System Methodologies
Part A: section (i)
The situation that I would like to investigate in particular is on the relationship of teamwork and the organic – open system (biological/ecological) as my major metaphor, taking in minor consideration, the political aspect; as it affects the whole organization in an industry.
Teamwork as quoted by Peter Drucker, “The leaders who work most effectively, it seems to me, never say "I." And that's not because they have trained themselves not to say "I." They don't think "I." They think "we"; they think, "Team." They understand their job to be to make the team function. They accept responsibility and don't sidestep it, but "we" gets the credit…. This is what creates trust, what enables you to get the task done.” The adage simplifies the essence of teamwork in a busy working environment. The individual who composes the team is challenged everyday to maintain such stability under pressure. This is a necessity indeed to meet up – to – date demands, as well as to cope effectively in every rush decision to maintain a homeostasis work environment.
Recently, I have encountered a fast moving work place yet it is aggressive enough to complete each task given by the manager. The environment I am referring to is of the industrial firms wherein, they have to compete with other industrial firms that they may be able to achieve the quality maximum output on an annual or yearly basis. The manager is responsible in delegating tasks for his people. Normally, each team has different strategies in carrying out tasks appropriately. As I went through the details on my research, I have found out that they are operating in an organic (open system) basis. What does this mean? According to Floods and Jackson (1991), organic system emphasizes on survival and adaptation. The advantage of this system is that it takes account of the environment; meaning, it is open to ideas and apt for changes which makes this system flexible to every situation at hand. For example, the manager calls for a general meeting with regards to policy implementation – it would start with bench marking, in which members are asked on their opinion on what particular policies are to be changed, and to what to change to and how to implement such changes or interventions that are suited in a given firm. The act of changing the policies for the betterment of the industry is already a starting point in adapting to the shifting environment of the workforce. The presence of policies defines the status quo of an industrial firm; it is led by the firm’s objectives that have already been set in order to meet its goals. Asking member’s opinions or suggestions is a way of knowing their viewpoint that these policies may also benefit the greater masses thus, increasing work performance. It must be noted that during policy implementation there are several components to be well thought-out like communication issues. Communication issue is an important matter to assess to, since every single minute in a typical working environment, each individuals communicate either in words and action. It is also an important aspect in policy implementation since; there must be an open communication that shall cater opposing ideas in order to meet a justified end. Ironic it may sound, conflicts at times are necessary to see a wider perspective of things that one may have been blinded due to partial or deficient sources of information or facts. Once communication issues has been resolved then, it is typical to progress on the next step, evaluations of the interventions implemented, if it has been effective or still needs further improvement. The whole process that has been discussed briefly above revolves around one strategic process called teamwork. In teamwork, it all depends on the type of managerial or leadership skills one possess that guides controls and at the same time, directs the whole team to a team effort. Therefore, the type of metaphor that has been used in this present situation is an organic - open system wherein, it has been use to improve the quality of work by addressing what system, policies or regulations that needs to be change or developed further in the interest of the many. It has also been observed that there is the presence of constraints. That constraint must be the focus of any improvement effort if it is expected to significantly “improve” the system in terms of that goal. What to change can’t be driven by external benchmarking influences alone; it must be a wider viewpoint of the inputs and outputs or process on the current trends and issues in the environment that may or may not apply in the given situation. However, it is tall tackled in the hope that it will prevent such problems to exist in future dealings. The constraint is the source of performance by addressing it; the current system of governance in the company will improve. Another reason that this situation is a product of an organic metaphor, since each individual in the workforce are willing to cooperate in the upcoming changes that is about to happen in spite of conflicting ideas for the sole purpose of completing the desired task and in the progress of the whole