Introduction

Today’s landscape of public policy, organisational governance, and global change is increasingly filled with problems whose answers will not neatly fall into linear, simplistic solutions. Problems that face healthcare integration and sustainable development, schooling reform, corporate planning, and other fields are normally interrelated, multifaceted, with conflicting stakeholder positions and unavoidable subjectivity. These are the attributes of so-called “messy” or “wicked” problems, in which traditional, purely rational or engineering-type approaches tend to be insufficient (Ackoff 1974; Rittel and Webber 1973).

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) here presents itself as an approach to investigation rather than as a traditional problem-solving methodology (Checkland 1981; Checkland and Scholes 1990). SSM is designed to structure learning and reflection on complex, human activity systems, with the terminal objective being consideration of actions for change, not searching for definitive answers. This is the crucial difference: SSM is not designed to resolve problems in the problem-solving, cognitive sense, but to establish a process of group inquiry, discussion, and research which ends in solutions found to be systemically desirable and culturally feasible.

This paper employs SSM Mode 1, the original and most applicable version of the method, which is particularly well-suited for beginners. Mode 1 is a specified methodical learning cycle for inquiring about troublesome situations and thinking critically on successful action for change (Checkland and Poulter 2006).

Its utility as an inquiry methodology is also highlighted by its early integration into the design of information systems (IS), especially in Client Led Design (Stowell and West 1994), which positioned SSM at the front-end to IS projects. Subsequent literature, e.g., Stowell’s Information Systems Provision (1995), specifically the chapter by Peter Checkland (p. 12), is focused on the foundational association between SSM and IS design. More recently, The Manager’s Guide to Systems Practice (Stowell and Welch 2012) offers practical case studies (pp. 199–208) on how activity models based on SSM have shaped technical specifications in actual projects.

Though rooted in deep philosophical questions of the nature of human activity, subjectivity, purposefulness (teleology), and even what constitutes a “system” within social contexts, SSM itself provides a feasible, iterative learning process. It provides tools, such as Rich Pictures and conceptual modelling from Root Definitions, through which participants can think through a problematic situation, clarify multiple perspectives regarding purposeful action in it, and argue regarding potential changes that are systemically desired and culturally feasible (Checkland and Poulter 2006).

The paper will take into account the reflective application of Soft Systems Methodology across a variety of fields and contexts. The selection of these contexts—healthcare, environmental management, and education—is driven by their inherent complexity, the presence of multiple stakeholders with often conflicting perspectives, and their critical importance in contemporary societal challenges, making them ideal domains for demonstrating SSM’s utility in structuring inquiry and facilitating collaborative learning. Through a review of recent case examples and studies, particularly drawing from articles published between 2021 and 2025, we seek to emphasise SSM’s enduring adaptability and significant utility in today’s organisational and social dilemmas. The focus will be on how SSM, with its concern for participation, reflection, and facilitated conversation, creates the critical linkage between systems theory and action. We will consider its interdisciplinary relevance and how it can cut across complexity, help bring about cooperation amongst different stakeholders, and ultimately effect systemic change in industries such as healthcare, environmental management, and education. This paper will further comparatively assess the advantages and disadvantages of SSM, particularly against extensively practised agile methodologies in today’s practice, and look into potential avenues of further development and application.

To achieve this, the paper is structured as follows introduction, followed by Sect. 2 which provides context for SSM, outlining the theory behind systems thinking and describing the key stages and ideas of the methodology. Section 3 provides an overview of recent reflective applications of SSM across a variety of contexts, through illustrative case studies from the health, environmental sustainability, and higher education sectors. Section 4 makes a comparison between SSM and agile approaches, examining their differences, similarities, and strengths and weaknesses. Section 5 provides an overview of SSM’s contributions, limitations, and role in systems thinking and action research. Section 6 concludes the paper by summarising the main arguments and arguing for the ongoing applicability and relevance of SSM to the complex issues facing us today.

Background: Understanding Soft Systems Methodology

Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) did not emerge in a vacuum; it is deeply rooted in the broader field of systems thinking (Checkland 1999) while simultaneously representing a significant departure from its earlier, more mechanistic forms. Understanding SSM requires appreciating its theoretical underpinnings and the practical framework it offers for inquiry into complex human affairs.

