5.

4 Methodology, method, technique, and tools

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware how different
authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools, as well as
systems approaches. Having just spent some time explaining what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and tool.
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
methodologies rather than methods in relation to Systems. A method is used as a
given, much like following a recipe in a recipe book whereas a methodology can be
adapted by a particular user in a participatory situation. There is a danger in treating
methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that
arises from what is done in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the
result of, and the process of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence
(Checkland, 1985).
For me, a methodology involves the conscious braiding of theory and practice in a given
context (Ison and Russell, 2000). An aware systems practitioner, aware of a range of
systems distinctions (concepts) and having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal
(e.g. drawing a systems map) as well as systems methods designed by others, is able
to judge what is appropriate for a given context in terms of managing a process. This
depends, of course, to a large extent on the nature of the role the systems practitioner is
invited to play, or chooses to play. When braiding theory with practice, there are always
judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my
experience in this situation adequately dealt with by the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the
skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situation?’ There are also emotional feelings –
‘Does it feel right?’
Within systems practice, a tool is usually something abstract, such as a diagram, used
in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a purpose, or facilitating an activity. Technique is
concerned with both the skill and ability of doing or achieving something and the
manner of its execution, such as drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An
example of technique in this sense might be drawing a systems map to a specified set
of conventions.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How it is put
into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as
methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it, recipe-
like, regardless of the situation then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as
a formula but as ‘guidelines to process’, and the practitioner takes responsibility for
learning from the process, it can become methodology.
In this course you will encounter in some detail the hard systems method (HS-method),
the viable systems model (VS-method) and soft systems methodology (SS-method). I
will use these abbreviations except when I quote other authors who may refer, for
example, to SSM (soft systems methodology) or VSM (viable systems model).
When speaking of SSM, Peter Checkland claims:
 One feature never in doubt was the fact that SSM is methodology (the logos of method,
the principles of method) rather than technique or method. This means that it will never
be independent of the user of it, as is technique.
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
From the perspective of this course SS-methodology arises from a particular form of
practice using SS-method. The transformation of method into methodology is something
to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner.

SAQ 14
Describe a circumstance in which each of the following could be classified as either a
tool, a technique, a method, or a methodology.
 (a) Idea generating (sometimes called ‘brainstorming’)
 (b) A systems map of the CSA case study
 (c) Learning by reflecting on experience
 (d) Adapting the HS-method for a new IT development
 (e) Checking personal reactions and investments in situations

Reveal answer

SAQ 15
Which of the examples that follow best exemplifies for you the process of
contextualising. Give your reasons. Note, I am asking here about the generic process of
contextualising, not the more specific case of contextualising a systems approach.
 (a) I am preparing a dinner for guests on Saturday. My guests are business
associates from the Middle East whom I have not met before. I am renowned for my
skills in cooking pork-based dishes so I think I will build my menu around this
experience.
 (b) I am adept at getting people to contribute creative ideas during a brainstorming
session. For this reason, I always start my workshops with a brainstorming session.
 (c) I have just finished a Systems course at the OU. Most of my colleagues at work
are not really interested in these ideas and don't really understand them but I found a
lot of the tools useful in thinking about my own situation. Because of this, I have
sometimes suggested using a particular systems diagramming tool when I thought

5.4 Methodology, method, technique, and tools

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware how different
authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools, as well as
systems approaches. Having just spent some time explaining what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and tool.
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
methodologies rather than methods in relation to Systems. A method is used as a
given, much like following a recipe in a recipe book whereas a methodology can be
adapted by a particular user in a participatory situation. There is a danger in treating
methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that
arises from what is done in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the
result of, and the process of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence
(Checkland, 1985).
For me, a methodology involves the conscious braiding of theory and practice in a given
context (Ison and Russell, 2000). An aware systems practitioner, aware of a range of
systems distinctions (concepts) and having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal
(e.g. drawing a systems map) as well as systems methods designed by others, is able
to judge what is appropriate for a given context in terms of managing a process. This
depends, of course, to a large extent on the nature of the role the systems practitioner is
invited to play, or chooses to play. When braiding theory with practice, there are always
judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my
experience in this situation adequately dealt with by the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the
skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situation?’ There are also emotional feelings –
‘Does it feel right?’
Within systems practice, a tool is usually something abstract, such as a diagram, used
in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a purpose, or facilitating an activity. Technique is
concerned with both the skill and ability of doing or achieving something and the
manner of its execution, such as drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An
example of technique in this sense might be drawing a systems map to a specified set
of conventions.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How it is put
into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as
methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it, recipe-
like, regardless of the situation then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as
a formula but as ‘guidelines to process’, and the practitioner takes responsibility for
learning from the process, it can become methodology.
In this course you will encounter in some detail the hard systems method (HS-method),
the viable systems model (VS-method) and soft systems methodology (SS-method). I
will use these abbreviations except when I quote other authors who may refer, for
example, to SSM (soft systems methodology) or VSM (viable systems model).
When speaking of SSM, Peter Checkland claims:
One feature never in doubt was the fact that SSM is methodology (the logos of method,
the principles of method) rather than technique or method. This means that it will never
be independent of the user of it, as is technique.
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
From the perspective of this course SS-methodology arises from a particular form of
practice using SS-method. The transformation of method into methodology is something
to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner.
 SAQ 14
Describe a circumstance in which each of the following could be classified as either a
tool, a technique, a method, or a methodology.
 (a) Idea generating (sometimes called ‘brainstorming’)
 (b) A systems map of the CSA case study
 (c) Learning by reflecting on experience
 (d) Adapting the HS-method for a new IT development
 (e) Checking personal reactions and investments in situations

