Soft Systems Practice and its Misconceptions

Abstract Soft Systems ideas emerged from the action research project developed under Professor Checkland at Lancaster University. A recognisable outcome of the project was the development of a way to operationalise intellectually demanding ideas into a form useful to organisational inquiry. From this programme of research emerged Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) which has proved to be valuable in learning about the complexity of issues that emerge from organisational inquiry. But the focus on the ‘methodology’ has diluted the underpinning idea of soft systems often resulting in variable and unsatisfactory outcomes. This, I believe, is the result of the ambiguous perceptions of ‘soft’ systems itself. In this paper I suggest that the apparent differences between the way that ‘soft systems’ ideas are applied can be described in terms of rationalism and empiricism. By highlighting these differences, it may remind those wishing to undertake a ‘soft’ inquiry of its theoretical origins.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Systemic Practice and Action Research
Published
2025-11-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-025-09740-3
Primary Topic
Complex Systems and Decision Making
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Soft Systems Practice and its Misconceptions

Frank Stowell
Systemic Practice and Action Research
Complex Systems and Decision Making
article

Soft Systems Practice and its Misconceptions

Frank Stowell
article en

Abstract

Abstract Soft Systems ideas emerged from the action research project developed under Professor Checkland at Lancaster University. A recognisable outcome of the project was the development of a way to operationalise intellectually demanding ideas into a form useful to organisational inquiry. From this programme of research emerged Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) which has proved to be valuable in learning about the complexity of issues that emerge from organisational inquiry. But the focus on the ‘methodology’ has diluted the underpinning idea of soft systems often resulting in variable and unsatisfactory outcomes. This, I believe, is the result of the ambiguous perceptions of ‘soft’ systems itself. In this paper I suggest that the apparent differences between the way that ‘soft systems’ ideas are applied can be described in terms of rationalism and empiricism. By highlighting these differences, it may remind those wishing to undertake a ‘soft’ inquiry of its theoretical origins.

Systemic Practice and Action ResearchVol. 38(4)
University of Portsmouth (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 58%
Complex Systems and Decision Making
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.