---------------------------------University of

Lancaster---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Virtually all systems-based work is dominated by the notion of “system” as

a concept of an adaptive whole which may survive in a changing environ-

ment, Such unexamined givens should be challenged, it might be fruitful in

practical interventions in real-world problems to widen the concept “system.”

The nature of the concept of the adaptive whole is examined, both in gener-

al and more specifically in “soft systems methodology” (SSM), the systems-

based approach to tackling ill-structured problems which has been developed

in the 1970's and 1980’s. A method for developing alternatives to the core

systems metaphor is presented, and its practical use in real-world problem

solving is illustrated. This is a promising enrichment of SSM.

------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In any field of intellectual endeavor, it is important continually to reflect

upon the activity and its emerging outcomes, to identify and explore what

is being taken for granted, and to question the givens which slip in unques-

tioned. This paper is concerned with some of the largely unexamined assump-

tions in the “systems movement,” the broad strand of thinking in many fields

which makes use of systems ideas (Checkland, 1981a, Chap. 3).

Within the systems movement at the present time, a wide-ranging de-

bate of this kind is underway, exemplified, for example, by the two issues

of Journal of the Operational Research Society devoted to systems thinking

(August 1983 and September 1985) as well as by many of the papers and

discussions at recent conferences such as the Annual Meeting of the Interna-

tional Society for General Systems Research in Budapest (1987) and the An-

nual Meeting of the Operational Research Society in Edinburgh (1987). This

debate concerns the recognition of two complementary versions of systems

thinking, “hard” and “soft.” In the former, characteristic of the 1960’s, the

world is taken to be systemic; in the latter, developed in the 1970’s and 1980's,

systemicity is shifted to the process of inquiry into the world, though that

process itself may make internal use of systems models.

This is an important debate to which the authors have contributed (At-

kinson, 1984; Checkland, 1981b, 1983, 1987). However, it is not the pur-

pose here to add further to that particular debate. Rather, this paper tries

to dig deeper in order to initiate a new debate. It questions one of the givens

which is still there on both sides of the hard/soft complementarity. The pur-

pose here is to point out and to question the dominance of one particular

version of the concept “system” and to examine the possibility of using en-

riching alternatives in systems work. The concept of “system” in question

is that of the adaptive whole entity, and the examination of its dominance

will be based upon consideration of soft systems methodology (SSM; Check-

land, 1981a).

It has been argued earlier (Checkland, 1985a) that the organized use

of rational thought may be conceptualized as the cyclic process of Fig. 1.

A set of linked ideas in an intellectual framework F, embodied in a method-

ology M, applied to an area of application A, yield learning about F,, M,

and A. Neither theory nor practice is prime; each helps create the other in

a process which is groundless. In the process by which systems ideas are em-

bodied in methodology and applied to various problem areas, a steady un-

examined given which amounts to an unexamined grounding of concept

------------------------------------

---------------------

Fig. 1. The organized use of rational thought (Checkland,

1985a).

----------------------

----------------------

within the groundless process, is a particular version of the “system”

metaphor, namely, that in which it takes the form of a whole entity which

may survive in a changing environment by taking control action which en-

ables it to adapt (within limits) to the changes in the environment. This is”

the version of “system” which is ubiquitous in the frameworks, F, of the sys-

tems movement whether M is “hard” or “soft” and regardless of A, the ap-

plication area. That fact alone is sufficient reason to try to examine it carefully

and to entertain alternatives.

We examine here this ubiquity of the concept of “system” as an adap-

tive whole and define its nature; then, more specifically, we examine its role

in SSM. This provides a base for exploring alternatives which could enrich

that approach.

--------------------------------------“SYSTEM”: THE CORE IMAGE-------------------------------------------

The most fundamental idea behind the notion “system” is the idea of

an entity constituted by connected parts. This is the core which finds its way
into dictionary definitions. In the way the word is used, however, certain

other connotations follow: the system is separated from its surroundings,

it is in an environment, its connected parts cause the system to exhibit be-

havior, and the system is expected to have some long-run stability, some abil-

ity to survive in its environment.

