The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-5124.htm
LM
29,6/7
538
Received 2 November 2007
Reviewed 5 January 2008
Accepted 12 April 2008
Library Management
Vol. 29 No. 6/7, 2008
pp. 538-555
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0143-5124
DOI 10.1108/01435120810894545
An illustrative application of soft
systems methodology (SSM) in a
library and information service
context
Process and outcome
Rachel Delbridge
Department of Information and Communications,
Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to provide an illustration of the methodological processes and
resultant outcomes relating to one theme investigated during an application of soft systems
methodology (SSM) in a library and information service (LIS) context, in order to contribute to the
explication of the methodology to LIS professionals.
Design/methodology/approach – A selective but detailed description of the use of SSM is
provided in relation to case study research undertaken at a UK law firm, which included, within the
framework of SSM, the conduct of interviews with 42 legal and information practitioners.
Findings – The described application of SSM is a demonstration of its use for structuring learning in
situations: in this instance, of a developed understanding of stakeholders’ views of appropriate LIS
activity in a law firm.
Research limitations/implications – The paper is a selective representation of the first use of
SSM by a researcher and demonstrates the methodology’s applicability to any situation about which
learning is considered to be desirable.
Practical implications – The paper provides an illustrative application of SSM which may prompt
the use of, or may contribute to understanding of, the methodology by LIS practitioners, researchers
and educators.
Originality/value – The paper provides an in-depth illustration of the SSM-informed processes and
outcomes in a novel application area.
Keywords Information services, Library systems, General management, Learning methods
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
In 2006, Peter Checkland co-authored Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of
Soft Systems Methodology and its Use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students
(Checkland and Poulter, 2006). This book crystallised Checkland’s 30-plus years of
The reported research was conducted for a PhD, for which the funding received, initially from
Inheritance Systems Ltd and the Faculty of Humanities and Social Science, Manchester
Metropolitan University, and latterly from The Humanities Research Board of The British
Academy, is gratefully acknowledged by the author. The author would also like to thank her
Director of Studies, Shelagh Fisher, for her guidance and support, and the participants in the
research.
development of a methodology, soft systems methodology (SSM), for structuring learning Soft systems
in “real-world” “problematical situations” i.e. “a situation about which we have the feeling methodology
that ‘something needs to be done about this’” (Checkland and Poulter, 2006, p.3).
SSM has been utilised in many contexts. However, there have been relatively few
reports of the specific use of the methodology in a library and information services
(LIS) context, and accounts of the applications can vary in the detail presented.
Delbridge and Fisher (2007) have provided a review of seven illustrative applications of 539
SSM used to gain broad understanding of LIS activity. These applications show that
the benefits of the use of SSM include: that people in the situation gain holistic
understanding; learning can be shared; and, innovation can be explored.
SSM, then, has a relevance to all LIS practitioners and educators who desire to
consider an approach to learning and understanding in a “problematical situation”.
The intention here is to add to the limited number of accounts of the application of SSM
in an LIS context by providing a detailed illustrative example of the use of the
methodology in one, familiar, context which may serve to assist to explicate the
process of SSM to LIS professionals. This paper is uncommon in that it reports on an
application of the methodology in a corporate LIS context, another example being
Checkland’s 1970s research in the Information and Library Services Department of
ICI’s Organics Division (for example, Checkland and Scholes, 1990), and is thought to
be the first reported study in a law firm LIS context.
This paper first provides an outline of SSM and then an overview of the approach
adopted in the present research context. The greater part of this paper, as it is intended
to serve as a case study of use to practitioners who may consider adopting SSM,
consists of a summary of each methodological process with accompanying
illustrations of the outcomes of each process in the present research context. A
discussion of these outcomes in the broader study context and some conclusions
relating to the practical application of the methodology are also provided.
It is not intended to present a report of the results of a case study application of SSM
per se but rather the focus is on the methodology and on presenting illustrations of
methodological process and outcomes in relation to one emergent theme of an
investigation.

2. Soft systems methodology

This article builds on earlier work by the author which provided a review of
applications of SSM that enabled a broad understanding of LIS activity (Delbridge and
Fisher, 2007) by reporting more in-depth empirical case study work. That review
highlighted the use of SSM in such a context, encompassing, for example, learning in a
situation which lead to rethinking the purpose of an LIS as being more proactive in the
1970s (for example, Checkland and Scholes, 1990), informing strategy development in
the LIS of Western Australia (for example, Allen, 1989) and, more recently, embedding
of the methodology in the work of staff at the California Polytechnic State University
Library to enable learning (for example, Somerville and Mirijamdotter, 2005).
One of the studies reviewed was an application of SSM intended to inform library
management system (LMS) design, conducted by the current author (Delbridge, 2003).
The research reported here, therefore, forms part of the 30-plus years heritage of case
study-based applications of SSM to LIS contexts. Further justification of the use of the
methodology in the present context is provided in the following section.
LM There are four activities which embody the learning cycle that is SSM (Checkland
29,6/7 and Poulter, 2006):
(1) Finding out about a problematical situation.
(2) Building purposeful activity models.
(3) Exploring the situation.
540 (4) Defining action to improve the situation.