Theoretical Foundations

Systems thinking, by definition, is a paradigm shift from traditional reductionist analysis, where phenomena are broken down into their components in order to understand them in separate terms. Systems thinking, on the other hand, entails understanding phenomena in wholes and their interdependence, their interactions, and emergent properties which arise in the context of the interrelatedness in an enclosed system (Bertalanffy 1968; Meadows 2008). Early approaches to systems thinking, which have come to be referred to as “hard systems thinking,” developed from operations research and systems engineering in and after World War II. These were very successful for addressing crisply defined problems with explicit ends, frequently issues of logistical, technical, or engineering kinds in which optimisation and effectiveness were the key (Checkland 1981). Techniques like linear programmeming, queuing theory, and simulation fall into this category, assuming that things can be properly defined and goals articulated quantitatively.

However, Checkland and his co-researchers, undertaking research with largely ‘messy’ organisational issues, found these ‘hard’ systems engineering approaches inadequate for managing the complexity of human activity systems (Checkland 1981; Checkland and Scholes 1990). Organisational and social problems rarely provide defined objectives; instead, they are characterised by many, often conflicting, views, values, and intentions of those involved. Applying hard systems thinking was more often an exercise in forcing a single preconceived goal on a case where there was no such consensus resulting in technically sound but unworkable or irrelevant solutions to the stakeholders’ concerns.

This realisation formed the motivation behind “soft systems thinking,” an interpretive approach founded on the recognition of subjectivity and human experience of the world. Soft systems thinking accepts the fact that stakeholders will perceive and describe the situation in different ways in accordance with their Weltanschauungen or worldviews (Checkland 1981). A Weltanschauung is an abstraction of the underlying assumptions, values, and beliefs which make a given perception meaningful (Checkland 1981/1999, pps 215–217). Any action to influence a human activity system (HAS -ibid 1981 p314) has to begin with surfacing and questioning such diverse worldviews. Soft systems thinking shifts focus from establishing the optimum solution to an already defined problem, to designing an inquiry process by which participants can learn for themselves to accommodations and actions which are both systemically desirable (sensible in relation to the broader system) and culturally feasible (acceptable to the participants) (Checkland and Poulter 2006).

The SSM Framework

While often presented as a sequence of stages, SSM is fundamentally an iterative, action-oriented process of inquiry into perceived problematical situations in the everyday world. Mode 1 is particularly accessible for those new to soft systems approaches, offering a clear learning cycle that can be readily applied to a range of contexts (Checkland and Poulter 2006).

This cyclical process is not prescriptive or linear; activities often overlap and inform each other as understanding deepens. The ultimate goal is to facilitate social learning and collective reflection, enabling participants to consider improvements that make sense within their unique context.

SSM’s role as a method of inquiry is further underscored by its application in IS development. The Client Led Design approach (Stowell and West 1994) demonstrates how SSM can be used to understand the human activity systems that information systems are intended to support, ensuring that technical solutions are grounded in a deep understanding of organisational context and stakeholder needs.

Reflective Applications of SSM Across Contexts

The versatility of SSM is perhaps best demonstrated through its application across diverse domains. This section examines recent applications of SSM in healthcare, environmental studies, and higher education, highlighting how the methodology adapts to different contexts while maintaining its core principles of participatory inquiry and collaborative learning.

SSM in Healthcare Systems Integration

Healthcare systems represent quintessential examples of complex human activity systems, characterised by multiple stakeholders, competing priorities, and the need to balance clinical effectiveness with resource constraints. Recent applications of SSM in healthcare have demonstrated its value in addressing integration challenges and improving service delivery.

