For this class, we started our exploration of systems with the analog of blind men reaching erroneous conclusions about an elephant, by only experiencing and understanding one part of the larger system. Now, we have moved on to the messier idea of “soft systems thinking” which characterizes the world as “a complex and confusing entity” where there is “no consensus among stakeholders, even for what the actual problem is” (Deetz, 5).
The articles by Patitsas, and Cleland and Wyborn both present ideas for how to reflect on systems where you can’t even assume you are framing the problem correctly. Patitsas presents a seven-step methodology on mapping your system from multiple frames and identifying possible system modifications. I think this methodology would be a good entry point for a researcher working on a complex system problem. I particularly like the idea of framing the problem as a situation, which in itself reveals some of the biases you may bring to the research. This methodology seems useful for helping the researcher recognize their own frame of reference and see the situation from multiple perspectives.
Cleland and Wyborn take this framing exercise one step further by gathering information from stakeholders though rich picturing and interactive game exercises. These methods take the abstract concept of system mapping and apply it to tangible concepts, such as imagining what a specific place might look like 50 years from now or understanding complex problems through a board game. I thought these methodologies would be a good next step for researchers to understand how non-system thinkers are framing the situation, which may lead the researcher to discover frames of reference they had not thought of on their own.
Question: Can you think of a situation in which soft systems analysis would have helped you consider or discover a new solution to a “wicked problem”?