week2-sosm

8/11/2019 Week2-SOSM

1/33

A SYSTEMOFSYSTEMMETHODOLOGIES

Santi Novani, PhD


2/33

LASTWEEKREVIEW: NATUREOFSYSTEMS

ANDMETAPHORS

Chapter 1: Nature of systems

Present the most important systemsconcept and Methapors (the way of

thinking of problem contex)


3/33

TODAYSLESSON: A SYSTEMOFSYSTEM

METHODOLOGIES

Chapter 2: A Systems of System

Methodologies

focus on the historical developmentof systems and its application.


4/33

A SYSTEMOFSYSTEMMETHODOLOGIES

Few subsystems involved

Highly structured interactions

Tend not to change much overtime

Relatively unaffected by theindependent actions of their

parts or

by environmental influences

SYSTEMS

SIMPLE

COMPLEXLarge number of subsystems involved

More loosely structured interactions

The outcome of which is not predetermined

Adapt and evolve over time as they are

affected by their own purposeful parts and

by the turbulent environments in which they

exist.

PARTICIPANTS

UNITARY PLURALIST COERCIVEHave similar values,

beliefs and interest

They are share

common purposes and

are all involved,

in one way or another,

in decisions-making

about how to realize

their agreed objectives.

Basic interest are compatible

Do not share the same values

and beliefs.

Debate, disagreement, even

conflict can take place to

found accommodations and

compromises.

Have few interest in common

Free to express them

Conflicting values and beliefs

Compromise is not possible

and so no agreed objectives

direct action.

SIMPLE-UNITARY

COMPLEX-UNITARY

SIMPLE-PLURALIST

COMPLEX-COERCIVECOMPLEX-PLURALIST

SIMPLE-COERCIVE


5/33

5. SYSTEMSMETHODOLOGIESRELATEDTOPROBLEMCONTEXTS

SYSTEMS

SIMPLE

COMPLEX

PARTICIPANTS

UNITARY PLURALIST COERCIVE

Hard Systems

Thinking-They Take it for granted assume simple-unitary

-that problem

contexts are simple-unitary in

character and recommend

intervening accordingly.

-Concern in pursuit of a

known goal.

Move down the

vertical axis

-Vast numbers of relevant variables

-Myriad of interactions

-Impossible to mathematic model.

-Structuralize approach enables to determine

at a deeper level, what is going wrong with

present functioning of the system and learn

how to manipulate key design features sothat the system can survive and be effective

over time by continually regulating itself, and

self-organizing, as it adapts to internally and

externally generated turbulence (System

Behavior).

SYSTEM DYNAMICS

ORGANIZATIONAL CYBERNETICS (VSM)

COMPLEXITY THEORY

Move part away along

horizontal axis

-Impossible to assume easily

identifiable, agreed-on goal.

-to ensuring sufficientaccommodation between

different world views.

-to explore systematically,

compared, and contrasted

alternative perspective.

-to generate a systemic

learning process.

SOFT

SYSTEMS

THINKING

-exploring the culture

and politics of

organizations.

EMANCIPATORY

SYSTEMS

THINKING

-to see what change

is feasible andgaining commitment

from participant to

agreed courses of

action.

POSTMODREN

SYSTEMSTHINKING

- to guaranteegeneralized

improvement


6/33

PARTICIPANTSRELATIONSHIP

CHARACTERISTICS

Based on the relationship between the participating

people

Unitary Pluralist

Coercive


7/33

UNITARY

Interests

Common objectives (well integrated team)

Conflict

Rare and transient

Compatible values and beliefs

Largely agree upon ends and means

All act in accordance with agreed objectives

Power

Replaced by conceptions such as leadership and

control


8/33

PLURALIST

Interests

Diverging group interests with organization as mutualfocal point (loose coalition)

Have basic compatibility of interest

Conflict Inherent/diverge values or beliefs

Not necessarily agree, but compromise is possible & actin accordance

Power

Medium, through which conflict of interest may beresolved


9/33

COERCIVE

Interests

Oppositional and contradictory interests (rival forces)

Conflict

Inevitable and likely to lead to radical change of whole

structure Conflicting values and beliefs

No agreement possible (ends and means)

Power

Unequally distributed thus allowing domination,subjugation and so on


10/33

SYSTEMCOMPLEXITY(ELEMENTS)

Simple System

Small number of elements

Few interactions

Attributes are predetermined

Interaction are highlyorganized

Well defined laws governbehavior

System does not evolved overtime

Sub-systems does not pursuetheir own goals

Unaffected by behavioralinfluence

Largely closed to environment

Complex System

Large number of elements

Many interactions

Attributes are NOTpredetermined

Interaction are looselyorganized

There are probabilistic inbehavior

System evolved over time

Sub-systems are purposefuland generate their own goals

Affected by behavioralinfluence

Largely open to environment


11/33

PROBLEMCONTEXT

Participants Relationship

Unitary

Pluralist

Coercive

System Complexity

Simple

Complex


12/33

SIMPLE-UNITARY

Methodologies:

Operational Research

System Analysis

System Engineering

Assumptions:

Problem solver can

easily establish

objectives

Little or no dispute overthese objectives (unitary)

Approach:

Quantitative or highly

structured model to

simulate performance

scenarios under differentoperational conditions

Machine/Pre-Systems

Metaphors


13/33

SIMPLE -UNITARY

SYSTEMS

SIMPLE

COMPLEX

PARTICIPANTS


SIMPLE-UNITARY

COMPLEX-UNITARY

SIMPLE-PLURALIST


SIMPLE-COERCIVE

Operational

Research

System Analysis

System

Engineering

Machine/Pre-

Systems

Metaphors


14/33

COMPLEX-UNITARY

Methodologies: Viable System

Diagnosis

System Dynamics

General System Theory Socio-Technical System

Thinking

Contingency Theory

Assumptions:

General agreementabout the goals despitethe open-ness of thesystem

Approach: The organization is seen

as an organism adaptingto environment (OrganicMetaphors)

And it is actively learningjust as brain proactivelyresponse to theenvironment (Neuro-Cybernetic Metaphors)


15/33

COMPLEXUNITARY: METHODOLOGY

SYSTEMS

SIMPLE

COMPLEX

PARTICIPANTS


SIMPLE-UNITARY

COMPLEX-UNITARY

SIMPLE-PLURALIST


SIMPLE-COERCIVE

Operational

Research

System Analysis

System

Engineering

System Dynamics

Machine/Pre-

Systems

Metaphors

Viable System

Diagnosis

General System Theory

Socio-Technical SystemThinking

Contingency Theory

Organic/ neurocybernethic

Metaphors


16/33

SIMPLE-PLURALIST

Methodologies:

Social System Design

Strategic Assumption

Surfacing and Testing

Assumptions: Primarily caused by

disagreements among

participants (about

goals)

Other problem relatively

insignificant

Approach:

A softer system

approach to deal with

the corporate culture

issues (CulturalMetaphors) in tandem

with coalition setting and

address the political

issues (Political

Metaphors)


17/33

SIMPLEPLURALIST: METHODOLOGY

SYSTEMS

SIMPLE

COMPLEX

PARTICIPANTS


SIMPLE-UNITARY

COMPLEX-UNITARY

SIMPLE-PLURALIST


SIMPLE-COERCIVE

Operational

Research

System Analysis

System

Engineering

System Dynamics

Machine/Pre-

Systems

Metaphors

Viable System

Diagnosis



Contingency Theory


Metaphors

Social System

Design

Strategic

Assumption

Surfacing and

Testing

Cultural/political

Methapors


18/33

COMPLEX-PLURALIST

Methodologies: Interactive Planning

Soft SystemMethodologies

Assumptions: Lack of agreement about

goals and objectivesamong participants, butgenuine compromise isachievable

The system is complex(multi elements & open)

Approach: Be sensitive with the

cultural issues oforganization (CulturalMetaphors) & ensure to

achieve coalition Acknowledgment of the

organism-ness oforganization (OrganicMetaphors)

Proactively respond andlearn from experience(Neuro-CyberneticMetaphors)