A notable example is the application of SSM to integrated care for multimorbid patients in a study by Nakakawa et al. (2024). The research employed SSM to explore the challenges of continuously assessing and improving programmes for integrated care, ensuring that technical solutions are grounded in human context. Through the SSM Mode 1 cycle, stakeholders were able to define the problem situation beyond purely technical or clinical metrics. This application revealed fundamental differences in how clinical staff, technologists, and management understood the purpose, priorities, and necessary actions for improving patient pathways. The SSM intervention facilitated dialogue between these different stakeholder groups, leading to the development of shared understandings and agreed-upon actions for improvement. Particularly significant was the methodology’s ability to address power dynamics between professional groups and ensure that the redesign of integrated care systems was systemically desirable and culturally feasible.

SSM in Environmental Studies and Sustainability

Environmental challenges exemplify the type of complex, multi-stakeholder problems for which SSM was designed. Recent applications have demonstrated the methodology’s effectiveness in addressing sustainability challenges at both local and regional levels.

A compelling case study involves the application of system thinking and soft systems tools to sustainable water management by Saravanan and Singh (2024). Facing challenges in meeting current and future social, economic, and environmental needs, the study highlighted the importance of systems thinking (of which SSM is a core component) to first improve collective understanding of sustainability challenges related to water. The methodology proved valuable in facilitating dialogue between groups with historically adversarial relationships, such as industrial users and environmental advocates.

The SSM-based inquiry process revealed that technical solutions alone were insufficient to address water scarcity challenges. Instead, the soft methodology approach highlighted the necessity of changes in governance structures, community engagement processes, and inter-organisational collaboration mechanisms to achieve sustainable water use. The resulting action plan incorporated both technical interventions and organisational changes, reflecting the holistic perspective that SSM brings to complex problems.

SSM in Higher Education and Community Engagement

Higher education institutions increasingly recognize the need to engage more effectively with their local communities, but this engagement often involves navigating complex relationships between academic, civic, and community stakeholders. This environment presents a classic “messy” problem where different groups hold conflicting notions about the purpose and success of the partnership. In this context, Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) has proven valuable in structuring these engagement processes and ensuring they result in meaningful collaboration rather than tokenistic consultation.

A systematic review by Biddle et al. (2023), which examined research systems and models for local government, specifically noted the importance of robust university-community partnerships in the UK and Netherlands. The principles inherent in the SSM process—particularly the structured exploration of differing worldviews—are directly applicable to developing an effective engagement strategy for a university.

The methodology is used to explore stakeholder perspectives on the priorities of university-community engagement. Through the SSM process, it becomes clear that different stakeholders hold fundamentally disparate views about what constitutes successful engagement:

  • Academic staff tend to focus on research impact, knowledge transfer, and grant income.

  • Community representatives prioritize local economic development and social cohesion.

  • Local government stakeholders, conversely, emphasize strategic alignment with regional policy and development priorities.

The SSM process facilitates a formal dialogue between these different perspectives, moving beyond simple consultation. By building separate Conceptual Models for each worldview, the stakeholders can compare what is logically required to achieve one group’s definition of success versus another’s reality. This rigorous comparison ultimately leads to the development of a more nuanced engagement strategy that acknowledges and accommodates these different priorities, resulting in changes that are judged as both systemically desirable and culturally feasible for all involved parties.

Synthesis of Applications

Across these diverse applications, several common themes emerge that highlight SSM’s distinctive contributions to addressing complex organisational and social challenges. First, SSM’s emphasis on surfacing and exploring different worldviews proves consistently valuable in contexts where stakeholders hold different perspectives on problems and solutions. The methodology’s tools, particularly Rich Pictures and Root Definitions, provide structured ways of capturing and comparing these different perspectives.

Second, SSM’s focus on cultural feasibility alongside systemic desirability ensures that proposed changes are grounded in realistic assessments of what is achievable within specific organisational and social contexts. This pragmatic orientation distinguishes SSM from more idealistic approaches to organisational change.

Third, the methodology’s emphasis on learning and reflection, rather than problem-solving in the traditional sense, proves particularly valuable in contexts where the nature of the problem itself is contested or unclear. Rather than rushing to solutions, SSM creates space for stakeholders to develop shared understandings of their situation and to consider a range of possible actions for improvement.

