Page 110 - text

SeCtion tWo Change approaches & management tools
Strengths and limitations
SSM has been criticised for its use in practice to appease stakeholder groups rather than undertake radical system changes. In contrast, Seddon (2005) identifies SSM as a means of forging a single unifying organisational purpose, so that stakeholders’ thinking is influenced during the analysis and discussion of problems in order that they might be addressed. Concerns have also been raised by the time and cost implications of the approach.
In relation to social care change, SSM’s emphasis on valuing different perspective, seeking to shape change through discussion, and organisational learning is in line with the change principles. The facilitators will need to ensure that extended discussions do not lead to the implementation of change being delayed.
Further reading
1. Checkland P (1981) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, New York: Wiley.
2. Checkland P and Poulter J (2006) Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft Systems
Methodology and its Use for Practitioners, London: John Wiley and Sons.
3. Checkland P and Scholes J (1999) Soft Systems Methodology in Action, Chichester: Wiley.
4. Deming WE (1986) Out of the Crisis, Cambridge, Mass: MIT.
5. Flood R (1999) Rethinking the Fifth Discipline, Learning Within the Unknown, London: Routledge.
6. Hudson B (2004) Whole Systems Working: A Discussion Paper for the Integrated Care Network, Leeds: Integrated Care Network.
7. Jackson M (2003) Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers, Chichester: Wiley.
8. Leahy B, Clarke S, and Paul R (1999) A case of an intervention in an outpatients department, Journal
of Operational Research Society, 50, 9, 877–91.
9. Seddon J (2005) Freedom from Command and Control, Buckingham: Vanguard Press.
107