Reveal answer

SAQ 15
Which of the examples that follow best exemplifies for you the process of
contextualising. Give your reasons. Note, I am asking here about the generic process of
contextualising, not the more specific case of contextualising a systems approach.
 (a) I am preparing a dinner for guests on Saturday. My guests are business
associates from the Middle East whom I have not met before. I am renowned for my
skills in cooking pork-based dishes so I think I will build my menu around this
experience.
 (b) I am adept at getting people to contribute creative ideas during a brainstorming
session. For this reason, I always start my workshops with a brainstorming session.
 (c) I have just finished a Systems course at the OU. Most of my colleagues at work
are not really interested in these ideas and don't really understand them but I found a
lot of the tools useful in thinking about my own situation. Because of this, I have
sometimes suggested using a particular systems diagramming tool when I thought

5.4 Methodology, method, technique, and tools

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware how different
authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools, as well as
systems approaches. Having just spent some time explaining what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and tool.
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
methodologies rather than methods in relation to Systems. A method is used as a
given, much like following a recipe in a recipe book whereas a methodology can be
adapted by a particular user in a participatory situation. There is a danger in treating
methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that
arises from what is done in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the
result of, and the process of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence
(Checkland, 1985).
 For me, a methodology involves the conscious braiding of theory and practice in a given
context (Ison and Russell, 2000). An aware systems practitioner, aware of a range of
systems distinctions (concepts) and having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal
(e.g. drawing a systems map) as well as systems methods designed by others, is able
to judge what is appropriate for a given context in terms of managing a process. This
depends, of course, to a large extent on the nature of the role the systems practitioner is
invited to play, or chooses to play. When braiding theory with practice, there are always
judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my
experience in this situation adequately dealt with by the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the
skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situation?’ There are also emotional feelings –
‘Does it feel right?’
Within systems practice, a tool is usually something abstract, such as a diagram, used
in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a purpose, or facilitating an activity. Technique is
concerned with both the skill and ability of doing or achieving something and the
manner of its execution, such as drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An
example of technique in this sense might be drawing a systems map to a specified set
of conventions.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How it is put
into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as
methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it, recipe-
like, regardless of the situation then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as
a formula but as ‘guidelines to process’, and the practitioner takes responsibility for
learning from the process, it can become methodology.
In this course you will encounter in some detail the hard systems method (HS-method),
the viable systems model (VS-method) and soft systems methodology (SS-method). I
will use these abbreviations except when I quote other authors who may refer, for
example, to SSM (soft systems methodology) or VSM (viable systems model).
When speaking of SSM, Peter Checkland claims:
One feature never in doubt was the fact that SSM is methodology (the logos of method,
the principles of method) rather than technique or method. This means that it will never
be independent of the user of it, as is technique.
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
From the perspective of this course SS-methodology arises from a particular form of
practice using SS-method. The transformation of method into methodology is something
to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner.

SAQ 14
Describe a circumstance in which each of the following could be classified as either a
tool, a technique, a method, or a methodology.
 (a) Idea generating (sometimes called ‘brainstorming’)
 (b) A systems map of the CSA case study
 (c) Learning by reflecting on experience
 (d) Adapting the HS-method for a new IT development
 (e) Checking personal reactions and investments in situations

Reveal answer

SAQ 15
Which of the examples that follow best exemplifies for you the process of
contextualising. Give your reasons. Note, I am asking here about the generic process of
contextualising, not the more specific case of contextualising a systems approach.
 (a) I am preparing a dinner for guests on Saturday. My guests are business
associates from the Middle East whom I have not met before. I am renowned for my
skills in cooking pork-based dishes so I think I will build my menu around this
experience.
 (b) I am adept at getting people to contribute creative ideas during a brainstorming
session. For this reason, I always start my workshops with a brainstorming session.
 (c) I have just finished a Systems course at the OU. Most of my colleagues at work
are not really interested in these ideas and don't really understand them but I found a
lot of the tools useful in thinking about my own situation. Because of this, I have
sometimes suggested using a particular systems diagramming tool when I thought

5.4 Methodology, method, technique, and tools

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware how different
authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools, as well as
systems approaches. Having just spent some time explaining what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and tool.
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
methodologies rather than methods in relation to Systems. A method is used as a
given, much like following a recipe in a recipe book whereas a methodology can be
adapted by a particular user in a participatory situation. There is a danger in treating
methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that
arises from what is done in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the
result of, and the process of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence
(Checkland, 1985).
For me, a methodology involves the conscious braiding of theory and practice in a given
context (Ison and Russell, 2000). An aware systems practitioner, aware of a range of
systems distinctions (concepts) and having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal
(e.g. drawing a systems map) as well as systems methods designed by others, is able
to judge what is appropriate for a given context in terms of managing a process. This
depends, of course, to a large extent on the nature of the role the systems practitioner is
invited to play, or chooses to play. When braiding theory with practice, there are always
 judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my
experience in this situation adequately dealt with by the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the
skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situation?’ There are also emotional feelings –
‘Does it feel right?’
Within systems practice, a tool is usually something abstract, such as a diagram, used
in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a purpose, or facilitating an activity. Technique is
concerned with both the skill and ability of doing or achieving something and the
manner of its execution, such as drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An
example of technique in this sense might be drawing a systems map to a specified set
of conventions.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How it is put
into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as
methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it, recipe-
like, regardless of the situation then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as
a formula but as ‘guidelines to process’, and the practitioner takes responsibility for
learning from the process, it can become methodology.
In this course you will encounter in some detail the hard systems method (HS-method),
the viable systems model (VS-method) and soft systems methodology (SS-method). I
will use these abbreviations except when I quote other authors who may refer, for
example, to SSM (soft systems methodology) or VSM (viable systems model).
When speaking of SSM, Peter Checkland claims:
One feature never in doubt was the fact that SSM is methodology (the logos of method,
the principles of method) rather than technique or method. This means that it will never
be independent of the user of it, as is technique.
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
From the perspective of this course SS-methodology arises from a particular form of
practice using SS-method. The transformation of method into methodology is something
to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner.

SAQ 14
Describe a circumstance in which each of the following could be classified as either a
tool, a technique, a method, or a methodology.
 (a) Idea generating (sometimes called ‘brainstorming’)
 (b) A systems map of the CSA case study
 (c) Learning by reflecting on experience
 (d) Adapting the HS-method for a new IT development
 (e) Checking personal reactions and investments in situations

Reveal answer
 SAQ 15
Which of the examples that follow best exemplifies for you the process of
contextualising. Give your reasons. Note, I am asking here about the generic process of
contextualising, not the more specific case of contextualising a systems approach.
 (a) I am preparing a dinner for guests on Saturday. My guests are business
associates from the Middle East whom I have not met before. I am renowned for my
skills in cooking pork-based dishes so I think I will build my menu around this
experience.
 (b) I am adept at getting people to contribute creative ideas during a brainstorming
session. For this reason, I always start my workshops with a brainstorming session.
 (c) I have just finished a Systems course at the OU. Most of my colleagues at work
are not really interested in these ideas and don't really understand them but I found a
lot of the tools useful in thinking about my own situation. Because of this, I have
sometimes suggested using a particular systems diagramming tool when I thought