In essence, SSM is concerned with developing models of purposeful activity (which any
situation involving humans will contain), each of which are based on a worldview, and,
using the models as notional constructs to explore the situation in order to identify
possible appropriate changes. The end point of an SSM-based study may vary:
Since the learning cycle is in principle never-ending it is an arbitrary distinction as to whether
the end of the study is taken to be defining the action or actually carrying it out (Checkland
and Poulter, 2006, pp. 13-14).
It is not the intention to provide a broader context of SSM here, nor extensive detail of
the methodology. Checkland has published several seminal works on the development,
practicalities and case study applications of SSM (Checkland, 1981, 1999; Checkland
and Scholes, 1990; Checkland and Poulter, 2006). Rather, it is intended to provide an
account of one use of the “parts” of SSM which are structured by the four activities.
“Parts” is used to imply the iterative nature of the use of SSM; SSM is neither
prescriptive nor sequential but rather a set of principles (Checkland, 1981, 1999).

3. Research approach
As previously noted, this use of SSM represents a contribution to LIS-related studies as
it is located within a corporate and, specifically, law firm context. The research was
also novel in that it was an application of SSM to the understanding of LIS activity and
LMS requirements.
The reported research was conducted in the late 1990s. At that time, there were
various concerns relating to LMS, for example, LMS suppliers were accused not only of
lacking innovation (Heseltine, 1993) but also of relying heavily on libraries for system
development requirements. This was problematic because librarians did not know
what they wanted to achieve by implementing an LMS (for example, KPMG, 1995). It
was indicated that it was time to focus interest on the future of LMS, based on library
and users’ needs (Yeates, 1996; Muirhead, 1997; Batt, 1998).
There was therefore an apparent need to return to basics and to apply a structured
approach to determining LMS requirements. The focus of the research in essence was:
If an LMS were being designed now – what would it need to do?
Of course, there is no panacea to information system (IS) development (for example,
Avison and Fitzgerald, 2006). Given the time frame of the development of LMS (since
the 1970s), it was reasonable to assume that at best a “hard” approach to system
development was pursued, i.e. an approach in which IS requirements are based on
existing systems or activities and the system to be developed is viewed as “a given”,
and at worst developmental approaches were ad hoc.
 The originality of this research was in applying a “soft” approach, where Soft systems
requirements are not perceived to be easily definable and where the subjectivity of methodology
stakeholders in a situation are key to their establishment, thus informing LMS design.
SSM was selected as an appropriate methodology because it, for example, embraces
subjectivity and has a recognisable role in exploring and identifying the activities
which an IS could support (Winter et al., 1995). The premise being, that as an IS
supports organisational activity, there needs to be organisational analysis 541
(understanding of what the organisation is and does, identification of performance
criteria and of both operational and performance information requirements) before an
IS is engineered (analysis, design, construction, testing and implementation of the data
manipulation system) (Winter et al., 1995).
Given that subjectivity is an important aspect in SSM, there was a need to explore
the perceptions of individual stakeholders in a particular situation. Thus a case study
strategy was adopted. A law firm information unit was selected because it exemplified
a relatively homogenous sub-sector of the special (or workplace) library sector which
had not been a developmental focus for LMS.
The research aimed, therefore, to assess the use of SSM in establishing a framework
of information service activity to inform LMS design, in a case study UK law firm.
The case study law firm was, at the time, one of the leading and largest UK
corporate law firms which was organised into six principal areas of legal practice
(herein “departments”) and served clients such as listed companies and public sector
bodies. With total staff numbering approximately 780, the firm was split across one
London-based and two regional sites. One of the regional offices, the “Head office”, was
the case study site. Among other support services, each office had an information unit.
The case study information unit stocked approximately 6,000 items, largely
constituted of books with a small collection of CD-ROMs and few online subscriptions.
The key system used was Lotus Notes: for e-mail, as a platform for accessing
CD-ROMs and some of the firm’s internally generated databases. Lotus Notes was also
used to run the standalone LMS which was put to limited use. There were staffing
changes during the period of research but typically the unit was staffed by two
professional and two non-professional staff. The priority for all staff was seen as
reacting to user enquiries.
Within the methodological framework of SSM, the main method of data collection
was the conduct of 44 one-to-one semi-structured interviews, in three phases, with 42
stakeholders (legal and information practitioners) in the case study. The qualitative
data collected were fragmented, coded and organised as necessary.
The first activity in SSM is concerned with “finding out about a problematical
situation”. This is an opportunity to display, for example, existing processes,
viewpoints and issues. During this activity in the present study, which was founded in
interviews with stakeholders in the firm, various themes were apparent. One of which,
relating to aspects of the management of internally generated information, is used as
the illustrative theme in this paper.
This appreciation of the “problematical situation” can provide the basis for selecting
some “relevant purposeful activities” (sensu Checkland and Poulter, 2006) to
investigate. Models can then be developed of these “relevant purposeful activities”. The
models, each based on a worldview, are intended to be a basis for the third activity in
SSM. In this study, nine such “relevant purposeful activities” were identified and
LM models were developed of the seven that were deemed to be of most significance to the
29,6/7 stakeholders in the case study. This second activity in SSM, “building purposeful
activity models”, was achieved by the researcher, away from the case study.
In the third activity of SSM, “exploring the situation”, the models are used as a
device to enable discussion of the situation. Again, is this study, this was founded in
further interviews with stakeholders, in two phases.
542 These first three activities of SSM were adopted in this study. In each of the
following three sections, each activity adopted (and its constituent “parts”) is briefly
described and augmented by examples showing the outcomes of the activity in this
research relating to the illustrative theme.

