Esnek sistemler yaklaşımı

Abstract

Bu çalışmada ilk olarak sistemlerin ve problem tiplerinin, özelliklerine göre sınıflandırılmasına yer verilmiştir. Bunun gerekli görülmesinin sebebi problemi ortaya koymak için, öncelikle teorik bilgiler ışığında onu belli bir sınıfa dahil etmenin getireceği kolaylıktır. Bu sınıflamalar gösterildikten sonra problem ve sistem türlerinin her biri için önerilen yöntemlere değinilmiştir. Daha sonraki bölümlerde katı ve esnek sistemler incelenerek arasındaki farklar ve esnek sistemler düşüncesinin ayrıntılı olarak, teorik ve pratik incelemesi gerçekleştirilmiştir. Esnek sistemler yaklaşımının ortaya çıkması Yöneylem Araştırmacılarının sosyal bilimlere önem vermeye başlaması ile ortaya çıkmıştır. Yöneylem araştırması ile sosyal bilimlerin ortaklığı gösterildikten sonra esnek sistemlere geçiş incelenmiştir. Esnek Sistemlerin Teorik olarak incelenmesini, bir banka bilgi-işlem firmasında yapılan örnek uygulama izlemektedir. Büyük bankalardan birinin bilgi-işlem hizmetlerini yürüten firma ESY ile incelenmiş ve ESY'nin iki çevriminden sonra bir model çözüme ulaşılmıştır. Son bölümde uygulama sırasında yöntemden gelen zayıflık ve üstünlüklere değinilmekte ve Önerilere yer verilmektedir.

Chapter one, investigates an understanding systems thinking and the force that comes from the variety of systems methodologies. A general conception of system is a given and with different 'flavourings', to produce a number of systems metaphors are provided the idea underlining the possibility of viewing the same system as a different one due to the different metaphors is underlined. There are several advantages of using such metaphors to help us get the grips with the situations and, if nothing else, they remind us that many so-called organisational 'problems' are only the effects of the way we choose to conceptualise the situations. They can give a guidance to appropriate systems 'problem-solving' methods. Consciously looking at a problem situation using different metaphors should help a manager in creative thinking. Because of this, Chapter 2 emphasises different systems thinking and metaphors. It also highlights that the choice of systems methodology should be informed by the 'system of systems methodologies', it should not be determined by it. The system of systems methodology is a short cut form. In Chapter 3, is explained the history of systems thinking and operational research. The 1950s and 1960s saw the dominance of a positivist quantitative paradigm of operational research and of the 'hard systems' approaches to the expose, as found analysis and systems engineering. During the 1970s and 1980s the limits of OR' s hard systems thinking began to be recognised and, through the work of Churchman, Ackoff and Checkland, a new qualitative paradigm called interpretive 'soft systems' thinking, began to take shape and to defiance the 'harder' approaches for hegemony. In the work of Checkland, the nature of the change catching the subject was recorded, and the soft exponents of OR and hard systems thinking had been cerebrally routed. Chapter 4, analyses the soft systems methodology. In detail there are four main principles that a user should be aware of when engaging SSM. These concern learning, culture, participation and the 'two modes of thought'. SSM integrates a process of enquiry. It is a learning system that leads to purposeful action in a continuous cycle. Vll This disagrees from hard systems approaches which adopt means-end directives, seeking to gain pre-set goals. Checkland talks of SSM in terms of 'management', seeking to achieve organised action, coping with an ever-changing flux of coacting events and ideas. Learning is about seeing and evaluating parts of the flux before deciding and taking action, which then becomes a part of the flux with new perceptions, evaluations and actions emerging. These require to be learnt about as well. Learning, then, is like a never ending cycle which has no beginning or end. Cultural feasibility can be selected as the characteristic and key feature of SSM, dominating or absorbing the notions of use and systemic desirability. The idea of culture forcefully guides the SSM user stating categorically that there are ürganisational and/or social limitations in the 'real world' which potential changes, recommended by intervention, must meet. The interpretive felling of SSM guides very strongly to the principle of participation. This means that, given the point of a wide variety of perceptions about a situation, it. is not only necessary to encourage participation but also to do so if we are to stand any chance of bringing about successful results which can be justified and successfully effected. The process of SSM can be distinguished into two modes of thought abstract and ideal systems thinking, and specific context-related 'real world' thinking. One is a logic base and the other a cultural enquiry. It is indicated that these must remain clear so that pure system thinking can be carried out with the aim of expanding ideal model for discussion. The methodology might be thought of as a seven stage process of enquiry. There is no predefined beginning or end in practice. In stages 1 and 2, first is to gather information about structure and processes by observation, collecting secondary data and importantly through informal interviews. These findings can be summarised in a 'rich picture'. A rich picture is a cartoon-like expression which, in the animation of such representations, allows for certain issues, conflicts and other problematic and interesting features to be accentuated. The rich picture expression represents the environment of the situation. Stages 3 is involved with root definitions. A root definition is an idealised view of what a relevant, system should be. The aim is to draw out the essence of what is to be done, why it. is to be done, who is to do it, who is to benefit or suffer from it and what environmental constraints limit the actions and activities. This is achieved by formulating the statement around six elements: vui C Customer Who would be victims/beneficiaries of the purposeful activity? A Actors Who would do the activities T Transformation What is the purposeful activity process expressed as input- >[]- >output W Weltanschauung What view of the world makes this definition meaningful? O Owners Who could stop this activity? E Environmental What constraints in its environment constraints does this system take as given? The model-building process consist of assembling the verbs describing the activities which would have to be there in the system named in the root definition and structuring them according to logical dependencies. An arrow from activity x to activity y shows that y is contingent upon x. these considerations govern the assembly of the operational part of the system which would achieve the transformation process named in RD. The final model is that of a system, that is to say a imaginary entity which could adapt and survive, by processes of communication and control, in a changing environment. Because of this it is necessary to add to the operational subsystem a monitoring and control subsystem, which tries the operations and takes control action to change and or improve them. Stage 5 is consist of the comparison the real world with the conceptual model. It is argued that differences between the idealised models and 'reality' highlight likely changes that would have contained in the models. This may challenge some basic assumptions held by actors and lead to choices that may not have been considered outside of the SSM process. The discuss stages finally confirm which changes are indeed culturally feasible in this organisation at this time, we may then be in a position to take action. Taking actions means implementing changes that are both desirable and feasible. The changes can be classified as attitudinal, structural and procedural. IX Advantages which came from method has been seen with its difficulties. Weak and strong specifications of this method is defined below. Handicaps; 1) In SSM problem is taken, and the related groups are routed to be consist in same idea. But it is not ask the real reason of the problem. When it is viewed from cybernetic metaphor window, the problem can be easily seen because of the inadequate design of subsystems of communication and control. Because of this, it is useful to support method with metaphor approaches. 2) Another handicap occurs, when the modern organisation theory works with SSM. According modern organisation theory, there is continuously conflict is the group of organisation. But SSM, tries to motivate the groups to be agree. Another specification of organisation; it is often seen strong group forces to the weak group to accept their ideas. Because of this reason, it is not advised to use the method in the organisation which conflict and power pressure exist. 3) The one of the handicaps of SSM, supports "learn and be compatible' idea, rather than 'Guess and get ready'. 4) SSM serves better to the purpose of SSM management groups aims. The methodology enables to expand the ideology of powerful groups which exist of decisionmakers, to the other groups. Superiorities; SSM method is useful when there is a coalition with stakeholders. Especially, if it is created the concept, that will be share the stakeholders, the method is suitable. The method can cooperate with the other methods. This makes it be strong decision maker. At last SSM is a powerful tool for management consultant during problem recognition, analysing, modelling and solution producing levels. The Fifth Chapter considers a real world problem. In the study a software firm, which is relates a one of the leaders bank of turkey, be taken with SSM and investigated. The sample which has been worked on, is examined as classical SSM application. The Firm where the sample application took place, is an Information System Firm owned by one of the leading bank in Turkey. The problem nature will be presented by using all the stages recommended by SSM approach. First at the stages 1 and 2 of the Checkland Method, relevant information on the firm was collected. Because the firm was looked into from a system approach point of view, it was examined by using environmental factors (institutional status, other institutions the firm is connected to hierarchically or functionally, the market it. serves and its general position in this market (customer profile, etc.) and internal factors (technology used, current organisational structure, management understanding, etc.) approaches. At the third stage, the model building of the sub systems given by the main descriptions, recommended again by Checkland, were formed. At the fourth stage, the constructions necessary for each system, stated by the fundamental descriptions, are researched. Figural projections were used for this study. The imperative tense of basic verbs were used to model the system. Checkland recommends for the fifth stage, to research whether the models constructed at the fourth stage can be put. into use in real life and if yes, how. The above questions must be asked for every activity in the model. At the sixth stage, in case answers given to the above asked ' How is it done?' questions are weak or not complete then the approach of 'How could it have been done?' is taken. The recommendations and information about the study are at the seventh stage. These recommendations are examined in three categories: Attitude changes (the human concept in the problem), the constructional changes (duties and responsibilities) and procedural changes (operations and job activities).