Checkland (1985) Systems Thinking

8/18/2019 Checkland (1985) Systems Thinking

1/13

From Optimizing to Learning: A Development of Systems Thinking for the 1990s

Peter Checkland

The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 36, No. 9, Systems Thinking in Action.Conference at Henly. April 1985. (Sep., 1985), pp. 757-767.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0160-5682%28198509%2936%3A9%3C757%3AFOTLAD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

The Journal of the Operational Research Society is currently published by Operational Research Society.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ors.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers,and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community takeadvantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

http://www.jstor.orgThu Aug 23 01:38:36 2007

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0160-5682%28198509%2936%3A9%3C757%3AFOTLAD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Lhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ors.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/journals/ors.htmlhttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.htmlhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0160-5682%28198509%2936%3A9%3C757%3AFOTLAD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L


2/13

J Opl Rrs. Soc Vol. 36, No. 9, pp. 757-767, 1985 0160-5682185 $3.00 0.00

Printed

in

Great

Britain. All rights reserved

Copyright

1985

Operational

Research

Society Ltd

From Optimizing to Learning:

A

Development of Systems Thinking

for the 1990s

PETER CHECKLAND

University of Lancaster

In any subject concerned with rational intervention in human affairs, theory must lead to practice; but

practice is the source of theory: neither theory nor practice is prime. We can examine this 'groundless'

relation by asking what intellectual framework F is applied in what methodology M to what area of

application A'? If we do this for O.R., systems analysis, systems engineering etc., we see that F and

M

have changed d ramatica lly between the 1950s an d the 1980s, yielding the 'hard' and 'soft' traditions of

systems thinking. The 'hard' tradition, based on goal seeking, is examined in the work of Simon and

contrasted with the 'soft' tradition, based o n learning, a s exemplified in the work of Vickers an d the

development of soft systems methodology. The two are complementary, but the relat ion between them

is that the 'h ard' is a special case of 'soft ' systems thinking. This analysis mak es sense of the recent history

of management science and helps to prepare us for the 1990s.

Key

worcls

management, methodology, systems theory

INTRODUCTION

Operational research is one of those bodies of theory and practice whose concern might be

described as "rational intervention in human affairs". This concern it shares with several other

disciplines, including systems engineering,' RAND systems analysis,* soft systems methodology3

and the so-called policy science^.^ All face a more complex situation than that facing the natural

scientist, who plays his game against nature's unchanging phenomena; yet all hope to make use

of the organized rational thinking which is characteristic of the whole intellectual enterprise which

is natural science, Any approach to rational intervention in human affairs has to accept that in

studying purposeful human action and in trying to bring about change in human situations, it is

not simply a matter of setting to work to discover 'laws' governing the phenomena in question.

Autonomous human beings could, in principle, deliberately act in a way which could either confirm

or refute any supposed 'laws' of human affairs.

This means that the would-be rational intervener in human affairs cannot separate theory and

practice in the way that the natural scientist can. Such intervention requires a steady interaction

between theory and practice in a process

of

inquiry The state of the subject, or discipline, is then

best thought of as an account of the history and present state of that process. This conference on

"Systems Thinking in Action"' is an opportunity to examine some of that history and to delineate

the current state of the process. In criticizing the selection of speakers for the conference in

question, Rivett6 makes a false assumption that 'theory' and 'practice' are the concern of two

different groups of people, namely 'academics' and 'practitioners'. Both groups need to act in a

way which makes sure the assumption is false! 'Practitioners' need also to be reflective about their

actions (many are); 'academics' need also to engage in practice (many do).

The process by which O.R., systems engineering, systems analysis etc. are generated as bodies

of knowledge is shown in Figure 1 It is not as trivial a picture as it might appear. It emphasizes

the groundlessness underlying these disciplines. Theory leads to practice; but the practice is itself


3/13

Journal

of

the Operational Research Society Vol.

36

No. 9

leads to

Theory

P r a c t i c e

~nt erve nton n

h u m a n a f f a ~ r s

generates

FIG.

1.

Ground1e.r.mes.r in mu nu gc~m en t rciencc -neithcv the or y nor pruc tice is pri me .

This paper, concerne d with the recent history of attem pts rationally to intervene in hu m an affairs,

and with the present state of that art-cum-science, will propose a framework which makes sense

of the history and can also be used to examine accounts of any attempts to do O.R., systems

engineering, systems analysis etc.

