ED 357 669

AUTHORTITLEINSTITUTIONREPORT NOPUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 026 415

Kowszun, J.Soft-Systems Methodology. Mendip Papers.Staff Coll., Bristol (England).MP-0399218p.

Staff College, Coombe Lodge, Blagdon, Bristol BS186RG, England.Reports Descriptive (141) Guides Non-ClassroomUse (055)

MF01/PC01 Plus. Postage.College Administration; Decision Making; *EducationalPlanning; Educational Quality; EducationalStrategies; Foreign Countries; Higher Education;*Management Systems; Postsecondary Education;*Problem Solving; Quality Control; *SystemsApproach

IDENTIFIERS *England; *Soft Systems Methodology; SystemsModeling

ABSTRACTThis paper provides an introduction to a particular

systems-theoretical approach to problem-solving in the management ofeducation usually referred to as soft-systems methodology (SSM),developed by Peter Checkland in the 1970s. SSM shoula provide apowerful tool for managers in education at any level who have astrategic role because it can be used to address many problems andquestions such as whether current courses meet student needs, or howto introduce a college-wide quality improvement system. The paperbegins by providing background information on systems theory and thenmoves on to discuss the educational context and micrepolitics and todescribe the methodology of SSM, first through an overview and thenthrough a detailed description of its seven stages. A discussion ofthe use of SSM in strategic planning and quality assurance concludesthe paper. Contains eight references. (GLR)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

**********************************************************************

"",,s,

cn4.

Soft-systemsmethodology

J Kowszun

TheStaff

College

MP 039

U.S. DEPARTMENT 0, '0UCATIONOffice of Educational Resea ^ Ict improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER IERICI

C....fgi; document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it

O Minor Changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality

"PERMISSION TOREPRODUCE THIS

MATERIAL HASBEEN GRANTED BY

Further Education

Points of view or opinionsstated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOER1 position or policy

ifitOM %raw

Staff Colle e

TO THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCES

INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC1.-'

:% %, 4, ,., V.- -*A 1 -<,,le

4 Ar 14.,. .0.; _AAir

*. t 1, .-..r 4.- -. .:i) . 440;. a441.

. - '''' le\), - - f!....-7.4-,A4-,"."

v.A, '.1..- .,.: t:. ,-.vt'1

-st:N.. ,,a 4044;14)0 -...

44'%* - r-Sie.....

ci).4

0-4 Soft-systems methodologyCI(114

J Kowszun

TheStaff

College

MP 03-91

The views expressed in this Mendip Paper are those of thecontributor(s). They should not be taken to represent the policy ofThe Staff College.

About the author

Jorji Kowszun Vice-Principal, Eastboune Sixth Form CollegeAfter studying mathematics at the universities of Cambridge, Warwick and Oxford, Jorgiworked for Economic Intelligence at the Bank of England. In a radical move, he then gaveup the City and moved into teaching. His posts have included Head of Mathematics atLuton and Head of Sixth Form at Elstree. He is currently Vice-Principal of EastbourneSixth Form College.

Series edited and designed at The Staff College by Pippa Toogood and Susan Leather,Publications Department, and produced by the Reprographics Department.

Published by The Staff College,Coombe Lodge, Blagdon, Bristol BS18 6RGTelephone (0761) 462503Fax (0761) 463104 or 463140 (Publications Department)

© The Staff College 1992

All rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in aretrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, electrical,chemical, optical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permissionof the copyright owner.

Soft-systems methodology:an approach to problem-solving in themanagement of education

J Kowszun

Contents

1 Introduction

2 Systems: background

2 The educational context andmicropolitics

3 Overview of themethodology

3 The methodology in moredetail

9 SSM and strategic planning

9 SSM and quality assurance

10 Conclusion

10 References

IntroductionThe aim of this paper is to give an introduction to aparticular systems-theoretic approach to problem-solving in management usually referred to as soft-systems methodology (SSM), developed by PeterCheck land in the 1970s. It is my belief that thisapproach is particularly relevant to education nowfor several reasons:

it is a methodology which should appealdirectly to those whose working lives arecentred on the business of learning sincethe basis of Check land's approach is toengage in processes which enable learningabout the problem situation to take place;

the SSM approach is helpful in the contextof developing quality assurance as itprovides a clear methodology for the`...systematic and thorough exploration ofeverything the organisation does, thesubsequent setting of clear standards andthe documentation of these standards onwhich the service to customers will bebased,' (Miller and Innis, 1992)

SSM enables a deep exploration of criticalissues which, in the light of incorporation,is something all of us in the new FE sectorare having to do;

all too often strategic issues involvinghuman resources which interact in manycomplex ways can seem so large that it isfar from clear how to begin an analysis.SSM provides a step-by-step procedurewhich gives structure to an analysis andenables managers to 'plan the planning'.