These ideas recur in basic accounts of systems thinking. Examination

of more than 50 such accounts shows this to be so, and a few examples will

illustrate the point here. For Sutherland (1975), for example, a system is “an

entity that substantially meets the following criteria. ..a state of integration

sufficient to separate it from its milieu. . . differentiable subsystems. . . con-

strained animation among its subsystems.” Litterer (1969) gives the

“hallmarks” of systems as being: interrelationships/interdependence, holism,

goal seeking, inputs and outputs, transformation, entropy, regulation, hier-

archy, differentiation, and equifinality. Bowler (1981), in a long list of “rela-

tional universals that are applicable to all systems at all levels,” includes

internal and external relations, some form of control which tends to main-

tain system integrity, and various stresses between such polarities as system

dominance/subsystem autonomy, processes of integration/disintegration, and

processes of development/conservation. De Greene (1970) argues that there

is “almost universal acceptance” that a system has components, a hierarchi-

cal arrangement, interactions, emergent properties, and a recognizable bound-

ary between system and environment.

These general ideas are carried over into disciplines in which systems

thinking is taken seriously as a possible approach. In political science, for

example, Davies and Lewis (1971) argue that social scientists work with the
notions of “integration, regularity, wholeness, organization, coherence, con-

nectedness, or interdependence of parts. . .it is further assumed that a sys-

tem must ‘maintain’ its identity over some period of time.” Deutsch (1963)

imports the cybernetic model, with its particular emphasis on control pro-

cesses, into political science because “steering or governing is one of the most

interesting and significant processes in the world, and that a study of steer-

ing in self-steering machines, in biological organisms, in human minds, and

in societies will increase our understanding of problems in all these fields.” In

reviewing systems theory in relation to organizational studies, Elliott (1980)

judges the important concepts to be: hierarchical subsystems, components,

environments, boundary, inputs and outputs, goals, and feedback.

These examples could be multiplied many times over without finding

any common generally accepted coherent account of the concept “system.”

On the other hand, the accounts all draw upon the same cluster of ideas.

From the common concepts and partial accounts of myriad authors,

we can piece together a coherent account of the basis concept “system.” In

a condensed form, it is the notion of a whole entity which exhibits the foi-

lowing: emergent properties (properties of the whole as one entity), a layered

structure (which may contain smaller similar wholes), and processes of com-

munication and control which, within limits, will enable it to survive in an

environment which may change and, in so doing, deliver shocks to the enti-

ty. Thus, the four most fundamental systems ideas are: emergence, hierar-

chy, communication, and control (Checkland, 198la, Chap. 3).

More elaborately, the image can be expressed in terms of the following

properties, of which 1, 2, 3, and 4(a) provide a minimally necessary set:

-------------------------

1. A boundary exists, separating the system from its environment(s)

in a number of ways which may include: spatially, temporally, infological-

ly, and organizationally.

-------------------------------

2. Emergent properties are characteristic of the system as a whole, the

result of the combination of parts which constitute the whole.

----------------------------------

3. Parts (subsystems and sub-subsystems) which are themselves systems

have the properties listed here, creating a rich inner “environment.”

----------------------------

4. There are several systematic processes which may include the fol-

lowing, which are not mutually exclusive: (a) adapting to negate the effect

of environmental changes, (b) transforming matter/energy/information, and

(c) steering, in the sense of exhibiting goal-directed behavior (see no. 6).

----------------------------------

5. Inputs and outputs, crossing system (and subsystem) boundaries, may

be tangible or intangible (material or information flows, for example).

------------------------------

6. There are internal domains of different function. For example, in

a self-conscious system, there may be a domain of cognitive processes entail-

ing perception, meaning generation, plan making, monitoring, etc., and a

concrete domain of objects involved in processes such as the physical trans-

formation of materials.
-------------------------------

7. The system concept is not that of an entity which is ephemeral; there

is long-run stability.

