Learn the Action Research case study approach for studying organizations and managers and explore collaboration and management practices through the SSM and TIP processes. Understand how the action learning spiral can provide credibility, validity, and reliability for this research.

1. Action Research Strategies for
Researching Organizations and Management Practices
Kelley A. Conrad
University of Phoenix School of Advanced Studies

2. Action Research –
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) --
Transferring Insight into Practice (TIP)
• An Action Research approach
– Origins in Lewin‟s (1946) research
– Action Science defined by Argyris, Putnam, & Smith
(1985)
– Action Inquiry by Torbert (1976)
– Action Learning by Mwaluko & Ryan (2000)

3. General Principles of
Action Research
Diagnosing
Identify or
define
problem
Specifying Action
Learning Planning
Identify Consider
alternative
Findings Actions
Evaluating Taking
Action
Study
Select Course
Consequences of Action
Susman (1983), O‟Brien (1998)

4. Action Research –
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) --
Transferring Insight into Practice (TIP)
• Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) developed
over 30 years by Checkland (2000)
– Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (1993)
– Soft Systems Methodology: A 30 year Retrospective
(1999)
– Refined in Learning for Action by Checkland and
Poulter (2006)

5. Action Research –
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) --
Transferring Insight into Practice (TIP)
• Transferring Insight into Practice (TIP)
developed by Huxham and Vangen over 21
years
– Working together: Key themes in the management of
relationships between public and non-profit
organizations (1993)
– Researching organizational practice through action
research: Case studies and design choices (2003)
– Managing to collaborate, the theory and practice of
collaborative advantage (2005)

6. Soft Systems Methodology -
Problematical Situations
Begins with a perceived real-world
“problematical” situation.
We identify a situation that makes us think
“Something should be done about this, or it needs
to be improved.”
Think “problematical situations” NOT “problems”
They can be improved but not “solved”

7. Soft Systems Methodology-
Worldview
Different People have different perspectives
business and organizational situations have
multiple interacting perceptions
Problematical situations are never static and have
two characteristics:
• Different worldviews need to be surfaced and examined
• People are trying to act purposefully
SSM using a social learning approach to taking
action to improve the problematical situation

8. Soft Systems Methodology -
Problematical Situations
Define the problematical situation and the
characteristics of the intervention to improve it
Several SSM strategies:
Rich Pictures
3 Analyses
One – The intervention
Two – Social
Three – Political

9. Soft Systems Methodology-
Rich Pictures
• Informally capture:
– the main entities, structures, and viewpoints in the
situation
– Structures being used involved
– Unique viewpoints
– Processes
– Current issues that are recognized
– Potential issues

10. Soft Systems Methodology -
Example of a Rich Picture
(Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p. 26.)

11. Soft Systems Methodology -
Three Analyses
Analysis one – The intervention
Think about the three “roles”
The person who caused the intervention
(the client)
The people conducting the investigation (the
practitioner)
The people affected by the situation and
outcome (other issue owners )

12. Soft Systems Methodology -
Analysis 1
(Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p. 29.)

13. Analysis 1
• Problematical Situation
• Practitioner investigates using SSM
• Process uses SSM to address how to do the
study
• Content of problematical situation addressed by
SSM

14. Soft Systems Methodology -
Analysis 2 - Social
(Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p. 31.)

15. Analysis 2 – Social
• Reviews
– Roles both formal and informal
– Norms
– Values
• Envisioned as a creates and recreates cycle
• Asks what are the interacting social roles that
characterize the situation

16. Soft Systems Methodology -
Analysis 3 - Political
(Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p. 37.)

17. Soft Systems Methodology -
Analysis 3 - Political
How is the power expressed in this situation?
SSM uses a “Commodities” metaphor
What commodities signal that power is possessed in the
situation?
How are these commodities obtained, used, protected,
defended, passed on, relinquished?