Mendip Papers

0

1

SSM should provide a powerful tool for managersin education at any level who have a strategic role.SSM can be used to address many problems andquestions, for example, 'is our current BusinessStudies course meeting the needs of our clientele?'or 'how should we go about introducing a college-wide quality improvement system?'.

Systems: backgroundThe word 'system' has become a familiar part ofour daily vocabulary and this reflects the way inwhich systems thinking has become an importantintellectual tool in most disciplines. Considerationof a simple definition of system, such as:

an assemblage of parts viewed as a singleentity which maintains its identity undera range of external conditions,

reveals what a generalised concept this is. This begsthe question how can such a very general concept beuseful? The answer lies perhaps in the way of lookingat the world that it implies. A systems viewpoint isone that seeks to cope with complexity byaggregating objects, functions, activities, etc.,into a reasonably small number of intellectuallymanageable `chunks' which can then be looked atin relation to each other. To be useful these `chunks'must have a meaningful identity which can be readilycomprehended: if they can be seen to have a functionor purpose then they are systems. The concept of'modularity' in education almost certainly owes itsorigin to systems thinking.

Systems theory developed originally from scienceand engineering. Initially it was applied to situationswith a high degree of predictability and susceptibilityto mathematical analysis. Such systems are usuallydescribed as 'hard' systems. This term also coverscomputer systems and their software; the readerwill probably be familiar with the term 'systemsanalysis' in the context of computers. Situationswhich involve a high degree of complexity andhuman involvement with low susceptibility to 'hard'modelling are usually described as 'soft' systems.Since they usually involve people, their interactionsand their management they are also called humanactivity systems (HAS). There have been attemptsto import some of the powerful ideas of systemsanalysis into the theory of soft systems. Notableamongst these is the work of Stafford Beer (1985)who has developed a systems approach tomanagement from ideas in cybernetics using thenotion of the viable system model (VSM). Brian

Wilson (1984) gives a good overview of otherapproaches used to model human activity systemsincluding SSM. Carter et a/ (1984) give a veryreadable and visually stimulating basic introductionto systems thinking in management.

We are concerned here with the work of PeterCheckland (1981) and his soft systems methodology.SSM represents a radical change in approach fromthat of trying to make hard systems ideas work inthe soft systems context to taking the essential natureof soft systems as a starting point. Checkland'svaluable contribution in this field is to change theparadigm from one of constructing and modifyingsystems in line with criteria of correctness andoptimum performance to one of learning about thesystems involved in order to gain deep insights intothe problem situation.

The educational context andmicropoliticsAny educational establishment consists of complexof inter-connected systems. In principle the systemscan be fairly easily enumerated: admissions,curriculum management, finance, pastoral,personnel, premises and soon, and their interactionsexplained. In reality, there are many other systemsoperating and the systems which should exist intheory are often fragmented and partial in practice.It has been argued, for example by Ball (1987), thateducational institutions are particularly prone to theinfluence of micropolitics'. This term tries toencapsulate the bargaining for power that takes placebetween groups of individuals and their attempts toachieve their diverse political objectives. It is themicropolitical climate of an institution thatdetermines the reality of its day-to-day operations.It is interesting to note that Ball says the following:

..organisational theorists have remainedlocked...within the stultifying parametersof systems theory and have tended toneglect description in favour ofprescription... (Ball 1987)

I can only surmise that the systems theory that hehad in mind was an impoverished one and I wouldclaim that SSM offers a system-theoretic approachrich enough to help gain insight into themicropolitical issues of an organisational problem.The recognition that we are dealing always withpeople, who will invariably 'mess up' our neattheories and procedures, is built into the philosophicalstand-point of SSM.