19/33

COMPLEXPLURALIST: METHODOLOGY

SYSTEMS

SIMPLE

COMPLEX

PARTICIPANTS


SIMPLE-UNITARY

COMPLEX-UNITARY

SIMPLE-PLURALIST


SIMPLE-COERCIVE

Operational

Research

System Analysis

System

Engineering

System Dynamics

Machine/Pre-

Systems

Metaphors

Viable System

Diagnosis



Contingency Theory


Metaphors

Social System

Design

Strategic

Assumption

Surfacing and

Testing

Cultural/political

Methapors

InteractivePlanning


Cultural/organic/

neurocybernethic

Methapors


20/33

SIMPLE-COERCIVE

Methodologies: Critical System

Heuristics

Assumptions:

There are severepolitical problem withreal difference in valuesand beliefs

Properly manage debateis important

Sources of power fromdifferent participants canbe easily identify (thussimple)

Approach: Prison Metaphor (part of

Political Metaphors) withindept politicalperspective of the

situation


21/33

SIMPLECOERCIVE: METHODOLOGY

SYSTEMS

SIMPLE

COMPLEX

PARTICIPANTS


SIMPLE-UNITARY

COMPLEX-UNITARY

SIMPLE-PLURALIST


SIMPLE-COERCIVE

Operational

Research

System Analysis

System

Engineering

System Dynamics

Machine/Pre-

Systems

Metaphors

Viable System

Diagnosis



Contingency Theory


Metaphors

Social System

Design

Strategic

Assumption

Surfacing and

Testing

Cultural/political

Methapors

InteractivePlanning


Cultural/organic/

neurocybernethic

Methapors

CriticalSystemHeuristics

TeamSyntegrity

Political

Methapors


22/33

COMPLEXCOERCIVE: METHODOLOGY

SYSTEMS

SIMPLE

COMPLEX

PARTICIPANTS


SIMPLE-UNITARY

COMPLEX-UNITARY

SIMPLE-PLURALIST


SIMPLE-COERCIVE

Operational

Research

System Analysis

System

Engineering

System Dynamics

Machine/Pre-

Systems

Metaphors

Viable System

Diagnosis



Contingency Theory


Metaphors

Social System

Design

Strategic

Assumption

Surfacing and

Testing

Cultural/political

Methapors

InteractivePlanning


Cultural/organic/

neurocybernethic

Methapors

CriticalSystemHeuristics

TeamSyntegrity

Political

Methapors

PostModernApproach


23/33

SOSM (SYSTEMOFSYSTEM

METHODOLOGY):

ParticipantsUnitary Plural Coercive

Systems

Simple

Type A

(Hard System

Thinking, Systems

Dynamic,

Organizational

Cybernetics,

Complexity

Theory)

Type B

(SAST,

Interactive

Planning and

SSM)

Type C

(Critical

System

Heuristic,

Team

Syntegrity)

Complex

Type D

(Post Modern

Systems

Thinking)

SOFT

SYSTEMSTHINKING

Improving goal

seeking and viability

Exploring

purpose

Ensuring

Fairness

Promoting

diversity


24/33

TYPEA: HARD SYSTEM ( SIMPLE-

COMPLEX UNITARY)

Type A: App roaches for Improv ing goal seeking

and viabi l i ty

Primary orientation: improve organizational

performance in terms of how well the organization

does it task and respond to change in its environment.

(hard System thinking, Systems Dynamic,

Organizational Cybernetics, and Complexity

Theory) can help goal seeking and viability

through increasing the efficiency and efficacy oforganizational processes and structures.

TYPE A HARD SYSTEMS THINKING


25/33

TYPE A: HARD SYSTEMS THINKING

( SIMPLE-COMPLEX UNITARY)

System Methodology: bring together various systems ideas and

techniques in an organized way and employ them to try to improve aproblem situation.

Some of systems methodology (began around the second worldwar):

Operational Research (OR)

Systems Analysis (SA)

System Engineering (SE)

Checkland (1981)

Similarity between

the approaches of

OR, SA and SEL

A

B

E

L

LE

D

Hard Systems Thinking


26/33

7. IMPROVINGGOALSEEKINGANDVIABILITY(TYPEA)

Assuming: participants are in a unitary relationships so that goals are already clear orcan easily determined.

