The Use of Soft Systems Methodology in Multi-Voiced Groups

Dr Marcus D. Lynch
Faculty of Computer Studies & Mathematics, University of the West of England
Coldharbour Lane, Frenchay, Bristol BS16 1QY, United Kingdom.

Presented at EIASM conference in Leuven, Belgium 1997.


ABSTRACT

This paper describes the use of Checkland's Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) in working with multi-cultural and multi-national groups of participants. This description is based on several years of “"real world"” consultancy practice with a range of voluntary and educational organisations - on scales varying from the local to the global. Less reliance is placed on the methodological niceties of SSM, although the underlying concepts are regarded as useful approaches to assist the collective sense-making processes that are essential for successful organising with diverse communities. A “"dejargonised"” version of the approach for working with such multi-voiced groups is offered as a framework for successful defining and organising to achieve common objectives by such groups.


I have worked in and for a wide range of organisations in the voluntary/not-for-profit/NGO sector over the last 20 years In doing so, I have often worked with very diverse groups of people — for example, voluntary organisations based in inner-city areas of the United Kingdom often have as diverse an ethnic and cultural membership as many multinational commercial organisations, along with the more easily anticipated diversities of gender, sexuality, class etc.  As well as locally based voluntary organisations, I have also worked with a range of (UK) national organisations, multinational NGOs and coalitions of people from many different organisations.

An important additional area of diversity to consider in working with organisations in the voluntary sector is that of the values basis of their members.  In distinction to commercial organisations, the diversity of values and ideologies encountered can be vast.  For example, when working as an organiser for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), I  had to work with direct-action anarchists, Trotskyists, communists (of both Stalinist and Euro varieties), various Christian groups, ex-servicepeople, feminists, Labour Party members, Liberals, ecologists and concerned parents —- to name but some of the ways that various members identified themselves in the campaign.  All these positions were accepted as an expression of underlying voluntary sector beliefs about the importance of participation in agreeing and carrying out activities to further the organisation's aims.  Such acceptance of plurality is the norm in the voluntary sector.

This diversity of values underlies the many motivations people have in choosing to become involved in such organisations.  Such organisations, whether locally or globally organised, are truly multi-voiced.

The practical difficulties of achieving agreements about strategies and tactics among such diverse groups of people should not be underestimated.  Starting from specific goals is almost guaranteed to result in arguments and unfocussed, unco-ordinated efforts leading to unsatisfactory outcomes.

When I first came across Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), I believed that it might be of some help in working in such organisations, because of its premise that organisational reality is a social construction, with no privileged “objective” position available or possible.  This perspective was encouraged by the discovery that the Open University suggested the use of SSM as a useful methodology in project work with voluntary organisations.

In my consultancy work with voluntary organisations, I had many opportunities to assess the usefulness of SSM in helping them to agree strategies and tactics for their work.  I found SSM particularly useful in the overall process when “"grafted"” onto more orthodox problem-solving methodologies — I most often use the Open University’s generic Hard Systems Approach (HSA).  A “de-jargonised” overview of the total process (as given to participants in strategy formulation sessions) is presented in Figure 1, “"The Problem-Solving Process Route Map".

It is important to point out that the role I adopt in such strategy formulation sessions is not a stereotypical consultant one.  I have no pretensions to be an “expert” in the fields of concern of the organisations with whom I work (although I do hold some values in common with them, this being my main criterion in deciding to work with particular organisations).  Rather, I have experience in methodology use, and in group facilitation skills.  Thus, I have concern for the process aspects (as opposed to the content) of such discussions.

I believe that the contextualisation of methodology use is as important as the details of particular methodologies employed in a situation, although the underlying assumptions of methodologies need to be examined for consistency with the situation as well.  Thus, “"expert"” approaches are more likely to be appropriate for hierarchical organisations than voluntary organisations, given their “democratic” character.  Similarly, participative approaches will “"fit"” voluntary organisations better than they will Taylorist ones.

I have found SSM to be useful in helping multi-voiced groups to understand the different positions of their members and to base agreement about their collective goals on a recognition (sometimes a celebration) of their diversity.  In particular, I have found that, in particular, the stages of drawing rich pictures and of building Conceptual Models lead to appreciation of the constraints and possibilities this diversity provides.

Figure 2 outlines the process of harnessing multi-voiced groups' perspectives, leading to agreement about the goals to be adressed through more orthodox problem-solving approaches.

I start the process by asking all the participants in a strategy formulation session to draw individual pictures (on flipchart paper) of the situation for their organisation at that particular moment, as they perceive it.  To assure them that you do not have to be an artist to do this, I give them some guidelines for drawing such pictures and usually do some example “cartooning” of my own (of absolutely no artistic merit!).  I typically allow participants about 30 minutes to do this, and then ask them to display their pictures alongside each other giving, in effect, a “"gallery"” of rich pictures.

Note that I do not attempt to teach SSM in all its detail and complexity —- participants do not attend for that purpose, but to agree strategies.  This means that the process can be much quicker than a typical university course —- the shortest session I have facilitated covered all of the “"The Problem-Solving Process Route Map"” in six hours.  More typically, the process covers two or three days.  The longest session I have run for a voluntary organisation has been 7 days.  These times are much shorter than other types of consultant intervention I have come across, due in large part to the active participation of the “"client set"” in the process.  This means that they take part in a common discourse of meaning creation, retaining control of the content of their strategy throughout and avoiding the need for reports and presentations by “"expert" consultants.

I then ask individuals to talk the rest of the group through their pictures.  This leads to discussion about the detail of drawings and the perspectives from which they are drawn.  Such discussions can be surprising in what they reveal — an outcome also found in symbolic constructivism, a qualitative research approach using artlike, nonroutine portrayal to elicit, challenge and shift existing sense-making frameworks.  Drawing and discussing rich pictures allows similar outcomes, which provide a foundation of common understanding which is essential for agreement about goals to be addressed.