--------------------------------

The use of the concept of the adaptive whole can be seen in the work

of many significant systems thinkers including Bogdanov (see Gorelik, 1987),

Von Bertalanffy (1972), Beer (1972), Churchman (1971), Laszlo (1972), and

Vickers (1965), as well as in many different fields such as social theory (Par-

sons, 1951), politics (Easton, 1965), and the systemic rethinking of geogra-

phy (Chorley & Kennedy, 1971).

Here, we shall examine the role which the adaptive whole plays in SSM,

since it was in working with that methodology that the ubiquity of the image

and its potential limitations were recognized.

-------------------------------------

THE CONCEPT OF THE ADAPTIVE WHOLE IN SOFT SYSTEMS

METHODOLOGY

----------------------------------------

SSM is a cyclic process for learning about a problematical real-world

situation and taking purposeful action to improve it. The development and

form of SSM have been described in detail elsewhere (Checkland, 1981a).

The process is systemic in two senses. First, it is a learning system, a process

which continually learns and adapts in response to its interactions with the

problem situations it addresses. Second, its learning is accomplished by mak-

ing intellectual constructs which are pure models of purposeful activity sys-

tems and comparing them with observed action in the problem situation. (In
principle, SSM could accommodate other kinds of models, but it happens

to have been developed using systemic models of purposeful activity).

The idealized form of SSM is shown in Fig. 2. The methodology sharp-

ly distinguishes between the unreflective everyday real world of the problem

---------------------------------------

Fig. 2. The learning cycle of soft systems methodology.

------------------------------------------

situation on the one hand (phases 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7) and consciously organized

systems thinking about the real world on the other (phases 3 and 4). It is

in phases 3 and 4 that relevant systems of purposeful activity (“human ac-

tivity systems”) are named in “root definitions” and modeled in “conceptual

models.” Learning is achieved by comparing the pure models with the real-

world action, focusing, in debate with actors in the situation, on the differ-

ences between the two, and recycling until possible changes which are both

systemically desirable and culturally feasible are defined and implemented.

In a typical study in an industrial company, spread over several months of

intermittent working, up to about 20 root definitions and conceptual models

might be used (see Checkland, 1985b for a detailed account of an individual

study of this kind).

In summary, then, SSM in its idealized form can be described in terms

of the following phases (which are, however, not necessarily used linearly):

finding out about a real world situation which is problematical, naming some

systems of purposeful activity believed relevant to the situation and its im-

provement, modeling the systems named, basing models on a declared trans-

formation process in which an input, physical or abstract, is transformed

into an output, comparing the models with real-world action, debating

changes which might be made to the situation, defining possible changes which

are deemed both (systemically) desirable and (culturally) feasible, and acr-

ing to implement the changes.

Both systemic aspects of SSM relate to the concept of a system as an

adaptive whole. It has already been indicated that the phases of the approach

do not have to be followed linearly. Thus, for example, the “finding out”

about a problem situation is never complete. In particular, it is impossible

to compare models with real-world action without learning more about the

situation being explored, and this will frequently lead to a recycling, with

new choices of relevant systems to be modeled. So SSM in use is continually

adapting to the learning derived from it, and this adaptation is crucial. It

is necessary to /earn one’s way to truly relevant “relevant systems” and to

what is feasible in the situation now, since ideas about what changes are con-

sidered feasible will themselves change during (and as a result of) the applica-

tion of SSM. All this makes SSM itself an adaptive whole.

Even more explicitly, the other systemic aspect of SSM also embodies

the idea of the adaptive whole. The models of purposeful activity systems

used to structure the debate are built specifically to meet the requirements

of the adaptive whole. Such models consist of a structured set of verbs con-

stituting a purposeful operational whole having at its core a transformation

process, together with a monitoring and control subsystem which ensures

that the system is effective (doing something we wish to do), efficacious (us-

ing a means which works), and efficient (doing it with the minimum resources;

Forbes & Checkland, 1987). An example of this is shown in Fig. 3, clearly

----------------------------

Fig. 3. A root definition, CATWOE analysis, and concep-

tual model as used in SSM.

