Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using a model of the performance measures in Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to take action: a case study in health care

  • General Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

This paper uses a case study of a multidisciplinary colorectal cancer team in health care to explain how a model of performance measures can lead to debate and action in Soft System Methodology (SSM). This study gives a greater emphasis and role to the performance measures than currently given in typical SSM studies. Currently, the concept of performance measurement in SSM is in the form of a set of criteria used to judge the performance of the SSM model (the purposeful activity model). These performance criteria are definitions of efficacy, efficiency, effectiveness, ethicality and elegance. However, the use of performance measures within SSM is not clear and therefore criticized by some as nebulous. This paper uses a case study to explain how to involve the stakeholders in deriving a performance measurement model (PMM), which is a more detailed expansion of the performance criteria. The paper concludes with some reflections about how the PMM can fit in the SSM cycle, with two modes of practice put forward.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Andersen DF and Richardson PG (1997). Scripts for group model building. System Dynamics Review 13 (2): 107–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergvall-Kåreborn B and Grahn A (1996). Expanding the framework for monitor and control in soft systems menthodology. Systems Practice 9 (5): 469–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brignall S and Modell S (2000). An institutional perspective on performance measurement and management in ‘the new public sector’. Management Accounting Research 11 (3): 281–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carter S, Garside P and Black A (2003). Multidisciplinary team working, clinical networks, and chambers; opportunities to work differently in the NHS. Quality and Safety Health Care 12 (1): 25–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (2006). Reply to Eden and Ackermann: Any future for problem structuring methods? Journal of Operational Research Society 57 (7): 769–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1999a). Systems Thinking Systems Practice. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1999b). Soft systems methodology: A 30-year retrospective. In: Checkland P and Scholes J (eds). Soft Systems Methodology in action. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P, Forbes P and Martin S (1990). Techniques in soft systems practice part 3: Monitoring and control in conceptual models and in evaluation studies. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 17: 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connell NAD (2001). Evaluating soft OR: Some reflections on an apparently ‘unsuccessful’ implementation using a Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) based approach. Journal of Operational Research Society 52 (2): 150–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (2006). Where next for problem structuring methods. Journal of Operational Research Society 57 (7): 766–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kane B and Luz S (2011). Information sharing at multidisciplinary medical team meetings. Group Decision and Negotiation 20 (4): 437–464.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan RS and Norton DP (2001). Transforming the balanced scorecard from performance measurement to strategic management: Part I. Accounting Horizons 15 (1): 87–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotiadis K (2007). Using soft systems methodology to determine the simulation study objectives. Journal of Simulation 1 (1): 215–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin K (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues 2 (4): 34–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohman C, Fortuin L and Wouters M (2004). Designing a performance measurement system: A case study. European Journal of Operational Research 156 (2): 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, Liu W and Meng W (2009). Using SSM to structure the identification of inputs and outputs in DEA. Journal of Operational Research Society 60 (2): 168–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett R and Wilson T (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84 (3): 231–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papamichail KN, Alves G, French S, Yang JB and Snowdon R (2007). Facilitation practices in decision workshops. Journal of Operational Research Society 58 (5): 614–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouwette EAJA, Vennix JAM and Felling AJA (2009). On evaluating the performance of problem structuring methods: An attempt at formulating a conceptual model. Group Decision and Negotiation 18 (6): 567–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vennix JAM (1999). Group model-building: Tackling messy problems. System Dynamics Review 15 (4): 379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westcombe M, Franco LA and Shaw D (2006). Where next for PSMs—A grassroots revolution? Journal of Operational Research Society 57 (7): 776–778.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White L (2006). Evaluating problem-structuring methods: Developing an approach to show the value and effectiveness of PSMs. Journal of Operational Research Society 57 (7): 842–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson T (2002). Strangers to Ourselves, Discovering the Adaptive Unconsciousness. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Part of this research was funded by the Warwick Business School Research and Development Fund RDF (The University of Warwick).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    K Kotiadis

  2. Loughborough University, Leicestershire, UK

    A A Tako

  3. Institute for Management Research, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    E A J A Rouwette

  4. University College London, London, UK

    C Vasilakis

  5. Medway Maritime Hospital, Gillingham, UK

    J Brennan, P Gandhi, H Wegstapel, F Sagias & P Webb

Authors
  1. K Kotiadis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A A Tako
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E A J A Rouwette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C Vasilakis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. J Brennan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. P Gandhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. H Wegstapel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. F Sagias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. P Webb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K Kotiadis.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kotiadis, K., Tako, A., Rouwette, E. et al. Using a model of the performance measures in Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) to take action: a case study in health care. J Oper Res Soc 64, 125–137 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2012.21

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2012.21

Keywords

Search

Navigation