18. Root Definitions (RD) are Central
• Root Definitions (RD) are descriptive statements
describing the activity system to be modeled

19. Soft Systems Methodology -
Root Definition PQR Formula
(Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p. 40.)

20. Use SSM to Construct a model of a
Purposeful Activity System
• PQR formula guides the RD process
Do P (Purposeful Activity- What to do?)
By Q (How to do it? A Theory for support.)
To Contribute R (Results – Why do it?)
• Purpose is to create clarity about the activity that
is appropriate to the Problematical situation

21. Soft Systems Methodology -
Root Definition PQR Formula
(Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p. 40.)

22. Soft Systems Methodology -
General Model of any Purposeful
Activity - CATWOE
C = Customers – Those affected by the Activity
Victims or Beneficiaries
A = Actors who perform the Transforming Activities
T = Transforming Process based on Worldview
W = Worldview
O = Owners who could stop the process
E = Environmental Constraints taken as a given

23. Soft Systems Methodology -
General Model of any Purposeful
Activity - CATWOE
(Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p. 41.)

24. Soft Systems Methodology -
Root Definition CATWOE Formula
(Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p. 40.)

25. Soft Systems Methodology -
Three E’s – Performance Criteria
Efficacy – is the transformation (T) producing the
intended outcome?
Efficiency – is the transformation being achieved
with minimum use of resources?
Effectiveness – is the transformation helping to
achieve some higher level or longer term aim?
The 3 E‟s are always relevant in building SSM
models but we may add other criteria when
appropriate, like Elegance or Ethnicity.

26. Soft Systems Methodology -
Root Definition 3 E’s
(Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p. 40.)

27. Soft Systems Methodology -
Introducing Change
• Introducing change can be modeled using SSM
• Two key ideas
– What enabling action is needed for the potential
change to be accepted?
• Recognizes the social context for the change
• May require enabling action
– Difficult to define the criteria by which the change will
be judged „completed‟ and/or „successful.‟

28. Soft Systems Methodology -
Introducing Change
(Checkland & Poulter, 2006, p. 58.)

29. Soft Systems Methodology -
Facilitation
• Use the SSM Model and model building process
in consultation with the client to question the
perceived real-world situation.
• Structure the discussion/debate about the
change.
• Seek accommodations (versions which different
people with different worldviews can live with)
which meet criteria
– Systemically desirable
– Culturally feasible

30. Final Phase is Meta-level reflection,
evaluation, and improvement
• Monitor all stages of the SSM model
• Refine or redefine criteria for efficacy and
efficiency
• Separately define criteria for effectiveness
• Evaluate SSM model and results
• Take necessary Control Actions
• Record in order to Refine model

31. TIP version of SSM elaborated
Action Research
• Eden & Huxham (1996) are proponents of
rigorous Action research
– Deliberate, Systematic data collection
• Collect all flip charts
• Take notes at meetings
– Reflexively review the “data”
– Consider how to “justify” the research results
• Accuracy
• Generalizability
– Role played by the Researcher-Facilitator
Susman (1983), O‟Brien (1998)

32. Key Issues with TIP
• The degree to which the research agenda is
raised overtly with the participants
• The visibility to participants of the research
methods used
• The ambiousness and risk level of the action
intervention (likelihood of being favorably
perceived)

33. TIP Model –
Including Collaborative Consultation
Reflexivity
Inputs
Systematic Data
Systematic Data Research
Outputs
Collection
Collection
Developing &
Testing
Sensemaking, Theory
Building, & Writing

34. Quick Summary - SSM
• Most discussions in human situations is of poor
quality
– Topics interact
– Participants speak at different levels
– Participants bring different judgments to bear
– Participants have different worldviews
• SSM can make discussions more coherent and
deepen level of thinking (it surfaces the
worldviews which govern the way issues are
perceived and judged)
• The methodology alone will do the job but SSM
can increase the quality of the conversation.

35. Quick Summary
• The methodology should be treated as a set of
principles but that they need to be tailored to the
situation
• The the best way to learn SSM is to use it
• The principles are very resilient – they work well
in practice even if unevenly applied
• The understanding of the problematical situation
is only a springboard to action.

36. Thank You

37. What Questions or Comments do you Have?

38. Thank You