2001 Conference Proceedings
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2001 Table of Contents
VIEWING A PROBLEM AS A QUALITY UPGRADE OPPORTUNITY AN
INTRODUCTION TO SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY IN MATCHING DISABLED
PERSONS NEEDS WITH TECHNOLOGY TOOLS
Chris Falk
University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore
Queensland, Australia 4458
cfalk@usc.edu.au
Background
In 1994 University of the Sunshine Coast, in Queensland Australia
was little more a set of objectives, a mission statement and
perhaps a dreamlike vision that a few people knew about. In 1996,
University opened its doors and has since continued to grow a
physically, academically and professionally. Consisting primarily
of three faculties -- business, arts and science, the University
is relatively small in comparison to many of its counterparts.
The above points shed an interesting perspective on the provision
of assistive technologies to persons with disabilities. With such
rapid development taking place in the provision for persons with
disabilities a reliable and consistent model for addressing
problematic issues and client needs seemed a key requirement.
Collaboration with colleagues in Organisation Development and
Action Research helped generate a wish list of properties for an
effective methodology.
The properties (wish list) for the Model.
Simple and elegant.
Needs to include all stakeholders.
Disabled persons need to feel empowered as well as
included.
Can be implemented in real-time and makes effective use of
time.
Is pro-active and not just a way of listening to past
grievances.
Scalable from the classroom setting through to regional focus
groups.
A Turn key operation.
Economic.
Based on solid research.
Models
While a systems approach seemed obvious most models seemed too
inflexible. Systems models in engineering provide admirable
functions in scientific method, but offer too little scope for
the model to be dynamically responsive to changing conditions
(new information, insights, changing social conditions etc.)
which occurred during the research. Initially the emphasis was to
follow some form of Structured Systems Analysis and Design
methodology. The main reason for this was because the members had
some existing knowledge with processes that provided a structured
and sequential set of tasks to follow. Kendall and Kendall (1999)
proposed the following tasks were performed sequentially to fully
analyse and resolve a problem.
1. Identifying problem's opportunities and objectives.
2. Determining information requirements
3. Analysing system needs
4. Designing the recommended system
5. Developing and documenting processes
6. Testing and maintaining the system
7. Implementing and evaluation the system
The above methodology requires that after completing step one
you would then move onto step two and would not start step two
until you had completed step one. However, having initially done
step one and then moved onto step two a dilemma presented, new
information came to light during the second phase thus changing
the nature of the problem in step one.
As the above methodology seemed to be too restrictive for this
type of setting, particularly as the management of the situation
was more obscure and complex than first anticipated. At this
point was decided to pursue a Systems in Management methodology
that allowed sub-systems in the methodology to be repeatedly
performed.
Applied Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) provided the base model,
with the addition of a convergent interviewing technique as a
means of generating information about the situation provided the
opportunity for ongoing sensing of issues in real-time. The
formulation of a structured questionnaire format gave researchers
a means of gathering qualitative data in a non intrusive way. All
questions were formulated in the same fashion so the
questionnaire supporting the convergent interviewing could be
completed in approximately three minutes.
The methodology
Checkland (1999) argued that due to the outstanding variety and
complexity of social problems, and problem solving purpose of
action research, a set of principles is needed to provide a
framework within which research methods are used rather than a
methodology which is too prescriptive and technical.
Checkland's Soft Systems Methodology is characterised by
thinking about the problem situation in the real world using a
systems approach to develop conceptual models that from the basis
for future action.
Together with the seven stages from Soft Systems Methodology plus
the use of Bob Dick's (1990) convergent interviewing which
simultaneously helped develop a rich picture of the problem
situation and an increasingly clearer expression of the
situation, the model was explicitly positioned to emphasise
implications for team leaders, managers etc..
Key definitions
Key definitions were stated to create a threashold of
understanding. These include:
Understanding systems... as a set of elements, mutually related
such that the set constitutes a purposeful hole and the elements
participate to sustain the whole. The three elements are inputs,
transformations and outputs.
Systems in engineering... as a linear function like an equation.
Systems in management... a cyclical function.
Participants were defined as:
Customers... the beneficiaries of transformations
Actors... carry out transformations
Owners... control transformations
Transformations... The conversion of inputs to outputs.
An Holon... A conceptual system with properties that enable it to
exist as an entity.
The World View... The meaningful context in which transformations
take place.
The Root Definition... Expresses the core purpose of the activity
system.
Rich Pictures... Pictorial representations of the upgrade
opportunity and the Root definition.
Values... Beliefs about what is important that enables
performance to be categorised as 'good' or 'bad'.
Building the model.
1. Recognising the problem as a quality upgrade
opportunity.
2. The situation expressed.
3. The Root definition.
4. Combining concept models into Holons.
5. Comparing concept models with the real world view.
6. Is the process leading to a desirable and feasible
change?
7. Take action to improve the situation.
The model in action.
1. Recognising the problem as a quality upgrade
opportunity.
Using adaptive technology to assist persons with disabilities is
viewed as a quality upgrade opportunity systemically.
2. The situation expressed.
Improved group and organisational effectiveness through the
empowerment of all individuals to have effective input
involvement.
3. The Root Definition.
People with disabilities have that need to use adaptive
technologies including computer hardware and software to assist
them in function effectively in academic environment. This set of
systems will help identify label and work with those tools in a
way that's comfortable affordable and empowering.
4. Combining concept models into holons.
The following holons were constructed:
4.1 Maximising performance through the recognition of a dynamic
interplay between systems people in tools.
4.2 Systems and tools can be used as a means of leveraging human
effort.
4.3 Although systems people and tools have their own men unique
characteristics, views and priorities they can be combined to
achieve quality outputs.
4.4 It is very important for policymakers manages and leaders to
base action on the appropriate set of values for the subject
situation.
4.5 training needs differ considerably from person-to-person. An
effective process allows each individual to scope to feel
comfortable with their own rate of progress in acquiring
knowledge and skills.
5. Comparing with the real world view.
The model, so far, can be seen to describe the functioning of an
orchestra. The musicians use the tools, follow a set of systems
guided by the conductor to produce a great performance.
6. Is process leading to a desirable and feasible change?
Issues once classed appropriately can be directed to the
responsible agent, (Team Leader, Manager, Committee etc.) for
consideration as systemically desirable and culturally
feasible.
7. Take action to improve the situation.
Implementing the model, now empowers more people and involves
high levels of commitment to a quality upgrade on the identified
situation.
References
Checkland P. 1999, "Systems thinking, Systems Practice", John
Wiley & Sons, West Susex Checkland P. & Scholes J. 1999,
"Soft Systems Methodology in Action" John Wiley & Sons, West
Sussex
Dick Bob 1990, "Convertgent interviewing" Version 3,
Interchange. Chapel Hill
Kendall Kenneth E & Kendall Julie E 1999, "Systems Analysis
and Design", 4th Edition, Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey
Go to previous article
Go to next article
Return to 2001 Table of Contents
Return to Table of
Proceedings
Reprinted with author(s) permission. Author(s) retain copyright.