Efforts: concentrated on the vertical axis of the grid of the problem contexts.

To optimizethe system of concern to achieve its goal

Hard systems approach: to find the best means of getting from the presentstate of the system to some optimum state. Mathematical modeling isoften seen as crucial to the success of this.

Reconfigure it to enable it to deal with internally and externally generated

complexity and turbulence (structuralize). System Dynamics: sees the key to system behavior as lying in the

interrelationships between the positive and negative feedback loops withinwhich important systems elements are bound.

Organizational Cybernetics (Viable System Model): try to manage issuesof complexity and turbulence in cybernetics perceptions.

Complexity Theory: to recognize patterns occurring in the way systems

develop over time and then identify points of leverage that can exploit toensure desirable system behavior.

Measures of success:

Efficiency (are the minimum resources used in goal seeking?)

Efficacy (do the means employed enable us to realize our goals?)


27/33

TYPEB: SOFT SYSTEM THINKING

(SIMPLE-COMPLEX PLURALIST)

Type B: App roaches for explor ing pu rposes

Primary orientation: to evaluate different aims and

objectives, promote mutual understanding, ensure

accommodation is reached and gain commitment to

purposes.

(Strategic Assumptions Surfacing Testing

(SAST), Interactive Planningand Soft System

Methodology (SSM)).


28/33

8.EXPLORINGPURPOSE(TYPEB)

Assuming: participants are in a pluralist relationships so they have differentvalues, beliefs and philosophies.

Efforts: concentrated on the horizontal axis of the grid of the problem contexts. To deal with pluralism

Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST) : Concentrates attention on the different assumptions, multiple

perspective and divers world views. Articulate a dialectical learning process of thesis, antithesis and

synthesis. Interactive Planning:

Seeks to win stakeholders approval for commitment to an idealizeddesign.

To ensures that the maximum creativity is brought to the process ofdissolving the current mess the stakeholders are confronted byreplacing it with a future they all desire.

Soft Systems Methodology: To institutionalize continuous learning by seeking and challenging

accommodations between the world views of different stakeholdersconcerned with a problem situation.

Measures of success: Effectiveness (are we actually achieving what we want to achieve?)


29/33

TYPEC: SIMPLE-COERCIVE

Type C: App roaches for ensu r ing fai rness

Orientation: reflected in a primary concern with

emancipating and empowering disadvantaged

groups.

(Critical System Heuristics (CSH)and Team

Syntegrity).


30/33

9. ENSURINGFAIRNESS(TYPEC)

Assuming: participants are in a coercive relationships so they be able tocontribute to decision-making and action.

Efforts: ventured along on the horizontal axis of the grid of the problemcontexts into areas where the value of soft systems thinking is threatened bylack of fairness or by coercion.

To support those disadvantaged by present systemic arrangements sothat they can make their full contribution to systems design and receivethe benefits to which they are entitled from the operation of the system ofconcern ( emancipator systems thinking) .

Critical Systems Heuristic and Team Syntegrity :

Concern from differing perspective.

To ensure the full participation of those who are affected bysystems designs who might not otherwise be involved.

Creation of a democratic milieu in which outcomes result fromconsensus and the better argument rather than power, status

and/or hierarchy. Measures of success:

Empowerment (are all individuals and groups able to contribute todecision-making and action?)

Emancipation (are disadvantaged groups being assisted to get whatthey are entitled do?)


31/33

TYPED: COMPLEX-COERCIVE

Type D: Approaches for p romot ing d ivers i ty

(Post Modern Systems Thinking)

This approach seeks to make space for suppressed

voices to be heard and hopes to unleash creativityand a sense of fun by engaging peoples emotions.


32/33

10. PROMOTINGDIVERSITY(TYPED)

Assuming: see the immense complexity and coercion

that are intertwined in all problem situations. Efforts: skeptical of appeal to any universal guarantees

for the success of action.

To justify and evaluate their interventions on basis of

exception (what otherwise marginalized viewpoints have wemanaged to bring to the fore?) and emotion (does the action

that is now being proposed feel appropriate and good in the

local circumstances in which we are acting?)

Postmodern Systems Thinking :

Less well established.


33/33

THANKS

week2-sosm

Documents