Abstract
We explore problems involving the measurement of the performance of a system. We outline two systemic approaches that have come from different epistemological positions: one from the interpretivist paradigm (soft systems methodology) and the other from the cybernetic paradigm (viable systems model). These two systemic methodologies that have tackled problems involving performance measurement are considered and discussed: (a) Checkland’s systems ideas of ‘managing and controlling’ a system throughout a set of three measures of performance: efficacy, efficiency and effectiveness; and (b) Beer’s concepts of Actuality, Capability, Potentiality of the firm and his claims that the performance of a system needs to be quantifiable and resumed on ‘pure’ numbers which should reflect the survivability of the firm. A parallel is drawn between the two approaches concluding that although the paradigms underpinning them are in some way different, the practicalities of these approaches to control, measure and improve the performance of a system are very similar. A case involving the measurement of a proposed research strategic plan for a Manchester Metropolitan University Business School’s department is used to illustrate the systemic approaches.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ackoff R (1981) Creating the corporate future. Wiley, New York
Ackoff R (1993) The art and science of mess management. In: Mabey C, Mayon-White B (eds) Managing change. Paul Chapman, London
Ackoff R (1995) ‘Whole-Ing’ the parts and righting the wrongs. Syst Res 12(1):43–46
Beer S (1959) Cybernetics and management. EUP, Oxford
Beer S (1966) Decision and control. Wiley, Chichester
Beer S (1979) The heart of the enterprise. Wiley, Chichester
Beer S (1981) Brain of the firm. Wiley, Chichester
Checkland PB (1981/1999) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, New York
Checkland PB (1983/1988) Some basic ideas of monitoring and control for managers. Lancaster University MA in Systems, lecture notes
Checkland PB (1986) Some basic ideas of monitoring and control for managers. University of Lancaster, lecture notes for MA “Systems in Management”, 1987
Checkland PB (1989) Soft systems methodology. In: Rosenhead J (ed) Rational analysis for a problematic world. Wiley
Checkland PB (2006) Learning for action. Wiley, New York
Checkland PB, Scholes P (1990) Soft systems in action. Wiley, New York
Espejo R, Harden R (1989) The viable system model: interpretations and applications of stafford beer’s VSM. Wiley, Chichester
Espejo R, Shuhmann W, Bilello U (2003) Organizational transformation and learning, a cybernetic approach to management. Wiley, Chichester
Jackson MC (1992) Systems methodology for the management sciences. Plenum press, New York
Jackson MC (2000) Systems approaches to management. Plenum, New York
Jackson MC (2003) Systems thinking: holism for managers. Wiley, Chichester
Olave-Cáceres YA, Gómez-Florez LC (2007) Una Reflexión Sistémica sobre los Fundamentos Conceptuales para Sistemas de Información. Revista Colombiana de Computacion, June 2007. Available at: http://caribdis.unab.edu.co/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/REVISTACOLOMBIANACOMPUTO/RCC_ESPANOL/NUMEROSANTERIORES/JUNIO2007/R81_ART4_C.PDF
Ulrich W (1981) A critique of pure cybernetic reason: the chilean experience with cybernetics. J Appl Syst Anal 8:33–59
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Paucar-Caceres, A. Measuring the Performance of a Research Strategic Plan System Using the Soft Systems Methodology’s Three ‘Es’ and the Viable System Model’s Indices of Achievement. Syst Pract Action Res 22, 445–462 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-009-9140-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-009-9140-1