Search results

The purpose of this paper is to offer theoretical and practical insights on the ways in which integrated thinking is observed in practice. Integrated thinking is linked to integrated reporting, and described as an attribute or capacity for senior management to constructively manage tensions between the multiple capitals (manufactured, intellectual, human, natural, social and relationship as well as financial capital) in strategy, resource allocation, performance measurement and control.

A theoretical framework is developed from the accounting and systems thinking literature, linking integrated thinking to sustainability. Soft versus hard integrated thinking approaches are applied to contrast the siloed management of sustainability with a model that focuses on relationships and broader indicators of societal health and well-being. Practical illustrations of the conceptualised framework are presented for discussion and for further empirical research.

The illustrative examples offer a diversity of corporate, government and not-for-profit viewpoints, providing evidence of both hard and soft integrated thinking in practice. Valuable insights are provided into innovative approaches that foster and make explicit the soft integrated thinking skills and map them to broader societal outcomes.

Potential problems can arise if hard integrated thinking dominates over the soft, and data required for internal management accounting purposes become narrow, linear and segregated. Routines and practices will then be based on quasi-standards, further concealing the soft integrated thinking that might be occurring within the organisation.

With theoretical roots in systems thinking, this paper contributes to the relatively underexplored area of integrated thinking in accounting for sustainability.

This study aims to explore the ideas of Husserl and Gadamer as a possible basis of future soft systems methods of enquiry.

In Part one, the author has taken up the argument that soft systems is underpinned by Husserl’s phenomenology. The implication of this contention is an acceptance of subjectivity, and that our understanding the world is based upon personal experience. A consequence of this thinking renders predetermined models of the world to be deficient because each situation is unique. Instead of seeking a “solution”, the soft systems investigator engenders a cycle of learning as a means of gaining greater understanding. This means that a soft systems inquiry involves exploring the situation with those involved as a means of reaching an informed way forward. In this second paper, the author continues to explore Husserl’s phenomenology and also consider Gadamer’s ideas on hermeneutics and the importance of the “cycle of learning” that is central to any soft systems inquiry. The study concludes with a summary of points that, the author suggests, should be considered when undertaking a “soft” systems inquiry and in the development of any methodology that may enable it.

Both papers explore the phenomenological ideas of Husserl and the relationship to soft systems. In paper one, the basis of this exploration was Checkland's assertion that phenomenology could be the basis of soft systems. In the second paper, the author takes this further by exploring Gadamer's ideas on hermeneutics and reflect upon the possibility of blending them with Husserl's thinking.

I had some difficulty in tracking down the published work relating to the development of soft systems, notably the Journal of Applied Systems Analysis. This journal was published by Lancaster University and covered more than 20 years of debate and provides an important record of its development. The author managed to find what might be the only compete set at the University of Southampton. This allowed the author to gain some understanding of the development of the thinking. Since the late 20th century, the number of publications on soft ideas has been severely limited, seemingly reflecting the dominance of reductionist science. It seems timely for such a paper as this to help initiate further debate.

As indicated above – the difficulty is finding early journal publications where the ideas and their relationship to the action research programme emerged. Checkland himself, with whom the author has always enjoyed a close relationship, has, at the age of 90, withdrawn from academic activity; the early papers in the Journal of Applied Systems Analysis are probably the only “evidence” of the developing ideas at that time. Checkland has summarised the development (see references in the author’s two papers), but these early documents have the advantage of being written by a variety of scholars at the time rather than a single source.

The current crisis of the corona virus demonstrates the strength and the limitations of reductionist thinking. It is appropriate at this time that other methods and ideas of thinking about complexity are “visible”. Whilst there are many ideas, techniques, methods and so on in systems, these come from a common base, namely, to accept a world as tangible and easily modelled; adopting and alternative way of thinking can be challenging and healthy.

Soft systems thinking is 50 years old, but there has been virtually no progress since the soft systems methodology (SSM) emerged of Husserl and Gadamer in the 1970-1990s; such is the dominance of this methodology. This paper attempts to revisit the early thinking and consider what soft systems thinking means rather than focus on SSM.

This paper is written in response to the question “What developments are taking place in systems?” as a contribution to the November 2006 Cybernetics Conference. The paper is based upon the assumption that what is meant by the question relates to research in an area of systems known as soft systems.

The paper begins with clarification about “Systems” and then the reader is taken on a personal journey through what are considered to be important contributions to soft systems research. The account includes reference to philosophical treatise on aspects relevant to some of the difficulties facing subjective research and some outcomes from research germane to the development of these ideas.

