IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/srbeha/v40y2023i4p671-688.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An adaptive use of Soft Systems Methodology with Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing, Critical Systems Heuristics and Interactive Planning in a women's prison

Author

Listed:
  • Yasemin Torun
  • Nuri Gökhan Torlak

Abstract

This study uses the two strands model of Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) with other change methodologies within a single intervention to elicit new insights into a multi‐methodology and address problems detected in a women's prison in Turkey. Evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of SSM, the study proposes to use SSM, as a core approach, with Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing (SAST), Critical Systems Heuristics (CSH) and Interactive Planning (IP), as subordinate methodologies. The multi‐methodology integrates group formation of SAST into the cultural and logic‐based streams of analysis of SSM. Also, it adapts assumption surfacing, dialectical debate and synthesis of SAST, boundary questions of CSH and resource planning of IP to a logic‐driven stream of inquiry of SSM. The study reports the methodological effects of this approach and examples of psychosocial services and a performance appraisal system to assist human well‐being and promote public safety in a women's prison.

Suggested Citation

  • Yasemin Torun & Nuri Gökhan Torlak, 2023. "An adaptive use of Soft Systems Methodology with Strategic Assumption Surfacing and Testing, Critical Systems Heuristics and Interactive Planning in a women's prison," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(4), pages 671-688, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:40:y:2023:i:4:p:671-688
    DOI: 10.1002/sres.2885
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.2885
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/sres.2885?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran, 2011. "Mixing OR methods in practice: Past, present and future directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(3), pages 503-511, December.
    2. Jackson, MC, 1987. "Present positions and future prospects in management science," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 15(6), pages 455-466.
    3. Russell L. Ackoff, 1981. "The Art and Science of Mess Management," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 11(1), pages 20-26, February.
    4. Brocklesby, John, 2016. "The what, the why and the how of behavioural operational research—An invitation to potential sceptics," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 796-805.
    5. W Ulrich, 2003. "Beyond methodology choice: critical systems thinking as critically systemic discourse," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(4), pages 325-342, April.
    6. M C Jackson, 1999. "Towards coherent pluralism in management science," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 50(1), pages 12-22, January.
    7. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P., 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Returning to the roots of the OR profession," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 791-795.
    8. Jae Eon Yu & Hyo Chang Hong, 2016. "Systemic Design for Applying the Combined Use of SSM and CDA to Social Practices," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 149-171, April.
    9. Rajenlall Siriram, 2012. "A Soft and Hard Systems Approach to Business Process Management," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(1), pages 87-100, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhichang Zhu, 2022. "Paradigm, specialty, pragmatism: Kuhn's legacy to methodological pluralism," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 895-912, September.
    2. Z Zhu, 2011. "After paradim: why mixing-methodology theorising fails and how to make it work again," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 784-798, April.
    3. Lane, David C. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A., 2023. "Towards a behavioural system dynamics: Exploring its scope and delineating its promise," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 306(2), pages 777-794.
    4. Gallice, Andrea, 2017. "An approximate solution to rent-seeking contests with private information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(2), pages 673-684.
    5. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    6. Osório, António, 2017. "Self-interest and equity concerns: A behavioural allocation rule for operational problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(1), pages 205-213.
    7. Richard Ormerod, 2024. "Pragmatism as practice theory: The experience of systems and OR scholars," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(1), pages 52-81, January.
    8. Meinard, Y. & Cailloux, O., 2020. "On justifying the norms underlying decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1002-1010.
    9. M C Jackson, 2003. "Deeper complementarism: a brief response to Ulrich," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(11), pages 1225-1226, November.
    10. Linnéusson, Gary & Ng, Amos H.C. & Aslam, Tehseen, 2020. "A hybrid simulation-based optimization framework supporting strategic maintenance development to improve production performance," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(2), pages 402-414.
    11. Ackermann, Fran, 2024. "Managing grand challenges: Extending the scope of problem structuring methods and behavioural operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 319(2), pages 373-383.
    12. Guo, Peijun, 2019. "Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1034-1043.
    13. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    14. Cui, Yuan & Pan, Hao & Huang, Yi-Di & Yang, Guo-liang, 2024. "How can sociological theories provide legitimacy to eco-efficiency evaluations? Embark on a journey toward understanding," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    15. Max Rosvall, 2024. "Space of Challenges (SOC) Framework: Problems, Issues and Dilemmas in Sustainable Housing," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 37(6), pages 931-958, December.
    16. Johnson, Michael P. & Midgley, Gerald & Chichirau, George, 2018. "Emerging trends and new frontiers in community operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1178-1191.
    17. M Jackson, 2009. "Managing the tensions created by mixing methods: comments for Eden et al from a critical systems perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(9), pages 1297-1299, September.
    18. Luke Houghton & David Tuffley, 2015. "Towards a Methodology of Wicked Problem Exploration through Concept Shifting and Tension Point Analysis," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 283-297, May.
    19. Leitner, Stephan & Rausch, Alexandra & Behrens, Doris A., 2017. "Distributed investment decisions and forecasting errors: An analysis based on a multi-agent simulation model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 279-294.
    20. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2017. "Self-interest and Equity Concerns: A Behavioural Allocation Rule for Operational Problems," Working Papers 2072/290757, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:srbeha:v:40:y:2023:i:4:p:671-688. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/1092-7026 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.