industry. The changing environment of the workforce is a motivational impact that a firm should divulge into due to the fact that a dynamic change is good seeing as, it values what might be in the future thus, suppresses resistances. It is probable that chaos won’t be avoided in the presence of change that is why, as a minor metaphor it shows that political aspect has been a part of the regulating issues stressing on the pluralist aspect as subdivided by Flood & Jackson (1991), wherein; pluralist being an organization as a coalition of interests; power is distributed, conflict is natural and may be positive. This is evidently seen when the manager called for a general meeting, however; this is only a minor distinguishable metaphor of the political aspect. True that politically, power and authority are vested among the managers that they are bonded among one common goal though with opposing ideas, it is naturally part of their system to be in conflict with desirable results. In addition, it is also a known fact that all organizations show a definitive example of a political activity. Regardless of which, organic metaphor excels in terms of creativity in problem solving because it offers to compromise in both parties, meets the changing demands of the environment due to the fact that it is an open system, it allows information to move across boundaries that serves as an opportunity to begin new chapter or challenging roles in the future. Political metaphor is innately deficient on the capability to put on the mainstream elasticity and acknowledgment of the main workforce, the members of the team not just the organization head. Therefore, in the organization that I have exemplified, it shows that it uses mainly the organic metaphor in the image of teamwork. Hence, the collaboration of efforts between managers and the members of the organization would be better if an organic metaphor is use to create possibilities. Despite that, it is apt for change and few experiments to go with in the will to maintain quality management.
Part A: section (ii)
At the first step of TSI, “creativity”, the problem situation that is on policy implementation was perceived using the organic system and the political – pluralist metaphor. In this paper the perception obtained mainly through the organic metaphor which, was discussed in section (i).
In the system of system methodology I have chosen soft system methodology which is in accordance to the table below wherein, the problem that was mentioned in section (i) is seen as complex – pluralist and the appropriate metaphor that can be use is the organic metaphor (see table 1).
Soft system methodology seek to improve organizational performance by exploring purposes and ensuring sufficient agreement is obtained among them about purposes; wherein the most important task of system thinking is to handle disagreements and conflicts that occur between managers and members because of different values, beliefs, and philosophies.
At the second step of TSI, Choice, Soft System Methodology that matches the system category and the given metaphor of the problem situation, was chosen on the basis of the previous step that was during bench marking. At the third step of TSI, soft system methodology was used to direct the implementation of the changes or interventions that was suggested and debated during bench marking. In the following sections, policy implementation using the steps of SSM is introduced (see figure 1). The concentrated effort of SSM is on horizontal axis
Figure 1: Steps of SSM
The following section will show the steps of SSM as introduced:
1. Perception of Conflict through investigation on the unstructured problem through identification or perception of policies that need further improvement or to be changed. Opinions from the managers and staff members of the enterprise were gathered through bench marking. On the basis of similarity of the opinions or suggestions the interests groups which formed the system boundary were identified (see figure 2). However, the boundaries identified won’t limit the interest groups to self when it comes to the discussion of management affairs like policy implementation since; they all aim to move forward. This can only be achieved through shared meanings.
Figure 2: Pyramid model of interests groups
2. Root definitions of several systems can be simplified by the acronym CATWOE. The usage of the desirable changes through desired actions that may improve policies as suggested by the staff members with further evaluation by the top leaders to provide appropriate means of implementation. The table 2 shows action scheme for the desirable and feasible changes that might affect the implementation of policies within the organization in relevance to the working environment.
3. Comparison of Conceptual model of relevant systems and problem situation: in which desirable changes of respective interests groups. Every interests group compares its conceptual model to its perception of policy implementation to produce desirable changes and actions designed by self and by other interest group (see table 2). To know the changes and actions desired by other interests groups.
Table 2: conceptual models of relevant system and desirable changes of interests groups
Top leaders of enterprise
Management Department
Department / project leader
Knowledge demander/ knowledge contributor
Conceptual model (skeleton)
Implementing strategies; building up learning organization; examining contribution of knowledge
Ensuring all of the achievements, suggested changes, project reports be under scrutiny by the whole management before it is to be implemented
Building up mechanism of knowledge sharing and cooperation by means of annual meetings on examination of system, policy implementation through teamwork or bench marking
Improving efficiency of achieving knowledge for own advantage and shares knowledge for the purpose to be heard regarding policy changes before it is to be implemented to keep the management making headway
Desirable changes (on – going process)
Realizing knowledge sharing among departments and promoting knowledge motivation
Carrying out strategy that was agreed by the whole management and promoting knowledge sharing
Strengthening key knowledge and competition ability of own department
Achieving useful knowledge as effectively as possible
Desirable actions and actions desired by other interest groups
Progress of staff member
Evaluation, examination and continual encouragement of the leader
Recognizing the knowledge contribution by the whole team
Continual learning offered by the management to promote quality work performance
Grasping opportunities offered by the management in the context of improving knowledge and skills
Relation among staff member
Setting up learning organization
Setting up knowledge community
Strengthen cooperation in team
Building up network of experts
4. Coordination and game phase: to seek feasible changes among the desirable changes. Feasible changes in desirable changes of every interests group are those that are consistent with game equilibrium. In this stage two coalitions formed in the interests groups.
5. Actions to improve the problem situation, action scheme for the desirable and feasible changes were implemented. The implemented changes if it has been successful that it was able to meet the desired outcome or it may need further improvement but that that may not mean it is incorrect. However, if it’s effective, it will be innovated to meet the changing demands of the workforce and if it needs further improvement this will be reassess to know the flaws and be discarded if other possible measures exceed it; undergoing again with the processes that will probably change the opinion about what problem they were really trying to solve.
Part B: section (i)
The following are the theoretical concepts that I think, underpins the methodology I have chosen in part A, which is soft systems methodology. The forms of soft system description are very manifold. Checkland introduced the idea of (1) “rich pictures” – illustrative description of the problem situation. It usually means combination of schemas and iconic drawings. The thoughts are represented as pictures, not words, they have rich predicative value and if well used, rich pictures are very strong language for soft system description. For their criterion there are no strict rules and the author must know what he wants to catch. It is important to note the difference between rich picture and formal models. The rich picture does not attempt to model the system in any precise way. It provides a representation of how we can look at and think about the system (Couprie, D. et al, 2005). It can be refined as our understanding of the system becomes clearer, and what we want becomes clearer. Rich Pictures should represent structure, processes and issues of the organization which could be relevant to the problem definition, and try to give an impression of the organizational climate. In the first two steps of the SSM, rich pictures (Pešl, J & Hřebiček, 2003) are often used, only when we know the following: (1) what kinds of resources are used in the processes, (2) how to plan these processes, (3) the organization structure, (4) the neighborhood of the system which can affect it, (5) how are the processes controlled and monitored.
The third phase is denoted as basic definition of relevant system. The purpose of the (2) root definition is to express the core purpose of some purposeful activity system (Checkland, P. & Scholes, J. 1990). It is important that attention is paid into the development of root definitions. Properly written root definitions provide a much simpler insight into building system models. The root definition should reflect the aspects denoted by acronym CATWOE (Checkland, 1980); Customer – refer to any one who may gain benefits from a system (the whole organization team). Actors transform inputs into outputs and they perform the activities defined in the system, these are usually done by the staff members. Transformation process could be observed through the conversion of inputs these are the desired action plans that is to be implemented. (3) Weltanschauung (German word for world view), that makes the processes meaningful in context. Soft systems Methodology (Checkland, 1984) have a great possibility to enrich this subjective inquiry in TA to describe behaviour. SSM can help an actor/agent reveal a specific Weltasnhuuug, derive a conceptual model and then can make a subjective inquiry of the real world with it. SSM promotes never ending (4) learning cycles which are inherently required in a spiral model of fountain model of object orientation (Kosaka, T.) The learning cycle of SSM brings to the perception of people, emerging and changing behaviour, which in turn gradually change object behaviour in information systems as serving / server systems. Owner refers to the proprietor of the system and lastly, Environmental constraints are the external element that must be considered includes organizational policies as well as legal and ethical matters. These are important things to account for in documenting the system. The transformation and world view make the core of CATWOE. The two meld together. Every activity can be expressed in many ways, using different world views. It is a good idea that different world views are used to develop different root definitions (Couprie, D. et al, 2005).