4. Illustrative application of SSM

4.1 Methodological activity 1: finding out about a problematical situation
The constituent “parts” of the “finding out about a problematical situation” activity are
the development of “Rich pictures” and conducting three aspects of analysis termed
“Analysis one”, “Analysis two” and “Analysis three” (Checkland and Poulter, 2006).
A Rich picture is “an account of the situation as a picture” in which “the aim is to
capture, informally, the main entities, structures and viewpoints in the situation, the
processes going on, the current recognized issues and any potential ones” (Checkland
and Poulter, 2006, p. 25). Thus, “Rich pictures” are useful devices for explaining to
stakeholders how a situation is viewed and as a basis for questioning their perceptions
of the situation.
Analysis one is concerned with assessment of the intervention of the SSM user in
the “problematical situation” itself. There are three roles considered – “client” (the
person/s that initiate/s the investigation), “practitioner” (the person/s that conduct/s the
investigation) and “issue owner” (the person/s concerned with the situation i.e. sources
of worldviews) (Checkland and Poulter, 2006).
Analysis two is concerned with social analysis, and uses the “roles, norms, values”
model. Roles are social positions, norms are the behaviour expected of those in a role
and values are the standards used to judge those in a role (Checkland and Poulter,
2006). Analysis two is based on inference by the researcher, as is Analysis three.
In Analysis three, the focus is political analysis. There is continual exploration of
the “‘commodities’ which signal that power is possessed” in a “problematical situation”
(Checkland and Poulter, 2006, p. 36).
In this research, the initial meeting with the key contact in the case study
represented the commencement of this first “finding out” activity of SSM. As this was
an academic study, the researcher predominantly fulfilled the roles of “client” and
“practitioner”.
The “finding out” processes of developing Rich pictures and Analyses one, two and
three were initiated in earnest in Phase 1 of the semi-structured interviews conducted
at the case study firm with 23 stakeholders. In addition, relevant documentation was
consulted. The firm’s partnership status and confidentiality issues, restricting access
to internally generated documents, necessitated a reliance on publicly available
sources.
These procedures enabled the identification of “issue owners” (re: Analysis one), the
collection of data which could be inferred in relation to Analyses two and three, and the
development of an appreciation of the “problematical situation” (Rich picture
development). The process of “finding out” was continuous throughout the study (for Soft systems
example, during the latter Phases 2 and 3 of interviews with stakeholders) and methodology
informed further methodological activities.
The content of Phase 1 interviews varied, but covered some common ground. All
stakeholders were, for example, asked about their perceptions of the Information Unit
(including its purpose and any problems, improvements or issues). Further to that, a
cumulative approach was often taken to interviews. For example, previous 543
interviewees’ perceptions would be described and the present interviewee asked for
their comments. As more was learnt about the firm, further specific questions were
posed.
Interviews typically lasted 45 minutes and, where possible, were recorded.
Interviews were transcribed in full (or when not recorded, notes taken were developed)
and a brief “contact summary sheet” was completed (Miles and Huberman, 1994,
pp. 51-2). This sheet detailed each interview date, respondent, emergent themes, follow
up required in subsequent interviews, and the researcher’s observations about the
interview/respondent.
Basic tenets of coding were developed and utilised when analysing the interview
data. Phase 1 interview data, which represents the “finding out” process in this
research, were thus organised as, for example:
.
Data that were descriptive about structures (physical and social) and
processes in the firm. For example, there are a variety of information
resources and information service providers in the firm. These include those
which are firm-wide (precedents system), centralised (information unit and
client services/marketing unit), departmental (know-how collections, a
satellite library and information/know-how officers) and personal collections
of information. There is evidence of duplication of both resources
(departmental and information unit) and services (current awareness and
research offered in departments and in the information unit). Another
example is that there has been no strategy or formal communication in
terms of information provision, rather developments have been ad hoc and
communication informal.
.
Data that represented a perception of the information unit. This included, for
example, its purpose/role (as a repository of stock) and any problems (there
is too much information), enhancements to current functions/services (the
need for more electronic resources), future directions/potential (the need to
income generate) and issues (end user access to electronic information
resources).
.
Data that were relevant to aspects of Analyses one, two or three. For example,
important cultural issues for the firm were established, such as formal authority
and reputation.

Appendix 1 provides extracts of the data collected, coded and organised during the
“finding out” activity. These extracts reflect one emerging theme, relating to aspects of
the management of internally generated information, which will form the basis of the
illustrative example relating to the outcomes of further methodological activities in the
following sections. In Appendix 1, evidence is reported which relates to this theme in
terms of:
LM .
Description of structures and processes – the predominance of legal
29,6/7 practitioners’ use of information including that which is internally generated
and the disparate collections of know-how in the firm.
.
Perceptions of the unit – the potential for Unit staff to manage know-how
collections.
.
Analyses one, two or three – the importance of income generation, at the expense
544 of the generation and sharing of internal information.

This appreciation of the “problematical situation” formed the basis of developing

“relevant purposeful activities” to investigate. This is the initial phase in the second
activity of SSM: “building purposeful activity models”.

4.2 Methodological activity 2: building purposeful activity models

In this section, the following guidelines relating to activity 2 will be touched on: the
“PQR formula”, “Root definitions”, “CATWOE”, the “three Es”, “Primary
task/issue-based root definitions”, and purposeful activity model building
(Checkland and Poulter, 2006).
As there are different ways of viewing purposeful activity, which are based on
declared worldviews, it is necessary to select some “relevant purposeful activities” to
investigate.
In the present study, the perceptions gathered in the first activity of SSM,
representing different viewpoints and problem themes, were the starting point for
development of “relevant purposeful activities”. The understanding from the
descriptive information collected and the cultural aspects of the situation were also
considered. For example, the evidence provided in Appendix 1 formed the basis for
“Concept 4: management of internally generated information”.
Nine concepts were developed. The selection of “relevant purposeful activities” for
investigation was continually assessed throughout the study with the stakeholders (for
example, during Phase 2 and 3 of interviews). Decisions were consequently made to
cease the investigation of some “relevant purposeful activities” and others were also
considered. In the assessment of the relevance of “Concept 4” with stakeholders, varied
views were expressed.
Concepts which were developed and pursued to the end of the study were:
.
The information unit as a repository of published information and providing a
loan system.
.
Providing a reactive enquiry service (direction and research; and facilitating
access to external resources).
.
Providing proactive information services.
.
Management of internally generated information.
.
User enabling.
.
Relationship maintaining, with the existing support services in the firm.
.
Identifying users.

In SSM, once some “relevant purposeful activities” have been selected, models are
developed of them, which can be used as a device to explore the “problematical
situation”. These models are notional constructs of purposeful activity based on a Soft systems
worldview; they are not descriptions of what exists, rather they are devices to structure methodology
debate and possible changes (Checkland and Poulter, 2006).
Each model is based on a definition of the purposeful activity it represents – a “Root
definition”. This is a statement which “always describes the purposeful activity being
modelled as a transformation process, one in which some entity. . .is transformed into a
different state” (Checkland and Poulter, 2006, p. 39). 545
Although not used in the present research, the PQR formula can aid the
development of Root definitions: “do P, by Q, in order to achieve R, where PQR answer
the questions: What? How? And Why?” where “the transforming process is captured in
Q, the declared ‘how’” (Checkland and Poulter, 2006, p. 39).
Another aid to developing “Root definitions” is provided by the “CATWOE”
mnemonic, the foundation of which is “purposeful activity as a transforming process T
based on worldview W” (Checkland and Poulter, 2006, p. 41). Each “Root definition”
will therefore contain a transformation (T), a worldview (W) and a number of other
aspects that complete the mnemonic (Checkland and Poulter, 2006): C: Customers
(victims/beneficiaries of T); A: Actors (who would do activities of T);
T: Transformation; W: Worldview; O: Owners (who could stop/change T;
E: Environmental constraints (elements which are taken as given.
In the present study, root definitions were developed by the researcher. This process
is demonstrated here in relation to the development of the root definition associated
with “Concept 4” (aspects of internally generated information management) which
consisted of:
(1) Forming the transformation. The firm’s staff need for management of internally
generated information ! Need met.
(2) Developing the root definition. A system, managed by the firm’s Information
Unit, to manage internally generated information (i.e. non-published
information), using appropriate information technology applications, to
support the needs of the firm’s staff (and other potential users).
(3) Checking the formulation of the Root Definition by use of CATWOE:
.
C: The firm’s staff and other potential users.
.
A: The information unit staff.
.
T: The firm’s staff need for management of internally generated
information ! Need met.
.
W: It is useful and feasible for the information unit to manage internally
generated information.
.
O: The firm.
.
E: Internally generated resources.

At this juncture, the three Es provides a way to consider:

What would be the measures of performance by which the operation of the notional system
would be judged? (Checkland and Poulter, 2006, p.42).
The three Es being: efficacy (is the outcome produced?), efficiency (are minimum
resources used?) and effectiveness (does the transformation contribute to some
LM higher-level aim?). Further reference to “measures of performance” in relation to the
29,6/7 present study is made later in this paper.
Two types of root definition/model have been identified as useful avenues for
investigation. Primary task models “coincide with internal organizational boundaries”
and issue-based models “cut across organizational boundaries” (Checkland and
Poulter, 2006, pp. 43-44). The list of “concepts” above is indicative of the development
546 of both types of model in this study.
Following consideration of the above guidelines, models of purposeful activity are
built by assembling the minimum activities necessary to fulfil the root definition.
Models will contain two sets of activities: operational activities, and monitor and
control activities. The monitor and control activities are expressed in terms of:
.
defining the measures of performance (the three Es);
.
monitoring the activities based on the measures of performance; and
.
taking control action as necessary.

Checkland (for example, Checkland and Poulter, 2006) has articulated various
recommendations for the logical construction of models, for example, activities should
be linked based on their dependence on other activities and operational activities
should be limited to seven (plus or minus two). In this study, the models developed
were also informed by advice from Frederickson (1990), such as the articulation of
verbs related to the transformation.
Figure 1 is the purposeful activity model developed from the root definition
presented in the previous section. The model is reproduced in MSWord for clarity but it
should be noted that Checkland (1999) advocates that models should be hand drawn,
and be built in approximately 20 minutes, so as to reflect their purpose as a useful
notional device.
In Figure 1, the logical dependence of operational activities that would be necessary
to achieve the associated root dfinition can be seen. For example, the activity of
identifying relevant internally generated information to store (activity 2, Figure 1)
would need to be preceded by an activity related to awareness of the type of internally
generated information available, the use to which such information could be put and so
on (activity 1, Figure 1).
The models developed were then used as the basis for structuring subsequent
debate on activities with stakeholders at the case study.

4.3 Methodological activity 3: exploring the situation

The third activity in SSM is to use the models developed as a basis for debate about the
“problematical situation” in order “to find a version of the real situation and ways to
improve it which different people with different worldviews can nonetheless live with”
(Checkland and Poulter, 2006, p. 54).
There are different ways to achieve this activity, such as using scenarios, but a
common approach is the one used in the present research: formal question charts
(Checkland and Poulter, 2006). Models were used as a source of questions to debate the
activities in the models and what existed in the “real-world” of the “problematical
situation”. This was achieved in phases 2 and 3 of stakeholder interviews, with 13 and
eight stakeholders respectively.
 Soft systems
methodology

547

Figure 1.
Illustrative example –
“aspects of internally
generated information
management”: activity
model of root definition
developed in relation to
“Concept 4”

A template of questions (Figure 2) was derived for each model (based on Checkland
and Scholes, 1990).
Typically, one or two models were discussed in depth with each interviewee. Prior
to the interview, as much detail as possible had been added onto the templates, for
example, what was known about the existence of the activity in the “real world” (from
the data collected during “methodological activity 1”). The interviews consisted of the
provision of a summary of the research (to provide orientation) and an overview of the
activities in the model. The interview then progressed by questioning related to each
activity. The activity was described and, if the activity existed in the “real world”, the

Figure 2.
Template of questions
LM researcher described their perception of what was done. The interviewee was then
29,6/7 asked to comment on:
.
Their perception and judgement of the activity: should the activity exist? and if
the activity currently exists, how is it judged?
.
Any changes to the activity: alternative ways of doing the activity (if it currently
exists), or if it is not currently done, how could it be achieved?
548 . Any other activities they thought were necessary.

Appendix 2 provides evidence of the debate of “Activity 2” and “Activity 6” from the
activity model presented in Figure 1. In Appendix 2, for example, it can be seen that the
resultant debate of activities relating to the identification of relevant internally
generated information to store and maintenance (updating and disposal) of that
material indicated that, in essence, the Unit should not have responsibility for such
activities as legal training is required for the tasks.
Again, interviews typically lasted 45 minutes and were recorded whenever possible.
After each interview, an overview of the interviewees’ perceptions and any other
activities raised were fed onto the template so they could be discussed at subsequent
interviews. Although these interviews were largely structured by the activity models,
basic codes were still applied to data, as during the phase 1 interviews, to indicate if
comments were of importance to the aspects of cultural analysis or to the development
of Rich pictures.
Phase 2 and 3 interviews were largely conducted with different stakeholders
than the phase 1 interviews. This was as a result of the constraints set by the
case study organisation. However, this enabled the resultant benefit of broadening
the scope of “issue owners” that were interviewed during the research and
therefore the variety of viewpoints explored. In addition to formal interviews,
informal discussions were ongoing with a key member of the information unit
throughout the study.
The outcomes of the discussion of activities and the resultant “acceptable activities
and how they should be achieved”, were tabulated. Table I is an extract of this
tabulation relating to the illustrative example provided in this paper and reflects, for
example, the above discussion indicating that the unit should not be responsible for the
identification of internally generated information to store or its maintenance.

4.4 Final methodological stage: developing a framework of activities

The last formal contact with the case study was a debriefing session with the key unit
contact. This represented the end point of the SSM-guided stages in this study. As
previously noted, the end point of any SSM-based study is arbitrary. However, the final
activity of SSM – “defining action to improve the situation” – is concerned with
reaching accommodations between stakeholders and exploring possible changes
(Checkland and Poulter, 2006).
The outcomes which represent the end of the SSM-guided stages of this study (the
“acceptable activities and how they should be achieved”), were further analysed to
develop a “framework of activities” in order to make sense of the findings, in terms of
understanding the organisational analysis conducted and to consider the implications
of this study in informing LMS development.
 Soft systems
Should
Done activity be methodology
Activity now? done? How?

1. Awareness of internally No ? Not enough information was

generated information: types, gathered to comment
use, etc. 549
2. Identify relevant internally No No (Although possibility of Unit to
generated information to store update journal content holdings
in a know-how collection)
3. Store internally generated No Debatable Know-how collections could be
information held in departments or Unit, or
some contents could be held in
electronic format
4. Enable retrieval No Yes Unit to organise, maintain a
central collection of electronic
indexes (preferably in electronic
format) and a record of research
5. Distribution No No
6. Maintenance: updating and No No
disposal
Table I.
7. Promote use No Yes Unit to provide introductory Illustrative example –
training “aspects of internally
generated information
8. Management of internally No Few aspects Inferred by the discussion of
management”:
generated information other activities in this model
“Acceptable activities
9-15 Monitor and control No ? Not enough information was and how they should be
gathered to comment achieved”

The illustrative example in this paper has related to aspects of the management of
particular information resources. That is to say, for example, one aspect of managing
the provision of information resources is the identification of resources, in this instance,
those resources which are internally generated, in a print or electronic format and
which are located within the firm. This is indicative of many of the emergent activities
which could be analysed with respect to two dimensions:
(1) The information resources:
.
origin – externally produced/published or internally generated,
.
form – print, electronic or people,
.
location – unit, firm (other than unit), external to the firm;
(2) The unit activities relating to the management of these resources:
.
provision of resources,
.
enabling information access and retrieval,
. information dissemination,
.
professional awareness.
LM There were also some activities of a more general nature: the identification of user
29,6/7 requirements, the promotion of the unit, involvement with other firm information
providers and, monitoring and control activities.
A number of areas for further investigation were also highlighted. Many of these
were concerned with monitor and control activities; and related to broader
strategic/policy issues concerning information provision in the firm and the Unit’s
550 roles within this. These may have resulted because insufficient information had been
gathered to comment and/or because the end point of the research is arbitrary and/or
because of limitations of the research (such as lack of senior management input).
However, Checkland and Poulter (2006) do observe “that groups find it very difficult to
answer questions derived from the measures of performance in a model” (p. 50).
To conclude the methodological activity-related illustrative example, Figure 3 is an
extract from the “framework” in which it can be seen that the identification, acquisition
and maintenance of internally generated print and electronic information is “not
acceptable” as an activity for the case study information unit. It should be noted that
the term “not acceptable” is merely used to reflect the “level of acceptance” of activities
by stakeholders during the comparative debate of activities.
It is the activities in the full “framework”, then, that an LMS would need to support
in this context.

5. Discussion
For a study of this nature, a key quality judgement is that of “recoverability” i.e. that
the research process is recoverable by the reader whom may then pass judgement on
the findings (Checkland and Holwell, 1998). Much process detail was provided in the
full account of the research in thesis form (Delbridge, 2003), though obviously it is not
possible, nor intended, to include this level of detail in a selective consideration of the
research such as in this paper. Procedures were also undertaken to try to increase
reliability and construct validity, for example, by the collection of data from multiple
sources and presentation of detailed results of data collection and analytical process
(Yin, 1994).
In this research, SSM provided a framework which enabled the investigation and
identification of the activities in the case study Information Unit which an LMS would
need to support. There were several potential changes to the unit’s existing activities

Figure 3.
Illustrative example –
“aspects of internally
generated information
management”: extract
from “framework of
activities”
that were evident in the emergent activities of the unit. For example, as shown in Soft systems
Figure 3, a role for the unit staff in promoting the use of internally generated methodology
information by provision of introductory training was found to be desirable.
At the outset of this paper, it was highlighted that LMS could be regarded as
problematic, for example, in terms of suppliers lacking in innovation. Contributing to
this assertion was the notion that LMS, and the vision for LMS, were based on an
outmoded view of the library as organisationally isolated and passive (Heseltine, 1993, 551
1994a, b).
In this research, the view of the case study Information Unit reflected both such a
conservative view and largely a status quo in terms of the activities it should perform.
This can be illustrated in relation to the theme used in this paper relating to “aspects of
internally generated information management”.
As evidenced previously, in the case study firm, it was found that the unit staff
should not take responsibility for identifying relevant internally generated information
to store (with the possible exception of updating know-how collections with journal
articles), or the maintenance (updating and disposal) of such resources held. The
rationale for this was that such functions require legal knowledge. In the case study,
then, there would remain other (usually legally qualified) individuals in the
organisation who would perform arguably LIS-related activities such as these aspects
of know-how management. This view is in contradiction to much of the vision for LIS
promulgated in the literature.
The exploration of activities driven by SSM helped to uncover some factors that
could be developed into an appreciation of the context in which the emergent activities
desirable in the case study information unit could be understood, for example, the lack
of a knowledge-sharing culture.
SSM was found to provide a useful basis for the identification of activities that an
LMS should support. For example, supporting many aspects relating to the
management of internally generated information was not required. Indeed, the detail
being beyond the scope of the current paper, the indications were that existing LMS
could serve the emergent activities and that the “more of the same” approach that had
been generally adopted by LMS developers, at least for the time being, was adequate.

6. Conclusions
This paper has sought to demonstrate how the activities embodying the learning cycle
of SSM was used in one LIS context. It is hoped that providing one selective but
detailed example of how the methodological processes can be applied, and the
associated illustrative outcomes of those processes, will add to previous reports of
studies in order to explicate the methodology to LIS practitioners who may consider
the use of SSM.
In this study, SSM was used to investigate the activities which an LMS for a case
study law firm information unit would need to support. The emergent perception was
that it was acceptable for the information unit to fulfil a somewhat peripheral support
role and to largely be a traditional resource provider. Consequently, the activities that
could be supported by an LMS, were serviceable by existing LMS. The indications
from this study were not, of course, designed to be generalised beyond the case. What
is significant though is that the study represented the “validation of these perceptions,
by a particular group in a particular situation”.
LM SSM, then, provides the principles and structure to enable such learning in a
29,6/7 situation. Indeed, in any situation where there is purposeful activity and an inclination
that there is a need for improvements or understanding. The methodology therefore
has limitless application potential in LIS contexts. For example, as intimated by the
present study, as a technique to investigate information system requirements, to
consider the purpose of an LIS, to inform a programme of change of service
552 provision. . .
Among the limitations of the present research, two significant issues were that there
were restrictions imposed by the case study organisation (for example, it was not
possible to interview senior managers in the firm and the stipulation of the use of
one-to-one interviews rather than, say, focus groups) and that this was the first time of
use of SSM by the researcher (i.e. with a resultant focus on methodology). The first
issue, of course, could be negated in practitioner workplace based adoption of SSM
principles. In relation to the latter issue, and the real strength of SSM, is that, with
experience, “once internalized as a natural way of thinking, it can be used to guide the
process of ‘managing’ anything” (Checkland and Poulter, 2006, p. 196).

References
Allen, L. (1989), “Strategic planning for libraries: a convergence of library management”,
International Journal of Information and Library Research, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 197-212.
Avison, D. and Fitzgerald, G. (2006), Information Systems Development: Methodologies,
Techniques, and Tools, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, London.
Batt, C. (1998), Information Technology in Public Libraries, 6th ed., Library Association, London.
Checkland, P. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Checkland, P. (1999), Soft Systems Methodology: A 30-year Retrospective and Systems Thinking,
Systems Practice, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Checkland, P. and Holwell, S. (1998), “Action research: its nature and validity”, Systemic Practice
and Action Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 9-21.
Checkland, P.B. and Poulter, J. (2006), Learning for Action: A Short Definitive Account of Soft
Systems Methodology and its use for Practitioners, Teachers and Students, John Wiley
& Sons, Chichester.
Checkland, P. and Scholes, J. (1990), Soft Systems Methodology in Action, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Delbridge, R. (2003), “The application of soft systems methodology to library management
system design: a case study of a law firm”, PhD thesis, Manchester Metropolitan
University, Manchester.
Delbridge, R. and Fisher, S. (2007), “The use of soft systems methodology (SSM) in the
management of library and information services: a review”, Library Management, Vol. 28
Nos 6/7, pp. 306-22.
Frederickson, N. (Ed.) (1990), Soft Systems Methodology: Practical Applications in Work with
Schools, University College London, London.
Heseltine, R. (1993), “New directions in the library automation industry: prospects for higher
education”, Higher Education Funding Councils Libraries Review Information
Technology Sub-committee and Office for Library and Information Networking,
Libraries and IT: Working Papers of the Information Technology Sub-Committee of the
HEFCs’ Libraries Review, UKOLN, Bath, pp. 219-32.
Heseltine, R. (1994a), “Library automation”, Information UK Outlooks, No. 9, p. 9. Soft systems
Heseltine, R. (1994b), “New perspectives on library management systems: a Pilgrim’s progress”, methodology
Program, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 53-61.
KPMG (1995), “Business analysis of the library systems market in Europe”, available at: http://
cordis.europa.eu/libraries/en/kpmgfin1.html (accessed 2 April 2008).
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook,
2nd ed., Sage Publications, London. 553
Muirhead, G. (1997), “If it ain’t broke, fix it anyway”, Library Technology, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 81-2.
Somerville, M.M. and Mirijamdotter, A. (2005), “Working smarter: an applied model for ‘better
thinking’ in dynamic information organization”, ACRL 12th National Conference:
Currents and Convergence: Navigating the Rivers of Change, Minneapolis, 7-10 April,
available at: www.ala.org/ala/acrl/acrlevents/somerville05.pdf (accessed 1 April 2008).
Winter, M.C., Brown, D.H. and Checkland, P.B. (1995), “A role for soft systems methodology in
information systems development”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 4 No. 3,
pp. 130-42.
Yeates, R. (1996), “Library automation: the way forward?”, Program, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 239-53.
Yin, R.K. (1994), Case Study Research: Design and Methods, 2nd ed., Applied Social Research
Methods Series Volume 5, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Appendix 1. Illustrative example – “aspects of internally generated information

management”: “finding out” data collected
Descriptive case study background
Legal practitioners in the case study reported that much legal practice in the commercial law
environment concerned the use of information.
Solicitors estimated that they spend most of their time:
.
Studying information: legal research/analysing documents.
.
Generating information: such as opinions, advice and contracts.
.
Communicating with clients.

The solicitors reported that they “study” a variety of information, both internally generated and
externally published. (Most solicitors indicated that the information that they generate would be
of use only to their specific team or main department, and some that the information may also be
of use to other departments).
Several departments of legal practice have collections of know-how. These vary, for example,
in terms of extent of computerisation, content (i.e. information contents is internally generated or
externally produced, or both), and point of contact for collection maintenance and indexing.
The information unit does not have a formal role in the departmental collections.
A number of issues about the know-how collections were raised. Duplication of collections
was indicated by some of the contents, such as key cases, are duplicated in the Information Unit
(but some, for example, opinions from barristers, are unique to the collection); and in some
collections, departmental sub-groups or partners have their own discrete collections. That the
basis for contribution to collections is voluntary is also an issue. Some departments have
considered automating the collections, for example, it was stated that one department is “not
using [the collection] to full potential” because it is paper based. It is considered to be feasible to
automate, but concerns are that it may lead to duplication, it may not be readily accessible
(because some members of the firm are not computer literate) and that it would be more difficult
to update. In one department, keeping the database up to date has apparently been “a big area of
discussion because it is quite an onerous task”. Opinions of the know-how collections varied:
LM “never quite leaves the ground, it rumbles along”, “quite haphazard, but works quite well as a
repository of internal learning”, and “primary source, hugely important resource”.
29,6/7 Internally generated information may also be kept in personal collections.

Perceptions of the information unit

One “future direction/potential of the Information Unit” identified related to departmental
know-how database management.
554 Know-how is currently managed in departments. Three solicitors/trainees expressed that the
unit could manage or have some input into the management of such collections:
. . .wish list . . . take over and computerise departmental database, if it were three times the
size maybe this would happen
. . . keeping the [know-how collection] up to date . . . [management of know-how] essentially is
a librarian’s role but because we are such a specialist unit we have actually taken on that role
ourselves.
. . . organise a know-how database in departments may be a step ahead... so you knew
everything would be in one place and be all updated would be useful.
The unit would like to have a role in know-how management: “not done as well as we would like
[indexing, for example]” and there is “a lot of information we can’t get access to in [the firm] that
could be useful . . . would like to see these databases brought together in Lotus Notes”. The
Information Unit has not been involved so far “because of time”. The Information Manager from
the other regional office thinks this is a:
. . . tricky one – because of very specific, very detailed legal information – whilst you can get
involved also need someone with knowledge . . . LIS help with organisation and indexing, but
maybe should be specifically their job . . . need a lot of knowledge about indexing. Lot of
questions about that one, mixture of both, unless you employ legally trained people in the LIS
. . .less detailed involvement.

Exploration of cultural aspects of the situation

Importance of income generation; there are clear indications that this is the priority for the firm.
For example, a solicitor commented:
Most of us are way too busy to generate masses of internal information and for sharing
information. We don’t get paid for doing that, we have set targets from the powers that be and
therefore have no time. [We are] constantly encouraged to be leaner, fitter, sleeker, more
efficient and make every piece of work billable, therefore no allowance for information
generating and sharing as not a billable activity.

Appendix 2. Illustrative example – “aspects of internally generated information

management”: comparative debate of “Activity 2” and “Activity 6” from the activity
model presented in Figure 1
Activity 2: identify relevant internally generated information to store
It is the responsibility of individuals in a department to add to the know-how collection. A trainee
explained that there is the “potential for most things we generate to be held in the (know-how
collection) – screening what goes in is important . . . what goes in it a partner needs to check – so
mistakes are not duplicated – someone at a more senior level”.
A solicitor and the trainee both thought that legal training was required to decide what
should go into the collections, indicating that the Unit could not take responsibility for this
activity. A possible change was, however, suggested (although not relating to internally
generated information); that the collection is automatically updated from journals because Soft systems
“solicitors are reluctant to do, their real concern is to keep information for themselves”.
Summary of debate of activity. Generally, the unit should not do this activity. The unit could methodology
only be responsible for updating the know-how collections with journal articles.

Activity 6: Maintenance: updating and disposal

Maintenance of know-how is currently performed by the partners that hold the collections and
has been described as an “onerous task”. During the “finding out” process, two people indicated 555
that a possible future direction for the Unit was to update know-how collections.
One comment was made that updating is required. Four people commented that legal
knowledge was required, although one said it was possible that an experienced law librarian
could maintain the collections.
Summary of debate of activity. The Unit should not do this activity.

Corresponding author
Rachel Delbridge can be contacted at: r.delbridge@mmu.ac.uk

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.