2 Mendip Papers

Overview of the methodologyCheck land's methodology was developed throughhis consultancy work which started out dealing withproblems that fell squarely into the 'hard' systemsarea. Gradually the commissions he and his teamtook on moved into 'softer' areas such as corporateorganisational problems, manufacturingperformance and service marketing. This led to areai :wed to develop methods that worked in theseareas. It is interesting to note that as the LancasterUniversity-owned consultancy ISCOL Ltd. in whichCheck land worked gained credibility, so it foanditself being presented increasingly with unstructuredproblems of the kind that might be expressed asbaldly as 'we feel something is wrong in thissituation, could you help?'.

Perhaps the most curious example Checkland givesis the government-sponsored analysis to clarify theintended meaning of the theoretical concept of`terotechnology ' which led to the formulation of anofficial definition of the concept. As Checklandputs it:

It was not a case of defining and describingsomething which existed in the real world.Rather the task was to describe somethingwhich, in the opinion of the Departmentof Trade and Industry and some interestedindustrialists, ought to be taken seriouslyby anyone concerned with the process ofgenerating wealth by industrial activity.(Checkland 1981 p202)

SSM has seven stages as follows:

i the problem situation unstructured;2 the problem situation expressed;3 root definitions of relevant systems;4 conceptual models;5 comparison of 4 with 2;6 defmition of feasible desirable changes;7 action to solve the problem or improve the

situation.

Although the methodology is usually described interms of these seven stages it is not intended ordesirable that a particular analysis should proceedsequentially through the stages. Checkland's ownresearch suggests that

...the most effective users of themethodology have been able to use it as aframework into which to place purposefulactivity during a systems study, rather thanas a cookery book recipe. (Checkland 1981p163)

The methodology in more detail

Stages 1 and 2: finding out

These are the exploratory stages for which Checklanduses the term 'expression'. The work during thesestages consists of gathering information in order tobuild up as rich a picture of the situation as possible.The first stage is very much about a kind of brain-storming: taking in everything that may be relevantwith limited evaluation. The second stage seeks tobring this information into some sort of diagrammaticand written order (the 'rich picture'). It is importantthat the rich picture tries to be a neutral presentationof the structures, processes and relationships betweenthem as observed in the situation (through theresearchers' eyes and through the eyes of others). Itis important to avoid at this stage is any early attemptsat formulating system definitions which may thenlead to a prejudging of the issue in the later stages.

For example, a school or college may be looking atthe problem of what sort of approaches to qualityimprovement they should adopt. The initialinformation gathering phase could consist of thefollowing elements:

gather together brief summaries of statutoryinstruments which have a bearing on quality(Orders under the Further and HigherEducation Act 1992);

do the same for any other bodies whichhave authority in the situation (localeducation authority, examining groups,validating bodies, British StandardsInstitute, International Standards Office);

review the current literature;

interview members of the seniormanagement team to elicit their views ofthe meaning of 'quality' in the educationalsetting;

do the same for other staff, governors,parents and students;

gather examples of good practice fromelsewhere in education and from othersectors (BS 5750, ISO 9000, total qt_ alitymanagement, strategic quality managemeat,quality circles, etc.).

This mass of information now needs to be somehowrepresented on a single complex diagram so that itcan be scanned, at least superficially, all in oneplace.

Mendip Papers

7

3

Figure 1 shows the beginnings of a rich pictureassociated with the problem of the possibleintroduction of a head of sixth form in an 11-18school organised into houses. It shows the results ofinterviews with some of the key figures in thesituation. Later work might include interviews withgovernors, parents and sixth-fonners.

Preparing a rich picture is a creative activity whichseeks to set down that which has been learnedcoherently and dynamically. It should not be anattempt to start modelling the situation.

Once the rich picture is complete it can be used toinfer descriptions of systems which are relevant tothe situation.

Figure 1: Simple rich picture

HoS would take overan onerous part of mresponsibilities

extra level ofsupport -goodto have adifferent point

f view

duplicating myrolehorizontally.Would causeconfusion forparents

1st Deputy

Housemaste r

Could we findsomeone withthe rightexpertise?

Head

Rational structure Good PR

Pastoral Care managed horizontally and vertically

But must avoid conflict with Housemasters and Ho Ds

Not too bothered. Make a change for someonelse to have to take stick from the Ho Ds

2nd Deputy

Ho Ds

I know what I am about, Idon't need an HoS to tell mewhat to do

A

Sixth Form TutorsLayer of adminbetween me and theSMT - I feel devalued

Bad enough having the SecondDeputy monitoring my role

kfor neutral s against X conflict

I feel unsupported.A HoS mightprovide me withsupport

HoD = Head of DepartmentHoS = Head of Sixth Form

Mendip Papers

Stage 3: root definitions

The objective of stage three is to set down carefully-worded root definitions of systems deemed relevantto the situation. These definitions are crucial indetermining the kind of modelling that can takeplace and may often need to be re-assessed in thelight of outcomes of other stages of the SSM.

At the heart of a root definition of a system will besome kind of transformation process (1). In theroot definition there will be a verb (or verbs) togetherwith its direct object(s) which make the nature ofthe transformation(s) explicit. Pursuing the exampleof quality improvement, an imaginary researchermight formulate a definition of one of the relevantsystems to be:

a system to apportion blame when thingsgo wrong. (Example 1)

(Hopefully this definition would be quickly rejectedin favour of others although it could be a validreflection of the realities of the situation!) The mainverb here is apportion and the transformationimplied takes the that which has gone wrong asinput and outputs the name of one or moreindividuals to blame.

To take a different example, an educationalinstitution may be looking at its pastoral provision.A first attempt at a root definition of one of therelevant systems might be:

a system to put students with welfareproblems in touch with an appropriateagency. (Example 2)

As a root definition this statement is too vague, aswill be seen below. However, it clearly identifies atransformation that. takes welfare problemspresented by students and outputs appropriatereferrals.

A root definition will usually define customers (C)of the system. These will be the victims orbeneficiaries of the system and will typically appearas the indirect objects of the main verbs used in thedefinition. So, in example 1 above the customersare those who will be blamed and only figure in thedefinition by implication. In example 2 thecustomers appear to be the appropriate agencies,not the students who present with their welfareproblems. Perhaps a better - worded definition mightbe:

a system for giving referrals to studentswho present their welfare problems to

members of the pastoral team. Suchreferrals are made to appropriate outsideagencies. (Example 3)

In a human activity system there will be actors (A)who are instrumental in carrying out thetransforrnation(s) of the system. In example 3 thewording makes clear that members of the pastoralteam will be the actors in this system. Note that theoutside agencies are not actors in this system, theyare part of the output.

To understand power relationships inherent in oneor more interacting systems it is important toestablish who or what owns (0) the system underconsideration. Ownership is perhaps ultimatelydetermined by asking 'who has concern for thissystem with the authority to shut it down?'. Takingexample 3 again, here there is no clear indication ofownership. It could be argued that in a goodimplementation of this system the pastoral teamwill feel 'ownership' of the system but this is notthe sense in which ownership is intended in SSM.Ultimately, then, it will be the pastoral managementof the institution who determine whether suchreferrals continue to be made officially; so a re-wording of example 3 to make ownership explicitmight be:

a system under the control of the pastoralmanager for giving appropriate referralsto outside agencies to students whopresent their welfare problems tomembers of the pastoral team.(Example 4)

Any system has to operate within a particularenvironment (E) and this will place constraintsupon its activities which are not ir.ider the system'scontrol. For example, the issue under considerationmight be the delivery of study skills within aneducational institution and one of the relevantsystems considered might be based on a peer-tutoring approach. Here is a possible root-definitionfor such a systcrn:

A pastoral management-owned systemto provide study skills support tostudents using volunteers from thestudent body with the quality of theirsupport activities monitored by teachingstaff. (Example 5)

Notice that the environment in which such a systemwould operate must use volunteer students only(no funds), and must be monitored by teachingstaff (to ensure quality).

Mendip Papers

95

These five considerations (T, C, A, 0, E) werefound by Smyth (1976) to provide adequate criteriafor testing whether a root - definition is well-formulated. To these was added a sixth criterionusually referred to as Weltanschauung (W) orworldview. This refers to the outlook or basic assumptionson which the activity in question is based. It may besomething which has not been questioned but needsto be explored if the root definition is to havemeaning. In example 1 above there is presumablyan underlying assumption that when things go wrongthe guilty must be punished. In example 5 there is anunderlying view that supporting students in theireducational endeavours is a natural and desirablething to do. It may well be that in a particularanalysis more than one world view may be identifiedand a separate root definition may need to be madecorresponding to each world view. So alongsideexample 1 there might be a further root - definition:

a senior management team-ownedsystem to enable middle-mangers toidentify the causes of breakdown whenthings go wrong and recommendcorrective actions to the seniormanagement team. (Example 6)

Here the underlying world view is that things whichgo wrong need to be fixed. This system is differentfrom that in example 1 in that its customers are thesenior management team and its outputs arerecommendations for corrective action.

