Systems Thinking and SSM Applied to Sugarcane Supply Chains

Introduction to Systems Thinking

The key constructs of systems thinking were established in the first half of the 20th century in fields such as psychology, ecology, organismal biology, and cybernetics (Capra, 1997). They include: sub-systems, parts and wholes, environment, system and boundary, process and structure, emergent properties, hierarchy of organizations, negative and positive feedback, data and control, open systems, holism, and the observer. The practical application of these constructs across many fields was articulated by von Bertalanffy (1950), who referred to these concepts as General Systems Theory (GST). These concepts were subsequently adapted in Organizational Research and Management Science (OR/MS) and were referred to as management cybernetics (Beer, 1967), systems engineering (Hall, 1962), system dynamics (Forrester, 1968), and, finally, what may be called the systems approach (Churchman, 1968; Klir, 1969; Weinberg, 1975) (Mingers & White, 2009).

The systems thinking and systems approach has been closely linked to the growth of organizational research and management science. Initially it was intimately associated with the work of proponents such as Ackoff and Churchman, and later through innovations such as soft systems methodology. Systems thinking can be rightfully regarded as a complete field with many methodological and theoretical innovations. However, because of its broad generalization, systems thinking is applicable to a wide variety of problem areas — and therefore any review of systems thinking should always be a selective one.

The significance of systems thinking for OR/MS was recognized from the outset by pioneers including Ackoff and Churchman, cyberneticists such as Beer, and systems engineers such as Hall. However, the growth of OR led to certain divergences: OR evolved to focus on computer and mathematical modeling approaches, to the detriment of systems thinking. System dynamics and cybernetics grew separately and in relative isolation, while systems engineering came to be used primarily in the United States public sector. These divergences eventually produced a crisis in organizational research, resulting in the formation of soft systems — both critical and systemic. The latest theories to emerge from this crisis include chaos and complexity theory (Mingers & White, 2009).

Problem Situation in the Sugarcane Milling Industry

Milling areas are often characterized by challenges arising from the involvement of many stakeholders in the sugarcane supply chain. These stakeholders hold different values, goals, mentalities, expectations, and strategies (Bezuidenhout & Bodhanya, 2010). This diversity can result in competing interests, creating conflicts and tension throughout the supply chain (Gerwel et al., 2011).

The problems posed by hard technical issues in sugarcane industry supply chains are key components in the development of any mill area. These include the quality of the cane and its supply, the efficiency of the mill, and the division and distribution of proceeds. Beyond these hard technical issues, there are also problems of managing other components such as objectives, values, leadership, communication, and trust — all of which must be addressed when aiming to enhance a sugarcane supply chain (Bezuidenhout & Bodhanya, 2010).

Justification for Soft Systems Methodology

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is a philosophy that takes into account intervention in unpredictable, real-life circumstances where there are problematic areas (Checkland, 1985). The emphasis is on making adaptations, through productive discussions, in areas where relevant stakeholders mutually surface their perceptions and deal with issues. The emphasis is on accommodation among diverse partners and on arriving at an agreed-upon course of action (Presley & Meade, 2002). The stages in SSM include: forming answers concerning problem situations; creating models that take debate and discussion into consideration by contrasting the reality of situations with their potential; and settling on a strategy to realize change. Distinctive instruments are also utilized — for example, the generation of "rich pictures," which are used to identify stakeholders and their interests (Gerwel et al., 2011).

Using the System of Systems Methodologies (SoSM) framework, SSM was selected because the systems being described are relatively simple — comprised of a small number of highly structured relationships that are broadly stable and moderately unaffected by interactions with external elements (Systemswiki, 2014). These interactions are those between the hard technical issues and the other components described above. Additionally, the participants in the framework are pluralist: basic interests are compatible, but members do not share identical values and beliefs. This means space is needed for open deliberation, differences, and potential conflict, while participants require involvement in decision-making and accommodations and compromises must be found (Systemswiki, 2014).

Applying SSM: Stages 1–4

Stage 1: Problem Definition and Awareness

Currently, most organizations in the sugar mill industry are comprised of a mixture of human resources, quality management, economics, finances, politics, international relations, productivity, environmental protection, organizational development, and many other systems. It is therefore quite difficult for sugar mill owners and management to identify the right point at which to begin a systems thinking approach. Stage 1 enables the definition of the problem and the problem situation within a sugar mill organization. It brings about an awareness of the complexity of the situation at hand and helps sugar mill management gain support from the employees who are concerned with or involved in the problem situation. Obtaining support from employees — in the form of ideas or identified problems — is the initial step toward enabling genuine participation of all stakeholders (Garza & Fernandez, 2012).

A lack of understanding and appreciation for the diversity of opinions among stakeholders currently exists in the sugar mill industry. Some stakeholders felt that many individuals in the industry prioritized their own self-interest over a holistic view. Certain stakeholders also noted feeling like small cogs in a large wheel. There were competing interests among the objectives of stakeholders — some of whom believed others were motivated purely by profit — and sugarcane farmers expressed a desire for greater interaction with mill management and more support. The division of profits among different stakeholders led to further discord (Gerwel et al., 2011).

Stage 2: Rich Picture Development

One of the key elements of soft systems methodology is the creation of the richest possible visualization of the problem situation. This requires creativity in expressing and explaining the problems that a particular organization faces at a given time. This rich visualization is essentially a concise summary of the whole situation — a panorama of the problem being investigated. Though this rich picture is a powerful tool, it can also be a challenging one. While it clearly defines the current moment and reflects reality, many sugar mill managers and owners find confronting that reality uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the picture is a valuable tool for diagnosing and learning from the system. One limitation of rich pictures is that people always interpret them through the filters of their present and past experiences and expectations — particularly through the lens of their particular skill set or area of expertise.

Concerning the purpose of the rich picture — capturing every relevant element of an organization at a given moment — it follows that creating a rich picture is essentially producing a snapshot of a system, in accordance with the principles of Gestalt psychology. Since each element captured in the rich picture emerges in a particular space and at a particular time, Gestalt psychology argues that we can only study a given scenario in its "here and now." Even the past can only be observed through a personal filter of "here and now." This means that both realities exist only in the mind of the person thinking about them and are not accessible through mere observation (Garza & Fernandez, 2012).

There are significant problems with transparency and communication in the sugarcane industry. Many stakeholders felt that, while some primary communication existed, it remained only superficial. Many expressed a need for genuine two-way communication between sugarcane farmers and growers on one side and sugar mill workers on the other. Accompanying the communication problems was a widespread perception of mistrust among farmers and growers toward mill workers. Ultimately, there is a need for unity of purpose between farmers and workers, along with encouragement toward more active involvement in all matters that concern the sugar mill area (Gerwel et al., 2011).

Stage 3: Identifying Relevant Systems (CATWOE)

The sustainability and operations of small-scale growers (SSGs) present a serious threat to the sugarcane industry, as their well-being directly affects the supply chain. SSGs experienced numerous problems, including inadequate financing, poor infrastructure and support, and limited or traditional farming methods. A regular supply of quality sugarcane can only be achieved through successful interactions and communications among all concerned parties. Reliable transport and infrastructure between the farm and the mill are also critical factors, since their absence can lead to sugarcane deterioration in the fields. The efficiency of the mill and its regular maintenance are additional concerns. Increased sugarcane output is important but is influenced by soil fertility, weather, the growth of alternative cash crops, declining interest in cane farming, and the availability of input resources such as quality fertilizers and farm implements (Gerwel et al., 2011).

Stage 3 is the most important stage in soft systems methodology because it encompasses the systems approach for the entire sugar mill by identifying the relevant systems of the sugarcane organization under study. It maps the organization based on the elements of the main system and its associated components. It is crucial that analysts identify appropriate boundaries for the number of systems to be included in the study. All components — Customers, Actors, Transformation Process, Worldview, Owner, and Environmental Constraints (CATWOE) — should be included in this map so as to achieve a holistic picture of the sugarcane organization (Garza & Fernandez, 2012).

Stage 4: Conceptual Model Formulation

Many stakeholders exhibited a clear desire to improve working relationships, as well as a need to identify and address the sources of conflict between the sugarcane farmers and mill workers. This behavioral change is only attainable through a shift in mindset, enabling stakeholders to become aware of the ways in which their actions affect the broader system. There is also an existing awareness among stakeholders that they depend on one another; however, there is a need to develop interpersonal skills so as to enable effective collaboration in such a complex environment (Gerwel et al., 2011).

Stage 4 involves the formulation of a conceptual model anchored in the root definition. It allows interaction between the previous stage and this one so as to produce a more refined root definition and conceptual model. The conceptual model is an idealized view — a mental visualization of the verbs that make up the root definition for the problem facing the sugarcane organization.

The proposal for Stage 4 is to develop the main conceptual model first, and then develop several subsidiary conceptual models for each verb that constitutes the main model. This approach enables the researcher to further understand the true meaning or intended action of each verb proposed in the main conceptual model (Garza & Fernandez, 2012).

Conclusion

Systems approaches can propel change efforts and increase the effectiveness of existing ones. Systems thinking can also be used to shift the mindset of management and improve organizational efficiency. It enhances people's capacity to comprehend complex information, to identify solutions to chronic problems, and to make sound decisions that prevent the recurrence of those problems. Developing systems thinking capacity can enable a more seamless working environment across an entire organization (Stroh, 2000).

There is a need for ongoing efforts to study and engage in systems analysis. Both SSM and VSM present useful tools that can be applied in other areas of concern involving the many diverse views of stakeholders. Through discussions and interactions aimed at addressing deeply held perceptions, stakeholders can together make positive systemic improvements that can eventually lead to increased efficiencies (Gerwel et al., 2011).

References

Beer, S., 1967. Cybernetics and Management. English Universities Press: London.

Beer, S., 1984. The viable system model: Its provenance, development, methodology and pathology. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 35(7): 25.

Bezuidenhout, C. & Bodhanya, S., 2010. Identifying opportunities in South African sugarcane supply-chain-systems: A synopsis, limitations and recommendations. Report to the South African Sugarcane Research Institute, Mount Edgecombe.

Burnett, S.M. & Durant-Law, G.A., 2008. Applying the RAAAKERS framework in an analysis of the command and control arrangements of the ADF Garrison Health Support. Journal of Military and Veterans' Health, 17: 19–26.

Capra, F., 1997. The Web of Life: A New Synthesis of Mind and Matter. Flamingo: London.

Cezarino, L.O. & Beltran, A.C., 2009. Diagnosis of organizational soft problems in a Peruvian financial institution by systemic thinking. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 22: 101–110.

Checkland, P., 1985. Achieving desirable and feasible change: An application of soft systems methodology. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36(9): 821–831.

Churchman, C.W., 1968. The Systems Approach. Dell Publishing: New York.

Davies, P., 1998. Information Systems Development. 3rd ed. Macmillan Press: Hampshire.

Espejo, R. & Gill, A., n.d. The Viable System Model as a Framework for Understanding Organizations.

Forrester, J., 1968. Principles of Systems. MIT Press: Cambridge.

Garza, M.P.L. & Fernandez, A.D., 2012. SSM/VSM under a Complex Systems Framework. AuthorHouse: Bloomington.

Gerwel, C., Hildbrand, S., Bodhanya, S. & Bezuidenhout, C., 2011. Systemic approaches to understand the complexities. Proceedings of the South African Sugar Technologists' Association, 84: 177–181.

Hall, A.D., 1962. A Methodology for Systems Engineering. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York.

Jackson, M.C. (Ed.), 2000. Organizational Cybernetics. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers: New York.

Klijn, E-H., 2008. Complexity theory and public administration: What's new? Public Management Review, 10(3): 299–317.

Klir, G.J., 1969. An Approach to General Systems Theory. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York.

Mingers, J. & White, L., 2009. A Review of the Recent Contribution of Systems Thinking to Operational Research and Management Science. University of Kent: Canterbury.

Presley, A. & Meade, L., 2002. The role of soft systems methodology in planning for sustainable production. CMI, 37: 101–110.

Schwaninger, M. & Rios, J.P., 2008. System dynamics and cybernetics: A synergetic pair. System Dynamics Review, 24: 145–174.

Stroh, D.P., 2000. Leveraging change: The power of systems thinking in action. The Society of Organizational Learning Journal.

Systemswiki, 2014. System of Systems Methodologies (SOSM). Retrieved from http://www.systemswiki.org/index.php?title=System_of_Systems_Methodologies_(SOSM)

Von Bertalanffy, L., 1950. The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 111: 23–29.

Weinberg, G.M., 1975. An Introduction to General Systems Thinking. Wiley: New York.

Zhou, H., n.d. Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) in information system analysis. Available at: [Accessed 8 July 2015].