5.4 Methodology, method, technique, and tools

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware how different
authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools, as well as
systems approaches. Having just spent some time explaining what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and tool.
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
methodologies rather than methods in relation to Systems. A method is used as a
given, much like following a recipe in a recipe book whereas a methodology can be
adapted by a particular user in a participatory situation. There is a danger in treating
methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that
arises from what is done in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the
result of, and the process of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence
(Checkland, 1985).
For me, a methodology involves the conscious braiding of theory and practice in a given
context (Ison and Russell, 2000). An aware systems practitioner, aware of a range of
systems distinctions (concepts) and having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal
(e.g. drawing a systems map) as well as systems methods designed by others, is able
to judge what is appropriate for a given context in terms of managing a process. This
depends, of course, to a large extent on the nature of the role the systems practitioner is
invited to play, or chooses to play. When braiding theory with practice, there are always
judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my
experience in this situation adequately dealt with by the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the
skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situation?’ There are also emotional feelings –
‘Does it feel right?’
Within systems practice, a tool is usually something abstract, such as a diagram, used
in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a purpose, or facilitating an activity. Technique is
concerned with both the skill and ability of doing or achieving something and the
 manner of its execution, such as drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An
example of technique in this sense might be drawing a systems map to a specified set
of conventions.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How it is put
into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as
methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it, recipe-
like, regardless of the situation then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as
a formula but as ‘guidelines to process’, and the practitioner takes responsibility for
learning from the process, it can become methodology.
In this course you will encounter in some detail the hard systems method (HS-method),
the viable systems model (VS-method) and soft systems methodology (SS-method). I
will use these abbreviations except when I quote other authors who may refer, for
example, to SSM (soft systems methodology) or VSM (viable systems model).
When speaking of SSM, Peter Checkland claims:
One feature never in doubt was the fact that SSM is methodology (the logos of method,
the principles of method) rather than technique or method. This means that it will never
be independent of the user of it, as is technique.
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
From the perspective of this course SS-methodology arises from a particular form of
practice using SS-method. The transformation of method into methodology is something
to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner.

SAQ 14
Describe a circumstance in which each of the following could be classified as either a
tool, a technique, a method, or a methodology.
 (a) Idea generating (sometimes called ‘brainstorming’)
 (b) A systems map of the CSA case study
 (c) Learning by reflecting on experience
 (d) Adapting the HS-method for a new IT development
 (e) Checking personal reactions and investments in situations

Reveal answer

SAQ 15
Which of the examples that follow best exemplifies for you the process of
contextualising. Give your reasons. Note, I am asking here about the generic process of
contextualising, not the more specific case of contextualising a systems approach.
 (a) I am preparing a dinner for guests on Saturday. My guests are business
associates from the Middle East whom I have not met before. I am renowned for my
skills in cooking pork-based dishes so I think I will build my menu around this
experience.
 (b) I am adept at getting people to contribute creative ideas during a brainstorming
session. For this reason, I always start my workshops with a brainstorming session.
 (c) I have just finished a Systems course at the OU. Most of my colleagues at work
are not really interested in these ideas and don't really understand them but I found a
lot of the tools useful in thinking about my own situation. Because of this, I have
sometimes suggested using a particular systems diagramming tool when I thought

5.4 Methodology, method, technique, and tools

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware how different
authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools, as well as
systems approaches. Having just spent some time explaining what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and tool.
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
methodologies rather than methods in relation to Systems. A method is used as a
given, much like following a recipe in a recipe book whereas a methodology can be
adapted by a particular user in a participatory situation. There is a danger in treating
methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that
arises from what is done in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the
result of, and the process of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence
(Checkland, 1985).
For me, a methodology involves the conscious braiding of theory and practice in a given
context (Ison and Russell, 2000). An aware systems practitioner, aware of a range of
systems distinctions (concepts) and having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal
(e.g. drawing a systems map) as well as systems methods designed by others, is able
to judge what is appropriate for a given context in terms of managing a process. This
depends, of course, to a large extent on the nature of the role the systems practitioner is
invited to play, or chooses to play. When braiding theory with practice, there are always
judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my
experience in this situation adequately dealt with by the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the
skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situation?’ There are also emotional feelings –
‘Does it feel right?’
Within systems practice, a tool is usually something abstract, such as a diagram, used
in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a purpose, or facilitating an activity. Technique is
concerned with both the skill and ability of doing or achieving something and the
manner of its execution, such as drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An
example of technique in this sense might be drawing a systems map to a specified set
of conventions.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How it is put
into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as
 methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it, recipe-
like, regardless of the situation then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as
a formula but as ‘guidelines to process’, and the practitioner takes responsibility for
learning from the process, it can become methodology.
In this course you will encounter in some detail the hard systems method (HS-method),
the viable systems model (VS-method) and soft systems methodology (SS-method). I
will use these abbreviations except when I quote other authors who may refer, for
example, to SSM (soft systems methodology) or VSM (viable systems model).
When speaking of SSM, Peter Checkland claims:
One feature never in doubt was the fact that SSM is methodology (the logos of method,
the principles of method) rather than technique or method. This means that it will never
be independent of the user of it, as is technique.
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
From the perspective of this course SS-methodology arises from a particular form of
practice using SS-method. The transformation of method into methodology is something
to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner.

SAQ 14
Describe a circumstance in which each of the following could be classified as either a
tool, a technique, a method, or a methodology.
 (a) Idea generating (sometimes called ‘brainstorming’)
 (b) A systems map of the CSA case study
 (c) Learning by reflecting on experience
 (d) Adapting the HS-method for a new IT development
 (e) Checking personal reactions and investments in situations

Reveal answer

SAQ 15
Which of the examples that follow best exemplifies for you the process of
contextualising. Give your reasons. Note, I am asking here about the generic process of
contextualising, not the more specific case of contextualising a systems approach.
 (a) I am preparing a dinner for guests on Saturday. My guests are business
associates from the Middle East whom I have not met before. I am renowned for my
skills in cooking pork-based dishes so I think I will build my menu around this
experience.
 (b) I am adept at getting people to contribute creative ideas during a brainstorming
session. For this reason, I always start my workshops with a brainstorming session.
 (c) I have just finished a Systems course at the OU. Most of my colleagues at work
are not really interested in these ideas and don't really understand them but I found a
lot of the tools useful in thinking about my own situation. Because of this, I have
sometimes suggested using a particular systems diagramming tool when I thought

5.4 Methodology, method, technique, and tools

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware how different
authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools, as well as
systems approaches. Having just spent some time explaining what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and tool.
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
methodologies rather than methods in relation to Systems. A method is used as a
given, much like following a recipe in a recipe book whereas a methodology can be
adapted by a particular user in a participatory situation. There is a danger in treating
methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that
arises from what is done in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the
result of, and the process of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence
(Checkland, 1985).
For me, a methodology involves the conscious braiding of theory and practice in a given
context (Ison and Russell, 2000). An aware systems practitioner, aware of a range of
systems distinctions (concepts) and having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal
(e.g. drawing a systems map) as well as systems methods designed by others, is able
to judge what is appropriate for a given context in terms of managing a process. This
depends, of course, to a large extent on the nature of the role the systems practitioner is
invited to play, or chooses to play. When braiding theory with practice, there are always
judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my
experience in this situation adequately dealt with by the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the
skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situation?’ There are also emotional feelings –
‘Does it feel right?’
Within systems practice, a tool is usually something abstract, such as a diagram, used
in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a purpose, or facilitating an activity. Technique is
concerned with both the skill and ability of doing or achieving something and the
manner of its execution, such as drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An
example of technique in this sense might be drawing a systems map to a specified set
of conventions.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How it is put
into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as
methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it, recipe-
like, regardless of the situation then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as
a formula but as ‘guidelines to process’, and the practitioner takes responsibility for
learning from the process, it can become methodology.
In this course you will encounter in some detail the hard systems method (HS-method),
the viable systems model (VS-method) and soft systems methodology (SS-method). I
 will use these abbreviations except when I quote other authors who may refer, for
example, to SSM (soft systems methodology) or VSM (viable systems model).
When speaking of SSM, Peter Checkland claims:
One feature never in doubt was the fact that SSM is methodology (the logos of method,
the principles of method) rather than technique or method. This means that it will never
be independent of the user of it, as is technique.
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
From the perspective of this course SS-methodology arises from a particular form of
practice using SS-method. The transformation of method into methodology is something
to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner.

SAQ 14
Describe a circumstance in which each of the following could be classified as either a
tool, a technique, a method, or a methodology.
 (a) Idea generating (sometimes called ‘brainstorming’)
 (b) A systems map of the CSA case study
 (c) Learning by reflecting on experience
 (d) Adapting the HS-method for a new IT development
 (e) Checking personal reactions and investments in situations

Reveal answer

SAQ 15
Which of the examples that follow best exemplifies for you the process of
contextualising. Give your reasons. Note, I am asking here about the generic process of
contextualising, not the more specific case of contextualising a systems approach.
 (a) I am preparing a dinner for guests on Saturday. My guests are business
associates from the Middle East whom I have not met before. I am renowned for my
skills in cooking pork-based dishes so I think I will build my menu around this
experience.
 (b) I am adept at getting people to contribute creative ideas during a brainstorming
session. For this reason, I always start my workshops with a brainstorming session.
 (c) I have just finished a Systems course at the OU. Most of my colleagues at work
are not really interested in these ideas and don't really understand them but I found a
lot of the tools useful in thinking about my own situation. Because of this, I have
sometimes suggested using a particular systems diagramming tool when I thought