The six criteria discussed above are referred tocollectively by the mnemonic CATWOE. Theformulation of a root definition is a difficult semanticexercise which needs to be shared by concernedparties and informed by some vigorous argument!

Stage 4: making models

This can be the hardest part of the process in that itinvolves making an abstract model of the system asimplied by the root definition and is not an attemptto model reality as it is or should be. The model isa conceptual one and, usually, takes the form of anappropriate diagram. One way of tackling themodelling is to start by listing the activities impliedby the root definition. Take example 4 again:

A pastoral management-owned systemto provide study skills support to studentsusing volunteers from the student bodywith the quality of their support activitiesmonitored by teaching staff.

The implied activities here could be:

identify peer tutors;

determine the tutoring strengths of peertutors;

advertise t'le service;

receive tutees who present themselves;

identify the needs of tutees who presentthemselves;

arrange times and rooms for tutoring to takeplace;

monitor the performance of peer tutors.

Each of these activities represent a mini-rootdefinition and, as such, define sub-systems of thesystem being modelled. A conceptual model of thissystem could then consist of the subsystems and therelationships between them together with the variousinputs, outputs and flows (see Figure 2).

To be sure that each sub-system is well-defined aseparate CATWOE analysis could be done on eachone and, if necessary, each sub-system could thenbe modelled conceptually. The process of modellingsubsystems of systems could be continued until thecomponent sub-systems become simple agentswhich are not susceptible to further useful analysis.

The conceptual models developed from rootdefinitions need to be the focus of informeddiscussion. Checkland provides a set of criteria fortesting a conceptual model based on his experiences,in practical situations, of those factors whose absenceor inefficiency have turned out to crucially affectthe analysis:

the system has a clear purpose or mission;

measure of performance: are there explicitcriteria for what would constitute 'good'and 'bad' performance?

there is a decision-taking process within thesystem;

the system has components which arethemselves well-defined systems;

the components of the system interact sothat effects and actions can be transmittedthrough the system;

the system exists as part of a wider systemor environment with which it interacts;

6 Mendip Papers

sharpness of the system boundary: is it clearwhat is part of the system and what is not?

the system has physical and/or abstractresources at the disposal of the decision-taking process;

- the system has some kind of stability inprinciple and is not ephemeral.

For the example in Figure 2 the consideration ofmeasure of performance requires so7- carefulthought about the monitoring sub-system.

Figure 2: model of a root-definition

PastoralManagement

I-

Student body

(peer tutor-recruitingsub-system)

identify peertutors

Cdetermine strengths

of peer tutors_2

(tutee-recruiting sub-system)

advertise

arrange timesand rooms

receive tutees

1$I

identify needsof tutees

flow of informationPs-

flow of students:

Mendip Papers 7

Stage 5: comparisonThis is the stage that takes us back to the real worldand the original problem situation. The comparingof reality with the conceptual model(s) is a creativeprocess which will largely depend on each differentsituation. Checkland (1981) identifies several broadapproaches which have been found to work in certainsituations.

One approach is to engage in a dialogue in whichgeneral features of the problem situation arequestioned in the light of the conceptual modeL Theobjective is to arrive at a short-list of significantdifferences between the model and the real situation.This relatively gentle approach can be structuredinto a systematic and ordered questioning aboutevery feature of the conceptual model and itsrealisations in the problem situation (or lack thereof).

This approach might be used with the governors ofa school or college who have been looking at theirinstitutional aims. The 'college mission' could betreated as essentially one or more root definitionsfor the total system or systems which the collegeembodies. The questioi ring process might elicit thedifferences between the intentions behind variousclauses of the mission statement and theirinstitutional implications.

An alternative approach, if the situation warrants it,might be to make a careful reconstruction of pastevents which led up to the present situation andrelate these to the conceptual model. This couldeasily turn into an attempt to apportion blame so itis important to emphasise the intentions of theprocess: to understand the micropolitical influenceswhich led to the current situation.

