A Methodological Proposal for the Complementarity of the SSM and the VSM for the Analysis of Viability in Organizations

Abstract

This paper presents a protocol that establishes the complementarity between Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) and the Viable System Model (VSM) for the analysis of viability in organizations. Various studies demonstrate the advantages of both hard and soft multimethodologies, especially in the field of operational research (OR). Relying on a literature review of multimethodology, the present research specifically focuses on papers that examine the resolution of problem situations in organizations using SSM and VSM. It subsequently addresses approaches to both methodologies and, as a result, presents the characteristics that favor complementarity. Thus, this research primarily contributes with a methodological proposal that integrates both SSM and VSM. In terms of its technical-methodological approach, this study proposes a comprehensive protocol for the integration of SSM and VSM. While some studies do extol the benefits of combining the two methodologies, a systematic protocol for their integration is still lacking. As such, the protocol presented herein consists of six steps used to diagnose or design a viable organization that includes a questionnaire for detecting organizational pathologies.

Appendix 1

Questionnaire to Organizational diagnosis. Modified from Pfiffner (2017).

1. - Purpose of the Questionnaire

To obtain information on the control of the functions of the organization or organizational units.

The term control function encompasses everything that produces control effects. This can include complete organizational units.

2. - Topic of the Questionnaire

Evaluate a specific organization or organizational unit.

3. Content of the Questionnaire

Evaluation of the control functions of a certain organization which do not have to coincide with the formal logic of the hierarchy or organizational chart of the organization. In smaller organizations, it is possible for the same person or agency to perform several control functions. Otherwise, in larger organizations, it is possible for a control function to be performed by more than one person or agency.

The survey is based on six control functions that will be found repeatedly. The functions are explained in the following table and in the questions.

Control functions.

1	Operation Units (OU). Operative service providers such as service centres, specialized departments, plants, branches, subsidiaries, project teams, profit centres, etc. with the function of control and provision of goods or services.	In this system the product or service is created, and value is added (S1)
2	Coordination: regulations, instructions, systems, standards, coordination bodies, reservation systems, manuals, schedules, coordination meetings, interface rules, quality, security, general production schedules, etc.	It establishes the rules for cooperation. Minimizes friction losses among OU activities (S2)
3	Operational Management (OM): management functions that optimize the results and the overall performance of the organization or the OP. It assigns available resources.	It manages the organization (all entities) in global terms and from a global perspective as well (here and now) (S3)
3a	Audit: information sources of OM for independent management information (that is, not influenced by interests)	It provides neutral information, and verifies conditions and states (S3*)
4	Analysis of the environment and planning for the future: observation, forecasting and interpretation of the general environment, reflection of the environment against self-representation of the organization (model), development, courses of action	Integrates external and internal points of view and suggests / initiates changes. Planning units (there and then) (S4)
5	Normative management and Identity: Defining the purpose, directions, norms and values of the fundamental government of the organization (pilot control), as well as the objective state of the organization; final decision, closing.	It establishes the identity and general parameters, and it makes final decisions when necessary (S5)

Important notes:

Type of questions and type of evaluations

• The questions are formulated as idealized situations

• The expert evaluates, on the same scale, to what extent (i.e. how completely and how well) the organization corresponds to this ideal situation

• The scale covers the entire spectrum from defective to mediocre and good. Therefore, it is possible that evaluations in most areas end at one end or the other on the scale

• Rating scale:

Overview:

All control effects must be evaluated. Therefore, the following must be taken into account:

• Formal / official control functions, properties and structures, as well as

• Informal / unofficial control functions (that is, unofficial channels), properties and structures

When there are significant control effects in the organization, consider it in the evaluation

General information (Please fill in the fields)

Information about the organization, at the point of evaluation		Information about the expert		Information about the survey
a) Long-time identification. Number of the organization		h) Identification Number. of expert		l) Evaluation date
b) Age of the organization		i) Expert evaluation execution number		m) Last previous evaluation
c) Number of employees		j) Time required for the evaluation in minutes		n) Level of organization evaluated
d) Current sales or budget (local currency)		k) Knowledge of the expert about the case. From 1 to 6		The whole organization
e) Dynamics of the organization’s environment 0 = Preferably low 1 = Preferably high				Operational Unit (OU). Indicate area or department
f) Management qualifications 0 = Preferably low 1 = Preferably high
g) Sector 1 = Services 2 = Production 3 = Government 4 = NGO

Expert survey

To what extent do you consider that the following statements are applicable to the evaluated organization?

