Learning log 5 - Reflection on Soft System Thinking

As Soft System Thinking evolved from Hard System Thinking - as seen in the video by Stevens & Sankaran - we first have to talking about Hard System Thinking in order to understand what Soft System Thinking is.

Hard System Thinking (HST) is related to task, to function-based activities. In in this approach you see an issue as a whole and then break it down into parts and manage it as necessary (Sankaran).  This method is mostly used in, for example, construction and defense industry, were the purpose of the company is one specific function that can be broken down into steps and processes.

On the other hand, Soft System Thinking (SST) is a method of inquiry which considers the human factor. It is used for inquiring on issues where people are involved. Opposite to HST, this method sees a whole issue through its different parts and the relations between these parts, therefore trying to realize how the parts and its relations effects on the whole. For that reason it is used to project-related activities (when talking about management) and on complex (human and societal) problems solving. The pillars of management on SST are: communication, human resource management and leadership, hence, the focus of SST in on relationship, rather than processes and procedures (HST method). (Stevend & Sankaran)

However, these readings raised me a question about the “world view” factor that Peter Checkland and John Poulter talk about: is it so that SST solutions can be democratic, but never impartial?

Let me explain what I mean: as SST tries to identify the different word views of the people and actors involved in an issue, and manage their word views to find a democratic, or “general”, world view which embraces all of them; this final, broad, word view will be the one from the researcher, it will be the way he saw the issue. As Checkland himself states “Since information is what you get when you attribute meaning to data (...) meaning attribution depends upon worldview”. But even if it is a group which is dealing with the system, we know that the first moments of a group work is spent on finding a “common language”, therefore, finding the shared point of view of that group, which, consequently, will be the one used to “attribute meaning” to the information found. For this reason I have the doubt: can an inquiry or research method, ever, be impartial?

Thanks!