The state of the CATWOE analysis in Soft System Methodology

Yoeri Visee, 3686124, y.visee@students.uu.nl, University Utrecht, student assistent Dimitra Papachristou

Introduction In the late 60s soft software methodology (SSM) was founded on the University of Lancaster in the UK by Peter Checkland, a system engineering professor, and his colleague Brian Wilson. It was based on other systematic modeling tools (Checkland, 2000). Soft software methodology can be used as an approach for a wide variety of problems in business process modeling. It can tackle more general problems, but can also be used for the management of change (Connell, 2001). Bergvall­Kåreborn (2001) gives a good summarization of what the purpose of SSM exactly is, namely "to improve real­world situations by orchestrating changes of appreciation through a cyclic learning process." Human activity that cannot be easily structured, like appreciation, norms, relationships and emotions is the main aim of this approach (Vickers, 1968). SSM is an ideal tool for the analysis of complex problems where there are multiple views about the definition of the problem. This can be so called ‘Soft’ problems, like ‘What is the border between the right of privacy and protection against terrorism or ‘ What information can an employer know before a solicitation’. SSM is an iterative process consisting of 7 stages, which can be found in Fig. 1 below. SSM compares some real­world problems with some conceptual models, which is the case in many other system approaches (Pitchman, 1990).

Figure 1: Overview of the 7 stages in SSM 1

To define the root definition(stage 3 of the SSM process) the CATWOE technique is used, which was developed by David Smyth, a member of Checkland’s department, in 1975. After observing SSM, he saw that the method was more successful when certain elements were present, namely: Customer, Actors, Transformation process, Worldview, Owner and Environmental constraints. Those together form the acronym CATWOE. This technique is used to explore the system through constructing a root definition, which helps defining the conceptual model that involves converting the inputs into outputs (Bergvall­Kåreborn, Mirijamdotter & Basden., 2004) Each element has its own purpose, and gives different

1 https://oladoyinbello.wordpress.com/2014/07/05/soft­systems­methodologythe­key­to­structured­systems­analysis­today/

perspective of the problem involved.This will help build a solution that fits each element. Each part of CATWOE will be further defined in the section below.

Example To demonstrate how CATWOE works, an example is given in the table below. Each element (each letter) will be described in a descriptive manner, and at last an example of a deliverable of the CATWOE will be given and explained. In this example the University of Utrecht explores the possibilities to add advertisements to their lectures. A CATWOE checklist can be constructed, based on an analysis of the situation

Customers Students, Marketing agencies, advertising companies

Actors Teachers, Teachers assistant, Designers,

Transformation Process Adding advertisement during lectures of the university

Worldview Increase the revenue of the university to invest more in research projects

Owner University of Utrecht, board of education

Environmental Constraints University regulations, culture, educational laws, privacy laws

Customers This element represents the target of the product or solution, people who are affected by it. Like students who are going to look at the advertisement.

Actors The actors elements refer to everyone who take part in the solution. Actors are the persons who will do the actual activities involved. Teachers will have to put the advertisement in their slides.

Transformation process The process that turns the inputs into outputs. The transformation process describes one single process. So the process from going to the current situation to the future and desired situation. In this case it is the advertisement during the lectures of the university from a situation where there is no advertisement during lectures.

Worldview This defines the big picture of the situation, and can be seen as the most important element in the CATWOE framework. It also predicts the more wide impact of the given solution. The more accurate this element is defined, the more clear the understanding of the system will be. In this example the university tries to up their revenues to be able to spend more on research.

Owners This can be seen as the persons or the entities who have the power to decide if the solution can be implemented or not. These persons have full authority of the system and can make changes at any point during the project. People with such power are the board of education in this case.

Environmental constraints This last element represents the boundaries and constraints where the solution should work in. Those aspects can not be changed by the system, like laws and privacy issues. In this case things like culture and educational law can be of a problem (Bergvall­Kåreborn, 2004; Patching, 1990). Conceptual model The model below(Figure 2) is an example of a deliverable derived from a CATWOE analysis from a paper about forest conservation in Finland. The model is based on 7 interviews using the CATWOE analysis and should help forest owners making decisions about voluntary forest conservation(Kumela, Hujala, Rantala & Pykäläinen, 2012).