The paper recounts lessons learnt from the practice about the nature of undertaking soft systems research and whilst acknowledging that this research continues suggests that because of these soft systems has an intellectual and practical foundation.

Systems has become more contemplative about the nature of the world and how each one makes sense of it. Systems thinking and practice is no longer based solely on biological models but has a greater emphasis placed upon understanding and learning. Systems thinking now makes explicit that what comprises the whole is subjective but rigorous. The paper is of value to soft systems researchers and practitioners especially those who are attempting research/practice in which the clients are encouraged to participate in the process of learning.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the relationship between Husserl’s phenomenology and soft systems. An important idea arising from the action research programme at the University of Lancaster is the notion of soft systems. The concept of soft systems, that distinguished it from other systems (holistic) thinking of the time, was the conscious link between soft systems thinking and phenomenology. Phenomenology is that the realm of intentional consciousness that enables the phenomenologist to develop a radically unprejudiced justification of his (or her) basic views of the world and of himself and explore their rational interconnections. Similarly, in soft systems, it is acknowledged that reality is formed by sensation and fashioned by experience. It is not exclusively a process of thought (although this may shape how we process our experience), for us the world exists as the result of a subjective appreciation of it. In Part 1, the author explores how phenomenology informs soft systems theory and practice through the work of Husserl and some of those that influenced him and were influenced by him. In Part 2, the author explores a possible relationship between Husserl and Gadamer as a possible intellectual grounding for organisational inquiry.

The research was conducted by examining published material relating to the development of soft systems ideas and Husserl's phenomenology.

An analysis of the ideas within the material suggests that phenomenology can be considered as a underpinning the notion of soft systems

There is difficulty tracking down important papers that recorded the development of soft systems (i.e. 1970–1990) as Lancaster University had disposed of all issues. However, the author tracked down a source and was able to use this material as part of the research. In addition to helping research the origins of the idea, it also provides a paper trail for other researchers interested in these ideas.

Tracing the published material relating to soft systems necessitated visits to several universities as many of the important papers where no longer held by the University of Lancaster library.

It seems apposite that the ideas behind soft systems are resurrected as they offer an alternative way of thinking about complexity – which the modern world seems increasingly creating

There is a lack of research into soft systems as the publications describing the Lancaster research programme have centred around soft systems methodology (SSM). Checkland remarked a decade or so ago that said SSM should be taken as given and other ideas explored. There is little evidence that the soft ideas have been explored outside variations of SSM, this paper is intended to encourage more research into ‘soft’ systems.

Outlines the emergence of critical systems thinking and practice and the reasons why such a development in the systems approach was necessary. Considers the limitations of traditional systems thinking and the strengths and weaknesses of three alternatives to the traditional systems approach — soft systems thinking, organizational cybernetics and emancipatory systems thinking. Reflection on the relationship between these different strands of the systems approach gave impetus to the birth of critical systems thinking. Details the nature of critical systems thinking, as resting on five commitments, and describes a new methodology (“total systems intervention”) to operationalize this approach.

The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate the usability of systems thinking in the process of redesigning a leading public housing provider within a problematic situation. The paper attempts to describe the influence of evolving negative internal socio‐political arrangements on the further development of the whole organization and suggests a purposeful activity model based on constant improvement and collaborative learning for the ongoing intervention.

The study combines soft systems methodology, as the leading or guiding methodology, with case study research and action research. This rather pluralistic approach made it possible to adequately respond to the varying tasks and intricacies of the different research phases within a power‐laden environment. Each phase or part of the process was informed by the analysis of the preceding one, thus creating a documented learning process.

The results reveal that further development within the project‐oriented organization was hindered or blocked by failure to address the oppressive socio‐political system. The proposed new design, based on systems thinking, allocates an important role to project management and its ability to cope with different paradigms and to address tame, messy as well as wicked problems. Consequently, the discipline of project management should further develop towards an equal appreciation of hard as well as soft systems thinking which emphasises a critical systems thinking approach.

The project management capabilities needed in the complex housing system go beyond the strategic and operational level since a greater understanding of complex social systems as well as their behaviour is of major importance. This puts emphasis on problem structuring methods and methodologies, as well as their combination, so as to support the debate about the nature of organizational as well as societal problems rather than to focus on their solution.

The paper describes the first soft systems methodology intervention in a predominantly francophone country within the European Union. It proposes a new avenue to the management of organizational as well as societal problems.

The purpose of this paper is to set out an argument for a way to design, implement and manage IS with an emphasis on first, the learning that can be created through undertaking the approach, and second, the learning that may be created through using the IS that was implemented. The paper proposes joining two areas of research namely, technology management with soft systems methodology (SSM). The framework was developed through undertaking a customer concern management project within a manufacturing organisation.

Reviewing the literature on information systems management, the learning organisation, and systems theory a proposed synergy is found. The outcome of this synergy allows a number of methodologies to be identified that are argued as suitable for IS design. From these information system development (ISD) methodologies, SSM is expanded to incorporate the principles of the learning organisation and systems theory. The expanded SSM framework is applied in practice through a process of participatory action research.

The outcome of the practical work argues for a complete framework that joins the areas of research (SSM and technology management) and emphasises other thinking from the areas of systems theory and the “learning organisation”.

The paper concludes with a discussion on the advantages of joining soft systems with technology management but also the limitations created. Such limitations have been identified as moving from the soft, tacit issues of the design phases to the harder more structured aspects of technology implementation and management. A change in philosophy may restrict other issues from being explored. This issue needs to be focussed on in future research.

A framework has been developed that draws on the work of soft systems methodology (SSM) and a technology management process framework (TMPF) used in the area of technology management. By expanding the SSM model and joining it with the TMPF an attempt to give individuals and teams a practical tool to help design, implement, and manage IS with an emphasis on learning the framework promotes.

The framework provides advantages for academics, consultants and other practitioners and gives a central focus on what issues need to be accomplished more explicitly in order to undertake an ISD project.

Operational research plays a major role in improving the profitability of British Airways (BA), which is the largest, and one of the most successful, international airlines in the world. This study explores the knowledge and facilitation conceptions held by operational research consultants in BA in supporting the decisions and management processes of their internal “clients”. Ten consultants, who were deemed experts in soft OR, were interviewed in order to examine the knowledge they used in helping their clients to manage decisions and change. The findings suggest that while the fundamental ethos of analytical rigour characterises the world‐view that the OR consultants adopt, it may be the modifications to techniques and practices that consultants make in intuitive and creative ways that secure their effectiveness.

This paper aims to show how systems thinking can be incorporated in action research (AR) interventions to successfully implement organizational change. The two case studies described in this paper would be useful to managers who want to implement change in their own organizations.

Both projects used AR as the methodology due to its flexible, responsive and emergent nature. In one project, there was a deliberate attempt to incorporate soft systems thinking whereas in the other project soft systems thinking was used as a sense‐making process while carrying out AR. As an added benefit both approaches have resulted in successful completion of doctoral research.

Soft systems methodology (SSM) and AR can both help in addressing ill‐structured problems faced by managers, in collaboration with stakeholders using questioning and reflection. Both lead to an increased understanding about the problem situation. The difference is that SSM uses a more structured approach while AR is emergent in its application. SSM practitioners advocate that action researchers would benefit by declaring in advance an intellectual framework to guide their research. This has the additional benefit of overcoming obstacles in an academic environment where research processes are still governed based on traditional research methods.

The ideas presented in the paper could be particularly useful to a practice‐based discipline such as project management where research into its practice is in demand.

This paper would be useful to managers interested in a rigorous methodology to implement organizational change in addressing business problems. It demonstrates ways of combining SSM and AR, resulting in a powerful research tool to carry out rigorous research.

The article asserts that systems thinking and its concurrent organizational processes are central organizing structures in schools, yet “hide in plain sight” and are therefore underexplored and underutilized in leadership theorizing.

By exploring the theoretical literature concerning school organization and leadership, tensions and contradictions within the literature are surfaced. The article examines and critiques distributed leadership theory and provides new directions for thinking about leadership practice based on school organization literature.

Recent work (Kruse and Johnson, 2017; Murphy, 2015, 2016) suggests that schools are far too complex to be led and managed by a single dedicated leader, yet the practice of leadership remains largely reified within the literature (Bryk et al., 2015), Insofar as leadership theory relies on narratives derived from and about work of “the” leader, it ignores the larger system. A contrasting literature is that of distributed leadership (Gronn, 2000; Spillane, 2006). Yet, even within that literature, the focus remains on interpersonal interactions and conjoint actions concerning school operation. While not dismissing the importance of leadership as a theoretical and practical construct, thinking about leadership as less a property of individuals and more a variable within effective organizational practice holds promise for the study of educational leadership.

This article extends the existing literature by suggesting how systems processes and structures serve school leaders in addressing the leadership demands of fostering continuous (rather than episodic) change, processing information and creating contextual local knowledge with the potential to enhance school outcomes.