U N D E R S T A N D I N G R A T I O N A L I N T E R V E N T IO N I N H U M A N A F F A I R S

Keynes suggested that people who described themselves as practical men, proud to be

uncontaminated by any kind of theory, always turned out to be the intellectual prisoners of the

theor eticia ns of yesteryear.' W heth er we agre e or no t with Keynes' asse rtion, it is useful in that

it reminds us tha t all practical action is theory-laden, in the sense th at if we observe an y appa rentl y

purposeful hum an action, we can always ask of it: Wha t intellectual framew ork would in logic

ma ke this particular action m eaningful? (Th is question is independent of whether the doer is

conscious of the deduced fram ew ork.) Thi s linking of ideas an d their use in action suggests that

it would be useful to make a distinction between, on the one hand, a basic set of ideas, and on

the other, a process (or methodology) for applying those ideas in an organized way to some

particular area of application. This gives us Figure

2 as an expansion of Figure 1. We now have

In te l lectua l

framework

F M A f r om

the use of M

F I G

2.

The organized

us

u rutional tkoziglzt.

some linked ideas in a framework F a way of applying these ideas in the methodology M and

an application area

A. A

is indicated without s harp bound aries to remind us that when A is human

affairs, the application of F through M may lead us into byways not initially expected.' Having

used M then, we may hope for, and may reflect upon what learning has been acquired, learning

about all three elements: F M and

A.

Thi s is a very general model of the organized use of ration al

thought, and applies not only t o O .R . but to applied natural science as well. Fo r example, in the

pharmaceutical industry in the 1980s, one definition of A is the search for economy of

experime ntation in seeking useful drugs; qu an tum th eory provides an well-tested in othe r fields

of science; and modern sophisticated computer graphics provides a new

M

in which models of


4/13

P.

Clzecklund-Development of Sy ste m s Thin king for the

199 s

' O P T IM I Z I N G ' : ' H A R D ' S Y S T E M S T H I N K I N G : T H E 1 95 0s A N D 1 960 s

In the years after the Second World War, when lessons from military operations were applied

to industrial companies an d governmen t agencies, a n interest in systems ideas developed in m any

fields. (That interest was signalled by the founding in 1954 of the Society for. General Sy ste ms

Research

a gro up of people interested in the application of systems thinking across the bound aries

of traditional disciplines.) Ideas about system control were generalized across disciplines in

cybernetics, the stu dy of the unde rlying logic of the cont rol of systems of any kind.9 n the language

of this paper, (Figure 2) now contained the notion of optimizing the structure and behaviour

of systems and m aintaining them in that sta te. But if this notion is to be applied to 'hum an systems',

then some concept of the nature of the latter is needed: a view has to be taken on what it is in

'hum an systems' th at can be 'engineered'. The answer adop ted in the 1950s and 1960s was: goal

seeking. I t was assumed that any human activity could be regarded as a goal-seeking system, and

the thinking which constituted and (Figure 2) could be condensed into:

define the system of concern;

define the system's objectives;

engineer the system to meet those objectives.

This has been a coherent and powerful strand of thinking in the last 30 years: it is the 'hard'

paradigm of systems

This paradigm is succinctly expressed in Ackoff's assertion written in 1957:

All p roblem s ultimately redu ce to the eva luation of the efficiency of alternative

means for a designated set of objectives .

T ha t is the belief which drives work within the 'hard' trad ition . It is the basic idea which underlies

one of the largest and most influential bodies of work in management science, that of Herbert

Simon. This example is used here because it has been the subject of recent public discussion at the

IFORS conference , O.R. 84.I2, l3

T ha t conference included a 'round -table', whose billing derived from the title of Simon's

well-known book.14 Th e discussion considered the que stion: Is th e new science of man agem ent

decision still new? Za nne tos started the rou nd- tabl e by presentin g a pap er which reviewed Simon 's

work.I5

He neatly summarized Simon's legacy as:

a theory of problem solving, programs and processes for developing intelligent

machines and approaches to the design of organisation structures for managing

complex systems .

In seeking a true science of administrative behaviour and executive decision making, Simon

shrewdly abandoned the notion of optimizing. He pointed out that the abstraction from reality

necessary to facilitate mathem atical m anipu lation of O .R . mod els runs the dan ger of convincing

the analyst th at the simplified problem was the proble m he wan ted to solve all along;I4 (p. 18) an d

in any case, such abstraction isolates problems which in fact occur in rich contexts which are

themselves part of the problem .' ' S imon and March,' n developing a behavioural theory of the

firm, used the notion of managers searching not for optimum solutions but for ones which were

good enough in the perceived situation, the search itself being

motivated by the existence of problems as indicated by gaps between performance

and goals 15 (p. 73).

Thu s, althou gh the concept of optimizing is wisely dropped in relation to h um an affairs, the core

idea underlying the search for heuristics for real-world problem solving is that of goal seeking as


5/13

Journal

of

the Operational Research Society

Vol. 36,

No.

management science. In his words:

Problem solving proceeds by erecting goals, detecting differences between present

situation an d goal, f inding in mem ory o r by search tools or processes tha t are relevant

to reducing differences of these particular kinds, and applying these tools or

processes. Ea ch problem generates subproblems until we find a sub problem we can

solve-for which we already have a pro gram stor ed in mem ory. We proceed until,

by successive solution of such subproblems, we eventually achieve our overall

goal-or give u p m i4 p. 27).

