Conceptual Models of Human Activity Systems
SSM Conceptual Models of Human Activity Systems (Conceptual Models) are notional, they are not intended to represent what exists but to represent a stakeholder viewpoint. This is often misunderstood. Figure 1 is not intended to represent how rice is, in fact, cooked; but how the stakeholders think it is cooked or how they think it should be cooked or how they would like it cooked.
Conceptual Models take the form of bubble diagrams in which descriptions of activities are enclosed in bubbles and the bubbles linked to each other by arrows. The arrows are intended to represent logical dependency. In Figure 1 the activity "wash rice" is said to be logically dependent on the activities "obtain rice" and "obtain water" being performed. This relation of “logical dependency” is transitive, i.e. if cook rice is dependent on wash rice and wash rice is dependent on obtain rice, then cook rice is dependent on obtain rice. This would appear to conform to what is known, in formal logic, as hypothetical syllogism. However, a connection with logic has been challenged and it has been argued that SSM conceptual models are not “logical” in any sense of the word.
In Checkland's work Conceptual Models are usually limited to a small number (seven, plus or minus two) of bubbles. Also, in fidelity to Cybernetics, the main activities are always supplemented by bubbles representing monitor and control systems. However, in Wilson's Information Requirements Analysis the Conceptual Models may expand to include hundreds of bubbles, and the monitor and control systems are dropped. While the principal SSM authors show a high degree of similarity in their accounts of the early stages of the method, considerable diversity begins to appear at the Conceptual Model building stage.
Read more about this topic: Soft Systems Methodology
Famous quotes containing the words conceptual, models, human, activity and/or systems:
“The dominant metaphor of conceptual relativism, that of differing points of view, seems to betray an underlying paradox. Different points of view make sense, but only if there is a common co-ordinate system on which to plot them; yet the existence of a common system belies the claim of dramatic incomparability.”
—Donald Davidson (b. 1917)
“The greatest and truest models for all orators ... is Demosthenes. One who has not studied deeply and constantly all the great speeches of the great Athenian, is not prepared to speak in public. Only as the constant companion of Demosthenes, Burke, Fox, Canning and Webster, can we hope to become orators.”
—Woodrow Wilson (1856–1924)
“...I didn’t consider intellectuals intelligent, I never liked them or their thoughts about life. I defined them as people who care nothing for argument, who are interested only in information; or as people who have a preference for learning things rather than experiencing them. They have opinions but no point of view.... Their talk is the gloomiest type of human discourse I know.... This is a red flag to my nature. Intellectuals, to me have no natures ...”
—Margaret Anderson (1886–1973)
“Play for young children is not recreation activity,... It is not leisure-time activity nor escape activity.... Play is thinking time for young children. It is language time. Problem-solving time. It is memory time, planning time, investigating time. It is organization-of-ideas time, when the young child uses his mind and body and his social skills and all his powers in response to the stimuli he has met.”
—James L. Hymes, Jr. (20th century)
“In all systems of theology the devil figures as a male person.... Yes, it is women who keep the church going.”
—Don Marquis (1878–1937)