Michael C. Jackson

Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences

The author thoroughly describes and analyzes the most significant systems methodologies-`organizations as systems, hard, soft, cybernetic, and critical-and demonstrates the complementary strengths of different systems approaches.

SOCIAL SYSTEMS THEORY AND PRACTICE: THE NEED FOR A CRITICAL APPROACH

Much of the success of science in explaining, predicting and controlling natural systems can be attributed to the well understood methods that exist for producing and testing theory in the natural sciences. The successful development of social systems science is similarly likely to depend on the elucidation of methods of inquiry suitable to the systems of its concern. Unfortunately the successful methods employed by natural scientists cannot be simply taken over and used in social systems science. Systems scientists who attempt this, risk operating with wholly inappropriate tools when dealing with social systems. Alternative methods of inquiry have been developed in the “soft” systems tradition which are more appropriate for use in relation to one large class of social systems. However, there are many social systems for which even these soft systems approaches are inappropriate. For such social systems there is a need for a more radical and critical approach to producing and verifying social systems scien...

The origins and nature of critical systems thinking

Critical systems thinking is a relative newcomer in the systems tradition of thought. Nevertheless, it has already made a number of significant contributions to the field and is now developing more quickly than any other part of systems thinking. The paper charts the origins and nature of this evolving, critical systems, body of work. The authors own impressions of its development are first set out. This helps establish that critical systems thinking has come to rest upon five “commitments” which define its essential character. These commitments are then used to classify the published literature associated with critical systems thinking. The result is a review of the origins and nature of critical systems thinking up to 1990.

Present positions and future prospects in management science

This paper offers some thoughts on the present state of management science as a discipline and a profession, and considers possible developmental strategies. The growth of management science, and the optimism this engendered, was largely premised on the successful use of scientific methodology and quantitative techniques to solve a relatively narrow range of management problems. In the 1970s, however, this positivist/quantitative traditional management science became subject to increasing critical assault from those who wanted to broaden the impact of the discipline. Alternative management science approaches were born--soft systems thinking, organisational cybernetics, critical management science--and succeeded in establishing themselves. The existence of these alternative strands of work, alongside traditional management science, raises important questions about the future development of the discipline and profession. In this paper four developmental possibilities are set down and examined to see what future prospects they hold out for management science. It is argued that three of these--the isolationist, imperialist and pragmatist strategies--would lead the discipline into a dead end. A pluralist option, however, offers excellent opportunities for successful, future development.

Critical systems thinking and practice

Abstract Critical systems thinking and the methodologies associated with it were developed precisely to allow analysis of complex societal problems and intervention to resolve such problems. Early approaches employing systems ideas, such as operational research, systems analysis and systems engineering, were suitable for tackling certain well-defined problems, but were found to have limitations when faced with complex problems involving people with a variety of viewpoints and frequently at odds with one another. Systems thinkers responded with approaches such as system dynamics and organisational cybernetics to tackle complexity; soft systems methodology (SSM) and interactive planning to handle subjectivity; and critical systems heuristics to help the disadvantaged in situations involving conflict. There was a corresponding enlargement of the range of problem contexts in which they felt competent to intervene. It has been critical systems thinking, however, which has supplied the bigger picture, has allowed systems thinking to mature as a discipline and has set out how the variety of methodologies now available can be used together in a coherent manner to promote successful intervention in complex societal problem situations. This paper outlines, at the request of the editor of this special issue, my involvement in developing critical systems thinking and practice, describes its origins, nature and use, and sets out a programme for future research in the area.

Operational research and the social sciences

Twenty five years ago, in 1964, The Operational Research Societys first International Conference (held at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge) took as its theme Operational Research and the Social Sciences. The Conference sessions were organised around topics such as: Organisations and Control; Social Effects of Policies; Conflict Resolution; The Systems Concept; Models, Decisions and Operational Research. An examination of the published proceedings (J.R.Lawrence ed., 1966, Operational Research and the Social Sciences, Tavistock, London) reveals a distinct contrast between the types of contribution made by the representatives of the two academic communities involved. Nevertheless, the Conference served to break down some barriers, largely of ignorance about the objects, methods and findings of each concern. In the ensuing twenty five years, although debate has continued about the relationship between OR and the social sciences, mutual understanding has proved more difficult to achieve than many must have hoped for in 1964.

Total systems intervention: A practical face to critical systems thinking

This is the first exposition of a new methodology (or perhaps meta-methodology) for systems practice known as Total Systems Intervention (TSI). Designed to overcome the weaknesses of hard, cybernetic, and soft systems approaches and build on their strengths, TSI represents a practical face of critical systems thinking. It advocates combining three building blocks-systems metaphors, “system of systems methodologies,” and individual systems methodologies—in an interactive manner which is deemed to be particularly powerful and fruitful. In this paper the philosophy, principles, and phases of the TSI methodology are set out and two very different examples of its use are provided.

Fifty years of systems thinking for management

The point of this paper is to provide an account of the last 50 years of systems thinking applied to management that is insightful and useful to those interested in the theory and practice of operational research (OR). In seeking to fulfil this purpose, it employs Bouldings well-known ‘hierarchy of complexity’ to think through the reasons for the emergence of different strands of applied systems thinking and to detail their strengths. In theoretical terms, operational researchers will find a number of the key issues that have engaged their field (eg, hard versus soft approaches) mirrored in debates that have taken place between systems thinkers. They may discover new theoretical avenues to follow to advance their discipline. OR practitioners may also be surprised by the nature and scope of the systems applications described and conclude that systems approaches should be added to their own intervention strategies. At the least, the paper is designed to reinvigorate discussion around the relationship between OR and systems thinking that has occasionally surfaced over the last half century but has never been satisfactorily concluded.

Beyond problem structuring methods: reinventing the future of OR/MS

Some of the most influential pioneers of OR felt disappointed by the way it developed in the 1960s and 1970s. In their view, the original intention to create a holistic, interdisciplinary science addressed to strategic problems was betrayed. Problem structuring methods (PSMs) have made a significant contribution to taking OR/MS forward again in the direction charted by those pioneers. From a theoretical perspective, however, it is clear that the opportunities provided by PSMs tend to be limited to those drawn from the interpretive paradigm. That is only one way of adding to the positivist/quantitative approach of classical OR/MS. This paper suggests that OR has an obligation to explore a wider range of theoretical options and to convert the possibilities offered by all of these into a form that managers and management scientists can use. Only in this way can OR be reinvented to live up to the ambitions of its founders.

Evaluating systems thinking in housing

This paper describes and evaluates work carried out in the social housing context in the United Kingdom using a systems thinking approach called ‘lean systems’ (LS). The work, sponsored by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, was designed to test whether LS could improve the efficiency of delivery of housing management and maintenance services. A pilot programme was developed in which three housing organizations used the approach in different service areas. The results indicate that LS can yield efficiency gains and improvements in service performance, customer satisfaction and staff morale—although securing and sustaining these results requires considerable organizational commitment. The LS approach is outlined, work in the pilots described and the results presented. A theoretical analysis seeks to locate LS in the spectrum of systems methodologies and to delimit its particular area of competence.