M y purp ose h ere is to illustrate the centrality of the concept of go al seeking in the managem ent

science thinking of the 1950s an d 1960s. Sim on provides a go od exam ple simply because his work

has been so importan t. At the IF O R S round-table 1 suggested in the discussion tha t a good way

to pay tribute to Simon's work would be to try to build beyond it by rejecting the use of the idea

upo n which it was based, namely goal seeking. This did n ot appeal to the speakers. Both Z anne tos

and, in discussion afterwards, Simon himself argued that although it is the case that in real life

the goals change all the time, the concept of goal seeking is still useful for analytical purposes.

M y suggestion had been tha t Vickers ' concept of relationship maintaining was m ore fruitful than

that of goal seeking, being not only closer to reality but also overcoming the problem of treating

as fixed an element you know is really continually changing. Vickers' ideas can in fact be used to

examine the newer versions of systems thinking which have emerged in the last decade or so. They

modify both the f ramework (F) and the methodology

M)

of Figure 2.

' L E A R N I N G ' : ' S O F T S Y S T E M S T H I N K I N G : T H E 19 70 s T O T H E 1990s?'

Appreciative systems

It is noticeable that heuristic pro gram m ing, as in Simon 's G .P.S . project, like mu ch w ork in

artificial intelligence, has so far concentrated on the solution of trivial problems for which goal

statements are unambiguous. The much-studied game of chess, for example, provides such a

problem: the goal is to win the game, and you either achieve that goal within the rules of the game

or fail to achieve it . The work can then concentrate o n the logic of the game and its rules. How ever,

situational logic is much simpler than real-life problem situations, in which different logics

(associated with different actors an d outloo ks) interact intermittently. In u nderstan ding the 'hard '

tradition of systems thinking and trying to go beyond it, it is useful to start from real-world

experience and see what patterns can be discerned in it. The work of Geoffrey Vickers does this,

and provides an introdu ction to the 'soft ' tradition of systems thinking which complements the

'hard' one.

Vickers was neither a 'practitioner' in any management science sense nor an 'academic' in a

professional sense. But he was a splendid example of a reflective advisor and manager who had

both a wide experience of the world of affairs and an insatiable curiosity which led him to think

hard and long about his experiences in order to 'make sense', as he put it, of his professional life.

Bo rn in 1894, he was, after the F irst World W ar, a part ner in a firm of solicitors in the City. Dur ing

the Second World War, he was Director of Economic Intelligence at the Ministry of Economic

W arfare. After the war, he became legal advisor to the National Coa l Board, then B oard M em ber

responsible for manpower, training, education, health and welfare. Other public posts followed;

then in retirement Vickers started a new career, that of making sense of 40 years' experience of

wh at he termed 'governance': the exercise of judgem ent, the weighing of moral issues. the creation

of form. This mental activity he regarded as com mo n to statesmen, judges, artists, doctors an d


6/13

P Checkland-Development of System s Thinking f o r the 1990s

The title of Vickers' last book (Human Systems are Different) is significant. He argued steadily

that the human and social sciences are intrinsically different from the natural sciences. In a

discussion at the Silver Anniversary Meeting of the Society for General Systems Research in

Lon don in 1979, he gave the following illustration of his groun ds for takin g tha t view. Ptolo my

an d Co pernicu s offer completely different theories concerning the stru ctur e of the solar system. The

actual structure is entirely unafrected by belief in either theory, but when Marx produces a theory

of a cultural artefa ct, namely 'history', then history is changed as a result of allegiance to the theory .

Vickers was thu s wholly opposed to Simon's notion of creating qu asi-natura l sciences of cultural

artefacts (wh at Simon calls The Sciences of tlze A r t i J i ~ i a l ) . ~ ~nd Vickers' development of the

concept of 'appreciative systems' starts from a rejection of goal seeking as an adequ ate m odel of

human behaviour. Hence we can use the work of Simon and Vickers to represent the polarity in

systems thinking.

