, P. 1991. System design modeling and metamodeling. New York: Plenum Press. Read More