Professional Documents
Culture Documents
6, 2000
1. INTRODUCTION
This paper appears in this special Festschrift edition of Systemic Practice and
Action Research to honor the work of Peter Checkland over 30 years in developing soft systems methodology (SSM). As such, it is permissible and indeed
highly appropriate that at least some of the paper is more personal than is usual,
reflecting on my own experiences of SSM and Peter himself, and the effect that
they have had on my intellectual development over the years. It is appropriate
both because I have been asked to address the theme of the history and development of SSM (and I have been personally involved since 1976) and because
I am sure that my own experiences are in many ways typical of a large number of others. So, this paper is organized into three main sectionsthe first a
personal reflection on SSM, the second a fairly descriptive account of its history and development, and the third a more objective attempt at evaluating its
importance, and its limitations.
2. A PERSONAL REFLECTION ON SSM
Business School, Warwick University, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK. e-mail: j.mingers@
warwick.ac.uk. Fax: +1203 524539.
733
1094-429X/ 00/ 00/ 1200-0733$18.00/ 0 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation
734
Mingers
735
inated by the core course put on largely by Peter, with some help from Brian
Wilson. Looking back at my notes and the course handbook, it makes interesting
readingsome of the main topics were Engineering an Organization as a System, Systems Engineering Methodology I, Systems Engineering Methodology II,
A Meta-Methodology of Systems Engineering, Systems Engineering and Social
Systems. These show clearly the origins of SSM in hard systems engineering,
but the concern with its use in organizations and social systems. I have to say
that Peters lectures were some of the best I have ever experienced, both because
they addressed my fundamental concerns and issues about people in organizations and because Peter was incredibly incisive and articulate, always peppering
his lectures with provocative and stimulating insights. The lecture course began
with a well-crafted introduction to systems thinking and systems engineering and
then gradually introduced the main components of what was to become SSM by
showing how each had arisen as a response to applying hard systems in social
organizations. It is perhaps of historical interest to reproduce a diagram from the
course book summarizing Methodology II (Fig. 1) with some annotations of
mine. All the key concepts of a rich picturing of the situation, root definitions
and conceptual models, CATWOE, and the vital concept of Weltanschauung,
were in place.
For myself, I became convinced that here was a genuine attempt to deal, in
a rational way, with the actual reality of organizational life. I will just recount
two particular incidents that still stick in my mind as pivotal in appreciating the
(then) novelty of SSM. One was a case study we had to work onDexdahl.
This concerned a small company that had just started up making ski trees for
ski boots. The owners had been doing this in their spare time from their main
jobs, but business was developing well and beginning to get out of control. The
case was ostensibly about how many they should make and how many parts to
order. Using my OR background, I did a thorough analysis of costs and revenues,
used various forecasting techniques to predict future demand, and recommended
that they should expand their production facilities and go full time. I presented
my analysis, which was accepted without criticism except that, at the end, Peter
asked if I had considered whether they would want to take on this riskmight
they not be happier maintaining their safe full-time jobs and running the business part-time? I realized that I had made the classic mistake of not treating
them as real people, with all that that implied, but simply as economic agents
assumed to want nothing but maximum profits. It showed how SSM was centrally concerned with dealing with the world as it really was, rather than making
unrealistic abstract assumptions.
The second is an example often used by Peter. It concerns the Director of
the National Coal Board meeting a miner. The Director is told that this particular
miner is often absent and generally misses at least a day a week. The Director
says, Why do you only work four days a week? The miner replies, Because
736
Mingers
Fig. 1. Systems Engineering Methodology II (from MA Systems in Management course book S.E.1,
1976). Annotations in italics by J.M., 2000.
I cannot earn enough in three. This example absolutely epitomizes the way in
which we unconsciously adopt particular perspectives that we assume are shared
by everyone else, and how, in reality, there can be quite opposite viewpoints that
are equally rational from that particular perspective.
By the end of the MA, I was wholly converted to SSM as embodying a
whole new way of thinking about interventions in organizations, and I looked
back on operational research and its abstract mathematical formalisms as virtually useless for dealing with real-world problems. From a later perspective
this was clearly the overzealousness of the convert, and I will discuss some of
the limitations of SSM in the final section. I will now move to a more ordered
account of the history of SSM.
