Soft Systems Methodology and Activity Theory - Essay Example

Evaluation of Soft Systems Methodology and Activity Theory Introduction Introduction The soft systems methodology (SSM) is a process used to supportand to organise thinking about, and mediation in, difficult organisational problems. On the other hand, Activity Theory (AT) is a descriptive tool or model for a system. It holds that humans are socio-culturally oriented actors – not system parts or processors – and that there is a systematic evaluation of motivated human action (Acton, 2012). Moreover, SSM helps organisations understand complex problems that have contradictions. It provides a structure which is used to deal with challenges faced in trying to consider the different perspectives, self-interests and motivations that define human organisations. Whereas AT inspires theoretical thought in many disciplines – psychology, culture, information systems, education, and management, disciplines that generally apply strategies involving human activity. Many researchers have cited AT as being holistically rich when it comes to understanding how humans conduct activities together with the aid of advanced tools in very dynamic and intricate settings (Adebowale, 2010). The aim of this paper is to critically evaluate how soft systems methodology and activity theory can be used to understand organisational problems. As part of this objective, the essay will also compare and contrast the two approaches and discuss relative strengths and weaknesses. Soft Systems Methodology Current Status of using SSM SSM has undergone various modifications and revisions to become more practical, flexible, and relevant to different disciplines and organisational problems. However, SSM’s suitability to various fields has remained the most important asset, one which has not required numerous modifications to remain relevant (Bell, 2013). In addition, SSM is currently used by people who lack a technical background but want to solve complex organisational problems. At the moment, SSM is applied in several main organisational settings or disciplines. For example, in performance evaluation, it is used to develop performance measures, quality assurance processes, and to monitor the organisation. In education, it is used in defining course designs, training requirements, causes of absenteeism and to analyse language teaching. It is also used in project management, personal life decisions, risk management processes, organisational strategy, and industrial tribunal cases (Bozalek and Ambi, 2014). How to use SSM to understand Organisational Problems Figure 1: 7 stage of SSM (Norman, 2014) The firms usually follow the above stages to analyse, understand and resolve organisational problems. Stage 1 and 2: Defining the Situation (Real World) The first stage often involves recognising, exploring and defining the problem in some way. Firstly, the organisation must decide what it is actually investigating. At this stage, focus should be on evaluating the general field which interests the organisation, rather than defining the problem. For instance, an organisation involved in sustainable agriculture may want to apply SSM to understand challenges and reorganise the methodology’s strategies (Bozalek and Ambi, 2014). The main process in this field is designing and sustaining an approach of sustainable food branding on products. Processes are supported by labelling and appraisal fees such as evaluating farms for sustainable methods and a grant from a reputable entity. This is a capricious starting point which can change (Cunha, 2011). For example, at some points the organisation may select to expand the scope of the situation to include more aspects of the scenario. It may end up being generally sustainable food production, or collaborating with enterprises that support sustainable agriculture (Culmsee and Awati, 2011). In stage two, the situation is defined in some way. Checkland, the inventor of SSM, refers to this as a rich picture because of two reasons. Firstly, it is important to express the problem in all richness. According to Checkland, the following should be considered structures, climate, people, processes, conflicts and issues voiced by people. Secondly, Checkland proposes the best approach to this is a picture perspective such as crossed swords means friction. Moreover, different rich pictures can be drawn for the same system/situation by different stakeholders, or a composite (Cunha, 2011). Stage 3: Root Definitions of Appropriate Systems This stage shifts from the “real” world to the systems world. This is the stage from which everything else develops, and that is why Checkland referred to it as the root definition phase. It is also the most distinct and challenging stage of SSM. The first step is to comprehend the theory of different views that the organisation can draw from the rich picture (Dekkers, 2014). The next process is the selection of a specific perspective and subjecting it to a highly intensive and structured framework development process. Checkland created the mnemonic model CATWOE to support this process which can be broken down into the following elements: Customers, Actors, Transformation, Weltanschauung, Owner and Environment (Ganza, 2012). Stage 4: Developing the Model Based on the root definition in stage 3, the organisation designs a conceptual framework using systems principles. There are many approaches to this, but Checkland proposes that beginners use the following process. Firstly, using verbs in the essential write-down processes is crucial in the transformation in CATWOE. Secondly, selecting processes that could be performed at once, which means do not depend on others (Engeström et al., 2011). Stages 5-7: Back in the Real World In these stages, the organisation compares the framework with reality, draws insights from that comparison and identifies ideas for improvements. This is the actual capability of SSM. Stage 5 involves contrasting the model and the real world and gaining insights. Checkland recommends four approaches to this --- unstructured debates, structured appraisal of the framework using a matrix