Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459

DOI 10.1007/s11213-006-9035-3
ORIGINAL PAPER

Managerial Effectiveness from a System

Theoretical Point of View

Ion Georgiou

Published online: 7 September 2006

C Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Abstract This paper defines managerial effectiveness as the ability to answer three ques-
tions: (1) Given sparse knowledge of a problematic situation, how is it possible to extract
information from it?; (2) If such information can indeed be extracted, how can it be structured
in a way which enables rigorous problem definition?; and (3) If a problem can indeed be
defined rigorously, how can this definition be used to inform a systemic approach toward
resolution? Managerial effectiveness, in other words, is understood as the ability to make sys-
temic decisions in the absence of clear facts. A configuration of Soft Systems Methodology
(SSM) is presented, and it is argued that this configuration addresses the three questions and
facilitates useful and practical systemic results in the face of partial information. Overall, the
paper provides a theoretical basis for discussing managerial effectiveness, a decision making
model which renders the theory operational, a teaching and training tool for disseminating
SSM, and a blueprint from which to begin considering software support for the methodology.

Keywords Soft systems methodology . Decision making . Managerial effectiveness

Introduction

The question of managerial effectiveness may be appreciated as the common denominator

in management thinking. Taylor’s (1914) Principles of Scientific Management provided a
classic answer and, subsequently, psychologists (Campbell et al 1970), behavioral scientists
(Reddin 1970), and clinical observers (Drucker 1967) all drew their own conclusions. The
emergent insight, however, is that a methodology for managerial effectiveness invites such
a multi-variable approach that there is no hope for a definitive conclusion. At best, there is
only managerial effectiveness from a particular point of view. Even if system theory—as a
distinct field and in its unifying aspiration (von Bertalanffy 1968)—were to provide a holistic

I. Georgiou (
)
Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (EAESP), Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV),
Departamento de Informática e Métodos Quantitativos (IMQ), Avenida Nove de Julho 2029,
Bairro Bela Vista, São Paulo 01313-902 SP, Brasil
e-mail: ion@fgvsp.br
Springer
442 Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459

answer, it could still be accused of promoting its own system theoretical point of view. On
the other hand, attempting as rigorous a viewpoint as possible through selective aspects of
the systems movement itself, related fields with which it maintains a dialogue, and other
fields with which it appears compatible might offer a much more concrete contribution. Such
an attempt at explication of managerial effectiveness begins, for the present purposes, with
Jay Forrester’s (1961, p. 117) classic work on system dynamics, where he writes:
The power of system dynamics models does not come from access to better informa-
tion than the manager has. Their power lies in their ability to use more of the same
information and to portray more usefully its implications.
This is a claim concerning the effectiveness of system dynamics models as decision
support systems. Forrester contends that system dynamics models enable the decision maker
to use, with greater effectiveness, whatever limited information is available in a problematic
situation, and in addition they help portray the implications of this limited information more
usefully. Given that this minimizes the costly need to gather additional information, an
implicit claim is simultaneously posited: system dynamics models are not only effective but
are also efficient decision support systems.
Also implicit is that the effectiveness of a decision maker is not demonstrated through
access to better or more information: the effectiveness of a decision maker is demonstrated
in an ability to use, more resourcefully, whatever limited information is available, and to
portray its implications more usefully. In Forrester’s case, system dynamics is offered as
an approach which can assist a decision maker to realize such effectiveness. Consider,
however, a decision maker who can demonstrate such effectiveness irrespective of whether
system dynamics is used or not. Consider, that is, a decision maker who can demonstrate
effectiveness independent of tools, a decision maker whose thinking process itself enables
the effectiveness in question. Since the acquisition of more information can be costly, such
a decision maker may well be in high demand. Furthermore, information procurement is
time-consuming, and the delay is compounded by the time required to complete the meta-
level decision process which addresses procurement in the first place (Grünig and Kühn
2005, pp. 181–195). In a world where ‘the ability to learn faster than competitors may be
the only sustainable competitive advantage’ (de Geus 1988), the decision maker in question
may likely be the key to the survival of any organized entity (corporate or otherwise). In this
respect, Bennis and O’Toole (2005) point out what is required:
Executive decision makers are not fact collectors; they are fact users and integrators.
Thus, what they need from educators is help in understanding how to interpret facts and
guidance from experienced teachers in making decisions in the absence of clear facts.
(italics added)
In order to delineate somewhat further what the absence of clear facts might constitute,
consider the short but insightful paper by Belasco et al (1973) presented to the Academy of
Management twelve years after Forrester’s Industrial Dynamics. The authors propose four
situational characteristics that decision makers simultaneously (and commonly) face:
r the task is ambiguous;
r the structure through which the task might be accomplished is loosely defined;
r the standard against which success is to be measured remains unstable; and,
r knowledge of the organizational and wider environments remains uncertain.
Immersion in situations defined by such characteristics clearly requires making decisions
in the absence of clear facts. What is at issue here, then, is the versatile use and portrayal
Springer
Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459 443

of limited data (or information), with a view to construct knowledge, enable learning, and
inform action. Knowledge management, concerned with practicable ‘ways of disseminating
and leveraging knowledge in order to enhance organizational performance’ (Easterby-Smith
and Lyles 2003, p. 3), is the field which should address this challenge. An effective decision
maker, in other words, should be one who can do knowledge management resourcefully in
the absence of complete information. The field of knowledge management, however, appears
insufficiently prepared to tackle the challenge, as evidenced by Kawalek’s (2004) disturbing
conclusion:

[W]hen investigating the conceptual literature on knowledge management it seems that

it is burgeoning with viewpoints that overlap, and commonly contradict each other . . .
the literature has not provided methodological guidance for doing knowledge man-
agement (i.e. managing knowledge), without which knowledge management is fated
to remain ill-defined, open to misinterpretation and sometimes abuse by unscrupu-
lous practitioners . . . there are quite significant differences between the writers on
knowledge management, and following each will lead to quite different approaches
to knowledge management practice. . .. While the knowledge management literature
presents many insightful points, definitions and analyses, none inspire confidence that
successful management of knowledge will result (or is even possible) as a result of a
process of selecting from these insights.