Comparing SSM and Agile Methodologies

The comparison between SSM and Agile methodologies is undertaken here to highlight the flexibility and adaptability of SSM as a method of inquiry, particularly in contexts where traditional project management approaches may be deficient (Checkland and Poulter 2006). This comparison draws inspiration from practical applications such as those described by Cooray in Stowell and Welch (2012, pp. 199–208), which illustrate how SSM can complement and enhance other methodological approaches.

Similarities

Both SSM and Agile methodologies share several fundamental characteristics that distinguish them from more traditional, linear approaches to organisational change and project management. Both emphasise iterative processes, stakeholder engagement, and adaptive responses to changing circumstances.

Both SSM and Agile methodologies emphasise iterative processes, continuous stakeholder engagement, and adaptive responses to changing circumstances. They prioritise human factors, recognising that technical solutions must be grounded in an understanding of human needs and organisational contexts. Agile’s emphasis on “individuals and interactions over processes and tools” (Beck et al. 2001) aligns closely with SSM’s focus on surfacing diverse stakeholder perspectives and fostering collaborative inquiry. Similarly, both approaches value “responding to change over following a plan,” highlighting their shared understanding that complex situations require adaptive rather than rigidly prescriptive responses.

Both methodologies also emphasise learning and reflection. Agile’s retrospective practices and SSM’s cyclical inquiry process both create opportunities for participants to reflect on their experiences and adjust their approaches accordingly. This shared emphasis on learning distinguishes both methodologies from more mechanistic approaches to organisational change.

Differences

Despite these similarities, fundamental differences exist between SSM and Agile methodologies that reflect their different philosophical foundations and intended applications. SSM is explicitly designed as a methodology for inquiry into complex, problematical situations where the nature of the problem itself may be unclear or contested. Agile methodologies, while adaptive, generally assume a clearer understanding of project objectives and deliverables.

SSM’s emphasis on worldviews (Weltanschauungen) and cultural feasibility reflects a deeper engagement with the subjective and political dimensions of organisational change. While Agile methodologies acknowledge the importance of stakeholder engagement, they do not provide the same structured approach to surfacing and exploring different perspectives on problems and solutions.

The temporal orientation of the two approaches also differs significantly. Agile methodologies are typically project-focused, with defined timescales and deliverables. SSM, by contrast, is oriented towards ongoing inquiry and learning, with less emphasis on specific deliverables and more focus on developing shared understandings and collaborative relationships.

Strengths and Weaknesses in Context

The relative strengths and weaknesses of SSM and Agile methodologies depend significantly on the nature of the situation being addressed. Agile methodologies excel in contexts where objectives are relatively clear, stakeholder perspectives are broadly aligned, and technical solutions can be developed iteratively. Software development, for which Agile was originally designed, exemplifies such contexts.

SSM’s strengths become more apparent in contexts characterised by stakeholder disagreement, unclear objectives, and the need for fundamental organisational or social change. The methodology’s emphasis on inquiry and learning makes it particularly valuable in situations where the nature of the problem itself is contested or where technical solutions alone are insufficient.

However, SSM’s strengths can also be limitations in certain contexts. The methodology’s emphasis on exploration and learning can be frustrating for stakeholders seeking quick solutions to clearly defined problems. Similarly, SSM’s focus on cultural feasibility, while generally valuable, can sometimes inhibit more radical changes that might be systemically desirable but culturally challenging.

Potential for Integration/Complementarity

Rather than viewing SSM and Agile methodologies as competing approaches, there is significant potential for integration and complementarity. SSM’s inquiry-oriented approach can provide valuable front-end analysis for Agile projects, helping to ensure that project objectives are grounded in shared stakeholder understanding and that technical solutions address real organisational needs.

Conversely, Agile’s emphasis on iterative delivery and stakeholder feedback can complement SSM’s more exploratory approach, providing mechanisms for testing and refining the insights generated through SSM inquiry. The combination of SSM’s depth of stakeholder engagement with Agile’s focus on delivery can create powerful hybrid approaches to organisational change.

Such integration requires careful attention to the different philosophical foundations of the two approaches and recognition that their combination may require adaptation of both methodologies. However, the potential benefits of such integration combining SSM’s depth of inquiry with Agile’s focus on delivery suggest that this is a fruitful area for further development.

