Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1990), Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Willey & Sons Ltd, Chichester , UK.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....from the findings. 2. Background to the project 2.1. Formal Object Oriented Method The RE process used within the project was Formal Object Oriented Method (FOOM) Briefly, FOOM (to which a general introduction may be found in Swatman [23] is based on a synthesis of socio organisational theory [5], the object oriented approach MOSES [10] and the mathematical formal specification language Object Z [8] For the purpose of this paper, however, it is sufficient to understand that the specification developed during the FOOM process is definitively represented using the formal language Object Z ....

Checkland, P. and Scholes (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Willey and Sons Ltd.

....in everyday life with which at least one person sees problems and wants improvements. SSM looks at the human and organisational context within which the desired system will operate, rather than just at the system itself. The conventional SSM model consists of seven fundamental stages [Mac96] [CS99]: 1. Description of problem situation Who is involved and what is their view of the situation What is the organisational context 2. Picture of the world The problem situation is expressed in a way which helps choosing a relevant system in stage 3. 3. Root definition of relevant system . ....

Peter Checkland and Jim Scholes. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley & Sons., 1999.

....problems were raised from using both the notations. 2. Background for the project 2.1. Formal Object Oriented Method The requirements engineering process used within the project was Formal Object Oriented Method (FOOM) 23] Briefly, FOOM is based on a synthesis of socio organisational theory [4], the object oriented approach MOSES [12] and the mathematical formal specification language Object Z [7] An introduction to FOOM is included as appendix A. For the purpose of this paper, however, it is sufficient to understand that the specification developed during the FOOM process is ....

Checkland, P. and Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Willey and Sons Ltd, 1990.

....what types of activities we wanted to carry out, who would do it and how we would measure our success. We also did a brief analysis of the environment and the context of our work including assumptions, hindrances and opportunities. The analysis was carried out using the Soft Systems Methodology [3]. This analysis was important since it helped us to focus our work. As a result of this analysis we formed a few working groups with defined objectives. Furthermore, informal activities between participants take place, for example by asking for resources, experiences, advice etc. It is important ....

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. Soft systems methodology in action. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 1999.

....in objectives and goals naturally overflow into measurement programmes as what may have been innocently selected as objective measurements tend to become management performance indicators. In this situation, the adoption of a soft systems approach which is closely associated with Peter Checkland [9,10,11] could be considered. This can be done as a precursor to the execution of a GQM (Goal Question Metric) 12] exercise [13] or even as an alternative to GQM. One reason why SSM might be preferred to GQM is that there is some evidence [14,15] that GQM encourages organisations to collect data that ....

Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. "Soft systems methodology in action." John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1990. 149

....but do not guarantee a successful outcome will result if we apply them to solve a problem. Over extending a simple model may mislead us into making false assumptions and conclusions. The solutions developed by all the stake holders are important as agents of change in the redesign of process [6]; as discussed in 4.1. above in the case study. To understand the difficulties we are faced with when studying a complex social system of many people working together (involving thousands of dimensions of factors influencing their work) we can consider a very simple problem being modelled (3 ....

Checkland, P. and Scholes J., "Soft Systems Methodology in Action", Wiley, 1991.

....into account the orientation of educational innovations, the consultation of the constituencies as suggested by EC2000, the priorities on educational investments and the strong collaboration of the faculty members. METHODOLOGY The methodology used is an adaptation of Checklands social systems [10]. The knowledge, abilities and attitudes are integrated through structured sentences of desirable conducts observed in the students [11] Taking into account the model of the integral profile (MPI; Modelo del Perill Integral) presented in Figure 1 [8] it can be suggested that the development of ....

Checkland P., Scholes J., "Soft Systems Methodology in Action", Wiley 1990, pp. 48-50.

....It can be used to help discover overlapping viewpoints (where conflicts are most likely) and gaps in the viewpoint coverage of the process. The viewpoint focus may also have an associated rationale which is comparable to the notion of Weltanschauung or world view in Software Systems Methodology [11, 24]. This rationale presents assumptions on which the viewpoint is based and helps the reader understand why the viewpoint has been included. Examples of rationale which could be associated with the above focus descriptions are: Our current configuration management process is not integrated with our ....