Moreover, the challenge is compounded by the growing demand for decisions to address
the holistic or systemic nature of problem situations. Consider a few examples of this
emerging demand. In his 2002 annual review Nick Land, Chairman of Ernst & Young,
concluded that:

The root cause of corporate collapse and scandals in companies like Enron and World-
Com was not audit failure. They came about because of systemic failure in the US
around corporate governance and transparency, accounting standards and regulation,
and, perhaps most importantly, as a result of greed.1

On 18 October 2005, New York Federal Reserve President Timothy Geithner expressed his
concern over a developing paradox: whilst increased complexity of financial systems reduces
the individual vulnerability of firms, it compounds uncertainty as to how the financial system
as a whole might function in the context of a systemic shock from hedge funds and other
unregulated institutions.2
The Inquiry into the 1997 Southall rail disaster in the United Kingdom found that ‘it would
be wrong to concentrate on the failings of the driver when there is compelling evidence of
serious systemic failings within Great Western [Trains]’3 —failings further attributed to the

1 Ernst & Young’s chairman’s review of the year 2002, as reported on the firm’s internet website at the fol-

lowing URL: http://www.ey.com/global/content.nsf/UK/UK Annual Review 2002 - Chairmans review (ac-

cessed 23 October 2005)
2 As reported by Reuters on 18 October 2005, in an article entitled “Fed’s Geithner: Market changes have

altered risk” at the following URL: http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type = bondsNews

&storyID = 2005-10-18T200837Z 01 N18235770 RTRIDST 0 ECONOMY-FED-GEITHNER-UPDATE-
1.XML
3 As reported on the BBC Internet site on 21 December 1999 in a report entitled Rail Managers Rebuked Over

’Catalogue of Errors at the following URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid 573000/573740.stm

Springer
444 Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459

The
Sourced Understanding Deduction Paradoxical
Demand
Decision making effectiveness: use,

Useful and practical systemic

more resourcefully, whatever

results in the face of partial

limited information is available, and Effectiveness is
portray its implications more measured by more
usefully. resourceful use of

information
limited information
Making decisions in the absence of
clear facts.

“If someone were to analyze

Effectiveness is
current notions and fashionable
measured by tackling
catchwords, he would find ‘systems’
systemicity
high on the list.”

Fig. 1 The paradoxical demand that challenges managerial effectiveness

rail industry as a whole by one of the companies recently prosecuted for the October 2000
Hatfield crash.4
Setting up an alert on the Google News Internet site for the keyword systemic yields, on
average, three to four alerts per week. Addressing systemicity is obviously dans l’aire du
temps. In the words of general system theorist Ludwig von Bertalanffy (1968, p. 3),
if someone were to analyze current notions and fashionable catchwords, he would find
‘systems’ high on the list.
A decision maker who can simply plan or solve systemically, however, is not enough. For
if effectiveness is measured by more resourceful use of limited information, as noted earlier,
what is required is a decision maker who can meet the challenge of the paradoxical demand
for useful and practical systemic results in the face of partial information, or equally, for
implementable wholes in the face of informational incompleteness. Figure 1 summarizes the
argument which leads to this demand.

General methodological requirements

It is noteworthy that problematic situations lacking clear facts allow for relatively few
structural assumptions about them (Rosenhead 1989; Rosenhead and Mingers 2001). Perhaps
no prioritization is available among seemingly important factors, or perhaps key aspects
appear to be equally necessary, though treatable on respectively different dimensions. In
such cases, the most relevant approaches will be those which reflect the rather open-ended
nature of the situation as given, allowing for variations of interpretations about what is going
on, whilst simultaneously promising to provide guidance for future action based on what is
given.

4 As reported by the British newspaper The Daily Telegraph on 8 October 2005 in an article entitled

“Companies fined £13.5m for Hatfield crash” at the following URL: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/
news/main.jhtml?xml = /news/2005/10/08/nhatfield08.xml

Springer
Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459 445

If on the one hand, however, an imperfectly known situation opens the doors to wide
interpretations, ambiguity, on the other, constrains the degrees of freedom allowed in inter-
pretation. Care should be taken not to introduce assumptions which do not fall within the
framework of the situation as given. A certain degree of mental discipline, or interpreta-
tive rigor, is called for when conceptually framing the situation, avoiding any suggestions
or conclusions which are not clearly within the bounds of what is given. The risks of not
adhering to this are tantamount to resolving an irrelevant, imaginary, nonexistent, or wrong
problem.
Decision making effectiveness, in other words, will emerge in proportion to the deduction
of significant information which respects the degrees of allowable interpretative freedom
relevant to the situation. Significant information, in turn, may be understood not only as
information which is interpretatively sound, but as information which effectively serves the
interests of the management of uncertainty inherent in the situation, and thus ultimately
renders the decision maker tangibly better informed and better equipped to deal with the
situation.
All this, of course, constitutes a daunting task for the decision maker—and, equally, for
the instructor attempting to teach decision making in situations lacking clear facts. The task,
however, can be delineated into three requirements which must be fulfilled. First, given
sparse knowledge of a problem situation, what is required is a way to extract information
from it. Second, if such information can indeed be extracted, a manner of structuring it
is required which enables rigorous problem definition. Finally, even if a rigorous problem
definition can indeed emerge from the situational ambiguity, looseness, instability and un-
certainty exemplified, say, by Belasco et al, some process, or method, is required which can
use the definition to inform, develop, and implement a systemic approach toward resolu-
tion or, in a word, to realize an implementable systemic plan. Indeed, given that situations
lacking in clear facts are akin to messes (Ackoff 1979), straightforward decisions per se
might be hard to pin down. The implicit objective, and the explicit possibility, will prob-
ably be less to solve and more to plan for the immediate future. Real-world situations
exhibiting the four characteristics identified by Belasco et al leave few options but for
decisions to be made in the form of plans—what may be termed planning as decision mak-
ing, not dissimilar to, and arguably incorporating, de Geus’ (1988) notion of planning as
learning.
The three requirements, then, respectively concern: the production of information regard-
ing the context of a problematic situation from whatever limited or limiting sources are
available; the rigorous application of this information in the service of problem definition;
and, the conceptual ability to plan systemically for action. Systemically is the key word if
the action plan/decision is to have any real merit from a system theoretical point of view. As
such, one could even say that the requirement here is to force systemicity so as not to risk its
neglect.
It seems reasonable to conclude that, overall, a methodology for managerial effectiveness
which can meet the challenge of systemic decision making in the absence of clear facts should
fulfill three requirements. These results are summarized in Fig. 2 as general methodological
requirements.
For the instructor, meeting these general methodological requirements would enable the
stipulation of those conceptual tools which can be taught for making systemic decisions in the
absence of clear facts. For the decision maker facing the aforementioned challenge, knowl-
edge of these tools would provide significant empowerment. Does the system theoretical
point of view offer such conceptual tools and consequent empowerment?