Discussion

The applications and comparisons outlined in this paper highlight several key insights about SSM’s contributions to contemporary organisational and social challenges. First, SSM’s distinctive approach to inquiry emphasizing exploration of different worldviews and collaborative learning proves consistently valuable across diverse contexts. Whether applied to healthcare integration, environmental management, or university-community engagement, the methodology’s tools and processes facilitate dialogue between stakeholders with different perspectives and priorities.

Second, SSM’s emphasis on both systemic desirability and cultural feasibility provides a pragmatic framework for organisational change that acknowledges both the need for improvement and the constraints of existing organisational and social contexts. This dual focus distinguishes SSM from approaches that emphasise either technical optimisation or stakeholder satisfaction in isolation.

Third, the methodology’s flexibility and adaptability enable its application across diverse contexts while maintaining core principles of participatory inquiry and collaborative learning. This adaptability is demonstrated both in the diverse applications examined and in the potential for integration with other methodological approaches such as Agile.

However, the paper also highlights several limitations and challenges associated with SSM application. The methodology’s emphasis on exploration and learning can be time-consuming and may frustrate stakeholders seeking quick solutions. Additionally, SSM’s focus on consensus-building and cultural feasibility may sometimes inhibit more radical changes that could be systemically beneficial but culturally challenging.

These limitations suggest the need for continued development of SSM theory and practice. Particular attention should be paid to developing approaches that can balance SSM’s emphasis on thorough inquiry with the practical pressures for timely action that characterise many organisational contexts. Similarly, further work is needed to develop frameworks for determining when SSM’s exploratory approach is most appropriate and when other methodological approaches might be more suitable.

Conclusion

This paper has discussed the reflective applications of Soft Systems Methodology across diverse contexts, demonstrating its enduring relevance and adaptability in addressing complex organisational and social challenges. Through case studies in healthcare, environmental management, and higher education, the paper has illustrated how SSM’s distinctive approach to inquiry emphasizing stakeholder perspectives, collaborative learning, and the exploration of different worldviews provides valuable insights and facilitates meaningful organisational change.

The comparison with Agile methodologies has highlighted both the distinctive contributions of SSM and the potential for integration with other methodological approaches. While SSM and Agile differ in their philosophical foundations and intended applications, both share commitments to iterative processes, stakeholder engagement, and adaptive responses to changing circumstances. The potential for integration between these approaches suggests fruitful directions for future methodological development.

The paper’s contemplation of SSM applications also reveals several areas where further theoretical and practical development would be valuable. These include developing approaches that can balance thorough inquiry with practical pressures for timely action, creating frameworks for determining when SSM is most appropriate, and exploring the potential for integration with other methodological approaches.

Looking forward, SSM’s emphasis on participatory inquiry and collaborative learning appears increasingly relevant in a world characterised by complex, interconnected challenges that require coordinated responses from multiple stakeholders. Climate change, public health challenges, and social inequality all exemplify the type of “wicked problems” for which SSM was designed. The methodology’s tools and processes provide valuable frameworks for structuring inquiry into these challenges and facilitating the collaborative learning necessary to address them effectively.

The continued development and application of SSM will require ongoing attention to both theoretical foundations and practical applications. Particular attention should be paid to the philosophical underpinnings of soft systems thinking and their implications for practice, as called for throughout this paper. Such theoretical development, combined with continued practical application and reflection, will ensure that SSM continues to evolve and adapt to meet the challenges of contemporary organisational and social life.

In conclusion, this paper advocates for the continued development and application of SSM, emphasising its potential to address the evolving complexities of modern organisational and societal systems. The methodology’s distinctive contributions—its emphasis on inquiry over problem-solving, its attention to different worldviews, and its focus on collaborative learning provide valuable resources for addressing the complex challenges that characterise contemporary organisational and social life. As these challenges continue to evolve, SSM’s adaptability and flexibility suggest that it will remain a valuable methodology for structuring inquiry and facilitating collaborative responses to complex, problematical situations.