737
Mingers
738
without knowing how to do it. His inaugural lecture (Checkland, 1969) foreshadows the major themes of soft systems thinking. He saw his task was to take conventional, hard, systems engineering and, through practical engagements, develop it to
be able to deal with the humanness of human beings and, in particular, highlighted
the importance of irrationality, creativity, and values all of which went unrecognized within systems engineering.
During the next 3 years, after a series of projects on unstructured problem
situations, many of the basic tools of SSM were developed. One study of interest was in designing an information system for a textile company (Checkland
and Griffin, 1970). This recognized that systems ideas were helpful or structuring messy situations rather than solving problems, constructing notional systems
rather than simply redesigning what already existed, and recognizing that information needs followed from properly designed organizational activities, thus predating BPR by some 20 years. A first general description of the methodology,
essentially the same as Fig. 1, was given by Checkland in 1972, and the nowfamiliar seven-stage diagram was published by Checkland in 1975 and is reproduced in Fig. 2.
For the rest of the 1970s, work at Lancaster concentrated on two
areasimproving the effectiveness of the techniques within SSM and exploring the philosophy and social theory underpinning it and its relations to other
discourses such as operational research (OR). In the first area Checkland (1976b)
739
in Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, there are no examples of actual Rich Pictures. At that
stage the term is used in the sense of gaining a rich picture of a situation without capturing this in
an actual diagram.
3 Controversial in the sense that it either seems to privilege one particular W, the official one, or
assumes that the primary task will be agreed by everyone and be essentially uncontentious and
perhaps even W-free.
740
Mingers
was situated on Burrell and Morgans (1979) typology of social theory within
the Interpretive half but lying across the Regulation/ Change dimension, and
comparisons were drawn with Critical Theory, although this was the subject of
debate to be discussed below.
3.2. SSM Growing UpThe 1980s
If SSM was developed in the 1970s, it was refined in the 1980s, and began
to have an impact in other fields through debates with OR and Critical Theory,
and its application within information systems. To take the internal developments first, many fairly minor improvements were generated through practical
experiences of using SSM. These are documented in SSM in Action (Checkland and Scholes, 1990) and include The 3 Es (sometimes 5) of monitoring and
controleffectiveness, efficacy, and efficiencyand the Do X by Y in order
to achieve Z formula for CMs (Checkland et al., 1990); the development of
Analyses 1 (the intervention), 2 (the social aspects), and 3 (the political aspects)
and the construction of rich picture diagrams; the use of metaphor and pictures
in developing RDs (Atkinson and Checkland, 1988); and a refinement of concepts, e.g., Weltanschauung (Checkland and Davies, 1986) and holon (Checkland, 1988a). But aside from these, there was a more significant change in the
way that Checkland himself conceptualized SSM that took it away from the traditional seven-stage model (and which has been problematic for many people
who internalized SSM in the 1970s). The change is manifest in three waysthe
abandonment of the seven-stage model as a description of SSM, the distinction
between Mode 1 and Mode 2 use of SSM, and the development of the constitutive rules for SSM.
During this period many projects were carried out using SSM and the experienced users, especially Checkland, found that they rarely used it following
rigidly the seven-stage method and so a more generalized and flexible representation of the process was developed (Checkland, 1988b; Checkland and Scholes,
1990, p. 27). This is shown in Fig. 3. SSM is now realized as two streams of
enquiryone a stream of cultural analysis of the organizational context and the
other a stream of logic-based enquiry using traditional SSM models. The two
streams necessarily interact, and through a process of comparison and reflection,
it is hoped that desirable and feasible changes will emerge.
The second development was the emergence of what became known as Mode
1 and Mode 2 usage of SSM (Checkland and Scholes, 1990, p. 280; Checkland and
Holwell, p. 164), although the distinction is rather hazy. Mode 1 use is fairly easy to
define. Given that SSM was developed to help consultants and students (from Lancaster) approach problems in external organizations, an ideal-type mode 1 example
would be an external person, using SSM in the traditional seven stages, to tackle a
problem in an organization. Mode 2 use is defined mainly by being different from
741
is a development of the idea that SSM should be given away to clients. In the later projects it
is very common to get those involved in the situation to use the methodology themselves facilitated
by the SSM expert.
742
Mingers
743
only in the current issue (January 2000) that soft OR and soft systems modeling have made it to the official list of key words. Nevertheless, soft OR, and
SSM in particular, are now recognized as a key part of MS/ OR5 as witnessed by
OR Society courses, textbooks such as Pidd (1996) (who is currently President
of the OR Society) and Daellenbach (1994), and the syllabi of all major MScs
in OR.