Fig. 2: Quoted from the paper: “Soft­systemic illustration of the themes emerged in the interviews; actors in the middle, general themes on top and actor­specific themes at the bottom. Positive and tentious features marked with suns and lightning, respectively.” (Kumela et al., 2012)

Related literature Critique In the paper of Basden(2002) some problems of CATWOE analysis are reviewed and they show some enrichments to the classical elements. For example C no longer focuses on individuals but instead on repercussions and O is no longer Owner but has responsibilities. This is done by by employing a multi­aspectual philosophy (Basden & Wood­Harper, 2002). In a paper from Checkland and Tsouvalis (1997) the authors build upon the idea that the line dividing the real and conceptual world should be ‘disregarded lest it be taken to indicate a false dualism’ in SSM. They argue that root definitions define and induce dispositions, thus allowing different forms of relationships form between the two. Comparison This paper is about Open Source Software and they argue that the Zachman's IS architecture(ISA) and the CATWOE framework in SSM have been very important and influential in the IS field. They used those two frameworks to make an new framework to analyze the OSS approach (Feller & Fitzgerald, 2000). In another paper five system approaches in the information system development are compared, including Interactionist approach; the Speech Act­based approach: Soft Systems Methodology; the Trade Unionist approach and the Professional Work Practices approach (Hirschheim & Klein, 1997). In 1995 Plat and Warwick give an overview of the SSM methodology and the development of it. So it can indicate the ways in which managers can use it to improve their systems. They find out that Peter Checkland and Wilson both went their own direction, because Checkland went more to the philosophical side of the SSM and Wilson more to the practical application of the SSM. Case study In this case study the CATWOE framework is used to analyse the art of storytelling and is used to stimulate storytelling and the creation of it. They further conclude by discussing the concept of truth and how this can impact the storytelling( Sobreperez & Ferneley,2009). This paper uses the SSM framework to construct an Multi­Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) aimed at appraising energy efficiency initiatives. They try to provide some general guidelines on how to use SSM to facilitate the emergence of objectives for MCDA models (Neves, Dias, Antunes & Martins, 2009)

SSM is also used to perform a case study on specific innovation diffusion initiative within an organisation to discuss how knowledge­pull from external knowledge sources could structure knowledge exchange as a knowledge management initiative (Maqsood, Walker & Finegan, 2007).

Process­Deliverable Diagram of the CATWOE Analysis

In this part the Process­Deliverable Diagram(PDD) is constructed in Figure 1 below. The SSM process consist of 7 stages, but the focus in this PDD is on Stage 3. This stage focuses on the CATWOE analysis and the construction of Root Definitions. The next step in the SSM process is to construct conceptual models out of those Root Definitions, which is shown as well in the PDD to make it clear where this fits in the SSM process(Kumela, Hujala, Rantala & Pykäläinen, 2012).

Figure 1: PDD of the CATWOE analysis in the SSM process. (Redesign is in the making for Final paper)

Activity table

Activity Sub­Activity Description

Collect information Collect information sources INFORMATION SOURCES are needed to be able to perform a CATWOE analysis. Defining the problem is done in stage 1 and 2 of the SSM process, but falls out of the context of this PDD, therefore this activity is closed.

Perform CATWOE Analysis Identify Transformation process This identify all the Transformation in the information source. It always goes from Input>Transformation> Output (Bergvall­Kåreborn, Mirijamdotter & Basden, 2004).

Identify Worldview This identify all the the Worldviews in the information source and is parallel performed with the transformation process.

Identify Customers The next 4 activities can be performed an unordered way, but need to be finished to be able to go to the next activity. Identifying CUSTOMER is important, because they are ‘defined as the beneficiary or victim of the system’s activity’ (Bergvall­Kåreborn et al., 2004).

Identify Actors This Identify the actors of the transformation process found in the information source.

Identify Owner This activity identify the Owners found in the information source..

Identify Environment Identifying the ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS shows the boundaries of the systems activities.

Construct Root definition Formulate Root definition The concepts of the CATWOE TABLE are used to formulate a ROOT DEFINITION. If the ROOT DEFINITION is approved, then the process continues, else it starts all over again.

Make Conceptuall model Construct Conceptual model The ROOT DEFINITION AND CATWOE TABLE are used to construct a CONCEPTUAL MODEL. This activity is closed, because it falls out of the context of this PDD.

Concept table

Concept table Description

INFORMATION SOURCE An information source is the base of the CATWOE Analysis and the input for the CATWOE DIAGRAM. This can be any information source from interview to a ‘rich picture’. A ‘rich picture’ is picture that describes the situation, which otherwise cannot be described by words (Bergvall­Kareborn & Grahn,1996). Closed concept for reasons stated above.