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., Soft Systems Methodology in Action. 1990, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

....team comments and the asynchronous communications possibilities, but felt it added to, rather than replaced, personal contact. How did the use of CMC in this unit affect: increased somewhat increased no effect somewhat decreased decreased the amount of your interaction with other students 33 16 4 1 0 the quality of your interaction with other students 26 25 1 1 0 the degree to which your group became a team 27 21 5 1 0 the need for face to face meetings by your team 51016203 the ease of tracking the completion of your team s project tasks 20 32 2 0 0 the amount of your interaction ....

....amount of your motivation to learn 10 31 13 0 0 your familiarity with computers 15 17 22 0 0 Table 9 Effects of CMC on unit learning The feeling of most students was that the experience had been a positive one. See tables 10 and 11) How would you rate your overall experience of CMC excellent 24 very good 16 good 11 fair 2 poor 0 Table 10 The value of CMC Would you study another unit using CMC definitely yes 33 probably yes 20 probably no 0 definitely no 0 Table 11 Willingness to use CMC again COURSE EVALUATION The courses are evaluated by the students at the completion of the ....

Checkland, P & Scholes, J Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, 1990.

....at 8.33 of a full time years workload. The course has two prerequisites: 1. A second year Information Systems course which includes a topic on systems development methodologies. Students are exposed to a wide range of analysis and design methodologies, including Soft Systems Methodology [4] and ETHICS [10] 2. A first semester, third year course on IT Project Management. This course covers the essentials of IT project management, including the human aspects of team building, working in teams and appropriate incentive and rewards schemes for IT project teams. Students who take the ....

Checkland, P & Scholes, J Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, 1990.

....the most general criterion for designation as a system. It will also meet more specific requirements for: a clear boundary, an operating environment, a homogeneous character and some emergent property unique to the system as a whole rather than to any of its individual components (Checkland, 1981; Checkland Scholes, 1990). In addition to diverse potential media, multimedia offers a potentially infinite variety of software operations, and hence a variety of external structures. This external structure defines the user interface and provides the clear boundary required of a system. The users are an audience and, in ....

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley, 1990.

....complex task that requires explicit attention and planning. In order to improve any activity one must establish knowledge about the current practice. This knowledge is needed to develop useful improvement strategies that tackle existing problems and barriers and thereby lead to improved practices (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Humphrey 1990; Lanzara and Mathiassen 1985; Pressman 1997) Our research focuses on this crucial diagnostic competence. In this paper we offer practical advise on how to diagnose diffusion practices within software organizations and contribute to our understanding of key issues in diffusion ....

....diagnosis performed. We have chosen to use a case study approach for our research. This approach provided us with a means to gain a rich insight into the organisational phenomenon of diffusion practices (Yin 1994) Our case, the diagnostic project at Volvo IT AB, relied on state of theart theories (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Cooper and Zmud 1990; Eason 1988; Huff 1992; Kautz 1995; Len 1995; Markus 1983; Mathiassen and Srenssen 1997; The Standish Group 1995; Weinberg 1997) and combined mapping techniques (Checkland and Scholes 1990; Lanzara and Mathiassen 1985) workshops (Fredriksen et al. 1998) and in depth ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

....and compare our interpretation to that of Orlikowski (1992) who has based her study of the role of technology on structuration theory. 2. SSM and the institution of software development We make use of the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) developed by Checkland and his associates (Checkland, 1981, Checkland Scholes, 1990, Checkland Holwell, 1998) to further highlight the differences between the two institutions of computer based information systems, namely the software development and information systems use. SSM is a general approach for making sense and giving structure to real world problems in order to ....

....Even though the concept system has been introduced as an abstract concept it is often also used to describe parts of the real world. In order to avoid confusion about what is reality and what is an abstraction of the reality the concept holon is preferred to the concept system . According to Checkland and Scholes (1990, p. 22) this concept is coined by Arthur Koestler in 1967 and means constructed abstract wholes, conceding the word system to everyday language and not trying to use it as a technical term (ibid. pp. 25 26) The overall aim of SSM is to take seriously the subjectivity which is a fundamental ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Checkland, P. B., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in action. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons.

