OBSERVATIONS AND STUDY CONCLUSION
5.4 Using Action Research for Learning and Implementing Improvements Action research, and SSM in particular, encourages an understanding of complex and
highly interconnected systems. Unstructured problems are viewed as conditions to be alleviated rather than problems to be solved. SSM is therefore useful in solving unstructured and poorly delineated systems where goals are debatable or not properly
defined (Shroff, 2000). In this study, SSM provided a structured approach that assisted in clarifying objectives in a complex and dynamic situation that involved human activity. It encouraged commitment and provided a forum for bringing diverse interests together.
Some of the proponents of SSM seem to underestimate the application of action research and SSM within a highly politicised and dynamically complex environment such as the organisation discussed in this study. Inthe view of MacIsaac (1996), all participants are empowered and all participants are involved in the analysis of the data and the selection of the interventions. The author feels that it is naIve to think that everyone will openly discuss problems, perceptions and needs, especially when working in a highly politicised and hierarchical culture such as the one described here. However, if facilitated correctly, open, willing and supported discussions are more likely to open up the organisational culture and encourage learning and joint problem solving. This is a necessity when applying action research, as the final outcome is unlikely to match the agreed changes exactly, thereby necessitating new compromises along the way.
One continuously needs to be reminded of the root cause of the problem that was faced by the project.Itbecomes too easy to look for a solution, implement it and continue.
However this approach only addresses the symptom and the same problem can be expected to appear on other projects. The author believes that the culture of the organisation needs to be addressed so that everything is not driven by the anticipated outcome of the performance evaluations of executives and senior managers. Senior management provide project target dates after limited (if any) consultation with project team members and these dates become the indicators against which they are measured and their performance bonuses are calculated. These timelines are inevitably unrealistic and trying to change them once more information becomes available requires extremely good motivations and usually having to blame some one or some group. This culture of blame relates to the feelings of distrust that exists throughout the organisation. Similarly, the pressure placed on the team to meet these unrealistic timelines inevitably requires short cuts be taken which, in turn, frequently results in incorrect assumptions being made or mistakes occurring, both of which cause further delays and costs to the project. More blame gets apportioned and the political climate on the project becomes very tense.In order to address this culture of mistrust and blame goes beyond the scope of this
dissertation. However, the fact that this surfaced during discussions around the contextual
model was, to the participants and the author, a very valuable learning experience that helped all concerned understand the environment in which they were working.
Lewin and Regine (2000) make the distinction between people who make caring and participative choices that contribute to the health of the organisation, and those who make selfish choices that make the organisation an unhealthy place to work. They make the point that human creativity is unleashed when leaders set a few simple rules and leave the rest to self-organisation. Such leaders need to learn to let go of the illusion of control, which the authors acknowledge is a painful process.
The implicit and explicit values of SSM for openness and togetherness are not easy to apply in power-centred, confused, conflict and contradiction oriented organisations. In fact, many authors (Mingers, Jackson both cited in Luckett, Ngubane& Memela, 2001) argue that Checkland's SSM ignores issues of power. However, the author does not agree with this, as Checkland (1999) frequently mentions that culture and power need to be considered throughout the SSM process. The "two streams" methodology in particular highlights this. Checkland (cited by Couprieet ai, undated) suggests that 'root constraints' may need to be applied to suggested changes in order to account for power influences that may exist in the system.
Wadsworth (1998) also states that the researcher is constrained to appear impartial or at least vaguely on everyone's side. A criticism of SSM mentioned in chapter 2 refers to the fact that the methodology is open to manipulation by the consultant in order to achieve a hidden agenda. MacIsaac (1996) suggests that the researcher has neither hidden agendas nor a wish to control the outcome of an SSM intervention. Itmay also be argued that if the hidden agenda is to the ultimate benefit of the organisation and system under
consideration, then it is a means to an end that should be welcomed as long as there is no malicious intent.
The SSM model that is referred to in this study is the 'seven-stage model' that Checkland originally proposed (Checkland, 1981). However, in later writings, Checkland (1999) comments that it has a "mechanistic flavour" and is used more for teaching purposes while a less structured and broader methodology has become more favoured by
practitioners. The more flexible model favoured by practitioners today is the four- activities model which comprises the following:
i) Finding out about the problem including culturally and politically;
ii) Formulating some relevant activity;
iii) Debating the situation using models and seeking debate involving changes to improve the situation in a way that is (culturally) feasible and (systemically) desirable and also accommodates the conflicting interests so that action to improve the situation may be taken; and
iv) Taking action in order to bring about an improvement in the situation.
The above 4 activities may be mapped back to the Kolb learning cycle and coincide with the Diverging / Assimilating / Converging / Accommodating phases as indicated in fig.
2.1. Inthis study, the author chose to use the original seven-stage model as a guideline.
The main reason for this was that he found it very logical and systematic, which, given his background, gave him some feeling of comfort. There were also numerous examples of this in the references that were used. Had he started with the four-activities model, the author feels sure that, as a novice SSM practitioner, he would have ended up expanding these steps back to the original seven steps in order to ensure that it was done
systematically.