A Case Study in the Use of Soft Systems ... - Semantic Scholar

Agricultural Systems 30 (1989) 351-367

A Case Study in the Use of Soft Systems Methodology: Restructuring an Academic Organisation to Facilitate the Education of Systems Agriculturalists*

R o b e r t D. M a c a d a m & R o g e r G. P a c k h a m Hawkesbury Agricultural College, Richmond, NSW, Australia (Received 7 June 1988; revised version received l November 1988; accepted 20 December 1988)

ABSTRACT A programme of reform of educational programs began at Hawkesbu O' Agricultural College in 1978. The new programs are based on experiential learning and systems thinking and practice and are a major departure from the previous didactic and discipline-based curricula. Problems associated with servicing the needs of the new curricula and dissatisfaction with attempts to overcome them led to a series of situation improving projects in 1983-4 that led to a radical restructuring of the School of Agriculture in 1985. The projects were guided by soft systems methodology. The projects and a subsequent evaluation of the changes are described. The way soft systems methodology and associated techniques were used to guide the process is included, and an assessment of their usefulness made by the authors.

INTRODUCTION The School of Agriculture at Hawkesbury Agricultural College with 40 academic staff and 480 students, was one o f the largest and oldest in Australia until it was split into separate Faculties of Agriculture and Horticulture in 1987. In 1978 a new Head of School was appointed and a series o f decisions on major reforms of the School's programs were made. * This paper is based on one presented at the Australian Society for Operations Research Conference, Adelaide, 1985. 351 Agricultural Systems 0308-52 IX/89/$03"50 © 1989 ElsevierSciencePublishers Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain

352

Robert D. Macadam, Roger G. Packham

The aim was to produce a graduate who would be an effective problemsolver and situation improver in the complex and dynamic world of modern agriculture. The new programs emphasise systems thinking and practice and the development of students as problem-solvers, learners and communicators. The graduates are systems agriculturalists and Bawden & Valentine (1984) have defined their attributes and Bawden et al. (1984) have described the framework of systems thinking and educational principles that underpins the programs, and the way it has been applied. Macadam & Bawden (1985) have outlined the rationale for the change and reflected on the change process. The programs are based on the concept of experiential learning (Kolb, 1984; Bawden, 1985) and situation-improving projects undertaken by students and staff are the core of the programs. The projects are centered on real rather than contrived problem situations in agriculture. A useful concept for organising the programs has been that of a hierarchy of problem-solving methodologies for situations of increasing complexity and ambiguity and Fig. 1 illustrates this concept. The situations at the top of the hierarchy are 'soft situations' as defined by Checkland (1972, 1981). The methodology developed by Checkland and his colleagues at the University

PROBLEM FOCUS

CLASSIFICATION

OUTCOMES

1 Given this complex problem situation, how can I improve the sttuatlon9

Sort Systems Research

Client (Learner) Sahsfactlon

2 Given this system, how can I ophmlse ~ts performance 9

Hard Systems Research

Performance Optlmlsatlon

3 Given this component, how can I improve its effectlveness~

Applied Research

Problem Resoluhon

4 Given this phenomenon, why is it SOo

Basic Research

Puzzle Resolution

Fig. 1. A hierarchy of problem-solving methodologies (from Bawden et al., 1985).

353

A case stud)' in the use oJ soft systems methodology

I Implemented I

The Changes

f

O.b.,. o°....O,e Desirable Cha.g.

and

'

^ Z k

/

/

The Problem j I Situation I Unstructured b ......

~ \

. .xper,..o.

/

\ N ~

/ / experimentation

k I

active

[I

%1 %.

\~

" I reflective

ob. . . . tions

.

l

.

conceptualisation

.

\ \"~ "~

Th. S,tuat,o. A..Ivsed RiCh Picture ~ 1

lay nt Systems

/~, ~

-

~

~C.j

I

IF l'h m'll'h 'n'11

/

abstract

.

~

O, nton

, , : Root

Fig. 2. The relationship betweenlearning(innercircle)and the Lancaster methodology,for problem-solving(outer circle) (from Bawden et aL, 1985). of Lancaster for approaching these situations fits well within the Hawkesbury paradigm and Fig. 2 shows the relationship between the experiential learning cycle and soft systems methodology. This paper will focus on the use of the methodology to facilitate organisational changes needed to accommodate the new programs.

