as a problem solving system tool in our establishments.

By Francis Kwaku Egu

Introduction

Total Systems Intervention (TSI) is management science that deals with problem solving. The system employs a range of system metaphors (e.g. brain organism, cultural etc metaphors), to encourage creative thinking about organisations and the difficult issues that managers have to confront. ‘The metaphors are linked through a framework known as system of systems methodologies (SOSM) to various systems approaches. This system was developed by Flood and Jackson (1991).

According to Flood and Jackson (1991) TSI operates on the assumption that organisations are too complicated to understand by just using one system model. Besides organisations, their strategies and the difficulties they face should be investigated using a range of system metaphors. Different system metaphors and methodologies can be used in a complementary way to address different aspects of organisations and the difficulties they confront. Jackson identifies three phases of TSI as Creativity, Choice and Implementation Phases (1991). Flood and Jackson (1991) mapped systems methodologies into a two dimensional space. The first one is the vertical direction and this deals with the complexity of the system being investigated. The second is the horizontal dimension and this also deals with relationships between participants.

Flood and Jackson (1991) argued that TSI ‘postulate a meta-methodology for using methodologies adhering to different paradigms in the same intervention on the same problem situation. As a meta-methodology, TSI seeks to ensure that pluralism extends beyond the use of different methods and techniques guided by one methodology premised on one set of theoretical assumptions’. They further explained that TSI ‘seeks to find a way of managing, in a coherent way, very different methodologies premised upon alternative theoretical assumptions. It would be nice to use such different methodologies alongside one another in highly complex situations but if this proves to be practically impossible, TSI suggests, then the best way to handle methodological pluralism is to clearly state that one methodology is being taken as ‘dominant’ (and others ‘dependent’) for some period of time, being always willing to alter the relationship between dominant and dependent methodologies as the situation changes. (Flood and Jackson, 1991).

Critics are of the view that TSI centres on the lack of attention given to the process of facilitation. For instance Taket and White (2000) argued that there is insufficient discussion, in the literature of TSI, of the ‘roles’ and ‘styles’ that facilitators can adopt. Most detail is provided on the ‘intervention’ phase; whereas they suspect users of TSI have most difficulty with the ‘creativity’ and ‘choice’ phases.

From their post-modern perspective, Taket and White (2000) see TSI as one of the approaches that seek to tame pluralism and diversity rather than embracing them. According to them a ‘deconstruction’ of the language of TSI reveals a contradiction between statements that imply closure of those encouraging openness to other possible approaches. Midgley (1996), developing a variant of this criticism, accuses TSI of partial radicalism. It declares itself for human emancipation but ignores environmental concerns.

Viable System Model (VSM)

This model was developed by Standford Bear in his work Brain of the Firm (1972). The main focus of this system is how an organisation responds to changes in its environment and how it adapt tp these changes. One school of thought is that the presence of the environment in the model is necessary as the domain of action of the system. The viable system has five subsystems.

System one of the model deals with performing a function that implements the key transformation of the organisation. The system two unlike system one is the information channels and bodies that allow the primary activities in system one to communicate between each other and which allow System three to monitor and co-ordinate the activities within System one. System three represents the structures and controls that are put into place to establish the rules, resources, rights and responsibilities of System one and to provide an interface with Systems four and five. System four deal with the environment and also monitor how the organisation needs to adapt to remain viable. Finaly System five is responsible for policy decisions within the organisation as a whole to balance demands from different parts of the organisation and steer the organisation as a whole. (Bear 1972)

Soft Sytem Methodology (SSM)

The SSM methodology was developed by Peter Checkland (Checkland 1981). As a system methodology this is used in analysing complex situations where there are divergent views about the definition of the problem. SSM consists of seven steps, with initial appreciation of the problem situation leading to the modelling of several human activity systems that might be thought relevant to the problem situation

Its been argued that there are two main modes within SSM. The first mode is the real world activities and the second mode is the system thinking about the real world. The initial work of SSM involves conducting interviews and meetings to gain an understanding of the problem situation. This is usually represented by the use of 'rich pictures'. According to expects in the field systems thinking use concepts of hierarchy, communication, control, and emergent properties to identify 'relevant systems' which may provide useful insights.

These relevant systems are logically defined by constructing 'root definitions' which are then used to generate 'conceptual models' of the selected systems. Different conceptual models representing different viewpoints are then used as the basis of a debate, which can lead to feasible and desirable change and then to action.

The hypothetical situation

Having considered the system tools I am now going to consider how these tools was used to diagnose as well as solved the following hypothetical organisational problem in one of our renowned and fine universities in Ghana.

Particular attention was paid to the faculty of agriculture of this university, because of its size and diverse nature. This faculty is made up of seven departments and three agriculture research stations. It is controlled by the dean of the faculty who is assisted by a vice dean as well as an Assistant Registrar and other administrative support staff. The research stations unlike the departments are located off campus. In fact they are located in different regions in southern part of the county.

For instance there is the palm research station located in the forest zone in a town called Kade in Ghana. This station carries extensive research into the development of the palm tree. The palm tree grows in tropical rainforest of the southern hemisphere and it’s a major cash crop. There is also the animal research station located in the savannah grassland of Accra, where researches are carried out on cattle breeding. Finally there is the Kpong Farms, which carries out research into rice cultivation. The research stations are controlled by Research Officers and assisted by other support staff.

Hypothetical Problem

There was staff unrest at the research stations so a committee was set up by the dean to look into the cause of the unrest. The committee among other things was to look at the possibilities of developing a new structure, aims and purpose for the research stations to make them more viable. It was also to look at the flow of information from the faculty to these out stations and devise means of granting them autonomy.

The committee made the following findings as problems prevailing within the faculty.

The Research stations

1. The farm workers at the stations lacked the necessary farm implements to carry out their normal duties. Meanwhile there was stockpile of farm implements locked up in the warehouse at the faculty. All it needs is an order from the assistant registrar for the farm implements to be moved to the workers at the farms. He could not sign the order because the vice dean has other plans for the farm implements.

2. Some casual workers at the rice research stations were aggrieved because they have been working as casual for over four years. This was against the university regulation which stipulated that no ‘one should be engaged as casual worker for than twelve months. The administrative officer who was to see that the appointment of the casual workers are regularised complained there was no vehicle to convey him to the main campus to work on their documents.

3. Some senior officers at the palm research stations have given out a portion of the station’s forest reserve as a timber concession to a timber contractor without involving the workers. The revenue accrued from the deal could not be accounted for.

4. The workers at the rice and palm research stations think the animal research station is more favoured when it comes to the distribution of vehicles and other logistics.

Application of TSI to Hypothetical problem

Having looked critically at what TSI entails we are now going to look at how to solve the problem at stake. TSI could be used as a dominant problem-solving tool with either SSM or VSM as dependant tool. However this will depend entirely on the situation on the ground.

The creativity phase

The committee began its work by inviting the ringleaders of the unrest for a series of round table discussion at the faculty. It also visited the research stations to talk to the casual workers as well as other workers at the stations. This I must say was based purely on the creativity phase of the intervention based, according to the logic of TSI. The committee did not use cognitive mapping but dwelled extensively on metaphor analysis. (Jackson 2000).

During the round table discussion the ringleaders expressed gross discontent for flow of information. The other workers the committee talked to also expressed the need of restructuring the faculty to give autonomy to the stations. Using a system metaphor to analyse the situation based on TSI, the committee realised the faculty was operating as a machine. It is a pure bureaucratic institution which has power concentrated at the faculty which is the centre. There is also a high hierarchy of authority with a well-defined system of rules (Mullin 2002).

Various system tools

The committee set out to work by applying the various system tools available under TSI. They began by trying to use the brain metaphor to analyse the problem of the faculty. In so doing, it realised the flow of information in the faculty is not the best in terms of promoting local autonomy at the stations. Aside of this the delegation of decision-makings to staffs lower the ladder was also absent. The brain metaphor was thus not suitable. In an attempt to compare the faculty to an organism the committee noticed it has very little interaction with its environment. The faculty has not got its own information channels for communicating with the environment in regards to day-to-day issues. It failed to realise that the environment is very complex, and that information that concerns it must be attenuated before reaching the sub-system. It considered itself as a pure academic institute and has very little to do with other private farms and stations in the country which are competing seriously with the stations.

In an attempt to introduce the culture metaphor the committee realised some of the heads of the various stations that regards themselves as elites were so conscious of the power structures operating in the system and will not be comfortable for any change in the system. It is clear from the look of things they will try to resist any change the committee would want to introduce.

Application of Viable System Methodology (VSM)

The next thing the committee was confronted with was which system methodologies to choose in solving the problems that were revealed at the creativity stage. It looked at the various system methodologies to see which ones can best solve the problem. When the committee considered the system of system methodology (SOSM) frame it noticed that the Viable System Methodology (VSM) by Beer (1989) would be the best for tackling the flow of information in the faculty.

The committee used the VSM as its basis of looking at the structural problems of the faculty and made recommendations to the dean. The committee was able to identify all the various systems and the sub -systems of the faculty in VSM terms. It came out with the following.

System one of the systems, which are the research stations, was the parts that actually carry out the tasks that the faculty is intended to accomplish. The committee thus realised the need for the stations to be autonomous, so recommended total decentralising. Considering Beer’s (1989) VSM system the committee noticed that it would be more proper if each of the stations has their own warehouse where farm implements could be supplied to them directly. There was also the need to have proper administrative mechanism at the stations dealing directly with regularising the appointment of casual workers.

The committee also noticed that the coordination of these activities from the faculty would not help the situation. It thus aimed at devising a mechanism where the stations will constitute viable systems on their own with all the five levels of Beer’s model. (Beer 1989). They would thus be recursion level one with recursion level two imbedded in them. The main faculty will thus become the Meta system.

Direct interventions ‘rules and resources bargain

The committee discovered that the Assistant Registrar who was to control the day-to-day management and monitoring at the stations was not playing his role properly. This was because he was not getting the right information from the local management team through the command axis in relation to shortage of farm implements and labour issues. He relied too much on information from the local management team. In the light of the above and also based on the internal information regarding the state of the operation, the committee noticed that the Assistant Registrar has no influence on the stations. It therefore saw the need for direct intervention, which must come from localised monitoring and control centre. The committee thus used Beer’s direct interventions ‘rules and resources bargain’ (Beer, 1989,) in solving the problem on issuing out of farm implements. The control and monitoring on the farm must give rules and direct orders on when the implements must be given out and when labour issues must be dealt with. There must be bargain and negotiation on allocation of vehicles and other logistics to the various stations.

Soft System Methodology (SSM) The committee came to a point when it realised the need for a different methodology to deal with what it presumed as the cultural metaphor operating in the faculty. It saw the sense in applying Checkland’s SSM (Checkland 1981). IT followed this methodology meticulously taking closely into account the problem prevailing at the faculty. The Soft Systems Methodology thus became dominant system methodology. The committee chose two relevant systems for consideration: 1. Look at a system that will give autonomy to the stations 2. A system that involve the staff in the decision making process. Rich Picture of the Problem The SSM recommends the use of a pictorial representation since a picture can show far more information on the situations on the farms. This actually showed patterns, arrangements, connections and relationships better. Above all, it is easy for the committee to understand and it provides a representation of the problem situation at the research stations. Root Definitions of Relevant Systems The committee then came to the root definitions. The important aspect here is to summarize the essence of the problem situation from all the details in the rich picture. Initial attempts in this direction are already made in determining the primary tasks of the stations and its issues of concern. It is required of the committee to identify some relevant systems of the problem situation for root definition purposes. The strategy it adopted for generating relevant systems was by ‘brainstorming’ with farm leaders, and the research officers. Conceptual Model for Granting Autonomy The committee was able to determine that the stations are critical planning areas, so it designed planning and scheduling model depicting only the major activities of the stations that have inter-dependencies. The root definition determined granting autonomy was to be incorporated in the model. (Checkland 1981)

Conclusion Experts argued that system methodologies are effective tools which bring together and discuss all aspects of knowledge management relevant to an organization and also model them dynamically over time. I believe most of our institutions used system methodologies as problem diagnostic and problem solving tools, but its time this area of study is researched more into by our research institutions. These are very important tools we can fall on to solve the numerous problems pertaining in our institutions. Majority of our institutions operate like machines with very little regards to the changes in the environment. They operate system of administration and organisational procedures which had been discarded off decades ago in the developed world. We got to change with the changing world

Francis Kwaku Egu -MBA (Finance) UK PhD Finance Student, London- UK kwakuhull@yahoo.com