According to Kosaka, a SSM Conceptual model as a (5) human activity system (people working together to achieve something) leads to human behavior to reach a specific state of a served/client system to achieve a goal, and then in turn leads to the required behaviour of objects within the serving / server system. In particular most people assumed that all members of the organization accept goals that are set by top management, but this is not usually the case. For example, organizational goals, these are the product of collaboration between top management and the rest of the team in line to keep the firm growing. Since, the organization system comprises of the continual interaction among clearly bounded interests group; therefore, the whole organization is a reflection of human interactions.
Part B: section (ii)
In this paper, I recognize organic metaphor and open system methodology are the most important points. Firstly, the organic metaphor offers a symbiotic environment. As what I have mentioned in Part A section (i), it emphasizes on adaptation and survival. Merely, the whole system is on proactive change. Ergo, it allows changes from different perspectives that are coming from the different interest groups (see figure 2). Like, in policy implantation which it entails the whole organization; it is initiated from the top and allows employee involvement. It also aims of knowing what are the desirable and feasible changes that shall occur within the system, these in return, would encourage managers to be more open, participative and cooperative with dealings with problems and making decisions that benefits the whole organization. The organic system allows activities such as bench marking and collaborative decision making, mainly in the image of teamwork (as I have mentioned in part A section (i) – these shall encourage in bringing the managers closer to the staff members thus, encouraging them to share and discuss problems and issues that they may likely feel committed to joint decisions. On the other hand, soft systems methodology provides a framework for unstructured problems; the way of dealing with problem situations in which there is a high human activity component especially, in an industrial firms where in it allows the organization to look into the underlying nature of the presented problem in undergoing the steps of SSM. SSM also supports the main ideology of organic system where in, it caters debates or discussions between actors or interest groups in the presented problem. In it also, SSM allows the organization to use specific techniques for a clearer view on the problem such as rich pictures, root definition using the CATWOE and etc; that may help them identify desirable and feasible changes that in return, can allow them to integrate actions fitted for the situation though it’s a long term process; team effort generated are worthy for its outcome.
Part B: section (iii)
Among the five disciplines of Senge (1990) that is essential for the creation of learning organizations, I have chosen building shared vision and team learning. Building shared vision - Peter Senge starts from the position that if any one idea about leadership has inspired organizations for thousands of years, ‘it’s the capacity to hold a share picture of the future we seek to create’ (1990: 9). This can be seen during bench marking were in individuals from different interest groups are able to explain their ideas that are in line with their goals. In their discussion, it allows them to see individual efforts that encourage commitment among them. As people talk, the vision grows clearer. As it gets clearer, enthusiasm for its benefits grow’ (ibid. 227). It is also noted that individual in the workforce are willing to cooperate in the upcoming changes in spite of contradictory ideas for in the essence of progress and success. The shifting environment suppresses resistances thus; increases motivational impact the vision to fruition.
Team Learning, Such learning is viewed as ‘the process of aligning and developing the capacities of a team to create the results its members truly desire’ (Senge 1990: 236). This can be exemplified in teamwork, since, teams not only work together they too think together. The unified act allows them to exert more effort; this does not tell us that conflicts are avoided, conflicts does still exist but in a productive way. How? By continuous interactions between people that allows the group to grow. The discipline of team learning starts with ‘dialogue’, the capacity of members of a team to suspend assumptions and enter into a genuine ‘thinking together’ (Senge 1990: 10).When dialogue is joined with systems thinking, Senge argues, there is the possibility of creating a language more suited for dealing with complexity, and of focusing on deep-seated structural issues and forces rather than being diverted by questions of personality and leadership style.
0 comments:
Post a Comment