Scholarlink

<p>The 30-year Action Research programme conducted at the University of Lancaster, by Peter Checkland and colleagues, stands as the most rigorous ever undertaken in the field of Systems Thinking. It began with Systems Engineering as the chosen methodology and culminated with the establishment of the mature form of Soft Systems Methodology. This paper reviews the history of that programme through the lens of the FMA framework proposed by Checkland and Holwell as a benchmark for effective AR. In their view, the cycle of AR must include a declaration of the <i>framework of ideas</i> (F) and the <i>methodology</i> (M) used to intervene in an <i>area of concern</i> (A). It should yield both action in the A and findings about the F and M. The paper applauds the success of the programme in terms of the interventions undertaken in complex As and the modifications made to the M because of the learning gained from those interventions. It notes, however, that there were no further significant revisions to the F once the break from Systems Engineering was achieved. This was beneficial because it enabled Soft Systems Methodology to continue to refine its unique competence in a new type of A, thereby significantly expanding the repertoire of Systems Thinking. There were consequences, however, because it imposed constraints on the usefulness of the M in other types of A. On this basis, it is suggested that Systems Thinking as a field will only reach its full potential when it is prepared to entertain a variety of Fs and Ms, ensuring its relevance to the broadest possible range of As.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Development of Soft Systems Methodology through the Lens of the FMA Framework

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年11月20日

查看全文
  • Michael Christopher Jackson

摘要

The 30-year Action Research programme conducted at the University of Lancaster, by Peter Checkland and colleagues, stands as the most rigorous ever undertaken in the field of Systems Thinking. It began with Systems Engineering as the chosen methodology and culminated with the establishment of the mature form of Soft Systems Methodology. This paper reviews the history of that programme through the lens of the FMA framework proposed by Checkland and Holwell as a benchmark for effective AR. In their view, the cycle of AR must include a declaration of the framework of ideas (F) and the methodology (M) used to intervene in an area of concern (A). It should yield both action in the A and findings about the F and M. The paper applauds the success of the programme in terms of the interventions undertaken in complex As and the modifications made to the M because of the learning gained from those interventions. It notes, however, that there were no further significant revisions to the F once the break from Systems Engineering was achieved. This was beneficial because it enabled Soft Systems Methodology to continue to refine its unique competence in a new type of A, thereby significantly expanding the repertoire of Systems Thinking. There were consequences, however, because it imposed constraints on the usefulness of the M in other types of A. On this basis, it is suggested that Systems Thinking as a field will only reach its full potential when it is prepared to entertain a variety of Fs and Ms, ensuring its relevance to the broadest possible range of As.