The silver lining of COVID-19 – improving operational processes

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for improvement in our operational processes. In our Business Co-Design (BCD) team we have successfully utilised a design-based research (DBR) approach for the past two years - and it has worked well. However, we have noticed that from an operational perspective, the DBR approach methodology we have been using can struggle to scale up, as designing is bespoke and offers tailor made solutions for our individual projects. We will pilot incorporating elements of a soft systems thinking approach together with actornetwork theory (ANT) to enable us in applying a more holistic approach to the design and development of units of study which will provide opportunities for input from the larger team, instead of working in silos. Additionally, we are hopeful that this new approach will also assist us in making our design and projects scalable and sustainable – and to support us in increasing efficiency.

The application of soft systems thinking in SDG interaction studies: a comparison between SDG interactions at national and subnational levels in Colombia

Since the approval of the Agenda 2030, researchers and policy makers have pointed out the need to understand interactions among the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)—suggesting that progress or the lack of progress toward one goal will affect other goals through systemic interactions, producing synergies and trade-offs. However, most of the methods used to account for these interactions rely on hard systems thinking approaches, which are limited by the absence of needed data below national levels. Moreover, a general lack of data also constrains the scope of analysis to the 17 Goals, ignoring their 169 underlying targets. Given these challenges, we report on an experiment using an example of a soft systems thinking methodology: the SDG Synergies approach, which is based not only on available information but also on the elicitation of stakeholder and expert opinions. Thus, the approach allows for analysis of target-to-target interactions at subnational scales. The study, the first of its kind, assessed interactions at two scales: the national level in Colombia and the subnational level in the department of Antioquia. The results reveal profound differences between the two scales, suggesting that national-scale analysis of SDG interlinkages is not certain to capture local-level realities. The findings raise important issues for understanding and managing cross-scale interactions. Our work suggests that soft systems thinking is more appropriate for assessing SDG interactions because such an approach lends itself to conducting target-level analysis at various scales in the face of limited data availability.

Biodiversity revisited through systems thinking

Summary Systems thinking provides a comprehensive range of theories and methods that are useful for understanding and managing sustainability challenges. Biodiversity conservation is riddled with complex interactions between science, society and myriad interacting systems through temporal and spatial scales. This article presents a synthetic analysis of the history of systems thinking from a genealogical perspective, drawing from hard and soft systems thinking, and resilience and social-ecological systems. Using the anchor point of system leverage points and system characteristics (parameters, feedbacks, design and intent), we employ a diversity of examples to illustrate their relevance to multiple biodiversity related problems. We conclude by illustrating the opportunities for systems thinking to bridge epistemic divides with multiple biodiversity actors working towards conservation outcomes. Systems thinking can support more integrative biodiversity interventions, as they provide a pluralistic set of tools for bridging knowledges and disciplines, which can be useful to create new shared understandings of how to conserve biodiversity.

An Introduction to Soft Systems Methodology

Soft systems methodology (SSM) is the outcome of a real-world action research program that uses the idea of systems to improve poorly defined, so-called soft problem areas. Theory and practice of SSM arouse interest and encourage discussions from various backgrounds by academics and practitioners. In order to introduce SSM for use in the real world, this chapter begins with different definitions and methodologies of systems thinking. Then, SSM defines the seven technical analysis steps, including the soft systems thinking and the necessary techniques such as rich picture, CATWOE analysis, root definition, and conceptual modeling. SSM has organizational analysis and practical applications in the industry sector that are reviewed and classified.

Part two: the challenges of a soft systems inquiry. Integrating Husserl and Gadamer

