5.1.1 What is it about?

Checkland and Poulter defined SSM as follows:

“SSM is an organized way of tackling perceived problematical (social) situations. It is action oriented. It organizes thinking about such situations so that action to bring about improvement can be taken” (Checkland and Poulter 2010), p. xv).

SSM uses system ideas developed within hard systems thinking in problem solving. SSM is an approach which in a systematic way tries to establish and structure a debate concerning actions for improving the problem situation (Simonsen, 1994, http://www.jespersimonsen.dk/Downloads/SSM-IntroductionJS.pdf)(Simonsen 1994). Soft systems approaches diverge from hard systems approaches in explicitly integrating the assumption that an objective representation of reality does not exist. Our perspective is always directed and filtered by our world view. We always have only a partial picture of reality (See illustration).

Illustration: The blind men and the matter of the elephant (reproduced from Meadows, D., 2008, p. 7)

Beyond Ghor, there was a city. All its inhabitants were blind. A king with his entourage arrived nearby; he brought his army and camped in the desert. He had a mighty elephant, which he used to increase the people’s awe.

The populace became anxious to see the elephant, and some sightless from among this blind community ran like fools to find it.

As they did not even know the form or shape of the elephant, they groped sightlessly, gathering information by touching some part of it.

Each thought that he knew something, because he could feel a part…

The man whose hand had reached an ear… said: “It is a large, rough thing, wide and broad, like a rug.”

And the one who had felt the trunk said: “I have the real fact about it. It is like a straight and hollow pipe, awful and destructive.”

The one who had felt its feet and legs said: “It is mighty and firm, like a pillar.”

Each had felt one part out of many. Each had perceived it wrongly…

This ancient Sufi story was told to teach a simple lesson but one that we often ignore: The behavior of a system cannot be known just by knowing the elements of which the system is made.

Soft system methodology tries to align the partial pictures to be able to take coordinated action. This radical constructivist perspective includes that social systems do not exist as such, but are always informed by intentionality. Identifying this intentionality is at the core of SSM (Vandenbroeck 2015).

In short, SSM can be characterised by the following points:

• In contrast to the approaches described above (grounded theory and framework analysis), SSM is an action-oriented approach, which means that its purpose is to enable actions to improve (Checkland, 2000, research paper)(Checkland 2000). The change sought can be structural change, process change or changes of attitude, or all three at once (Checkland, 2000, research paper)(Checkland 2000).
• SSM is used “to make sense of complex situations” (Checkland, 2000, research paper)(Checkland 2000).
• SSM is flexible. Any approach able to deal with the changing complexity of real life needs to be flexible, because every situation involving human beings is unique. SSM offers a set of principles which can be adopted and adapted for use in any real situation in which people want to take action to improve it. SSM is not a clear sequence of steps. (Checkland, 2000, research paper)(Checkland 2000)
• SSM is a learning cycle, which goes from finding out about a problematical situation to defining/taking action to improve it. (Checkland, 2000, research paper)(Checkland 2000)

Checkland (Checkland and Poulter 2010) emphasized that SSM is not a technique in the sense of a recipe, nor a method, but a methodology. That means it is a set of principles which can be adapted for use in a way which suits the specific nature of each situation in which it is used. The set of principles can be adopted or adapted for use in any real situation in which people are intending to take action to improve it.

5.1.2 The SSM learning cycle

Adapted from Checkland and Poulter (2010)

The SSM process takes the form of a cycle. It is a cycle of learning which goes from finding out about a problematical situation to defining/taking action to improve it. The steps in the learning cycle are described below (see also Figure X).

Figure X: The SSM’s learning cycle

5.2.1 The iceberg model

The iceberg is a metaphor associated with systems thinking (Senge 1990). Systems thinking approaches problems by asking how various elements within a system influence one another. The visible world around us is represented by the top of the iceberg, but this is only a “manifestation of patterns and structures that are below the water surface, hence cannot be observed directly” (Vandenbroeck 2015). What happens under water is what creates the icebergs behavior at its top. The iceberg represents a hierarchy of levels of understanding with observable events at the top and mental models at the bottom.

• Observable events

The guiding question to find out about events is: “What just happened?”. The response is the events resulting from system behaviour or repeating patterns of cause and effect at the lower layer of the iceberg.

• Patterns/trends

Below the events level, patterns and trends become visible, by asking “What trends have there been over time?”. Similar events have been taking place over time.

• Underlying structures

At the structure level we could ask: “What is causing the pattern we are observing?” or “What are the relationships between the parts?”. Structures might consist of physical things (like buildings, roads, etc.), organisations (e.g. schools), policies (e.g. laws) or rituals (e.g. habits).

• Mental models

“Mental models are the images, assumptions, and stories which we carry in our minds of ourselves, other people, institutions, and every aspect of the world. Like a pane of glass framing and subtly distorting our vision, mental models determine what we see” (Senge et al. 1994). Also “Differences between mental models explain why two people can observe the same event and describe it differently” (Senge et al. 1994). In qualitative research we encounter mental models often in (mis)beliefs, expectations, values and attitudes.

We are unaware of our mental models or those of others, until we diliberately look for them. By means of qualitative research, and especially in combination with a systems thinking or grounded theory approach, we can bring mental models to the surface and explore them. Once we identified them we can try to re-form mental models or create new ones that serve us better in the world. Soft systems methodology (but also for example imagineering) can help us doing this. Mental models are the deepest layer of the iceberg, which is suggesting that they are difficult to reach and unresponsive to change. However, if mental models can be changed they offer the highest leverage for change (e.g. within an organisation or system) (Senge et al., 1994).

“The lower level of the iceberg gives context and meaning to the higher level” (Vandenbroeck 2015). For every event you can work your way down the iceberg through the patterns, underlying systems and mental models. It can also be useful to move up and down between levels as you think more about the event. The iceberg should help to broaden your perspective. Each layer offers opportunities to “enter” the system. New leverage points, these are points at which to intervene in a system to systematically transform it, may become apparent.

5.2.2 Reinforcing and balancing feedback loops

Adapted from Senge, P. et al. 1994, the fifth discipline field book, p. 113-120

In a feedback loop every element is both ‘cause’ and ‘effect’. For every variable you can trace links that represent influence on another element. This way cycles are revealed that repeat themselves. Figure X presents an example with increasing numbers of patients increasing waiting times in a clinic, and increasing waiting times leading to decreasing numbers of patients, leading to decreasing waiting times again, and so on.

Figure X: Example of a feedback loop

There are basically two building blocks of all systems representations:

• Reinforcing loops: generate growth and collapse, in which the growth or collapse continues at an ever-increasing rate. A small change builds on itself, resulting in big changes after some time. There can be any number of elements in a reinforcing loop, all propelling each others’ growth. Reinforcing loop situations generally “snowball” into highly amplified growth or decline. Somewhere sometime the reinforcing loop will run up against at least one balancing mechanism that limits it. The letter R is used to mark a reinforcing loop.
• Balancing loops: generate stability. Balancing processes generate the forces of resistance, which eventually limit growth. Balancing loops are found in situations which seem to be self-correcting and self-regulating. The letter B is used to mark a balancing loop.

In addition to feedback loops also time needs to be taken into account. Both in reinforcing and balancing loops delays may occur. Delays are the points where the link takes a particularly long time to play out. Delays can have enormous influence in a system, frequently accentuating the impact of other forces. When unacknowledged delays occur, people tent to react impatiently, usually redoubling their efforts to get what they want. This results in unnecessarily violent oscillations. One of the purposes of drawing systems diagrams is to flag the delays which you might otherwise miss. 

5.2.3 System Archetypes

Adapted from Senge, P. et al. 1994, the fifth discipline field book, p. 165-172

Archetypes are accessible tools with which credible and consistent hypotheses can be constructed. Kim and Lannon (Kim and Lannon 1997) rightly point out that they can be used in at least for different ways:

• As “lenses”: it is not about which archetype is “right”, but rather about what unique insights each archetype offers.
• As structural pattern templates: archetypes can help focus a group’s attention on the heart of an issue. After a group has drawn a causal loop diagram of the problem at hand, they can stand back and compare their diagram with the pattern of an archetype.
• As dynamic scripts (or theories): each archetype offers prescriptions for effective action. Once we recognize a specific archetype at work, we can use the theory of that archetype to expel a particular problem and work toward an intervention.
• As tools for predicting behavior: systems archetypes can help us identify predetermined outcomes of a particular situation.

To find out which archetype applies, a good strategy is to look at your situation through the lens of several different archetypes. Two or three may fit together, each highlighting a different aspect.

You can start by drawing just a simple balancing or reinforcing loop. Then add more elements, one link at a time. About each element ask what is causing changes in this element, and also what is the effect when this variable changes.

In what follows, three archetypes are presented. However many more archetypes are described in

• Senge, P. et al. 1994, The fifth discipline field book, p. 125 – 150.
• Meadows, D. 2008, Thinking in Systems. p. 110 – 141.

5.2.3.1     The “fixes that backfire” archetype

The central theme of this archetype is that almost any decision carries long-term and short-term consequences, and the two are often diametrically opposed. A problem symptom cries out for resolution. A solution is quickly implemented (the fix) which alleviates the symptom (balancing loop), but the unintended consequences of the fix (reinforcing loop) actually worsen the performance or condition which we are attempting to correct.

Example: child abuse is underreported to authorities. In the US they made reporting mandatory. However, child protection services were not reinforced, hence were overwhelmed by the number of reports, and could only investigate a small part of all reports. By consequence they got the reputation of being untrustworthy. In response, people decided not to report (although mandatory) and tried to find solutions themselves or did not do anything. Number of reports decreased again, hence the problem of underdetection was reinforced.