In the 1950s, Vickers was influenced by systems thinking and cybernetics, and found them very

useful in und ersta nd ing the social process of 'governance'. His interest in systems ideas was

humanistic rather than technological:

"While

I

was pursuing these thoughts, everyone else who was responding at all

was busy with man-made systems for guided missiles and getting to the moon or

forcing the most analogic mental activities into forms which would go on digital

computers. 'Systems' had become embedded in faculties of technology and the very

w o r d h a d b e c o m e d e h ~ m a n i z e d " . ~ ~

Vickers re-hum anized the word 'systems' in the concep t of appreciatio n, a concep t which begins

with his rejection of both the goal-seeking model an d th at version of the cybernetic model in which

standard s are set from outside the system. His boo ks give discursive accou nts of the n ature of an

appreciative system. The most succinct account is in a letter he wrote to me when he and

I

were

discussing sof t systems methodology as a pract ica l orchestra t ion of the process of apprecia t i~n.~~

He wrote in 1974:

"It seems to me in retrospect t hat for the last twenty years 1 have been contribu ting

to the general debate the following neglected ideas:

(1)

In describing human activity, institutional or personal, the goal-seeking

paradigm is inadequate. Regulatory activity, in government, management or

private life consists in attaining or maintaining desired relationships through

time or in changing and eluding undesired ones.

(2)

But the cybernetic paradig m is equally inade quate, because the helm sman h as

a single course given from outside the system, whilst the human regulator,

person al o r collective, contro ls a system which g enerates mu ltiple and m utually

inconsistent courses. The function of the regulator is to choose and realise one

of many possible mixes, none fully attainable. In doing so it also becomes a

major influence in the process of generating courses.

(3)

From (1) and (2) flows a body of analysis which examines the 'course-

generating' function, distinguishes between 'metabolic' and functional re-

lations, the first being those which serve the stability of the system (e.g.

budgeting to preserve solvency and liquidity), the second being those which

serve to bring the achievements of the system into line with its multiple and

changing standards of success. This leads me to explore the nature and origin

of these standards of success and thus to distinguish between norms or

standards, usually tacit and known by the mis-match signals which they

generate in specific situations, and values, those explicit general concepts of

wha t is hum anly good and b ad which we invoke in the debate abo ut standa rds,


7/13

Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol.

36

No.

9

( 5 )

This identification of a fam iliar men tal activity leads to its further analysis and

to a suggestion for conceptualising it in a way which will include both its fact

finding and its evaluative function and will thus escape the sterilising isolation

of the cognitive function which ha s mark ed m ost of the study of thinking. This

in turn shows th at its contents are systemically related a nd form a system which

enables, limits and characterises how the agent will discriminate his situation,

wh at he will ma ke of it an d wha t 'match ' or 'mis-match' signals it will set

resonating in him.

(6)

By this stage I am trying explicitly to formulate an epistemology which will

accou nt for what we manifestly d o when we sit round board tables or in

committee rooms (and equally though less explicitly when we try, personally

for example, to decide whether to accept the offer of a new job). A t this point

I find myself in conflict with some, I think out-dated, concepts derived from

the earlier history of the natural sciences and their methods, and more

generally, from the attempt to apply these to what Simon calls the sciences of

the artificial.

U p to the middle of paragraph (3) above,

I

am offering a critique of curre nt theories

of decision-making and policy making which does not explicitly need the concept

of appreciation. From there on

I

am developing an epistemological theory which

uses decision-making and policy making as its examples but is basically concerned

with the nature of hu ma n understanding a nd hum an value judgment. M y personal

interest lies chiefly in this second area , but the people w ho read m y bo oks lie chiefly

in the first .

Thus, in summary, an appreciative system is a cultural mechanism which maintains desired

relationships and eludes undesired ones. The process is cyclic and operates like this: our previous

experiences have created for us certain standards or norms, usually tacit (and also, at a more

general level, values, more general concepts of what is humanly good or b ad); the stand ards, n orms

and values lead to readinesses to no tice only certain features of o ur situations; they determine what

'facts' are relevant; the facts noticed are evaluated aga inst the norm s, a process which

both

leads

to our taking regulatory action and modifies the norms or standards, so that future experiences

will be evaluated differently. T hu s Vickers argues2' tha t ou r hum an experience develops within us:

. . readinesses to notice particular aspects of our situation, to discriminate them in

particular ways and to measure them against particular st and ards of com parison ,

which have been built

up

in similar ways (italics added).

These readinesses are organized circularly into an appreciative system which creates for all of

us, individually and socially, our appreciated world. We fail to see this clearly, in Vickers' view,

because of the conce ntration in o ur science-based culture on linear causal chains and o n the no tion

of goal seeking.

Vickers wro te consistently against the ad op tion of what he regarded as a poverty-stricken model

of human behaviour, namely goal seeking. He argued for the concept of relationship maintaining

as the basis of a richer and more realistic model. His work thus provides an intellectual base for

new versions of F and M in Figure 2.

Let me end this brief introduction to Vickers' ideas with a lethally elegant paragraph from

Freedom in a Rocking Boat2' (p. 128):

The meaning of stability is likely to remain obscured in Western cultures until they

rediscover the fact that life consists in experiencing relations, rather than in seeking

goals or 'ends'. The intrinsic confusion a bo ut means a nd ends arises from the fact


8/13

P.

