A SYSTEM OF SYSTEM METHODOLOGIES

Santi Novani, PhD

LAST WEEK REVIEW: NATURE OF SYSTEMS
AND METAPHORS
Chapter 1: Nature of systems
Present the most important systems
concept and Methapors (the way of
thinking of problem contex)

TODAYS LESSON: A SYSTEM OF SYSTEM
METHODOLOGIES
Chapter 2: A Systems of System
Methodologies
focus on the historical development
of systems and its application.

A SYSTEM OF SYSTEM METHODOLOGIES
Few subsystems involved
Highly structured interactions
Tend not to change much over
time
Relatively unaffected by the
independent actions of their
parts or
by environmental influences

S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

SIMPLE
COMPLEX
Large 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 COERCIVE
Have 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-COERCIVE COMPLEX-PLURALIST
SIMPLE-COERCIVE
5. SYSTEMS METHODOLOGIES RELATED TO PROBLEM CONTEXTS
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

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 so
that 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 sufficient
accommodation 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 and
gaining commitment
from participant to
agreed courses of
action.

POSTMODREN
SYSTEMS
THINKING
- to guarantee
generalized
improvement

PARTICIPANTS RELATIONSHIP
CHARACTERISTICS
Based on the relationship between the participating
people

Unitary
Pluralist
Coercive
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
PLURALIST
Interests
Diverging group interests with organization as mutual
focal point (loose coalition)
Have basic compatibility of interest
Conflict
Inherent/diverge values or beliefs
Not necessarily agree, but compromise is possible & act
in accordance
Power
Medium, through which conflict of interest may be
resolved
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
SYSTEM COMPLEXITY (ELEMENTS)
Simple System
Small number of elements
Few interactions
Attributes are predetermined
Interaction are highly
organized
Well defined laws govern
behavior
System does not evolved over
time
Sub-systems does not pursue
their own goals
Unaffected by behavioral
influence
Largely closed to environment
Complex System
Large number of elements
Many interactions
Attributes are NOT
predetermined
Interaction are loosely
organized
There are probabilistic in
behavior
System evolved over time
Sub-systems are purposeful
and generate their own goals
Affected by behavioral
influence
Largely open to environment
PROBLEM CONTEXT
Participants Relationship
Unitary
Pluralist
Coercive
System Complexity
Simple
Complex
SIMPLE-UNITARY
Methodologies:
Operational Research
System Analysis
System Engineering
Assumptions:
Problem solver can
easily establish
objectives
Little or no dispute over
these objectives (unitary)
Approach:
Quantitative or highly
structured model to
simulate performance
scenarios under different
operational conditions
Machine/Pre-Systems
Metaphors
SIMPLE -UNITARY
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

SIMPLE
COMPLEX
PARTICIPANTS
UNITARY PLURALIST COERCIVE
SIMPLE-UNITARY
COMPLEX-UNITARY
SIMPLE-PLURALIST
COMPLEX-COERCIVE COMPLEX-PLURALIST
SIMPLE-COERCIVE
Operational
Research
System Analysis
System
Engineering
Machine/Pre-
Systems
Metaphors
COMPLEX-UNITARY
Methodologies:
Viable System
Diagnosis
System Dynamics
General System Theory
Socio-Technical System
Thinking
Contingency Theory
Assumptions:
General agreement
about the goals despite
the open-ness of the
system
Approach:
The organization is seen
as an organism adapting
to environment (Organic
Metaphors)
And it is actively learning
just as brain proactively
response to the
environment (Neuro-
Cybernetic Metaphors)
COMPLEX UNITARY: METHODOLOGY
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

SIMPLE
COMPLEX
PARTICIPANTS
UNITARY PLURALIST COERCIVE
SIMPLE-UNITARY
COMPLEX-UNITARY
SIMPLE-PLURALIST
COMPLEX-COERCIVE COMPLEX-PLURALIST
SIMPLE-COERCIVE
Operational
Research
System Analysis
System
Engineering
System Dynamics
Machine/Pre-
Systems
Metaphors
Viable System
Diagnosis
General System Theory
Socio-Technical System
Thinking
Contingency Theory
Organic/ neurocybernethic
Metaphors
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 (Cultural
Metaphors) in tandem
with coalition setting and
address the political
issues (Political
Metaphors)
SIMPLE PLURALIST: METHODOLOGY
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

SIMPLE
COMPLEX
PARTICIPANTS
UNITARY PLURALIST COERCIVE
SIMPLE-UNITARY
COMPLEX-UNITARY
SIMPLE-PLURALIST
COMPLEX-COERCIVE COMPLEX-PLURALIST
SIMPLE-COERCIVE
Operational
Research
System Analysis
System
Engineering
System Dynamics
Machine/Pre-
Systems
Metaphors
Viable System
Diagnosis
General System Theory
Socio-Technical System
Thinking
Contingency Theory
Organic/ neurocybernethic
Metaphors
Social System
Design
Strategic
Assumption
Surfacing and
Testing
Cultural/political
Methapors
COMPLEX-PLURALIST
Methodologies:
Interactive Planning
Soft System
Methodologies
Assumptions:
Lack of agreement about
goals and objectives
among participants, but
genuine compromise is
achievable
The system is complex
(multi elements & open)
Approach:
Be sensitive with the
cultural issues of
organization (Cultural
Metaphors) & ensure to
achieve coalition
Acknowledgment of the
organism-ness of
organization (Organic
Metaphors)
Proactively respond and
learn from experience
(Neuro-Cybernetic
Metaphors)
COMPLEX PLURALIST: METHODOLOGY
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

SIMPLE
COMPLEX
PARTICIPANTS
UNITARY PLURALIST COERCIVE
SIMPLE-UNITARY
COMPLEX-UNITARY
SIMPLE-PLURALIST
COMPLEX-COERCIVE COMPLEX-PLURALIST
SIMPLE-COERCIVE
Operational
Research
System Analysis
System
Engineering
System Dynamics
Machine/Pre-
Systems
Metaphors
Viable System
Diagnosis
General System Theory
Socio-Technical System
Thinking
Contingency Theory
Organic/ neurocybernethic
Metaphors
Social System
Design
Strategic
Assumption
Surfacing and
Testing
Cultural/political
Methapors
Interactive
Planning
Soft System
Methodologies
Cultural/organic/
neurocybernethic
Methapors
SIMPLE-COERCIVE
Methodologies:
Critical System
Heuristics
Assumptions:
There are severe
political problem with
real difference in values
and beliefs
Properly manage debate
is important
Sources of power from
different participants can
be easily identify (thus
simple)
Approach:
Prison Metaphor (part of
Political Metaphors) with
indept political
perspective of the
situation
SIMPLE COERCIVE: METHODOLOGY
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

SIMPLE
COMPLEX
PARTICIPANTS
UNITARY PLURALIST COERCIVE
SIMPLE-UNITARY
COMPLEX-UNITARY
SIMPLE-PLURALIST
COMPLEX-COERCIVE COMPLEX-PLURALIST
SIMPLE-COERCIVE
Operational
Research
System Analysis
System
Engineering
System Dynamics
Machine/Pre-
Systems
Metaphors
Viable System
Diagnosis
General System Theory
Socio-Technical System
Thinking
Contingency Theory
Organic/ neurocybernethic
Metaphors
Social System
Design
Strategic
Assumption
Surfacing and
Testing
Cultural/political
Methapors
Interactive
Planning
Soft System
Methodologies
Cultural/organic/
neurocybernethic
Methapors
Critical
System
Heuristics
Team
Syntegrity
Political
Methapors
COMPLEX COERCIVE: METHODOLOGY
S
Y
S
T
E
M
S

SIMPLE
COMPLEX
PARTICIPANTS
UNITARY PLURALIST COERCIVE
SIMPLE-UNITARY
COMPLEX-UNITARY
SIMPLE-PLURALIST
COMPLEX-COERCIVE COMPLEX-PLURALIST
SIMPLE-COERCIVE
Operational
Research
System Analysis
System
Engineering
System Dynamics
Machine/Pre-
Systems
Metaphors
Viable System
Diagnosis
General System Theory
Socio-Technical System
Thinking
Contingency Theory
Organic/ neurocybernethic
Metaphors
Social System
Design
Strategic
Assumption
Surfacing and
Testing
Cultural/political
Methapors
Interactive
Planning
Soft System
Methodologies
Cultural/organic/
neurocybernethic
Methapors
Critical
System
Heuristics
Team
Syntegrity
Political
Methapors
Post
Modern
Approach
SOSM (SYSTEM OF SYSTEM
METHODOLOGY):
Participants
Unitary 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
SYSTEMS
THINKING
Improving goal
seeking and viability
Exploring
purpose
Ensuring
Fairness
Promoting
diversity
TYPE A: HARD SYSTEM ( SIMPLE-
COMPLEX UNITARY)
Type A: Approaches for Improving goal seeking
and viability
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 of
organizational processes and structures.

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 a
problem situation.
Some of systems methodology (began around the second world
war):

Operational Research (OR)
Systems Analysis (SA)
System Engineering (SE)
Checkland (1981)
Similarity between
the approaches of
OR, SA and SE
L
A
B
E
L
L
E
D

Hard Systems Thinking
7. IMPROVING GOAL SEEKING AND VIABILITY (TYPE A)
Assuming: participants are in a unitary relationships so that goals are already clear or
can easily determined.
Efforts: concentrated on the vertical axis of the grid of the problem contexts.
To optimize the system of concern to achieve its goal
Hard systems approach: to find the best means of getting from the present
state of the system to some optimum state. Mathematical modeling is
often 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 within
which important systems elements are bound.
Organizational Cybernetics (Viable System Model): try to manage issues
of 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 to
ensure 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?)




TYPE B: SOFT SYSTEM THINKING
(SIMPLE-COMPLEX PLURALIST)
Type B: Approaches for exploring purposes
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 Planning and Soft System
Methodology (SSM)).

8.EXPLORING PURPOSE (TYPE B)
Assuming: participants are in a pluralist relationships so they have different
values, 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 idealized
design.
To ensures that the maximum creativity is brought to the process of
dissolving the current mess the stakeholders are confronted by
replacing 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 stakeholders
concerned with a problem situation.
Measures of success:
Effectiveness (are we actually achieving what we want to achieve?)
TYPE C: SIMPLE-COERCIVE
Type C: Approaches for ensuring fairness
Orientation: reflected in a primary concern with
emancipating and empowering disadvantaged
groups.
(Critical System Heuristics (CSH) and Team
Syntegrity).

9. ENSURING FAIRNESS (TYPE C)
Assuming: participants are in a coercive relationships so they be able to
contribute to decision-making and action.
Efforts: ventured along on the horizontal axis of the grid of the problem
contexts into areas where the value of soft systems thinking is threatened by
lack of fairness or by coercion.
To support those disadvantaged by present systemic arrangements so
that they can make their full contribution to systems design and receive
the benefits to which they are entitled from the operation of the system of
concern ( emancipator systems thinking) .
Critical Systems Heuristic and Team Syntegrity :
Concern from differing perspective.
To ensure the full participation of those who are affected by
systems designs who might not otherwise be involved.
Creation of a democratic milieu in which outcomes result from
consensus and the better argument rather than power, status
and/or hierarchy.
Measures of success:
Empowerment (are all individuals and groups able to contribute to
decision-making and action?)
Emancipation (are disadvantaged groups being assisted to get what
they are entitled do?)
TYPE D: COMPLEX-COERCIVE
Type D: Approaches for promoting diversity
(Post Modern Systems Thinking)
This approach seeks to make space for suppressed
voices to be heard and hopes to unleash creativity
and a sense of fun by engaging peoples emotions.

10. PROMOTING DIVERSITY (TYPE D)
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 we
managed 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.

THANKS