An updated research note on
the key Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) concepts in the
Multi-perspective, Systems-based Research
Joseph
Kim-keung Ho
Independent
Trainer, Hong Kong, China
Abstract:
The Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) Research,
launched by J.K.K. Ho as an intellectual endeavor to study management
disciplines using critical systems thinking, began in the mid-90s. Over time,
its ingredient concepts, called the key Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB)
concepts, have also evolved as critical systems thinking has been progressing throughout
the years. This research note makes an updated clarification of the key MPSB
concepts by drawing on Jackson’s (2003) book on his updated version of critical
systems thinking. It also provides an illustration on how to employ the key
MPBS concepts to review a piece of academic work, in this case on the performance
measurement models in the management accounting field by Kasperskaya and Tayles.
By doing so, the research note maintains the topicality of the MPSB Research.
Key
words: The key MPSB
concepts; The MPSB Research; Performance measurement models; Critical systems
thinking
Introduction
The research venture of the Multi-perspective,
Systems-based (MPSB) Research was launched by this writer in 1992 as his Ph.D.
degree programme study (see Ho, 1996a). It resulted in a number of papers
published around 1992 to 1997 on this research theme, e.g., Ho (1995; 1996b).
Over the last three years, the MPSB Research project has been revitalized, as
evidenced by quite a number of papers published in the journal of European Academic Research, e.g., Ho
(2014a; 2014b). Briefly, the MPSB Research makes use of critical systems
thinking to study various management disciplines as a research path to
contribute to the theoretical development of systems thinking. The distinguishing
characteristic of the research project is that it comes up with a number of key
MPSB concepts and applies them in reviewing management disciplines. Since the
key MPSB concepts were mainly inspired by the works on critical systems
thinking in the mid-1990s and critical systems thinking has been evolving
throughout the years, it is imperative to provide an updated review of the key
MPSB concepts based on an updated version of critical systems thinking[1].
This task is taken up in this research note.
The key MPSB concepts as understood in the
contemporary critical systems thinking
The key MPSB concepts have been identified as the
frequently revisited ideas in the critical systems literature during the
process of the MPSB Research in the mid-90s. Subsequently, they were coined as
the key MPSB concepts in the MPSB Research. These concepts are: the MPSB
Research, MPSB frameworks, perspective, a perspective switch, a migration of
perspective, perspective anchoring, an MPSB rich picture building exercise, an
MPSB knowledge compiler, the in-built tension of pluralism, an MPSB cognitive
filter for management, enlightening management education and the key MPSB
concepts. In this research note, the writer also includes two additional key
concepts, i.e., multi-perspective and systems-based, as they are the words used
in the very name of the MPSB Research. These key concepts were explicitly
traced to the critical system thinking literature by Ho (1995). By now it is again
imperative to do a proper exercise of concept tracing based on an updated
version of critical systems thinking, which is represented by a book called Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for
Managers (Jackson, 2003). In this study the tracing exercise results in the
form of Table 1.
Table
1: The key MPSB concepts and related ideas from the contemporary critical
systems thinking work of Jackson (2003)
|
The key MPSB concepts (re: Ho, 2013)
|
Related ideas from Jackson (2003)
|
|
1.
Multi-perspective: It is the same as the
pluralism notion in critical systems thinking.
|
1.1.Jackson (2003: p. 279):
“…..to look from a variety of different perspectives and to use different
systems methodologies in combination…”
1.2.Jackson (2003: p. 280): “respected the
different strengths of the various strands of systems thinking, encouraged
their theoretical development and suggested ways in which they could guide
theoretical endeavour …”
1.3.Jackson (2003: p. 301): “the creative use
in combination of different ways of being holistic….allows…to be holistic in
a more profound sense.”
1.4.Jackson (2003: p. 306): “…to manage
relationship between the functionalist, interpretive, emancipatory and
postmodern paradigms. It is ready and able to include more if they offer
radically new ways of seeing and acting…”
|
|
2.1.Jackson (2003: p. 4):
“…an alternative to reductionism for studying systems. Holism considers
systems to be more than the sum of their parts…”
2.2.Jackson (2003: p. 10): “Social and
organizational systems… have multiple purposes: they are purposeful…”
2.3.Jackson (2003: p. 13): “…the transdisciplinarity
of systems thinking. It draws its
ideas and concepts….from a variety of different disciplines…”
|
|
|
3.