method, dynamic or situation modelling and trying to conceptualise the real world using the same method as the conceptual model. The second approach is the most preferred which examines each aspect of the framework and asks: is it present in the real world?; what is the behaviour?; how is the performance determined and measured?; and is this method any good? (Leontev, 2012). Moreover, step 6 involves developing desirable and viable interventions. In this stage SSM usually stops being systematic and starts oscillating between all seven stages in order to obtain the greatest leverage (Mainzer and Chua, 2013). Stage 7 involves actions taken to enhance the real world situation. It is basically an oversight stage that involves passive strategies that ensure the whole process (from stage 1 to 7) is successful and effective. Strengths SSM can be used as a tool to enhance a critical understanding of a problem during investigation and in the later steps. It facilitates the identification of areas that need improvement, as well as areas that have flaws where hard strategies have failed to do so (Oers, 2011). Moreover, SSM also helps in the development of solutions to organisational problems by defining the problems explicitly enough for other system strategies such as hard approaches to take over. Using hard techniques alone would encourage a myopic rather than a holistic approach to problem solving (Allen et al., 2013). Another strength is that SSM does not really depend on the use of any devices besides pen and paper. It is effective enough to generate remedies to problems unlike other techniques that rely on other methodologies to function effectively (Oers, 2011). Weaknesses The main weakness of SSM is that it does not explain how to design a system. Problems can change anytime because it tends to be ambiguous in the first place. With more debates among key stakeholders, more revisions tend to be done to the problem. Another weakness is that it is over-dependent on people to function as intended (Sapru, 2011). It can also be time, labour and financially intensive, that is why it is common in large companies than small or medium-sized enterprises. SSM has a tendency to complicate problems by considering technical issues, making it difficult to implement. Organisations sometimes perceive SSM as ineffective compared to other approaches to improving problem solving and would rather use two different entities – the business consultant to improve effectiveness and the technical consultant to enhance the technological aspect of the organisation (Cunha, 2011). In some instances, companies may fail to achieve goals because of unclear root definitions that complicate and sometimes disrupt the whole process. Experts have cited the fact that SSM is too descriptive without proposing definitive guidelines. Over the course of use, it has become clear that SSM does not cover issues concerning implementation, project management or power such as equality among users, a consensus can be reached and so on (Stowell and Welch, 2012). Activity Theory How to use AT understanding Organisations Problems Organisations can use AT to understand common and current problems, disturbances and developments in areas of specialisation. However, transcending how and why of existing organisational practices is the question of how to adapt and improve the work professionals do in meeting needs. In the case of organisations in reform practice, the dilemma becomes how organisations adapt to changing policies and practices at national, regional or international level (Sukthankar, 2014). AT provides a way for organisations to respond to changing scenarios as dynamic agents of societal change. Organisations can use AT to address human activities vis-à-vis common practices and institutions, as well as artefacts, therefore, it exceeds personal knowledge and decision-making to provide a developmental perspective of minds in context. As organisations think, work, solve problems and play together, firms use AT to exhibit a heightened set of values and habits (Berryman, 2013). At a higher level, organisations can use AT to define and analyse systemic relationships and interactions. The activity system consists of the individual professional, the co-workers and colleagues of the workplace setting, the practical and theoretical tools, and common objects as a unified evolving whole (Allen et al., 2011). The object-oriented attribute of AT is what gives it meaning, as well as separates it from other activities. An organisational problem like system development can be solved using the object-oriented feature of AT. Organisations can use the object to match the intention that supports the system and the interdependence of the elements. Organisations intending to use activity systems analysis should comprehend mediated action and how the inventor (Vygotsky) applied it as a theory for defining human activity and bidirectional correlation with the environment (Cunha, 2011). Practitioners and researchers must understand how Engeström applied mediated action as a basic theory while developing his activity systems framework. Activity systems analysis is a technique to record multi-mediational activities in human processes (Mora, 2012). Consequently, while participating in activity systems analysis, researchers must design questions that will deal with mediational functions. After this, researchers should develop data collection methods to specifically record the data that will inform all parties about subjects’ mediational functions. Secondly, practitioners must comprehend what object-oriented processes and goal-directed activities are from an AT perspective and be in a position to highlight these factors in activity systems departments (Zhang, 2011). Activity systems do not occur in observed information sets in a tidy and organized way. Figure 2: Activity System (Karanasios, 2014) Strengths AT generates interest in the cultural and historical aspects of development and to the manner in which various components of an organisation can influence the implementation and application of systems (Alvesson and Willmott, 2012). Secondly, AT views information carrying gadgets not as ends, but as instruments to facilitate the performance of specific practice or activity. Both of these aspects ensure that information systems are defined in the context of application and that, in assessing outcomes, the perspectives of all stakeholders in an organisation are understood (Cunha, 2011). Thirdly, AT does not distinguish activity from information systems. The application of technology in aid of practice means that practices are revised, and as a result of outcomes in specific uses in context, technological systems are also revised (Acton, 2012). AT creates a research schedule long enough to comprehend organisations’ objects. It also creates a research schedule long enough to comprehend organisations’ objects in cases where transformations in objects over time and correlation with the objects of other entities in the environment studied (Karanasios and Allen, 2013). Processes are longer-term functions and it is impossible to transform objects into results at once, but via a method comprising of many phases. AT also focuses on broad trends of activity instead of narrow periodic fragments that do not show the general import and direction of a process. Various scientific studies show tools and techniques useful in assessing broad activity patterns (Acton, 2012). Examining smaller phases can be helpful, but not in solitude. AT also supports the application of a diverse set of data collection methods, including video, interviews, historical materials and observations, without unnecessary dependence on any one approach such as observation (Nunez, 2013). AT displays a commitment to comprehending things from organisations’ perspective, something that most theories – even SSM – do not offer (Kaptelinin and Nardi, 2012). AT is the richest framework for analyses of context in its interactions and comprehensiveness with complex challenges of history, objectivity, and consciousness. Scientific studies show that when used in the right context and enhanced with the right tools, AT can offer a flexible yet effective approach to problem solving in organisations (Merna and Thani, 2011). Challenges and Weaknesses of AT AT developed primarily as a psychological concept of personal activity. This is a vital weakness because the contemporary understanding of the term “user” comprises not only individuals but also organisations and groups. Compared to the cultural-historical concept, AT has a narrower perspective of culture. Another weakness is that the tool mediation view, which is seen as the most crucial strength of AT, can also create some constraints on the likely application. For instance, the border between a reality and a tool in virtual realities is quite vague (Thomas, 2011). AT is quite involving because researchers must understand various specific concepts within the theory before conducting activity systems analysis research and how these aspects can guide future evaluation design and implementation, as well as future research. Once researchers start data analysis, it will be discovered that data sets are not only complex but also convoluted. Using an interpretive process, researchers should focus on the data and discover the multi-mediational processes subjects experienced (Crowder and Friess, 2013). In this complex process, researchers must analyse the raw data into objective-oriented processes and goal-oriented action departments. Finally, organisations, practitioners and researchers must understand how to highlight bounded systems in the information sets when participating in AT research. Interpreting data associated with real-life engagements in a natural environment can be overwhelming because data that is relevant and vital to the research and that which is not all occur in the data set (Hephaestus Books, 2011). SSM versus AT Comparison of Conceptualisation of IT Systems Activity Theory SSM Tool/Instrument Mental part Activity capability IT-system/ Information System Practice language Actions Physical part Activity memory Documents Comparison of Conceptualisation of Practice Activity Theory SSM Activity Actor Potential Producers Community Object Tasks Foundation Instrument Knowledge Instrument Memories and experiences Division of labour Behaviour Standards Values and judgements Results Outcome Capital Actions Place and time Activity network Tool generating activity External instrument and knowledge suppliers Subject generating activity Rule generating activity External normativity Object generating activity External planners External base suppliers Result consuming actions Customers Result consumers External financial supporters Activity Theory SSM Action Subject Plans, situational understanding, attention, emotions, identity, abilities, norms and values, deliberations and objectives, preferences Object Foundation Action outcome Tool Instrument Reflexivity and conditioning Receiving Acting Action environment Operation According to experts, SSM is more flexible compared to AT, and most organisations find its components and stages to be easier to understand compared to AT. Although AT is usually used in the social sciences and also is more suitable for technical applications in IT-related areas, SSM is more human. Studies also show that SSM is easier to manipulate compared to AT (Ganza, 2012). For instance, each of the SSM stages can be easily modified to compliment an organisation’s specific needs. On the other hand, AT is more rigid because it is quite technical. However, it produces excellent results if applied correctly. Of the two, it is the best option for organisations that want to follow a structured and defined approach in decision-making. These include large corporations that seek stability and continuity above everything else (Cunha, 2011). SSM is common among large firms that have established techniques that support objectives. In terms of cost, SSM is more expensive to implement in the long-term compared to AT. The reason for this is that SSM is more labour-intensive compared to AT. For instance, it requires the best skills and expertise to design and implement, and more human interventions to monitor and update. These skills may be in short supply or expensive to procure and remunerate (Ganza, 2012). AT only requires, at the least, moderately skilled personnel to design and implement, and very little monitoring and modifications are necessary. Overall, however, it could be said that SSM is a better fit for organisations mainly because of its flexibility and dynamism. On the other hand, AT is recommended for organisations that need stability, technical efficiency and longevity (Karanasios and Allen, 2013). Conclusion This paper shows that both SSM and AT have own unique attributes that fit each situation in many organisations. In reality, it is difficult to say that one theory is better than another because advantages are relative to the organisation and the specific situation (Acton, 2012). There are many scenarios which would fit both SSM and AT, so it is difficult to rank one above the other. Therefore, organisations need to develop criteria for choosing either SSM and AT. The first and most important criterion is needs. Identification of needs paves the way for understanding the methodology which suits requirements. Secondly, organisations must understand the strengths and weaknesses of both concepts to determine whether it is possible to circumvent weaknesses or maximise strengths to suit objectives and needs (Cunha, 2011). Finally, it is important for organisations to understand that the application of these theories should be based on holistic views that focus on the problems at hand and long-term objectives. This will provide a clear view going forward, and offer a competitive advantage over rivals. Reference 1. Acton, Q. 2012. Issues in behavioural psychology. 2011 edition. Cambridge: ScholarlyEditions. 2. Acton, Q. 2012. Advances in machine learning research and application. 2011 edition. New York: W.W. Norton. 3. Adebowale, O. 2010. Application of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) in a Swedish State University Resource Allocation Problem. [Online]. Munich: GRIN Publishing GmbH. [Accessed 6 January 2015]. Available from: http://www.grin.com/en/e-book/165454/application-of-soft-systems-methodology-ssm-in-a-swedish-state-university 4. Alvesson, M. and Willmott, H. 2012. Making sense of management a critical introduction. 2nd ed. London: SAGE. 5. Allen, D. K. et al. 2013. How should technology-mediated organisational change be explained? A comparison of the contributions of critical realism and activity theory. MIS Quarterly. 5(2), pp.28-37. 6. Allen, D. et al. 2011. Working with activity theory: Context, technology, and information behaviour. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 62(4), pp.776-788. 7. Bell, S. 2013. Learning with information systems: learning cycles in information systems development. London: Routledge. 8. Berryman, M. 2013. Culturally responsive methodologies. Bingley, UK: Emerald. 9. Bozalek, V. and Ambi, D. 2014. Activity theory, authentic learning and emerging technologies towards transformative higher education pedagogy. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. 10. Crowder, J. and Friess, S. 2013. Systems engineering agile design methodologies. New York: Springer. 11. Culmsee, P. and Awati, K. 2011. The heretics guide to best practices: the reality of managing complex problems in organisations. Bloomington, IN: iUniverse. 12. Cunha, M. 2011. Enterprise information systems design, implementation and management organisational applications. Hershey, PA: Business Science Reference. 13. Dekkers, R. 2014. Applied systems theory. Dordrecht: Springer. 14. Engeström, Y. et al. 2011. Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 15. Ganza, M. 2012. SSM/VSM under a complex systems framework. Chicago: Authorhouse. 16. Hassan, R. 2013. Hard and soft systems thinking. New York: GRIN Verlag GmbH. 17. Hephaestus Books. 2011 Articles on methodology, including: methodological individualism, soft systems methodology, the open group architecture framework, power of a Method. New York: Hephaestus Books. 18. Kaptelinin, V. and Nardi, B. 2012. Activity theory in HCI fundamentals and reflections. San Rafael, CA: Morgan & Claypool Life Sciences. 19. Karanasios, S. and Allen, D. K. 2013. ICT and Development in the Context of Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant: an activity theory perspective. Information Systems Journal. 23(4), pp.287-306. 20. Leontev, A. 2012. Activity, consciousness, and personality. New York: Prentice-Hall. 21. Mainzer, K. and Chua, L. 2013. Local activity principle. London: Imperial College Press. 22. Merna, T. and Thani, F. 2011. Corporate risk management. Chichester, England: Wiley. 23. Mora, M. 2012. Research methodologies, innovations, and philosophies in software systems engineering and information systems. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. 24. Oers, B. 2011. The transformation of learning advances in cultural-historical activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 25. Nunez, I. 2013. Critical Realist Activity Theory an engagement with critical realism and cultural-historical activity theory. New York: Routledge. 26. Sapru, R. 2011. Public policy: art and craft of policy analysis. 2nd ed. New Delhi: PHI Learning. 27. Stowell, F. and Welch, C. 2012. The managers guide to systems practice making sense of complex problems. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. 28. Sukthankar, G. 2014. Plan, activity, and intent recognition theory and practice. Burlington: Elsevier Science. 29. Thomas, G. 2011. How to do your case study: a guide for students and researchers. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE. 30. Zhang, B. 2011. An application of soft systems methodology on a holistic level: Recommendations for developing and implementing green ICT strategies in New Zealand. A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Computing, Unitec. Christchurch: Unitec Institute of Technology. 31. Norman, A. 2014. Soft System Methodology. [PDF accessed through the VLE]. LUBS5313M System Thinking. University of Leeds. 32. Karanasios, S. 2014. Activity Theory. [PDF accessed through the VLE]. LUBS5313M System Thinking. University of Leeds. Read More