For example, a college redesigns its approach tostudent services and things go badly wrong. By thetime stage 4 is reached it becomes obvious that thereis a serious mismatch between what the servicesshould be and what they actually are. However, theorganisation and paperwork is very much linewith the conceptual model, so why are things goingwrong 'on the ground' ? The historical reconstructionseeks to reveal where along the line, for example,energies became diverted into low-priority activities.

A very different method of making the comparisonis to go back to stage 2 and to construct a conceptualmodel of the situation as expressed in the 'richpicture' trying as far as possible to make the form ofthat model correspond to the conceptual modelconstructed at stage 4. This allows for a very sharp

comparison of reality with the model. It also allowsfor an interesting reverse approach which takes theconceptual model of reality and asks what rootdefinitions might be implied by this model. It couldwell be used in the context of the student servicesexample above.

Another simple example is furnished by an exerciseI undertook in a previous post. Looking at the tennlysixth form reports, I developed a root definition ofthe reporting system and compared it with the implieddefinition extracted from reality after looking atmany reports and intense discussion with colleagues.One significant difference that emerged was thatthe implied real system mainly classified studentsinto 'visible' and 'invisible' categories based onperceived classroom participation whereas thecorresponding theoretical classification wassupposed to be somewhat richer and based ondocumentary evidence.

This stage of the methodology can lead, quitenaturally, into a re-thillking of selection ofappropriate systems, root defmitions and conceptualmodels. This kind of dynamic iteration round stages2, 3 and 4 ensures a deep and thorough discussion ofthe underlying issues.

Stages 6 and 7: taking action

The comparison stage should lead naturally into adiscussion of 'things as they are' and 'things as theymight be'. This should generate a list of possiblechanges that could be made in order to improve thecurrent situation. The process by which one arrivesat this stage should have enabled some real learningab put the situation to take place so that it becomespossible to make judgements about which changesare likely to be most effective.

However, because we are dealing with humanactivities, the business of making desirable changesis not likely to be just a matter of listing changes andimplementing them. Even with a strong consensuson appropriate action there is the question offeasibility. If, for example, a particular study revealsthat a change in values held by a group of individualsis needed as might be the case in a qualityimprovement study then the question of feasibilitybecomes paramount. Indeed, it may wer be the casethat this change is not attempted, but otherorganisational changes are made or new systemsintroduced with the medium-term goal of a shift invalues resulting from growing familiarity with newpractices.

8 Mendip Papers

What happens at this stage will be largely determinedby the culture of the institution. If you are luckyenough to work in an innovative culture then the useof SSM would have been explicit and many peoplein the organisation would have contributed to thevarious stages of the methodology. Otherwise it is amatter of exercising such skills in the managementof change as are available in the situation. I suspectthat in an innovative culture it should be possible toinstall SSM as a standard language of discourse forproblem solving and strategic planning.

SSM and strategic planningIn dzveloping potential future marketing strategiesfor my college I found SSM a very helpful tool. Thefinding out stages (1 and 2) took the form of aSWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities,threats) analysis developed by the whole staff andamplified in cross-curricular small-groupdiscussions over a period of several weeks. Thiswas part of the senior management team's generalapproach to evaluating our position at that time butalso provided valuable input into the SSM.Additional information included student views, someparental interviews, discussions with teachers fromlocal 11-16 schools and the background papers tothe college's current mission statement. From this Iconstructed a rich picture and listed several relevantsystems that expressed the 'desirabletransformations' that the college effected or mighteffect for its clients. From these I generated variousroot definitions. Because we operate in a competitiveenvironment I hope the reader will forgive nie fornot sharing further details of my work!

The SSM as such was very much an activity Icarried out on my own, although I engaged in variousdiscussions and arguments in what, to me, wereparts of the methodology but to others werediscussions of the kind I would be expected to haveanyway. The point here is that it would not appearto be necessary to make SSM explicit if one hasownership of a problem although I feel it is alwaysdesirable to be open about the kind of tools ofanalysis one is using.

SSM has much to offer the process of institutionalreview: defining or re-defining the corporate missionand setting the medium-term strategic plan. In thiscontext a suitably expanded form of the corporatemission becomes a set of root definitions of thesystems which the institution embodies. The reallysignificant contribution of SSM lies in the making

of conceptual models and comparing them withreality. It is a very sharp way of asking 'can (ordoes) this happen on the ground?'.