----------------------------------

an adaptive whole. Such models, since they are pure concepts (in fact, Weber-

ian “ideal types”; Weber, 1980) rather than descriptions of parts of the world,

cannot be “validated” against the external world. Only a weak validation is

possible; a specific model is checked to ensure that it meets the fundamental

requirements of a general model of any purposeful activity system, known

as the “formal system model” (see Fig. 4). With its wider systems, subsystems,

boundaries, and regulatory action, it is explicitly predicated upon the notion

of the aaaptive whole.

We see, then, that both SSM as a whole, and the use within it of models

of purposeful systems reflect the notion of “system” as an adaptive whole

----------------------------------

Fig. 4. The formal system model, a general model of

a purposeful system.

-----------------------------------------

entity. But the influence of this metaphor is found to go deeper than these

formal aspects. It has been shown that strategic choices made by the users

of SSM can also embody the concept (Atkinson, 1984). Thus, the opening

phases of a study using SSM require the user consciously to find out about

the problematic situation. Some would-be neutral guidelines for doing this

have been developed (Checkland, 1981la, 1986). However, a way of doing

this exploration which is not uncommon, and which is much less neutral,
is to proceed quickly to phases 4 and 5, and to use a comparison between

the real situation and some rough-and-ready basic model as a way of struc-

turing the finding out. When this is done, the basic model adopted usually

represents some aspect of real-world organization as if it were an adaptive

whole. Figure 5 shows a model of this kind, a region of the Central Electric-

ity Generating Board represented as an adaptive control system (Wilson,

1984),

Now, clearly, it cannot be proved in principle that a debate based upon

a comparison between perceived reality and models of the kind described

will be constrained in a particular way or will always proceed in a particular

direction. Nevertheless, the form of the models built at stage 4 (Fig. 2) and

their subsequent use to structure a debate is unlikely to leave that debate

entirely unaffected by the nature of the models used to shape it. We accept

the force of the quotation which heads this paper. There is, in fact, much

--------------------------------

Fig. 5. CEGB an an adaptive control system (Wilson, 1984).

--------------------------

informal evidence that, for some users of SSM, it is very difficult to avoid

seeing the pure models as utopian designs, so that outcomes from the debate

emerge as, for example, “improve monitoring and control” or “regulate in-

puts better.” Since it is a strength of SSM that it does not, like systems en-

gineering, automatically see the world as being a set of systems, this strength

could be dissipated if the influence of the metaphor of the adaptive whole

were too pervasive.

All of this evidence bolsters the argument for examining alternative con-

cepts of “system” to that of the adaptive whole.

--------------------------------ALTERNATIVES TO THE CORE SYSTEMS IMAGE------------------------

In an earlier paper, Atkinson (1986) examined a number of uses of SSM

and found their specific content to depend upon context, use, and users of

the methodology. Nevertheless, they also showed a clear “family resem-

blance,” part of which was their use of models always based upon the core

systems image of the adaptive whole.

In fact, the idealized form of SSM (Fig. 2) could in principle accom-

modate models other than systemic ones. That possibility remains open, but

as a first step it is useful to examine some alternative forms of system models,

alternative, that is, to those based upon the adaptive whole. This is useful

because if systems thinking is to advance through dialectical debate we need

to encourage the “deadly enemies” of the conventional wisdom as well as

to defend it against them (Churchman, 1971).

In seeking new images of “system,” there are two obvious alternative

routes. The first is to retain the notions of wholeness and emergence but aban-

don the notion of systems as purposeful instrumentalities. The second alter-

native is to combine several purposeful wholes in more complex wholes which

are not themselves purposeful in the sense of pursuing a single purpose in

a unitary fashion.

The first alternative has been embraced by Carvajal (1983, 1986). He

analyzes the “limiting assumptions implicit in systems frames” as being as-

sumptions of tight relationships, well-behaved components, mutually exclu-

sive states, and permanence. These are certainly characteristics of the concept

of the adaptive whole which can survive in a changing environment; and,

if we loosen these assumptions, the adaptive whole becomes something bet-

ter described by the metaphor of the net. Carvajal uses the phrase “systemic-

netfields,” a form of words which covers notions of networks, aggregates,

and fields. Forming concepts of wholes of these kinds could be helpful to

the development of systems thinking.

The authors have investigated the second alternative in which we com-

bine adaptive wholes in larger entities, enabling new systemic metaphors to

emerge. If purposeful wholes are combined, a range of relationships between

the parts is possible: parts may be combative, contradictive, imperialistc, syn-

dicalistic, in a parasite/host relation, etc.; many such combinations are

possible.

Consider two adaptive wholes in battle, each trying to achieve victory

over the other; they constitute a whole, mappable onto many aspects of the

real world, but not itself purposeful. This might be termed a combative sys-

tem. Or consider two adaptive wholes intrinsically dependent upon one ex-

ternal transformation process but having their own interests, their own links

with the transformation, and their own perceptions of the other. This we

call a contradictive system (see Fig. 6). Other examples include a host/para-

site system in which one adaptive whole may meet its needs in part by living

off another, or a syndicalistic system in which several autonomous wholes

with different but compatible interests come together to form a whole which

is of benefit to them all. There are many possibilities, of which a few are

set out in Fig. 7. Detailed accounts of all of them could be worked out to

extend the range of metaphor available within formal systems thinking aimed

at problem solving. And it will be noted that if the components in Carvajal’s

networks are themselves individually purposeful, then this approach provides

a way of elaborating his concept of “systemic-netfield.” It subsumes that ap-

proach.

------------------------THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE SYSTEMS IMAGES IN SOFT SYSTEMS

METHODOLOGY---------------------------

The use of alternative notions of system in studies carried out using

SSM is in its infancy, but two brief examples are now described, one im-

----------------------------------------

Fig. 7. Some possibilities for complex systemic metaphors.

--------------------------------------

plicit, the other explicit in its use of a different concept to that of the single

purposeful adaptive whole.

Decision Making in a Building/Plant Hire Co-operative

The first example, in which the use of the concept of a contradictive

system is implicit, is from a project undertaken by Thomas and his colleagues

of the Open University’s Co-operative Research Group (Thomas, 1980).

After a period of rapid expansion, a feeling arose within the co-operative

that the members were not “pulling together”; the sense of “belonging” to

a co-operative endeavor had decreased. After exploring the problem situa-

tion, Thomas and his fellow action researchers wrote a report critical of

management’s control of decision making. The report criticized the control

of access to information and the setting of meeting agendas in ways which

went against the general commitment to participation in decision making.

Analyzed in retrospect, the report has as its central image that of a con-
tradictive system: on the one hand, a chairman-led management control hi-

erarchy, on the other, a member-owned participatory control system, both

linked to the major transformation process of running a building and plant

hire business.

In their use of SSM, the researchers developed at stages 3 and 4 (see

Fig. 2) a root definition and conceptual model of a notional system which

would allocate decisions to appropriate decision-making mechanisms in such

a way as to ensure the greatest possible worker participation within the con-

straint of commercial viability. (Later, the model was actually used as the

basis for a design of decision allocation).

Of interest here is the effect of using the (unstated) metaphor of a con-

tradictive system on the development of the root definition and the model

which follows from it. Thomas (1980) points out that the root definition was

vague on “actors” and “ownership,” features normally built into root defini-

tions in SSM (Checkland, 198la, pp. 223-227), and that, as conceptual-

ized in the study, their system lacks features of the general model of pur-

poseful activity which normally maps onto the specific conceptual models

built from specific root definitions. He writes:

The idealized decision allocation system lacks any explicit objective or ongoing pur-

pose. It lacks any measure of performance, it lacks a specific internal decision-making

subsystem and it lacks a guarantee of continuity (Thomas, 1980).

This indicates that Thomas and his colleagues had in fact drifted away

from the concept of the adaptive whole which normally informs models of

human activity systems in SSM. They had conceptualized an endemically con-

flictual system; intuitively, they had felt that a contradictive system (to use
our term) was more relevant to structuring debate in their problem situation

than a unitary purposeful system. In the most relevant system they concep-

tualized in their particular situation, there was the fundamental clash

of interests (between chairman and members) which we now characterize as

the essence of a contradictive system.

In the next example, alternative systemic metaphors were used expli-

citly in the systems thinking of a study concerned with the organization of

a health center in a large northern city.

--------------------------Management in a City Health Center-------------------------

The project addressed issues concerning the possible breakdown of the

management of an inner-city health center set up and maintained by a dis-

trict health authority (Atkinson, 1987). The authority ran clinics in the center

and employed some of the staff including its administrator, who was also

practice manager for the large team of general practitioners based at the

center. The GP practice employed some ancillary staff and also nurses who,

although technically employed by the district health authority, had a tradi-

tion of independence. The situation was complicated at the time of the study

by the fact that the trade unions of ancillary staff were in dispute with the

DHA over issues concerned with staff grading and the use of new technology.

Here was a situation in which the delivery of health care via the center

was a function which linked a number of different groups and individuals

who had differing interests and very different Weltanschauungen.

The work done in the study included delineating management tasks as

a way of seeking to improve relationships among the groups of people asso-

ciated with the center. The version of SSM used in the study extended the

approach to include explicit use of a variety of systemic metaphors based

upon the idea of combining purposeful elements into larger entitites. The

approach adopted was to imagine improvement of the problem situation as

consisting of a move from a current state A to a better state B, where A

and B were conceptualized in terms of a number of different system metaphors

including: the adaptive whole, a syndicalist system, a contradictive system,

and an imperialistic system, These imagined transitions A-B produced a num-

ber of relevant systems and root definitions. Comparisons with existing ar-

rangements in the health center was done using the root definitions rather

than detailed models derived from them. It yielded useful strategies for co-

herent debate with the concerned actors in the situation. Figure 8 summa-

rizes the metaphors used to define states A and B, the relevant systems and

root definitions, and indicates some of the content and outcomes of the

debate.

--------------------------------------------------------

CONCLUSIONS

----------------------------------------------------

Systems thinking is largely predicated upon the concept of the adap-

tive whole which may be able to survive in a changing environment. This

is true both of systems thinking which assumes the world to be systemic

(Checkland’s “paradigm 1”) and of the new systems thinking which places

systemicity in the process of inquiry (“paradigm 2,” Checkland, 1981b, 1983,

1985a). Although it cannot be proved that use of a particular metaphor will

inevitably limit work based upon it in a particular way, it seems important

to question the hegemony of the image of the adaptive whole and to enrich
it with alternatives.

We have shown some possibilities for additional systemic images and

have illustrated their use within the systemic process of inquiry which is SSM.

We have also shown that our approach could be used to develop the con-

cepts of Carvajal’s systemic-netfields (1983, 1986) where these contain ele-

ments which are themselves purposeful.

Within SSM, the extension of the core metaphor could widen the con-

tent of the debate in phases 5 and 6 (Fig. 2) and enrich the possibilities for

change which emerge in that debate. The danger of this extension within SSM

is that it might push that approach back toward the systems engineering from

which it usefully emerged. It might lead to thinking again in terms of models

of parts of the real world, rather than models relevant to debate about change

in the real world, and that shift from “models of” to “models relevant to

debate about” is the biggest single liberating step in the new systems thinking.

In spite of this danger, the availability of a choice of explicit notions

of “system,” rather than a reliance upon the automatic use of an implicit

one, is likely to enhance the power of systems thinking. In the case of SSM,

it should enhance its capability for treating the cultural dimension entailed

in rational intervention in human affairs.