Understanding Supra-Institutional Problems: Systems Lessons Drawn from an Application of the Checkland Methodology
During the years following the Second World War, the effort to solve practical problems grew more formal and technical. Managers are faced with the need to make difficult judgments on such matters as, for example, stock control, project scheduling, or some future pattern of demand for a product or service. As the manager uses his experience and forms his judgments, he may, to an increasing extent, make use of formal problem-solving techniques. These usually apply to particular aspects of his problem; but it is frequently difficult to isolate that aspect of the problem situation which the technique requires to be treated in isolation. Systems ideas have been developed particularly to examine an overall situation, in order to identify problems which are the product of an interaction between its various aspects. One outcome of this “systems approach” has been the development of methodology.
KeywordsProblem Situation Project Schedule System Lesson Stock Control Root Definition
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.P. B. Checkland, “The Development of Systems Thinking by Systems Practice—A Methodology from an Action Research Program,” Progress in Cybernetics and Systems Research, 2, edited by R. Trappl and F. de P. Hanika, Hemisphere, Washington, pp. 278–284, 1975.Google Scholar
- 2.P. B. Checkland, “Towards a Systems-Based Methodology for Real-World Problem Solving,” Journal of Systems Engineering, 3, 2, Winter 1972, pp. 87–116.Google Scholar
- 3.D. Smythe and P. B. Checkland, “Using a Systems Approach: the Structure of Root Definitions,” Journal of Systems Engineering, 5, 1, November 1976, pp. 75–83.Google Scholar
- 4.P. B. Checkland, “Systems Methodology in Problem-Solving: Some Notes from Experience,” Third European Meeting on Cybernetics and Systems Research, Vienna, April 1976. (Proceedings to be published shortly.)Google Scholar
- 5.G. M. Jenkins, “Systems and Their Optimization,” Text of an inaugural lecture delivered at the University of Lancaster in 1967.Google Scholar
- 6.The title of the project is “The Concept of System as a Paradigm in the Domain of the Artist,” and it is registered with the Department of Systems at the University of Lancaster.Google Scholar
- 7.S. Cornock, “The Role of the Artist in a Post-Industrial Culture: A Systems Approach,” Advances in Cybernetics and Systems Research, 2, edited by F. de P. Hanika and N. Rozsenitch, Transcripta, London, 1973, pp. 413–420.Google Scholar
- 8.R. L. Ackoff, “Beyond Problem Solving,” General Systems, 19, edited by A. Rapoport, S.G.S.R., Washington, pp. 237–239, 1974.Google Scholar
- 9.In the case of the Checkland methodology, one of the tests applied to the root definitions of relevant systems, namely asking “who are the victims, who are the beneficiaries of this system?” will draw attention to this aspect even if it has been missed in the initial formulation of the problem.Google Scholar
- 10.Open University, “Earthquake Data File,” prepared by Roger Spear for the Third Level Course on Systems Performance: Human Factors and Systems Failures, Open University Press (TD 342 EDF, SUP 00341), 1976.Google Scholar
- 11.C. West Churchman, The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Books, New York, p. 185, 1971.Google Scholar
- 12.C. West Churchman, The Design of Inquiring Systems, Basic Books, New York, p. Ibid, p. 253 f.Google Scholar