Why we need frameworks for systems thinking

In 1985, Checkland described the need for a new paradigm for “rational intervention in human affairs” (1). He emphasized that all practical action is based on an intellectual framework that makes the action meaningful. Ideas based on intellectual frameworks give rise to methods that can then be applied to a problem in practice.

Checkland went on to describe the difference in intellectual frameworks which they labelled “hard” and “soft” systems science.  Hard systems were described as goal oriented, about “problems” and “solutions”, and can be engineered. In this collection, hard systems are complicated systems.  Soft systems science was described by Checkland as circular in nature, oriented toward learning and uses the language of “issues” and “accommodations”.  In other words, soft systems are complex systems.

The Complex Systems Framework Collection is based on the idea that providing access to frameworks for working in complexity or “soft systems”, will help shift the methods we apply in the real-world.  At one time, I diagnosed the problem of “not enough systems thinking” as an insufficient evidence base to convince decision-makers to use a complex systems framework.  This led to the idea of building the evidence base, which requires an uber framework or some form of Rosetta stone. I finally came to realize this was complicated thinking when the work of spreading systems thinking is complex!

Now, with this website, I am trying to make a variety of frameworks more accessible to a wide audience.  In many ways, this website still reflects a complicated approach to the complex problem of spreading systems thinking.  Although the intellectual frameworks presented here overlap in many ways, I have organized into sections to support navigation.

Thirty years after introducing the language of hard and soft systems, Checkland reflected on how difficult it has been to get soft systems thinking into practice (2).  I can’t help but wonder if part of the problem has been the labels of “hard” and “soft”.  Academia is rarely accused of being a soft place.  The methodology applied in soft systems still tends not to be valued and measured as scholarly impact.

1. Checkland, P. From Optimizing to Learning: A development of systems thinking for the 1990s. The Journal of the Operational Research Society 36 (9): 757-767, 1985.
2. Checkland, P. Soft Systems Methodology: A thirty year retrospective.  Systems Research and Behavioural Science 17: S11-S58, 2000.