Once everyone has “"presented"” their picture, I formalise the process of discussion by asking participants to brainstorm issues for the group.  I use the definition. “matters of concern, interest or surprise” for the term “"issue"”.  I suggest that the list of issues be an inclusive one, i.e. a topic is included if any participant sees it as a matter of concern, interest or surprise.  The process of depicting and talking about the different perspectives of the different participants seems to make groups more ready to accept diversity and plurality of issues than I have observed in sessions where the first activity is to brainstorm issues.  Such a start easily leads to arguments about the legitimacy of certain issues even being admitted onto a list —- I suspect because the underpinning appreciation of others’- perspectives has not been built.  I have had the experience of participants saying that they have learned more about their colleagues' beliefs and opinions after an hour-long rich picturing session than in years of sitting in formal meetings with them.

The list of issues that results from this stage can be very long - easily over 100 topics (albeit some of them related) is a common result.  This numerical complexity can lead to paralysis, so the pragmatic way past this impasse that I adopt is to put participants into small groups of two or three, and ask each small group to agree between themselves which issue (or group of issues) they will explore first.  Ideally there should be time for several iterations back to the issues list, so that subsequent issue priorities of the small group can be explored.  Again, I demonstrate for participants the steps involved in going from an issue through to drawing a Conceptual Model (examples of the various stages will be offered at Leuven, as space does not allow their inclusion here).

So, each small group takes an issue, and develops several possible relevant systems around it.  Here I ask the small groups to identify possible transformations (the “"T"” of CATWOE) by imagining what could or might be done about the issue, in addition than what they want to do about it —- this has the advantage of stopping SSM being used as a concealed hard approach.  In practice, this might mean that possible relevant systems to be considered would include some that none of the participants would want to see implemented in the real world.  For example, anti-racist campaigners are likely to gain as much or more insight from exploring how a “"system to promote racism"” might be constructed than from a “"system to combat racism"”, which they effectively try to operate in the real world.  Often by considering such “"devil's advocate"” transformations, participants also begin to understand the beliefs and values that justify them (the “"W"” of CATWOE) even though they do not personally share them.  This surfacing of the importance of values and beliefs often serves to prompt discussions about participants' own values and beliefs, and consolidates the understanding from the rich picture drawing and discussion.

This exploration of issues is developed by deciding on one possible relevant system to expand into a Root Definition.  This expansion is as full as possible — all the CATWOE criteria are explicitly identified, and supporting activities (7±2 in number) that would contribute to achieving the overall Transformation, if it were to exist, are brainstormed.  My examples always include some decision-making activities, some operational activities, and a monitoring and control acrivity.  Checkland's “"three E"s” (efficiency, effectiveness and equity) are adressed when considering the monitoring activity.  This stage leads to a fairly long and detailed Root Definition which facilitates the process of 1:1 mapping onto a Conceptual Model.

This mapping can therefore focus on possible connectivities between activities of the possibly relevant system —- itself another potent source of discussion between small group members about how systems might work, based on their own beliefs about how transformations are brought about in the real world.  In practice, comparison with the real world begins as the Conceptual Models are drawn —- I ask each small group to compare activities and the connections between them with the real world.  This stage also often leads to insight (“"Now I see how you could have a revolution!"” being one of the most notable remarks by a participant). The comparison stage leads to possible items for debate being identified.  Thus, one overall agenda for debate about goals is generated from several small groups examining different issues (or sometimes the same issue, which can often lead to very different Conceptual Models!).  The same activity, or connection between two activities, often appears on the agenda from more than one small group comparison, often from expansion of different issues.

I ask all the small groups to document their progress from issue to comparison stage on sheets of flipchart paper, which are again displayed in a “"gallery"” style, and presented and discussed in similar fashion to the rich picture stage described earlier.  The small groups have to address the practicalities of working in a multi-voiced setting and use their diversity to explore issues from different perspectives, leading to new possibilities for action.  The overall process results in harmonious polyphony rather than discordant cacophony.

The debate that takes place after such a process is informed by the appreciation of others' perspectives gained from the rich picturing exercise, by the discussions of the small groups about priorities as to issues to select for exploration, by the participants' experience of having explored the possibilities of dealing with issues in various ways, and by an appreciation of how issue boundaries overlap.  The outcome of the debate about what the group should decide to do about their multi-issue, multi-voiced situation is a definition of objectives that is much more likely to be robust and achievable than if they had started the strategy formulation session by attempting to define objectives as the first step.

This description of the use of SSM is based on my experiences as a consultant/facilitator with voluntary organisations over the past 8 years.  Possible disruption to this process could arise at the stage of asking participants to draw rich pictures, accepting issues for consideration, agreeing to let small groups decide priorities for themselves, accepting the results of small groups comparing Conceptual Models against the present situation, or agreeing objectives for strategy development.  In my experience, these possibilities have not arisen — I have only ever had one participant refuse to draw a rich picture, and no resistance to the other stages outlined above.  I accept that this may be due as much to my facilitation skills as it is to do with the details of SSM.  However, SSM has led to fuller and more developed strategies than I have seen when other approaches have been adopted.

I offer these reflections on my practice as a consultant/facilitator in the hope that such approaches may be of utility to others —- if they can be helpful in such multi-voiced situations like the voluntary sector, they may be transferable to other settings.  It is not often that one has the opportunity to discuss the details of confidential work with other practitioners, and I hope that some practical assistance in their own organisational interventions results for the reader.


Marcus Lynch
28/4/97

Problem Solving Process Route Map diagram

back to text

Fig 2. Gallery Approach
back to text


BIBLIOGRAPHY

TOP