Managing organizational change by using soft systems thinking in action research projects

Abstract

Purpose -This paper aims to show how systems thinking can be incorporated in action research (AR) interventions to successfully implement organizational change. The two case studies described in this paper would be useful to managers who want to implement change in their own organizations. Design/methodology/approach -Both projects used AR as the methodology due to its flexible, responsive and emergent nature. In one project, there was a deliberate attempt to incorporate soft systems thinking whereas in the other project soft systems thinking was used as a sense-making process while carrying out AR. As an added benefit both approaches have resulted in successful completion of doctoral research. Findings -Soft systems methodology (SSM) and AR can both help in addressing ill-structured problems faced by managers, in collaboration with stakeholders using questioning and reflection. Both lead to an increased understanding about the problem situation. The difference is that SSM uses a more structured approach while AR is emergent in its application. SSM practitioners advocate that action researchers would benefit by declaring in advance an intellectual framework to guide their research. This has the additional benefit of overcoming obstacles in an academic environment where research processes are still governed based on traditional research methods. Practical implications -The ideas presented in the paper could be particularly useful to a practice-based discipline such as project management where research into its practice is in demand. Originality/value -This paper would be useful to managers interested in a rigorous methodology to implement organizational change in addressing business problems. It demonstrates ways of combining SSM and AR, resulting in a powerful research tool to carry out rigorous research.

Developing a Framework for Research Evaluation in Complex Contexts Such as Action Research

“…This cyclical orientation (iterative planning, acting, reflecting, and evaluating within larger cycles or phases) is supported by multiple authors (e.g., Coghlan & Brannick, 2014;Piggot-Irvine et al, 2011;Preskill & Torres, 1999;Sankaran, Tay, & Orr, 2009). …”

The Cultural Analysis of Soft Systems Methodology and the Configuration Model of Organizational Culture

“…It is their perception, willingness, as well as knowledge that should be used for defining the intervention (Checkland & Scholes, 1990;Rittel & Webber, 1973;Sykes & Treleaven, 2009;Yolles, 2006) and to collect emic data (Xia, 2011). Analysis Two is concerned with the constantly changing interaction between roles, norms, and values (Checkland & Scholes, 1990;Sankaran, Tay, & Orr, 2009). A role is meant to be understood as a social position, which is significant for the people in the problem situation such as the leader(s) of the organization.…”

Retrofitting Passive Cooling Strategies to a Brisbane School: A Case Study of the Physical and Social Aspects

“…Actions created from one learning cycle can be implemented back into the situation to provide another learning cycle. Soft Systems Methodology is used this way in action research (Sankaran, Tay and Orr 2009). Hand drawn diagrams are used in SSM Soft Systems Methodology for easier understanding of a system.…”

“…Actions created from a study can be implemented back into the situation to provide another learning cycle, a method used in action research (Sankaran, Tay and Orr 2009). …”

“…Another learning cycle at this school could begin and this project could transform into action research (Sankaran, Tay and Orr 2009;Checkland and Poulter 2006;Flood 2010). …”