Advertisement

Systemic Practice and Action Research

, Volume 18, Issue 3, pp 303–334 | Cite as

Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM): Combining Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and System Dynamics (SD)

  • Ricardo Rodriguez-Ulloa
  • Alberto Paucar-CaceresEmail author
Article

Abstract

Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM), a systemic methodology product of the combination of two widely used systems-based methodologies from two different systems thinking paradigms, Systems Dynamics (SD) and Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), is presented. The paper argues that by combining some of SD and SSM stages, within the intellectual framework proposed by SSDM, a methodology developed by one of the authors1 much can be gained in a systemic intervention to tackle complex social problematic situations. A framework for comparing the ontological, epistemological and methodological principles of SD, SSM and SSDM is proposed and the synthesizing and dialectical role of SSDM is advanced. The 10 stages of SSDM are outlined and illustrated by an application on a small Peruvian company; and a set of conclusions and points for further research are discussed.

Keywords

Systems Dynamics Soft Systems Methodology Systems Multi-methodology Modelling 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdel-Hamid, T., and Madnick, S. E. (1991). Software Project Dynamics: An Integrated Approach, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, D. F., and Richardson, G. P. (1997). Scripts for group model-building. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 13(2), 107–129.Google Scholar
  3. Brocklesby, J., and Cummings, S. (1995). Combining hard, soft, and critical methodologies in systems research: The cultural constraints. Syst. Res. 12(3), 239–245.Google Scholar
  4. Brocklesby, J. (1997). Becoming multimethdology literate: An assessment of the cognitive difficulties of working across paradigms. In Mingers, J., and Gill (eds.), Multimethodology, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  5. Buzan, T., and Buzan, B. (1996). El libro de los mapas mentales: Cómo utilizar al máximo las capacidades de la mente, Ediciones Urano, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  6. Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  7. Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  8. Checkland, P., and Casar, A. (1986). Vicker’s concept of an appreciative system: A systemic account. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 13, 3-17.Google Scholar
  9. De Bono, E. (1986). Conflicts: A Better Way to Resolve Them, Penguin Books, Middlesex.Google Scholar
  10. Delbecq, A., Van de Ven, A., and Gustafson, D. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi, Scott Foresman, Chicago.Google Scholar
  11. Flood, R., and Jackson, M. (1991). Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  12. Forrester, J. (1961). Industrial Dynamics. MIT press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  13. Jackson, M. C. (1992). Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences, Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  14. Jackson, M. C. (1997). Pluralism is systems thinking and practice. In Mingers, J., and Gill (eds.), Multimethodology, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  15. Jackson, M. C. (1999). Towards coherent pluralism in management science. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 50, 12–22.Google Scholar
  16. Jackson, M. C. (2000). Systems Approaches to Management, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
  17. Jackson, M. C. (2003). System Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  18. Lane, D. C., and Oliva, R. (1994). The Greater Whole: Towards a Synthesis of the System Dynamics and Soft System Methodology, Working Papers Series, City University Business School, London.Google Scholar
  19. Lane, D. (1999). Social theory and system dynamics practice, Eur. J. Operat. Res. 113, 501–527.Google Scholar
  20. Lane, D. (2000). Should systems dynamics be described as ‘hard’ or ‘deterministic’ systems approach? Syst. Res. Behav. Sci. 17(1).Google Scholar
  21. Lane, D. (2001a). Rerum Cognoscere Causas: Part I. How do the ideas of system dynamics relate to traditional social theories and the voluntarism/determinism debate. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 17(2), 97–118.Google Scholar
  22. Lane, D. (2001b). Rerum Cognoscere Causas: Part II. Opportunities generated by the agency/structure debate and suggestions for clarifying the social theoretic position of system dynamics. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 17(4), 293–309.Google Scholar
  23. Ledington, P., et al. (1997). Soft OR and management practice: A study of the adoption of SSM. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 48, 229–240.Google Scholar
  24. Macadam, R. D., and Packham, R. G. (1989). A case study in the use of SSM restructuring and academic organisation to facilitate education of systems agriculturists. Agric. Syst. 30(4), 352–367.Google Scholar
  25. Macadam, R. D., et al. (1990). The use of SSM to improve the adoption by Australian cotton growers of the siratac computer-based crop management system. Agric. Syst. 34(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  26. Macadam, R. D., et al. (1995). A case study in development planning using a systems learning approach—Generating a master plan for the livestock sector in Nepal. Agric. Syst. 49(3), 299–323.Google Scholar
  27. Mingers, J. (1997a). Multi-paradigm multimethodology. In Mingers, J. and Gill (eds.), Multimethodology, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  28. Mingers, J. (1997b). Towards critical pluralism. In Mingers, J. and Gill (eds.), Multimethodology, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  29. Mingers, J. (1984). Subjectivism and soft systems methodology—A critique. J. Appl. Syst. Anal. 11, 85.Google Scholar
  30. Mingers, J. (1999). A comparative characterisation of management sciences methodologies. Systemist 21(2), 81–92.Google Scholar
  31. Mingers, J., and Brocklesby, J. (1996). Multimethodology: Towards a framework for critical pluralism. Systemist 18(3), 101–132.Google Scholar
  32. Mingers, J., and Taylor, S. (1992). The use of soft systems methodology in practice. J. Operat. Res. 43(4), 321–332.Google Scholar
