Soft Systems MethodologyFinal paper

Name: Zeena Spijkerman Student number: 5766664

Student Assistant: Daniel Alami Cabezas

Course: Method Engineering, INFOME

Business Informatics

MSc Information Science

Faculty of Science, Utrecht University

Notice of Originality

I declare that this paper is my own work and that information derived from published or unpublished work of others has been acknowledged in the text and has been explicitly referred to in the list of references. All citations are in the text between quotation marks (“ ”). I am fully aware that violation of these rules can have severe consequences for my study at Utrecht University.

Signed: Name: Zeena Spijkerman

Date: 25/04/2016 Place: Amsterdam

Table of contentsINTRODUCTION 3ORIGINS 4THE METHODOLOGY 5EXAMPLE 7PROCESS DELIVERABLE DIAGRAM 10ACTIVITY TABLE 12CONCEPT TABLE 17REFERENCES 19

2

Introduction

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) was first developed in the 1970s by Peter Checkland and his fellow colleagues at the Lancaster University, UK (Mehregan, Hosseinzadeh & Kazemi, 2012). Checkland is a British management scientist and emeritus professor of Systems at Lancaster University.

SSM is a systemic tool to orchestrate and implement changes in the real world (Rodrígues-Ulloa, 2009) and apply systems thinking to non-systemic situations. The SSM is an action research method that uses models to structure a debate in which different conflicting objectives, needs, purposes, interests and values can be teased out and/or discussed (Checkland, 1989b).

According to Mehregan et al. (2012), SSM considers that any complex set of behaviours has unique emergent properties, better seen as a characteristic of the system as a whole rather than any particular aspect of it. Because of this, SSM is a systemic method: its focus is on the whole rather than on the parts (Tajino, James & Kijima, 2005). The method uses models of purposeful activity systems to set up a debate about change and leads its way to systematically desirable and culturally feasible changes (Checkland, 1989a). Checkland states: “SSM treats what to do as well as how to do it as part of the problem” (1989a, p.16).

SSM is a learning system: it learns about a complex problematical human situation and leads to purposeful action in the situation aimed at improvement (Checkland, 1989a). The method introduces the idea that organizations are systems of purposeful activity that continually bring transformations (Liu, Meng, Mingers, Tang & Wang, 2012). According to Liu et al. (2012) the actors within the organization undertake activities that produce output, which in turn could be a physical entity, a service or information for a notional customer. An owner (or other stakeholder) controls the operation of the system and has the power to create it, within an environment that is also under control of this owner. SSM takes the different views on the nature and purpose of a particular organization (or part of it) and the stakeholders into account. This builds models to reflect the variation of viewpoints. Checkland (1989a) uses the German term “Weltanschauungen to describe the different world views from now on the term Weltanschauungen will be used to address these different world views.

3

OriginsThe SSM originates from System Engineering, this started in the 1950’s and 1960’s when ways of defining and carrying out projects were set down formally in a method to be followed by aspiring project managers (Checkland 1989a). Engineers played a big part in the development because the thinking of engineers extended to designing and creating the systems. The author sees SSM as the problem-solving approach that is developed from systems engineering at the moment at which that approach failed. He concludes:

In a sentence, the essence of the approach is the selection o f an appropriate means to achieve an end which is defined at the start and thereafter taken as given. This is the core of the systems engineering approach whose failures in normal management situations led to the emergence of SSM. (1989a, p.274)

The fundamental thinking underlying systems engineering, systems analysis and operational research are very similar because they all assume that an important class of real-world problems can be formulated as a search for an efficient means of achieving objectives known to be desirable. The approach where the search is systematically conducted by defining the objective to be achieved and manipulating models of the situation has been named as “hard” systems thinking, the “soft” systems thinking elaborates this (Checkland, 1985). The “soft” approach addresses the “what” aspects of a system analysis and design by creating a rich picture of the problematic situation.

4

The methodologyThe SSM is often called the “seven-stage model”, as shown in Figure 1, and covers a range of methodologies developed to deal with different situations (Page, 2008). Stage 1 and 2 represent the “Finding Out” of the problem situation where the focus should be on: the structure, the continuously

changing process and the creation of a climate

(Checkland, 1989a).

