Critical systems thinking and practice

European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Critical systems thinking and practice Mike C. Jackson

*

The Business School, University of Hull, Hull, HU6 7RX, UK

Abstract Critical systems thinking and the methodologies associated with it were developed precisely to allow analysis of complex societal problems and intervention to resolve such problems. Early approaches employing systems ideas, such as operational research, systems analysis and systems engineering, were suitable for tackling certain well-de®ned problems, but were found to have limitations when faced with complex problems involving people with a variety of viewpoints and frequently at odds with one another. Systems thinkers responded with approaches such as system dynamics and organisational cybernetics to tackle complexity; soft systems methodology (SSM) and interactive planning to handle subjectivity; and critical systems heuristics to help the disadvantaged in situations involving con¯ict. There was a corresponding enlargement of the range of problem contexts in which they felt competent to intervene. It has been critical systems thinking, however, which has supplied the bigger picture, has allowed systems thinking to mature as a discipline and has set out how the variety of methodologies now available can be used together in a coherent manner to promote successful intervention in complex societal problem situations. This paper outlines, at the request of the editor of this special issue, my involvement in developing critical systems thinking and practice, describes its origins, nature and use, and sets out a programme for future research in the area. Ó 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Systems; Complexity; Cybernetics; Management; Philosophy

1. Introduction The ideas that have inspired critical systems thinking derive from two sources ± social theory and systems thinking itself. Of particular importance, in the social sciences, has been work that allows an overview to be taken

*

Tel.: +44-1482-466309; fax: +44-1482-466097. E-mail address: [email protected]

of di€erent ways of analysing and intervening in organizations. For example, Burrell and MorganÕs (1979) book on sociological paradigms and organizational analysis, and MorganÕs (1986) examination of `images' of organization, have enabled critique of the assumptions di€erent systems approaches make about social science, social reality and organizations. Critical social theory, from Marx through to Habermas and Foucault, has also had a signi®cant role to play. From Marx came recognition of the inequalities in capitalist society and exploitative relationships in many en-

0377-2217/01/$ - see front matter Ó 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 6 7 - 9

234

M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

terprises. HabermasÕ (1970, 1975) theory of three human interests, the technical, practical and emancipatory, and his warnings about the dominance of instrumental reason (wedded to the technical interest) informed re¯ection on the role of the various systems methodologies and provided justi®cation for early attempts to conceptualize them as complementary since they could be seen as addressing di€erent interests. His later work (Habermas, 1984) on `communicative competence' and `the ideal speech situation' permitted critique of the aspirations of SSM in particular. The work of postmodernists such as Lyotard and Foucault (see Jackson, 1991), focusing on the operation of the power/knowledge nexus, has led to a questioning of the legitimacy of all `systematising' and `totalizing' endeavours, and has demanded a response from critical systems thinking. From systems thinking itself, critical systems thinking inherited a set of powerful concepts, such as system, element, relationship, boundary, input, transformation, output, environment, feedback, emergence, communication, control, identity and hierarchy. If the systems movement had failed in its early aspirations (see von Bertalan€y, 1968) to create a `general system theory' setting out the laws governing the behaviour of all systems, whatever their type, it did manage to give birth to a range of methodologies, based upon the systems concepts, for intervening in and seeking to improve problem situations. It is arguable that there are two reasons why these methodologies should have proved so successful. First, problems in the real-world do not correspond to traditional disciplinary boundaries and the systems concepts encourage interdisciplinary or, at least, multidisciplinary practice. Secondly, the systems concepts enshrine a commitment to `holism' ± to looking atthe world in terms of `wholes' that exhibit emergent properties, rather than believing, in a reductionist fashion, that insight comes from breaking wholes down into their fundamental elements. Holism has proved a useful antidote to reductionism when tackling real-world problem situations. Critical systems thinking recognises that social theory and systems thinking possess complementary strengths and weaknesses. The social sciences

are strong on theory, on thinking about the ontological and epistemological assumptions that go into gaining knowledge, but they are weak on practice. It seems clear that the theoretical presuppositions used for studying the social world will also have implications for how one might intervene in social reality. However, social scientists rarely seem to draw out these implications in terms of speci®c guidance for what should be done in changing organizations and society. Applied systems thinkers, on the other hand, are dedicated to practice but often neglect theory. It is equally obvious that any attempt to change the world rests upon taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of that world. Hidden in the commonsense or craft knowledge of the systems practitioner are ontological and epistemological presuppositions. In not exploring these, systems thinking has failed to take full advantage of opportunities to learn from practice and to develop as a discipline. Critical systems thinking seeks to draw on the respective strengths of social theory and systems thinking. Social theory provides material for the enhancement of existing and the development of new systems approaches. Not all the ®ne theoretical distinctions drawn by social scientists make a di€erence when applied in the real-world, but some are of considerable importance and must be regarded as crucial for systems practice. Social theory also provides the means whereby systems practitioners can re¯ect on and learn from their interventions. From the other side, systems thinking can assist in the task of translating the ®ndings of social theory into a practical form and encapsulating those ®ndings in well-worked out approaches to intervention. The success of systems thinking in linking theory and practice provides a model which, I have argued (Jackson, 1997a), can be used in information systems and, indeed, in the applied disciplines generally. In retrospect, and the rules of this special issue require that we give some personal details, I can see that my background and inclinations ®tted me to be a critical systems thinker. I originally went to Oxford to study history but during the ®rst year changed my degree course to Politics, Philosophy and Economics. By the third year I was studying the maximum number of sociology courses avail-

M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

able at Oxford and had become a social scientist. After my ®rst degree, I entered the civil service, as a tax inspector, for four years, picking up my ®rst practical experience of working in an organization. The job o€ered me plenty of time for study and I engaged on an intensive reading programme, immersing myself in the Marxist classics and becoming acquainted with the early work of Habermas and Foucault. I was particularly in¯uenced by Althusser and his notion of society as a structured totality in which the various parts assumed relationships of dominance and dependence. There are echoes of this in `total systems intervention' (TSI) (Flood and Jackson, 1991a). During this period, I also continued a peripheral involvement (which had begun in school, around 1968) with various left-wing groupings and causes. By 1977 I had had enough of life in an archetypical bureaucracy and also wanted to continue my study of social systems more formally. I joined the MA Systems in Management course, which had been developed by Peter Checkland at Lancaster University. It was an interesting time to be at Lancaster. The Burrell and Morgan book was about to go to press and ChecklandÕs `soft' systems methodology was maturing into the form it took in his 1981 classic Systems Thinking, Systems Practice (Checkland, 1981). I took a kind of detached interest in applied systems thinking always viewing the methodologies available through a social theory lens. My 1978 dissertation `Considerations on Method' was an analysis of applied systems thinking from the point of view of social science and argued for a critical systems approach. Full appreciation of the practical value of systems methodologies did not come until I began to teach them myself, and use them in the real-world, some years later. After Lancaster I moved to Warwick University to study for a Ph.D. in organizational behaviour. I abandoned Warwick after one year, however, to take up appointment as a lecturer in the Department of Operational Research at the University of Hull. This department, at the time, was moving away from `hard' operational research and seeking students in management. There was space for new thinking and a new research programme. The ideas that we have seen as crucial to

235

critical systems thinking had started to come together in my mind. Circumstances had contrived to allow me to make my contribution to the development of critical systems thinking and practice. 2. Origins Until the 1970s systems thinkers, whether theorists or practitioners, operated from within the same paradigm. Summarizing, it was assumed that systems of all types could be identi®ed by empirical observation of reality and could be analyzed by essentially the same methods that had brought success in the natural sciences. Systems could then, if the interest was in practice, be manipulated the better to achieve whatever purposes they were designed to serve. Systems thinking until the 1970s, therefore, was dominated by positivism and functionalism. This was true of strands of work as otherwise diverse as general system theory, contingency theory, socio-technical systems theory, operational research, systems analysis, systems engineering, system dynamics and management cybernetics. During the 1970s and 1980s, however, this traditional systems thinking became the subject of increasing criticism, particularly from those who felt that it was proving unable to deal with illstructured and strategic problems, and so was holding back the development and in¯uence of the discipline. One outcome of this was that some ÔhardÕ systems approaches, such as RAND style systems analysis (see RAND in Gass and Harris, 1996), underwent development in a `softer' direction. Another reaction was to create alternative systems approaches building on di€erent foundations. So, for example, organizational cybernetics (Beer, 1972), soft systems thinking (Churchman, 1971; Acko€, 1974, and Checkland, 1981), and critical systems heuristics (Ulrich, 1983) came to the fore. Very roughly, organizational cybernetics was a response to the failure of the traditional approach when confronted with extreme complexity; soft systems thinking a response to its inability to handle human and social aspects of problem situations; and critical systems heuristics

236

M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

a reaction to its innate conservatism. Not surprisingly these new tendencies in systems thinking found themselves at war not only with the traditional approach but also with each other, for they rested upon di€erent philosophical and sociological assumptions, and were opposed on fundamental matters concerning the nature and purpose of the discipline. Critical systems thinking draws heavily upon both traditional systems thinking and the newer systems approaches, methodologies, models and methods developed, in the 1970s and early 1980s, by those who found hard systems thinking (as the traditional approach is often called) too limiting. It has taken note of the contributions of the great pioneers of applied systems thinking and, in the 1980s and 1990s, has made of these e€orts more than the sum of their parts. The goal it has set itself is to reconstitute systems thinking as a uni®ed approach to problem management so that it can again stand at the leading edge in the development of the management sciences. This involves, ®rst, showing the complementary role that the various systems methodologies can play in the overall task of managerial decision-making and problem management (thus it can be recognized that diversity is a sign of strength in the systems movement and not an indication of weakness); and, second, demonstrating the power of systems thinking as a source of theoretical support and practical guidance in the management sciences ± support that has been reinforced rather than threatened by the establishment of alternative systems approaches such as soft systems thinking, organizational cybernetics and critical systems heuristics. Progress towards realising the goal of critical systems thinking has involved many people. Two books are recommended to readers who want to understand the broader context of its development and the contributions of others such as Flood, Fuenmayor, Mingers, Oliga and Ulrich. These books are Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings (Flood and Jackson, 1991b) and Multimethodology (Mingers and Gill, 1997). The account I shall give here necessarily concentrates on the role played by myself and my collaborators in the Department of Operational Research (later

Management Systems and Sciences) and Centre for Systems Studies, both University of Hull. Critical systems thinking and practice has been consistently developed, matured and re®ned in these environments, over a period of 18 years, since my appointment in Hull in 1979. We can trace this process by considering how critical systems thinking and practice came to embrace four related elements: speci®c criticisms aimed at particular systems approaches; the explicit call for a systems approach that recognised `coercive' contexts; the attempt to reconstruct systems thinking upon pluralist foundations; and the preliminary operationalising of critical systems ideas in a metamethodology called TSI. Each of these elements is discussed separately in what follows. The ®rst step on the road to critical systems thinking was to undertake a thorough and informed (by social theory) examination of existing systems approaches. Taking ChecklandÕs (1981) demolition of the pretensions of hard systems thinking as a lead, I embarked upon a similar critique of the ambitions of soft systems thinking (Jackson, 1982a) as expressed in the work of Churchman, Acko€ and Checkland. Using Burrell and MorganÕs framework, I argued that soft systems thinking is situated within the interpretive paradigm in that its guiding assumptions are `subjective' and `regulative'. These assumptions constrain the ability of soft systems practitioners to intervene, in the manner intended, in many problem situations. Soft systems thinking, as hard systems thinking, has a limited domain of application. In particular (for those adopting a radical perspective) in situations of fundamental con¯ict or unequal access to power resources, soft systems thinking either has to walk away or ¯y in the face of its own philosophical principles and acquiesce in proposed changes emerging from limited debates characterised by distorted communication. It was now obvious that all systems methodologies had their limitations, their weaknesses as well as their strengths. A series of critiques of di€erent systems approaches followed (e.g. Jackson (1988a), on organizational cybernetics; and Jackson (1989a) on Ôstrategic assumption surfacing and testingÕ), culminating in my (1991) review of ®ve strands of systems thinking ± Ôorganisations as

M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

systemsÕ, hard, cybernetic, soft and emancipatory ± from the point of view of relevant social theory. Another avenue to be explored by critical systems thinking now opened up. Once the strengths and weaknesses of existing systems methodologies were better understood, it was possible to ask whether there were problem situations for which no currently existing systems approach seemed appropriate. The most obvious candidates were ÔcoerciveÕ contexts, de®ned as situations where there is little common interest shared between stakeholders, there is fundamental con¯ict, and the only consensus that can be achieved arises from the exercise of power. Recognition that such contexts were important for management science led to the ®rst explicit call (Jackson, 1982b; 1985) for a Ôcritical approachÕ, in systems thinking, which would take account of them. Thus a concern with ÔemancipationÕ and the ethics of intervention, which for me was the continuation of a political agenda, came to be a de®ning characteristic of critical systems thinking. A third element of critical systems thinking stemmed from the insight that, if all systems approaches have di€erent strengths and weaknesses, it is sensible to use them, in combination, to address di€erent problem situations and di€erent purposes. To explore the potential of this, Paul Keys and I, during 1983/84, initiated a research programme, within the Department of Management Systems and Sciences, University of Hull, aimed theoretically at explaining the relationship between di€erent systems-based methodologies, and practically at discovering the ecacy of particular approaches in various problem contexts. I have described the research programme, some early practical examples of interventions, and its pedagogical impact, elsewhere (Jackson, 1989b). The theoretical tool at its heart was the Ôsystem of systems methodologiesÕ (Jackson and Keys, 1984). The system of systems methodologies rests upon an Ôideal-typeÕ grid of problem contexts that can be used to classify systems methodologies according to their assumptions about problem situations. The grid is made up of two dimensions; one de®ning the nature of systems, on a continuum from ÔsimpleÕ to ÔcomplexÕ, and the other the nature of the relationship between participants as ÔunitaryÕ

237

ÔpluralistÕ or ÔcoerciveÕ. Combining these classi®cations yielded a six-celled matrix of problem contexts: simple±unitary, complex±unitary, simple±pluralist, complex±pluralist, simple±coercive and complex±coercive. Hard systems approaches were said to assume that problems are set in simple±unitary contexts; socio-technical, contingency and cybernetic approaches were related to complex±unitary contexts; various soft systems approaches were related to simple±pluralist and complex±pluralist contexts; and it was hard to ®nd systems methodologies which were based on coercive assumptions. The system of systems methodologies o€ered a way forward from the prevailing Ômanagement science in crisisÕ debate, which saw di€erent problem-solving approaches in competition, because it presented the di€erent methodologies as being appropriate for di€erent types of problem context. It established ÔpluralismÕ as a central tenet of critical systems thinking. A 1987 article of mine was explicit in declaring for a ÔpluralistÕ developmental future for systems thinking as opposed to the ÔisolationistÕ, ÔimperialistÕ and ÔpragmatistÕ tendencies also in the ®eld. Pluralism would respect the strengths of the various trends in systems thinking, encouraging their theoretical development and suggesting ways in which they could be appropriately ®tted to the variety of management problems that arise. In these circumstances, a diversity of theory and methods could be seen to herald not a crisis but increased competence and e€ectiveness in a variety of di€erent problem situations. The same article established HabermasÕ work as a signi®cant philosophical and sociological foundation for pluralism in management science. In terms of his anthropologically based cognitive interests of the human species, hard and cybernetic approaches could support the technical interest, soft approaches the practical interest, and critical approaches what Habermas de®ned as an emancipatory interest (Habermas, 1970). Pluralism, it was stated, ``o€ers the best hope of re-establishing management science as a cohesive discipline and profession ± and on ®rmer foundations than those which supported the traditional version'' (Jackson, 1987). A recent book, edited by Mingers and Gill (1997), on multimethodology,

238

M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

documents the current high level of interest in this aspect of critical systems thinking. The fourth element in the maturation of critical systems thinking was the operationalising of its key ideas in a practical meta-methodology which was called TSI ± a product of an intellectual partnership with Bob Flood. TSI was successful in providing guidelines for the use of critical systems ideas in practice, in that it employed critique of di€erent systems approaches, respected the possibility of ÔcoerciveÕ contexts and was based upon a sophisticated form of pluralism in which methodologies adhering to di€erent paradigms were to be used in the same intervention on the same problem situation. TSI (Flood and Jackson, 1991a,b) was built around three phases ± creativity, choice and implementation. The creativity phase gave recognition to the many di€erent views that were possible of organizations and their problems, and encouraged managers and analysts to explore these through the use of MorganÕs (1986) ÔimagesÕ; particularly the machine, organism, brain, culture and coercive system metaphors. The aim was to take the broadest possible critical look at the problem situation but gradually to focus down on those aspects most crucial to the organization at that point in its history. Worthy of note is the attention paid in ÔcreativityÕ to the possibility that the problem situation could be perceived as coercive. Having identi®ed the crucial problems for the organization, a ÔchoiceÕ had to be made of a suitable systems methodology or methodologies to address the problem situation. This was done on the basis of a review of the strengths and weaknesses of the di€erent methodologies conducted using the Ôsystem of systems methodologiesÕ. ÔImplementationÕ of change could then proceed by employing appropriate methodologies singly or in combination. As intervention proceeded the problems that had earlier seemed to be crucial might fade into the background and new ones emerge. This could be catered for by continually cycling around the three phases of TSI, with di€erent systems methodologies assuming the role of ÔdominantÕ and ÔdependentÕ in leading the intervention at particular times. The whole meta-methodology was said to be governed by an emancipatory commitment,

which was broadly de®ned to include improving the human condition by increasing eciency and e€ectiveness as well as ÔliberatingÕ individuals from subjugation. TSI has attracted a lot of comment both favourable (e.g. Green, 1993) and unfavourable (e.g. Tsoukas, 1993). Flood (1995) has reacted to this by seeking to further systematise and mechanise the employment of critical systems thinking. I believe that a more fundamental recasting is necessary. The result of this recasting, and the reasons for it, are discussed in the next section of this paper. Critical Systems Thinking is a relatively recent development in management science and has a number of proponents. Attempting a de®nition of the approach must, therefore, carry certain risks. Nevertheless, the account I have provided suggests that critical systems thinking is essentially about putting all the di€erent management science methodologies, methods and models to work, in a coherent way, according to their strengths and weaknesses, and the social conditions prevailing, in the service of a general project of improving complex societal systems. This ÔgeneralÕ project embraces eciency and e€ectiveness at the same time as giving attention to ethics, to empowerment and to emancipation. Critical systems thinking, today, continues to provide theoretically informed critiques of systems approaches and management models; continues to explore how to act in ÔcoerciveÕ contexts; and continues to debate the nature of an appropriate pluralism for management science. The emphasis of this special issue is, however, on methodology, and we shall therefore concentrate on the contemporary guidelines provided for critical systems practice. 3. Contemporary character I will now address, from a contemporary perspective, some further questions about how critical systems thinking can be operationalised in order to realise its full potential. These can be posed at the level of methods, models and techniques (call all these ÔtoolsÕ), at the level of methodology and at the level of meta-methodology.

M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

It is a legitimate criticism of TSI (see Mingers and Brocklesby, 1996) that it is in¯exible because it emphasises the use of ÔwholeÕ methodologies. Once an interpretive rationale is chosen as dominant. For example, it seems that you must employ the particular methods and techniques set out in ChecklandÕs SSM or Acko€Õs interactive planning. This lack of ¯exibility needs addressing. There is nothing wrong with using a wide selection of tools, as long as they are employed according to an explicit logic. This allows a much greater responsiveness to the peculiarities of each problem situation as it evolves during an intervention. The ¯exibility that can be gained by using methods, models and techniques (perhaps normally associated with di€erent methodologies) in combination, now seems to me to be essential to critical systems practice. Methodologies can and should be ÔdecomposedÕ if this seems appropriate. Mingers and Brocklesby (1996) provide the example of a system dynamics model, which would usually be part of a ÔhardÕ methodology, being used as a detailed cognitive map for the purposes of enhancing debate in an interpretive framework. Systems practitioners should be allowed the greatest freedom possible to tailor their use of tools to the complexities of the problem situation they are seeking to intervene in and the exigencies of that situation as it changes. We have to be careful, however, to resist a relapse into ÔpragmatismÕ. We cannot, as researchers, allow the theoretically uncontrolled employment of tools that seems common in management consultancy. At any moment during an intervention the use of the tools in combination should be invested with a particular theoretical rationale guaranteed because they are employed according to the rules of a methodology serving a particular paradigm. The maintenance of a conscious link between methodology (as the study of the principles of method use) and the employment of the tools, allows us to learn about the tools. The eciency and e€ectiveness of methods, models and techniques for servicing particular rationales can be tested over time. We can ®nd out, for example, if system dynamics models developed originally to serve a hard methodology are indeed useful in the context of an interpretive approach.

239

We have reached the level of the methodologies which provide principles for the coherent use of di€erent methods, models and techniques. Just as at the level of ÔtoolsÕ, the complexity, heterogeneity and turbulence of problem situations, requires that systems practitioners operate in a pluralistic manner, using di€erent methodologies based upon alternative paradigms. We should seek to bene®t from what each has to o€er. Critical systems thinking can provide its greatest bene®ts only in the context of paradigm diversity. This is not to dismiss the usefulness of sometimes employing just one methodology, embodying a particular paradigm, to guide the use of a variety of methods, tools and techniques. Such an approach needs to be followed self-consciously, however, and to permit changes of paradigmatic orientation. If it occurs without due consideration, it degenerates into ÔisolationismÕ or ÔimperialismÕ (see Jackson, 1987) and critical systems thinking is deprived of the vitality it gains from that form of pluralism which encourages the deployment of a variety of methodologies, based upon di€erent paradigmatic assumptions, to their full potential. To ensure paradigm diversity it is essential to be explicit about the link back to paradigms. We can loosen the link between methodologies (like SSM) and the tools usually associated with them, but we must not loosen the link between methodologies and the paradigms they represent. This requires precise understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of di€erent methodologies. If such theoretical understanding is neglected then proper paradigm diversity cannot be guaranteed. Methodologies owing their allegiance to the same paradigm could be employed together in the mistaken belief that ÔgenuineÕ pluralism was being observed. A particular danger is that critical systems thinking would lose its radical edge. Because systems practitioners often work in a paid capacity, for powerful clients, there will be a tendency to restrict the methodologies chosen for use. Paradigm diversity demands that pluralism be buttressed against this by requiring it to give proper attention to the development and employment of alternative methodologies based on radical paradigms. Another signi®cant point is that unless we understand the relationship between methodologies

240

M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

and their theoretical underpinnings we cannot do research which would allow us to operationalise better the hypotheses of particular paradigms and test the conclusions of these paradigms in realworld interventions. Theoretically, informed methodologies are essential for ensuring a healthy link between theory and practice in critical systems thinking. All these arguments require that attention be given to specifying the essence of methodologies representing, at a minimum, functionalist, interpretive and radical paradigms. Something like Checkland and Scholes' (1990) constitutive rules for the use of SSM are needed. These particular rules are, however, overly restrictive for our purposes, because they require adherence not only to the underlying interpretive paradigm which guides SSM but also to many of the speci®c tools which Checkland has developed over time to support his methodology. While paying the greatest respect to the SSM research tradition, we would wish to maintain an open mind on the usefulness of other methods, models and techniques that might deliver, given sucient methodological care, for the interpretive paradigm. Table 1 sets out some preliminary constitutive rules for generic systems methodologies serving, in Burrell and MorganÕs (1979) terminology, the functionalist, interpretive and radical paradigms. Readers should be able to relate their own favoured OR/systems methodology to it and, in the process, discover something of the taken-for-granted assumptions of that approach as well as learning how the table can be re®ned. More work needs to be undertaken to explore the consequences of employing a larger range of paradigmatic positions (postmodern, for example), and perhaps adopting ®ner distinctions; to clarify further the meaning of the rules in the case of each paradigm; and to evaluate the success of the rules in transferring the propositions of the di€erent paradigms into practice and allowing learning from practice which leads to adjustments in particular paradigms. At the level of meta-methodology, critical systems practice requires a di€erent theoretical prop to that which supported TSI. It is no longer tenable to believe that paradigm incommensurability can be resolved by reference to some meta-theory