Purpose This study aims to explore the ideas of Husserl and Gadamer as a possible basis of future soft systems methods of enquiry. Design/methodology/approach In Part one, the author has taken up the argument that soft systems is underpinned by Husserl’s phenomenology. The implication of this contention is an acceptance of subjectivity, and that our understanding the world is based upon personal experience. A consequence of this thinking renders predetermined models of the world to be deficient because each situation is unique. Instead of seeking a “solution”, the soft systems investigator engenders a cycle of learning as a means of gaining greater understanding. This means that a soft systems inquiry involves exploring the situation with those involved as a means of reaching an informed way forward. In this second paper, the author continues to explore Husserl’s phenomenology and also consider Gadamer’s ideas on hermeneutics and the importance of the “cycle of learning” that is central to any soft systems inquiry. The study concludes with a summary of points that, the author suggests, should be considered when undertaking a “soft” systems inquiry and in the development of any methodology that may enable it. Findings Both papers explore the phenomenological ideas of Husserl and the relationship to soft systems. In paper one, the basis of this exploration was Checkland's assertion that phenomenology could be the basis of soft systems. In the second paper, the author takes this further by exploring Gadamer's ideas on hermeneutics and reflect upon the possibility of blending them with Husserl's thinking. Research limitations/implications I had some difficulty in tracking down the published work relating to the development of soft systems, notably the Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. This journal was published by Lancaster University and covered more than 20 years of debate and provides an important record of its development. The author managed to find what might be the only compete set at the University of Southampton. This allowed the author to gain some understanding of the development of the thinking. Since the late 20th century, the number of publications on soft ideas has been severely limited, seemingly reflecting the dominance of reductionist science. It seems timely for such a paper as this to help initiate further debate. Practical implications As indicated above – the difficulty is finding early journal publications where the ideas and their relationship to the action research programme emerged. Checkland himself, with whom the author has always enjoyed a close relationship, has, at the age of 90, withdrawn from academic activity; the early papers in the Journal of Applied Systems Analysis are probably the only “evidence” of the developing ideas at that time. Checkland has summarised the development (see references in the author’s two papers), but these early documents have the advantage of being written by a variety of scholars at the time rather than a single source. Social implications The current crisis of the corona virus demonstrates the strength and the limitations of reductionist thinking. It is appropriate at this time that other methods and ideas of thinking about complexity are “visible”. Whilst there are many ideas, techniques, methods and so on in systems, these come from a common base, namely, to accept a world as tangible and easily modelled; adopting and alternative way of thinking can be challenging and healthy. Originality/value Soft systems thinking is 50 years old, but there has been virtually no progress since the soft systems methodology (SSM) emerged of Husserl and Gadamer in the 1970-1990s; such is the dominance of this methodology. This paper attempts to revisit the early thinking and consider what soft systems thinking means rather than focus on SSM.

A systemic inquiry into the delay factors in South African electrical distribution projects

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explore the delay factors in South African electrical distribution projects and demonstrate the interlaced relationship between the identified project delay factors.Design/methodology/approachThis research employs interactive management (IM) methodology to construct a model achieving the research purpose. The IM methodology is anchored in the soft systems thinking. Its inquiry process mainly comprises four phases: idea generation, idea clarification, idea structuring and interpretation of the structured ideas. The IM methodology allows the relevant stakeholders to collaboratively develop a digraph displaying the interrelationship among the system elements.FindingsThe participants of the IM session structured a systemic model showing that a loop comprising three factors is the driver leading to the delays in the electrical distribution projects. The three delay factors in the loop are “poor communication”, “poor planning” and “project scheduling not properly done”.Originality/valueThe findings show that a loop comprising three delay factors is the driver leading to the project delays. This result is different from the outputs of the commonly used approaches. The three identified root causes serve as the starting point for eradicating delays in the electrical distribution projects.

A Situational Method for Creating Shared Understanding on Requirements for an Enterprise Architecture

Lack of shared understanding among stakeholders is a commonly cited drawback in enterprise architecture development. Stakeholders need to have shared understanding of requirements and principles for an enterprise architecture, and the extent to which the resultant architecture addresses their concerns. However, existing approaches for enterprise architecture development lack adequate capabilities for managing aspects associated with creating shared understanding among stakeholders. Although such aspects can be largely managed by approaches for collaborative decision making and soft systems thinking, these approaches lack details on the enterprise architecture process and its products. Therefore, this paper explores ways of mutually diminishing these gaps through adopting situational method engineering, to guide the development of a situational method for enabling stakeholders to acquire shared understanding of requirements for an enterprise architecture. The situational method presented herein is a component of a broader method for supporting collaboration between stakeholders and architects during enterprise architecture creation. Although the latter was successfully evaluated in 6 enterprises, it exhibited highest performance scores in two enterprises after it was amended with the situational method. Therefore, this paper also presents key findings from evaluating the situational method in the two agencies that are located in Uganda.