The Purpose of this Paper

Bertalanffy said, ‘…In one way or another, we are forced to deal with complexities, with wholes or systems, in all fields of knowledge. This implies a basic reorientation in scientific thinking.’ (ibid, 1973, p.3). This recognition is embodied by the work of Professors C.West Churchman and Peter Checkland.

The purpose of this paper is to revisit their key ideas and their thoughts about ‘inquiring systems’. These two scholars laid the ground of ‘soft’ systems. The area of interest is ‘inquiring systems¹—that is how do we set about finding out? This was prompted by the growth of digital systems and their influence over us. It became apparent that the question also raises a wider issue such as how are such ‘systems²’ designed and developed? Upon what are they based and what is the approach adopted by the inquirer? I will discuss the implication of applying soft ideas when undertaking a real-world inquiry. My purpose is to consider if, and how, we can get to the ‘heart’ of inquiry.

First to declare my starting point, my Weltanschauungen. It is not the history of Systems practice nor the origins of Systems Thinking. For example, a valuable text by Georgiou (2007) explores ‘systems’ thinking. In the text he discusses various ideas, from General Systems Theory to Habermasian ideal speech situations. Georgiou is presenting a view he considers describes the Systems epistemology. While this is an impressive journey, I am not convinced that he encapsulates the essence of ‘soft’ systems within this discussion, but this was not his intention. His viewpoint appears to owe more to Habermas and to a psychological interpretation of human behaviour than the ideas about inquiring systems espoused by Churchman and Checkland.

My general impression of this text is that it tends towards a psychological interpretation of systems whereas Soft systems is influenced by the ideas of Hegel and Husserl rather than Habermas and Satre. In my view, these ideas are germane, not just to the design and development of digital systems, but how we gain understanding of complex situations per se. Ulrich (1994) also provides account of ‘practical philosophy’ in which Churchman’s influence upon Systems ideas is clearly delineated. But my paper is not an attempt to review all methods of investigation³ but to revisit the ideas of Churchman and Checkland and the emergence of soft systems inquiry.

An important attribute of soft inquiry is the recognition of the subjectivity of experience⁴ and how this affects the way we undertake an inquiry free from prejudice. Husserl’s observation is apposite to the path I have taken, he says ‘The man, therefore, who compares his thoughts of things with the things themselves can in fact only measure his contingent thinking, influenced by custom, tradition, inclination and aversion, against thinking that is free from such influences and that heeds no voice but that of its own inherent lawfulness’ (Husserl 2001a, b, p.42). The essence of this idea, I believe, emerges from Churchman and Checkland thinking which, as Naughton (1979) remarked, can be collectively described as ‘social technology’. Operationalising these ideas is not a trivial task as understanding what is required by the stakeholders is as much an art⁵ as a science, something often misunderstood and missing from reductionist approaches to inquiry.

I revisit Churchman and Checkland’s discussions about inquiry, how attitudes and beliefs can influence outcomes and how we can accommodate them. While I refer to the ideas Churchman expressed in his 1971 text, I will not engage in a critical analysis of the philosophers he references.⁶ Instead, I will take advantage of his conclusions and their influence upon human understanding. I will then consider Checkland’s ideas on organisational inquiry as described in Systems Thinking Systems Practice (1999), then reflect upon these ideas and consider their impact upon inquiry and their influence upon systems theory and practice. I will conclude with two examples of the practical outcome of these ideas. The paper has been divided into sections each dealing with an aspect of Churchman and Checkland’s ideas about inquiry. I begin with Digital Systems, move on to System and Teleology, Organisational Inquiry, Singerian inquiry, Weltanschauung, above and below the line thinking, Boundary and MoP, Churchman’s building blocks and Checkland’s SSM, then the influences of Husserl and Gadamer, the practice and finally conclusions.

Digital Systems and the Importance of Inquiry

Digital ‘systems’ are developed from what has been ‘found out’ from an investigation into a particular area of concern from which a model, a mathematical algorithm, is developed. This model becomes the beating heart of the computer system. The program is based on an algorithm written by someone to facilitate a defined set of objectives. The programmer is chained to a series of binary functions, but the real world is shaped by value and opinions. Where does the data upon which the algorithm is developed come from, how does it affect the wider system and how is its impact upon a user considered? This leads me to ask how does the designer decide what should be coded and to what end?

Human society cannot be easily simplified into a once and for all model, decisions are made by human beings, for an art historian, a theologian, a scientist, or a manager there is no simple computation. Even programmers with knowledge of methods of inquiry rarely have the opportunity to see the ‘system’ as a whole, they break it into parts suited to their purpose. The unintended consequence of installing technology is exacerbated by the methods of inquiry imported from reductionist science that rarely allow the inquirer to consider its impact upon the system as a whole.

The effect of getting it wrong can have a lasting and damaging effect. For example, the Horizon⁷ project. The underlying problems of the Post Office Horizon project exemplifies the consequence of failing to consider the whole system. There was a systemic failure leading to several false accusations of theft (see Smith 2022). The impact upon individuals and communities was considerable. The importance of ‘finding out’ for a designer is clear, not just in the development of digital based systems but organisational inquiry too. If the inquiry is flawed, then everything that follows will also be flawed.

Any inquiry means finding an accommodation between stakeholders about the issue to be investigated, this is not easy because social systems are not fixed and are ever changing. A manager knows that their world is a mixture of function and social practice. They are operating in a world that is shaped by imagination and theory, but also the shifting sands of taste and opinion. Any method of inquiry employed should be capable of considering the system as a whole and enable the inquirer to gain awareness of social practices and subjective opinion. But how does the inquirer decide what system it is to be investigated and decide upon the method of investigation?

The Problem of System and Teleology

How do we decide/recognize the ‘system’ to be investigated? I once wrote a system is a system because we say it is. This is not as frivolous as it might at first appear. ‘Systems’ are not fixed but chosen by those associated with it. One person’s transport ‘System’ is another person’s ‘System’ causing environmental damage. System. That is not to say that there are no systems that exists and acknowledged, these we refer to as teleological systems. But in everyday speech most of the Systems to which we refer are intellectual constructs.

Churchman refers to the concept of teleology,⁸ that is the recognition of something, that has purpose or design. Events can only be explained in terms of the ends to which they are directed, its purposes. A teleological system, in the Aristotelian sense, is to ask, ‘what is the fundamental nature of this object?’, its objective purposiveness (Checkland 1981 p.30). It can be intrinsic or extrinsic. But Churchman points out that ‘Not all teleological entities are systems. The differing feature of systems is that they can be separated into parts and that the parts work together for the sake of the whole…’, (ibid, 1971, p.49). For example, we can attribute a purpose to the mechanics of a watch, but there are some things we cannot fully explain why they ‘travel’ to their end-result. The former is a feature of design, and the latter is what we perceive as a natural teleological process. If we consider the sun as an example of teleology. It will eventually burn out. Simplistically we can liken it to a fire, it will burn until it runs out of fuel. It cannot do else. Its pathway from its origin to its end is predetermined. But the sun is also an essential part of plant life that harnesses its energy by photosynthesis. The process produces simple sugars that a healthy plant requires to grow. We can also think of ‘systems’ that relate to the sun that we have created, such as solar panels converting solar power into electricity. We can call these ‘systems’ because they are defined by us as having a purpose.

Not all teleological entities are systems. A human body can be thought of as being teleological, but it cannot be separated into parts because the parts work together to make up the whole (Churchman 1971, p.47). A systems inquirer is interested in the relationship between the parts that make up the ‘system as a whole’, in this case, it is the interaction between the physical parts to the whole to sustain life. While we can think of ‘systems’ such as the respiratory system these are not teleological, we have named them for a specific purpose. Checkland differentiates between teleology and teleonomy in an important way. Teleology is, broadly, a form of explanation in the Aristotelian sense, it is intrinsic or immanent. Teleonomy on the other hand ‘…is a product of selection not its cause⁹”. However, discussing the difference between the two is not appropriate to this paper. I will retain the notion of teleology as Churchman describes and a System as something devised, by humans, for a specific purpose. Given these considerations, how is the system of interest chosen and how can an inquirer gain understanding?

Organisational Inquiry

Undertaking an inquiry into a situation of interest, a ‘System’, such as an organisation,¹⁰ in which digital technology plays an important part,can provoke a collision of opinions that are difficult to reconcile. This is because the ‘System’ is not fixed and when changes to working practices are introduced, people feel threatened. Disputes that arise are often presented as that of pay, which although significant are not always the underlying cause; it is the worry about changes to working practices (Stowell 2020). The ‘System” of interest then, is viewed in different ways by those involved. The inquirer must try to make sense of what has, or is, creating the issues of concern. Reductionist methods inherited from the natural sciences are often found to be deficient when confronted by the complex issues emanating from social groups. Checkland says, ‘…the weakness of OR., not less than SE and SA is that it is wedded to logic in situations in which logic is not necessarily paramount (ibid1983, p.668). It is accepted that setting about an inquiry and establishing the root cause of the discontent requires an approach capable of inquiry into such complex systems, what Ackoff referred to as ‘messy’ systems¹¹ (Ackoff1978, p.4.). It is important to reflect upon this when selecting a method to ‘find out’. Often the method chosen is undertaken without questioning the conceptual basis upon which it is based. For example, a reductionist approach based upon responses to a sample of opinions (e.g. questionnaires) can easily focus more on verifying the sample size by a performance method of some kind¹²rather than upon the relevance of the questions to the situation explored. It should also be recognised that the sample is created, analysed and interpreted by the inquirer. The inquirer continues with the theme established by the area of expertise they inhabit,¹³ (digging the same hole deeper?). A second important consideration is, as Churchman reminds us, that, ‘…no observation can become objective unless the observer is also observed objectively’. (Churchman1971, p.150). How often is a researcher observed when undertaking an inquiry and how will they know they have finished? This leads on to observations by Churchman and Checkland and Singerian inquiring systems.

Singerian Inquiry

A Singerian inquiring system has no point of termination, it is a continual cycle of learning. In this sense Singerian inquiry can be considered as teleological because the inquiry is never ending, as is human curiosity. Such an inquiry ‘… is primarily the Aristotelian notion of the function of a type’ (Singer 1937, p.271). Singerian inquiry should embrace the whole scope of the inquiry in the design, a point taken up by Churchman, who says it is necessary to use the whole scope of inquiry to aid in the design task (Churchman 1971, p.195). Similarly, in SSM mode 1, Checkland refers to Singerian inquiry where he emphasises ‘…stage 7 being a redefinition of the problem situation shows the methodology as a whole to be a Singerian inquirer…’ (ibid, 1999 p.260).

To summarise¹⁴ Churchman’s conclusions, he says that ‘…any inquiry should have the purpose of creating knowledge, defined measure of performance. Importantly he continues,’… the design of inquiry along esoteric, disciplinary lines is probably wrong. The environment of the inquiry system is a very critical aspect of design, in the ideal everyone is a decision maker, progress can be measured in terms of the degree to which the client, decision maker and designer are the same.’ (ibid pp’s.200—201). This is an aspiration, with practical limitations. We cannot take the whole world into account nor all the views of everyone. This means that we select the ‘System’ of interest and those who are to take part.

Participants the Inquirer and the ‘System’ of Interest

Both Churchman and Checkland highlight the importance of participant involvement. But we should be aware of the Weltanschauungen, ‘W’s’ of participants and its influence upon the inquiry. In SSM mode1 the creation of a Rich Picture is one way of getting the views of participants. Churchman suggests the inquirer and the participants should merge into one. He deliberated the ideas of Leibniz, Locke, Kant, Hegel and Singer, and to this Checkland says soft Systems ideas,’… were developed further and given a degree of legitimacy with their association of the philosophy of Husserl and the sociology of Schutz (Checkland 1999, pp’s.277–281; e.g. Schutz 1962).

To make sense of the situation of interest¹⁵ a soft systems investigator should acknowledge that personal experiences play an important part in the selection (intention) and the ‘Appreciation’ of the ‘system’ to which our attention is directed. In a practical sense this involves trying to separate what seems to be happening from what the participants would like to be happening (Is and Ought). We are asking them to imagine ‘things’ in themselves. This cannot be achieved without difficulty, and I am the first to admit the improbability of achieving it, but this should be the intention. Such thinking requires strict mental discipline. Churchman reminds us that, ‘…Man expresses himself in his own individual way, to be sure, and his concept of the guarantor comes out of his own individuality, yet how his own individuality is a reality, and not relative to this or that inquirers view of the world,’ (ibid 1971, p.277). In SSM Checkland evokes Dilthey’s notion of Weltanschauung to highlight these differences (Checkland 1999, pp’s.215–221).

While accepting the importance of Weltanschauung I feel in practice, it has not always been considered as intended. Incorporating this idea without careful thought obfuscates its importance. In my experience there is almost a knee-jerk reaction, an attempt to acknowledge that people have different ideas about the situation of interest, without giving consideration of how it manifests and impacts upon an inquiry. To reduce this possibility, we could give the ‘System’ a name and ask participants to discuss its inputs and its outputs. This will help surface views about its purpose and aid focusing on what is meant by this ‘System’.

While each person will have a different view of a System we are trying to reach an accommodation and need to recognize whatever the differences it is still a System in their eyes. In this sense we can acknowledge Husserl. Phenomenology is concerned with the way we acknowledge something, a phenomena ‘…which although unreal in a certain manner determines reality’ (Patočka 2002, pp’s.31–37). In other words, the system is a system to an observer. This may seem obvious, but in doing so I am emphasizing that we are acknowledging that our sense of something can be interpreted in different ways by different observers, but the ‘thing’ is still the ‘thing’ for them. It is important to remember that we are selecting a part that suits our purpose.

It is not too bold to assert that most observers do not strive to understand the essence of what they observe and instead defend their initial opinion. But reflecting upon this idea helps us to recognize the ontic and eidetic¹⁶ dimensions that form the basis of our subjective understanding of our world.

System, Weltanschauung and Inquiry

We use the term ‘system’ in every-day speech, e.g. the justice system, the social system, the health system, systemic failure and so on. All commonplace, yet rarely is the person using the term asked what they mean by the ‘system’ to which they refer. There is rarely a clear definition. An example of this is ‘an organisation¹⁷’, we refer to this as a kind of system¹⁸ but the object of the discussion is unlikely to be seen as a ‘system’ in the same way by everyone. We can call something a system because we perceive it is made up of parts that all work together to make up the whole, but this is based upon subjective opinion.

Systems are situations of interest and recognised as such from the perspective of an observer i.e. it is subjective; we might give it a name, but rarely a definition. We see each situation differently, as Checkland points out ‘… Given the nature of human beings it will be the case that we are concerned not with ‘problems’ but with ‘perceptions of problems’ – and of course a wide variety of perceptions will be possible…’ (ibid 1999, p.238). How do we decide how this thing we are investigating is a ‘System’ out of the many competing alternatives? Who do we include and who do we exclude? It is a dilemma but remember it is we who decide.

Both Checkland and Churchman include the notion of Weltanschauung, a Weltanschauung is a German expression meaning ‘world’, ‘perception’. It refers to a philosophical view of the world and mankind’s place within it. Or more generally a particular view. In SSM mode 1, the CATWOE check draws attention to ‘W’ to highlight the perspective behind e.g. the root definition. Checkland also draws attention to ‘W’ in the 30-year retrospective (ibid 1999, p.A40). It is an undeniable feature of human perception. It is often, in recent times, used rather loosely to indicate differences of opinion in a general sense rather than the more refined idea envisioned by Dilthey¹⁹ (qv, Dilthey 2002).

If an inquirer is to be able to undertake their inquiry, then the situation of interest should be described such that all concerned are clear and agree what it is they are to investigate. This raises a challenge for the inquirer if we are to follow Churchman, who says the environment of the inquiring system should critically be one of cooperation and that success is measured in terms of how the designer and client merge into one. But all those involved will have different views. It is important the method of inquiry can enable free discussion. In this aim I think there are similarities between Churchman and Gadamer’s notion of a fusion of horizons²⁰ (ibid 2004, pp’s.304–305). Also, in SSM mode1 Checkland echoes the importance of discussion in Stages 6 and 7 that are intended to provoke a debate about the feasibility of the implications of stage 4. Discussion and understanding are fundamental to both Checkland and Churchman’s approach. Both are motivated by the modus of Singerian inquiry. That is, first the inquirer thinks about a situation in its entirety and second recognizes that inquiry is a never-ending process. This should not be viewed as a casual discussion about the ‘System’ as we are aiming to try to describe its essence. We are working towards a shared view of the ‘System’ of interest and a greater understanding of it.

The importance and Challenges of thinking Above and Below the Line

Our discussion thus far has highlighted the fact that we recognize that the same ‘system’ might be perceived differently by others. The idea of thinking above and below the line was an imaginative way of trying to get the inquirer and participants to detach themselves from their ‘real world’. Husserl asks us to recognize the ‘core’ of something, its essence.²¹ It is grounded in the concept and conditioned upon setting aside all preconceived ideas (epoché) to see phenomena through unclouded glasses, thereby allowing the true meaning of phenomena to naturally emerge with and within their own identity (Moustakas 1994).

Here we are asking the participants to conceive the ‘essence’ (eidos)²²of the ‘thing’ we are investigating. The essence, if it can be grasped, explains the existence, identity, powers, categorisation, relations, and perceptible attributes of each thing’ (Gibson 2010). We should note that essences²³ are not pre-existing forms but are eidetic—they are mental images of something. The forms are viewed not as pre-existing out there, but as constituted in intentional acts, in which we are directed at them. It is the basic nature of something that is indispensable. Husserl’s idea of essence is to suspend judgement about existence, meaning there is no universal. I understand this to mean that each ‘thing’ we address is taken in itself.²⁴ Husserl asks we suspend judgments in preference of them being created by intentional²⁵ acts, through which we become engaged. These are entirely of the mind; immanent. We learn about the world, by ‘experiencing things’, which provides us with a way of grasping what they are. To appreciate this Checkland asks the inquirer to undertake some intellectual calisthenics. He suggests we think of an imaginary line separating the real world from the thinking world and look at things with a fresh pair of eyes (Checkland, e.g. 1981, p.247; Checkland and Scholes 1999, p.27). It is a way of operationalizing difficult concepts. The real world is what the inquirer perceives the ‘system’ to be, the latter below the line, we think in terms of systems ideas. The former is a world that can be modeled or measured by observation and the latter a so-called, ‘thinking world’. The thinking world is an intangible world that is immanent and restricted entirely to the mind or a given domain; it is internal and subjective.

It is important to remember that what we choose to recognize as a system is something we extract from a wider system. The extraction will be determined by several factors including the inquirers perception of the situation and the various influences upon them. It is something consisting of purposeful activities. But it is the inquirer who is attributing a purpose to this ‘system’. The task of thinking above the line is to try to understand that thing– its’ essence. In practical terms this is probably not possible, but by attempting to do so underlines its importance rather than a cursory ‘nod’ to Weltanschauung.

The differentiation of above and below the line activities emphasises that thinking above the line is thinking about the ‘thing’ in its primordial state, avoiding our natural readinesses²⁶(Vickers 1983). In SSM mode 1 the RP provides the basis for the participants to identify, what is for them, problems or issues. This is an above the line activity. In practice, this is challenging, and the inquirer should be aware of the intellectual demand this creates. I acknowledge the difficulty of attempting to think about the concerns in their ‘purest’ form, but the inquirer should be aware that they are to focus on a ‘system’ they have selected from the wider ‘system’. It is a subjective choice. It is important because the participants, whether SSM or another approach, subjective opinions may spill over into the thinking below the line and consequently likely to have imported many of the same ‘issues’.

By asking the inquirer to think in terms above and below the line separates what is taking place in the ‘real world’, above the line, and thinking about selected parts of it below the line.

Thinking below the line involves selecting Systems, that are deemed relevant to the problem themes identified from the ‘above the line’ activities. In SSM Mode 1 the inquirer and participants think about the ‘problem themes’ and contemplate systems they deem relevant to these themes. We should be aware that what we choose to recognize as a ‘system’ is something we extract from a wider system. ‘…whether or not something is a system is regarded as a specific choice of the designer.’ (Churchman 1971, p.42). It is a subjective choice and will relate to the outlook of the inquirer.

This can be problematical as it is not unusual for the inquirer and participants to think about what, for them, ‘IS’²⁷ the case for the situation of concern – that is real world systems. If they continue to think what’IS’ the case below the line, it weakens the objective. The point of this exercise is that the inquirer is asked to think about their concerns by employing ‘Systems’ thinking, and nothing else’.²⁸ The participants are asked to suspend their thinking about previous experiences of similar situations and, in the case of SSM, focus on the ‘problem themes’ and what notional systems are considered relevant to them. The suspension of thinking about similar problems applies to any inquiry, using SSM or other soft methods. Husserl calls this epoché, to bracket earlier experiences of similar situations (qv).

The differentiation, above and below the line should not be considered to relate to SSM alone. It is an intellectual exercise relevant to any systems inquiry. In the Appreciative Inquiry Method (AIM) the difference is highlighted by asking participants to think about an issue, or question, related to the system of concern in terms of ‘what is the case’ and then what ‘ought’ to be the case (Stowell 2021a).

Thinking in terms of above and below the line is an important intellectual exercise and a valuable consideration for those wishing to gain greater understanding of soft systems inquiry.

Boundary and Approach Adopted

The inquirer should start their journey by declaring the approach to be adopted,²⁹ decide its boundary and agree where it starts and where it finishes. It is important to make clear who is to undertake the inquiry, the method of inquiry and the participants.³⁰ Clarifying the boundary of the system of interest is valuable to all concerned. In so doing it may help to avoid leaving out areas and people germane to the inquiry. This important aspect was clearly missing in the Horizon project.

Churchman says that the designers are everyone. Success, he says, is measured in terms of how the designer and client merge in to one. Once more there is an echo here of Gadamer’s fusion of horizons (qv). Agreement on boundary is important here and it is the inquirer and participants who make boundary judgements. As Ulrich says ‘…it is not the reality out there…but rather the inquirer’s standpoint’ (Ulrich 1994, p.226). It is not something that exists waiting to be discovered. We determine the ‘system’ of interest as something we carve out of wider systems and their environment, highlighting the subjectivity of our action. Both Churchman and Checkland emphasise the importance of boundary, and although Checkland does not make this explicit in SSM mode 2 it is, de facto, set by the ‘situation of concern’, the reasons behind why the researcher/practitioner is engaged in the inquiry. But for a new soft systems inquirer unversed in soft systems, it can be beneficial if the area of concern (interest) is shown pictorially. The action of drawing the boundary differentiating the ‘system’ of interest from the wider system to which it belongs helps to clarify thinking. To this end it is important that the participants are aware that the boundary is determined by the viewpoint (s) of those involved.

The culmination of an inquiry is to consider actions for change. We can separate these into desirable and what is acceptable, or feasible to the participants. This is a real-world, above the line, activity where the participants deliberate if the outcome from the inquiry can be implemented. The activity emphasises the importance of cooperation and acceptance of the outcome, that is to take ownership, by those concerned. This can only be achieved if the inquirer and the problem owners merge into one. The last point to discuss is the idea of measuring the satisfaction of the outcome of an inquiry, a measure of performance. To a degree this moves us on from inquiry – finding out—into a practical outcome, that of system design, moving from appreciation to actualization.

Measure of Performance or Authentication

Churchman discusses at length the desirability for the system, an outcome of inquiry, to have some measure of performance³¹ (MoP) to allow the designer and stakeholder to assess if the outcome meets their expectations. The examples he gives illustrate the challenge that this creates as it becomes clear that each situation could produce different requirements. Each MoP depends upon the perspective of the different stakeholders involved. Similarly, Checkland points out that measures of performance is contingent upon the systems performance judged against the performance of the system as a whole (ibid, 1981, p.174,). This brings into focus the nature of a ‘soft’ approach to inquiry and that it is not always limited to the designer and the client,³² Checkland suggests that the MoP focusses upon three issues³³: ‘…checking the output is produced, checking whether minimum resources are used to obtain it, checking at a higher level that this information is worth doing… (ibid, 1999, p. A24.).

We should not forget that a soft inquiry is about participants learning about the ‘system’ of concern and enabling them to consider actions for change (Vickers 1983, p.212). It is easy to forget this if the cycle of learning is subordinate to establishing a set of criteria upon which to judge its effectiveness. It is a delicate balance between developing a ‘system’ that satisfies the participants and imposing a benchmark as a measure of how well it performs. In Checkland and Poulter (2006, p.14) they discuss the activities involved in finding out and suggest 4 stages of activity. Level 3 is discussing and debating moving on to level 4, which is designing action to improve the situation. The resultant modules are monitored in terms of the how well the activities perform.

While accepting Churchman and Checkland’s point that the outcome should have some means of assessing its performance it still has to be something that the participants can embrace. In a paper by Champion and Stowell (2001) they suggest traditional ideas relating to ‘system’ verification (MoP) and expressions associated with 'hard' approaches, such as validation and verification can be distracting. They suggest that the participants role is that of authenticating the inquiry process and its outcome. The notion of authenticity³⁴ is a means of the participants demonstrating their acceptance of the outcome of the study. It is the acceptance of an outcome, prior to taking action. The idea provides a ‘soft’ way of endorsing the outcome while maintaining, ‘…a free interchange of ideas and expressions between participants.’ (e.g. Stowell 2021b).

However, we should recognize that we are choosing the system to study, also we are restricted in the number of opinions we can embrace and that not all interested parties will have shared that experience. In a practical sense it is important that ‘ownership’ of the outcome is taken by those directly involved so that there are enough ‘champions’ to carry out and support the changes. There should be an awareness of the sensibilities of the wider system and the effect of the outcome upon others (e.g. the horizon project). To this end Champion and Stowell’s suggestion that what emerges from an inquiry is ‘authenticated’ before moving to designing action to improve the situation has merit. The transition from appreciation to actualization highlights the difficulty of moving from a ‘soft’ inquiry into a design that introduces ways of measuring performance to assess its value.

Putting soft Ideas into Practice, Churchman and Checkland

Churchman, the theorist and Checkland the empiricist/practitioner share interest in, what we call ‘soft Systems’. Their ideas have inspired many in the systems community to explore this new area of Systems research and practice. In The Design of Inquiring Systems (1971), Churchman explores the philosophical ideas of Leibniz, Locke, Kant, Hegel and Singer’s philosophies on human understanding. His text provides a grounding for those interested in the philosophical ideas and the foundation of a ‘Systems Inquiry’. To these ideas are added a practical dimension created by Checkland et al. (1981). My investigation revealed similarities and the differences between these two scholars. The ideas discussed above are embodied as follows. Churchman provides us with building blocks and Checkland the practical means of implementing such difficult ideas,³⁵ (Checkland 1981, pp’s.161–180).

Prominent in Churchman’s analysis and Checkland’s work is what Singer (1936) referred to as contentment, by which he meant, ‘…those aspects of life that make it meaningful’ (Churchman 1971, pp’s.199–200), in practical terms a systems inquiry should seek to achieve knowledge, cooperation and agreement. By way of summarising these ideas Churchman provides building blocks, based upon Singer’s notion of an endless process of inquiry. I summarise these building blocks³⁶as follows,

1. I.
   The inquiring Systems purpose is creating knowledge.
2. II.
   Measure of performance is defined.
3. III.
   The client is ‘all human teleological beings.’
4. IV.
   Knowledge gained is to be useful for all men in all societies.
5. V.
   The environment of the inquiring system should be one of cooperation.
6. VI.
   Ideally decisions are made by everyone but recognize there will be leaders and followers.
7. VII.
   The designers are everyone. Success is measured in terms of how the designer and client merge in to one (boundary setting is important here).
8. VIII.
   The nature of the process should give a sense of optimism.

Churchman reminds us that the underpinning philosophy is, in the end, determined by the intellectual influences of the person undertaking the research (ibid 1971, p.277). Without a critical awareness of how we set about finding out we are in danger of ‘digging the same hole deeper’.

Checkland acknowledges that SSM mode1 is useful for ‘teaching’ about soft inquiry. As a practitioner/lecturer I can attest to this as it provides an opportunity to draw out important points to consider. SSM mode 1 is described by Checkland as follows,

1. I.
   Stage 1 and 2. The expression stage of the ‘problem situation’ undertaken by collecting as many perceptions as possible while not pressing analysis in systems terms. In this early incarnation inquirers were encouraged to producing a ‘cartoon’ type representation – Checkland called this a Rich Picture. These activities are ‘above the line’ activities. Checkland refers to such ‘systems’ as purposeful activity systems,
2. II.
   Stage 3. What are the notional systems which from the analysis stage seem relevant to the problem? This is undertaken ‘below’ the line.
3. III.
   Stage 4. Making and testing conceptual models.³⁷ First a description of a set of purposeful human activities conceived as a transformation process (called Root Definition). Second, make a model of the activities needed to achieve the transformation described in the RD.³⁸ (This activity, like stage 3 above, is a ‘below the line’ activity)
4. IV.
   Stage 5. Compare the conceptual model, to what is taking place in the problem situation. This is an ‘above the line’ activity, and is the stage where systems concepts provide the means of teasing out the complexities of reality.
   Stages 6 and 7 are intended to provoke a debate about the feasibility of the implications of stage 4. The outcome are changes to structure, process and, or attitude

In his 1999 text Checkland presented the outcomes of a research programme into inquiry (undertaken over 30 years³⁹). From this research programme emerged Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) Mode1 and later Mode 2. Many of Churchman’s thoughts are evident in the stages of SSM Mode 1 that can be seen in the above discussion. I now add Checkland’s description of SSM Mode 2 below which embraces the lessons learnt from its application (see Checkland 1999, p.A9),

1. I.
   Real world: a complexity of relationships
2. II.
   Relationship explored in models of purposeful activity based on explicit world views.
3. III.
   Inquiry structured by questioning perceived situation using the models as a source of questions
4. IV.
   Actions to improve based on finding accommodations (versions of the situation which conflicting interests can live with)
5. V.
   Inquiry in principle never ending; best conducted with wide range of interested parties; give the process away to people in the situation

Churchman and Checkland’s ideas changed the approach to inquiry and provided a way of dealing with the complexity of social situations. The prime purpose of a soft systems inquiry is to engender a learning cycle rather than seek an optimal solution as is the common outcome from a technique driven approach. This was new and groundbreaking.

Reflections upon the Ideas of Husserl and Gadamer to Soft Inquiry

Soft inquiry and the development of these ideas is well represented by the impressive amount of literature surrounding Soft Systems Methodology (see Checkland 1999), and I feel there is no benefit adding to this literature. I will take SSM as given in that it fulfils the key points raised above. The soft Systems practitioner is concerned with gaining understanding of our imagined and ‘real’ experiences and how these shape our perception of the world. Husserl was concerned with explaining how each of us formulates our understanding of the world and of specific situations. He argued that we learn about the world, by experiencing ‘things’, which provides us with a way of making sense of them. Individuals experience the lifeworld and through these experiences try to understand the why and what of the things experienced. Scientific knowledge on the other hand attempts to ascribe reasons for these happenings, but ‘…science has no adequate way of studying the elusive, since it always aims for precision, and hence in some real sense science is alienated from nature, (Churchman 1971, p.18).

The outcome of a soft inquiry is based upon the knowledge gained from the cycle of learning that enables participants to consider actions for change. The inquiry must,’…move from thinking about the action to thinking about support for action…’ (Champion 2001, p.79). However, creating such a virtuous circle is problematic because it means abandoning a belief developed from personal experience. A Soft inquiry has the challenge of taking account the opinions and views of the participants and provide a practical means of dealing with them. So how do we close the circle between recognizing the importance of subjective experience and taking it into account in a practical sense?

To avoid prejudgment arising from our own ‘readinesses’ (Vickers 1983, p.48),⁴⁰ Dilthey offers us Weltanschauung, but Gadamer offers the cycle of learning as a way of structuring understanding that I think is more appealing. He says that understanding can be achieved only by reference to the Weltanschauung and time⁴¹ in which that understanding is taking place. That is our understanding of something is within the context in which the phenomenon is experienced. To this we can add Husserl who says,’…Each man understands first of all…his concrete surrounding world or his culture; and he does so precisely as a man who belongs to the community fashioning it historically… (ibid p.133, 1991). Understanding, Gadamer says, is the ‘…interplay of the movement of tradition and the movement of the interpreter…and is …constantly being formed in our relation to tradition, as the means of examining its legitimacy’. (Gadamer 2004, p.293). Gadamer’s idea of the cycle of learning involves an interchange between participants until a point of mutual understanding is reached. To this end I add to the above discussion the following ideas which can be usefully added to ways of undertaking a ‘soft inquiry’,

1. Recognition that our life experiences help us to make sense of ‘our’ world (noemata).
2. Recognition of the importance of empathy as instrumental in forging relationships
3. Awareness of our own experiences and the impact they will have upon the way we perceive and act within any situation (e.g. stages 1&2 SSM mode 1)
4. The importance of a free interchange of ideas and expressions between participants (Gadamer 2004fusion of horizons)
5. Awareness of the language used in any encounter, its meanings ‘in context’ and time; Encourage non-judgmental participation highlighting the intersubjectivity ‘trap’ (‘fore conception’ and ‘readinesses’).
6. Awareness of the importance and practicality of the ‘never-ending’ cycle of learning (Singerian cycle)
7. And any method of inquiry employed should be faithful to the above and not be a hostage of its own design (e.g. Churchman 1971, p. 249)

In the final section I provide, in diagrammatic form, two soft methos of inquiry. SSM mode 2 and AIM.

Schematic Representations of Two Methods of Soft Inquiry

SSM provided practitioners with a soft systems approach for addressing messy situations (e.g. Ackoff 1971, p.4.). SSM mode1 provides a visual representation of a way of operationalising these ideas. The lessons learnt from the practice led to the development of mode 2. This development is represented by the diagram from SSM-30years retrospective shown below in Fig. 1

The cycle of learning can be seen through the iteration between different views about the perceived problem resulting in models of relevant purposeful activity systems. While soft ideas provide the basis of thinking about undertaking an inquiry and SSM is one way of operationalising them this not the end of the story. The Appreciative Inquiry Method⁴² (AIM) was developed by West (1990) and Stowell and through several applications has undergone an evolution that developed it from a method of knowledge elicitation to a method of organisational inquiry (Stowell 2021a). It is not a substitute for SSM rather an alternative method of soft inquiry. While it embraces many of the ideas from SSM it also has some useful differences.

For example, in SSM mode 1 the progression from the development of a Rich Picture to the emergence of problem themes is identified (and selected) by the participants. It is a means of engaging the participants in a cycle of learning. In AIM⁴³ it starts with an issue or question, which is a common starting point for a consultant/inquirer. We are asking participants, ‘what is the case’ creating this issue. Participants are invited to produce, in the form of a Venn diagram, concentric circles overlapping the central point in which the issue (or question) is identified. Each diagram contains what the issue means to them. These Venn diagrams (Systems Maps) are then discussed in plenary. This is designed to highlight differences of opinion and begin a cycle of learning. Differences between participants are discussed and participants attempt to find an accommodation of views; a semblance of Gadamer’s notion of a fusion of horizons. It is not unusual; for the question to be reconsidered as the participants discuss their opinions. This stage satisfies Churchman’s suggestion that the designer and client merge in to one and provides a good basis on which to proceed. The inquiry then proceeds along the lines shown in the Fig. 2 below. AIM is discussed in full in Stowell 2021a.

Conclusions

Churchman and Checkland considered how an inquiry into the kind of complex issues associated in social situations could be undertaken. While more interested in the philosophical underpinning of understanding, Churchman did outline ideas that he thought should be considered. Both he and Checkland favoured Singer, but for Checkland it was the philosophy of Husserl, the Sociology of Schutz coupled with Vickers notion of the Appreciative Systems that enabled the ideas to be developed into a practical approach.⁴⁴ I believe that these two scholars opened a new chapter for Systems theorists and practitioners. Whereas Churchman has provided an enlightening discussion about inquiry (and one that all systems practitioners/researchers should read), Checkland provided a way of doing it (qv).

I have used SSM mode1 in various sections because this is to acknowledge the importance of these groundbreaking ideas. It also gives the inquirer, new to soft systems, a framework on which to pause and think about these ideas (See Stowell 2016). I have included SSM mode 2 to illustrate its development over 3 years. I have also added AIM as an example of developing soft inquiry further while retaining its underlying philosophy. Soft ideas in the shape of SSM gave credence to what some might have regarded as philosophical musings. I hope that this paper might inspire further exploration.