Figure X: System dynamics model for “Fixes that backfire” – example

5.2.3.2     The “Limits to growth” archetype

We never grow without limits. In every aspect of life, patterns of growth and limits come together. In this archetype the growth process is usually shown as a virtuous reinforcing loop. The limiting process is usually shown as a balancing loop, which reacts to imbalances imposed on it by the growth loop. The balancing loop is also driven to move toward its target – a limit or constraint on the whole system, difficult to see because it is so far removed from the growth process.

By pushing hard to overcome the constraints, we make the effects of those constraints even worse than they otherwise would be. Typically, there has been an acceleration of growth and performance, usually the result of hard work, but the growth mysteriously leveled off. A natural reaction is to increase efforts that worked so well before. However, the harder you push, the harder the system seems to push back. Some source of resistance prevents further improvements. Instead of the expected growth, performance remains in equilibrium or completely crashes.

The limiting force may be within the organization, within ourselves or it might be external (e.g. a saturated market).

Example: Quality improvements within an organization often start with the quick wins. This may lead to significant gains in the quality of services or processes. But as the easy changes (known as the low hanging fruit) are completed, the level of improvement plateaus. The next wave of improvements are more complex and tougher to make. The lack of organization-wide support may become a limiting factor.

Figure X: System dynamics model for “limits to growth” - example

5.2.3.3     The “Shifting the burden” archetype

A ‘shifting the burden’ situation (like a ‘fixes that backfire’ situation) usually begins with a problem symptom that prompts someone to solve it. The solution(s) relieve(s) the problem symptom quickly. However the solutions divert the attention away from the fundamental source of the problem.

The ‘shifting the burden’ model has two balancing loops, each representing a different type of fix for the problem symptom:

• The upper loop is a symptomatic quick fix
• The bottom loop represents measures which take longer (note the delay) and are often more difficult, but ultimately address the real problem.

In many ‘shifting the burden’ situations there are additional reinforcing loops. Like the “unintended consequences” loop in ‘fixes that backfire’, these loops represent unintended consequences that make the problem worse.

Example: Many cases of child abuse remain undetected (= problem symptom). An attempt to fix this underdetection could be to increase detection skills of general practitioners and pediatricians. However, if physicians detect more cases of child abuse, they often rely on child protection services for support, advice or to report the case. This means more work for the already overburdened protection services. They cannot manage the overwhelming demands of physicians and restrict uptake criteria or respond with ‘you are doing fine’. Physicians get discouraged and feel let down. As trying to handle cases of child abuse is very time and energy consuming, physicians go back to their former management of bruised children. A more fundamental solution would be to invest in the capacity of child protection services. This way physicians could get the support they need in the detection of child abuse and reported cases get the specialized care they need.

Figure X: System dynamics model for “shifting the burden” – example of the detection of child abuse

5.2.3.4     Links to other archetypes

• https://thesystemsthinker.com/a-pocket-guide-to-using-the-archetypes/
• http://www.systems-thinking.org/arch/arch.htm
• http://blog.iseesystems.com/tag/archetypes/

5.2.4 Seven steps to break through organizational gridlock

Adapted from Senge, P. et al. 1994, the fifth discipline field book, p. 165-172.

Gridlock results when people behave as if they are independent, each pulling in a different direction.

Step 1: Identify the original problem symptom

Look back over a period of time and identify a class of symptoms that have been recurring.

Step 2: Map all quick fixes

Try to map out all the fixes that have been used to tackle the identified problem. The objective is to identify a set of balancing loops that appear to be keeping the problems under control.

Step 3: Identify undesirable impacts

Actions taken by one group almost always affect others in the organization (e.g. if each team’s solution causes a problem for the other team). Identify a reinforcing process that locks the players into a patterned response.

Step 4: Identify fundamental solutions

Having identified the undesirable effects of your quick fix, you need to find a solution that will more fundamentally address the problem. You will need to look at the situation from everyone’s perspective to achieve a fundamental solution.

Step 5: Map additive side effects of quick fixes

There are usually side effects of the quick fixes that steadily undermine the viability of the fundamental solution. This leads to a reinforcing spiral of dependency.

Step 6: Find interconnections between to fundamental loops

Finding links between the interaction effects and the fundamental solution. The interaction effects create spiraling resentment, which leads to an increasing unwillingness to communicate with the other team, resulting in an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ mentality.

Step 7: Identify high leverage actions

If you are able to get a bird’s eye-view, you can see the larger grid. The process of mapping out a gridlocked situation can be a high leverage action and be a starting point for communication across walls.

You know you found a high leverage intervention when you can see the long-term pattern of behavior shift qualitatively in a system, for example if stagnation gives way to growth or if oscillations dampen. This kind of breakthrough happens most readily when you can make alterations in the structure you’ve mapped out. You either add new desirable loops or break linkages that produce undesirable impacts.

• Adding a loop: translates into designing and implementing a new process, monitoring information in a new way, or establishing new policies.
• Breaking a link: eliminating or weakening undesirable consequences of your actions or ceasing strategies which are counterproductive in the long run.

When you add loops or break links, it’s critical to try to make such mental models explicit, because the reasons underlying peoples’ actions are fundamental to the system’s structure.