Springer
446 Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459

Effectiveness Expected
Question Requirement
defined by… result

Useful and practical systemic results in

Given sparse knowledge of a
problematic situation, how is it Produce

the face of partial information

possible to extract information information
…more from it?
resourceful
use of limited If such information can indeed
information be extracted, how can it be
Rigorous
structured in a way which
approach
enables rigorous problem
definition?
If a problem can indeed be
defined rigorously, how can
… tackling Force
this definition be used to
systemicity systemicity
inform a systemic approach
toward resolution?

Fig. 2 General methodological requirements

The offer

The literature indicates a prime candidate for meeting the general methodological re-
quirements: Soft Systems Methodology. Sinn (1998) notes that ‘Checkland’s Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM) is a problem-solving framework designed specifically for situations in
which the nature of the problem is difficult to define.’ An understanding of SSM as designed
‘specifically’ for such situations renders the methodology relevant to the making of decisions
in the absence of clear facts. In such cases, moreover, the limited information available will
inhibit ontological assumptions about the real world. Since SSM does not demand that such
assumptions be made, as Sinn clearly explains, SSM is worthy of consideration.
Brocklesby (1995), based on an application in human resource management, finds that
SSM ‘can be exploited to produce information superior to that obtained through using
conventional methods.’ This clearly addresses the first of the three general methodological
requirements. For Checkland (1999, p. A43; 2000) and Rose and Haynes (1999), moreover,
decision making effectiveness is promoted because SSM qua methodology is flexible to use
but simultaneously provides a ‘rigorous approach to the subjective.’ This addresses the second
of the requirements. Finally, for Bolton and Gold (1994) the seemingly paradoxical mix of
rigor-in-flexibility also facilitates systemic planning: ‘Soft Systems Methodology offers a
rigour and discipline which automatically forces systemic thinking over and above received
“textbook” wisdom or entrenched custom and practice’. This addresses the third of the
requirements. It appears, therefore, that managerial effectiveness from a system theoretical
point of view is promoted through the use of Soft Systems Methodology, as summarized in
Fig. 3.
SSM has been identified as a strong candidate whose practice can promote a particular
understanding of managerial effectiveness: the ability to meet the paradoxical demand of
useful and practical systemic results in the face of partial information. An appreciation of
how SSM can address this challenge is discussed below.
Springer
Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459 447

Question Requirement Sourced claims

Given sparse knowledge of
a problematic situation, how
is it possible to extract
information from it?
If such information can
indeed be extracted, how
can it be structured in a
way which enables rigorous
problem definition?
If a problem can indeed be
defined rigorously, how can
this definition be used to
inform a systemic approach
toward resolution?
“can be exploited to produce
Produce information superior to that
information obtained through using
conventional methods”
Rigorous “is a rigorous approach to the
approach subjective”
“offers a rigor and discipline
which automatically forces
Force
systemic thinking over and above
systemicity
received ‘textbook’ wisdom or
entrenched custom and practice”

Fig. 3 The general methodological requirements addressed by SSM

Understanding SSM

The discussion thus far points to a use of SSM which can fulfill three distinct, though
interrelated, requirements. It further highlights an implicit perspective on decision making.
Decision makers have three main objectives: to produce knowledge concerning the context
of a problematic situation from whatever limited or limiting sources are available, to apply
it in the service of problem definition, and ultimately to plan systemically for action. The
realization of these objectives produces, as a matter of course, respective outputs: contextual
knowledge, the problem definition, and the systemic plans. These outputs may be housed,
or organized, in respective repositories: a knowledge database, an application database, and
a systems database. The term database is adopted in the broadest sense as opposed to the
limited technological meaning it has come to acquire. As is about to be discussed, the
requirements, the implicit perspective, and the outputs, jointly provide a basis for informing
practice through a systematic process which yields systemic plans.

Building a knowledge database

The first requirement concerns the production of whatever contextual knowledge is possible
given a problematic situation lacking clear facts. The quality, relevance, and effectiveness
of any subsequent resolution is a function of the content and use of this output. The claim
has been made that SSM can produce ‘superior’ information. The question is how the term
‘superior’ might be understood. Rich pictures constitute the most cited SSM tool which
enables extraction of significant information from problem owners. Less cited, although for
Checkland (1999, 2000) of equal, if not greater, importance, are Analyses 1, 2, and 3. Indeed,
where rich pictures might function as an ideal ice-breaker due to their promoting a free-form
diagrammatic analysis, it is the focal power of the Analyses which generates information
of greater significance. The reason is that there is an underlying logic to the three Analyses
which is perceptible once one begins considering Analysis 3.
To begin with, Analysis 1 asks for the identification of those involved in the situation.
One can go further and stipulate not only physical persons (who) but also abstract entities
(what) constituted by physical persons. Demand for a service, for example, refers to a group
Springer
448 Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459

of people demanding the service. As such, demand should be part of the list which makes
up Analysis 1—it may be listed as Demand X, for instance, or Urgent Demand, or Local
Demand etc.
Analysis 2 asks for the identification of the socio-cultural dynamics of the problem context.
Some of these aspects might be explicit, for example the organization has a tendency for
hierarchical control; others might be expounded through softer appreciation, for example a
blame culture permeates the problem context.
Analysis 3 asks for a description of the dynamics through which power is obtained, upheld,
transferred and so on. This focus on understanding power in the problematic situation enables
a logic to emerge between the three Analyses which justifies their use as thinking tools. The
logic is as follows. Given a problematic situation, one needs to understand who/what is
involved (Analysis 1). To be involved necessarily implies some power of involvement which
is describable and perhaps even identifiable along some Likert-type scale (Analysis 3). Thus,
there is an essential link between Analyses 1 and 3 which allows one to insist that, for every
item listed in Analysis 1, a description of power must necessarily be listed in Analysis 3.
Moreover, those involved, along with the dynamics through which power operates, are
immersed in a context which can be characterized according to varying degrees of concrete
and softer evidence (Analysis 2). Upon initial completion, in other words, the three Analyses
have focused the mind to such an extent as to enable the generation not only of three
distinct lists but of an essential description of the problematic context which emerges from
the lists taken together. At the most basic level, the three Analyses taken together as an
analytical tool say: pick someone involved, identify the type and extent of their power, and
describe their contextual immersion. Adhering to this logic can not only generate quite
a rich understanding in any situation; it focuses the mind on three fundamental situational
aspects which will govern any eventual resolution. Moreover, in situations requiring decision
making in the absence of clear facts, it might just be such logical focusing which makes
the difference between, on the one hand, a decision maker lost for where to begin and,
on the other, an effective decision maker able to use more resourcefully whatever limited
information there is available. For, although the Analyses are, in essence, but an exercise in
description, description is the necessary precursor to explanation and consequent resolution.
It is no wonder then that Checkland holds the Analyses in such high esteem. No wonder, as
well, that SSM can be said to enable the production of ‘superior’ information.