  33. Montbrun, A., and Porras, L. (1998). Informe de Trabajo Grupal, International Workshop in Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM), Lima, April 1998.Google Scholar
  34. Munro, I., and Mingers, J. (2002). The use of multimethodology in practice-results of a survey of practitioners. J. Operat. Res. Soc. 53(4), 369–378.Google Scholar
  35. Morecroft, J. D., and Sterman, J. D. (1994). Modelling for Learning Organizations, Portland Productivity Press.Google Scholar
  36. Nonaka, I., and Takeuchi, I. (1999). La Organización Creadora de Conocimiento, Oxford University Press, México.Google Scholar
  37. Paucar-Caceres, A. (2002). Mapping the Stages of the Development of Management Sciences Methodologies in the UK: From Single Solving Methods to Multimethodology, UK Systems Society, 7th International Conference on Systems Theory & Practice in the Knowledge Age, 7July 2002, University of York, Plenum Publishers, New York, 2002.Google Scholar
  38. Randers, J. (1977). The Potential in Simulation of Macro-Social Processes, Gruppen for Ressusrsstudier, Oslo.Google Scholar
  39. Richardson, G. P. (1991). Feedback Thought in Social Science and Systems Theory, University of Pensylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
  40. Richardson, G. P., and Andersen, D. F. (1995). Teamwork in group—Model building. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 11(2), 113–137.Google Scholar
  41. Richmond, B. (2001). An Introduction to Systems Thinking, High Performance Systems, Hanover, New Hampshire.Google Scholar
  42. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R. A. (1988). The problem solving system: Another problem content system. Syst. Practice 1(2), 243–257.Google Scholar
  43. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R. A. (1994a). La Sistémica, los Sistemas Blandos y los Sistemas de Información, Biblioteca de Textos Universitarios, Universidad del Pacífico, Lima.Google Scholar
  44. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R. A. (1994b). Casos en Sistemas de Información: La Experiencia Peruana, Biblioteca de Textos Universitarios, Universidad del Pacífico, Lima.Google Scholar
  45. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R. A. (1995). Libro de la Conferencia SISTEMICA’94, Instituto Andino de Sistemas, IAS, Lima.Google Scholar
  46. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R. A. (1999). Soft System Dynamics Methodology—SSDM: A Tool for Social Systems Analysis and Design, Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the International Systems Sciences Society, ISSS, Asilomar.Google Scholar
  47. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R. A. (2002a). Informes Seguridad Ciudadana No. 1 y No. 2, Proyecto Programa de Seguridad Ciudadana, Proyecto BID AR-0247, Unidad de Seguridad Ciudadana, Ministerio del Interior, República Argentina.Google Scholar
  48. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R. A. (2002b). The Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM): The Fusion of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and System Dynamics (SD), Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Electromechanics and Systems Engineering, Instituto Politécnico Nacional, IPN, México, DF.Google Scholar
  49. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R. A. (2002c). A Dynamic Balanced Scorecard for Sustainable Development of La Libertad Region (Peru) using Soft System Dynamics Methodology—SSDM, Internal Paper, Instituto Andino de Sistemas, IAS, Lima.Google Scholar
  50. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R. A. (2003). Soft Systems Methodology. In The Virtual Encyclopedia of Life Support System (EOLSS) (www.eolss.net), UNESCO, París.Google Scholar
  51. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R. A. (in press). Soft System Dynamics Methodology—SSDM: A tool for social systems analysis and design. Syst. Res. Behav. Sci.Google Scholar
  52. Rodríguez-Ulloa, R., and Paucar-Caceres, A. (2004). Soft System Dynamics Methodology (SSDM): A Combination of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and System Dynamics (SD), Proceedings of the 22nd International Systems Dynamics Conference, 25–29 July 2004, Oxford, England.Google Scholar
  53. Rouwette, B. A. J. A., Vinnex, J. A. M., and Van Mullekom, T. V. (2002). Group model-building effectiveness: A review of assessment studies. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 18(1), 5–45.Google Scholar
  54. Senge, P. (1990). The Fifth Discipline, The Art and Practice of Learning Organization, Century Business.Google Scholar
  55. Sterman, J. D. (2000). Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modelling for a Complex World, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  56. Vennix, J. A. M. (1996). Group Model Building: Facilitating Team Learning Using System Dynamics, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  57. Vennix, J. A. M., Akkermans, H. A., and Rouwette, B. J. A. (1996). Group model-building to facilitate organizational change: An exploratory study. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 12(1), 39–58.Google Scholar
  58. Vennix, J. A. M., Richardson, G. P., and Andersen, D. F. (1997a). Foreword: Group model building, art and science. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 13(2), 103–106.Google Scholar
  59. Vennix, J. A. M., Richardson, G. P., and Andersen, D. F. (1997b). Group model-building: Adding more science to the craft. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 13(2), 187–201.Google Scholar
  60. Vennix, J. A. M. (1999). Group model-building: Tackling messy problems. Syst. Dyn. Rev. 15(4), 379–401.Google Scholar
  61. Warren, K. (2002). Competitive Strategy Dynamics, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  62. Williams, T. (2002). Modelling Complex Projects, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  63. Wilson, B. (1984). Systems: Concepts, Methodologies and Applications, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  64. Wilson, B. (2001). Soft Systems Methodology, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar
  65. Woltensholme, E. F. (1990). System Enquiry: A System Dynamics Approach, Wiley, Chichester.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ricardo Rodriguez-Ulloa
    • 1
  • Alberto Paucar-Caceres
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Andean Institute of Systems (IAS)LimaPeru
  2. 2.Manchester Metropolitan University Business SchoolManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations