Editing Soft systems methodology (section)

== Representation evolution ==
SSM had a gradual development process of the methodology as a whole from 1972 to 1990. During this period of time, four different representations of SSM were designed, becoming more sophisticated and at the same time less structured and broader in scope.<ref name="ChecklandScholes1999"/>

=== Blocks and arrows (1972) ===
The first studies in the research programme were carried out in 1969, and the first account of what became SSM was published in a paper three-years later titled "Towards a systems-based methodology for real-world problem solving" (Checkland 1972). In this paper, soft systems methodology is presented as a sequence of stages with iteration back to previous stages.The sequence was as follows: analysis, root definition of relevant systems, conceptualisation, comparison and definition of changes, selection of change to implement, design of change and implementation and appraisal.

The overall aim to implement change instead of introducing or enhancing a system implies that the thinking was ongoing as a result of these early experiences, even if the straight arrows in the diagrams and the rectangular blocks in some of the models can now be misleading!

===Seven stages (1981)===
<!--Content copied directly from published works is generally NOT ACCEPTABLE: See [[Wikipedia: Copyright violations]]-->
Soft systems methodology (SSM) is a powerful tool that is utilised to analyse very complex organisational and systemic problems, that do not have an obvious solution. The methodology incorporates seven steps to come up with a viable solution for the problem defined. The seven steps are;
# Enter situation in which a problem situation(s) have been identified
# Address the issue at hand
# Formulate root definitions of relevant systems of purposeful activity
# Build conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions : This methodology comes into place from raising concerns/ capturing problems within an organisation and looking into ways how it can be solved. Defining the root definition also describes the root purpose of a system.
# The comparison stage: The systems thinker is to compare the perceived conceptual models against an intuitive perception of a real-world situation or scenario. Checkland defines this stage as the comparison of Stage 4 with Stage 2, formally, "Comparison of 4 with 2". Parts of the problem situation analysed in Stage 2 are to be examined alongside the conceptual model(s) created in Stage 4, this helps to achieve a "complete" comparison.
# Problems identified should be accompanied now by feasible and desirable changes that will distinctly help the problem situation based in the system given. Human activity systems and other  aspects of the system should be considered so that soft systems thinking, and Mumford's needs can  be achieved with the potential changes. These potential changes should not be acted on until step 7  but they should be feasible enough to act upon to improve the problem situation.
# Take action to improve the problem situation

=== Two streams (1988) ===
The two-stream model of SSM recognizes the crucially important role of history in human affairs, and for a given group of people their history determines what will be noticed as significant and how it will be judged. This expression of SSM is presented as an approach embodying not only a logic-based stream of analysis (via activity models) but also a cultural and political stream which enable judgements to be made about the accommodations between conflicting interests which might be reachable by the people concerned and which would enable action to be taken.

This particular expression of SSM removes the dividing line between the world of the problem situation and the systems thinking world.<ref name="ChecklandScholes1999" />

=== Four main activities (1990) ===
The four-activities model is iconic rather than descriptive and subsumes the cultural stream of analysis in the four activities. The seven stage model gave an approach which applies real world situations, both large and small and public and private sector. The four main activities were created as a way to capture the more flexible use of SSM and to include more of the cultural aspect of the workplace into the concept of SSM. The four activities are used to show that SSM does not have to be used rigidly; it's there to show real life and not be constrained. The four main activities should be seen as an individual concept rather than a descriptive which incorporates the cultural stream of analysis. The four activities are:<ref name="ChecklandScholes1999" />

# Finding out about a problem situation, including culturally/politically
# Formulating some relevant purposeful activity models: Creating and drawing specific&nbsp; diagrammatic illustrations of activity processes that occur in an organisation, which shows the relevant processes that take place in a structured order, and depicts any problem situation visually by showing the flow of one action to another. An example of this would be a diagram of a Soft Systems Methodology method, which is a&nbsp; 'Conceptual Model', which is a representation of a systems' human actions,&nbsp; or an 'Architecture System Map', which is a visual representation of the implementation of sections of a software system.
# Debating the situation, using the models, seeking from that debate both:
#* changes which would improve the situation and are regarded as both desirable and (culturally) feasible, and
#* the accommodations between conflicting interests which will enable action
# Taking action in the situation to bring about improvement