The comparison technique of attempting to fit rootdefinitions to the systems that appear to be operatingin reality should give some valuable insight into themicropolitical climate in an institution. As I havementioned earlier, it is this climate which willdetermine what can actually be made to work andtherefore understanding it should provide guidancein setting achievable targets. It may also indicateareas where it could be worth making a seriousattempt to alter the balance of micropolitical powerin order to enable change in a desirable direction.

SSM and quality assuranceThe current literature on quality assurance aimed ateducation favours either strategic qualitymanagement (SQM) as in, for example, Consultantsat Work (1992) or some variant of total qualitymanagement (TQM) as in, for example, The OpenCollege (1990). The TQM approach tends to begeared particularly towards BS 5750. Eitherapproach is essentially system-theoretic and lendsitself very naturally to SSM.

In SQM the systems problem can be related directlyto the corporate mission and is concerned withworking through the key systems and their measuresof performance across the various phases and levelsof the institution's operation. Having performed aninitial SSM analysis of the quality problem, theiteration between stages 2, 3, 4 ar . 5 can becomepart of the on-going quality assurance process as itinvolves comparing ideals of relevant systems withthe reality of their operation and adjustingaccordingly. It should be relatively easy to adapt thediscussion of the use of SQM in an educationalsetting given in, for example, Miller and Innis (1992)to an approach based on SSM.

With TQM the cycle through stages 2, 3, 4 and 5 ofSSM can be adapted directly to the problem ofprocedure-writing. So, to take a simple example,writing a procedure for dealing with prospectivestudents' application forms can be taken throughthe following stages:

description of what actually happens now(e.g. date-stamped, passed to admissionsofficer who selects an interviewer in theappropriate division, etc.);

Mendip Papers

1 3

a discussion of what it's all for (arrange aninterview with the 'right' person, say);

a root definition of the system which dealswith application forms;

construction of a conceptual model, mostlikely in the form of a flow-chart;

comparison with the original description;

suggested modifications to the existingprocedure;

write or re-write the procedure.

These are, of course, the seven stages of SSM whichadapt naturally to this application.

ConclusionIn this paper I have tried to indicate the power ofSSM as a framework for tackling a range of problemsin the management of education. I have concentratedmy examples on issues of quality and strategicplanning. However, I believe that there is a widerapplicability of SSM in education particularly, withsuitable adaptations, as a sophisticated package ofstudy, information and problem-solving skills forstudents faced with large-scale project work. This isan area for development which I find veryexciting,but! have only just begun to explore the possibilities.

I would like to conclude this discussion with aninvitation to anyone who has used systems thinkingin the context c educational management to contactme and tell me about their experiences. Perhaps this

might be a good time to set up a 'Systems inEducation' group in the FE sector?

ReferencesBall, Stephen J (1987) The micropolitics of theschool: towards a theory of school organization.pl Methuen

Beer, Stafford (1985) Diagnosing the system forOrganisations. John Wiley

Carter, Ruth C et al (1984) Systems, managementand change: a graphic guide. Harper and Row

Checkland, Peter (1981) Systems thinking, systemspractice. John Wiley

Miller, John and Innis, Sonia (1992) Strategicquality management: a guide for seniormanagers. p5 Consultants at Work

Open College (1990) The management of quality.Open College

Smyth, D S and Checkland, P B (1976) Using asystem approach: the structure of root definitions.Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, Volume 5Number 1. pp75-83

Wilson, Brian (1984) Systems: concepts,methodologies, and applications. John Wiley

10 Mendip Papers1 4

About the Mendip Papers

The Mendip Papers are a new series of bookletswritten specially for managers in further and highereducation. As managers and governors take on newresponsibilities and different roles they face newchallenges, whether in the areas of resource andfinancial management or in the pursuit of quality,the recruitment of students and the development ofnew curricula. The Mendip Papers provide adviceon these issues and many more besides.

Some of the papers provide guidance on issues ofthe moment. Others offer analysis, providingsummaries of key recent research studies, providinginsights into the ways in which the fields of post-school education and training are changing. TheMendip Papers include some written specially forthe series, together with revised and upgradedversions of some of the most popular papers in thewell-established Staff College Information Bank.

Mendip Papers provide u) -to -date information onimportant current issues 'n vocational educationand training, and summaries ofkey research studies,along with informed and sometimes controversialperspectives on these issues. Managers need themto keep abreast of current developments and to dealwith key problems and challenges. Staffdevelopment officers and trainers will find theminvaluable as a basis for in-college managementtraining and staff development activities.