Figure 1. The seven stages of Soft Systems Methodology

The acronym CATWOE - Customer, Actors, Transformation, Weltanschauungen, Owner and Environment - emphasizes the most important elements. The models mentioned above consist of some “Root definition (RD)” which is a description of what the systems have to do, who is going to do it and who is responsible for it being done (depicted in stage 3)(Por, 2008). For the root

5

definitions, conceptual models are being used which model the activities that the root definition must necessarily undertake together with their reciprocal relationships (Wang et al., 2015).

Stage 4 depicts the creation of conceptual models that are either a “formal system concept” or a part of “other systems thinking” (Checkland, 1989b). The model building process executes the assembly of the activities which should be depicted in the system and named in the RD (Checkland, 1989a). The author also states that the model structures them according to logical dependencies. The approach is to construct a top-level root definition and a conceptual model for the primary activities of the organization in question (Liu et al., 2012). Afterwards, this is decomposed into a successive level of detail down towards lower level activities of the organization.

One of the concepts to monitor and control components that have been built into the conceptual models and the SSM identifies here three elements for successful performance, also called the “3 E’s “ (Liu et al., 2012):

• (E1) Efficacy: the system successfully produces the outputs that it is supposed to do (this represents the “what” of the root definition)

• (E2) Efficiency: the system does not use resources extravagantly (represents the “how”)

• (E3) Effectiveness: the system does meet the goals and aspirations of the owner (represents the “why”)

At each level the 3 E’s lead to the construction of key performance indicators (Liu et al., 2012).

In Stage 5 the Models and ‘Reality' are being compared, this happens after building conceptual models when the feasibility and desirability of the solution are being assessed (Sankaran, Hou & Orr, 2008). Checkland (1989a) clarifies that the purpose of the comparison stage is to use the differences between models and reality to discuss eventually the possible changes, which could bring improvement in the problem situation.

Stage 6 defines the changes; in this debate the possible changes that appear to those taking part to constitute potential improvements are being defined (Checkland, 1989a).

In the last stage (7) of the method, action is being taken, this happens when the changes are confirmed to be desirable and feasible and have been identified. Implementing the changes completes the cycle of the SSM.

6

Example

An example of a case where the SSM is used is “A systemic method for organizational stakeholder identification and analysis using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)“ by Wang, Liu and Mingers (2015). Frameworks have been produced to classify different forms of stakeholder theories with which the SSM is combined. This research approach has been used because Soft Operational Research is an approach that relies on identifying different stakeholder groups with an eye on the different views about the problematic situation like the use of Weltanschauungen (Mingers & Rosenhead, 2004). Freeman & McVea (2001) saw it in his original stakeholder theory as the “stakeholders in a system”. The approach of Wang et al. is based on the 3E method for performance management, which is based on the SSM. The method that the authors developed used the constructs and processes of SSM and will identify the key stakeholders, which will have two further characteristics (2015):

• The method is able to represent the key activity sets that are essential to achieve organizational objectives.

• It enables the managers to determine the function and roles of each key stakeholder group in the processes of achieving the organizational objectives.

When the initial objective is defined as achieving the strategic goal of an organization, the initial objective level can be decomposed using SSM. Wang et al. (2015, p.566) state that “the relationship between objectives is: the activity in a former decomposition could be the objective for further decomposing”. After this, a formal procedure can take place where the stakeholders are identified by continuously ask and answer the questions: What to do? Why do it? How should it be done? By following carefully structured and constructive procedures according to the SSM. The researchers developed a framework (Table 1) of different categories of potential stakeholders based on CATWOE from SSM and the idea of the “involved” and “affected” from critical systems.

The involved The affected

Owners: can create, change or destroy the system and who supply the Weltanschauungen

Customers: the direct recipients of the output of the system. They may be seen as beneficiaries or victims.

Actors: perform the activities of the system

Environmental groups: are directly necessary for the system e.g. they are suppliers of resources

External groups: indirectly affected by the systems activities

External group: who indirectly affect the systems activities

Table 1. Categories of stakeholders derived from CATWOE and CSH (based on Wang et al., 2015)

With the categories showed in Table 1, the method begins at the top level as defined for the particular project and then decomposes activities to lower levels where for this case the stakeholders are identified in each level.

7

The proposed procedures are summarized by Liu et al. (2015) in five steps:

1. Determine the overall objectives of the organization —> The mission, objectives, and complex environmental and internal factors should be structured and understood. This can be seen as the first two stages of the SSM where the problem situation is looked at as its unstructured self and afterwards expressed (Figure 1).

2. Search for “initial stakeholders” —> This is the group of stakeholders who will be part of the initial discussions about the above-mentioned subjects. These initial stakeholders contain two categories, the wider stakeholders and the key initial stakeholders. The initial riders stakeholders are first identified through the set of categories from Table 1. The initial stakeholders are narrowed down to those individuals/groups who are essential for the achievement of organizational objectives and key activities. Then, a process of discussion and debate among these stakeholders is necessary to reach a consensus or accommodation about the strategic objectives, key activities and their worldviews takes place (Weltanschauungen).

3. Build root definitions and conceptual models —> The initial strategic objective from the previous step is broken down into a set of key activities/actions that together should logically or actually ensure that the overall objective is achieved (the how from SSM from stages 3 and 4). There is a possibility that they are not the same as the current practices in the organization, consensus needs to be reached among the relevant initial stakeholders for any changes. The interconnections between the key activities also should be considered.

4. Continually decompose the activities —> If the key activity needs to be broken down, steps 2 and 3 should be repeated for any key sub-activity for which this is felt necessary. After this, step 4 is repeated recursively until all necessary key activities are clear. By doing this, the employees are able to identify the key stakeholders for those clearly defined key sub-activities in each level from the bottom to top.

5. Produce complete set of stakeholders —> This can be derived from the key activity models bottom to top and level-by-level. Through the process of inducting and summarizing the stakeholders, the set represents its functions at each level of key activities in the process of achieving the organizational strategy goal.

These processes Liu et al. (2015) proposed were used for a case study on the Foreign Language School of the Hunan University in China. The strategic target of the university was to build up a distinctive and comprehensive university, which reaches national top research levels. The strategic plan, the main development objectives of the subordinated schools could be performed by breaking down the strategic goals from the university level and going through some of the SSM stages. After decomposing the strategies with the 5-steps method including SSM of Liu et al., the management of the Foreign Language School had a better understanding of the expectations, roles and responsibilities of the key stakeholders. On of the key actions is to discuss every step thoroughly level by level with the stakeholder groups that have been identified to balance the interests like an important step in the SSM method.

8

The SSM method has also been used by Sankaran et al. (2008) to manage organizational change in combination with action research:

Soft systems methodology (SSM) and action research (AR) can both help in addressing ill-structured problems faced by managers, in collaboration with stakeholders using questioning and reflection. Both lead to an increased understanding about the problem situation. The difference is that SSM uses a more structured approach while AR is emergent in its application. (p.12)

In the research from Sankaran et al. (2008) the SSM and AR were applied to two projects. The first project was carried out by a systems engineer who was looking for a solution to minimize the number of logic faults appearing in a modelling process. The use of SSM method helped in solving this problem and contributed to better practice because the dialectic model of the SSM he adopted resulted in a process of on going learning in his practice. It fulfilled the aims of SSM as being a learning process in human activity systems.

In the second project, a psychiatrist did not directly include SSM but used it as a sense-making system. An important lesson was: “The researcher first thought of the SSM as a process to implement an information systems project but realized that it is a process that promotes better understanding” (Sankaran et al., 2008, p.19).

9

Process Deliverable DiagramThe following Process Deliverable Diagram (PDD, Figure 2) of the SSM is based on the seven main steps of the method as depicted by Checkland (1989a). The meta-models of method can be expressed in PDD’s that consists of two integrated diagrams: the process view on the left-hand side, and the deliverable view on the right-hand side of the diagram (van de Weerd & Brinkkemper, 2008).

Figure 2. The Process Deliverable Diagram of the SSM

10

The SSM with the seven-step model was developed through the initial work in applying systems thinking to real-world problems (Sankaran, Hou Tay & Orr, 2009). As the first two steps are combined in the method, they have been formed as one activity in the PDD. The sub-activities are derived from the actions within the seven steps and the concepts. The SMM recognizes that different stakeholders have different views (Weltanschauungen) about the nature and purpose of a particular organization and so it builds models to reflect there varied viewpoints (Liu et al., 2012). Therefore there are no roles depicted in the PDD. The two colours in the process side of the PDD represent the division between the real world (purple) and systems thinking (red).

The first process is the expression of the problem situation according to the first step in de SSM. The sub-processes are sequentially executed because it is not possible to execute them at the same time. The deliverable from the first process is the overall problem situation with its described structure and climate. The deliverables from this first activity with its sub-activities form a clear view of the PROBLEM SITUATION, often visualized in a rich picture. These kind of pictures represent the complex situations often sketched as a large diagram with pictures and symbols (Monk & Howard, 1998).

Secondly the root definitions are defined, these root definitions are based on the CATWOE as mentioned in the first section and based on this the Weltanschauungen of the system are being described. After this the resulted root definitions are related to the root definitions. This results in a concept ROOT DEFINITION on the deliverable side that consists of one or more Weltanschauungen root definitions and one or more CATWOE root definitions.

In the third process of the PDD, concept models are build, this also happens in the “system thinking” side of SSM. According to Checkland (1989a) the model building process consists of assembling the verbs that describe the activities, verbs because in SSM the core of the language for modelling activity systems is plain English. After the verbs are assembled, they will be structured and the operational activities described. To build the final model of a system, it is necessary to add to the operational system a monitoring and control system that examines the operations and takes control action to change and/or improve it (Checkland, 1989a). After monitoring and controlling the system, the ACTIVITY MODEL can be made.

Back in the real world side of the SSM, the models from the previous step are compared with the real world situation. Based on the comparison, the changes that occurred are being discussed. Two types of changes are generated: systematically desirable and culturally feasible changes. If the POSSIBLE CHANGEs are discussed and approved, action can be taken and the IMPLEMENTED CHANGE is defined. An additional non-graphical rule for the POSSIBLE CHANGE is that they must meet two criteria; they must be systematically desirable and culturally feasible before they can be implemented.

11

Activity table The activity table (Table 2) shows the descriptions of the activities and sub-activities, as well as their relations to the deliverables (van de Weerd & Brinkkemper, 2008). The model consists of activities that are divided in two types: real-world activities and system thinking activities (Mehregan, Hosseinzadeh & Kazemi, 2012). These types will be indicated in the following activity table and in the PDD showed in different colours.

Activity Sub-activity Description

Express Problem situation(Real-world activity)

Record the structure To carry out the ‘finding out’ of the situation , 3 phases take place to get a view on the climate of the situation. “Initially, pictures of the situation in question were assembled by recording elements of the slow-to-change structure.’’(Checkland, 1989a, p.281).

Record the elements of process

Secondly, the dynamic elements of the continuously changing process are recorded. (Checkland, 1989a)

Create climate of situation The view of how the process and structure relate to each other (Checkland, 1989a)

Describe problem situation The structure, process and climate of the problem situation are described as a real world activity.

Formulate Root Definition’s (RD)(Systems thinking activity)

Define CATWOE Coherent formulation of some RDs that are related to the CATWOE and from which models can be built.(Checkland, 1989a)

Define RD Weltanschauungen

The Weltanschauungen of the RD are defined to take the different point of views in account.

Relate Root Definitions to CATWOE

After defining the CATWOE they can be formed into the RD, well-formulated RD's are both 'primary task' and 'issue-based’ that can then be modelled in the next stage. Within the RD, relevant human activity systems should be named. A RD is a definition of a notional system based around three elements:- What the system does (in terms of

output)- How the system does it (use of

particular means)

12

Activity Sub-activity Description

- Why the system does it (contribution of the system to its owner/wider system)

“An RD is often written in the form of ‘‘A system to do P by Q in order to achieve R’’ (Liu et al. 2012, p.532). “

Build Conceptual model(Systems thinking activity)

Assemble the verbs Assemble the verbs that describe the activities, which are based on the RDs and exist in the system.

Structure the verbs Then the verbs are structured according to logical dependencies (Checkland, 1989a).

Describe operational activities

The operational activities govern the assembly of the operational part of the system, which would achieve the transformation process(es) named in the RD. A useful aim is to describe the operational activities in ± 2 activities.

Make monitoring system The final model is that of a system, that is to say a notional entity that could adapt and survive, via processes of communication and control, in a changing environment. Because of this it is necessary to add to the operational sub-system a monitoring and control sub-system. Any system model is thus a combination of an operational system and a monitoring and control system.

Make control system This can be decomposed by asking ‘how could the system fail? Any monitoring and control system must pay attention to all three of the following E’s: Effectiveness, Efficacy and Efficiency. (Checkland, 1989a). The monitoring and control processes are required to track, review, and regulate the progress and performance of the project, identify any areas in which changes to the plan are required, and initiate the corresponding changes (ISO, 2010)

Build activity models The activity models are build by combining the previous sub-activities, each built according to a particular pure view of the world which is declared in the W of CATWOE. The purposeful activity

13

Activity Sub-activity Description

models can never be descriptions of the real world. Each of them expresses one way of looking at and thinking about the real situation (Checkland & Poulter, 2010). “These models are not intended to be models of the organization as it actually is, but rather models of the activities that would necessarily happen if the system described in the root definition were to be brought into existence” (Liu et al. 2012, p.531).

Compare Models & Reality(Real-world activity)

Compare Root Definitions Initial comparison is usefully done at the level of the RD itself by asking: How does it reflect current perceptions? Could it? Should it? The first way to conduct this step is to simply record differences that stand out between the different Root Definitions based on the current perceptions (Checkland, 1989a).

Compare Activity model with situation

The models from the previous stage provide means for perceiving reality and initiating a discussion from which changes to improve the problem situation can be sought (Checkland, 1989a). This is achieved by focussing on differences between the models and perceived reality. “When it comes to comparing activity models with what is currently going on in the situation, we are at the point at which the often unquestioned, informal and intuitive perceptions of reality are brought up against the systems constructs.” (Checkland, 1989a, p.286)

Define model Weltanschauungen

The models are all based upon carefully expressed worldviews so the discussion directs attention to taken-as-given assumptions about the world that highlights alternatives and provides an opportunity for re-thinking many aspects of real-world activity. It is important to carefully think about the Weltanschauungen of each model because CATWOE’s W is a way of ensuring that cultural aspects cannot be completely ignored (Checkland, 1989a).

14

Activity Sub-activity Description

Define changes(Real-world activity)

Discuss possible changes Use the differences between models and reality to discuss possible changes, which could bring about improvement in the problem situation. “Here the thought may be to make reality either more or less like the models: the purpose is to make the debate a coherent one.” (Checkland, 1989a, p.287). These kind of changes have to meet two different criteria simultaneously (see non-graphical rule in Figure 2).

Generate systematically desirable changes

Systematically desirable changes are generated by the comparison of a fecund reality with a number of models (which are logical machines), such as instituting mechanisms for assessing effectiveness, making sure resources are appropriate etc. (Checkland, 1989a) This logic is not enough and should be combined with culturally feasible changes.

Generate culturally feasible changes

The debate must find its way to changes which are also culturally feasible in the particular human situation in question because people will not always be motivated to implement change which is justified merely by logic (Checkland, 1989a). If the changes are not accepted, the changes must be discussed again.

Take action(Real-world activity)

When some changes are identified and accepted as desirable and feasible, implementing these changes in the “Take action” activity completes the cycle of SSM. “The readiness to make the changes of course changes perceptions of the initial problematical situation - which in any case will have been moved on by the very processes of SSM.” (Checkland, 1989a, p.288)

Table 2. Activity table

15

Concept tableTable 3 provides a more elaborated description of the concepts as shown in Figure 2.

Concept Description

PROBLEM SITUATION PROBLEM SITUATION is a portion of the flux of events, perceptions and ideas (Checkland, 1989a)

PROCESS The dynamic elements of the continuously changing process are recorded. PROCESS is a predetermined course of events defined by its purpose or by its effect, achieved under given conditions (ISO/IEC 2382-1:1993), in this case only important elements of the process in the problem situation are gathered.

ROLE The concept ROLES identifies the “clients” who cause the intervention to take place and the “would-be problem solvers” who conduct the study (Checkland, 1989a).

CLIMATE The climate is a view of how the STRUCTURE and the PROCESS relate to each other coming together in the PROBLEM SITUATION.

STRUCTURE This is the STRUCTURE of the problematic situation and is formed by assembled pictures of the situation (Checkland, 1989a).

ROOT DEFINITION The ROOT DEFINITION is constructed by consciously considering the elements of CATWOE. Root definitions (RD) are brief and clear descriptions of notional systems of human activity (Wang, Liu & Mingers, 2015).

RD WELTANSCHAUUNGEN The RD WELTANSCHAUUNG makes the description of the RD meaningful (Checkland, 1989a) an builds models on these to reflect different viewpoints (Liu et al., 2012).

CATWOE The mnemonic CATWOE is defined by the following elements:C=customer: Who would be victims/beneficiaries of the purposeful activity? A= actors: Who would do the activities? T=transformation process: What is the purposeful activity expressed as input and output W= Weltanschauungen: What view of the world makes this definition meaningful? O=owner: Who could stop this activity? E=environmental constraints: What constraints in its environment does this system take as given? (Checkland, 1989a).

