Soft System

10
Soft Systems and Hard Contradictions*
Lars Mathiassen Peter A. Nielsen

Abstract. Checkland 's Soft Systems Methodology for defining and solving problems in organizations is presented on the basis of an application of the methodology. In many ways this approach represents an improvement in relation to more traditional approaches to computer-based information systems. Based on an experiment we explore the possibilities of combining the practical usefulness of soft systems thinking with the analytical power offered by dialectical thinking. Soft Systems Methodology already shares several basic elements with dialectical approaches to social theory and action. It does not, however, include the key element of dialectical analysis: explicit thinking in terms of contradictions. The paper presents experiences, ideas and arguments, but it contains no final answers. At this stage it is our intention to engage others in critical and constructive reflection on further developments of Soft Systems Methodology and on dialectical approaches to computer-based information systems in organizations. Keywords: computer-based information systems, Soft Systems Methodology, dialectics, contradiction.

273 * Published as: Soft Systems and Hard Contradictions - Approaching the Reality of Information Systems in Organizations. L. Mathiassen & P. A. Nielsen. In: Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Vol. 16, 1989.

DEVELOPING SYSTEMS

1.

Introduction

Checkland 's Soft Systems Methodology, SSM (Checkland 1981) has in general proved powerful as a systemic approach to organizational change, cf. (Checkland 1985). Therefore, it is only natural to consider SSM as a more specific approach to computer-based information systems in organizations (Wilson 1982; Schäfer et al. 1986), Within information systems we are confronted with challenges on several levels. Our first and most deep concern is the use of information systems in organizations. On this level SSM can be used to analyze,

References: Ackoff, R. L. (1982): On the Hard Headedness and Soft Heartedness of M. C. Jackson. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Vol. 9 (31-34). Atkinson, C. J. & P. B. Checkland (1988): Extending the Metaphor “System”. Paper presented at the Systems Conference, University of Lancaster, July 1988. Bjerknes, G. (1988): Contradiction—A Discussion of the Concept. Part of draft for Ph.D. dissertation. Oslo University. (In Norwegian) Burrel, G. & G. Morgan (1979): Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Gower. Checkland, P. B. (1981): Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Chichester: Wiley. Checkland, P. B. (1982): Soft Systems Methodology as Process: A Reply to M. C. Jackson. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. Vol. 9 (36–39). Checkland, P. B. (1985): Achieving “Desirable and Feasible” Change: An Application of Soft Systems Methodology. Journal of the Operational Research Society. Vol. 36, Vol. 9 (821–31). Churchman, C. W. (1971): The Design of Inquiring Systems. New York: Basic Books. Churchman, C. W. (1982): Reply to M. C. Jackson. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. Vol. 9 (35). DeMarco, T. (1978): Structural Analysis and Systems Specification. New York: Yourdon Inc. Flavin, M. (1981): Fundamental Concepts of Information Modelling. New York: Yourdon Press. Israel, J. (1979): The Language of Dialectics and the Dialectics of Language. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Jackson, M. C. (1982): The Nature of “Soft” Systems Thinking: The Work of Churchman, Ackoff and Checkland. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. Vol. 9 (17–29). Jackson, M. C. (1983): The Nature of “Soft” Systems Thinking: Comments on the three Replies. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. Vol. 10 (109– 113). Jepsen, L. O., L. Mathiassen & P. A. Nielsen (1989): Back to Thinking Mode—Diaries as a Medium for Effective Management in Information 295 DEVELOPING SYSTEMS Systems Development. Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 8, No. 3. Lanzara, G. F. & L. Mathiassen (1985): Mapping Situations Within a Systems Development Project. Information & Management. Vol. 7 (3–20). Mao Tsetung (1937): On Contradiction. (23–78) in Four Essays on Philosophy. Peking: Foreign Languages Press. Mathiassen, L. & A. Munk-Madsen (1988): Myths and Reality in Software Development. Technical Report, Institute of Electronic Systems, Aalborg University. Mathiassen, L. & P. A. Nielsen (1989): Surfacing Organisational Competence: Soft Systems and Hard Contradictions. In G. Bjerknes et al. (Eds.): Organizational Competence in Systems Development. Lund: Studentlitteratur. Mathiassen, L. (1981): Systems Development and Systems Development Method. Ph.D. thesis, Oslo University. (In Danish) Mathiassen, L. (1987): Systems, Processes, and Structures. In P. Docherty et al. (Eds.): Systems Design for Human Development and Productivity: Participation and Beyond. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Mingers, J. (1984): Subjectivism and Soft Systems Methodology—A Critique. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. Vol. 11 (85–103). Mitroff, I. I., E. Rathswohl & J. Williams (1972): Dialectical Inquiring Systems: A New Methodology for Information Science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. (365–378). Nielsen, P. A. (1989): The Emergence of Contradictions in Soft Systems Practice. In R. L. Flood et al. (Eds.): Systems Prospects. New York: U.K. Systems Society, Plenum. Rosenhead, J. (1984): Debating Systems Methodology: Conflicting Ideas About Conflict and Ideas. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Vol. 11 (79–84). Schäfer, G., M. Domke, R. Hansjee & M. Harper (1986): FAOR Approach: Main report. Project report. Esprit Project 56: Function Analysis of Office Requirements. Essex: FAOR Project Library. Schön, D. (1983): The Reflective Practitioner—How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Stage, J. (1989): Between Tradition and Transcendence. Analysis and Design in Systems Development. Oslo University. (In Danish) Wilson, B. (1984): Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications. Chichester: Wiley. Yourdon, E. (1982): Managing the Systems Life Cycle. New York: Yourdon Inc. 296