Essay: Application Systems Intervention Strategy

Application of Systems Intervention Strategy (SIS)

SIS was developed by Mayon-White in the 1980s. Its purpose is to provide a cyclic structure for analysing business systems, but, unlike soft systems methodology, it is relatively quantitative (rather than qualitative).

The strategy has three stages: diagnosis, design and implementation, each subdivided into several steps (see Mayon-White 1993: 136).

Diagnosis

There is a zero stage of entry, at which point it is acknowledged that change is required, and that the process may be complex.

The first stage of the actual process is description, understanding the basic systems under consideration and getting points of view from participators. At the most basic level, this might involve drawing a spray diagram (see Fig. 1) to understand the different parties with an interest in the business, many of whom may need to be consulted.

The second stage is to identify objectives and constraints. The objective is to revitalise the business, which is described as ‘drifting’. Constraints include the resources available for investment and the staffing required if the business is expanded – there are already staffing issues with two key individuals about to reduce their hours.

The third stage to decide on ways of measuring these objectives: these will be quantitative wherever possible. Therefore, revitalisation might be measured by return on investment and increased turnover taking into account increased costs of running an expanded business if this path is chosen. Required staffing levels can also be calculated and recruitment needs calculated.

Design

Following the analytical stages above, the fourth stage is to develop as wide a range of different options as possible. This may include looking at the practicalities of developing a restaurant, or developing the garden centre business

The fifth stage is to model various options. Models should be simple, such as the multiple cause diagram in Fig. 2. This diagram demonstrates the likely outcome of continuing as at present without investment. The cyclic nature ultimately contributes to a ‘drift down’. However, intervention in the cycle through investment could break it and lead to a ‘move up’.

The implications of intervention can be modelled using quantitative analysis e.g. cash-benefit analysis of different options or cash-flow forecasts.

Implementation

The sixth step is to evaluate the various options that have been developed. Quantitative methods used in stage five help simplify this process e.g. the cost-benefit analysis and viability of cash flows may dictate whether a restaurant or expanded garden centre (or both) is the better option.

The seventh step is to plan and design how these may be implemented, with the final, eighth step to implement.

The process is cyclical: following implementation, monitoring may lead the business back to the diagnosis phase to consider improving the system further, or to focus on other systems.

Application of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)

SSM was developed by Checkland who found that harder methodologies were less suited to more complex problems with significant human elements (e.g. social, psychological), where a specific problem may be difficult to identify.

As with SIS, Checkland uses stages (see below: taken from Checkland 1999: 165-183), which appear to correlate to some extent with those, used by Mayon-White in SIS. However, SSM aims to identify issues that may not at first be apparent, while SIS focuses on analysing systems issues that are already identified, and finding ways to improve those systems.

The SSM Process

• Problem situation unstructured.

Like the zero stage of SIS, this stage represents an opening of the process, although unlike SIS, a problem situation, rather than a problem, is the focus. With the garden centre, this is a sense of drifting rather than proactive development.

• Problem situation expressed

Unlike SIS, the beginnings of the analytical process have a focus on qualitative issues, considering not just organisational structure and current systems, but also the feelings of the organisational members towards the operation. Information collected through observation, interviews and discussions can then be incorporated into a ‘rich picture’ (see Fig. 3 overleaf).

The rich picture is a diagrammatical representation of a range of issues. The example in fig. 3 considers the various internal and external influences on the business, and incorporates the views of the partners. As information emerges during this stage, the rich picture can be added to and refined, and certain aspects of it may raise issues that have not been considered. For example, the second partner refers to a ‘pool’ of experienced part-time staff in the area who might be available if a restaurant was developed. The reasons they might work for one employer rather than another may need to be explored. As information emerges, detailed rich pictures for different issues and areas of the business can be used.

• Naming of relevant systems

The root definition is another core concept in SSM. It is a sentence that aims to encapsulate the core reasoning and purpose behind an activity, and the pneumonic CATWOE (customer, actor, transformation process, Weltanschauung or world view, owner and environmental constraints) is commonly used to help structure a root definition.