CATWOE TABLE The CATWOE TABLE is the core concept of the PDD, this is the result of the 6 following sub­concepts. CATWOE is the mnemonic for Customer, Actor, Transformation process, Weltanschauung, Owner and Environmental constraints. Each information source can have one CATWOE TABLE. e.g one interview (Checkland & Tsouvalis, 1997). There is an ID for each table to identify it later on in a database.

TRANSFORMATION PROCESS “The core purpose of CATWOE is always expressed as a TRANSFORMATION PROCESS in which some entity is transformed into some new form of that same entity in order to achieve some longer term aim” (Hirschheim & Klein, 1997).

WELTANSCHAUUNG The Weltanschauung is the result of the Worldview identification and can be described as the person's worldview and beliefs, which makes the T meaningful(Bergvall­Kåreborn et al.,2004).

And places a central role in the SSM process(Bergvall­Kåreborn, 2001).

ACTOR ACTOR are the entities who make the T possible, and perform the T. In other words: “Actor is the agent of change who carries out the transformation”(Feller & Fitzgerald, 2000).

CUSTOMER CUSTOMER are the people who are affected by the T, in a positive or negative way (Sánchez & Mejía, 2008)

OWNER The OWNER is ‘represented by a person or group with formal power to stop the Transformation’ (Checkland and Scholes, 1990).

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS The ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS gives the boundaries for the system in which it has to operate. This can be e.g. time and resources, existing structure or norms(Checkland and Scholes, 1990)(Kumela et al., 2012).

ROOT DEFINITION A ROOT DEFINITION can be made out of the elements of the CATWOE. A ROOT DEFINITION describes a system doing something, using some means, in order to achieve some purpose (Sánchez & Mejía, 2008). A ROOT DEFINITION can be task­based(e.g. from raw material to product) or issue­based(e.g a more social problem)(Checkland, 1981). There is an ID for each definition to identify it later on in a database.

CONCEPTUAL MODEL The CONCEPTUAL MODEL has as purpose to notionally accomplish what has been defined in the root definition. It uses elements from the CATWOE as well(Checkland & Tsouvalis, 1997). Closed concept for reasons stated above.

References Basden, A., & Wood­Harper, A. T. (2002). A philosophical enrichment of CATWOE (Doctoral dissertation). Praxis Education). Salford: University of Salford. Bergvall­Kåreborn, B. Mirijamdotter, A., & Basden, A. (2004). Basic principles of SSM modeling: an examination of CATWOE from a soft perspective. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 17(2), 55­73. Bergvall­Kareborn, B. and Grahn, A. (1996b). Multi­Modal thinking in soft systems methodologies rich pictures. World Futures, 47, 79–92 Bergvall­Kåreborn B. (2001). Enriching the Model Building Phase of Soft Systems Methodology. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 19:27­48. Checkland, P. (2000). Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 17(S1), S11. Checkland, P. B., and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, New York. Checkland, P. 1981. Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester: Wiley. Checkland, P., & Tsouvalis, C. (1997). Reflecting on SSM: the link between root definitions and conceptual models. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 14(3), 153­154. Connell, N. A. D. (2001). Evaluating soft OR: some reflections on an apparently 'unsuccessful' implementation using a Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) based approach. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 150­160. Feller, J., & Fitzgerald, B. (2000, December). A framework analysis of the open source software development paradigm. Proceedings of the twenty first international conference on Information systems, Australia, 2000. Hirschheim, R., & Klein, H. (1997). A comparison of five alternative approaches to information systems development. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 5(1). Kumela, H., Hujala, T., Rantala, M., & Pykäläinen, J. (2012). Forest owners’ decision support for voluntary conservation–the present state and tensions among purposeful action models in Finland. Scandinavian Society of Forest Economics Hyytiälä, Finland, 60­68. Maqsood, T., Walker, D. H., & Finegan, A. D. (2007). Facilitating knowledge pull to deliver innovation through knowledge management: A case study.Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 14(1), 94­109.

Neves, L. P., Dias, L. C., Antunes, C. H., & Martins, A. G. (2009). Structuring an MCDA model using SSM: A case study in energy efficiency. European Journal of Operational Research, 199(3), 834­845. Patching, D. (1990). Practical soft systems analysis, London: Pitman. Platt, A., & Warwick, S. (1995). Review of soft systems methodology.Industrial Management & Data Systems, 95(4), 19­21. Sánchez, A., & Mejía, A. (2008). Learning to support learning together: An experience with the Soft Systems Methodology. Educational Action Research,16(1), 109­124. Sobreperez, P., & Ferneley, E. (2009). Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story: A case study investigation into extracting and analysing stories using CATWOE. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 17(1), 200. Vickers G. (1968). Value Systems and Social Process, London: Tavistock