The System of Systems Methodologies (SOSM) is a framework created by Michael C. Jackson and Paul Keys in 1984 to classify existing systems methodologies and explore the relationships between them. It acts as a critical device designed to reveal and examine the underlying theoretical assumptions that different systems approaches make about problem contexts and social reality. By doing so, the SOSM helps practitioners understand the respective strengths and weaknesses of various methodologies so they can choose the most appropriate approach for a specific intervention.
The SOSM is structured as an “ideal-type” grid of problem contexts based on two primary dimensions of complexity that face systems practitioners:
- Systems Complexity: This axis originally ranged from simple to complex, describing the level of structural and environmental complexity in a situation. It was later revised to include simple, complicated, and complex domains.
- Stakeholder (or Participant) Perspectives: This axis measures the divergence of values and interests among those involved. It categorizes relationships into three types: unitary (participants share common purposes, values, and beliefs), pluralist (participants have compatible basic interests but differing beliefs, requiring debate and accommodation), and coercive (participants have irreconcilable interests, and decisions are dictated by unequal power and coercion).
By combining these dimensions, the SOSM grid maps out various problem contexts, such as “simple-unitary,” “complex-pluralist,” or “complex-coercive”. Different systems methodologies are then positioned on this grid based on the specific assumptions they make about systems and stakeholders. For instance, Hard Systems Thinking is mapped to simple-unitary contexts, System Dynamics to complicated-unitary contexts, and Soft Systems Methodologies (like the SODA methodology we discussed previously) are mapped to pluralist contexts.
Ultimately, the SOSM established methodological pluralism as a core foundation of Critical Systems Thinking (CST). It helped end the “paradigm wars” in management science by demonstrating that different systems methodologies are complementary rather than competitive. It proves that no single methodology can solve every problem, and that utilizing a diverse toolkit of approaches increases a practitioner’s competence and effectiveness across a wide variety of complex, real-world problems.
Reference:
1. Jackson, M. C. (2019). Critical systems thinking and the management of complexity. John Wiley & Sons.
2. Jackson, M. C. (2024). Critical systems thinking: A practitioner’s guide. John Wiley & Sons.