Part 5 - Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). What it is, how we use it and why we need it. The quality of management thinking is generally poor, decisions made on the hoof, under pressure and without thought for real ramifications. SSM is a human centered, action orientated tool that, unlike many pieces of analysis brings with it the essential element of worldviews, bias and a way of seeing the situation.

1. Notes on-
Systems Approaches to Managing
Change: Part 5
The Soft Systems Methodology
A Practical Guide
Eds. – Martin Reynolds & Sue Holwell

2. Chapter 5 – Soft
Systems
Methodology
SSM
Peter Checkland
and John Poulter
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

3. Abstract
Primary characteristics:
• Used for ‘tackling’ messy problematic situations
• Action orientated that starts with ‘learning about
the situation’ and then ‘taking purposeful action’
to improve it
• Each model contains a distinct ‘worldview’
• Each model is an intellectual tool kit designed to:
• Inform discussions
• Structure them
• Use the output to identify improvement
This section covers core tenets, fundamental
concepts and, techniques of SSM

4. 5.1 Introduction
We live in complex times – everything is in a
state of flux and situations, especially in
respect of human situations can become
problematic very easily.
SSM is an organised way of tackling
problems – it is action orientated and works
to bring about improvement to a situation
regardless of how hard it is to do so.
Worldviews are crucial to the SSM approach
– many systems approaches do not have the
ability to handle the multiple perspectives
that people bring with them to problems.
The second characteristic that makes for
complexity is that people come with
purposeful action. Both of these two points
are why SSM came into existence
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY

5. 5.1 Introduction (Cont.)
SSM is a social learning tool that leads to action
The shape is as follows:
1. Invest time in finding out about the problem
2. Select purposeful activities that ca be used to explore the
situation – express these as activity models. Note the associated
worldview
3. Use the model in group situation as the source of questions to
clarify, explore and ‘surface’ worldviews. Generate ideas for
change and improvement
4. During discussion record the results of the ‘finding out’ about,
ideas for change their desirability and cultural feasibility. The
issue here is that people bring ‘baggage’ with them – different
worldviews . For change to happen these worldview need to be
shared and accommodated into the change.
Don’t’ be fearful of ‘clashing worldviews since they are source of
creativity, energy and ideas for change.
The above (1-4) represent a learning cycle which can be seen as being
perpetual. The more perspectives that are brought in, the greater
analytical rigour the process will have with debate and ‘more actions to
improve’
Fig 5.1

6. 5.1.1 What can SSM be used for?
Very broad application due to the two ideas:
• A learning process that through discussion leads
to action
• The creation of ‘models of purposeful activity that
contain questions applicable to real situations
Broad sector appeal – small to large, public, private,
charity and not-for-profit sectors.
Any human situation that needs to be explored with
the desire to create ‘purposeful activity’ – and to
avoid ‘everyday opinion’ (dogma)
‘What taken-as-given worldview lies behind these
assertions of opinion?
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

7. 5.1.3 How
was SSM
created
• Human centered and social research is an
issue because, unlike traditional scientific
research of hypothesis and testing, it was too
distant from human involvement.
• Action Research, was the initial framework
of choice in this field and the Systems
Engineering (SE) framework devised by Bell
Telephones.
• This was deemed not ‘rich enough’ so the
idea of incorporated ‘worldviews’ to handle
social and human complexity.
• SE was modified and, in time and the
Learning for a User by a Methodology-
informed Approach to a Situation (LUMAS)
was created.

8. SSM Cycle of learning for action

9. 5.1.4 How does SSM Differ
from other systems
approaches?
• S.Eng was the start – a ‘hard’
systems approach that was
devised to solve business
problems by seeing the world as a
series of interacting systems
• SSM derived from this once the
concept of ‘worldview’ was
included and understood. This was
a response to managing conflicting
perspectives, addressing
complexity of human centered
design. It is a process of inquiry
organised as a learning system.
The idea of a ‘soft’ approach that
was action oriented, emergent
and intellectually driven
Fig 5.2

10. 5.2 SSM in
Practice
SSM
Everyday
life
Problem
situation
Flexible
process
Use of
systems
ideas
First comes the feeling that something
needs to be done, we have a situation that
is ‘problematical’. We start to probe the idea
with “What are the implications of this?,
What should we do?
We refer to our internal database of
‘experiences’, listen to our gut, or plough in
flaying around in a process of disordered
trial and error. Or we could use SSM
SSM sees a need for purposeful action to
improve the situation. Improvement is seen
in the context of the removal of tensions,
answer or at least acknowledge unanswered
questions , generally make the situation
better.
It is an organised ‘process’ of thinking based
on systems idea

11. 5.2.1 Everyday Life
and Problematical
Situations
Human Centred Behaviours
• “Complexity, emotions, actions,
turbulence, confusion in language, dynamic
shifting changing environments …”
• All of which we bring an innate desire to
solve because we bring to it meaning. It is
our perceptions that we project onto a
situation that define them as ‘problematic’.
In doing so we imbue a desire to tackle
them with the purpose of improvement.

12. 5.2.2 Tackling
Problematical
Situations
What happens when we
intervene?
We make judgements about the
‘real-world situation’. Are they
good or bad, right or wrong,
acceptable or unacceptable – we
do so by reflecting upon our
personal set of ‘standards’. These
are derived from a mix of nature
(genetic predisposition) and
nurture (environmental
experiences). These form our
‘worldview or Weltanschauung’ –
this is the most crucial aspect to
understand in dealing with SSM
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

13. 5.2.3 A
Flexible
Process
• So to cope with the dynamic
nature of multiple worldviews it is
clear that SSM has to be a flexible
approach.
• It is not a method but a
methodology – that is a collection
of methods, defined by on-going
principles of behaviour adapted to
the nature of each specific
situation.
• It is a principle based
framework in which we hang all
our tools on, and then select which
tool box to take with us to the next
job. Tools hat are suited to action
orientated improvement
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

14. 5.2.5 What is the SSM process?
A cyclical learning process where the
learning that actually happens is
primarily group / social learning.
Individual learning is dependent upon
the worldview of the learner.
The image below shows a traditional
style of inquiry – it shows that is not a
linear process, that finding out is often
informed through model development
and discussion / debating.
Discussion and debating stage is where
we are looking at the desirability of any
suggested improvement along with its
cultural feasibility
Fig 5.10

15. 5.2.6 The
SSM
Learning
Cycle:
Finding Out
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SAFig 5.11

16. 5.2.6.1 Making Rich
Pictures
• The type of mind an SSM practioner needs is a ‘sponge
like’ approach to absorbing the situation.
• The Rich Picture methodology has moved from being a
‘metaphor’ to a literal description of a visual
representation of a complex situation.
• Complexity implies variety, variety of relationships,
perspectives and worldviews. Using a rich picture in a
consultative way is about prompting discussion –
• This is how we see it
• Let me walk you through the picture – let me know if
you feel it is wide of the mark
• Do you think I have missed anything significant?
• It is an informal representation, a snapshot and
something that could always be richer.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA

17. 5.2.6.2 Carrying
Out Analysis One
(The intervention
itself)
Three key roles and elements:
Client - the causer of the
intervention to happen that
prompted the an investigation in
the first place
Practioner – conductor of the
investigation facilitator who can
also be in any of the other
groups
Owners of the issues – affected
by he situation beneficiary of the
outcome – practioner choses the
participant of the list
Fig 5.12

18. 5.2.6.2 Carrying
Out Analysis One
(The Intervention
Itself (Cont.)
• Named ‘roles’ rather than people because
people/group could be in multiple roles.
• Practioner role – communication and information
dissemination; accountable for resource acquisition in line
with overall ambitions
Start
• Who are the roles ‘client’ and ‘practioner’?
• Who should be in the list of ‘issue owners’?
• What are the aspirations of the clients – they should
obviously be included but NOT the sole focus. Client role
should be in the list of possible ‘issue owners’
• The broader the list of issue owners the richer the
investigation and intervention. More worldviews and a
better response to complexity.
• Nothing stopping the practioner being in the list of
issue owners
• SSM ‘c’ & ‘p’ – grapples with the ‘content of the
situation’, decides on the best processes to achieve this
• First model – the model of how to do the study
Fig 5.13

19. 5.2.6.2 Carrying
Out Analysis
Two (Social)
• Human emotions cloud
management logic. If change
through action is to be adopted
the social reality of the situation
needs to be fully understood,
this is where SSM addresses
cultural feasibility.
• There is a need to ‘feel out
the situation’, gain insight into
behaviours and consider the
context and content. An
understanding of Culture, which
is hard to define, is imperative if
actions are not to be resisted.
• The SSM methodology works
for any size organisation.
Fig 5.14

20. 5.2.6.3 Carrying
Out Analysis Two
(Social) - Cont.
The model is in three parts but none
should be treated as static components
rather dynamic elements.
• Roles: social positions that are either
formal, titled with clear description or
informal, based on reputation and the go-
to label. Informal roles are indicators of
culture
• Norms: what is an expected behaviour
that you would associate with a role?
These are the ‘norms’
• Values: standards you hold behaviours
to, the criteria that gets judged
• All three elements are dynamically
interrelated – they change at the micro as
well as at the macro level. 55 years ago
homosexuality was not only illegal it was
also culturally unacceptable. Now, 55
years later the culture is to celebrate
diversity.
At the start of any intervention, open a file marked
Analysis Two, I that file record any ‘event’ or
‘activity’ that interacts with the problematical
situation – ask “have I learnt anything new about
the roles, norms and values of the group?” Date
and record this and build it into your reflective
practice
Fig 5.15

21. SSM’s
Analysis
Two
Fig 5.16

22. 5.2.6.4 Carrying
Out Analysis
Three (Political)
Finding out the disposition of
power as part of the culturally
feasibility of the change.
Ties directly with Analysis two
through the Roles, Norms and
Values
Based on Aristotle argument – the
long-term health and stability of a
society can only be envisioned if
differing interests (worldviews) can
be accommodated. This is the role
of politics
Any human affair which stems from
or delivers ‘deliberate action’ by
humans who hold different
worldviews and pursue different
interests is inherently political.
How is power expressed in this
situation?
Fig 5.17

23. 5.2.6.4 Carrying
Out Analysis
Three (Political)-
Cont.
• Using the metaphor: A COMMODITY
that embodies POWER
• What are the processes by which the
‘holders’ of the power:
• Obtain
• Use
• Defend
• Pass-on
• Relinquish
• Roles have certain powers – some
bestowed on them such as rank, others
created through their personality (charisma)
or through the power networks that
surround an individual.
• Power is dynamic and highly fluid, it
therefore shifts in strength overtime, it is
redefined, reordered and replaced
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC

24. 5.2.4 The Use
of Systems
Ideas
Key learning
• Systems thinking handles real world complexity because
it acknowledges how different elements interrelate, cross
boundaries and work to change the ‘whole’.
• S – the system receives shocks from E – the
environment. To survive there is a communication process
(to know what is happening) and a control process (to direct
adaptive responses). The system, which may be a part of a
wider system therefore a subsystem, may contain a
subsystem itself. This recursive layered concept is
fundamental to systems thinking. To be a system it must
have emergent properties as a whole.
• These four elements are representative of the core of
systems thinking.
• The relevance to SSM is that at the core of any system
is purposeful human activity, the nature of complexity.
Fig 5.5

25. 5.2.4 The Use of
Systems Ideas
(Cont.)
This model is relevant no matter the simplicity
or complexity of the system. A logically linked
set of activities constitute designed to deliver
purposeful activity represents a whole.
People bring with them their worldviews so no
single model will ever suffice.
Purposeful activity models
• Never be a ‘description’ of the real world
• Express just one way of looking at a real
situation
• Activity models created to represent a
myriad of worldviews
Useful for stimulating excellent questions –
about the real world, about purpose, process
and activity. Prompt debate and foster
discussion.
Fig 5.6

26. 5.2.4 The
Use of
Systems
Ideas
(Cont.)
In summary we have:
• A problematical real-world situation in need of improving
• Models of purposeful activity relevant to the situation but
NOT describing it
• Models as a device for continued exploration and debate
• The means to consider as part of accommodating
perspectives, what is desirable and culturally feasible
Fig 5.8

27. 5.2.7 The SSM
Learning Cycle:
Making
Purposeful
Activity Models
SSM creates an organised process for enquiry and
learning by making models of purposeful activity
and using these to drive questions. The richness of
the Root Definitions (RD) provide the basis for
‘purposeful activity’. The modelling process is as
follows:
1. The PQR formula: P = what? Q = how? and R =
why? So Do P, by Q in order to achieve R.
Three elements that define the transitioning
process
2. Root Definition: using the PQR formula you
can write down a RD statement. For complex
ideas this statement should be more abstract
but it works for just as well for simpler
situations. Building the actual model cannot
happen until the RD
Fig 5.18

28. 5.2.7 The SSM Learning Cycle: Making
Purposeful Activity Models (Cont.)
Enrichment of the Root Definition allows for greater, deeper
questioning. RD’s were enriched by applying to them a general
‘model of purposeful activity’ and given the mnemonic CATWOE.
The idea is that Purposeful activity, as defined by the
transformation (T) process and prevailing worldview (W):
• Will require people (A) to do the activities of T
• Will affect C who are either beneficiaries or victims of T
• Will take as given the constraints from E that operate
outside of T
• And that T could be stopped by people or person O
You can define T&W when model building but experience
suggests writing out the RD from the PQR Formula first gives an
overall basis for the exploration.
CATWOE is monitored by three independent criteria:
1. Efficacy - to judge if T is actually working and producing its
intended consequences
2. Efficiency – T is being achieved with the minimum of
resources
3. Effectiveness – whether the transformation is strategically
aligned to the higher purpose or aim
Additionally you could monitor ‘elegance’, how seamlessly the
transformation is happening; ‘ethicality’ is the moral imperative
of the transformation aligned to the values of the business
Fig 5.19

29. 5.2.7 The SSM Learning
Cycle: Making Purposeful
Activity Models (Cont.)
The final consideration from the guidelines assisting in
the formulation of RD’s prior to building the model are
the definitions for (4):
• Primary Tasks (PT) – purposeful activity that could
be mapped to the existing boundaries of an
organisational chart and assumed these boundaries
were immovable
• Issue based (IB) – purposeful activity that crossed
these boundaries, in fact looked at the activity from
the organisational perspective and assumed that
boundaries were arbitrary and up for negotiation.
Inevitably issue-based root definitions create the most
contention. Looking at a contentious situation where
unused resources could be shared freely will always
generate some internal friction.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

30. 5.2.7 The SSM Learning Cycle: Making
Purposeful Activity Models (Cont.)
(5) - Putting it all together!
This is a process of logic, bringing in
the relevant stages as per the
diagram and coming out with a deep
RD – ideal for debate and discovery.
Yet, despite this failure is just around
the corner.
Practioners take their eye of the ball
and start to lose focus on the RD.
Instead they model the ‘real-world’
not the ‘conceptual’ one.
If you are looking at a transformation
process moving a businesses social
media strategy to a new level, you
would end up recording the existing
strategy and comparing this to the
model, which is not informative.
Fig 5.18

31. 5.2.7 The SSM Learning Cycle: Making
Purposeful Activity Models (Cont.)
The diagram shows a series of steps in
putting the process together.
Once done then check model against
guidelines:
• Ask does every phrase of the RD lead to
something in the model?
• Can every activity in the model be traced
back to the RD, CATWOE etc?
If yes then the model is ‘defensible’ that is
different from being right. Any two SSM
practioners given the same RD would come
out with a slightly different model simply
because of the worldview that they have.
The operations part of the model – you
should aim for the 7 pieces of activity (+- 2)
Nothing stopping you breaking out the
operations in to sublevels and labelling each
as 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 etc showing all activities come
from activity 6 in the parent model.
Fig 5.20