Checkland-Development of Sys tem s Thinking for the 1990s

Soft systems methodology

Vickersm ade no claimsfor theidea of appreciativesystemsbeyond its value in

understanding

the soc ia l process which character izes human a ffai rs . His a im was unders tanding ra the r than

intervention:inthetermsofFigure

2,

heprovidesanew F ra ther thananM Nevertheless,during

the yea rs in which Vickers was developing h is ideas and wr it ing h is books a methodology for

r at ional in te rv en ti on i n human a ffa irs was b eing d eveloped which maps on t o th e i de a of

apprecia tive system$ (pp.

261-264).

I refer to sof t systemsmethodology (S.S.M.) , whichcan be

seenastheorchestrationoftheoperationofanappreciativesysteminahumansituationperceived

as problemat ica l . S .S .M. has been fu l ly desc r ibed e l~ewhere .~ .~Were , nlyenoughof i ts content

willbedescribedtomak eclearthelinkwithVickers'ideasand tomak epossiblethefinaldiscussion

inthispaperoftherelationbetweenthetwoversionsof M relatedtorationalinterventioninhuman

affairs : the 'hard ' and 'sof t' t raditions of systems thinking.

S.S.M.wasdevelopedbecausethemethodologyofsystemsengineering,basedondefininggoals

orobjectives,simplydidnotworkwhenappliedtomessy,ill-structured,real-worldproblems.The

inabili ty to def ine object ives, or to decide whose were most important , was usually par t of the

problem.Th emethodologywhich emergedhas the general shap e indicated in Figure

3

I ts most

C o m p a r ~ n gmodels

wlth per eptions

In the problem

The r ea l wor ld

events unfolding

through t lme

Syst ems t h lnk lng

a b o u t t h e r e a l

world

of the human

Relevant human

a c t l v l t y s y s t e m s

act lvl ty systems

n a m e d I n th e

named In root

r oot def ln l t lons

d e f l n l t ~ o n s u si ng

the CATWOE

elements

IG 3 The nature of soft systems methodology ( S. S. M .)

C A T W O E :

C ('customers')

W ho would he victims or henejciaries of this system were it to exist?

A ( 'actors')

W ho would carry out the actiz>ities f this system?

T

('transforma tion process')

What input is transformed into what output hy this system?

W ( Weltanschauung')

What image of the world makes this system meuning/iul?

('owner') W ho could abolish this system?

E

('ent~ironrnentalconstraints')

Wha t external constraints does this system take as ~itlcv17

importantcharacteristicsareasfollows:

(1)

I t moves f rom f inding out abo ut a problem s ituat ion to tak ing ac tion in the

situation:it doessobycarryingoutsomeorganizedexplicitsystemsthinking

abou t the real-world si tuat ion.

(2)

Somehumanactivitysystems

relevant to

exploring(not o f ) the s i tuation are

carefullynamedin 'rootdefinitions'(R.D.s.)~pp.115-119,166177,215-221).


9/13

Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 36 No.

9

(4)

Conceptualmodels of the systemsnamedintheR.D.sarebui ltypp. 169-177

andAppendix 1) . They aremodels ofpurposeful activityconsidered relevant

to

debateandargumentabouttheproblemsituation.Theyarenotatthisstage

thought of asdesigns.

( 5 )

The debate about the situation is structured by comparing models with

perceptions ofthe realworld.Theaim ofthedebateis to findsomepossible

changeswhichmeet twocriteria:systemicallydesirableand culturallyfeasible

in theparticular situationin question.

(6)

Definitionofdesirableandfeasiblechangesgivesanewproblemsituation(how

toimplement),and the cyclicprocess can begin again.

(7)

S.S.M.thus seeksaccommodation among conflictinginterests.

(8)

S.S.M.is doubly systemic. It is itself a cyclic learning process; and it uses

systems

models within that process.

S.S.M.can bemapped onto theappreciativesystemconceptboth atageneral levelandmore

specifically.At a general level, both accept that in social life there aremultiple realities. Our

perceptionsofculturalartefactsareacquiredwithin taken-as-given assumptionsabout theworld

whicharethemselvesbuiltupbyourexperiencesintheworld.(Itisthatwhichresultsinoneman's

'terrorism' beinganother's 'freedom fighting'.) Becauseofit,modelsofhuman activitysystemsin

S.S.M.donotpretend tobemodelsoj'theworld,onlymodelswhichembodyaparticularstated

way of viewing the world. Given a set of suchmodels, comparing them against the different

perceptionsof theproblem situationwhichdifferent concernedpeoplemay 'own' articulates in a

formalway the processVickerscalls 'appreciation'. ThedebatewhichS.S.M.engineers through

thecomparisonphaserevealsthenorms,thestandards,thevaluesextantintheproblemsituation

and contributes to their changing.

It is virtually impossible to perform thecomparison phase of

S.S.M.withoutmodifying thereadinessesoftheparticipantstoperceivetheworld inaparticular

way. 'Appreciative settings' will berevealed,aswill thedegree towhich they

are

changing,

could

be changedor-in the framework of stated

Welta~~~chauungen- ~hould

e changed.

Thislearningwhichoccursthrough the useofS.S.M.ensuresthat theprocess is acyclicone,

inprincipleanever-endingone.Inarticulatinginaformalwaytheprocessof'appreciation', S.S.M.

shareswithVickersanepistemology whichextends-or subverts-that of the'hard' paradigmof

goal seeking,with its time-bound languageof 'goals' which are'achieved' and 'problems' which

are 'solved' out ofexistence.

The ideaof 'appreciative systems', togetherwith the practice ofS.S.M.,whichcan be seenas

a formal practical expression of it, thus helps to define a strand of systems thinking usefully

differentfrom thatdevelopedinthe 1950sand 1960s.ItincludesnotonlytheworkofVickersand

thedevelopmentof S.S.M.;otherwork canbroadlybe related to it, even though thehistoryof

ideas isneverclear-cut: forexample, thework ofChur~hman ,~ ' MasonandM i t r ~ f f , ~ ~~ k o f f , ~ ~

Thompson3' and Eden et ~ 1 . ~ ' be seen as contributing to and helping to create the 'soft'an

tradition.

Itremains finallyto relate these twoparadigms ofsystems thinking, 'hard' and 'soft', toeach

other.

THE RELATION

BETWEEN THE TWOTRADITIONS

Ithasbeenarguedherethatitisusefultoexaminethestateofthinkingandpracticeconcerned

with rational intervention

in

human affairs in the languageof Figure

2.

What is the intellectual

framework,F ? Whatis themethodology,

M,

whichappliesit?Ifweaddressthosequestions, then

we canmakesenseofthe last 30years in 'management science', broadlydefined,asrepresenting

ashiftfromoneversionof

and

M

toanother.Butitwouldbewrongtoregardthenewerthinking


10/13

P. Checkland-Development of Sys tem s Thinking for the

199 s

This implies that there will be judgements to be made concerning the systems thinking

appropriate in particular situations in human affairs. And that directs attention to a comparison

between hard and soft systems thinking in order that those judgements may be well informed.

The final aim of this paper is to examine hard and soft systems thinking together and to establish

their relationship.

The nature of the hard tradition can be summarized as follows: it seeks to make possible the

efficient achievement of goals or objectives, taking goal-seeking to be an adequate model of human

behaviour; it assumes that the world contains systems which can be engineered , hence that models

of those systems can be made; it talks the language of problems and solutions which eliminate

problems.

The soft tradition does not regard goal seeking as an adequate model for much of what goes

on in human affairs; it does not assume that the rich complexity of the world can be captured in

systemic models, and hence regards system models produced within the hard tradition not as

models of

X

but only as models of the logic of

X .

Hence the soft tradition regards system

models as models relevant to arguing about the world, not models of the world; this leads to

learning replacing optimizing or satisficing ; this tradition talks the language of issues and

accommodations rather than solutions .

These differences are summarized in Table 1, which also lists the obvious advantages and

disadvantages of each tradition. Table shows the complementarity of the two bodies of thought;

but what is their mutual relationship?

TABLE.

The hard and soft traditions of systems thinking compared

The hard systems

The soft systems

thinking of the

thinking for the

1950s and 1960s 1980s and 1990s?

Oriented to goal seeking

Oriented to learning

Assumes the world contains systems Assumes that the world is problematical

which can be engineered

but can be explored by using system

models

Assumes system models to be models of Assumes system models to be intel-

the world (ontologies)

lectual constructs (epistemologies)

Talks the language of problems and Talks the language of issues and

solutions accommodations

ADVANTAGES

ADVANTAGES

Allows the use of powerful techniques

Is available to both problem owners

and professional practitioners; keeps in

touch with the human content of prob-

lem situations

DISADVANTAGES

DISADVANTAGES

May need professional practitioners

Does not produce final answers

May lose touch with aspects beyond the

Accepts that inquiry is never-ending

logic of the ~r ob le m ituation

There are undoubtedly situations in which the language of problems requiring solutions is

appropriate. If you are a mail-order company whose catalogue generates orders which then take

months to fulfill because of inadequate stocks, or a library with a significant proportion of the stock

not catalogued, then you have a problem which calls for a system to be engineered to solve it.

Nobody would argue with this because at this basic operational level there is very often a complete

consensus on what needs to be done and what constitutes efficiency in doing it. However, at levels

above the operational, consensus quickly breaks down. Discussing the potential product range of

the mail-order company, or how the library s budget should be spent, will quickly reveal different

perceptions of the relevant worlds: what at the operational level may be agreed problems quickly

become, at higher levels, issues created by clashing norms, values and Weltanschauungen. This

suggests that the relation between hard and soft systems thinking is not like that between apples

and pears: it is like that between apples and fruit. The well-defined problem needing solution is


11/13

Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 36, No. 9

naming several elements: the transformation process it embodies: the Weltanschauung which makes

this perception meaningful; the system's victims or beneficiaries; its actors; its owners; and the

environmental constraints which it takes as given (i.e. the CATWOE elements). Occasionally, in

the special case, these elements condensed into unproblematical 'objectives'.

Thus, using the example of S.S.M., we see that 'soft' systems thinking is the general case of which

'hard' systems thinking is the occasional special case, a relationship shown in Figure

4.

I n

S S M :

re l evant system s

r o o t d e f ~ n i t ~ o n s

CATWOE

T h e u n p r o b l e m a t ~ c a l

system wi th

d e f i n e d o b j e c t i v e s

FIG

4 The relation hetween he two traditions qf 'systems lhinking

CONCLUSION

If we ask what is the single most marked change in moving from the special ('hard') case of an

unproblematical system which can be engineered to the general ('soft') case of an issue-based

situation in which accommodations must be sought, it is probably best thought of as the shift from

thinking in terms of models of (parts of) the world to models relevant to arguing about the world.

Applied social science (which intervention in human affairs is bound to be) normally has to deal

in the latter. I t is interesting to note

how

clearly Keynes saw this in the case of economics. He put

it to R. F. Harrod in 1938 during the discussion of the latter's presidential address to the Royal

Economic Society:

It seems to me that economics is a branch of logic, a way of thinking; and that

you do not repel sufficiently firmly at te mp ts .. to turn it into a pseudo-natural

science.

.

Economics is a science of thinking in terms of models joined to the art

of choosing models which are relevant to the contemporary world. It is compelled

to be this, because, unlike the typical natural science, the material to which it is

applied is, in too many respects, not homogeneous through time (italics added).

Everything said here about economics applies with equal force to management science. Valiant

efforts have been made to turn it into a pseudo-natural science . The result has been useful models

of

one aspect

of situations arising in human affairs, namely their logic. But these models tend to

pass by the humanistic content of human affairs, namely their issues. Because the material to which

management science is applied is, in too many aspects, not homogeneous through time , we need

the extension of 'hard' systems thinking which the 'soft' tradition is beginning to supply. It will

help us to be better armed, intellectually, to face the problems of the 1990s.


12/13

P Clzeckland-Development of Sy st em s Tlzinking for tlze 1990s

4.

H. D.

LASSWELL (Eds)(1951) The Pol ic j~ science.^: Recent De11eloppmenr.s n Scope and Method. Stanfordnd

D.

LERNER

Universi ty Prcss S tanford, C al i f .

5. Sj,stenzs 7'lrinhitzg in Action. O.R . Socie ty N at ional Event, Hcnlcy , Apr i l 1985.

6.

P.

RIVETT1985)Let ter toO.R.Newslet ter

14,

No. 8 , 13.

7. J. M.KEYNES1936) Th e Genc~rcll %f~o,:r.Qf En~plo!~nzc~nt,n ter f~s t nd M oiz f~j . ,Macmi l lan , London .

8 . P . B . C I IECKLAND1984) Sys tems th ink ing in tnanagcmcnt: the development o f sof i systems methodology and i ts

