Download
1 / 23
230 likes | 465 Views
Business Systems Analysis CMSCB3001. Hard Systems Thinking. Systems Thinking. According to Peter Checkland, ‘Systems Thinking’ is composed of two complementary processes: Systems Analysis Systems Synthesis
E N D
Business Systems AnalysisCMSCB3001 Hard Systems Thinking
Systems Thinking • According to Peter Checkland, ‘Systems Thinking’ is composed of two complementary processes: • Systems Analysis • Systems Synthesis • Checkland draws attention to these two alternative paradigms to explain the nature and significance of Systems Thinking • Paradigm 1 - the world is considered to be systemic and is studied systematically • Paradigm 2 - the world is problematic (I.e. it admits to many different interpretations and we study it systemically • Paradigm 1 - reflects the notion of Hard Systems Thinking • Paradigm 2 - reflects the notion of Soft Systems Thinking • Hard Systems Thinking - an objective or end to be achieved can be taken as given and a system can be engineered to achieve the stated objective • Soft Systems Thinking - known to be desirable ends cannot be taken as given
Developments in Hard Systems Thinking • Largely developed in the 1950s • Systems Engineering • Systems Analysis • Systems Dynamics • Systems Engineering • rooted in a general engineering paradigm • only recently methodologically codified • as more complex systems attempted
Systems Engineering - The General Model • Problem Definition (Definition of a need) • Choice of Objectives (Definition of physical needs) • System Synthesis (Creation of possible alternatives) • System Analysis (Analysis of the alternatives in the light of objectives) • System Selection (Selection of the most promising alternative) • System Development (Up to prototype stage) • Current Engineering (System realisation) • Generally used for physical systems - later more social applications
Systems Analysis • Developed simultaneously with System Engineering • Grew out of successful Operations Research implementation in WWII • Early models based on Systems Engineering, later developed its own flavour • Largely concerned a broad economic appraisal of costs and consequences of alternative means of meeting a defined END • Plus - a requirements approach • a requirement, the provision of which will solve a problem • a requirement may be a task, some piece of equipment or a complete system • Feasibility and characteristics are checked to determine benefits - can the budget be obtained ?? • Fundamentally the analyst asks ‘what are the costs and payoffs of alternative programmes’
Systems Analysis - The General Model • The formal outline is very similar to Systems Engineering • An objective or objectives we wish to accomplish • Alternative techniques/methods by which the objective can be met • The costs/resources required by each model • A model of the system to determine interdependencies • A criterion, relating costs/objectives resources for choosing the best option • There is an obvious overlap between S.E. and S.A. • S.E. - set of activities that lead to the creation of complex man-made systems • S.A. - the systematic appraisal of costs etc. of meeting requirements in various ways • S.E. is the totality of the engineering project • S.A. is the type of appraisal relevant to the decision-making that precedes setting up the project
The Flavour of RAND style Systems Analysis • Best described by the following quotation • “One strives to look at the entire problem, as a whole, in context, and to compare alternative choices in the light of their possible outcomes. Three sorts of enquiry are required, any of which can modify the others as the work proceeds. There is a need, first of all, for a systematic investigation of the decision-makers objectives. Next the alternatives need to be identified, examined for feasibility, and then compared in terms of their effectiveness and cost; taking time and risk into account. Finally an attempt must be made to design better alternatives and select other goals if those previously examined are found wanting.”
A Problem Spectrum • A broad classification of problem types can be derived by taking the extremes of a spectrum which extends from 'hard' to 'soft' and by considering the distinction between questions which are concerned with how an activity should be undertaken as opposed to what the activity is. In this context, the problem of a flat tire is a hard problem, whereas situations like Bosnia are extremely soft. • A 'hard' or structured, problem is one which is exclusively concerned with a 'how' type of question. This can be exemplified by considering the problem confronting Brunel when faced with the need to span the Avon Gorge. There was no doubt about the objective, the problem was how to do it. • A 'soft', or unstructured, problem is one that is typified by being mixtures of both 'what' and 'how' questions. In the area of production, for example, a particular manager may be faced with the problem that production performance could be better. This statement gives no guide to what he should investigate areas for potential improvement, or how he could then introduce change to realize that improvement.
The Link between S.E. and S.A. - ‘The Problem’ • The single idea that links both of these approaches is that real-world problems can be formulated as follows • There is a desired state • There is a present state • There exist alternative methods for getting between 1 & 2 • This belief is the distinguishing feature of all ‘Hard’ Systems Thinking
Problem solving in the Hard Paradigm • De Bono defines a problem as: • “the difference between what one has, or is likely have, and what one wants” • Management is generally concerned with problem solving; producing decisions and subsequent action to meet organizational needs better • Experience shows that managers are generally not good problem-solvers • Surveys show that about 80% of new venture projects fail to achieve their objectives • One contributing reason for this is that often no attempt is made to establish exactly what it is the organization wants • This also leads to a clearer definition of ‘a problem’
The minimum & necessary necessary conditions of a problem • From this basis we could derive the minimum & necessary conditions for a problem to be said to exist as: • a person (or organization) that has a problem • one or more ENDS desired but not yet attained • at least two courses of action (MEANS) to achieve an END • a statement of doubt about which course of action is best • an environment of uncontrollable variables which can affect the ENDS
ENDS Analysis • From this we can derive: • ‘What one wants’ is an END • Once the END is determined all that is left to do is to work out the MEANS to achieve that END • This reasoning forms the basis of Hard Systems Analysis techniques such as MEANS-ENDS Analysis • Three types of ENDS • Goals - expected to be achieved within a specified time • Objectives - ENDS that may not be achieved within the planning period • Ideals - ENDS that may not be achievable but progress towards them can be made
Means Analysis • Four types of MEANS • Acts that take little time - phone call, writing a letter etc. • Courses of action a sequence of acts - negotiating new contracts installing a new computer etc. • Projects systems of courses of action - erecting a building, moving house etc. • Programs systems of projects - expanding into new markets, building a new factory etc.
Effectiveness & Efficiency • It is important to distinguish between these two notions • Effectiveness - “doing the right thing” [ENDS - What’s - Effectiveness] • Efficiency - “doing the thing right” • [MEANS - How’s - Efficiency]
Hidden Agendas & Constraints • One should always assume that innocently or otherwise, certain Ends might not be volunteered by clients during interviews. Ends about personal career objectives will rarely be mentioned yet these will occasionally be a vital influence on the problem situation. Uncovering these Ends can call for astute skills. • Constraints • Invariably, courses of action or Means will be constrained within some range, due to resource availability, design, technological limits etc. • In analysis of Business Systems the term 'courses of action' is often used to cover all Means and they are said to be controllable variables, subject to influence or control. • Unfortunately, Ends are also affected by uncontrollable variables, those not subject to our control. These variables may be 'acts of nature' or be controlled by others. They are said to make up the ENVIRONMENT to the problem. • The evaluation of the courses of action, with regard to achieving the Ends, then becomes a matter for research.
Errors of the Third Kind • “Solving the wrong problem” • Two important practical points should be remembered • User dabbles in researching their own problem and then calls in specialist to resolve the problem the user identified, if the original analysis was faulty and the resulting solution ineffective, the specialist will usually still carry the can • Don’t be tempted to jump straight into solving technical problems without first researching and formulating the problem area.
As Beer says 'The problems that arise can be handed to experts to solve. But this ministerial posture assumes that the problems correctly identify themselves, whereas the whole lesson uncovered in this book is that they rarely do so. The result is that much brain-power is wasted in attempting to provide answers to problems which either do not exist, or are virtually meaningless. Lord Mountbatten has told a wartime story which convinced him of the truth of this argument. One of his advisors, Geoffrey Pyke, had transmitted an immense report to Lord Mountbatten. He found on the first page a quotation by G.K. Chesterton, extracted from a detective novel. "Father Brown laid down his cigar and said carefully: 'It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.' Mountbatten drew the correct lesson. He comments: "Yet the habit in those days was for military planners to put problems to scientists for them to produce the solution. From now on, I said, scientists were to be associated with the planners in deciding what the problem was before they were asked to solve it. It is no good getting the right answer to the wrong questions: you've got to get the right question before the right answer can be of any use." The point seems simple, but the lesson has by no means been learned."
Problem Analysis • The procedure suggested here is: • Explore the Ends • Explore the Means • Means and Ends are relative concepts; every End can be considered as a Means to an End, and so on. For example, buying a car can be considered as a Means for obtaining personal transport (End). Personal transport could be a means for getting to the University and so on.
Ends Exploration • Express End as Action Verb + Object Phrase + Qualifying Phrase (Optional) • Try to redefine by answering the question: • What is one trying to achieve? By completing: e.g. One wants (latest Ends-Definition) In order to (Redefinition) • For example, an investigation into congestion of people in a building is being carried out. A suggestion has been made 'to get two extra lifts installed'. One could start to check the relevance of this as follows: e.g. (Install) + (2 extra lifts) + (within 3 months) We want to (install 2 extra lifts within 3 months) In order to (improve the lift service in the building) We want to (improve the lift service in the building) In order to (...) Etc.
Means Exploration • Having explored Ends and Objectives, it can become apparent that an End can be achieved in more than one way; One has a CHOICE. In fact, in dealing with an 'unusual' problem, it is unlikely that one will have found the best way of achieving the End. • One should always spend some time trying to generate alternative Courses of Action. • This may be helped by thinking about the BROAD APPROACH that is being used. Four possible categories for consideration are:
