The use of soft systems methodology (SSM) in the management of library and information services: a review
| Date | 31 July 2007 |
| Published date | 31 July 2007 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01435120710774459 |
| Pages | 306-322 |
| Author | Rachel Delbridge,Shelagh Fisher |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science |
The use of soft systems
methodology (SSM) in the
management of library and
information services: a review
Rachel Delbridge and Shelagh Fisher
Department of Information and Communications,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of soft systems methodology (SSM)
and review the ways in which the methodology has been applied by managers and researchers to gain
a broad understanding of library and information service (LIS) activity.
Design/methodology/approach – Seven detailed examples of the application of SSM to LIS
activity show for each the aim, rationale for the use of SSM, operationalisation, findings and benefits of
using SSM to understand problem situations.
Findings – Analysis of the application of SSM in LIS contexts demonstrates the extent of its efficacy
in learning and understanding in “problem situations” and the resultant changes to LIS activities.
Practical implications – The paper draws together examples of studies which may prompt LIS
professionals and researchers to consider the use of SSM in the management of LIS.
Originality/value – An in-depth review of the processes and outcomes of the application of SSM to
the understanding of LIS activity is provided.
Keywords Libraries, Information management
Paper type Literature review
Introduction
As Price and John (2004, pp. 164-5) explain:
Systems thinking involves the realization that many of the things dealt with in day-to-day
existence can be considered as systems (i.e. sets of entities related in some way, often
organized or designed to achieve some purpose).
Soft systems methodology (SSM) uses systems concepts as a means for learning and
understanding in a “problem situation” (i.e. a situation which some may see as
problematic (Checkland, 1999)). SSM was developed over 30 years ago and has since
been operationalised in many contexts, including that of library and information
services (LIS). However, there have been few reported studies using SSM that have
resulted in a broad consideration of LIS activity. In this article, an overview of SSM and
its origins are provided. Then, seven illustrative applications of SSM used to gain such
broad understanding of LIS activity, are summarised. It is not the intention to provide
detail, and specific examples, of methodological processes (these are available in many
authoritative publications, such as Checkland, 1999), but rather to draw together
examples of studies which may prompt LIS professionals and researchers to consider
SSM to be of benefit in the management of LIS.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-5124.htm
LM
28,6/7
306
Received 8 October 2006
Revised 29 December 2006
Accepted 12 January 2007
Library Management
Vol. 28 No. 6/7, 2007
pp. 306-322
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-5124
DOI 10.1108/01435120710774459
Systems thinking origins
Work on applying a goal-oriented syste ms engineering methodology to soft
ill-structured management problems, where goals are not easily definable, was
initiated at Lancaster University in 1969 through a programme of action research
(Checkland, 1981). Action research, a learning cycle, has been defined by Wilson (1990,
p. 2) as “simultaneously bringing about change in the project situation (the action)
while learning from the process of deriving the change (the research)”. It was found
that “‘hard’ Systems Engineering was not rich enough to cope with the complexity of
managerial ... problem situations” (Checkland and Holwell, 2004, p. 50). This action
research programme at Lancaster led to the distinction of “hard” and “soft” systems
thinking and the development of a soft-systems-thinking-based approach to
organisational problem solving, SSM, originated by Professor Peter Checkland.
“Hard” systems thinking takes the view that systems exist and is based on
engineering a solution to a defined need (Checkland, 1981). It is assumed that “what
‘the system’ is is not problematic, that the system’s objectives can be defined, and that
alternative means of achieving them can be modelled and compared using some
declared criteria, enabling a suitable selection to be made of the most desirable form of
the system” (Checkland, 1988, p. 242). The “system” concept is used as an “ontological
description of part of the world” (Lewis, 1994, p. 35).
In contrast, “soft” systems thinking does not assume that systems exist and sees
human activity systems (HAS) as different from other types of natural systems; HAS
are notional constructs which convey some purposeful human activity (Checkland,
1981). Systems concepts are thus used as a means of learning in a “problem situation”,
as an “epistemological device for thinking about some part of the world ” (Lewis, 1994,
p. 35). There may be different perspectives of the “problem situation” (i.e. situations are
not predictable, rather ill structured, complex and messy). The shift in “systemicity”
(i.e. “systemness”) is what defines the difference between “hard” and “soft” systems
thinking (Checkland, 1999).
In SSM, systems thinking ideas are applied to HAS. Checkland devised ways of
modelling human activity systems. Because these HAS can be viewed from different
perspectives, i.e. there is not one absolute description of HAS, it is necessary to select
some perceptions of HAS to investigate. The selection of some HAS might then be used
to create notional models of purposeful activity in a situation. Models, and the debate of
them, can be used for a variety of purposes related to organisational problem solving,
for example, concluding if activities are actually done and exploring alternative ways
of achieving activities, re-consideration of structuring of activities in organisations and
defining skills needed to do activities (Checkland and Holwell, 1998).
SSM, then, as an interpretive approach (see, for example, Hirschheim et al. 1995), is
based on an ontological perspective that reality is a social construction and an
epistemological stance that knowledge is subjective (Burrell and Morgan, 1994). As a
research process, SSM is a methodological framework that seeks learning and
understanding of interpretations and not the derivation of generalisable laws (i.e.
positivism, the scientific approach of reduction, repeatability and refutation, is
rejected). SSM is not intended to be prescriptive, but rather a set of “guiding principles”
(Checkland, 1999, p. A31).
The first account of SSM was published by Checkland in 1972 (Checkland, 1972).
Since then there have been various accounts of the methodology, which reflect its
Use of SSM in the
management of
LIS
307
To continue reading
Request your trial