such as HabermasÕ account of di€erent anthropologically based human interests. MidgleyÕs (1995) tactic of declaring methodological pluralism part of a new paradigm is no solution, however. One paradigm pluralism is simply not pluralism. I prefer a modi®cation of TSI rather than its abandonment; although I prefer to call the modi®ed approach Ôcritical systems practiceÕ, rather than TSI, to underscore that it must be a research vehicle for critical systems thinking and not simply a consultantsÕ charter. In critical systems practice, a meta-methodology is required which encourages and protects paradigm diversity and handles the relationships between the methodologies, based on alternative paradigms, in order to address the complexity and heterogeneity of problem situations at all stages of an intervention. The metamethodology accepts that paradigms are based upon incompatible philosophical assumptions and that they cannot, therefore, be integrated without something being lost. It seeks to manage the paradigms not by aspiring to meta-paradigmatic status and allocating them to their respective tasks, but by mediating between the paradigms. Paradigms are allowed to confront one another on the basis of Ôre¯ective conversationÕ (Morgan, 1983). Critique is therefore managed between the paradigms and not controlled from above the paradigms. No paradigm is allowed to escape unquestioned because it is continually confronted by the alternative rationales o€ered by other paradigms. How such a conversation between paradigms can best be orchestrated needs further research. I need to be clearer about how to proceed at the meta-methodological level. Here I would like to draw attention to a somewhat neglected aspect of TSI (Flood and Jackson, 1991a,b). In TSI an explicit choice of ÔdominantÕ methodology is made to run an intervention, with ÔdependentÕ methodologies, re¯ecting alternative paradigms, in the background. The relationship between dominant and dependent methodologies is, however, allowed to change as the intervention proceeds in order to maintain ¯exibility at the methodology level to set alongside the ¯exibility we have sought at the level of methods and tools.

M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

241

Table 1 Preliminary constitutive rules for generic systems methodologies based on functionalist, interpretive and radical rationales (expanding on Checkland and Scholes, 1990) (1) (2) (3)

Systems methodologies are structured ways of thinking, related to di€erent theoretical rationales, focused on improving some real-world problem situations Systems methodologies use systems ideas (system, boundary, emergence, hierarchy, communication, control, etc.) during the course of intervention and frequently employ systems methods, models, tools and techniques, which also draw upon systems ideas The claim to have used a systems methodology according to a particular rationale must be justi®ed according to the following guidelines Hard (functionalist) methodology

Soft (interpretive) methodology

Emancipatory (radical) methodology

(a)

An assumption is made that the real-world is systemic

No assumption that the real-world is systemic

(b)

Analysis of the problem situation is conducted in systems terms

(c)

Models aiming to capture the logic of the situation are constructed enabling us to gain knowledge of the real-world Models are used to learn how best to improve the real-world and for the purposes of design

Analysis of the problem situation is designed to be creative and may not be conducted in systems terms Models are constructed which represent some possible Ôhuman activity systemsÕ

An assumption that the real-world can become systemic in a manner alienating to individuals and/or groups Analysis of the problem situation is designed to reveal who is disadvantaged by current systemic arrangements Models are constructed which reveal sources of alienation and disadvantage

(d)

(e) (f)

(g)

Quantitative analysis is useful since systems obey mathematical laws The process of intervention is systematic and is aimed at discovering the best way to achieve a goal The intervention is conducted on the basis of expert knowledge

Models are used to interrogate perceptions of the real-world and to structure debate about changes which are feasible and desirable Quantitative analysis is unlikely to be useful except to clarify implications of world views The process of intervention is systemic, is never-ending, and is aimed at alleviating unease about the problem situation The intervention is best conducted on the basis of stakeholder participation

(h)

Solutions are tested primarily in terms of their eciency and ecacy

(4)

Since each generic type of methodology can be used in di€erent ways in di€erent situations, and interpreted di€erently by di€erent users, each use should exhibit conscious thought about how to adapt to the particular circumstances Each use of a systems methodology should yield research ®ndings as well as changing the real-world problem situation. These research ®ndings may relate to the theoretical rationale underlying the methodology, to the methodology itself, to the methods, models, tools and techniques employed, to the system to use each methodology, or to all of these

(5)

Changes that might alleviate feelings of unease are evaluated primarily in terms of their e€ectiveness, elegance and ethicality

Models are used to ÔenlightenÕ the alienated and disadvantaged about their situation and to suggest possible improved arrangements Quantitative analysis may be useful especially to capture particular biases in existing systemic arrangements The process of intervention is systemic, is never-ending, and is aimed at improving the problem situation for the alienated and/or disadvantaged The intervention is conducted in such a way that the alienated and/or disadvantaged begin to take responsibility for the process Changes designed to improve the position of the alienated and/or disadvantaged are evaluated primarily in terms of ethicality and emancipation

There remains the question of initial choice of ÔdominantÕ methodology and how to e€ect changes in status between methodologies once an intervention has started. For various reasons, explored elsewhere (Jackson, 1997a), there is a strong case for always choosing an interpretive methodology

as initially dominant. Considering this in terms of the phases of TSI, creativity will be conducted on the basis of open discussion employing such techniques as Ôrich picturesÕ. If models are introduced, at the choice phase, they will be acting as Ôhermeneutic enablersÕ (Harnden, 1990) to help structure

242

M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

debate about particular issues, rather than being taken as representations of the real-world. If ethical issues arise during implementation they will be for discussing among those involved, not insisted upon as moral imperatives that cannot be ¯outed. Of course there will be occasions when the models introduced seem to ÔcaptureÕ so well the logic of the situation and its problems that a shift to a functionalist position will seem justi®able; the models will be taken as representations of reality and a shift made which establishes a functionalist methodology as dominant. Similarly, if paradigm diversity is worth a candle, there will be occasions when the ethics of the analyst, or relevant stakeholders, will be so o€ended that the shift to an emancipatory rationale becomes clearly necessary. It is the language of moral imperatives that is then talked, not the Ôbusiness ethicsÕ of making managers more aware. Making explicit the rationality underpinning the methodology with which we are operating, and being ready to switch rationality and methodology, makes the initial choice of ÔdominantÕ approach less committing. The Ôhistoric compromiseÕ with interpretive systems thinking is however, not entirely without dangers. Embracing an interpretive rather than a functionalist logic, as initially dominant, is not so hard to take. Interpretive thinking is attractive because it suggests we have the freedom to design our own futures. Embracing an interpretive rather than an emancipatory logic, as initially dominant, is more dicult to stomach. Enough horrors occur in organisations, in our own society, and at the world level, to give us pause. The emancipatory option must remain on the agenda. As Churchman (1970) argued, the professional management scientist sometimes needs to consider whether it is desirable to help organisations commit suicide. 4. Uses The point of critical systems practice is that it brings appropriate methodologies and tools to bear on problem situations whatever their nature. Just looking at the examples in the original account of TSI (Flood and Jackson, 1991a,b), I can

see that the approach was used in interventions to improve quality, in project management, in encouraging participation, in visioning, in crisis management, in planning, in marketing, in organizational restructuring and in policy analysis. In each case, TSI served the purpose of co-ordinating the intervention and enabling learning to take place. In later books (e.g. Jackson, 1991; Flood, 1995) more examples have been provided and these have been in many types of organisation; big and small, co-operative, voluntary, public and private, as well as in multi-agency situations. An information systems strategy project, with North Yorkshire Police, has been written up with the speci®c purpose of highlighting key occasions in the intervention when critical systems practice found ways forward where it is dicult to see how other approaches could have been as successful (Jackson, 1997b). In keeping with its ÔinclusiveÕ orientation, and my own political leanings, critical systems thinking has played a signi®cant role in the development of Community Operational Research (COR). In 1986 the Operational Research Society in the UK, inspired by its then President, Jonathan Rosenhead, launched the COR initiative. The aim was to expand the range of ORÕs clients beyond the managements of large organisations and, on the basis of the challenges arising in assisting ÔalternativeÕ clients, to develop available theories and methodologies to make them more appropriate to new problem situations. OR Society funding allowed the establishment of a Community OR Unit (CORU) at the Northern College and the Centre for Community OR at Hull University. At Hull it was the Ôsystem of systems methodologiesÕ and early work on critical systems thinking which guided the COR research programme. The work involved demonstrating how the theory and methodological procedures advanced in critical systems thinking could be utilised in COR practice. Examples are provided by Jackson (1988b, 1991). COR continues to ¯ourish in Hull, and as a widespread activity, through the COR network, in the U.K. Today there are critical systems practitioners all over the world ± in Australia, New Zealand, the Far East, India, China, the Middle-East, South

M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

Africa, Tanzania, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia etc., as well as in Europe and the United States. The journals Systems Research and Behavioral Science (Wiley) and Systems Practice and Action Research (Plenum), in particular, carry many articles on the approach. The greatest concentration of researchers, in one grouping, taking critical systems thinking and practice forward, is now in the Centre for Systems Studies, the Business School, University of Hull, in the U.K. Within this Centre are a group concerned with business systems, a Centre for Organisational Learning, a Centre for Sustainable Development and the Centre for Community OR. Current projects involve Anglian Water, European Gas Turbines, Humberside Training and Enterprise Council, many community organisations and groups in developing countries. Particular attention is being given to the use of critical systems ideas in creativity management, organisational learning, information systems design, evaluation, sustainability and social change. 5. Conclusions I have elsewhere (Jackson, 1995) favourably compared the research approach used to develop critical systems thinking and practice with that which brought quality management, business process reengineering, and the learning organization to the market. Critical systems researchers do not claim to know the answer in advance or peddle the same solution to all problems in all circumstances. Critical systems researchers seek to be holistic and to ensure that theory both underpins practice and is tested in practice. Finally, they are clear that they should ask, as part of their project, who bene®ts from the knowledge and advice provided? Ethical issues are put ®rmly on the agenda. If this is a good start, there still remains much to be done. This includes testing the diversity of tools available, from the systems approach and the management sciences generally, in the service of di€erent rationalities; clarifying the constitutive roles for functionalist, interpretive, emancipatory and other forms of intervention; and learning how to facilitate re¯ective conversation at the meta-

243

methodological level. Another vital element is the establishment of more educational and training programmes that embrace the challenges of critical systems thinking and practice. If management scientists are genuinely to become competent in analysing complex societal problems and intervening to resolve them, then the road marked out by critical systems thinking and practice is one of the few on which our discipline can progress. References Acko€, R.L., 1974. Redesigning the Future. Wiley, New York. Beer, S., 1972. Brain of the Firm. Allen Lane, London. Burrell, G., Morgan, G., 1979. Sociological Paradigms and Organisational Analysis. Gower Press, Aldershot. Checkland, P.B., 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley, Chichester. Checkland, P.B., Scholes, J., 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley, Chichester. Churchman, C.W., 1970. Operations research as a profession. Management Science 17, B37±54. Churchman, C.W., 1971. The Design of Inquiring Systems. Basic Books, New York. Flood, R.L., 1995. Solving Problem Solving. Wiley, Chichester. Flood, R.L., Jackson, M.C., 1991a. Creative Problem Solving, Total Systems Intervention. Wiley, Chichester. Flood, R.L., Jackson, M.C. (Eds.), 1991b. Critical Systems Thinking: Directed Readings. Wiley, Chichester. Gass, S.I., Harris, C.M. (Eds.), 1996. Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Green, S.M., 1993. Total systems intervention: A trial by jury. Systems Practice 6, 295±299. Habermas, J., 1970. Knowledge and interest. In: Emmet, D., MacIntyre, A. (Eds.), Sociological Theory and Philosophical Analysis, Macmillan, London, pp. 36±54. Habermas, J., 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press, Boston. Habermas, J., 1984. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. Beacon Press, Boston. Harnden, R.J., 1990. The languaging of models. Systems Practice, 289±307. Jackson, M.C., 1982a. The nature of soft systems thinking: The work of Churchman, Acko€ and Checkland. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 9, 17±29. Jackson, M.C., 1982b. Verifying social systems theory in practice: A critique. In: Troncale, L., (Ed.), A General Survey of Systems Methodology, SGSR, Louisville, pp. 668±673. Jackson, M.C., 1985. Social systems theory and practice: The need for a critical approach. International Journal of General Systems 10, 135±151. Jackson, M.C., 1987. Present positions and future prospects in management science. Omega 15, 455±466.

244

M.C. Jackson / European Journal of Operational Research 128 (2001) 233±244

Jackson, M.C., 1988a. An appreciation of Sta€ord BeerÕs Ôviable systemÕ viewpoint on management practice. Journal of Management Studies 25, 557±573. Jackson, M.C., 1988b. Some methodologies for community OR. Journal of Operational Research Society 39, 715±724. Jackson, M.C., 1989a. Assumptional analysis: An elucidation and appraisal for systems practitioners. Systems Practice 2, 11±28. Jackson, M.C., 1989b. Which systems methodology when?: Initial results from a research programme. In: Flood, R.L., Jackson, M.C., Keys, P. (Eds.), Systems Prospects, Plenum Press, London, 235±241. Jackson, M.C., 1991. Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. Plenum Press, New York. Jackson, M.C., 1995. Beyond the fads: Systems thinking for managers. Systems Research 12, 25±42. Jackson, M.C., 1997a. Pluralism in systems thinking and practice. In: Mingers J., Gill, A. (Eds.), Multimethodology, Wiley, Chichester, pp. 345±378. Jackson, M.C., 1997b. Critical systems thinking and information systems research. In: Mingers, J., Stowell, F. (Eds.), Information Systems an Emerging Discipline, McGrawHill, London, pp. 201±230.

Jackson, M.C., Keys, P., 1984. Towards a system of systems methodologies. Journal of Operational Research Society 35, 473±486. Midgley, G., 1995. What is this thing called critical systems thinking? In: Ellis, K. et al. (Eds.), Critical Issues in Systems Theory and Practice, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 61±71. Mingers, J., Brocklesby, J., 1996. Multimethodology: Towards a framework for critical pluralism. Systemist 18 (3), 101± 132. Mingers, J., Gill, A. (Eds.), 1997. Multimethodology: The Theory and Practice of Integrating OR and Systems Methodologies. Wiley, Chichester. Morgan, G. (Ed.), 1983. Beyond Method. Sage, Beverley Hills, CA. Morgan, G., 1986. Images of Organisation. Sage, Beverley Hills, CA. Tsoukas, H., 1993. The road to emancipation is through organisational development: A critical evaluation of total systems intervention. Systems Practice 6, 53±70. Ulrich, W., 1983. Critical Heuristics of Social Planning. Haupt, Bern. von Bertalan€y, L., 1968. General System Theory. Penguin, Harmondsworth.