A rather more contentious confrontation occurred between soft systems and
what became known as critical systems. Mingers (1980) first pointed out a possible connection between SSM and the work of a German Critical Theory sociologist, Habermas (1978), who also pointed out the limitations of traditional hard
systems analysis and saw the need for a new approach to rational planning that
accepted the world of meanings and values. However, from a critical perspective it could be said that SSM, in focusing exclusively on the espoused beliefs
and values of individual people, thereby lost connection to the wider social and
political structure that shaped such beliefs (Mingers, 1984). It was also argued
by Jackson (1982) that this subjectivist attitude ultimately led the work of not
only Checkland, but also Ackoff and Churchman, to be inherently conservative, unable to bring about radical changes. This charge was strongly denied by
all threeCheckland (1982), Ackoff (1982), and Churchman (1982)Checkland
arguing that SSM was inherently a learning system and there were no restrictions
on the degree of change that it could bring about in principle. It is interesting
to note, however, that some of the later developments within SSM have focused
on the social and political domains.6
3.3. MaturitySSM in the 1990s
The third age of SSM was essentially one of dissemination and diffusion
as Checklands own work, and that of the many people who by then had been
through the Lancaster Masters course,7 spread both geographically and by discipline. That is not to say that internal development ceased: for example, there
have been quite significant reinterpretations of the real-world/ systems-thinking world dividing line (Tsouvalis and Checkland, 1996) and the relationship
between root definitions and conceptual models (Mingers, 1990; Checkland and
Tsouvalis, 1997).
Some idea of the spread and success of soft systems thinking generally,
5 At
least outside North America where hard OR still rules. Virtually no papers on soft OR have
been published in the main U.S. journals (except Interfaces).
6 Unhappily, the debate was not concluded but degenerated into rather personal attackssee Checkland (1993), Jackson (1993), and Flood (1993).
7 It is quite remarkable how a single, fairly small course can have produced so many successful
academicsfor example, Bob Galliers, Frank Stowell, Mike Jackson, Trevor Wood-Harper, Lynda
Davies, Ramses Fuenmayor, John Mingers, and Paul Ledington, who all hold Professorships.
744
Mingers
and SSM in particular, can be gained from three surveys that I have carried
out. In 1990 (Mingers and Taylor, 1992) questionnairs were sent to 300 OR and
systems practitioners to discover the extent and success of usage of SSM. A
very high 47% responded, and in total 30% of the sample had used SSM, 66%
of these more than once, and 44% three or more times. These users covered a
wide range of occupations and organizations, and the application areas included
organizational design, information systems, performance evaluation, education,
and general problem solving. Over 90% reported their success as reasonable,
good, or very good. This survey was replicated in Australia with broadly similar results (Ledington and Donaldson, 1997). A second source of evidence is a
literature review of published case studies that use some form of soft systems
or OR methods (Mingers, 2000b). The results are shown in Table I.
As can be seen, there is a wide range of successful applications of soft
OR/ systems covering many applications areas, but what is particularly noticeable is the dominance of SSM as a methodology used both by itself and in combination with other approaches. Given that published work will be but a small
subset of what actually happens in practice, this shows a very healthy picture.
The practice of combining methods with SSM is an example of multimethodology (Mingers and Brocklesby, 1997), and this has been the subject of a further
survey of practitioners currently being analysed. Detailed questionnaires were
sent to 250 OR and systems practitioners asking about their knowledge and practical use of a comprehensive range of hard and soft methods and, particularly,
the use of the methods in combinations. SSM was the most frequently used
soft method, coming behind more traditional techniques such as statistical analysis, forecasting, and simulation. But when combinations were analyzed, SSM
was by far the most common element. It was routinely combined with cognitive
mapping, VSM, strategic choice, simulation, statistics, and interactive planning
(Munro and Mingers, 2000).
As well as general usage, SSM has been of particular importance in information systemsindeed Checklands latest book (Checkland and Holwell, 1998)
concerns precisely that. As mentioned above, one of the very first papers (Checkland and Griffin, 1970), before SSM had even been developed, was an IS application, but the main interest developed during the 1980s with the idea of linking
SSM to already existing IS systems design methodologies. SSM would ensure
a rich and user-centered focus, and the IS methodology would be used for the
detailed systems design and implementation. Although this sounds intuitively
appealing, there are in fact significant philosophical and practical problems in
linking a soft interpretive methodology to a hard, objectivist one (Mingers,
1988). There was considerable debate about whether it could or should be done,
and whether one should be embedded or grafted onto the other, much of which
is given by Stowell (1995), after a series of discussion seminars held at Warwick
University.
