Change Management

Systems Thinking

(Adapted, with permission, from Iles & Sutherland (2001)

Underpinning many of the recent developments in this area is systems thinking. This originated in the 1920s within several disciplines, notably biology and engineering, and grew out of the observation that there were many aspects which scientific analysis could not explore. Whereas scientific method - summarised by Popper (1972) as the three Rs: reduction, repeatability and refutation - increases our knowledge and understanding by breaking things down into their constituent parts and exploring the properties of these parts, systems thinking explores the properties which exist once the parts have been combined into a whole.

A system is a set of elements connected together which form a whole, thereby possessing properties of the whole rather than of its component parts (Checkland, 1981). Activity within a system is the result of the influence of one element on another. This influence is called feedback and can be positive (amplifying) or negative (balancing) in nature. Systems are not chains of linear cause-and-effect relationships but complex networks of interrelationships.

Systems are described as closed or open. Closed systems are completely autonomous and independent of what is going on around them. Open systems exchange materials, energy and information with their environment. The systems of interest in managing change can all be characterised as open systems.

In terms of understanding organisations, systems thinking suggests that issues, events, forces and incidents should not be viewed as isolated phenomena but seen as interconnected, interdependent components of a complex entity.

Applied to change management, systems theory highlights the following points.

• A system is made up of related and interdependent parts, so that any system must be viewed as a whole.
• A system cannot be considered in isolation from its environment.
• A system which is in equilibrium will change only if some type of energy is applied.
• Players within a system have a view of that system's function and purpose and players' views may be very different from each other.

For a critique of systems approaches see, for example, Stacey (2003).

The Hard Systems methodology is used where the degree of clarity and stability is high and the problem is clearly defined. Soft Systems methodology is used when there is little or no agreement about the problem.

Hard Systems Methodology

Hard Systems promote a sequential, staged approach to change. The stages are numbered and the sequence provides the orderliness, characteristic to this methodology. Going back to a previous stage and re-iteration is possible, if environmental influences invalidate certain assumptions; subsequent work has introduced an element of uncertainty, which hadn't been taken into account in the beginning.

Soft Systems Methodology

Developed by Peter Checkland at Lancaster University, this methodology arose out of attempts to apply systems engineering principles ("hard" systems theory) to business problems. When applying systems engineering to what Checkland called "human activity systems" (people working together to achieve something), Checkland found a number of problems:

• Organisation goals were matters of controversy; (organisational goals, set by top management, were assumed to be embraced by all members of the organisation, but this is usually not the case).
• Formal methods usually begin with a problem statement; (Checkland found that fixing the problem too early made investigators unlikely to see different, possibly more basic, problems).
• The method itself restricted what could be found out; (if we expect the organisation to be describable by the interaction among a number of clearly bounded subsystems then that will happen - we will see in the organisation a reflection of our methods).
  
  To overcome these problems Checkland eventually proposed the Soft Systems methodology, and based it on the following tenets:
• Problems do not have an existence that is independent of the people who perceive them.
• Solutions are what people perceive to be solutions.
• People perceive problems or situations differently because they have different beliefs about what the situation is and what it should be.
• Problems are often linked to 'messes' (Ackoff, 1974).
• The analyst, researcher, consultant or manager trying to solve the problem is an integral part of it.

The stages of the soft systems approach:

• 1. Problem expression. People who perceive there to be a problem cannot be certain as to what it is, and keep an open mind until the analysis is done. Being unsystematic at this stage is considered to be a virtue. Analogies and models from other fields (ranging from politics to engineering and culture) can be looked at. The usual creative techniques such as brainstorming can be used at this stage, as well as checklists.

• 2. The situation analysed. Developing a rich picture, comprising of all the elements that people think are involved) in the problem, their purposes, desires, fears, usually by using think-bubbles, just like in cartoons...Rich pictures include more environmental detail than most diagrams (human activities, like processes, cross organisational boundaries). And they show how and whose interests agree or conflict. When analysed, issues and key tasks emerge.

• 3. Relevant systems and root definitions. The issues and key tasks, which surfaced in the rich picture, become the basis for defining relevant systems. It has been described like a very brief mission statement, the minimum we can agree on, but it must describe our real activity. The root definition defines what is agreed and what is still up for discussion, and that many important (but not yet agreed) things might not be mentioned. 'We need to be sure that so far everyone is still with us'. Achieving a truly agreed root definition (at least for the time being) is probably the most beneficial part of SSM.
• 4. Conceptual model. At this stage, those involved model their 'ideal' system to do the job. Criteria for choosing the best one is agreed. Checkland suggests as criteria five Es: efficacy (will it work at all), efficiency (will it work with minimum resources), effectiveness (does it contribute to the enterprise), ethicality (is it moral) and elegance (is it beautiful).
• 5. Comparison of steps 2 and 4. The conceptual model is then used for comparison with the current system. What is stopping us do things the "ideal" way? Why do we do things the way we do them? How do we measure up to the five E's criteria? Did the results confirm our intuition? Using the knowledge gained there, to map the effects of the proposed changes on stakeholders.
• 6. Debate of feasible and desirable changes. Building on step 5, through debate, an agenda, comprising of feasible and desirable changes can be put together, and opinions about the root problems can be changed.
• 7. Action. Finally, the agreed changes need to be implemented. Checkland sees implementation as a new human activity, which reveals new compromises, thus bringing us to square 1 - the problem expression. It is unlikely that the final outcome will match the agreed change exactly. SSM has a philosophy of continual improvement, but the hope is that some of the issues agreed in the early stages will not resurface, that discussions arising during implementation will be more focussed as the participants' skills in SSM and understanding of the enterprise increase.

SSM is a way of securing commitment and taking into account a variety of interests. SSM is gaining popularity, but it's had its share of criticism as well. Some feel that the open ended nature of SSM makes it difficult to manage and difficult to evaluate whether a SSM project is successful or not; open discussions of problems and needs by managers and employees, may empower employees, but, are the outcomes of the discussions not influenced by power and politics? And, is it the case that what's good for the organisation is good for the individual? And, does everyone in the organisation have choice or can everyone act on their choices?

SSM is depicted in the following figure.

Add Diagram

SSM was originally developed to allow the use of a systems approach to explore social reality, rather than as a means of effecting change, so according to its own aims it has been successful. It is used as part of other approaches, for example TQM and BPR.

Use

SSM has been widely used across sectors, although in a 30-year retrospective of the methodology, Checkland and Scholes (1999) note that its use has sometimes been selective, that is, some of its ideas are adopted while others are not.

References

Ackoff, R. L (1974) Redesigning the Future. A Systems Approach to Societal Problems. p21. Wiley, New York.

Checkland, P. (1981 Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. New York: Wiley

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J (1999) Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: Wiley.

Iles and Sutherland, NCCSDO (2001) Managing Change in the NHS: Organisational Change. www.sdo.lshtm.ac.uk

Popper, K. (1972) Objective knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stacey, R. D. (2003) Strategic Management of Organisational Dynamics: The Challenge of Complexity. Prentice Hall.