THE SITUATION At an early stage in the review initiated in 1978 the Head of School had foreshadowed a need to review the management and structure of the School to more closely reflect the functions that would emerge. In 1979 he recommended the abolition of the existing discipline-based departments and they were four Centres which were, however, still primarily discipline-based, viz.: Engineering, Horticulture, Animal Production and Plant Production. From 1979 to 1983 the emphasis in the School was on the design, conduct and evaluation of new undergraduate and graduate programs. By 1983 there was a chronic sense of dissatisfaction among staff and students with the way the School was meeting the needs generated by the new programs. During this period there was an increasing awareness of the need for more radical changes in the way the School was organised and managed. No-one, however, took the initiative to launch a major review. This was probably a reflection of the magnitude and complexity of the task, an awareness of the latent depth of feeling around the issties involved, and an inability to articulate how the review would be done and to what end.

354

Robert D. Macadam, Roger G. Packham

As a result of a series of initiatives taken during 1983~,, however, a consensus was reached and decisions made on a major re-structuring of the School. The change process was guided by soft systems methodology and can be viewed in retrospect as three sequential projects.

P R O J E C T 1 - - P R O B L E M S I T U A T I O N A N D INITIAL ANALYSIS The starting point for the project was dissatisfaction among both technical support staffand academic staffwith the situation surrounding the provision of technical services for the programs. Numerous attempts had been made to solve problems associated with technical services, but none had resulted in any lasting improvement. As such the issue was typical. Early in 1983 a School Co-ordinating Group was formed in an attempt to more effectively allocate resources and co-ordinate activities within the School. In July 1983 the Group agreed to ask students enrolled in the Bachelor's program to analyse the situation surrounding the provision of technical services. This was a response to the realisation that: • • • • •

problems associated with this issue were deep-seated; a detailed analysis of the situation was needed; the staff resources to do it were not available; students were an untapped resource; it would be a vote of confidence in the concept that learning in the School's programs be based on attempting to solve real rather than contrived problems; • it would promote the concept of staff and students being co-learners; • there was a desire among some group members to put systems methodology into practice in solving our own problems. Senior under-graduate students were invited to 'contract' with the School Co-ordinating Group to do the analysis. One of the authors had an interest in, and some experience with, soft systems methodology and agreed to act as a resource person to the student group. Five students volunteered. The students' analysis was guided by the questions (Checkland, 1972): 1.

2.

What resources are deployed in what operational processes under what planning procedures within what structures in what environments and wider systems, by whom? How is the resource deployment monitored and controlled?

The analysis by the students involved a comprehensive series of interviews with technical, academic and administrative staff within the School of Agriculture and the College as a whole. They carried out the task in a

A case stud), in the use of soft systems methodology

355

sensitive and professional manner and continued until they considered they could adequately answer the guiding questions. The results were presented in a report to the School Co-ordinating Group in December 1983 (Evans et al., 1983). A technique outlined by Barnett & Mackness (1983) was used to illustrate the situation they had encountered and to synthesise the symptoms and lesser problems into a core problem. This is reproduced in Fig. 3.

PROJECT 2 - - D E F I N I T I O N A N D D E V E L O P M E N T OF C O N C E P T U A L MODELS A N D F U R T H E R ANALYSIS Members of the School Co-ordinating Group responded in different ways to the report. All agreed it was an accurate reflection of the situation. Some, unaware of the nature of the methodology, were looking for recommendations to accept or reject. Others were uncomfortable with the realisation that students were as aware of the situation as they obviously were. There was, however, a willingness to continue with the use of the methodology and the group let a contract in February 1984 to the two authors of this paper, and a group of five senior under-graduates. The focus of this project was to be the definition and development of conceptual models (Smyth & Checkland, 1976; Checkland, 1979) to improve the situation the students had reported on. Whereas the students had been the main actors in the first project the staff members played this role in the second project---contributing factors being student preoccupation with preparations for their assessment for graduation in July 1984, and the technical nature of the modelling techniques, with which the students had had no experience. In terms of the Checkland methodology Project 1 was based on steps 1 and 2 in Fig. 2, and Project 2 on steps 3, 4 and 5. One of the lessons learned, however, was that although the methodology appears to be a series of sequential steps this is not the case. The authors and students found themselves moving constantly from conceptualisation to analysis to comparison, and vice versa. Accompanying this was increasing comprehension and insight. They often found themselves retracing their steps as their awareness grew. Initially the aim was to define and develop a conceptual model of a system to focus debate on means of improving the technical services situation. The final result, however, was not one, but six, models, with technical services subsumed within them. Project 2 culminated in a report (Macadam & Packham, 1984) which contained an analysis of the situation in the School of Agriculture and its environment, the conceptual models, a comparison of the models with the situation revealed in the analysis and the insights the authors had gained in

Techn!cal staff don't have a strong commitment to the new programmes and are not well informed about them

Feehng among technical staff that they are second class citizens relative to academic staff

Pervasive feeling among academic and technical staff that 'technical resources' are not being used effectively

Belief among many technical staff that students are poorly trained in science areas compared with old programmes

Confusion about what constitutes technical services and who are technical staff.

Under utlhSatlon of lab. facilities

Ad hoc and erratic demands for technical services

t,

*hierarchical and dependent relationship between academic and technical staff.

*reduced emphasis on work done in past and uncertainty about what is required in new programmes.

*lack of structured practical classes In laboratories in new programmes and reduced emphasis on science subject matter.

*break-down of the subiect-matter specialisatlon characte/'isttc of old programmes.

due to j *their not being involved as =l members of course teams

due to

due to

due to

due to

*reduced emphasis on structured practical classes in laboratories,

| *laboratory organisatlon not yet compatible with new programmes

due to 4 ~

I

due to ~1 *lack of experience with q the new programmes

I

E

L

Symptom of

Symptom of I

• Lack of participation o f the technical staff in the design and planning/evaluation of the new Programmes

• Ill defined purpose of technical services in the new programmes

• The Innovative nature of the new programmes and the uncertainty this entads

Symptom of

1~

~'

Symptom of

THE RATE OF ADJUSTMENT IN THE: PROVISION OF TECHNICAL SERVICES NOT KEEPING PACE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW PROGRAMMES THE ORE PROBLEM"

0~

o~

Poor cross-use of tech resources between Schools

Uneven use of technical services by academic staff

Distrust among staff in PPC and Hort. Centres over access to and utihsatlon of techmcal resources

Low morale of techmcal staff m PPC and Hort. Centre.

Peaks and troughs in demand for resources In different centres, but resources not moved between centres to even thts out

Poor maintenance of some fdCllllles

Poor cross-use of faclhtles between Centres

due to

due to

due to

due to

due to

due to

due to

l F i g . 3.

A synthesis

Symptom of

• Lack of mechanisms for setting School priorities for tech ser'~lces, allocating resources, monitoring and controlling their use

• Lack of mechamsm for setting College priorities for technical services, allocating resources, monitoring and conlrolhng their use

Symptom of

• Laissez falre leadership and poorly developed system of accountabdlty

Symptom of

Symptom of ~1

of the core problem.

*lack of a co-originating mechanism

*School rather than College orientation,

*differences between the nature of progrdmmes,

*confusion over the rights and obligations of academic and technical staff in relation to requests for technical services

*perceived 'sweet-heart" deals and favouritlsm,

*uncertainty about what is required

"1 *lack of feed-back,

*lack of recognition for effort,

*Centre rather than School-based orientation.

*no mechanism for co-ordinating resources across School:

*lack of reformation about resources in the different Centres and what use is being made of them.

2 e~

358

Robert D. Macadam, Roger G. Packham

the process. It again contained no recommendations and was presented to the School Co-ordinating Group as a basis for debate within the School in July 1984. In the report on technical services in Project 1 the authors (Evans et al., 1983) came to the conclusion the core problem was that the 'rate o f adjustment in the provision of technical services was not keeping pace with the development of the new programs'. Macadam & Packham found that in [ n f o r ~ t l o n about the state o[ ~ r i c u l t u r e . programl~ opportunles m reputation of School

In[oration directions

i

, I I t

?'

'i' .....

lnter[xcin| & Policy-ikln~ sub-l~ltem ~ n i t o r s envlron~nt

i I ik

Responslblllty and a c c o u n t a b i l l t a11ocatln 8 sub-system decides otsanlsatlonal structure, defines

snd perfor~nce of system and d e c i d e s o n t h e n a t u r e a n d mix of programes,

\

a b o u t College Pollcy, from Principal, authority

allocates s t a f f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , ~nitors performnces and h o l d s staff accountable.

1 t

....

/// [

~ t l o c a t i n i and c o - o r d l n m t l n ~ sub-lystem monitors n e e

d i ~

allocates r e s o u r c e s a n d co-ordinates a c t i v i t i e s across

_~.

s i I i IServices

/, --

Support Services provldla support

lnfor~tlon about effectiveness and efficiency t2f programs, staff perforamnce, resource needs.

i

from

outside School

~,the

Sub-System services

to

staff and students

School

i

\'\.

: L

A c a d e m i c Activities S u b - S y s t e m conducts programs and learning projects and p r o v i d e q An a p p r o p r i a t e learning environmnt.

x

I

1

.°

Improvements in the state agriculture, learning.

lniormation from profession/academic sources

of

academic reputation

SS~ Inputs

& Outputs

Information

.-lm-

Instructions

.........

Services

.......... ~.,. ........ ,.~

.........

dsry ~: ::\-:,

~uth~risations

Sub-System Boundary 0

Soot D e f i n i t i o n

of System:

A CoSieR • C o u n c i l g o v e r n e d v o c a t i o n a l education system that benefits staff and s t u d e n t s by d e v e l o p i n g i t s academic reputation throush the conduct of inter-

dependent

learning projects that lead to

the llprovement o f the stats of ssricuiture and the rural l e c t o r . The system i s operated by the School o[ Agriculture and tbe~Jor

constraint

on it

is society's

perception o[ t e r t i a r y education ss separate [rom the 'real' world.

Fig. 4. Conceptual model of the School of Agriculture as an educational system.

A case stud)' in the use of soft systems methodology

359

going back over this material and linking it with the wider view of the School, a different definition of the core problem emerged. This was stated as:

'There & a mbmatch between the organ&ation structure and organisation functions of the School'. (Macadam & Packham, 1984). This view was based on a realisation that problems similar to those with technical services were widespread in the School and were a result of a bureaucratic structure that was incompatible with a rapidly evolving set of educational programs where problem-solving projects were replacing data about the qtate of agriculture and the rural sector, ProRramme opportunltlen, reputation of S c h o o ] . ~

s Xl

* develop an awareness o[ trends in aSriculture and the rural sector-natlonmlly and internationally;

I

[

* develop an awareness of p o s s i b l e l e a r n / n 8 p r o j e c t s ( s i t u a t i o e s to be improved) in eBrlculture and the rural sector;

i

* develop an awareness of trends in education;

~ ~

° ~t

* monitor the reputation of the School;

~1

* evaluate the impact of learning projects on s i t u a t i o n s they were aimed a t ~ impr°vins;

% \

* evalumte the reputation of the S c h o o l ' s ~ Pr°Sramles • ~ ~ ~x

/I

Inforr~stlon about the performance of the School (to respon~Jbl|ity and accountability eub-~yqtem).

t t ~

\

~

~x

dd "'-,, ~

I n f o n u t Ion to Acacademic h c t l v l t i e l Sub-Sys tam

X ~ II

data abmJt developsment~ in

for

actlvl .......

b. . . . . . .

k

,,/I

dec I ! Ion-ask In I ~

~declalon-makln|

sub-s stem

Ixl 1

on prosranme oiferlngs,

i

develop prosra

[ l

I

I / \%

.osrs.- to

Root Definition of System;

Fig. $.

natives

* evaluate alternatives r e l a t i v e to

I

p°licy; "pl ....

lected . I . . . . .

Ires;

S Set prograwmes accredited;

de~l* ~ic~ pros . . . . . . . . . .

/ |

d.... o~.

An exterltally-oriented lymtms f o r the School Board of Studies to decide a policy f o r the academic a c t i v i t i e s of the School. The u J o r constraint bein$ the trad|tloamll? l n | u l a ~ perspective of aeadkmlic last l t u t ions 0

Conceptual model of a system to decide school policy.

)

360

Robert D. Macadam, Roger G. Packham

academic subject matter as their focus. The existing structure was based on academic disciplines and was no longer consistent with the activities occurring within it, hence the frustration with decision-making and resource allocation apparent throughout the School and documented in Project 1. The conceptual model that was developed and the root definition on which it is based is illustrated in Fig. 4. Each of the sub-systems was defined as a system and an expanded conceptual model of it developed and included in the report. The expanded model for the Interfacing and Policy-making Subsystem is shown in Fig. 5 as an example. As previously mentioned the original focus was the provision of technical services, but the authors soon realised that changes in the way support services were structured and organised was impossible without accompanying clarification of academic functions. This led to a consideration of the issues of responsibility for the organisation and activities of the School. It was becoming increasingly apparent that it was vital to think of the School as a whole; including the means by which resources were allocated, activities co-ordinated and School policy determined. It was an irony that the last system to be defined was that of the School as a whole. In spite of determining the need for a systems approach to tackle the problem of technical services, the investigators were led only slowly to the point of widening the boundary of their focus, to view the School as a system.

PROJECT 3 - - D E B A T E A B O U T DESIRABLE A N D FEASIBLE CHANGE The report on Project 2 was the basis for a third project based on the three final steps in the methodology (Fig. 2). The investigators were, however, nonplussed by their inability to decide on a means of initiating and orchestrating the debate. In particular, there appeared to be no way of terminating the debate and getting decisions made. The reasons emerged in subsequent discussions with the Head of School. The report implied a need for fundamental change and had served to raise the level of tension within the staff group between those who favoured change and those who were opposed or uncertain. The Head of School was not a member of the School Co-ordinating Group which had sponsored the two earlier projects, but was ultimately responsible for what happened in the School. Without his support there was little prospect of change or even of serious debate about the possibility of it. Conversely, although sympathetic to the thrust of the report and the process it was based on, he was concerned that the debate would be difficult to focus. The issue was one of

A case study in the use o f soft O'stems methodology

361

responsibility and the judicious use of power. As a result of the discussions that led to this insight it was decided that the Head of School would facilitate the debate around the report. The process began when he initiated and attended a series of informal lunch-time discussions with staff in the various Centres that made up the School. This took place in August and September, 1984. During this period there was little discussion of the issues at stake other than at these meetings, and the discussion at these was muted and low-key. Staff did, however, demonstrate, in honest ways, their fear of change and concern for the future with regard to personal relationships and work situations. In early October the Head of School circulated a letter to staff in which he observed: • The major sub-systems identified in the Macadam & Packham's conceptual model of the School have met with little disagreement. • The major flows of inputs and outputs between the School and its environment seem equally appropriate. • The current structural organisation of the School does not optimally reflect either the five major functional sub-systems nor the flows of resources .... He offered a re-stated version of the Root Definition of the system in Fig. 4 as:

'(A system) to develop, practice and evaluate a paradigm of learning which will act as the essential basis for sustainable improvements in agricultural and horticultural (OR rural) systems through the more reasoned management of change.' He went on to suggest that unless cause was shown why not, that this be accepted as the major function of the School. He also put forward a rough model to suggest a novel way the School might be re-structured to reflect the functions identified in the Macadam & Packham (1984) report. On 31 October an open meeting of the School was called to consider 'Changes--School of Agriculture'. The meeting was well attended and there was a sense of anticipation that the Head of School would put forward a structural model as 'the solution'. In chairing the meeting, however, he maintained the focus on the issue of the purpose of the School rather than that of structure. This caused a high level of frustration and resulted in an animated debate which continued until another open meeting was called on 28 November to consider 'School Re-organisation'. In a briefing paper for this meeting, the Head of School and Chairman of the Board of Studies put forward a generalised matrix management structural model as an

362

Robert D. Macadam, Roger G. Packham

appropriate one for a School whose purpose was now stated in the context that: "Graduates from the Hawkesbury School of Agriculture will have demonstrated their abilities to learn to take effective action at improving problem situations in agricultural systems.' Once again there was an high attendance and level of expectation. The Nominal Group Technique (Ford & Neminoff, 1975) was used to elicit, categorise and put priorities on the concerns staff had about the proposed structure. Groups formed on the basis of interest in the issues and with a brief to consider the particular issue and report to a plenary session. This process of discussing and reporting continued through the afternoon of Thursday, 28 November and at lunch-time meetings on Friday and Monday. By now it was apparent that there was an informed consensus in support of the proposed purpose and suggested structure. Although more than 20 issues were identified as important to the debate, once the key issues were resolved there was little interest in pursuing many of the others. THE CHANGES The debate within the School culminated in a formal meeting of the School Board of Studies on 5 December at which the Board made a series of recommendations to the College Council. The Council agreed to allow the School to experiment with the new structure during 1985 and subsequently gave approval for a permanent change from 1986. In essence, the Council supported the thesis that the central thrust in (systems) agriculture and horticulture education at Hawkesbury is based on the paradigm of experiential learning. It approved a matrix organisation structure to support this, as illustrated in Fig. 6. The structure nominates managers who are responsible for the key functional areas identified t h r o u g h the conceptual modelling and comparison process. It assumes a collegiate, rather than a bureaucratic organisational ethos. It is binary in the sense that the two major functional areas are management of programs and management of resources to support the programs. The conceptual models developed using soft systems methodology are potentially a powerful evaluation tool because they can be used to monitor changes over time in the functions identified within them. Wilson (1984) has developed a technique for comparing the models with the existing situation and this was used to assess the situation within the School in November 1985 and the end of the experimental period ordered by the College Council (Macadam & Packham, 1985).

A case stud), in the use of soft systems methodology

363

DEAN

-

-

MANAGER, STAFF DEVELOPMENT

I

I

ASSOCIATE DEAN (ACADEMIC)

A S S O C I A T E D E A N (RESOURCES}

PROGRAM MANAGERS (ACADEMICS)

RESOURCE MANAGERS

[ACADEMICS)

- -

POST G R A D P R O G R A M S

--

LEARNING PACKAGE DEVELOPMENT

- -

DEGREE PROGRAMS

OUTREACH

(NON A C A D E M I C S )

- -

DIPLOMA PROGRAMS

F A R M S LIAISON .

FARMS MANAGER

LAB'S L I A I S O N

TECH SERV'S MANAGER ADMIN OFFICER

Fig. 6.

The new organisational structure.

Figure 7 is an extract from the report on this. It relates to the conceptual model of a System to Decide School Policy in Fig. 5 and compares the six functions listed in the 'Interacting Sub-system' with the perceived situation within the School in November 1985. The 1985 evaluation suggested that the changes made in 1984 had been effective in clarifying the purpose of the School; articulating the systems agriculture paradigm more clearly; refining an assessment process in keeping with program aims; developing an 'off-campus' perspective among staff, with a dramatic increase in external project opportunities being accepted; and enabling better relationships with other sections of the College, particularly the administration. Major deficiencies highlighted were concerned with the provision of learning resources in a form that was compatible with the experiential learning thrust. A key area identified in the evaluation was that of staff development. Some staff were having difficulty either accepting or adapting to the demands of the new educational paradigm and this was placing strains on relationship.

Develop an awareness of possible learning projects (situations to be improved) in agriculture and the rural sector

Develop an awareness of trends in education

3.

yes

yes

yes

Develop an awareness of trends in agriculture and the rural sector --nationally and internationally

2.

Is activity being carried out?

Activity

* number of visits, conferences/workshops; * papers published and read; * quality and extent of above

* interaction with local and international institutions and key individuals

listmg of potential projects --number and variety

internal published information and levels of discussion

What is measure of performance?

* staff attending conferences and workshops;

outreach and individual initiatives

Richard Bawden and some staff are monitoring trends

How?

None

becomes a focussed and programmed activity

* hold annual review conference

* extend range of issues (Hort. Animals, Crops, etc.);

Proposed Change

h~gh level of interest and involvement throughout School

currently ad hoc and only some staff aware and participating

currently effectwe but patchy coverage of issues

Comments

e~

Monitor the reputation of the School

Evaluate the impact of learning projects on situations they were aimed at improving

Evaluate the reputation of the School's programmes

4.

5.

6.

yes

yes

yes

Fig. 7.

qualitative and quantitative levels of satisfaction of employers and graduates for each programmes

whether feedback is + V e o r - V e

extent and tone of feedback

extend formal mechanisms to UG3, PG and UG1 (Hort.) --when appropriate

to extend range of learning projects and staff involvement

Identify sectors we want a good reputation with and check their perception--take appropriate action

System to decide school p o l i c y - - a n interacting subsystem.

start made on formal UG1 evaluation and informal feedback from graduates and employers

mainly student projects, validated by hosts + staff

media exposure, letters received, phone calls, general and rural public interest

early stages--momentum must increase

staff not involved in many external situation-improving projects, mainly students at present

* not sure about some 'key" sectors

* lot of excitement about level of innovation, high profile of Richard Bawden;

t~

366

Robert D. Macadam, Roger G. Packham

Identification of these issues in this m a n n e r resulted in m a n a g e m e n t attention being focused on them, but they continue to be a source of concern. Action research projects are continuing in these areas which will lead to improvement of them and further learning about handling such complex issues.

CONCLUSION The experience described in this paper has validated the soft systems m e t h o d o l o g y for the authors. It is consistent with the emphasis on experiential learning and the facilitating of it that is at the heart of the new programs in the School of Agriculture. The m e t h o d o l o g y is essentially a learning one in which systems thinking and practice guides actors in a situation through a process of reflecting on their experience and then using concepts to consider alternative ways of proceeding. Because the concepts are based on systems thinking the effect is to have the actors consider the situation in an holistic way. The m e t h o d o l o g y stresses the need for discussion and debate a m o n g actors a r o u n d the issues and concepts. It is this disciplined interaction between concept and reality that is the means by which the actors can share in new ways of perceiving their situation and responding to it.

REFERENCES Barnett, T. R. & Mackness, J. R. (1983). An action research study of small firm management. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 10, 63-82. Bawden, R. J. (1985). Problem-based learning: An Australian Perspective. ProblemBased Learning in Education for the Professions, ed. D. Boud. H.E.R.D.S.A., Sydney. Bawden, R. J. & Valentine, I. (1984). Learning to be a capable systems agriculturalist. Programme Learning and Educational Technology, 21, 273-87. Bawden, R. J., Macadam, R. D., Packham, R. G. & Valentine, I. (1984). Systems thinking and practice in the education of agriculturalists. Jnl. Agric. Systems, 13, 205-25. Bawden, R. J., Ison, R. L., Macadam, R. D., Packham, R. G. & Valentine, I. (1985). A research paradigm for systems agriculture, In Agricultural Systems Research for Developing Countries, ed. J. V. Remenyi. ACIAR. Canberra. Checkland, P. B. (1972). Towards a systems-based methodology for real-world problem-solving. In Systems Behavior 2nd Edition, ed. J. Beishon & G. Peters. Harper & Row, London, pp. 51 77. Cheekland, P. B. (1979). Techniques in 'Soft' Systems Practice, Part 2: Building Conceptual Models. Jnl. of Applied Systems Analysis, 6, 41-49.

A case study in the use of soft systems methodology

367

Checkland, P. B. (1981). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester. Evans, L., Thomas, P., Hincks, R., Bennett, D. & Mattner, H. (1983). An analysis of the provision of technical services within the School of Agriculture, Hawkesbury Agricultural College, Richmond, NSW. Ford, D. L. & Neminoff, P. M. (1975). Applied group problem-solving: The nominal group technique. In Annual Handbook for Group Facilitators, ed. J. W. Pfeiffer & J. E. Jones. Uni. Associates, La Jolla, California. Kolb, David (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey. Macadam, R. D. & Bawden, R. J. (1985). Challenge and response: A system for educating more effective agriculturalists. Prometheus, 3, 125-37. Macadam, R. D. & Packham, R. G. (1984). A systems Analysis of the School of Agriculture. Mimeographed report, Hawkesbury Agricultural College, Richmond, NSW. Macadam, R. D. & Packham, R. G. (1985). A Systems Analysis of the School of Agriculture, Part II. Mimeographed report, Hawkesbury Agricultural College, Richmond, NSW. Smyth, D. S. & Checkland, P. B. (1976). Using a systems approach: The structure of root definitions. Jnl. of Applied Systems Analysis, 5(1), 73-83. Wilson, B. (1984). Systems Concepts, Methodologies and Applications. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.