745
Reference(s)
Pauley (1998)
Cognitive maps
SSM + VSM + Interactive
Planning
Bennett (1994)
Ormerod (1998b)
Cognitive maps
Interactive planning + SD
Interactive planning
VSM
VSM
VSM
Rasegard (1991)
VSM
SD + SSM
VSM
Cognitive map + SD
System dynamics +
soft systems
System dynamics +
soft systems
SSM
SSM
SSM
VSM
SSM + process models
SSM+ grounded theory
Interactive planning + SSM
+ VSM + strategic
choice
Galliers (1993)
Ledington (1992)
Knowles (1993)
Schuhman (1990)
Boardman and Cole (1996)
Platt (1996)
Ormerod (1996a, b, 1998)
SSM
Winch (1993)
Kartowisastro and
Kijima (1994)
Mingers
746
Table I. (Continued )
Application area
Planning livestock
management in Nepal
Transport planning
Agrotechnology transfer
in Hawaii
Natural resource
management
Lake management
Energy rationalization
Integration in transport
planning
Regional planning in
South Africa
Health services
Outpatient clinics
Reference(s)
SSM
SSM
SSM
SSM + nonequilibrium
ecology
SSM + DSS
SSM + QQT
Cognitive maps
Interactive planning
Strumpfer (1997)
SSM
Thoren (1996)
Lehaney and Paul
(1994, 1996)
Wells (1995)
SSM
SSM
Interactive planning
Maciaschapula (1995)
Lehaney and Hlupic
(1995)
Midgley and Milne
(1995)
Lartindrake and
Curran (1996)
Cognitive maps
Cognitive maps
Brown (1992)
Calori et al. (1994)
Cognitive maps
SSM + simulation
Critical systems
Cognitive maps
747
Checklands achievements in developing SSM but also point out what I see as
lost opportunities or perhaps roads not taken.
In terms of achievement the whole of this paper has documented the extent
to which SSM has reoriented an entire discipline and touched the lives of literally
thousands of people. Researching this article has made me realize the extent to
which soft and interpretive thinking is now completely taken for granted within
the systems discipline and, to a great extent, within OR/ MS and many areas of
information systems.
Perhaps the biggest way in which SSM has failed to realize its full potential
can best be summarized as its isolationist stance. What I mean by this is that
SSM development, especially led by Checkland at Lancaster, has been a closed
and inward-looking world, failing properly to engage with and draw on important and valuable work in other disciplines, or even recognize contributions to
SSM by people not at Lancaster. This is a strong charge and needs to be well
founded.
Looking to the early days, SSM was clearly radically different from anything else around, and quite rightly developed its own language and conceptual
structures. It had of necessity to separate itself from other discourses and to
learn its own lessons through reflective action research. Lancaster was where
the action was and so, not unnaturally, there developed a rather closed and isolated culture. However, by the 1980s SSM was reasonably well defined and had
secure philosophical underpinnings, its reputation was spreading, and other centers of SSM excellence were becoming established. At the same time, problems
and limitations of SSM were being highlighted and it was being tested in new
situations, especially information systems: to list just some, the lack of any kind
of structural social theory able to go beyond the world of individual meanings;
the lack of recognition of the importance of power and politics; problems of
bringing about change in organizationsi.e. actually implementing recommendations; lack of guidance on facilitation as opposed to analysis; and problems,
especially within IS, in moving from broad agreements to detailed designs.
In the light of all this, you might expect that an approach as flexible and
open as SSM, committed to learning and developing, would draw on and welcome insights and experiences from whereever they came. However, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, which documents developments in SSM throughout
the 1970s and 1980s, demonstrates how the learning is derived virtually exclusively from within Lancasters own SSM experiences. Whenever a problem is
encountered it is approached afresh as though no useful thinking or experience
has occurred elsewhere. To take just a few examples. Chapter 4 deals with the
first experiences of projects in nonindustrial settings such as the NHS. According to the book, the response to this was not to look at the literature on the
public sector but simply to look in the Lancaster archives for any past projects
in this area. In Chapter 2 the need for social and political analysis within the
748
Mingers
is not the place to reference relevant material fully but the interested reader can consult work
by D. Avison, G. Fitzgerald, R. Galliers, P. Lewis, J. Mingers, F. Stowell, T. Wood-Harper, and D.
West.
749
With a single blow Checkland reduces the force of systems thinking. Systems thinking began (in modern times) with the cyberneticians of the 1930s who
found the concepts necessary to explain puzzling features of the world. The way
in which organisms could display complex and apparently purposeful behavior
with no central control led to the concepts of negative feedback and information; the cyclical patterns of equilibriating and disequilibriating behavior that
occurred in so many different domains led to the notions of interacting positive
and negative feedback loops; and the failure of reductionist thinking to explain
the diversity and persistence of the biological world led to ideas of holism and
emergence. These were more than mere epistemological devices to organize our
thinking, they were genuine explanatory concepts in that the existence of such
systemic processes in the world was necessary to explain the phenomena that
were observed. To deny reality to systems concepts is to reduce them to an essentially arbitrary language game.9
There is not space here to make these arguments fully (see Mingers, 2000a),
but I will summarize them briefly. Checkland is right to recognize that we do not
have access to the world in a pure, unmediated way. Clearly, as human beings we
can only ever experience anything through our perceptual and linguistic apparatus. It does not follow from that, however, either that our descriptions are unrelated to the world or that we should deny existence to anything simply because
our knowledge or perception are limited. This is to commit the epistemic fallacy
(Bhaskar, 1978), that is believing that statements about being can be analyzed
or limited by statements about our knowledge. Checkland is also right that we
can never know definitely or prove conclusively the existence of systems. Again,
however, this does not prove the converse, that they do not exist. We can move
beyond the crude empiricist ontological criterion that to be is to be perceived, and
9 In
750
Mingers
instead adopt the critical realist view that causal efficacy is the proper criterion
for existence. In other words, if some structure or system can be shown to have
causal effects on the world, then, whether we can perceive it or not, it can be said,
putatively, to exist. Given this criterion, we can take particular phenomena that
we wish to explain, hypothesize possible generative mechanisms which, if they
existed would generate the experienced phenomena, and then attempt to confirm
or refute them. This philosophical stance grants possible reality to both physical
and conceptual systems while recognizing the inevitable observer-dependence
of our descriptions, and allowing that the social world is inherently different to
the natural world.
5. POSTSCRIPT
In place of a conclusion, which would seem too final for what is still a fruitful and potentially developing approach, I would just like to offer two personal
reactions. In researching this paper I have had to reread many old documents,
and especially my notes and books from the MA over 20 years ago. It has been
a very interesting process that brought back to me the enthusiasm and sense of
originality of those early days. It really felt as though the straight-jacket of earlier thinking was being thrown off, and new vistas were opening out. That it all
now seems so much common sense is a testament to its successful sedimentation in all our thinking. This is really all due to the originality of Peter Checklands ideas, and the single-mindedness with which he pursued them whereever
they led.
Where to next? Well, organizations are still full of problems and difficulties,
but of even more importance currently is the world of public affairs, whether
it is the national or international scene. We still have, in the United Kingdom,
major problems of poverty, inequality, health, and education, and the current government recognizes how vital systems thinking is with its slogan of joined-up
government. But even worse are the international problems of underdevelopment, poverty and starvation, environmental destruction, and civil and international war, which seem no better now than they ever have been. This is where
the challenge for systemic thinking lies and where SSM has a major role to play.
REFERENCES
Ackerman, F., and Eden, C., et al. (1997). Modeling for litigation: mixing qualitative and quantitative
approaches. Interfaces 27(2), 4865.
Ackoff, R. (1977). Optimizing + objectivity c opt out. Eur. J. Operat. Res. 1(1), 17.
Ackoff, R. (1979a). The future of operational research is past. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 30, 93104.
Ackoff, R. (1979b). Resurrecting the future of operational research. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 30, 189199.
Ackoff, R. (1982). On the hard-headedness and soft-heartedness of M. C. Jackson. J. Appl. Syst.
Anal. 9, 3133.
751
752
Mingers
753
Galliers, R., Mingers, J., and Jackson, M. (1997). Organization theory and systems thinking: The
benefits of partnership. Organization 4(2), 269278.
Gough, J. D., and Ward, J. C. (1996). Environmental decision making and lake management.
J. Environ. Manage. 48(1), 115.
Gregory, A. J., and Jackson, M. C. (1992). Evaluating organizationsA systems and contingency
approach. Syst. Pract. 5(1), 3760.
Habermas, J. (1978). Knowledge and Human Interests, Heinemann, London.
Haynes, M. G., and McGregor, A. G., et al. (1997). The business team standard: A means of improving the effectiveness of individual businesses in a multibusiness corporation. Syst. Pract. 10(3),
219239.
Hindle, T., and Checkland, P., et al. (1995). Development of a methodology for multidisciplinary
action researchA case-study. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 46(4), 453464.
Jackson, M. (1982). The nature of soft systems thinking: The work of Churchman, Ackoff, and
Checkland. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 9, 1727.
Jackson, M. (1993). Politics or scholarship: A response to Checkland. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 44(6),
631632.
Kartowisastro, H., and Kijima, K. (1994). An enriched soft systems methodology (SSM) and its
application to cultural-conflict under a paternalistic value system. Syst. Pract. 73(3), 241253.
Kennedy, B. (1996). Soft systems methodology in applying psychology. Austral. Psychol. 31(1),
5259.
Khisty, C. J. (1995). Soft systems methodology as learning and management tool. J. Urban Plan.
Dev. 121(3), 91107.
Knowles, J. (1993). A soft systems analysis of a CD-Rom network for a multisite polytechnic.
J. Librarian. Inform. Sci. 25(1), 1521.
Lartindrake, J. M., and Curran, C. R. (1996). All together nowThe circular organization in a
university hospital. Syst. Pract. 9(5), 391401.
Ledington, P. (1992). Intervention and the management processAn action-based research study.
Syst. Pract. 5(1), 1736.
Ledington, P., and Donaldson, J. (1997). Soft OR and management practice: A study of the adoption
and use of soft systems methodology. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 48(3), 229240.
Lee, S., Courtney, J. F., et al. (1992). A system for organizational learning using cognitive maps.
Omega 20(1), 2336.
Lehaney, B., and Hlupic, V. (1995). Simulation modeling for resource allocation and planning in the
health sector. J. Roy. Soc. Health 115(6), 382385.
Lehaney, B., and Paul, R. J. (1994). Using soft systems methodology to develop a simulation of
outpatient services. J. Roy. Soc. Health 114(5), 248251.
Lehaney, B., and Paul, R. J. (1996). The use of soft systems methodology in the development of
a simulation of outpatient services at Watford General Hospital. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 47(7),
864870.
Macadam, R., and Vanasch, R., et al. (1995). A case study in development planning using a systems
learning approachGenerating a master plan for the livestock sector in Nepal. Agr. Syst. 49(3),
299323.
Maciaschapula, C. A. (1995). Development of a soft systems model to identify information values,
impact and barriers in a health-care information system. J. Inform. Sci. 21(4), 283288.
Magidson, J. (1992). Systems practice in several communities in Philadelphia. Syst. Pract. 5(5),
493508.
Midgley, G., and Milne, A. (1995). Creating employment opportunities for people with mental health
problemsA feasibility study for new initiatives. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 46(1), 3542.
Millspacko, P. A., and Wilson, K., et al. (1991). Highlights from the use of the soft systems methodology to improve agrotechnology transfer in Kona, Hawaii. Agri. Syst. 36(4), 409425.
754
Mingers
Mingers, J. (1980). Towards an appropriate social theory for applied systems thinking: Critical theory
and soft systems methodology. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 7(April), 4150.
Mingers, J. (1984). Subjectivism and soft systems methodologyA critique. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 11,
85103.
Mingers, J. (1988). Soft systems methodology and information systemsA comparison of conceptual models and data flow diagrams. Comput. J. 31(4), 376379.
Mingers, J. (1989). Problems of measurement. In Jackson, M., Keys, P., and Cropper, S. (eds.),
Operational Research and the Social Sciences, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 471477.
Mingers, J. (1990). The what/ how distinction and conceptual models: A reappraisal. J. Appl. Syst.
Anal. 17, 2128.
Mingers, J. (1997). Towards critical pluralism. In Mingers, J., and Gill, A. (eds.), Multimethodology:
Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies, Wiley, Chichester,
Wiley, pp. 407440.
