Synthesizing Soft Systems Methodology and Human Performance Technology Glen Scott and Donald J. Winiecki, PhD
H
Human performance technology ow we understand the world in which we (HPT), like other concepts, models, and live, and therefore organize ourselves to frameworks that we use to describe the conduct business, has changed dramatiworld in which we live and the way we organize ourselves to accomplish valucally over the past 200 years and clarifying this able activities, is built from paradigms historical lineage will allow us to make productive that were fresh and relevant at the time changes as we move forward. it was conceived and from the fields of study from which it grew. However, It is a common idea that when taking account when the frameworks used by practiof the origin of ideas, “each person is influenced by tioners grow out of similar paradigms, the intellectual spirit of the times” (Brethower, 1997, important things can be missed when designing solutions in performance p. 29). That idea holds in both the premises on which environments simply because of their ideas and concepts are built, as well as how they are practical limitations and exclusion of evaluated by others in the future. Concepts, modissues that may warrant our attention. This article looks at the paradigms most els, frameworks, or whatever you want to call what commonly used to explain performance we use to explain the world in which we live and environments, both within HPT and by the organizations for which we provide our personal those from other fields. From this a synthesized approach to solving perceived resources, are built from the paradigms that were problems in performance environments fresh and relevant at the time they were conceived. is provided that introduces Soft Systems Regardless of contemporary developments, for the Methodology to the HPT practitioner, an approach built on premises very diffield of human performance technology (HPT), and ferent from those commonly utilized in any field oriented to the development of organizaHPT frameworks. tions, those basic premises arise out of concepts from “particular point[s] in the past 200 years, in which particular values and perceived needs were incorporated into organizational designs and management methods” (Winiecki, 2010, p. 35). However, how we understand the world in which we live, and therefore organize ourselves to conduct business, has changed dramatically over those 200 years and clarifying this historical lineage will allow us to make productive changes as we move forward. Our conceptualization of the business enterprise has evolved along with our life experiences. Over those years, the concept of the business enterprise has gone from
81 P E R F O R M A N C E I M P R O V E M E N T Q U A R T E R L Y , 2 5 ( 3 ) P P. 8 1 – 1 0 5 © 2012 International Society for Performance Improvement Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/piq.21125
a very mechanistic and autocratic view—influenced by the metaphor of mechanics—to one that provided a more organic view of the organization, to what many today now view as a social system, influenced by metaphorically considering organizations as organisms (Ackoff, 2002). However, HPT may have missed this turn. As Ackoff (2002) points out, these conceptualizations have implications for how we approach change in organizations. A mechanistic view perceives the worker as an input into processes that are designed to function in a certain way, and just like any part of a mechanistic process individual actors can be removed and replaced with “better machines” for better functionality (Taylor, 1947). The organismic view perceives the organization much like a living organism, with a purpose of its own that develops organically, but exists in a larger ecology. However, even in this more organic view, parts remain determined much like the parts of a living body have predetermined purposes that serve the whole. The concept of the organization as a social system creates different challenges, challenges created internally by, for example, the increased education of the workforce and a need for increased skills, as well as externally from never-ending changes in the surrounding environment. These changes have created a workforce the members of which no longer see participation in an organization as merely a way to provide financially for their families, but expect to find purposeful fulfillment of their own needs and wants, which may extend to influences and effects their organization has on the surrounding social and physical systems in which it resides. Real-life examples of this are organizations that allow employees to leave work early on predetermined evenings so they can coach their children’s sports teams, tuition reimbursement for employees pursuing educational advancement, and companies that donate to charitable organizations based on the volunteer time contributed by their employees. This creates a shift from the mechanistic view where parts have merely a predetermined purpose that serves the whole, to the organic view where individuals have unique purposes of their own in addition to their roles within the organism, and even the possibility to operate strategically in order to produce desired outcomes. In the former, the organization is served by its members, and in the latter, the organization takes on a service role for its members even while its members continue to play their parts and the organization serves the larger systems of which it is a part. From the field of organizational sociology, Scott and Davis (2007) have identified different organizational types similar to those identified by Ackoff (2002) and arranged them into a typology that they refer to as rational, natural, and open systems. This typology allows one to classify organizational systems or their components in a way that opens them up to analysis aimed at helping them adapt to changing conditions. ♦
82
Rational systems: Like the mechanistic view, organizations viewed as a rational system are “collectivities oriented to the pursuit of relatively
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
♦
♦
specific goals and exhibiting relatively highly formalized social structures” (Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 29). The goals guide the decisions about organizational structure and design, and specify what tasks will be performed, the people who will perform the tasks, and how resources will be allocated. The formalized structure and rules governing behavior are an attempt to make behavior and outcomes more predictable and stable. The movement of individuals in and out of positions can be routinized and regularized, allowing replacement of one worker with another, similarly trained worker to occur with minimal disturbance to the function of the organization. The power and influence of leaders is determined by the definition of the office that is held, and not by their personal qualities. Natural systems: For those who view the organization as a natural system, the existence of a formalized structure is recognized, but it is believed that the formal structures designed to regulate participant behavior are greatly affected by the emergence of informal structures created by individuals because of their special qualities or interpersonal ties. These informal structures are based on the personal characteristics and relations of specific participants. There is frequently a disparity between the stated goals and the real goals that are pursued by the organization, between the official goals that are announced and the actual or operative goals that can be observed to govern activities; and even if the stated goals are visibly pursued, they are not the only goals that govern participant behavior. Highly centralized and formalized structures within organizations are viewed as ineffective and irrational because they waste the organization’s most valuable resource: the intelligence and initiative of participants. Organizations are not viewed simply as a means for achieving specified ends, but as an end in themselves. For some this is because the organization is viewed as a social system that has multiple needs that must be satisfied. Others believe participants have a vested interest in the survival of the organization, as a source of power, resources, prestige, or pleasure (Scott & Davis, 2007). Open systems: According to Scott and Davis (2007), open systems theorists maintain that “all systems are characterized by an assemblage or combination of parts whose relations make them interdependent” (p. 88). Systems vary in complexity and are based on the nature of the relations of their parts. In order to better understand system complexity, Boulding (1956) created a classification of systems based on their level of complexity, allowing us to quickly classify the system being observed. The following numbered list provides a hierarchical summary of Boulding’s system types. Most current HPT frameworks can be appropriately classified as #3, cybernetic systems.
Unlike rational and natural paradigms, which view the organization as a closed system that is largely separate from its environment, the open Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
83
systems paradigm views organizations as open to and dependent on the flows of personnel, resources, and information from outside, and at the same time, contributing to the conditions that exist outside of itself. In the open systems perspective, organizational systems are made up of subsystems as well as being contained within a larger system identified as its environment. Both subsystems and the environment in which the organization resides must be taken into account when trying to understand the organizational system. Many systems, and in particular social systems, are viewed as loosely coupled and “contain elements that are only weakly connected to others and capable of fairly autonomous actions” (Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 93). This is typified by item #7 on Boulding’s scale as shown below (Scott & Davis, 2007, p. 89). An example provided by Scott and Davis (2007) of this loose coupling pertains to individuals who make up the organization. Individuals have multiple loyalties and identities as “they join and leave or engage in ongoing exchanges with the organization depending on the bargains they can strike” (p. 31). 1. Frameworks: systems comprising static structures, such as the arrangements of atoms in a crystal or the anatomy of an animal. 2. Clockworks: simple dynamic systems with predetermined motions, such as the clock and the solar system. 3. Cybernetic systems: systems capable of self-regulation in terms of some externally prescribed target or criterion, such as a thermostat. 4. Open systems: systems capable of self-maintenance based on a throughput of resources from their environment, such as a living cell. 5. Blueprinted-growth systems: systems that reproduce not by duplication but by the production of seeds or eggs containing preprogrammed instructions for development, such as the acorn–oak system or the egg–chicken system. 6. Internal-image systems: systems capable of a detailed awareness of the environment in which information is received and organized into an image or knowledge structure of the environment as a whole, a level at which animals function. 7. Symbol-processing systems: systems that possess self-consciousness and so are capable of using language. Humans are said to function at this level. 8. Social systems: multicephalous systems comprising actors functioning at level 7 who share a common social order and culture. Social organizations operate at this level. 9. Transcendental systems: systems composed of the “absolutes and the inescapable unknowables.” So what does this all mean to the practitioner of HPT? If HPT is to be relevant to organizations today, its practitioners must understand the basis of the premises on which its frameworks are built; otherwise, we do not know what our frameworks do not tell us (Winiecki, 2010; Wittkuhn, 2006). This is the case whether a person uses Ackoff ’s (2002) historical 84
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
view of how the conceptualization of the organization has changed over time, or the typological view of organizational systems provided by Scott and Davis (2007). There are strong similarities between the two: Both ask us to consider systems in a way that has historically been left fallow in HPT.
The Need for Greater Systems Thinking in HPT One of the core premises on which HPT is built is the claim that it takes a systemic approach to successfully institute organizational change (Brethower, 1997, 2006; Chyung, 2005, 2008; Pershing, 2006; Rummler & Brache, 1995; Stolovitch & Keeps, 1999). The question posed here is: From where did our view of the organizational system originate? As Chyung (2005) points out, much of our concept of the organizational system resembles Frederick Taylor’s Scientific Management, a concept that strongly resembles Ackoff ’s (2002) mechanistic view and Scott and Davis’s (2007) rational system. Winiecki’s (2010) investigation of foundational concepts in some HPT frameworks finds that they most strongly resemble that of the rational system paradigm, with a few that contain some attributes of the natural system. What are missing are any frameworks that recognize the complexities of the open systems or social systems view. Overall, as Rowland (2007) points out, what HPT authors appear to mean by systemic thinking is “a broad view of parts, relationships, and environmental influences, not necessarily recognizing systems as human constructions” (p. 119) or even constructions that function in multifaceted ways for different constituents of the systems. That is, current HPT authors and theorists and HPT frameworks assume the organization as mechanistic, rational systems. The point is “that we can easily get trapped within the frameworks we set up to define problem definitions and hence to generate mechanically derived solutions. . . . Part of our difficulty lies in the no longer recognized assumptions or presuppositions we work with” (Glanville, 2007, p. 87). As practitioners of HPT, we need to be serious about our claim to be systemic (Wittkuhn, 2006) and shift toward ideas that account for changes in the conceptualization of systems, and the roles of organizations and their members. This does not mean throwing out what we have, but rather creating a synthesis of ideas and concepts that offer alternative views of organizational systems (Scott & Davis, 2007; Winiecki, 2010; Wittkuhn, 2006).
One Alternative: Soft Systems Methodology Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland, 1999; Checkland & Poulter, 2006, 2010) is one approach to understanding and addressing perceived problems within organizational systems that has been provided as an alternative, or additional, perspective by authors within the Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
85
HPT field (Rowland, 2007; Wittkuhn, 2006). Jang (2008) went as far as to take the first steps in exploring how some of the concepts of SSM could be used, in conjunction with Ackoff, Magidson, and Addison’s (2006) Idealized Design, to create a stronger systems approach to identifying problems, rather than the linear cause-and-effect approach historically used in gap analysis (Wittkuhn, 2006) and other aspects of HPT. One of the foundational differences between SSM and the major frameworks of HPT is the idea from HPT frameworks that a gap in performance measures is taken-as-given—that there is a gap and it needs to be closed—a very rational or mechanistic approach (Ackoff, 2002; Scott & Davis, 2007). But, as Kaufman (2010) points out, we are well advised to refrain from the notion that “the goals of business are correct and don’t have to be challenged” (p. 37), and that includes how performance is measured and accounted for and how these measures are applied (Winiecki, 2009). SSM does not take the problem as described by stakeholders as given, but instead recognizes it as a perceived problem as seen from the stakeholders’ particular worldview with the idea that there are other worldviews working within the organizational system that may be used to define the situation much differently, maybe not characterizing it as a problem at all. Ackoff, Magidson, and Addison (2006), Jang (2008), Rowland (2007), Winiecki (2007; 2010), and Wittkuhn (2006) believe these alternative views should be explored and taken into account. Any action to be taken should accommodate the people in the situation and their concerns, and account for their particular history, relationships, culture, and aspirations (Checkland, 1999; Winiecki, 2007). This approach reflects the conceptual changes that have occurred in organizational systems discussed earlier by taking into account the social nature of today’s organizations (Ackoff, 2002).
Hard Systems/Soft Systems Soft Systems Methodology was developed by Peter Checkland at Lancaster University largely due to his own disappointment with the lack of practical relevance that the literature of management sciences, then dominated by hard systems thinking, provided him while serving on the management team at Imperial Chemical Industries (Jackson, 2003). The term hard systems is a generic name provided by Peter Checkland to characterize the various systems approaches developed during and immediately after World War II for solving real-world problems. The approaches most commonly associated with hard systems as defined by Checkland are operational research, systems analysis, and systems engineering (Checkland, 1999; Checkland & Poulter, 2010; Jackson, 2003). According to Jackson (2003), hard systems thinking presupposes that problems in the real world can be effectively addressed based on the following assumptions: 86
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
1. There is a desired state of the system, and that state is known. 2. There is a present state of the system. 3. There are several alternative ways of getting from the present state to the desired state. 4. It is the role of the systems person to find the most efficient means of getting from the present state to the desired state. Based on this, hard systems approaches require the goal of the system of concern to be clearly established before any analysis can begin. But Jackson (2003) points out that: This makes it difficult even to get started in many problem situations, where multiple stakeholders bring different perceptions to bear on the nature of the system and its objectives. Hard systems thinking tends to leave the human aspect of systems aside. People are treated as components to be engineered, not as actors whose commitment must be won if solutions are to be implemented and plans realized. Hard systems thinking . . . privileges the values and interests of its clients and customers, and lends its apparent expertise to their realization. It thus gives the façade of objectivity to changes that help secure the status quo. (pp. 61–62)
This idea that the human aspect is set aside in hard systems thinking is brought home by Rummler and Brache (1995) when they point out that: “It is interesting to describe an organization as a culture, a set of power dynamics, or a personality. However, it is essential at some point to describe what it does and how it does it” (p. 13). To this end, Rummler and Brache (1995) may have it backwards when it comes to actually working with and on an organization as a dynamic system embedded in social as well as strictly functional systems. Checkland viewed this as inadequate in the actual practice of management, which he believed to be more about relationship building. Unlike hard systems thinking, which “wants to produce objective results, free from the taint of personality and vested interests” (Jackson, 2003, p. 60), in SSM the world is viewed as very complex, problematical, mysterious, and characterized by clashes of differing worldviews. “It is continually being created and recreated by people thinking, talking and taking action” (Checkland & Poulter, 2010, p. 199). When dealing with human activity systems, which organizations are, the impact of personalities and personal interests cannot be ignored or engineered. They are part of the complexity that makes up everyday life in the modern organization that most resembles a social system. To best sum it up, a hard systems thinker perceives the world as one where systems reside and that can be engineered to accomplish the desired goals; and, if engineered correctly, the people working within those systems will behave in such a way as to optimize performance. From a soft systems view, the world is made up of people who carry with Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
87
them a history “which determines, for a given group of people, both what will be noticed as significant and how what is noticed will be judged” (Checkland, 1999, p. A15). This means any given situation in the life of an organization will be perceived differently by different people and is always in a state of flux, creating a real world that is complex, confusing, and always evolving. As the open system holds promise to allow new organizational structures to be formed, it is appropriate to investigate the potential of SSM to facilitate the sort of systems thinking and systems doing that can help HPT do its job.
The Soft Systems Approach to Problematic Situations The Basic Premises of SSM Wittkuhn (2006) pointed out with regard to HPT that there are some basic premises about people and organizations that must be expressed in order to fully understand the Soft Systems Methodology: 1. When dealing with human activity systems, people act purposefully upon real-world situations. 2. The purposeful action taken by individuals, or a group of individuals, is based on a particular worldview. This worldview may vary within the same system or among its subsystems. 3. An individual’s, or group of individuals’, worldview is developed over time by the history experienced and/or shared. Whereas these worldviews may become stable over time, because they are based on experienced history, they can also evolve over time as new experiences become relevant. 4. It is the concept of differing worldviews that is most important to understanding the complexity of human situations. 5. Because of the complexity of human situations, which make the systems within which humans act mysterious and nearly impossible to engineer, SSM seeks to provide a system of inquiry that can be applied to perceived problematic situations. 6. Based on this idea, systems models are no longer used as descriptions of something in the real world, but as devices based on particular worldviews to organize debate about changes that may bring about improvement. Under SSM, systems models become “tools to think with” rather than objective categorization systems. 7. Through this system of inquiry the practitioner can help people acting within a given problematic situation to discover possible solutions that are both arguably desirable and socially feasible (Checkland, 1999; Checkland & Poulter, 2010; Jackson, 2003). A key difference provided here between hard systems and soft systems is the inclusion of human relationships and worldviews. While the 88
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
core concept of what a system is and properties that make it a system may be agreed upon, any picture of a specific system one draws up is taken from a particular worldview of that system, its goals, its structure, its properties, its activities, and its outcomes. This means there will always be a number of worldviews that can be taken into account, which will lead to a number of relevant models on which to base discussion surrounding the perceived problematic situation (Checkland & Poulter, 2010). As Checkland and Poulter (2010) point out: These purposeful activity models can never be descriptions of [part of ] the real world. Each of them expresses one way of looking at and thinking about the real situation, and there will be multiple possibilities. So how can such models be made useful? The answer is to see them as devices [intellectual devices] which are a source of good questions to ask about the real situation, enabling it to be explored richly. (p. 204, parenthetic comments added)
The Process of SSM The process of SSM is a learning cycle, and takes an individual, or group of individuals, from the identification of a perceived problematic situation to defining it and taking action to improve it. This cycle involves four kinds of activity (Checkland & Poulter, 2010, p. 207): 1. Discovery of the initial situation perceived as problematic. 2. Development of purposeful activity models built from a particular worldview and judged to be relevant to the situation for the purpose of discussion and/or debate (intellectual devices). 3. Active participation in structured discussion/debate using the activity models. 4. Defining and taking action to improve the perceived problem situation that is both arguably desirable and socially feasible. Figure 1 provides a representation of SSM’s learning cycle. While the previous description and the representation provided in Figure 1 may give an impression of a prescribed sequence of steps, once an investigation into a problematic situation begins using SSM, activities within one or more steps will most likely be occurring at the same time, as depicted in Figure 2. Checkland and Poulter (2010) identify four ways of discovering and learning about the problematic situation in question: (a) making rich pictures, (b) Analysis One (the intervention), (c) Analysis Two (social), and (d) Analysis Three (political). These are both resources for helping the analyst understand aspects of the system that may be missed otherwise, and at the same time subject those resources to analysis. Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
89
From Checkland, P. (1999). Systems thinking, systems practice (Figure A1, p. A9). Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Adapted with permission.
FIGURE 1.
INQUIRING/LEARNING CYCLE OF SSM
Rich Pictures. The use of rich pictures to depict the activity involved in a system of any kind is a core tool for any kind of systems thinking, hard or soft. To attempt to depict the activity of a system in words is to most certainly leave out the relational nuances of how the activity occurs. Meadows (2008) points out that: Words and sentences must, by necessity, come only one at a time in linear, logical order. Systems happen all at once. They are connected not just in one direction, but in many directions simultaneously. To discuss 90
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
Adapted from Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2010). Soft systems methodology (Figure 5.10, p. 208). In M. Reynolds & S. Howell (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 191–242). London, UK: Springer. © 2010 With kind permission from Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
FIGURE 2.
TYPICAL PATTERN OF ACTIVITY DURING AN SSM INVESTIGATION
them properly, it is necessary somehow to use a language that shares some of the same properties as the phenomena under discussion. (p. 5)
Within the soft systems methodology rich pictures are used to help understand the problematic situation under investigation from the various worldviews involving the structure, processes, and human decisions that influence the outcomes. Comparing the rich pictures of activity models derived from the worldviews of the stakeholders provides important questions for discussion, debate, and discovery. Analysis One (the Intervention). With Analysis One (the intervention), Checkland and Poulter (2010) identify three elements that are brought together when trying to improve a problematic situation with the use of SSM: (a) the methodology, (b) the use of the methodology by a practitioner, and (c) the situation. The practitioner adapts the principles and techniques of the methodology to address the particular situation. Three key roles that are always present in such situations, and must be identified, are: 1. The client: The person or group who caused the intervention to happen. 2. The practitioner: The person or group conducting the investigation. 3. The issue’s stakeholders: The list of people regarded as being concerned about or affected by the situation and the outcome of the Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
91
effort to improve it. This list is from where the ideas about relevant worldviews and models will be derived. Analysis Two (Social). Analysis Two (social) is an area of much discussion but little understanding. It is a big reason for the complexity of human activity systems and one of the elements ignored by hard systems thinking. As Checkland and Poulter (2010) point out: The Management Science Field . . . tries to get by through concentrating almost entirely on the logic of situations, even though the motivators of much human action lie outside logic, in cultural norms or emotions. So, if we are to be effective in social situations, we have to take “culture” seriously and decide what we mean by it. (p. 213)
Figure 3 provides a diagram of the three elements identified by Checkland and Poulter (2010) that help create the social texture of a human situation. Within this model of social texture, the elements are defined as follows: ♦
♦
♦
Roles: The social positions that mark differences between members of a group or organization. These can be formally assigned and recognized, or informal roles that develop over time. Norms: The expected behaviors associated with, and helping to define, a particular role. We expect people to act in particular ways based on their role in the workplace or in society as a whole. Values: The standards, or criteria, by which behaviors within a particular role are judged (Checkland & Poulter, 2010). We judge a person’s effectiveness in a role not only by the outcomes generated, but by whether their behaviors meet the criteria we would expect to observe based on their role in the organization or society as a whole.
Analysis Three (Political). In Analysis Three (political), power is identified and explained through the metaphor of commodities held by particular individuals. The goal is to begin to identify commodities held in a particular situation by an individual that signal the possession of power. These may include a particular role one occupies, personal charisma, membership in a particular group or on a particular committee, regular access to powerful people within the organization, having particular intellectual authority and/or reputation, control of and/or access to particular information, and claims on status symbols like titles, corner offices, assistants, and so forth. Once you begin to identify these commodities of power, then you want to begin to identify what the processes are for obtaining, using, protecting, defending, passing on, and relinquishing these commodities. 92
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
Adapted from Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2010). Soft systems methodology (Figure 5.15, p. 215). In M. Reynolds & S. Howell (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 191–242). London, UK. Springer. © 2010 With kind permission from Springer Science + Business Media B.V.
FIGURE 3.
SSM’S MODEL FOR SOCIAL TEXTURE OF A HUMAN SITUATION
The information gathered in phases Analysis Two and Analysis Three allow one to begin to map the contextual nuances of a particular cultural setting. This information is used to help the practitioner understand what may or may not be socially feasible as a solution to the problematic situation under investigation. Creating Purposeful Activity Models As stated previously, the purpose of creating purposeful activity models that depict the problematic situation from the various worldviews of the issue owners is to use them as a basis for asking questions that can help identify accommodations that are arguably desirable and socially feasible. Since each model is created according to a particularly declared worldview, any single model is only one way of looking at the complex reality of the given situation. As such, they exist merely as devices to make sure “the learning process is not random, but organized, one which can be recovered and reflected on” (Checkland & Poulter, 2010, p. 218). Altogether, however, assembling an understanding of a problematic situation from multiple vantage points allows the analyst to more fully understand, think through, and in turn intervene in that situation in a manner that is both desirable and feasible. In order to help the process of developing purposeful activity models as viewed through the perspective of a particular worldview, the practitioner Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
93
must begin with the development of a root definition of the situation. The guidelines for developing this root definition, as provided by Checkland and Poulter (2010), are as follows: 1. Answer the What? How? Why? questions involving the human activity involved in the problematic situation by use of the PQR formula. According to this formula, a person or group does P, by Q, in order to achieve R, where PQR answer the questions: What? How? Why? 2. Utilizing the information gathered by asking the questions provided in the PQR formula allows the practitioner to then write out the root cause as a statement. This root cause statement describes the purposeful activity being modeled as a transformation process where some entity is transformed into a different state. Whether the purposeful activity is concrete or abstract, the idea of transformation always holds. 3. The mnemonic CATWOE (Customers, Actors, Transformation process, Worldview, Owner, and Environment) is used as a general reference for elements necessary in the creation of any purposeful activity model. The basic idea here is that purposeful activity defined by a transformation process (T) and a particular worldview (W): a. b. c. d.
Requires people (A) to do the activities that make the transformation (T). This transformation will affect other people (C) outside of the process in a way that either benefits them or victimizes them. The environment (E) provides various constraints from outside the process. Any of this could be stopped or changed by a person or group of people (O) regarded as the owner(s).
Also helpful during this process is to consider how the performance of this transformation will be measured or judged. Three criteria always relevant are: efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness (where efficacy tells us whether the transformation is producing its intended outcome, and effectiveness tells us whether it is helping us achieve some higher-level or longer-term aim). Some circumstances may also include elegance and ethicality. 4. Make the distinction between Primary Task (PT) and Issue-based (IB) definitions. Issue-based definitions involve purposeful activities that “cut across organizational boundaries” (Checkland & Poulter, 2010, p. 223). As a general rule, investigations should always include a mixture of both types. 5. Once the previous tasks have been completed, step five is to begin developing the conceptual models. While flexibility is sometimes
94
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
warranted, Checkland and Poulter (2010) provide the following as an example sequence that has worked for them: a.
Assemble the guidelines included in the PQR formula, the root definition, CATWOE, etc.
b.
Write down three types of activities: i.
Those that concern the thing being transformed
ii. Those that do the transforming iii. Those dealing with the transformed entity c.
Connect the activities using arrows to indicate dependency of one activity upon another.
d.
Add the monitoring control activities.
e.
Check the model against the guidelines assembled in (a) above to insure every phrase in the root definition leads to something in the model, and every activity in the model can be linked back to something in the guidelines.
Once conceptual activity models have been developed from the various worldviews identified as belonging to issue owners, a process of discussion/debate can be pursued that leads to accommodations that are arguably desirable and socially feasible. These are not compromises, but accommodations, implying that a solution is found that all involved can live with. Any accommodation involving change in human activity situations includes changes to structures, processes, or procedures; and most likely includes all three (Checkland & Poulter, 2010). The activity models thus produced are oriented not only to the rationalized idealized way the system should operate, but also to the ways the system does operate, all with a focus on understanding the system, its members, and contingencies faced by the system and its members.
Synthesizing Soft Systems Methodology and HPT Wittkuhn (2006) points out that his challenge for practitioners of HPT to look beyond their own frameworks based on similar premises and to those like SSM that view the organization and its systems from a different paradigm is not to say our current frameworks should be abandoned. Rather, it is to provide us with more alternatives, to be able to see things that may be obscured by our current frameworks. Scott and Davis (2007) argue that, while all three of the organizational systems paradigms (rational, natural, and open) are built on different premises, organizations that exist in the real world must probably contain features of all three.
Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
95
By synthesizing the methodologies of SSM with the frameworks of HPT we can begin to approach problematic situations in a way that exposes the complexity of human activity systems and how differing worldviews can limit the success of our interventions if they are not taken into account, all without losing the strength current HPT models provide. In other words, synthesizing SSM into HPT frameworks and practices will allow us to build upon the historical basis of rational systems but modify it in order to accommodate what is now understood to be a more globalized and interconnected world. We hazard that most HPT practitioners take the problem description provided by the client as given and right and then seek to change behavior to recover the desired state. By integrating SSM methodologies into the process of inquiry, we can account for the human aspect of the activity systems in which we interface, including the social and political elements of the organization and local environment that may otherwise cause rationalized efforts to fall short of our desired result. One example of synthesizing SSM with commonly known HPT models is through its use in conjunction with the Behavior Engineering Model (BEM) (Gilbert, 1996). By beginning with the methodologies set forth by SSM we learn about the complexity and social context involved in the problematic situation. Many worldviews are taken into account and modeled so that they can be more broadly understood. With root definitions and activity models developed reflecting the various worldviews involved in the problematic situation, enlightened discussions can occur that move toward accommodation. This is often where the BEM can be very effective with helping those involved in the conversation understand the environmental and personal repertory elements that impact a given performance situation. Accommodations can be effectively framed using HPT frameworks such as BEM, but with a better understanding of how those accommodations will be received based on the knowledge acquired through the methodologies of SSM. Whereas the boxes of the BEM help us understand the environmental and personal repertory elements of performance behavior and how certain interventions, if done correctly, can have a diffusion of effect on other elemental boxes, Soft Systems Methodologies provide us with the understanding of what is happening between and on the lines that divide the boxes through our understanding of the differing worldviews and the social and political context of the organization.
Effectiveness of a New-Hire Training Program in a Sales Organization: Case Example To show how SSM and HPT frameworks work in synthesis we provide the following example. A sales organization began a new-hire training program 2 years ago. Prior to this training program, managers hired and trained members 96
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
of their own sales team individually. Because the managers had varying knowledge, capacity, and motives to support training and to offer performance supports for the sales job, the effectiveness of new sales agents, and the speed at which they developed the necessary skills to succeed in sales, varied by store, sometimes creating large disparities in the performance of agents between stores. A new-hire training program was systematically designed, developed, and implemented to create a process for learning and integration that was structured and consistent across the organization. Professional trainers were put in place in centralized locations within each sales market for the purpose of conducting regular training classes. By creating this program the organizational leadership expected to see an increase in sales performance as well as higher levels of employee retention. After 2 years and a large investment of time and resources in the training program the organization has seen little lift in sales performance and no change in employee retention. Managers have expressed concern that new hires are not coming out of the training prepared to enter the sales floor, resulting in extra time and effort from them and the current sales team. The trainers, after spending time in the store and observing sales agents in action, are concerned that many of the skills and processes provided during the new-hire training are not being used once the sales agent leaves the classroom. It was determined that, based on these reactions, a potential problematic situation exists regarding the effectiveness of the new-hire training program and performance supports for sales agents.
The following provides an outline of an intervention commissioned by the company owner and CEO with respect to the new-hire training program for sales agents. Analysis One (the Intervention) The following elements exist for this problematic situation: ♦ ♦ ♦
The client: the CEO of the company The practitioner: an outside consultant hired by the organization’s CEO The issue owners: company CEO, trainers, sales managers, sales agents
Analysis Two (Social) A file is created at the beginning of the investigation for transcribing information learned that relates to the social and cultural aspects of the organization. This file becomes a single archive for storing and facilitating review of details related to social and structural aspects of the organization and phenomena within the organization, including: Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
97
♦
♦ ♦
♦
Values important to the organization, which in this case may include sales volume, customer follow-up, operational integrity, etc. Formal roles, such as the sales agent, manager, trainer, CEO, etc. A description of various expectations for people who fill the formal roles and how they are expected to act and/or interact with other people in the organization. Informal roles and how they develop. This may include high sales producers, or people who take care of the operational aspects of the sales process and make sure the store is open on time, is clean, and that operations run smoothly.
Analysis Three (Political) Like Analysis Two, a file is open and maintained over the course of the investigation, with additions as necessary, and continually referenced in order to facilitate discovery and understanding of aspects in the politics of the organization. This includes: ♦
Status in the organization: ♦ Because it is a sales organization, people with sales background may have a stronger voice in organizational issues, irrespective of whether their current position is sales related or the issue in question relates to sales activities. ♦ People who have, or are perceived to have, a personal relationship with the owner or someone holding a particular position within the organization may possess informal power among their peers.
The Transformation Process (Doing P, by Q, in Order to Achieve R) The transformation process that is under investigation in this current problematic situation involves the training of new sales agents. The PQR defined by this transformation process is: P: training of new sales agents Q: by the use of a designed training program R: in order to achieve higher sales productivity more quickly Root Definitions Using CATWOE Trainers. The following definitions are provided from the worldview of the trainer: ♦ ♦
98
Customer: The sales managers and the new sales agents. Actors: Trainers, new sales agents, managers.
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
♦
♦
♦ ♦
Transformation: New employees with no knowledge of the organization are exposed to and develop a working knowledge of the organization’s policies, systems, products, and sales process that prepares them for performance on the sales floor. Worldview: The new-hire training program provides the new employee with basic knowledge of the organization’s policies and exposure to the systems used in the sales process, products sold, and the sales process so they can function effectively and confidently on the sales floor. Owner: Company CEO. Environmental constraints: Classroom does not reflect the real-life sales floor and not all customer scenarios can be mirrored in the training systems.
Based on these definitions, a root definition based on the CATWOE definitions provided above may be as follows: Trainers facilitate a week-long new-hire training within a classroom setting that is designed to provide information and skills necessary to function effectively and confidently on the sales floor. This training includes the company history, policies, systems, products, and sales process.
Managers. The following definitions are provided from the worldview of the sales manager: ♦
♦ ♦
♦
♦ ♦
Customer: The outside customer that visits the store for products and/or services. Actors: Trainers, new sales agents, managers, current sales staff. Transformation: New employees with no prior knowledge of the organization, its produces, its systems, or its sales processes are provided the knowledge and skills necessary to be successful on the sales floor. Worldview: New sales agents who go through the new-hire training program are provided the knowledge and skills to become successful on the sales floor, allowing managers to focus on sales performance rather than providing this knowledge and training to their new employees. However, they are coming out of training ill-prepared for conducting sales, with poor product knowledge and limited skills in the use of the computer systems necessary for completing sales. Owner: Company CEO. Environmental constraints: Classroom does not reflect the real-life sales floor and not all customer scenarios can be mirrored in the training systems.
Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
99
The managers’ root definition may read as follows: The training class is conducted by the trainers and is designed to provide new sales agents with knowledge and skills necessary to enter the sales environment prepared to assist customers with the services and products to be provided by the organization, allowing managers to focus on other activities and responsibilities necessary to promote sales activities among their sales teams.
Sales Agents. The following definitions are provided from the worldview of the sales agents: ♦
♦ ♦
♦
♦ ♦
Customer: The person who comes into the store looking for product and/or service. Actors: Trainer, manager, current sales staff, new agent. Transformation: Training and post-training support from management and peers that provide me the knowledge and skills to sell the products and services the organization provides so I can earn my desired level of commissions. Worldview: The organization provides new-hire training that is designed to help me understand the organization and its policies and rules, and have a working knowledge of the products, systems, and sales process so that I can be successful. Once in the store I should seek help with applying product and with systems. My peers are busy with their own customers and generating commissions of their own and seldom want to help for fear of missing out on a sale. My manager is often not available, and when he or she is, is usually annoyed that I don’t know. Owner: Company CEO. Environmental constraints: Classroom does not reflect the reallife sales floor and not all customer scenarios can be mirrored in the training systems. Peers and/or manager are not always available or willing to help once I get out of training and into the real world.
The root definition provided by the CATWOE of the sales agents might read as follows: Training is provided during the first week of employment that allows the new sales agent to learn about the company and the systems, products, and sales process that will help the agent be successful as a sales agent. While the information and skills acquired in the training are beneficial, there was a lot of information to remember. Agents develop comfort using these skills in the safety of the training class, but once they enter the sales floor it is difficult to remember and apply everything.
100
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
FIGURE 4.
CONCEPTUAL MODEL FROM TRAINER'S ROOT DEFINITION
Measurement The efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness of any process developed for training new sales agents will be measured based on the level of sales the agents are able to generate, and the speed at which they are able to reach an acceptable level of sales. Conceptual Modeling Once the root definitions are developed, conceptual models that represent each can be developed. Figure 4 provides one of the conceptual models developed in this case example from the root definition provided from the trainer’s perspective. In this example of the conceptual model, the system under consideration is measured by “sales productivity.” Because this represents how the system’s effectiveness is monitored and controlled, it resides outside the environment and influences the entire system (Checkland & Poulter, 2010). Other conceptual models are developed in similar fashion, but differ based on the root definitions provided by the managers and sales agents. These models are intended to be informal and adaptive, used as tools of inquiry and learning through discussion and debate. Checkland Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
101
Adapted from Gilbert, T. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance (p. 88). Washington, DC: Internation Society for Performance Improvement. This material is reproduced with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
FIGURE 5.
GILBERT'S BEHAVIOR ENGINEERING MODEL
(1999); Checkland and Poulter (2006; 2010) often present these models in freehand to underscore their intended informality and openness to adaptation. Overall, the definitions and conceptual model are intended to provide prototypes for how members of each stakeholder group should be approaching their specific roles in relation to other stakeholders in the system. These prototypes are intended to be an idealization of what is expected and desired. Coaching, structured discussion, and actions should be undertaken when experiences of actual members do not meet these expectations and desired orientations.
Structured Discussion and Action to Improve It is during the process of discussion, debate, and the development of actions, both arguably desirable and socially feasible, that HPT frameworks can be effective. While the complexity of human activity systems found in organizations often requires open system approaches such as SSM, the structured concepts available in HPT frameworks such as Gilbert’s behavior engineering model (BEM) can help us formulate processes and/or tools that provide greater support for the activities and 102
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
performance of the actors within the system under investigation. This is consistent with the idea that even within open organizational systems, it is possible and perhaps desirable to have and support natural and even rational subsystems (Winiecki, 2010). Figure 5 provides a reference to the BEM and rational system model developed by Gilbert (1996). Based on the knowledge gained through the inquiry process of SSM, there are several areas within the BEM that might lead to a desirable and feasible accommodation. These include: 1. A training program for managers designed to improve their knowledge and ability to provide training support for their sales team, including both new and experienced sales agents. This would impact the knowledge element of the managers’ BEM. 2. A competency dictionary and development chart for the sales role initiated for each new sales associate. Through the training and post-training support phase of his or her employment, the trainer and then the associate’s assigned manager and peers will use this document to track the development of knowledge and skills considered requisite for success in sales. This provides an evolving record of the associate’s development and highlights what knowledge and skills require more performance support along the way. As such, this document provides a mechanism for tracking and assessing knowledge and skill development, as well as the sales agent’s ability to use such knowledge and skills toward the development of sales.
Conclusion The historical frameworks of HPT have proven themselves to have substantive utility for improving performance in organizations. However, as the world of organizations is changing, so must the frameworks we use to diagnose and operate on organizations in order to effect improvements. The authors’ goal is to help practitioners of HPT understand the premises on which our current frameworks are built and begin to see how creating a synthesized approach with other methodologies that are built on different premises can strengthen our work in positively influencing organizational life and performance. Our goal is not to advocate throwing out the frameworks developed within HPT over the past half century, or to negate its worldview. Real life is complex and it is this complexity that makes it vibrant and exciting. To remove complexity from reality is to run the danger of destroying the very essence of life itself (Nelson, 2007), for it is not from equilibrium and the steady state of things that growth and advancement occur; rather it is from the edge of chaos and disequilibrium where creative advancements are discovered (Wheatley, 2006). By embracing the complexity of human activity systems created by the social and political aspects of the unique culture that each provides, rather than trying to put it aside or engineer it away, we can enrich the experiences Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
103
of the actors involved and in the process improve organizational performance by creating solutions that are both desirable and feasible.
References Ackoff, R.L. (2002). The corporation as a community, not as a corpus. Reflections, 4(1), 14–21. Ackoff, R.L., Magidson, J., & Addison, H.J. (2006). Idealized design: Creating an organization’s future. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Boulding, K.E. (1956). General systems theory: The skeleton of science. Management Science, 2(3), 197–208. Brethower, D.M. (1997). Research and development origins of performance systems. In R. Kaufman, S. Thiagarajan, & P. MacGillis (Eds.), The guidebook for performance improvement: Working with individuals and organizations (pp. 29–43). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer. Brethower, D.M. (2006). Systemic issues. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 111–137). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Checkland, P. (1999). Soft systems methodology: A 30-year retrospective. New York, NY: Wiley. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2006). Learning for action: A short definitive account of soft systems methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2010). Soft systems methodology. In M. Reynolds & S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems approaches to managing change: A practical guide (pp. 191–242). London, UK: Springer. Chyung, S.Y. (2005). Human performance technology from Taylor’s scientific management to Gilbert’s behavior engineering model. Performance Improvement, 44(1), 23–28. Chyung, S.Y. (2008). Foundations of instructional and performance technology. Amherst, MA: HRD Press. Gilbert, T. (1996). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance (tribute ed.). Washington DC: International Society for Performance Improvement. Glanville, R. (2007). Designing complexity. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(2), 75–96. Jackson, M.C. (2003). Systems thinking: Creative holism for managers. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Jang, H.Y. (2008). Reconsidering human performance technology. Performance Improvement, 47(6), 25–33. Kaufman, R. (2010). From myths to creating a new future: A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. Performance Improvement, 49(2), 37–45. Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in systems: A primer. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green. Nelson, H.G. (2007). Simply complex by design. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(2), 97–116. Pershing, J.A. (2006). Human performance technology fundamentals. In J. A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 5–34). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer. Rowland, G. (2007). Performance improvement assuming complexity. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20(2), 117–136. Rummler, G., & Brache, A. (1995). Improving performance: How to manage the white space on the organization chart (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Scott, R., & Davis, G. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
104
DOI: 10.1002/piq
Performance Improvement Quarterly
Stolovitch, H.D., & Keeps, E.J. (1999). What is human performance technology? In H.D. Stolovitch & E.J. Keeps (Eds.), Handbook of human performance technology (2nd ed., pp. 3–23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer. Taylor, F. (1947). Scientific management. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Wheatley, M.J. (2006). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler. Winiecki, D. (2007). The others’ values: On the importance of new ways of looking, seeing, knowing and acting for performance technologists. Performance Improvement, 46(9), 32–37. Winiecki, D.J. (2009). Shadowboxing with data: A framework for informing the critical analysis of performance and performance measures. Performance Improvement, 48(2), 31–37. Winiecki, D.J. (2010). Rational, natural, and open: Organizational system typologies and their relevance for performance improvement professionals. Performance Improvement, 49(5), 35–41. Wittkuhn, K.D. (2006). Quantulumcunque concerning the future development of performance technology. In J.A. Pershing (Ed.), Handbook of human performance technology (3rd ed., pp. 1274–1285). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
GLEN SCOTT Glen Scott holds a master of science degree in instructional and performance technology from Boise State University. He has held a variety of positions over his 25 years of business experience, including operations management, human resources, and performance improvement. He currently serves as executive vice president of human resource and performance for a wireless retailer. Research interests involve the creation of performance environments that are collaborative, productive, and fulfilling. E-mail:
[email protected]
DONALD J. WINIECKI Donald J. Winiecki, PhD, is a professor in the Instructional & Performance Technology Department in the College of Engineering at Boise State University. He holds a doctor of philosophy degree in sociology and a doctor of education degree in instructional technology. He teaches courses in needs assessment and ethnographic research in organizations. E-mail:
[email protected]
Volume 25, Number 3 / 2012
DOI: 10.1002/piq
105