Building an application database

Rich pictures and Analyses 1, 2, and 3, therefore, constitute the thinking tools which enable
knowledge production and, in particular, contextual knowledge. The second requirement
concerns problem definition. More particularly, the concern is with a rigorous approach
which avoids tackling a wrong problem. Due to the ambiguity surrounding the term problem
(Mitchell 1993, pp. 49–58; Ho and Sculli 1994), defining a problem more specifically requires
particular conceptual tools, especially when a problematic situation is compounded by the
lack of clear facts. Fortunately SSM provides a logic which allows users to stipulate problems
in a fairly exact manner. In essence the logic says: (1) a problematic situation implies an
undesirable state which needs to be transformed into a desirable state; (2) identify, therefore,
transformations evidently required in the problematic situation; (3) taken together, these
transformations simultaneously define the problem and the desirable state.
By providing rigorous, yet almost commonsensical, rules for identifying and dealing with
transformations (Checkland 1989), SSM bypasses the difficulty of articulating desirable,
but often ambiguously conceptualized, states and, instead, helps to plan relatively clearly
Springer
Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459 449

Table 1 The four transformation rules of SSM

Consider only one input and one output

The input must be present in the output, though most probably in a changed state
An abstract/intangible input must yield an abstract/intangible output
A concrete/tangible input must yield a concrete/tangible output

conceptualized transformations. The focal reduction from states to transformations, and

the relatively clearer conceptualization this yields, is crucial for lucid decision making and
effective problem solving. It may even result in the insight that what was once seen as a
situation lacking clarity was actually a function of attempting to identify the problem using
a non-productive approach, either due to such an approach’s informality or perhaps due to
its lack of conceptual rigor. The transformation rules are given in Table 1.
The first rule in Table 1 calls for a reduction to one-to-one relationships between inputs
and outputs. This might appear to restrictively reduce the ability and need to grasp the
richness of any problematic situation. Recourse to such reduction, however, also has a
logical underpinning. To begin with, instead of risking elaborate but practically useless
reflections on the problem, it forces interested parties to focus on what could be the essence
of the problematic situation. The production of a group of transformations will constitute
this problematic essence. As a group, however, the transformations in themselves begin to
indicate the richness of the situation. Thus, a methodological reduction paves the way for
structured systemic understanding.
The manner, moreover, in which transformations are to be stipulated should not be
discarded as simply a presentational option. Each transformation should be stated in terms
of two parts separated by a hyphen or a comma. The left hand side states what is to be
transformed. The right hand side stipulates to what the left hand side is to be transformed.
Adhering to this allows for a list of transformations whose two-sided formats respectively
define the constitution of the problem and the desirable state to be realized. In this way,
a basic step in problem resolution is realized: recognition of the problem and delimited
objective for its resolution.
Once identified, a group of transformations demands some reflection which can guide ap-
propriate treatment. In accordance with the heuristic principle of subgoal-reduction (Grünig
and Kühn 2005, p. 78), for instance, higher-level and lower-level transformations should, if
possible, be identified, with those on lower levels generally being more amenable to accurate
planning. A particular transformation, for example, may upon reflection be perceived as
an eventual emergent property of a system of other, lower-level transformations. In such
a case, dealing with the latter system first may well simultaneously address the particular,
higher-level transformation in question.
Any transformation, moreover, does not occur in isolation. It is situated in an environment
comprised of numerous factors, including other transformations. This might sound obvious
but is easily overlooked. For example, in any particular context, initial thoughts as to what
poorer quality should be transformed may be higher quality or better quality or even total
quality. Such responses say more about educational indoctrination and less about intellectual
capabilities. The social construction of Total Quality Management for instance (Zbaracki
1998), has learners/problem-owners commonly turn to this as the unquestioned expected
solution to a quality problem. One may also sympathize with the use of terms such as higher
or better which indicate a felt need for improvement, but they remain vague in themselves.
Responses such as these, in other words, do not contribute to effective management of
the ambiguity already at hand, if only because they do not stipulate acceptable levels of
Springer
450 Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459

improvement. For, no matter the rhetorical desire for achieving ever-higher quality, the
handling of situations is always governed by levels of effort beyond which it is deemed un-
necessary to venture. A variety of reasons may serve as justifications for this, ranging from
simple adherence to the law or other standards, strategic restrictions, or even sheer apathy.
Only rigorous interpretation of the limited information can yield a relatively firm idea of what
may be deemed acceptable. Along with any particular transformation’s stipulated desirable
state, therefore, attention to context may provide for a more specific, and perhaps much more
coherent, path toward resolution. In a word, when faced with incomplete information, only
attention to whatever contextual information is available can yield well-founded interpre-
tations toward resolutions which can realize the right hand side of transformations. Such
resolutions may, of course, appear incremental, but in the face of incomplete information
totalizing resolutions are not possible, nor are such attempts recommended due to the high
risk implied.
Fundamentally, then, what is required is a conceptual tool for effectively contextualizing
transformations so that they may inform a resolution in the best way possible given the
situational uncertainties. SSM provides this conceptual tool in its mnemonic CATWOE
(Smyth and Checkland 1976; Checkland 1999, pp. 225–227). Essentially, the mnemonic
incorporates the identified transformation and subsequently forces five questions, answers
to which can be appreciated as necessary if a transformation is to begin to be understood
contextually. Table 2 highlights these questions. They ask for the identification of the various
players involved in the transformation, according to their roles. Also asked is a reason which
justifies the transformation—termed Weltanschauung from the German for (roughly) world-
view or perspective (Checkland and Davies 1983). In addition, information is requested
regarding environmental restrictions directly impacting upon the transformation—that is to
say, proximate restrictions to this particular transformation and not general, overarching ones
which might be seen as impacting upon the problematic situation as a whole.
In essence, the CATWOE says: give me a transformation, tell me who is involved and how
they are involved, tell me why this transformation should be done, and provide immediate
restrictions which should be taken into account when thinking about, and planning for, this
transformation.
Table 2 also highlights some elements of the knowledge database which help inform
the CATWOE. It is worth noting that Analysis 2, in providing contextual knowledge of
the socio-cultural dynamics, focuses an investigation into the cultural feasibility of any
particular transformation. For Checkland (1985, 1999, pp. 180–183; Yolles, 1999, pp. 323–

Table 2 The elements of CATWOE and their basic information sources

Mnemonic Terms Questions Informed by

C Customer(s)
A Actor(s)
T Transformation
W Weltanschauung
O Owner(s)
E Environmental
restriction(s)
Who will benefit and who will lose from this T? Analyses 1, 3
Who will do this T, or make it happen physically? Analyses 1, 3
The T itself Methodological rules
What reason or perspective justifies doing this T? Analysis 2
Who can stop or change this T? Analyses 1, 3
What restrictions are there in the immediate Analysis 2
surroundings of this T?

Note. Each identified transformation requires a completed CATWOE. All CATWOE terms are technical,
with respective questions highlighting exactly how such terms are to be understood. The terms, in other
words, are not to be confused with any quotidian understanding of them. For example, customers is a
particular label referring specifically to those who will gain and/or lose from the transformation.
Springer
Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459 451

324), cultural feasibility might either override or at least call into question operational or
systemic desirability of a transformation. Anyone who has attempted changing organizational
culture will appreciate the Sisyphean task involved. Context demands adherence and rarely
allows but incremental changes to its constitution—hence, the warning on cultural feasibility.
It is not, however, only inherent cultural barriers which render cultural feasibility so
crucial. Culture is the result of idealizations, ideals, or ideas. It is the intangible with the
most profoundly tangible effect on the world. As such, it deserves central consideration in
problem resolution. Checkland, in a genuinely realistic turn, incorporates the issue of culture
into SSM. He does not attempt the impossible task of tackling culture in its totality. He does,
however, provide significant room for culture to be raised and debated. A major provision is
made through the analytical incorporation of the idea of Weltanschauung.
Along with transformation (T), Weltanschauung (W) constitutes the core of the CATWOE.
For any one T, a range of Ws can conceivably be generated. Many perspectives, that is, can
be brought to bear upon any particular T, and any one of them could serve as a justification
of T. One T, in other words, can be matched with many Ws. More significantly, each W will
imply a different way of realizing T and, consequently, different results which T could yield.
In effect, the repercussions of the choice of Weltanschauung extend to the final problem
resolution, and beyond to the new opportunities and challenges which the resolution will
surface.
Consider a simple example of a transformation which might be considered by a univer-
sity professor when contemplating the manner in which he organizes his research materials:
card-index research database—computerized research database. One possible Weltanschau-
ung here could be that a computerized database speeds up research work, and in general
renders it more efficient. Another equally viable Weltanschauung, however, could be that a
computerized database makes it easier to take on trips to conferences because it can be saved
and used in a laptop computer.
In both cases, the transformation is the same. In one case, however, the transformation
will be designed especially against criteria of speed and efficiency of use. A transformation
designed according to this Weltanschauung, in other words, will be considered a success if
it surpasses the card-index system on these criteria. The other Weltanschauung focuses upon
portability. This in no way implies the inclusion of speed and efficiency in the computerized
design. It merely asks for the card-index to be translated into a basic computer program
which allows for the database to be used on a computer instead of a card-index. Whether
this renders the database faster or more efficient is neither here nor there. The fact that any
computerized creation of a manual system will require various reconfigurations of the latter
when translated into digital form is, also, secondary.
In brief, W is the heart of the CATWOE from which stem decisions as to who will be
C, A and O, and what sort of environmental restrictions will actually be acknowledged as
relevant (Checkland and Davies 1983). Weltanschauung governs the design, realization and
outputs of the eventual system which will undertake the transformation—show me your
Weltanschauung and I’ll show you your world, so to speak.
Addressing problem definition has required a relatively substantial discussion, and jus-
tifiably so given the topic’s importance for effective resolution. In drawing this particular
issue to a close, one must not ignore the fact that the CATWOE yields but a list of contex-
tualizing elements corresponding to each letter of the mnemonic. Although lists are useful,
it is difficult—especially for third parties—to gain an integrated understanding of their el-
ements. Behind the creation of any list, there is some idea of what it means as a whole.
SSM, therefore, requires such integral understanding to be made explicit in the form of a
logical, tightly-structured statement known as a root definition. In essence, the root definition
Springer
452 Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459

states what is required of the transformation as set within a particular context (constituted
by C, A, O and E) and as driven by some intention (W). The utility of the root definition,
therefore, lies in its being able to describe what the elements of the CATWOE point toward.
As such, the root definition may be seen as a planning statement which provides an overar-
ching description of the system that will realize the respective transformation. SSM provides
quite detailed guidelines for the drafting of such statements (Checkland and Tsouvalis 1997;
Checkland 1999, pp. 221–228), ensuring as far as possible a description which can guide
systemic planning.
In effect, the handling of transformations applies the knowledge stored in the knowledge
database, thus the repository for handling them has been termed an application database.
One could equally think of this database as one concerned with problem definition. The term
application, however, better reflects the fact that clarity in problem definition is a function
of the effective application of contextual knowledge.
In summary, there is a variety of information which needs to be stored in the application
database. The problem situation is first translated into a series of transformations in order
to enable more exact understanding of the problem. The structural manner of stipulating
transformations in terms of left hand side and right hand side serves to define, respectively,
constitutive problems and desirable states. Taken as a complete list, transformations serve
to define the problematic situation as a whole, as well as point to the overall desired state.
Transformations must be graded and contextualized if realistic planning is to materialize—
where what may be deemed realistic is not only a function of the degree of informational
incompleteness but also of the extent to which operational desirability and cultural feasibility
are managed. A central aspect affecting contextualization is the manner in which any number
of Weltanschauungen can impact upon a single transformation. Finally, each contextualized
transformation is transcribed into a one-sentence description which acts as an overarching
planning statement to guide the systemic planning of that transformation. Overall, SSM thus
provides a rigorous approach to problem definition which facilitates planning.

Building a systems database

An essential aspect of fulfilling the requirements thus far is that all analysis is based on what
can be gathered presently about the situation. By contrast, the third requirement concerns
systemically planning for the future. It thus involves using the knowledge gathered in the
two previous databases to make an informed leap into that future. With only incomplete
information to begin with, the shorter the leap the more solid the plan. As will be discussed,
however, explicitly systemic short-term planning is not without its medium-to-long-term
benefits.
The idea of systemic planning itself posits a non-trivial challenge. In the popular mind,
systemic thinking is the simultaneous grasping of the whole. This is a quaint but impossible
idea. It also invites the tempting, but erroneous, conclusion to link everything with everything
else: for what accounts for complexity, and what renders its effective management important,
is not so much that the world might indeed be (or actually is) interconnected, but that its
connections are specifically routed and not capricious. If on the one hand, however, systemic
thinking thus appears too demanding, systematic thinking, on the other hand, underpins the
basic problem solving approach (Mitchell 1993, pp. 75–86; Grünig and Kühn 2005). If,
therefore, the demand for systemic planning can be met through systematic thinking, this
imposes few psychological barriers and simultaneously fulfills the necessary requirement.
Faced, therefore, with a group of transformations, perceptibly interrelated at least due
to the fact that they stem from the same one problematic situation, an initially systematic
Springer
Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459 453

approach to their management is deemed most effective. Effectiveness of this initial approach,
however, will be measured against the criterion of systemicity. Thus, what is required is a
systematic approach to systemic planning, or equally, a systematic approach which can lead
to a systemically structured plan.
Grünig and Kühn (2005) provide three criteria for the realization of any systematic
approach. First, the approach must be goal-oriented. In the present case, the goal is systemic
understanding and systemic action plans. Second, the deliberations for achieving the goal
should be open to as objective an evaluation as possible. Notwithstanding that the approach
so far has incorporated interpretative rigor and sets of explicit guidelines, any further ideas
specifically concerning the achievement of systemic planning must also be open to such
evaluation. Third, the approach must follow a structured procedure of action using clear
methodical rules. Structured here is understood as involving at least a sequence of steps,
though feedback between such steps, and iteration of their sequence, is not discounted.
A systematic approach meeting Grünig and Kühn’s three criteria is proposed below, one
compatible with mainstream understanding of SSM.
In the first instance, the focus is upon individual transformations and their realizations
through the design of respective systemic plans. For each transformation in the application
database a list of activities is compiled which could reasonably be seen to render the partic-
ular transformation operational. This list is then translated into what SSM terms conceptual
models, or better, human activity systems—for a conceptual model is a systemic model of
human action, comprised of specified interlinked activities, to be taken in order to realize
a particular transformation (Checkland and Tsouvalis 1997). Dependency links and influ-
ences are identified between activities and serve to guide the construction of these systems.
Figure 4 provides an abstract illustration of two such individual systems, respectively associ-
ated with transformations T1 and T2 . As shown, the planning of each transformation requires
respectively distinct and linked activities, as well as respective monitoring subsystems which
gauge output according to certain criteria (to be discussed shortly).
The information limitations of a problematic situation lacking clear facts may well reduce
the number of perceptibly available activities appreciated as lying within the bounds of
interpretative rigor. Due, moreover, to their stemming from the same problematic situation,
any number of human activity systems might well end up sharing similar activities; or
equally, any one activity might be involved in the operational design of any number of

T1 T2
1 6
7
2

3
3
8

Monitor 5
Monitor 9

Criteria Criteria Take action

Take action

Fig. 4 Abstract of two individual human activity systems

Springer
454 Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459

T1 T2
1 6
7
2

Monitor 5
Monitor 9

Criteria Criteria Take action

Take action

Monitor Take action

Criteria

Fig. 5 Analytical linking

transformations. This occurrence is illustrated in Fig. 4 whereby the systems planned to

realize the two transformations include a common (highlighted) activity: Activity 3. In such
cases, all commonalities are erased except one. Links are drawn to and from the one remaining
to ensure that the reconfiguration reflects the prior, initial configuration. This practice may
be termed analytical linking. Figure 5 illustrates the result based upon Fig. 4.
Analytical linking not only highlights that two transformations are related, but it also helps
to identify how they are related through the creation of antecedent and posterior relationships
between the two transformations. In the illustration, Activities 2 and 7 will inform Activity 3,
and this latter cannot be undertaken effectively unless both of the other two activities are taken
into account. In effect, analytical linking adds structural relationships between individual
human activity systems and changes structural relationships within each of them. What
emerges is a holistic appreciation of multiple transformations and activities. Since this
renders inter-transformational dependence explicit, it is only at this level that a plan may be
appreciated as truly systemic.
With the emergence of two or more interlinked human activity systems, there emerges
a systemic plan, or what may be termed a supersystem. The design of a supersystem may,
moreover, also invite what may be termed conceptual links, that is, those which arise due to
interpretation. Unlike analytical links whose design issues concern the multiple occurrences
of a single activity, conceptual links relate two or more respectively different activities.
The idea here is not new since the initial design of individual human activity systems
is based on such conceptual linking as each one of the activities listed for a particular
transformation are linked up to create a particular human activity system. Such links might
also be applicable on the sub-system level, if sub-systems have been designed into one or
more human activity systems, and they might even relate two or more whole human activities,
as the case may be. The important point about conceptual links is that they have interpretative
foundations. As such, care must be taken that they fall within the rigorous understanding
of the situation maintained thus far. The fact that systemic planning already requires a
leap into the future means that this leap must not be needlessly energized through daring
Springer
Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459 455

Table 3 Control criteria specified by SSM

Control criteria Questions Focus

Efficacy Do the means work? Processes and their output

Efficiency Are the minimum resources used? Resource usage
Effectiveness Does the T contribute to the attainment of Strategy
owners’ (O) goals and expectations
Ethicality Is T a moral thing to do? Social responsibility, ethics
Elegance Is T aesthetically pleasing? Socio-cultural sensibility

interpretations. The more logically argued the conceptual links, and the more they reflect
the contextual understanding of the situation as developed in the previous two databases, the
stronger the case to draw them.
Finally, any system without control criteria cannot be monitored. The stipulation of
control criteria is an ever-present issue which must be dealt with throughout the construction
of human activity systems (Checkland 2001). The pervasiveness of this issue is made evident
once two or more individual human activity systems, each with their own control criteria, are
linked systemically to form a supersystem requiring its own control criteria. The resulting
structural changes and new influences require the revision, or at least reconsideration, of all
control criteria. Checkland (1999, 2000, pp. A25–A26, A37; Yolles 1999, p. 327) subscribes
to five key issues which serve to control systems when using SSM for their design. Like in
the CATWOE, what is at stake is essentially answering a number of questions—five in this
case. They are given in Table 3, which also highlights a relevant organizational focus for
each control.
Answers to the five criteria will be based on particular perspectives which do not arise
independently of the wider environment. To take an extreme example, efficacy might be
attained through slavery or through waged labor. The fact that one is chosen over the
other is based upon an underlying perspective reinforced by societal moral standards and
infrastructure. Consider, also, that efficiency cannot be tackled independently of effectiveness
for they are, by nature, inversely related—more weight placed on one causes the other to
suffer. As such, the development of control criteria is not a simple task but one which requires
a degree of systemic thinking itself.
The practice of analytical and conceptual linking, therefore, enables the design of human
activity systems which aggregately furnish systemic action plans. All such planning outputs
may be stored and manipulated within what may be termed a systems database. Whether such
plans are realized or whether they are used to structure debate about change—as Checkland
(1999, 2000) stresses—are complementary objectives. This is because the process of system
design facilitates both debate as well as the creation of realizable plans.
A way into systemic planning via a systematic process has been suggested. How restrictive,
however, is the short-term focus of such planning? The resultant systemic information is
conceivably relevant beyond the short-term. In line with one of the great advantages of
systems thinking, for instance, the resultant systemic design portrays underlying structural
dynamics, and insights into structural dynamics can inform any medium-to-long-term plan,
decision or action. A number of other advantages, relevant to the medium-to-long-term,
conceivably emerge from the development of a short-term plan which is explicitly systemic.
These advantages range from the discovery of feedback loops, along with their polarities,
to the explicitation of perceptibly dominant activities, to an appreciation of the degree to
which structure and behavior influence each other, to the delimitation of the boundaries
Springer
456 Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459

of the situation as expounded by the theory of boundary judgements (Midgley 2000), to

previously unnoticed counter-intuitive behavior, and so on and so forth. Furthermore, with
so many potential advantages at hand, there is every reason to believe that the resultant
systemic plans can serve as inputs to further systemic approaches and applications. Given
the aforementioned advantages, for instance, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the
systemic plans can serve as blueprints for effective system dynamics modeling. And since,
with the idea of system dynamics, the discussion has come full circle, an overall conclusion
is in order.

Conclusion

The reality confronted by decision makers can frequently be constituted by ambiguous tasks,
loosely defined structures, dynamic standards, and poor information. In having to make
decisions in such circumstances, decision makers face the difficult challenge of extracting,
using and portraying information in a resourceful manner. This paper has discussed how Soft
Systems Methodology (SSM) may be appreciated as extracting interpretatively sound knowl-
edge from limited information, rigorously applying this knowledge to problem definition,
and aiding the construction of a systemic plan for action. The configuration of SSM which
has guided the discussion is translated into a decision making model in Fig. 6, complete
with theoretical basis and expected result. The decision making model may be appreciated
as a systematic approach which leads to systemic planning. A key move toward systemicity
occurs the moment the systemic planning objective is tackled.
Attention to Fig. 6 allows for some concluding remarks. To begin with, the development
of the three databases might initially unfold in a linear fashion as decision makers work down
the model. At any point in time, however, new insights may arise from the investigative pro-
cess which either require to be added to previous databases or require the revision of current
information therein. Information feedback is thus unavoidable in order to ensure resource-
ful decision making at any particular step. Figure 6 makes this clear through the upward
arrows linking the three databases. Taken together, the three databases may additionally be
appreciated as a decision map, warning of potential systemic effects, and hence risks, when
any one of the activities of the resultant plan is actioned. Working through SSM, decision
makers thus develop a resource which can help them manage uncertainty, complexity and
informational incompleteness.
The earlier discussion avoided a technological use of the term database. The potential
support which information technology can provide, however, should not be ignored. Figure 6
provides a high-level blueprint from which data and process modeling could be undertaken
for the development of computerized software for SSM. The figure hints at a potential
software product constituted by three interrelated databases, each designed to help attain a
respective objective by focusing on particular aspects and using particular tools. For exam-
ple, given how the three Analyses provide information for the development of CATWOEs,
it is easily imagined how a transformation can be contextualized by dragging and dropping
aspects from the knowledge database to a respective CATWOE window belonging to the ap-
plication database. Since the CATWOE is constituted by standard input fields corresponding
to each letters of the mnemonic, it is not impossible for a sophisticated computer program
to optionally offer basic automated root definitions and thus help users home-in on an edited
definition which fits their quest for interpretative rigor. Individual systems planning, further-
more, can be undertaken by calling up any one of the contextualized transformations stored
in the application database. The systems database would include all stipulated activities
Springer
 Theoretical Basis Decision Making Model Expected
Result
Challenge Requirements SSM… Objective Focus Tool Output
Given sparse Knowledge
Use, more “can be exploited Actors Analysis One
knowledge of a Production
resourcefully, to produce
problematic
whatever limited information Producing Socio-Cultural
situation, how is Analysis Two Knowledge
information is superior to that knowledge Dynamics
it possible to Database
available, and obtained through from limited
extract

Rich Picture
portray its using conventional information Power
information Analysis Three

Produce information
implications more methods” Dynamics

Diagrammatic Analysis
from it?
usefully.
If such
Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459

“Making SSM Transformation

information can Knowledge Transformations
decisions in the Rules
indeed be Application
absence of clear
facts.” extracted, how Identifying
“is a rigorous Contextualization of
can it be requirements CATWOE Application
Effectiveness is approach to the Transformations
structured in a and their Database
measured by subjective”
way which contexts
more resourceful
enables rigorous

Rigorous approach
use of limited (What needs
problem Planning Statements Root Definition
information to be done)
definition?
“If someone were
to analyze current If a problem can “offers a rigor and
notions and indeed be discipline which Individual Individual
Systemic
fashionable defined automatically Systems Human Activity
Planning
catchwords, he rigorously, how forces systemic Planning Systems
Actions to be
would find can this thinking over and Systems
taken
‘systems’ high on definition be above received Database
the list.” used to inform a ‘textbook’ wisdom (How it can
Useful and practical systemic results in the face of partial information

be done) Control Criteria

Force systemicity
Effectiveness is systemic or entrenched Integrated
Ethicality, Elegance

measured by approach toward custom and Systems Supersystem

tackling resolution? practice” Planning
Effectiveness, Efficiency, Efficacy,

systemicity

Fig. 6 The decision making model, flanked by (a) the theoretical basis which informs its constitution, and (b) the expected result