Please use the scales to assess whether and to what degree the descriptive situation is applicable. Where you cannot do an evaluation, please make assumptions based on what you consider appropriate indicators and observations. Please use the “Do not know” column only when it is impossible for you to make an assumption. However, in most cases making an assumption will be possible

It is possible that the evaluation in most areas ends at one of the extremes of the scale

Please check only one box ✓

1. - Operational units for forecasting autonomous services

In the organization, there is one or several Operational Units (UO) that...		1	2	3	4	5	?
1.1	...have only responsibilities for logically definable market areas (for example: by-products, customers, geographical areas, etc.). If there is only one market area, the interface is defined (for example: sales, marketing, project management).
1.2	...are competent, capable and flexible to serve their market areas comprehensively (in conjunction with third parties, when necessary)

2. - Coordination of inputs

To avoid frictional losses and inefficiencies between OU, there are effective coordination functions (for mutual approval, determining responsibilities, limits, assignment, regulation, codes of conduct, criteria for decision making, etc.), related to...		1	2	3	4	5	?
2.1	...internal and external activities of the OU (for example: sales areas, schedules, communications, methods, standards, policies, information exchange, etc.).
2.2	...resources that are used jointly by the UO, in other words, shared resources (for example: reservation systems, devices, spaces, funds, capacities, etc.).

2. - Coordination of outputs

By constantly monitoring of the operation, the normal parameters of the organization (current and objective control parameters, the performance of tasks, quality, quantities, etc.) are...		1	2	3	4	5	?
2.3	...supervises on a constant basis and the deviations are identified.
2.4	...significant deviations that always trigger regulatory measures or, when necessary, adjustments to the system.

3. - Rationalization of operational management

Operational Management (OM) monitors and optimizes the functioning of the organization as a whole —including itself— by means of control measures, allocation of resources and changes in the parameters with respect to...		1	2	3	4	5	?
3.1	...the general functioning (effectiveness, productivity, profits, support services, quality or similar) in a constant or frequent and systematic fashion (for example: following the rules appropriately).
3.2	...opportunities, risks and synergies; these are always recognized, used or handled appropriately.

3a. - Information on operational management

The OM gathers...		1	2	3	4	5	?
3.3	...internal information (i.e., concerning the organization itself) and external information (concerning the market and the environment) for management and decision-making from an adequate information system on an ongoing basis.
3.4	...repeatedly independent information from the management line regarding the state of the organization through sporadic or surprise audits, surveys, direct conversations or analysis. If necessary, the OM triggers regulatory measures or system adjustments.

4. - Analysis of the environment and planning of future observation

The general environment of the organization (political, environmental, technological, social, legal, sectoral, market, etc.) is constantly or frequently...		1	2	3	4	5	?
4.1	... monitored with respect to the qualities (properties) and progress that are relevant or potentially relevant to the organization.
4.2	… done with an eye on the current situation, possible scenarios and future developments (future circumstances and dynamism).

4. - Analysis of the environment and planning of future courses of action

Those responsible for the analysis of the environment and planning for the future (e.g. observation of distribution and procurement markets, research and development, organizational development, trend analysis, technology and regulatory monitoring, market research, customer panels, financial market, media and sectoral research)...		1	2	3	4	5	?
4.3	...combine information about their environment, their organization and corporate policy (self-image, objective status, parameters, freedom of action); recognize opportunities and risks and, based on these, develop appropriate scenarios and courses of action (plans).
4.4	...often initiate necessary controversial adjustment discussions. They do so, if necessary, with the exponents of operational management and regulatory management in order to contribute to the development of the organization.

5. - Purpose, identity and normative management

Regulatory management ensures ...		1	2	3	4	5	?
5.1	...the availability of binding guidelines and a definition of objective status that informs the organization as a whole (pilot control, identity)
5.2	...that those responsible for the analysis and planning of the environment for the future and operational management cooperate in a way that produces the best possible development of the organization.
5.3	... that the regulatory administration is willing and able, when necessary, to make final decisions (closing the decision-making process) or decisions that would fundamentally change the system (basic mission change and self-concept).

Recursive principles		1	2	3	4	5	?
P.1	The global units of the OU (e.g. company, division, branch) are themselves capable of acting as independent organizations at their level with all the necessary functions so that they can fulfil their role independently.
P.2	The subordinate units of the OU (e.g. departments, areas, groups) are able to act independently at their level with all the necessary functions and can fulfil their role independently.

Principles of communication		1	2	3	4	5	?
P.3	All units of the organization are networked at all times through efficient communication channels or processes (sufficient capacity) or intermediaries (official channels, willingness to interact, telecommunications). These channels are neutral, that is, communication, content and cooperation are not interrupted or distorted by the transmission process through these channels

Appendix 2

Organizational pathologies (Cardoso Castro and Espinosa 2019). In the table, the source authors reporting the pathology are reported as JPR = Jose Perez-Rios; RE&AR = Raul Espejo and Alfonso Reyes; PH=Patrick Hoverstadt.

I. Identity Pathologies (RE & AR)
Pathology	Description
1.1 Ill-defined identity (JPR)	Organizational identity has not been created or defined
1.2 Lack of alignment between organizational tasks and perceived identity (RE&AR)	The organization performs tasks some of which do not correspond to the espoused identity
1.3 Purpose in use different to the espoused purpose (RE&AR)	Espoused purpose differs from ‘purpose in use’ (the one explained by the tasks performed)
1.4 Regulatory activity acting as a primary activity (RE&AR)	A regulatory function starts behaving as a primary function and selling services to external as well as internal clients
1.5 Underdeveloped primary activities (RE&AR)	Organizational identity dominated by some primary activities at the expense of a few others left behind
1.6 Emergent virtual organization (RE&AR)	The emergent virtual organization that dominates the organizational identity
1.7 Negative synergy (RE&AR)	The organizational level does not add value to the operational level
1.8 Inconsistent Primary activity (RE&AR)	The primary activity works for inconsistent purposes
1.9 Liquid Identity (RE&AR)	Owing to quick, constant environmental changes, the organization finds difficulty to keep services or products identities for a long time. The organization as networks of companies providing outsourced services. S1 as ‘viable core learning teams’ rather than ‘product teams’
1.10 Institutional Schizophrenia: (JPR)	Two or more identity conceptions produce conflict within the organization
II. Operational Pathologies: These are related to the way viable systems emerged and constituted recursive levels of organization. Mostly with the way each system one handles complexity and its interaction with upper and lower levels of organization (Authors) – coincidence with functional pathologies from JPR.
Pathology	Description
2.1 Non-existence of vertical unfolding (JPR)	Its absence drives the organization to the impossibility to deal with the total variety it faces
2.2 Lack or recursion levels (JPR)	Vertical unfolding is accomplished but the first level of recursion is left empty leaving part of the environment unattended
2.3 Lack of recursion levels (middle levels) (JPR)	Vertical unfolding is accomplished but the middle recursion levels are left empty. This leaves the corresponding variety to be handled by the previous or next recursive level (which will cause further problems) or unattended.
2.4 Entangled vertical unfolding (JPR)	Various interrelated level membership. Inadequate integration/communication between recursion levels when multiple memberships are present
2.5 Weak S1 (RE&AR)	S1 not operating well: not recognised as a S1, poorly managed, lack of self-organization, lack of autonomy and lack of understanding of the local environment.
2.6 Dominance of S1- weak meta-system (JPR)	The power of S1 is not handled within the limits set by the meta-system.
2.7 Disjoined behaviour within S1 (JPR) The Yo-Yo (PH)	A lack of adequate interactions between the S1 lead to fragmented behaviour Unbalance between autonomy and cohesion. Fragmented identity. Oscillating between centralized vs. devolved authority.
2.8 Autopoietic beast (JPR)	Elemental operative units within the S1 behave as if their individual goals were the only reason for being. They ignore the need to harmonize their individual goals within an integrated S1
III- Meta-systemic pathologies (Authors): These pathologies relate with the way the meta-systemic roles operate and interact, their constraints and resulting organizational misfits
System 2
Pathology	Description
2.9 Weak S2 (RE&AR)	Misaligned purposes and values between stakeholders and policymakers. Poor coordination and cohesion: different qualities from products and services from S1. Lack of synergy between S1 because of poor, restrictive management in the middle
2.10 Authoritarian S2 (Authors)	System shifts from a service provider to an authoritarian controller
2.11 Lack of information systems (JPR)	Some of the information systems are non-existent or inappropriate
2.12 Fragmentation of information systems (JPR)	Information systems are in place, but they are not interconnected
2.13 Lack of key communication channels (JPR)	Certain communication channels that should exist are not in place, they do not work, or their design is inappropriate
2.14 Insufficient communication channels capacity. (Authors)	Insufficient communication channels capacity.
2.15 Lack of sufficient algedonic channels (JPR)	Necessary algedonic channels are not present or if exist, and they are poorly designed and/or do not work properly
2.16 Communication channels incomplete or with inadequate capacity (JPR)	Necessary communication channels do not have the capacity/ functionality for transmitting information (Transducer, channel capacity and sender-receiver in both directions)
2.17 Weak connection between S1 and S2 (Authors)	Necessary communication with the coordination centre is not present or weak
Systems 3 and 3*
Pathology	Description
2.18 Control Dilemma (RE)(PH)	Managers dealing with far more complexity than they should, resulting in poor performance. Information overload syndrome Micromanagement
2.19 Weak S3 (RE&AR)	Resource and functional centralization. Corporate intervention Poor operational alignment of a centralized function with operational activities. Managers bypassing lower-level operational managers or vice versa
2.20 Inadequate management style (JPR)	S3 intervenes inadequately in the affairs of S1
2.21 Schizophrenic S3 (JPR)	Conflict arises among the functions of S3 because of its inclusion in the system (operations) and the meta-system (management)
2.22 Hypertrophy of S3 (JPR)	S3 concentrates much of the activity that should be carried out by S3*, S2 and S1
2.23 Weak S3* (RE&AR) Lack of sufficient development of S3* (JPR)	Poor or non-existent monitoring systems. Micromanagement: monitoring and reporting at the wrong level. Lack of monitoring activity conduces to lack of action –because of ignorance- when there are inappropriate behaviours in S1
2.24 Weak connection between S3 and S1 (JPR)	Operational units work separately without being integrated by S3
2.25 Weak connection between S2 and S3 (Authors)	Poor or non-existent exchange of information between S2 and S3 may conduce to the generation of an intrusive or not well informed S3
System 4
Pathology	Description
2.26 Weak S4 (RE&AR) Headless Chicken (JPR)	Weak stretching archetype – poor S4 S4 is missing or if it does exist it does not work properly
2.27 Dissociation of S3 and S4 (JPR)	The homeostat S3-S4 does not work properly. They do not communicate and interact with each other properly.
System 5
Pathology	Description
2.28 Lack of meta-system (JPR)	Insufficient or non-existent definitions of identity and purpose. A weak or inexistent meta-system shifts the balance between “there and then” and the “here and now” management activities towards the “here and now” leaving adaptation-oriented activities unattended. Inadequate links exist between the recursion levels
2.29 Inadequate representation vis-à-vis higher levels (JPR)	Poor connection within S5s organizations pertaining to different recursion levels within the same global organization
III. Meta-systemic Interactions
Pathology	Description
3.1 Poor (or no) differentiation of primary and secondary activities (JPR)	Operational and management activities (primary and secondary/ systemic and meta-systemic) are not clearly differentiated
3.2 Collapse of S5 into S3 (non-existing metasystem) (JPR)	S5 Intervenes undesirably in the function of S3
3.3 Poor governance because of over empowered S1 (Authors)	S1 control most of the resources; their representatives make the strategic decisions, with not enough involvement from the next recursive level (e.g. the national government in a regional focused network)
3.4 Organizational autopoietic beast (JPR) Organizational Cancer (PH)	The uncontrolled growth and activity of some individual parts of the organization put at risk the viability of the whole. Uncontrollable growth of a group of activities – support activities growing uncontrollably

Appendix 3

Glossary to make a viable system

Beer (1994) proposes a glossary of rules to make a viable system, which is composed of two regulatory aphorisms, four principles for organization, a theorem and four axioms, which are presented below.

Aphorisms:

First regulatory aphorism.

It is not necessary to enter the black box to understand the nature of the function it performs.

Second regulatory aphorism.

It is not necessary to enter the black box to calculate the variety that can potentially generate.

Principles:

The First Principle of Organization.

Managerial, operational and environmental varieties, diffusing through an institutional system, TEND TO EQUATE; they should be designed to do so with minimum damage to people and to cost.

The Second Principle of Organization.

The four directional channels carrying information between the management unit, the operation, and the environment must each have a higher capacity to transmit a given amount of information relevant to variety selection in a given time than the originating subsystem has to generate it in that time.

The Third Principle of Organization.

Wherever the information carried on a channel capable of distinguishing a given variety crosses a boundary, it undergoes transduction; the variety of the transducer must be at least equivalent to the variety of the channel.

The Fourth Principle of Organization.

The operation of the first three principles must be cyclically maintained through time without hiatus or lags.

The recursive system theorem.

In a recursive organizational structure, any viable system contains, and is contained in a viable system.

Axioms

The First Axiom of Management.

The sum of horizontal variety disposed by all the operational elements EQUALS he sum of vertical variety disposed on the six vertical components of corporate cohesion.

The Second Axiom of Management.

The variety disposed by System Three resulting from the operation of the First Axiom equals the variety disposed by System Four.

The Third Axiom of Management.

The variety disposed by System Five equals the residual variety generated by the operation of the Second Axiom.

The Law of Cohesion (for multiple recursions of the viable system).

The System One variety accessible to System Three of Recursion x equals the variety disposed by the sum of the metasystems of Recursion y for every recursive pair.