implicationsforsocialscience.In

~~~/1~orgcrni ~alionlion

and

G.

J.B.PKOBST,

rnd M rzna gen lf~n t fSocicrl .yj,stenls

(H. ULRICH

Eds).Springer,Berlin.

9 . N . WIENER1948) C j ~ h e r n f ~ t i c s .IT Press , Cambridge, Mass . (Enlarged ed i tion 1961, Wiley , New York . )

1 0. P . B. C I IECKLAND1983) O .R . and the systems movctncn t ; mappings and conf li ct s.

.J.

0111 Res. Soc . 34 661-675.

1 . R. L . ACKOFF1957)Towardsabchaviouraltheoryofcomtnunication.In M otk rn Sj> sic~ ms for the Brhrzviourulr.~erzrclr

Scientist. (W . B~ JCKEY , d.) . Aldine, Chicago.

12 . J . P . BRANSEd. ) 1984)Opc~rational esearch

84:

Proceetlitzg.~ f [h e Tetrtlz Irricrnalional Corzfirence on O p~ ~r uti on uI

Rr.~f~rrrclr. or th-Hol land , A msterdam.

13.

P.

B. CHECKLAND Anal. 12 In1985) Conferences as p rocess and product : thoughts f rom IFO RS '84 .

J

rip/)/ . SJ ~. YI .

press

14. H. A. SIMON1960)

7 ~ Net11

Scienc,e o Mcincrgf~tiient lf~c isi on . arper Row, NewY ork .

15. Z. S. Zannetos (1984) Decis ion sciences and managcmcnt expecta t ions : ful fi ll ed , f ius t ra tcd and yet- to -come. In

Ol~erationrzl esf~crrch

84:

Proceeclings of'tlze 7 Pn th Intf~rncrtioncrl ' on fi rf ~n cc n Oper.crtiona1 Resecrrclz (J . P BRANS ,Ed.).

Nor th-Hol land , Amsterdatn .

16. J .

G.

MARCHnd H . A . S IMON1958)

Olxcrni.~ations.

Wiley, New York .

17.H. A. S IM ONnd A . NEWALL. ~iinaizProhleni Solving. Prcnticc-Hall, Englcwood ClifTs,N .J .

18 . G . VICKERS1961)Judgement . In 7'hc Vickers Przl~c~r.~1 9 9 9 ) . Harper

Row, London .

19.

G.

VIC KERS1965) 7 % e Arl of 'Juclgenzf~r~l .h apman Hall , London . (Republ ished 1983, Harper Row, London .)

20.

G.

V I ~ K E R S1970) fif~erionz n

(1

Rocking Hoc~t.Allen Lane, London (a lso Penguin ed i tion 1972) .

21.

G.

VICKERS1983) I l ~ i r n u n j ~ .~ l en r srre Di[/i~rerrt.Harper Row, London .

2 2. M . BLUNDEN 1985)Vickers' contribut ion to managcmcnt thinking,

J

appl S!'st. Ancrl. 12 Inpress

23. H . A . SIMON1969) 7'/1e Scie~7cesuf t l ~ f ~rtific.ia/.

M IT Press , Cambridge, Mass . (2nd ed i tion 1981) .

24.

G.

VICKERS1979) Let t er to G uy Adams. Q uotcd in M . BL IJNDEN 1984)Gcofli -cy Vickcrs-an intel lectual journey.

In The Vickers Prrpers. Harper Row, London .

25. G. VICKERS1974) Let ter to Peter Checkland.

26. B .W ILSON1984) Sys tenls : (h n cf ~ /) ls , Meihoclologies rmcl Applicrzlions. Wilcy, Chich estcr.

2 7. C . W . CHURC HMAN 1971) Tlrr~ lesign yf Inquiring Sj,stenzs. Basic Books . New York .

28. R . L . A ( . ~ o r r : 1974) Retfesignirrg the Fzrlurf~.Wilcy , NewYork .

29. R .D . MASONnd I. I. M ITROFF 1981)

Clzcrllf~nging trcitegic Plcrnning Assznnl)tioirs.

Wiley ,New York .

30. M .THOMI'SON1979)

Rubbish Tl ~e oq , : rea lion and De.~ tr~ic l ionf V t l lu f~ .

Oxford Univers ity Prcss, London .

31. C . EDEN, S. JONESnd D . SIMS1979) Tlzinking in Orgcini;crtion~.Macmi l lan , London .

32. J. M. KEYNES 1938) Q uotcd in D . E. MOC;C;RII~C;E p . 26. F o nta na , L ond on .1976) K~JJ ' IZ(J .Y ,


13/13

You have printed the following article:

From Optimizing to Learning: A Development of Systems Thinking for the 1990s

Peter Checkland

The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 36, No. 9, Systems Thinking in Action.Conference at Henly. April 1985. (Sep., 1985), pp. 757-767.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0160-5682%28198509%2936%3A9%3C757%3AFOTLAD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

This article references the following linked citations. If you are trying to access articles from anoff-campus location, you may be required to first logon via your library web site to access JSTOR. Pleasevisit your library's website or contact a librarian to learn about options for remote access to JSTOR.

References

10 O.R. and the Systems Movement: Mappings and Conflicts

Peter Checkland

The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 34, No. 8, Systems in O.R. First InternationalIFORS and O.R.S. Meeting. Discussion Conference at Henly, U.K. 9-11 May 1983. (Aug., 1983),pp. 661-675.

Stable URL:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0160-5682%28198308%2934%3A8%3C661%3AOATSMM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A

http://www.jstor.org

LINKED CITATIONS- Page 1 of 1 -

NOTE: The reference numbering from the original has been maintained in this citation list.
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0160-5682%28198509%2936%3A9%3C757%3AFOTLAD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0160-5682%28198308%2934%3A8%3C661%3AOATSMM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0160-5682%28198308%2934%3A8%3C661%3AOATSMM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-A&origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0160-5682%28198509%2936%3A9%3C757%3AFOTLAD%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L&origin=JSTOR-pdf

Checkland (1985) Systems Thinking

Documents

Transcript of Checkland (1985) Systems Thinking