Springer
457
458 Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459

related to particular human activity systems and could thus offer automated analytical links.
Depending on the software’s programmed intelligence, it could also offer optional concep-
tual links for consideration. In brief, it is not difficult to imagine a computerized resource
which decision makers use as a platform for developing knowledge, application, and systems
databases relevant to problematic situations they encounter.
Figure 6 may also be appreciated as aiding the teaching of, or training in, SSM. The
methodology is not a trivial one to grasp, especially because it introduces a mode of thinking
which makes extensive demands on one’s mental furniture. Like anything which has stood
the test of time, becoming familiar with SSM, appreciating its subtleties, its relevance, its
potential, its malleability, and its effectiveness all require a certain dedication. Situations
lacking clear facts, for example, invite subjectivism which requires effective management
if a resolution is to be found. SSM operationalizes ‘a rigorous approach to the subjective’
(Checkland, 1999, p. A43, 2000). This is exemplified, for instance, in the manner in which
(1) certain rules guide the stipulation of transformations; (2) the three Analyses act as an
information source for the CATWOE contextualization of transformations; (3) the CAT-
WOE mnemonic itself imposes particular issues upon which to focus, with subjectivity
receiving especial attention since different perspectives on the same transformation can pro-
duce strikingly different models/plans of how the transformation should be dealt with; and
(4) conceptual models, or human activity systems, must have accompanying and specific
control criteria. Training in SSM, therefore, goes a long way to helping decision makers
manage the subjectivism which compounds the inherent ambiguity of problematic situa-
tions. The configuration in Fig. 6 goes some way to facilitating a smooth introduction to a
methodology that constitutes a cornerstone of systems thinking.
In brief, Fig. 6 provides a theoretical basis for managerial effectiveness, a decision making
model which renders the theory operational, an expected result from using the model, a
teaching and training tool for disseminating SSM, and a blueprint from which to begin
considering software support for the methodology. A practical demonstration of managerial
effectiveness, through the use of the configuration of SSM presented here, has been submitted
for peer review with the belief that it provides sufficient evidence for the practical usefulness
of the present considerations (Georgiou, in peer review). It is thus hoped that systems thinking
may at least be appreciated as responding to Bennis and O’Toole (2005) with at least one
distinct contribution toward the manner in which business schools might, once again, find
their way.

This paper is based on research supported by the Escola de Administração de Empresas

de São Paulo of the Fundação Getulio Vargas. A version of this paper was presented on
10 November 2005 to the I Congresso Brasileiro de Sistemas held at the Riberão Preto
campus of the University of São Paulo.

References

Ackoff R (1979) The future of operational research is past. J Oper Res Soc 30:93–104
Belasco JA, Glassman AM, Alutto JA (1973) Experiential learning: some classroom results. Acad Manag
Proc 235–241
Bennis WG, O’Toole J (2005) How business schools lost their way. Harv Bus Rev 83:96–104
Bolton R, Gold J (1994) Career management: matching the needs of individuals with the needs of organizations.
Pers Rev 23:6–24
Brocklesby J (1995) Using soft systems methodology to identify competence requirements in HRM. Int J
Manpow 16:70–84
Springer
Syst Pract Act Res (2006) 19:441–459 459

Campbell JP, Dunnette MD, Lawler EE, Weick KE (1970) Managerial behavior, performance, and effective-
ness. McGraw-Hill, New York
Checkland P (1985) Achieving ‘desirable and feasible’ change: an application of soft systems methodology.
J Oper Res Soc 36:821–831
Checkland P (1989) Soft systems methodology. In: Rosenhead J (ed) Rational analysis for a problematic world:
problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester, pp 71–100
Checkland P (1999) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester
Checkland P (2000) Soft systems methodology: a thirty year retrospective. Syst Res Behav Sci 17:S11–S58
Checkland P (2001) Soft systems methodology. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a
problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict, 2nd
edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 61–89
Checkland P, Davies L (1983) The use of the term ‘Weltanschauung’ in soft systems methodology. J Appl
Syst Anal 13:109–115
Checkland P, Tsouvalis C (1997) Reflecting on SSM: the link between root definitions and conceptual models.
Syst Res Behav Sci 14:153–168
de Geus A (1988) Planning as learning. Har Bus Rev 66:70–74
Drucker P (1967) The effective executive. Harper, New York
Easterby-Smith M, Lyles M (2003) The blackwell handbook of organizational learning and knowledge
management. Blackwell, Oxford
Forrester JW (1961) Industrial dynamics. MIT Press, Cambridge
Georgiou I (in peer review). Making decisions in the absence of clear facts. Eur J Oper Res, ms number
EJOR-D-06-00081
Grünig R, Kühn R (2005) Successful decision-making: a systematic approach to complex problems. Springer,
Berlin
Ho KKJ, Sculli D (1994) Organizational theory and soft systems methodologies. J Manage Dev 13:47–58
Kawalek JP (2004) Systems thinking and knowledge management: positional assertions and preliminary
observations. Syst Res Behav Sci 21:17–36
Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology, and practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum
Publishers, London
Mitchell G (1993) The practice of operational research. Wiley, Chichester
Reddin WJ (1970) Managerial effectiveness. McGraw-Hill, New York
Rose J, Haynes M (1999). A soft systems approach to the evaluation of complex interventions in the public
sector. J Appl Manage Stud 8:199–216
Rosenhead J (ed) (1989) Rational analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for com-
plexity, uncertainty and conflict, Wiley, Chichester
Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring
methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester
Sinn JS (1998) A comparison of interactive planning and soft systems methodology: enhancing the comple-
mentarist position. Syst Pract Action Res 11:435–453
Smyth DS, Checkland PB (1976) Using a system approach: the structure of root definitions. J Appl Syst Anal
5:75–83
Taylor F (1914) The principles of scientific management. Harper and Row, London
von Bertalanffy L (1968) General system theory: foundations, development, applications, George Braziller,
New York
Yolles M (1999) Management systems: a viable approach. Financial Times Pitman Publishing, London
Zbaracki MJ (1998) The rhetoric and reality of Total Quality Management. Adm Sci Q 43:602–636

Springer