....such models, variables that represent the soft nature of the system such as arrival times of jobs at a point in the system can only be modeled stochastically. Often, it is these types of variables that are trying to capture how things really work in the real world. Especially in soft systems [3], i.e. systems where human activity, communication and cooperation the work practice play an important role in the performance of the system, it is very difficult to develop a good model using probabilistic behavior. We address this problem by using a qualitative symbolic modelbased simulation ....

P. Checkland and J. Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chicester, England.: John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1990.

....Tab l e 1 : Characterising change manifestations. change. We acknowledge that these dimensions may only describe the view of single stakeholder groups, and that multiple assessments of the a change manifestation may need to be made. For example, the CATWOE analysis of Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland Scholes, 1990) could be used to scope how aspects of a change manifestation apply. 2.3 Reaction to Change Our next consideration is what happens when changes manifest themselves. Kanellis et al. 1996) suggested four generic reactions to change: # Insulation from the change. For example, the organisation ....

Checkland, P. B. & Scholes, J. (1990), Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley & Sons.

....behaviour of the conceptual and system design models. Even if the different modules of the system are correctly refined during the Detailed Design phase, it is necessary to simulate the validation model since the interactions between the different modules can give rise to the emergent properties [Checkland et al. 1990] of the system. Emergent properties are those properties that exist as a result of the interaction of the different modules, and which cannot be easily determined from the independent validation of the component modules. Simulation is the validation technique used in this methodology. We note ....

P.B. Checkland and J. Scholes. Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., ISBN 0471927686, 1990.

....the INSYDE methodology is by co simulating the SDL and VHDL specifications of the software and hardware subsystems respectively. A co simulation of the software and hardware subsystems, as opposed to individual simulations of the subsystems, is necessary since the emergent properties of a system [6] are due to the interaction of the various subsystems and will not be apparent in the individual simulations. 3 make requirements analysis OMT (user) conceptual model OMT make system design OMT (user) architectual model VHDL,SDL make detailed design VHDL,SDL (tool user) sys. ....

P.B. Checkland and J. Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1990.

....not contain deadlocks, correctly handles error conditions, etc. and ffl consistent with the conceptual and system design models. It is necessary to co simulate the VHDL and SDL descriptions together since it is the interactions between these subsystems which give rise to the emergent properties[5] of the hybrid system. Emergent properties are those properties that exist as a result of the interaction of the different subsystems, and can not be easily determined from the independent simulations of the component subsystems. There are three possible approaches to cosimulating a hybrid ....

P.B. Checkland and J. Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1990.

....socio organisational systems, whose major focus is the interaction of people with organisations, are social rather than technical in nature. A substantial body of research has revealed that people may have differing perspectives on organisational objectives, problems and functions (Checkland 1981, Checkland Scholes 1990, Wilson 1990) There is no one problem definition waiting to be discovered, but instead the possibility of several equally relevent viewpoints depending on the participant. These multiple viewpoints may also be contradictory and could be characterised by imprecision, vagueness and uncertainty. ....

Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

....socio organisational systems, whose major focus is the interaction of people with organisations, are social rather than technical in nature. A substantial body of research has revealed that people may have differing perspectives on organisational objectives, problems and functions (Checkland 1981, Checkland Scholes 1990, Wilson 1990) There is no one problem definition waiting to be discovered, but instead the possibility of several equally relevent viewpoints depending on the participant. These multiple viewpoints may also be contradictory and could be characterised by imprecision, vagueness and uncertainity. ....

Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester.

....example soft or socio organisational systems, whose major focus is the interaction of people with organisations, are social rather than technical in nature. A substantial body of research has revealed that people may have differing perspectives on organisational objectives, problems and functions [3, 4, 40]. There is no one problem definition waiting to be discovered, but instead the possibility of several equally relevent viewpoints depending on the participant. These multiple viewpoints may also be contradictory and could be characterised by imprecision, vagueness and uncertainty. Problem domains ....

P. Checkland and Jim Scholes. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1990.

....criticism of this course might be that it focuses on problems and not techniques for solving these problems. It does not give students a conceptual toolbox for designing complex systems. One reason for this is that we don t have enough time to cover methodologies such as Soft Systems Methodology [5] or Contextual Inquiry [6] which are applicable when designing socio technical systems. However, even with more time, we would still adopt a problem focus in this course. We think that too many software engineering and computer science courses focus exclusively on neat solutions such as ....

