See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/245280314

The System of Systems Methodologies: A Guide to Researchers

Article in Journal of the Operational Research Society · February 1993

DOI: 10.1057/jors.1993.42

CITATIONS READS
30 1,854

1 author:

Michael C Jackson
University of Hull
184 PUBLICATIONS 7,985 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Critical Systems Thinking View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Michael C Jackson on 04 March 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The System of Systems Methodologies: A Guide to Researchers
Author(s): Michael C. Jackson
Source: The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 44, No. 2 (Feb., 1993), pp.
208-209
Published by: Palgrave Macmillan Journals on behalf of the Operational Research Society
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2584378
Accessed: 05-02-2019 14:54 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan Journals are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of the Operational Research Society

This content downloaded from 5.198.35.247 on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:54:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Journal of the Operational Research Society Vol. 44, No. 2

References

1. J. MINGERS (1992) What are real friends for? A reply to Mike Jackson. J. Opl Res. Soc. 43, 732-735.
2. R. FLOOD and M. JACKSON (1991) Creative Problem Solving. Wiley, London.
3. J. MINGERS (1992) Recent developments in critical management science. J. Opl Res. Soc. 43, 1-10.
4. M. JACKSON (1991) Five commitments of critical systems thinking. In Thinking in Europe. (M. JACKSON, G. MANSELL,
R. FLOOD, R. BLACKHAM and S. PROBERT, Eds.) pp 61-72. Plenum Press, New York.

University of Warwick J. MINGERS

THE SYSTEM OF SYSTEMS METHODOLOGIES:

A GUIDE TO RESEARCHERS

In the light of David Schecter's ' defence of the 'system of systems methodologies', following on
the Jackson2/Mingers3 debate, I have only two small additions to the discussion to make. The
first is to try to provide a 'researchers' guide' to the 'system of systems methodologies' so that
interested people can seek to determine for themselves whether or not it has any adequate
theoretical support. The second is a brief comment on the whole debate.
In the original paper, 'Towards a system of systems methodologies',4 theoretical support for the
particular dimensions that make up the schema (the decision-makers or, later, the participants
dimension and the systems dimension) was provided from the work of Ackoff. The way of dividing
the systems dimension (mechanical and systemic) was justified using writings of Vemuri and of
Ackoff. The division of the participants dimension into unitary, pluralist and coercive (this latter
term was not explicitly incorporated into the grid in the original article) follows a common tradition
in the industrial relations literature, although no reference was given.
The first attempt to find support from Habermas' work for the choice of the two dimensions can
be found in a 1985 conference paper5. This paper was rewritten, with additions, and published in
Systems Research in 19886. As an academic I make no apologies for citing both these papers. The
later, fuller version has to be mentioned, but so does the earlier piece in order that the history of
the development of ideas can be traced. These papers are all about classifying systems methods and
it is Habermas' thinking that is used most extensively for doing this. All of these papers should be
read as providing justification for the two dimensions of the 'system of systems methodologies'.
Nevertheless, in order to be extremely clear, it is explicitly stated that the systems dimension relates
to Habermas' 'technical interest' and the participants dimension to his 'practical interest'. These
papers also include extensive further justification of the choice of these two dimensions drawing
upon the socio-technical systems literature, the work of Checkland and an article by Tinker and
Lowe. Schoderbek et al., von Bertalanffy, Vemuri and Ackoff are mentioned in support of
the continuum which is the systems dimension. A reference to Fox is provided to justify the
pluralist/coercive distinction on the participants dimension (the industrial relations allusion made
explicit).
Two papers published in 1987, predating the Systems Research article, make use of the 'system
of systems methodologies' for other purposes but do not neglect to give theoretical support for
the grid. An article in a special issue of Dragon on community operational research7 uses socio-
technical thinking and Habermas to support the two dimensions, again being explicit that the
technical interest justifies the systems dimension and the practical the participants. An addition is
that Habermas' 'emancipatory interest' is used to justify extending the participants dimension to
embrace coercive contexts. Von Bertalanffy and Ackoff are trotted out in discussing the systems
dimension. A chapter in New Directions in Management Science8 gives similar supportive refer-
ences for the grid.
A paper given at a 1988 conference, published in 19899, provides a brief history of the theore-
tical development of the 'system of systems methodologies' together with a discussion of the
practical uses to which it has been put. The dropping of 'decision-makers' in favour of 'participants'
is explained and the growing recognition of the importance of the coercive aspect, and its full
formulation, is described as a response to the work of Ulrich, Oliga and Lukes. References are
provided for papers which have used the grid to inquire into the assumptions made by other systems

208

This content downloaded from 5.198.35.247 on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:54:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Viewpoints

approaches, such as organizational cybernetics and SAST, and to papers which employ it to provide
a 'complementarist' way forward for community OR, information management and evaluation
theory. The dedicated researcher might find these interesting in their own right but will discover
in them little further improvement to the 'system of systems methodologies'. I was satisfied with
the grid and sought at that time to use it rather than to develop it further.
The final stage came with the integration of the 'system of systems methodologies' into critical
systems thinking. This can be charted in various papers '', 1 and books 1,13.
The purpose of this researchers' guide is not to insist that potential commentators on, or users
of, an approach like the 'system of systems methodologies' should read absolutely everything that
has ever been written about it. It is, however, to suggest that research needs to be properly and fairly
done before conclusions can be reached about whether an approach lacks proper theoretical
groundings or not. This leads me to a second brief comment I would like to make -this time on
the whole Mingers/Jackson debate.
John Mingers in his reply3 to my comments2 would prefer me to address his arguments rather
than suggest that his original paper was not properly researched. This might be his preference but
I am not at all sure it would be a productive or sensible way to proceed when, on occasion, his
arguments are based on a misrepresentation of my work and an out-of-date appreciation of critical
systems thinking generally. The dishing out of vociferous criticism can be useful to the recipient
and the discipline, as well as being good fun. However, it has to be well-researched and well directed
if the recipient is to learn from it and react positively rather than being put, unfairly, on the
defensive.

University of Hull MICHAEL C. JACKSON

References

1. D. SCHECTER (1993) In defence of the system of systems methodologies: Some comments on the Mingers/Jackson
debate. J. Opl Res. Soc. 44, 205-206.
2. M. C. JACKSON (1992) With friends like this .... a comment on Mingers' 'Recent developments in critical
management science'. J. Opi Res. Soc. 43, 729-731.
3. J. MINGERS (1992) What are real friends for? A reply to Mike Jackson. J. Opl Res. Soc. 43, 732-735.
4. M. C. JACKSON and P. KEYS (1984) Towards a system of systems methodologies. J. Opl Res. Soc. 35, 473-486.
5. M. C. JACKSON (1985) Systems inquiring competence and organisational analysis. In Proceedings of the 1985 Meeting
of the SGSR, pp 522-530. Louisville, Kentucky.
6. M. C. JACKSON (1988) Systems methods for organisational analysis and design. Syst. Res. 5, 201-210.
7. M. C. JACKSON (1987) Community operational research: purposes, theory and practice. Dragon 2 (2), 47-73.
8. M. C. JACKSON (1987) New directions in management science. In New Directions in Management Science. (M. C.
JACKSON and P. KEYS, Eds.) pp 133-164. Gower, Aldershot.
9. M. C. JACKSON (1989) Which systems methodology when? Initial results from a research program. In Systems
Prospects: the Next Ten Years of Systems Research. (R. FLOOD, M. C. JACKSON and P. KEYS, Eds.) pp 235-242.
Plenum Press, New York.
10. M. C. JACKSON (1990) Beyond a system of systems methodologies. J. Opl Res. Soc. 41, 657-668.
11. M. C. JACKSON (1991) The origins and nature of critical systems thinking. Syst. Practice 4, 131-149.
12. R. L. FLOOD and M. C. JACKSON (1991) Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems Intervention. Wiley, Chichester.
13. M. C. JACKSON (1991) Systems Methodology for the Management Sciences. Plenum Press, New York.

ON MACROSCOPIC DESCRIPTION OF URBAN TRAFFIC SPEEDS

Hill and Benton' reported on vehicle scheduling problems in which vehicle speeds depended on
(a) geographical location, and (b) time of day. They rejected modelling strategies based on detailed
data of vehicle speeds at different locations and times because of the costs of collecting and
processing the data. Instead, they adopted what I might call a 'broad-brush' or 'macroscopic'
approach, and approximated the travel speed from i to j, denoted rij, by the average
associated with the origin and destination, (r; + rj)/2.
It is appropriate to call readers' attention to a body of work associated with the name of the
late Professor R. J. Smeed, in which vehicle speed in a city is approximated by a function of the
distance from the city centre, d. This represents a further level of smoothing beyond that adopted

209

This content downloaded from 5.198.35.247 on Tue, 05 Feb 2019 14:54:43 UTC
View publication stats
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms