Business Analysis Methodology (MM543)

1. Business Analysis Methodology (MM543) Session 10: SSM Stage 5 - Comparison Andreas U Kuswara (akuswara@binus.ac.id)

2. Please remember to submit the assignment (hard copy) tomorrow SSM In Action: Retrospective Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Internet Keywords: “Soft System Methodology” Class Announcements & Readings

3. Real World & System Thinking

4. Note on Conceptual Model • It is better to move quickly to the comparison stage and refine the model subsequently when it has to go back to the conceptualization stage (or even redefine the root definition if necessary)

5. Stage 5 ‘comparison conceptual models with real world’ • The model from stage 4 is compared against the perceptions of what exist in the real world (stage 2) • Are the activities already presence in the real world? How well have they been done? Why not? Any alternatives way of doing it? • Questions and challenges the “How” and introducing the new “What” • The work at this stage may lead to the reiteration of stage 3 and stage 4

6. Definition of Comparison (1) • Comparison is the point that intuitive perceptions of the problem are brought together with the systems constructs which the systems thinker asserts provide epistemologically deeper and more general account of the reality beneath surface appearances

7. Definition of Comparison (2)Rephrased • Testing out the complexity of 'reality‘ against the conceptual model created • Epistemology: study/theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity • Validate the Conceptual Model

8. Four ways of doing comparison • Using Conceptual Models as a Base for Ordered Questioning • Comparing History with Model Prediction • General Overall Comparison • Model Overlay

9. 1. Using Conceptual Models as a base for Ordered Questioning • When: • The real world situation is very different from conceptual model • How: • The system models are used to open up debate about change • The model is used as a source of questions (systematic) to challenges the existing situation • The answers can provide illumination of the perceived problem

10. 2. Comparing History with Model Prediction (1) • How: • Reconstructing a sequence of events in the past and comparing what had happened in producing it with what would have happened if the relevant conceptual model has actually been implemented • When: • There are past experience to refer to • Suitable for a consultant who wanted to know why one of the documented studies for a client had been a spectacular failure

11. 2. Comparing History with Model Prediction (2) • Note: • This method of comparison should be used carefully so that it may reveal the inadequacies of the actual procedure and it can be interpreted as offensive recrimination concerning their past performance

12. 3. General Overall Comparison (1) "Whats" and "Hows“ • When: • There is no particular reason to use other approaches • How: • Asking what features of the conceptual models are especially different from present reality and why

13. 3. General Overall Comparison (2) Notes on the approach • Examine the models alongside the expression of the problem situation assembled in stage 2 • Discussion (by concerned people in the problem situation) about possible changes • Question whether various activities in the models do-able in the real world • If they are present - how well they are being done • Possible alternatives to the real world activities • Stage 5 is not a straightforward comparison

14. 4. Model Overlay (1) • How: • After completing conceptualization based on the chosen root definition, we made a second model from what exists (in a more-or-less the same way) • The second model is basically a re-draw of the first model by changing parts where the reality differed from the conceptual model

15. 4. Model Overlay (2) • Thus direct overlay of one model on the other then revealed the mismatch (gap between the two) which is the source of discussion of change • When: • The real world situation is not very different from the conceptual model (opposite to #1)

16. Comparing • Comparison can be done with appropriate approach depending on the situation at hand • For the existing system, the comparison can be done with what exists • For a new system, the comparison can be with some redefined expectation

17. Experience in Comparing • Incrementalism and trial and error are the best approach • Thus, don’t hesitate to re-do step #4 (or even step #3)

18. Root Definition - Shell • An MF owned and staffed system which, in response to a continuous need for higher quality personnel for servicing and managing the manufacturing operations of the Shell Group, and a need for manufacturing expertise in other functions, develops and trains people and provides experience in a cost effective manner, within constraints imposed by MF’s carrying out its core tasks as service provider and technology.

19. Consider CATWOE Customer Actors Transformation Process Weltanschauung Owner Environmental Constraints C: Those trained, the Company A: MF Personnel T: The need for trained experienced people is transformed to a fulfilled need W: Training can emerge from careful planning of MF work to provide suitable experience O: MF E: MF core tasks The CATWOE analysis - Shell

20. Conceptual Model – Shell

21. General Overall Comparison - Shell