5.4 Methodology, method, technique, and tools

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware how different
authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools, as well as
systems approaches. Having just spent some time explaining what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and tool.
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
methodologies rather than methods in relation to Systems. A method is used as a
given, much like following a recipe in a recipe book whereas a methodology can be
adapted by a particular user in a participatory situation. There is a danger in treating
methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that
arises from what is done in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the
result of, and the process of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence
(Checkland, 1985).
For me, a methodology involves the conscious braiding of theory and practice in a given
context (Ison and Russell, 2000). An aware systems practitioner, aware of a range of
systems distinctions (concepts) and having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal
(e.g. drawing a systems map) as well as systems methods designed by others, is able
to judge what is appropriate for a given context in terms of managing a process. This
depends, of course, to a large extent on the nature of the role the systems practitioner is
invited to play, or chooses to play. When braiding theory with practice, there are always
judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my
experience in this situation adequately dealt with by the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the
skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situation?’ There are also emotional feelings –
‘Does it feel right?’
Within systems practice, a tool is usually something abstract, such as a diagram, used
in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a purpose, or facilitating an activity. Technique is
concerned with both the skill and ability of doing or achieving something and the
manner of its execution, such as drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An
example of technique in this sense might be drawing a systems map to a specified set
of conventions.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How it is put
into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as
methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it, recipe-
like, regardless of the situation then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as
a formula but as ‘guidelines to process’, and the practitioner takes responsibility for
learning from the process, it can become methodology.
In this course you will encounter in some detail the hard systems method (HS-method),
the viable systems model (VS-method) and soft systems methodology (SS-method). I
will use these abbreviations except when I quote other authors who may refer, for
example, to SSM (soft systems methodology) or VSM (viable systems model).
When speaking of SSM, Peter Checkland claims:
One feature never in doubt was the fact that SSM is methodology (the logos of method,
the principles of method) rather than technique or method. This means that it will never
be independent of the user of it, as is technique.
 (Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
From the perspective of this course SS-methodology arises from a particular form of
practice using SS-method. The transformation of method into methodology is something
to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner.

SAQ 14
Describe a circumstance in which each of the following could be classified as either a
tool, a technique, a method, or a methodology.
 (a) Idea generating (sometimes called ‘brainstorming’)
 (b) A systems map of the CSA case study
 (c) Learning by reflecting on experience
 (d) Adapting the HS-method for a new IT development
 (e) Checking personal reactions and investments in situations

Reveal answer

SAQ 15
Which of the examples that follow best exemplifies for you the process of
contextualising. Give your reasons. Note, I am asking here about the generic process of
contextualising, not the more specific case of contextualising a systems approach.
 (a) I am preparing a dinner for guests on Saturday. My guests are business
associates from the Middle East whom I have not met before. I am renowned for my
skills in cooking pork-based dishes so I think I will build my menu around this
experience.
 (b) I am adept at getting people to contribute creative ideas during a brainstorming
session. For this reason, I always start my workshops with a brainstorming session.
 (c) I have just finished a Systems course at the OU. Most of my colleagues at work
are not really interested in these ideas and don't really understand them but I found a
lot of the tools useful in thinking about my own situation. Because of this, I have
sometimes suggested using a particular systems diagramming tool when I thought

5.4 Methodology, method, technique, and tools

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware how different
authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools, as well as
systems approaches. Having just spent some time explaining what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and tool.
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
methodologies rather than methods in relation to Systems. A method is used as a
given, much like following a recipe in a recipe book whereas a methodology can be
adapted by a particular user in a participatory situation. There is a danger in treating
methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that
arises from what is done in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the
result of, and the process of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence
(Checkland, 1985).
For me, a methodology involves the conscious braiding of theory and practice in a given
context (Ison and Russell, 2000). An aware systems practitioner, aware of a range of
systems distinctions (concepts) and having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal
(e.g. drawing a systems map) as well as systems methods designed by others, is able
to judge what is appropriate for a given context in terms of managing a process. This
depends, of course, to a large extent on the nature of the role the systems practitioner is
invited to play, or chooses to play. When braiding theory with practice, there are always
judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my
experience in this situation adequately dealt with by the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the
skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situation?’ There are also emotional feelings –
‘Does it feel right?’
Within systems practice, a tool is usually something abstract, such as a diagram, used
in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a purpose, or facilitating an activity. Technique is
concerned with both the skill and ability of doing or achieving something and the
manner of its execution, such as drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An
example of technique in this sense might be drawing a systems map to a specified set
of conventions.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How it is put
into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as
methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it, recipe-
like, regardless of the situation then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as
a formula but as ‘guidelines to process’, and the practitioner takes responsibility for
learning from the process, it can become methodology.
In this course you will encounter in some detail the hard systems method (HS-method),
the viable systems model (VS-method) and soft systems methodology (SS-method). I
will use these abbreviations except when I quote other authors who may refer, for
example, to SSM (soft systems methodology) or VSM (viable systems model).
When speaking of SSM, Peter Checkland claims:
One feature never in doubt was the fact that SSM is methodology (the logos of method,
the principles of method) rather than technique or method. This means that it will never
be independent of the user of it, as is technique.
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
From the perspective of this course SS-methodology arises from a particular form of
practice using SS-method. The transformation of method into methodology is something
to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner.

SAQ 14
 Describe a circumstance in which each of the following could be classified as either a
tool, a technique, a method, or a methodology.
 (a) Idea generating (sometimes called ‘brainstorming’)
 (b) A systems map of the CSA case study
 (c) Learning by reflecting on experience
 (d) Adapting the HS-method for a new IT development
 (e) Checking personal reactions and investments in situations

Reveal answer

SAQ 15
Which of the examples that follow best exemplifies for you the process of
contextualising. Give your reasons. Note, I am asking here about the generic process of
contextualising, not the more specific case of contextualising a systems approach.
 (a) I am preparing a dinner for guests on Saturday. My guests are business
associates from the Middle East whom I have not met before. I am renowned for my
skills in cooking pork-based dishes so I think I will build my menu around this
experience.
 (b) I am adept at getting people to contribute creative ideas during a brainstorming
session. For this reason, I always start my workshops with a brainstorming session.
 (c) I have just finished a Systems course at the OU. Most of my colleagues at work
are not really interested in these ideas and don't really understand them but I found a
lot of the tools useful in thinking about my own situation. Because of this, I have
sometimes suggested using a particular systems diagramming tool when I thought

5.4 Methodology, method, technique, and tools

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware how different
authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools, as well as
systems approaches. Having just spent some time explaining what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and tool.
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
methodologies rather than methods in relation to Systems. A method is used as a
given, much like following a recipe in a recipe book whereas a methodology can be
adapted by a particular user in a participatory situation. There is a danger in treating
methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that
arises from what is done in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the
result of, and the process of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence
(Checkland, 1985).
For me, a methodology involves the conscious braiding of theory and practice in a given
context (Ison and Russell, 2000). An aware systems practitioner, aware of a range of
 systems distinctions (concepts) and having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal
(e.g. drawing a systems map) as well as systems methods designed by others, is able
to judge what is appropriate for a given context in terms of managing a process. This
depends, of course, to a large extent on the nature of the role the systems practitioner is
invited to play, or chooses to play. When braiding theory with practice, there are always
judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my
experience in this situation adequately dealt with by the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the
skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situation?’ There are also emotional feelings –
‘Does it feel right?’
Within systems practice, a tool is usually something abstract, such as a diagram, used
in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a purpose, or facilitating an activity. Technique is
concerned with both the skill and ability of doing or achieving something and the
manner of its execution, such as drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An
example of technique in this sense might be drawing a systems map to a specified set
of conventions.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How it is put
into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as
methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it, recipe-
like, regardless of the situation then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as
a formula but as ‘guidelines to process’, and the practitioner takes responsibility for
learning from the process, it can become methodology.
In this course you will encounter in some detail the hard systems method (HS-method),
the viable systems model (VS-method) and soft systems methodology (SS-method). I
will use these abbreviations except when I quote other authors who may refer, for
example, to SSM (soft systems methodology) or VSM (viable systems model).
When speaking of SSM, Peter Checkland claims:
One feature never in doubt was the fact that SSM is methodology (the logos of method,
the principles of method) rather than technique or method. This means that it will never
be independent of the user of it, as is technique.
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
From the perspective of this course SS-methodology arises from a particular form of
practice using SS-method. The transformation of method into methodology is something
to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner.

SAQ 14
Describe a circumstance in which each of the following could be classified as either a
tool, a technique, a method, or a methodology.
 (a) Idea generating (sometimes called ‘brainstorming’)
 (b) A systems map of the CSA case study
 (c) Learning by reflecting on experience
 (d) Adapting the HS-method for a new IT development
 (e) Checking personal reactions and investments in situations

Reveal answer

SAQ 15
Which of the examples that follow best exemplifies for you the process of
contextualising. Give your reasons. Note, I am asking here about the generic process of
contextualising, not the more specific case of contextualising a systems approach.
 (a) I am preparing a dinner for guests on Saturday. My guests are business
associates from the Middle East whom I have not met before. I am renowned for my
skills in cooking pork-based dishes so I think I will build my menu around this
experience.
 (b) I am adept at getting people to contribute creative ideas during a brainstorming
session. For this reason, I always start my workshops with a brainstorming session.
 (c) I have just finished a Systems course at the OU. Most of my colleagues at work
are not really interested in these ideas and don't really understand them but I found a
lot of the tools useful in thinking about my own situation. Because of this, I have
sometimes suggested using a particular systems diagramming tool when I thought

5.4 Methodology, method, technique, and tools

As you engage with systems thinking and practice you will become aware how different
authors refer to systems methodologies, methods, techniques, and tools, as well as
systems approaches. Having just spent some time explaining what I mean by a systems
approach, I now want to distinguish between methodology, method, technique and tool.
Several authors and practitioners have emphasised the significance of the term
methodologies rather than methods in relation to Systems. A method is used as a
given, much like following a recipe in a recipe book whereas a methodology can be
adapted by a particular user in a participatory situation. There is a danger in treating
methodologies as reified entities – things in the world – rather than as a practice that
arises from what is done in a given situation. A methodology in these terms is both the
result of, and the process of, inquiry where neither theory nor practice take precedence
(Checkland, 1985).
For me, a methodology involves the conscious braiding of theory and practice in a given
context (Ison and Russell, 2000). An aware systems practitioner, aware of a range of
systems distinctions (concepts) and having a toolbox of techniques at their disposal
(e.g. drawing a systems map) as well as systems methods designed by others, is able
to judge what is appropriate for a given context in terms of managing a process. This
depends, of course, to a large extent on the nature of the role the systems practitioner is
invited to play, or chooses to play. When braiding theory with practice, there are always
judgements being made: ‘Is my action coherent with my theory?’ as well as, ‘Is my
experience in this situation adequately dealt with by the theory?’ and, ‘Do I have the
 skills as a practitioner to contribute in this situation?’ There are also emotional feelings –
‘Does it feel right?’
Within systems practice, a tool is usually something abstract, such as a diagram, used
in carrying out a pursuit, effecting a purpose, or facilitating an activity. Technique is
concerned with both the skill and ability of doing or achieving something and the
manner of its execution, such as drawing a diagram in a prescribed manner. An
example of technique in this sense might be drawing a systems map to a specified set
of conventions.
There is nothing wrong with learning a method and putting it into practice. How it is put
into practice will, however, determine whether an observer could describe it as
methodology or method. If a practitioner engages with a method and follows it, recipe-
like, regardless of the situation then it remains method. If the method is not regarded as
a formula but as ‘guidelines to process’, and the practitioner takes responsibility for
learning from the process, it can become methodology.
In this course you will encounter in some detail the hard systems method (HS-method),
the viable systems model (VS-method) and soft systems methodology (SS-method). I
will use these abbreviations except when I quote other authors who may refer, for
example, to SSM (soft systems methodology) or VSM (viable systems model).
When speaking of SSM, Peter Checkland claims:
One feature never in doubt was the fact that SSM is methodology (the logos of method,
the principles of method) rather than technique or method. This means that it will never
be independent of the user of it, as is technique.
(Checkland and Scholes, 1990)
From the perspective of this course SS-methodology arises from a particular form of
practice using SS-method. The transformation of method into methodology is something
to strive for in the process of becoming an aware systems practitioner.

SAQ 14
Describe a circumstance in which each of the following could be classified as either a
tool, a technique, a method, or a methodology.
 (a) Idea generating (sometimes called ‘brainstorming’)
 (b) A systems map of the CSA case study
 (c) Learning by reflecting on experience
 (d) Adapting the HS-method for a new IT development
 (e) Checking personal reactions and investments in situations

Reveal answer

SAQ 15
 Which of the examples that follow best exemplifies for you the process of
contextualising. Give your reasons. Note, I am asking here about the generic process of
contextualising, not the more specific case of contextualising a systems approach.
 (a) I am preparing a dinner for guests on Saturday. My guests are business
associates from the Middle East whom I have not met before. I am renowned for my
skills in cooking pork-based dishes so I think I will build my menu around this
experience.
 (b) I am adept at getting people to contribute creative ideas during a brainstorming
session. For this reason, I always start my workshops with a brainstorming session.
 (c) I have just finished a Systems course at the OU. Most of my colleagues at work
are not really interested in these ideas and don't really understand them but I found a
lot of the tools useful in thinking about my own situation. Because of this, I have
sometimes suggested using a particular systems diagramming tool when I thought