For example, with the development of a stock management system, the CATWOE analysis might produce the following:

• Customers (i.e. all those potentially benefiting): Trade and public customers, partners, senior employees
• Actors: Employees
• Transformation Process: Designing and implementation of stock management processes
• Weltenschauung: Required stock to be available, excess stock minimised and ordering and cultivation to be planned and managed effectively leading to efficiencies and hence improved profit
• Owners: Senior employees/partners
• Environmental constraints: Space for stock, financing for stock, limits of stock system (e.g. software capabilities), weather (likely to affect customer numbers and plant cultivation), training required for implementation.

A root definition for a stock management system might therefore be:

“A system owned by the partners and senior employees and used by all staff to enable detailed monitoring of stock movements leading to more efficient ordering and cultivation to meet customer requirements and hence maximise profit”

• Comparing conceptual models with reality

The conceptual model can be compared with current systems of stock management, stage by stage. While it appears that there is little stock management of any kind at present, certain stages can still be compared e.g. what process is currently in place if a customer asks for a product that is out of stock? What are the various alternatives that might be considered?

6/7Implementing ‘feasible and desirable’ changes

These final stages are comparable with the SSI approach: it is the process by which they are reached which takes a more qualitative approach

Comparison of Systems Intervention Strategy and Soft Systems Methodology

SIS and SSM are presented as contrasting methodologies allied to quantitative and qualitative focuses respectively. SIS is considered to be closer to the ‘hard’ end of systems analysis, suited to issues which can be expressed in numerical terms, hence the use of cash flows and financial analysis as evaluation tools. SSM, in contrast, is considered suited to looking at more complex problems where many human issues are key to finding an appropriate solution.

In practice, to view the methodologies as dichotomous is to miss the benefits of using them in conjunction with each other. For successful change and change management, employees need to be involved and elements of company culture considered (Garvin and Roberto 2005: 112), and SSM processes incorporate this. However, embarking on change that will cause bankruptcy through poor cash flows is clearly nonsensical, thus SIS analytical approaches are also important.

Both methodologies carry some danger of over-segmenting, which Kanter warns against (1985: 28) by modelling specific areas of the business rather than considering it as a whole. However, there is potential for a rich picture, if sufficiently detailed, to bring in a more all-encompassing view.

The development of SSM is perhaps reflective of a decline in popularity of quantitative approaches in favour of qualitative work, which has affected a number of disciplines since the 1960s (Silverman 1985: 17). Yet O’Leary argues against any mutual exclusivity: “It is much more useful (and potentially liberating) to see these terms as simply adjectives for types of data and their corresponding modes of analysis” (2004: 99).

The garden centre case study is clearly multi-faceted and requires both types of methodological approach. While ‘sticking to the knitting’ may turn out to be the more financially viable option, will following this route have political ramifications if the partner in favour of the restaurant feels disenfranchised? Could this result in tensions and cultural change, possibly resulting in staff leaving? A combination of SIS and SSM takes all these factors into account, allowing the business’s owners to make decisions confident that all issues have been analysed and incorporated into the design of whatever changes are to be implemented.

References

• Birley G and Moreland N (1998) A Practical Guide to Academic Research (Kogan Page, London)
• Checkland P (1999) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (John Wiley, Chichester)
• Checkland P and Scholes J (1999) Soft Systems Methodology: A Thirty Year Retrospective (John Wiley, Chichester)
• Couprie D, Goodbrand A, Li B and Zhu D (undated) Soft Systems Methodology (Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, available at sern.ucalgary.ca/courses/seng/613/F97/grp4/ssmfinal.html)
• Garvin D and Roberto M (2005) Change Through Persuasion in Harvard Business Review, February 2005 pp104-112
• Hakim C (2000) Research Design 2^nd Edition (Routledge, London and New York)
• Huczynski A and Buchanan D (1991) Organisational Behaviour 2^nd Edition (Prentice Hall, Hertfordshire)
• Kanter R (1985) The Change Masters (Unwin, London)
• Mabey C and Mayon-White B (Eds) (1993) Managing Change 2^nd Edition (Paul Chapman, London)
• Mayon-White B (1993) Problem Solving in Small Groups: Team Members as Agents of Change in Mabey C and Mayon-White B (Eds) Managing Change 2^nd Edition (Paul Chapman, London) pp132-142
• Silverman D (1985) Qualitative Methodology and Sociology (Gower, Hampshire)
• Waring A (1996) Practical Systems Thinking (Thomson, London)
• Zikmund W (2003) Business Research Methods 7^th Edition (Thomson, Ohio)