32. 5.2.8 The SSM Learning Cycle:
Using Models to Structure
Discussions About the Situation
and Its Improvement
• What’s SSM all about? In essence this, its about bringing
structure to discussions. Many impromptu management
meetings, conversations and discussions happen during the day –
they follow no pattern, switch between strategy and actions and
flow between short and long term perspectives.
• By using SSM models to bring structure to the discussion we
improve outcomes. “Models do not purport to be accounts of
what we would wish the real world to be like” (p236) they could
not be since they are artificial devices, with a stated worldview.
• The model is a catalyst for questioning – here is a model of
the situation – in this case What are the job characteristics for
each stated role? What options do we have for it to take place?
When is the optimum time for it to happen? What alternatives
are there?
• Be light-footed with questions, move discussion on – strive to
find emotions such as excitement, peaked interest, resistances
and anger. How can we measure efficaciousness, effectiveness
and overall efficiency – difficult but thought provoking questions
that bring debate. Emotions bring learning.
WARNING – This is not about taking real-world situations and
highlighting why they DON’T work – the goal is to discuss how
change can be welcomed, sanctioned and actioned
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

33. 5.2.8 The SSM Learning Cycle: Using Models to
Structure Discussions About the Situation and Its
Improvement (Cont.)
The three situations of practice
1. In a room with flipcharts on the wall showing the models. As
the discussion unfolds the models are placed into the
conversations – detailed discussion around SSM approach
unhelpful – focus on real-world model of activity useful.
2. Formal approach (most common) is to create a matrix (see
opposite) which lists down primary elements of the model
and associated questions and a summary statement about
the learning. (do not let the process become mechanical,
avoid getting bogged down – seek insight and learning
3. Use the models as the basis for an account of the purposeful
activity and compare this account with a series of real-world
accounts, enriching the model as each account comes in.
Each method can be used independently or as part of a process. This
is a learning cycle – so record and hone the models development
and let it lead to activity. People in the discussions need to have
been involved in the creation of the models. This is to support them
as being valid and relevant to the situation as it is now and change
Fig 5.22

34. 5.2.9 The SSM Learning Cycle: Defining
‘Action to Improve’
We do not seek consensus nor abandon
it as we pursue ‘accommodation’.
Consensus is rare, normally relates to
issues that are deemed less
controversial and contentious. Human
situations are complex because of the
diversity of worldviews creating
differences of opinion therefore, in daily
life, we accommodate these if we are to
maintain the stability of the unit as a
whole. Gain accommodation and we can
respond to ‘What do we do now?’
The fact that consensus is rare should
not be berated or regretted – because
we want the clashing or worldviews and
all the enrichment that emotional
energy brings to problem solving.
Explore changes – note reactions. If the
model is not leading to energetic debate
– change the model, abandon it and
formulate a more radical Root definition
Fig 5.24

35. 5.2.9 The SSM Learning Cycle: Defining
‘Action to Improve’ (Cont.)
Change has to be desirable and feasible for it to be
accommodated. Fig 5.25 (opposite) is self explanatory
– it recognises that change has three parts:
1. Structural
2. Process
3. Attitudinal
Easiest to change is structure, it can be imposed via
legitimate authority but new structures normally
require new processes and shifts in attitudes if they are
to be fully accepted. Usual mechanism for trying to
shift attitudes is the crude and often ineffective carrot
or stick mindset. This rarely works because it fails to
recognise the social aspect of change, the uncertainty
that incentivised change brings in a cynical world.
Change agents must also recognise that before
attitudes can change – we people need to be ‘enabled’
to deliver actions. This may require additional levels of
change, not directly related to the change in hand.
Criteria for judging is not an easy question to pursue
since people will have very different responses to what
should or should not be considered a success. It is
though an area of contention and debate
Fig. 5.25

36. 5.2.10 The Whole SSM Learning Cycle
Revisited: Seven Principles, Five Actions
Seven Principles that underlie SSM
1. We deal with ‘real-world problematical
situations’ not real-world problems
2. Stated worldviews are a prerequisite of the
thinking and talking
3. Every situation will come with people’s desire
for purposeful action
4. Models of purposeful activity are prompts for
discussion and debate, a source of questions
5. Action is dependent upon the sourcing and
acceptance of accommodations
6. SSM is a never-ending learning journey as
points (1-5) lead to action and action changes
the situation, hopefully improves it
7. SSM allows for conscious critical reflection as
the practioner becomes more able, can
internalise the process without reference to it,
reflective practice becomes embedded and
the practioner becomes a ‘reflective
practioner’.
Real world
problematic
situations
Stated
worldviews
Purposeful
actions
Models for
debate and
discussion
Action requires
accommodations
Never ending
learning cycle
Conscious critical
reflection

37. 5.2.10 The Whole SSM
Learning Cycle
Revisited: Seven
Principles, Five Actions
(Cont.)
• The four previously alluded
to activities of finding out,
making models, discussing and
debating leading to defining
actions is joined by a 5th
activity that sits outside the
main process. It is ‘about’ the
process and not as such
embedded within it. It is a
deliberate piece of work.
• It sits at a meta-level and
ensures that the practice of
learning is embedded by
capturing and then
repurchasing the information
for increased richness
Fig 5.26

38. 5.3.1 Craft Skills in
SSM Use
Craft skills are skills that we acquire through a process of developing know-how. They can be
enhanced through traditional learning but the pure acquisition is gained through experience,
watching and being mentored garnering both explicit and tacit (unexpressed) knowledge.
SSM is open to the user’s own ways of working - what is necessary is a willingness to be informed
through action, to consider and at times revise your own learning. These craft skills can be informed
if:
• You remain fully conscious to the learning throughout the process. Deliberately engaging with
SSM whilst maintaining an observational perspective
• Don’t let in any thoughts of ‘solving’ a situation or finding an ‘optimum’ way since human
situations are not wholly replicable. Nothing ever happens two=ice in the same way. If you
find yourself thinking about logic over emotion then the situation is not a human one.
• Do not impose structure let the situation talk back – your role is to listen, to dance with it.
Stay positive in forming judgements but do not hang-on to them. Relinquish them and pass
them back.
• No imposed methodology will ever replace free thinking. Our aim to create unique steps on
the road to improvement. SSM can structure your thinking also team thinking. SSM process
is a major contributor to team cohesion and understanding. It builds shared language and
concepts.
• Give away the approach – do not hang on to ownership of SSM let the team run with it. It
might become a part of their problem solving tool kit.
• Suspend the idea that you know where things are heading – you don’t so be happy with that
• Pave the way for ownership of action – some of the outcomes may be above the pay grade of
those present. Get buy in from those who hold the purse strings and power, make them
aware of the possibility and build a process that permits an accommodation
• This should never feel like work - if it does shake it up. Put in some contentious root
definitions. This needs to be fun, serious fun

39. 5.3.2 Approaching SSM:
The Mindset
Western thinking is nearly always based around ‘substantive content’ – focusing in
one the central subject and not concerning yourself about ‘how to think about this’.
30 years of SSM use and development has taken SSM into the realms of a thinking
tool – an explicit way of thinking about a complex situation of interest.
When approaching an SSM piece of work follow these guidelines:
• Reflect that most discussions are not very good at all therefore what you bring,
even in a crude format is liable to be more valuable
• Know that hen using SSM the discussions take on a far more coherent format,
deepening the level of thinking
• Accept that there is no full proof methodology which will lead to ideal
outcomes. You are instead on the road to improvement.
• Know that the methodology should be treated a set of principals that need to
be tailored to the needs of the situation and players
• Know that the best way to learn is to dive in and use it
• Know that even crude attempts will unlikely break the model. SSM is highly
resilient
• Know that simply understanding the situation is never enough – action is the
ultimate goal
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA

40. SSM Basic
Outline
Fig 5.29

41. End of Part 5
Notes by James
Cracknell BA (Hons.)
As part of TU811 OU
Course Systems
Tools for Managing
Change
Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (2010) Introducing Systems Approaches, in
Martin Reynolds, Sue Holwell (Eds.) Approaches to managing Change: A
Practical Guide. London: Springer in association with The Open University