CONCEPTUAL MODEL The CONCEPTUAL MODEL consists of assembling the verbs describing the activities which would have to be there in the system named in the RD and structuring them according to logical dependencies (Checkland, 1989a).

MONITORING SYSTEM The MONITORING SYSTEM examines the operations and combined with the CONCEPTUAL MODEL forms an ACTIVITY.

16

Concept Description

CONTROL SYSTEM “[Tool] a collection of formal documented procedures that define how project deliverables and documentation will be controlled, changed, and approved” (ISO, 2010). The CONTROL SYSTEM monitors the operations and takes control action to change and/or improve the CONCEPTUAL MODEL (Checkland, 1989a)

ACTIVITY MODEL The previous systems; MONITORING SYSTEM and CONTROL SYSTEM combined with the CONCEPTUAL MODEL can form an ACTIVITY MODEL.

COMPARISON RD Where the initial comparison between the model/real world starts, this is at RD level.

COMPARISON ACTIVITY MODEL

Comparison between ACTIVITY MODEL and the real world situation.

MODEL WELTANSCHAUUNGEN

These are the MODEL of each WELTANSCHAUUNGEN.

POSSIBLE CHANGE POSSIBLE CHANGE(s) which appear to those taking part to constitute potential improvements worth trying (Checkland, 1989a).

IMPLEMENTED CHANGE When the POSSIBLE CHANGES are accepted as SYSTEMATICALLY DESIRABLE CHANGES and CULTURALLY FEASIBLE CHANGES then the cycle of SSM turns them in IMPLEMENTED CHANGES (Checkland, 1989a), because they can be implemented in the real world.

Table 3. Concept table

17

ReferencesCheckland, P.B. (1985). From optimizing to learning: a development of Systems Thinking for the

1990's. J. Opl. Res. Soc., 36(9), 757-767.

Checkland, P. B. (1989a). Soft Systems Methodology. Human systems management, 8(4), 273-289.

Checkland, P.B (1989b). An Application of Soft System Methodology. In J.Rosenhead (ED).

Rational analysis for a problematical word. Chichester. West Sussex:Wiley.

Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2010). Soft systems methodology. In Systems approaches to managing

change: A practical guide (pp. 191-242). Springer, London.

Freeman, R. E. & McVea, J, (2001). A stakeholder approach to strategic Management. Darden

Business School Working Paper No. 01-02

ISO, I. (2010). IEEE, Systems and Software Engineering--Vocabulary. ISO/IEC/IEEE 24765: 2010 (E))

Piscataway, NJ: IEEE computer society.

Liu, W. B., Meng, W., Mingers, J., Tang, N., & Wang, W. (2012). Developing a Performance

Management System using Soft Systems Methodology: A Chinese case study. European

Journal of Operational Research, 223(2), 529-540.

Mehregan, M. R., Hosseinzadeh, M., & Kazemi, A. (2012). An application of Soft System

Methodology. The First International Conference on Leadership, Technology and Innovation

Management: Vol. 41, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp.426-433). Tehran:

Elsevier.

Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. European Journal of

Operational Research, 152(3), 530–554.

Monk, A., & Howard, S. (1998). Methods & tools: the rich picture: a tool for reasoning about work

context. interactions, 5(2), 21-30.

Page, T. (2008). Soft Systems Modeling of the new project development process - A Case Study. i-

Manager's Journal on Management, 3(2), 34.

Por, J. (2008). The use of Soft System Methodology (SSM) in a serviced-focused study on the

personal Tutor’s Role. Nurse education in practice, 8(5), 335-342.

Rodríguez-Ulloa, R. A. (2009). Soft Systems Methodology. Systems Science and Cybernetics, 2, 138.

Sankaran, S., Tay Hou , B., & Orr, M. (2008). Managing organizational change by using Soft

Systems thinking in action research projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in

Business, 2(2), 179-197.

Tajino, A., James, R. & Kijima, K. (2005). Beyond needs analysis: Soft Systems Methodology for

meaningful collaboration in EAP course design. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,

4, 27–42

18

Wang, W., Liu, W., & Mingers, J. (2015). A systemic method for organisational stakeholder

identification and analysis using Soft Systems Methodology (SSM). European Journal of

Operational Research, 246(2), 562-574.

Weerd, I. van de, & Brinkkemper, S. (2008). Meta-modeling for situational analysis and design

methods. In M.R. Syed and S.N. Syed (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Modern Systems

Analysis and Design Technologies and Applications (pp. 38-58). Hershey: Idea Group

Publishing.

19