The list of Mendip Papers is growing steadily. Ifyou have a particular piece of research it further,higher Cr adult education, or have undertaken aninnovative management initiative which would beof interest to other managers, please contact theseries editor, Lynton Gray at The Staff College witha view to publishing your work and disseminatingit throughout the post-school education system.

Titles in the series

Further education and vocational education and training

MP 001MP 022

MP 026

MP 043

Resources

MP 002MP 003MP 004MP 017

MP 021

MP 024

MP 029MP 044

The importance of further educationPrison education in England and Wales(revised)Making consortia work - The ScottishWider Access ProgrammePost-16 participation: the success story

Paying for further educationContracting with PCFC institutionsManagement staff ratios and unit costsCost centres and college budgetspost-ERAAccommodation planning- one polytechnic's experienceComputerised timetabling - some ofthe optionsPCFC funding: the first three yearsThe management of resource-basedlearning

Organisational theory

MP 005

MP 006MP 007MP 008

MP 015

Responding to change: the need forflexible college structures and practicesSocialisation into organisationsOrganisational cultureThe perception of threat and the realityof decline in organisationsStructures - fact and fiction

Quality and performance

MP 009MP 010

MP 012

MP 020MP 028

MP 031

MP 034

MP 045

The National Quality SurveyPerformance indicators and adulteducationPerformance review: current practiceand prospectsCollege quality assurance systemsDeveloping common PIs and assessingeffectiveness and qualityEstablishing customer needs andperceptionsManagement and accountabilityin professional organisationsThe Northern Ireland further education

quality assurance survey

1 G

T G Melling

P Ripley

M LeechD Pardey

£4.50

£2.50

£3.00£5.00

R J Kedney & M C Fletcher £3.50R J Kedney & M C Fletcher £3.00R J Kedney £3.00

P Crisp, A Nightingale & H Street £4.00

M Murphy

R BarrettA Jeans

J Cooper

C M TurnerC M TurnerC M Turner

C M TurnerC M Turner

E Sallis

Pablo Foster

T G MellingE Sallis & P Hingley

P Allsop

A Roberts

SRHE (ed. Dr Helen Brown)

G Devlin

£5.00

£4.50£3.50

£3.00

£2.50£2.50£4.50

£3.50£5.00

£4.50

£4.50

£2.50£5.50

£3.00

£5.00

£5.00

£3.00

Legislation.and-governance

MP 014 New governing bodies in maintainedFE: size and composition

MP 016 Education reform legislation in the UK:a summary

MP 018 Effective meetingsMP 025 FE funding and delegation schemes -

an exegesisMP 032 FE incorporation checklist for managersMP 036 Governing corporate collegesMP 041 Governance and incorporation:

style and strategyMP 042 Reviewing the college disciplinary

procedure

Human resources

MP 013MP 027MP 033MP 035

MP 037

MP 038

MP 039

MP 040

The role of the new vice-principalCreativity and managementMotivating staffLeadership and its functions in furtherand higher educationJob analysis and the preparation of jobdescriptionsThe effects of employment legislationon collective bargainingSoft-systems methodology: an approachto problem-solving in the managementof educationPower, authority, autonomy anddelegation

Strategy and marketing

MP 048 The competitive positioning of furthereducation colleges

Miscellaneous

MP 011 Essential acronyms in further, higherand adult education

MP 019 Solving the problem of mathematicsMP 030 Colleges compared: case studies from

the UK and the NetherlandsMP 046 Preparing & presenting project reports

in education managementMP 047 Prison education's role in challenging

offending behaviour

17

J A Graystone

J A GraystoneJ A Graystone

D AtkinsonJ A GraystoneJ A Graystone

R J Kedney

R J Kedney & R Saunders

C MegsonC M TurnerC M Turner

D T Marsh

R Saunders

R Saunders

J Kowszun

C M Turner

A Bakir

J A GraystoneSir Roy Harding CBE

The Staff College

L S Gray

P Ripley

£5.00

£4.00£3.00

£4.00£5.00£6.00

£4.00

£5.00

£3.50£4.00£3.50

£4.50

£450

£3.00

£3.50

£4.50

£4.50

£2.50£2.50

£3.00

£3.00

£3.00

:

.