Mingers, J. (2000a). Critical Realism as the Underpinning Philosophy for OR/ MS and Systems, J.
Operat. Res. Soc. 51 (in press).
Mingers, J. (2000b). Variety is the spice of life: Combining soft and hard OR/ MS methods. Int.
Trans. Operat. Res. 7, 673691.
Mingers, J., and Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: Towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega 25(5), 489509.
Mingers, J., and Gill, A. (eds.), (1997). Multimethodology: Theory and Practice of Combining Management Science Methodologies, Wiley, Chichester.
Mingers, J., and Taylor, S. (1992). The use of soft systems methodology in practice. J. Operat. Res.
43(4), 321332.
Munro, I., and Mingers, J. (2000). The use of multimethodology in practiceresults of a survey of
practitioners. Warwick Business School Research Paper 337, Warwick University, Coventry.
Nakano, M., Nobutomo, H., et al. (1997). Research on how to develop R&D strategies using the
soft systems approach. Int. J. Technol. Manage. 14(68), 822833.
OConnor, A. D. (1992). Soft systems methodologyA case-study of its use within an Australian
organization. Austral. Comput. J. 24(4), 130138.
Ormerod, R. (1996a). Information systems strategy development at Sainsburys supermarkets using
soft OR. Interfaces 26(1), 102130.
Ormerod, R. (1996b). Putting soft OR methods to workInformation systems strategy development
at Richards Bay. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 47(9), 10831097.
Ormerod, R. (1998a). Putting soft OR methods to work: Information systems strategy development
at Palabora. Omega 26(1), 7598.
Ormerod, R. (1998b). Putting Soft OR methods to work: The case of the business improvement
project at Powergen. European J. Operat. Res. 118, 129.
Pauley, G., and Ormerod, R. (1998). The evolution of a performance measurement project at RTZ.
Interfaces 28, 94118.
Pidd, M. (1996). Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science, Wiley, Chichester.
Platt, D. G. (1996). Building process models for design management. J. Comput. Civil Eng. 10(3),
194203.
Popper, R., Andino, K., et al. (1996). Knowledge and beliefs regarding agricultural pesticides in
rural Guatemala. Environ. Manage. 20(2), 241248.
Rasegard, S. (1991). A comparative-study of Beer and Miller systems designs as tools when analyzing the structure of a municipal organization. Behav. Sci. 36(2), 8399.
Robbins, L. (1994). Using interactive planning in the entrepreneurial classA live fieldwork-based
case and simulation exercise. Simulat. Gaming 25(3), 353367.
Schuhman, W. (1990). Strategy for information systems in the film division of Hoechst AG. Syst.
Pract. 3(3), 265287.
755
Stowell, F. (1989). Change, Organisation, Power, and the Metahpor Commodity,/ Systems Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster.
Stowell, F. (ed.) (1995). Information Systems Provision: The Contribution of Soft Systems Methodology, McGrawHill, London.
Strumpfer, J. P. (1997). Planning as a means of social change: The Durban functional region forum
case. Syst. Pract. 10(5), 549566.
Thoren, M. (1996). Systems approach to clothing for disabled usersWhy is it difficult for disabled
users to find suitable clothing. Appl. Ergon. 27(6), 389396.
Tsouvalis, C., and Checkland, P. (1996). Reflecting on SSM: The dividing line between real-world
and systems thinking world, Syst. Res. 13(1), 3545.
Ulengin, F., and Topcu, I. (1997). Cognitive map: KBDSS, integration in transportation planning.
J. Operat. Res. Soc. 48(11), 10651075.
Vickers, G. (1965). The Art of Judgement, Harper Row, London.
Vos, B., and Akkermans, H. (1996). Capturing the dynamics of facility allocation. Int. J. Operat.
Product. Manage. 16(11), 57.
Walker, J. (1990). Diagnosis and implementation: How a large cooperative employed a series of
proposals for restructuring based on the viable systems model. Syst. Pract. 3(5), 441451.
Weiner, N. (1950). The Human Use of Human Beings, Houghton Mifflin, New York.
Wells, J. S. G. (1995). Discontent without focusAn analysis of nurse management and activity on
a psychiatric inpatient facility using a soft systems approach. J. Adv. Nurs. 21(2), 214221.
Winch, G. W. (1993). Consensus building in the planning processBenefits from a hard modeling
approach. Syst. Dynam. Rev. 9(3), 287300.