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J., Soft Systems Methodology in Action. 1990, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

....that come out of group discussions. This means that soft OR is inherently vulnerable to the same fallacies that plague management and political practice in the real world. I find a curious ambivalence in the soft OR literature about the nature of systems. In Soft Systems Methodology in Action (Checkland and Scholes, 1990), we find a denial that systems exist in real life, and an assertion that systems are only in the eye of the beholder, Choosing to think about the world as if it were a system can be helpful. But this is a very different stance from arguing that the world is a system. emphasis in the ....

Checkland, Peter B., and Jim Scholes, 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. 329 pp.

....it is necessary to consider both categories of models. The degree of mastery of software processes will relate to progress in both areas. System behaviour can be examined, for example, from the perspective of system dynamics [9] as in the FEAST projects. Other methodologies, such as soft systems [7, 8] can also contribute to a better understanding of the real software process phenomena. When investigating the real world, measurement and systematic empirical study must play a major role. One must also consider that the real world also involves the views, desires, expertise, goals, criteria and ....

Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. Soft Systems Methodology in Action, J Wiley, London, 1990.

....HCIS implementation must be analysis of the conception reality gap. There is no straightforward method for analysing the gap between current reality and the conceptions assumed within a proposed new health care information system. One approach arising from Checkland s Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland and Scholes 1990) is to undertake a) analysis of current reality and b) design of the new HCIS. In the case of both analysis and design, the seven ITPOSMO dimensions of change can be incorporated. Design can be used to expose inherent conceptions, so comparing reality and the design proposal along these ....

Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Chichester, UK: Wiley.

....common framework by the methodology. In the human activity system analysis phase, emphasis is put on analyzing a problem situation as a whole from a systemic perspective avoiding a too early decomposition of the problem in distinct areas. Techniques from soft systems methodology (Checkland 1981; Checkland and Scholes 1990) are used to perform this stage. Rich pictures are a pictorial way of representing the perception of a problem situation in a graphical, but minor formal way. Root definitions are textual descriptions of relevant problems and issues on which to focus attention and conceptual models are ....

Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chicester, UK, 1990.

.... 1971) General Systems Theory (von Bertalanffy 1968; Mesarovic, et al. 1975; Le Moigne 1977 1994; Rapoport 1986) Living Systems Theory (Miller 1978) Cybernetics (Wiener 1948; Ashby 1956, 1960) Viable System Model (Beer 1959, 1966, 1974, 1979, 1981) Soft System Methodology (Checkland 1978, 1981; Checkland Scholes 1990), Interactive Planning (Ackoff 1981a, 1981b) Social Systems Design (Churchman 1971, 1979a, 1979b) Strategic Assumptions Surfacing and Testing (Mason Mitroff 1981) Critical Systems Heuristics (Ulrich 1983, 1987) Total Systems Intervention (Flood Jackson 1991a, 1991b; Jackson 1991; Flood ....

.... Theory [GST] von Bertalanffly 1968) Living Systems Theory [LST] Miller 1978) Viable Systems Model [VSM] Beer 1974, 1979, 1981) Autopoietic Systems Theory [AST] Marurana Varela 1980) Interactive Planning [IP] Ackoff 1981a, 1981b) Soft Systems Methodology [SSM] Checkland 1981; Checkland Scholes 1990); Critical Systems Heuristics [CSH] Ullrich 1983, 1987) Living Social System model [LSS] de Raadt 1991) and Multimodal Soft Systems Methodology [MSM] Mirijamdotter 1998) 5.1.2. Discrimination due to the theory generation source The first proposed discriminator is the empirical source of ....

Checkland, P.B., Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, New York.

....have taken place in terms of systems development methodologies. Motivated by interests in industrial democracy as well as more efficient systems, the focus has been upon user involvement as a mechanism for input into the design process. While the contributions of ETHICS (Mumford 1995) SSM (Checkland and Scholes 1990), and other methodologies are extremely valuable, there are two particular issues relating to user involvement that have not been well addressed. First, the communication gap between users, who are experts in their problem domains, and systems professionals remains a serious obstacle to providing ....

Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1990.

....trade offs among benefits and costs, we adopt an equilibrium model in which features are useful to the extent that the potential benefits they provide customers outweigh the responsibility costs that customers incur to realize those benefits. Customers, as in the usage of the Soft Systems Method [CS90], are intended beneficiaries of a feature, whether they are paying customers, end users, or indirect beneficiaries. Benefits of a feature are any potential capabilities that a feature supplies the customer, including objectives that the feature directly helps the customer achieve. Consider ....

Checkland P.B. and J. Scholes. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, 1990.

.... is controlled through risk management (Boehm 1988, 1989) and a coherent design proposal is produced based on the idea of faking a rational design process (Parnas et al. 1986) Until now, Soft Systems Methodology has been used in various organizational settings and disciplines (Checkland 1981; Checkland et al. 1990). Attempts have also been made to adapt soft systems ideas to information systems development, cf. Wilson 1984; WoodHarper et al. 1985; Avison et al. 1990; Stowell et al. 1990) All of DEVELOPING SYSTEMS 318 these efforts are concerned with organizational change and the modeling involved is ....

Checkland, P. B. & J. Scholes (1990): Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: Wiley.

....staff and teachers [Mitchell 1999] It followed three main stages: developing a rich picture of the problem area, identifying opportunities, and deriving requirements for the resource. This emphasis on the stakeholder s context is broadly in line with the approach of Soft Systems Methodology [Checkland 1990]. Other approaches (e.g. contextual inquiry [Holtzblatt 1993] attempt to clearly define the techniques used by drawing on ethnography, which involves prolonged and intensive study of a situation [Randall 1996] To develop the rich picture, an analysis was carried out of a typical school visit. ....

P. Checkland and J. Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley, 1990.

....on combined cultural and structural forces that make up the status quo. In this section I wish to sketch a framework for integrating cultural inquiry like that Page 12 outlined in section 3 within a general approach to systemic change management. This approach, whose structure is adapted from Checkland and Scholes (1990), seeks to provide theory based intervention in both cultural and structural systems, and it seeks to integrate both streams of intervention into a unified, logical whole. A full account of the methodology for integrating cultural and structural intervention cannot be given here because of space ....

Checkland, Peter, and Jim Scholes. 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. New York: Wiley.

....they are very hard to separate anyway. There exists an overwhelming amount of literature on organization analysis, management theory, business process improvement and reengineering, that yields valuable and relevant insights. CommonKADS has for example been influenced by soft systems methodology [Checkland and Scholes, 1990], by literature on organizational learning such as [Argyris, 1993] and by practical approaches to business process modelling and reengineering, e.g. Johansson et al. 1993] and [Watson, 1994] The latter also makes a clear link between thinking on business process reengineering and ....

P. Checkland and J. Scholes. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK, 1990.

No context found.

Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. (1990), Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Willey & Sons Ltd, Chichester , UK.

No context found.

P. Checkland and J. Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley and Sons Ltd., 1990.

No context found.

CHECKLAND,P.&SCHOLES, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: Wiley.

No context found.

Checkland, P. and J. Scholes, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, New York, 1990.

No context found.

Checkland, P. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley and Sons.

No context found.

Checkland, P. & Scholes, J.(1990) Soft Systems Methodology In Action, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester UK

No context found.

Checkland, P. B., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Chichester: Wiley.

No context found.

Checkland, P. and Scholes, J.: Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, Chichester (1990)

No context found.

Checkland, P. And Scholes, J., "Soft Systems Methodology in Action", Wiley, 1999 Icons borrowed form Microsoft clipart.

No context found.

Checkland, P.B. and Scholes, J. (1990) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley. Chichester.

No context found.

P. Checkland and Jim Scholes. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, 1990.

No context found.

CHECKLAND, P. & SCHOLES, J. `Soft Systems Methodology in Action' (John Wiley, 1990)

No context found.

P. Checkland, and J. Scholes, Soft System Methodology in action. Chichester UK: Wiley, 1990.

No context found.

Checkland P & Scholes J, Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley, 1990

No context found.

Checkland, Peter, and Jim Scholes. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. New York: Wiley. 1990.

No context found.

Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, England, 1990.

First 50 documents  Next 50

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC