The starting point was a classification of problem- contexts according to:
- The nature of the systems(s) embedding the problem of concern
- The relationship between relevant stakeholders
. Systems were seen to lie on a continuum ranging from simple to complex and, following Ackoff's terminology, problem-contexts labelled 'mechanical' if they contained relatively simple systems and 'systemic' if they housed complex systems. Decision-makers could be in a
- Unitary relationship to one another If they agreed upon a set of goals
- Pluralist If their objectives differed.
Problem-contexts, it followed, could also exhibit a 'unitary' or 'pluralist' character. Bringing the two dimensions of 'systems' and 'decision- makers' together, to form a four-celled matrix, yielded a classification of problem-contexts as mechanical-unitary, systemic-unitary, mechanical-pluralist and systemic-pluralist. Some brief justifi- cation was provided for the choice of the two dimensions forming the matrix.
Unitary | Pluralist | |
---|---|---|
Mechanical |
|
Cybernetic approaches, such as advocated by Beer and in the socio-technical systems literature
Suitable for tackling problems associated with systemic-unitary contexts. |
Systemic | Mechanical-pluralist contexts responded to the kind of systems design method proposed by Churchman, and by Mason and Mitroff in their 'strategic assumption surfacing and testing' methodology. | The soft systems thinking proposed by Ackoff and by Checkland could minister to problems set in systemic-pluralist problem-contexts. For example, Ackof's 'interactive planning' exhibited, through the participative principle, a method to cope with pluralism and, through the proposed design for a 'responsive decision system', an attempt to come to terms with systemicity |