منتديات طلاب الجامعة العربية المفتوحة

T306-P2

THE SSM. HSM, VSM

Combining the SS-Method, VSM methods and HS-Method

Given an apparently complex, unstructured organizational situation / The SS-Method can be very useful for / Determining what’s going on, and what it might be effective (worthwhile) to do about it.
Given some agreed idea of what it might be effective (worthwhile) to do / The VSM methods can be very useful for / Designing an efficacious organizational structure for doing it well.
Given and efficacious organization structure / The HS-method can be very useful for / Measuring and improving the structure’s operational efficiency.

The Soft Systems Method is useful for:

  • Determining what’s going on and what actions can be taken to improve it
  • Useful for the use in ill-structured or ‘messy’ situations, where people are involved and where there is no clear view of the problem or objectives (neither the means nor the ends are clear)
  • It takes multiple perspectives into account and makes no assumptions about systems existing in the ‘real world’.
  • It is an interpretative ‘process’ method, useful where objectives are all intents and purposes non-existent.

The strengths and weaknesses of SS-method

There are many numbers of good reasons for the SS-method being considered as a systems approach. These are some of them:

  • SS-method deals with contexts as wholeness.
  • SS-method invites multiple perspectives on the problem context.
  • SS-method defines a system as a personal mental construct.
  • The methodology is fundamentally concerned with relationships within contexts.

Like all systems methods, SS-method can be treated in a cynical manner which renders it non-systemic in effect. From my perspective as a practitioner making use of SS-method I would suggest the following as my top two 'spoiling' tendencies in any SS-method exploration:

  • Applying the approach in a linear and mechanistic fashion, expecting each element to follow from the first without the need to justify how each follows from the previous and without due levels of iteration at each a stage.
  • Using the approach as a means to justify a 'solution' which has been pre-arranged by the parties prior to the analysis.

Stage 1: The problem situation unstructuredStage 2: Rich pictures, issues and primary tasksStage 3: Relevant systems and their root definitionsCATWOE checklist

C stands for ‘customers of the system’.

A stands for ‘actors’, meaning who (not individuals necessarily but types of people) would actually carry out the activities envisaged in the notional system being defined.

T stands for ‘transformation processes– what the system does to its input(s) in order to transform them into output(s).

W stands for our old friend, Weltanschauung or world view.

O stands for ‘owner(s)’– who have sufficient power over the system to cause it to cease to exist

E stands for ‘environmental constraints’.

Stage 4: Conceptual modelsStage 5: Comparison of conceptual model with rich pictureStage 6: Debate with stakeholders involved in the situationStage 7: Implementation of agreed changes

3.3 Criticisms of the soft systems method

The main criticism leveled at the seven stage approach of the SS-method is directed at its lack of comprehensiveness, particularly at the later stages of the analysis and design process. This has led critics to argue that it is not a method that takes the analyst through a complete project life cycle.

Although the role of the analyst is set out more forcefully than for the HS-method, there can be an implicit assumption (by the analyst, the person who commissioned the analysis, or the stakeholders) that the analyst is a neutral facilitator and not an integral part of the situation.

In practice some users of the SS-method have acted little differently to the straight external analyst role most often seen in hard methods while others have immersed themselves in the situation and worked extremely closely with all the participants.

Weaknesses

To loss sight of the technology

To lose focus on data issues

To be unable to cope with the functionality of IS

To get side-tracked into non-relevant issues

To lose the ability to keep up with the rate of change.

The use of the Hard Systems Methods:

  • It can be very useful for measuring and improving the structure’s operational efficiency
  • It can be used where objectives are agreed and clear, where perspectives have become unitary
  • It allows choice to be made on the basis of analysed information.
  • It is an iterative method for investigating situations and problems and has its own structure
  • It assumes that the real world is made out of systems and that the methods are themselves systemic.

Stages of the HSM:

  1. Systems description (where are we now?)
  2. Objectives and constraints (where do we want to go and what might stop us?)
  3. Measures of performance (how will we know when we have got there?)
  4. routes to objectives (How do we get there)
  5. Modeling
  6. Evaluation
  7. Choices of routes Implementation

Criticisms of HS-methods انتقادات الهارد سيستم

  • Failure to meet the needs of management
  • Unambitious systems design
  • Instability, Inflexibility
  • User dissatisfaction
  • Problems with documentation
  • Lack of control
  • Incomplete systems
  • Application backlog
  • Maintenance overload
  • Problems with the ideal approach

Main objections to Hard System Thinking الاعتراضات على استخدام الهارد سيستم

  • Treats all problems in the same way (hard structured problems / soft unstructured problems
  • Emphasizes a scientific (logic and rationality) approach to problem solving rather thanintuition or experience. It assumes the world is very clear out there, all we need is modify it to suit our needs
  • The core of HS thinking is mathematical, and this

Limits the problem which can be addressed using these techniques

Limits considerations to those elements in a problem which can be manipulated using quantitative techniques

Leads to assumptions that somehow mathematical techniques could help understand and balance all equations: human, social, economic and political within an organization. They do not pay attention to the social or organizational aspects of the situation

  • Always emphasizes on linear problem solving

There is a problem, it is solved; another problem arises, it is solved and so on

Leads to a reactive approach to management as opposed to an ongoing developmental approach which stresses proactive attitudes

  • There is a dichotomy between the client and the expert which can act as a barrier

The expert is seen, or wants to be seen, as outside the situation looking in objectively

Once involved, the analyst interacts within the system and brings his or her own set of experiences, knowledge, prejudices and background to bear on the situation

  • Attempts to use HS analysis as an aid to public policy decision-making have failed, or even made matters worse

The Viable System Model
There are two modes of use:
Mode 1- Diagnosing the structure of an existing organization. Comparing the organization with the VSM and reporting on the differences and similarities. This mode uses the VSM as a template.
Mode 2- Generating a design for a new organizational structure. This can follow on form the analysis carried out under Mode1, or it can be done for a new organization.

1

Prepared By Mujtahidah