The MPSB Research: A research programme
that makes use of critical systems thinking to review management disciplines
with a view to developing knowledge structures of management disciplines as a
path to make theoretical advancements in systems thinking.
|
Not covered in Jackson (2003).
|
|
4.
MPSB frameworks: Knowledge structures of
management disciplines that are generated as a result of the review of management
disciplines based on critical systems thinking.
|
Not covered in Jackson (2003).
|
|
5.
Perspective: The theoretical
orientation or paradigm of either a problem-solver or a methodology. In the MPSB
Research, 4 main perspectives are identified[3],
i.e., the functionalist (hard systems) perspective, the interpretive (soft
systems) perspective, the emancipatory (emancipatory systems) perspective and
the postmodern (postmodern systems) perspective.
|
5.1.Jackson (2003: p. 322):
“Functionalism looks for efficiency and efficacy, the interpretive approach
for effectiveness and elegance, the emancipatory approach for empowerment and
emancipation, while the postmodernism values exceptions and engaging the
emotions..”
|
|
6.
A perspective switch: The switching of
perspective by the problem-solver from one moment of reflection based on one
perspective (e.g., hard systems) to another moment based on another
perspective (e.g. soft systems).
|
6.1.Jackson (2003: p. 296):
“One methodology, encapsulating the presuppositions of a particular paradigm,
is granted imperialistic status- but only temporarily; its dominance is kept
under continuous review…”
6.2.Jackson (2003: p. 322): “The critical
systems practitioner is required to hop between conflicting paradigms…”
|
|
7.
A migration of
perspective:
The shift in perspective of a methodology (e.g., a migration of Systems
Dynamics based on hard systems thinking to soft systems thinking), as
reflected in the loosening of some of the original components of the
methodology concerned.
|
Not covered in Jackson (2003).
|
|
8.
Perspective anchoring: The intellectual effort
to explicitly relate a methodology to a particular perspective so that it
explicitly respects the rationality of such a perspective.
|
8.1.Jackson (2003: p. 305): “…at all times,
there must be an explicit recognition of the paradigm(s) the methods are
being used to serve….”
8.2.Jackson (2003: p. 306): “…the theoretical
link back [writer’s note: of methodologies] to paradigms is made explicit…”
|
|
9.
An MPSB rich picture
building exercise: An exploratory exercise conducted on a problem-context based on
multiple images of organization that are affiliated with different perspectives.
|
9.1.Jackson (2003: p. 279):
“…..to look from a variety of different perspectives and to use different
systems methodologies in combination…”.
9.2.Jackson (2003: p. 285): “different
perspectives….should be used in a complementary way to highlight and address
different aspects of …issues and problems…”
9.3.Jackson (2003: p. 284): “….regards problem
situations as messes that cannot be understood and analysed on the basis of
only one perspective...... advocates viewing them from a variety of
perspectives, perhaps as encapsulated in different metaphors…”
9.4.Jackson (2003: p. 287): “…To encourage… to
think creatively about the situation they face……”
|
|
10. An MPSB knowledge compiler: A set of techniques based on critical
systems thinking used to examine a management discipline at either an
individual concept level or the whole discipline level, resulting in the
construction or enhancement of MPSB frameworks that make the management
disciplines coherent and understandable from the critical systems perspective.
|
Not covered in Jackson (2003).
|
|
11.
The in-built tension of
pluralism:
The feeling of tension arising from the difficulties in considering and
respecting fundamentally different perspectives in an intellectual exercise.
|
11.1.
Jackson (2003: p. 296): “…severe cognitive difficulties for
individuals trying to work across paradigms….
Whether or how the relevant competences can be obtained…”
11.2.
Jackson (2003: p. 304): “…the differences between paradigms should be
emphasized rather than ‘rationalized away’…”
11.3.
Jackson (2003: p. 304): “Paradigms have to confront one another on the
basis of ‘reflective conversation’… Critique is managed between the paradigms
and not controlled from above them…”
11.4.
Jackson (2003: p. 323): “…systems practitioner with holistic awareness
and guidance ..... still have decisions to make that will draw
on their own ethical positions….”
|
|
12. An MPSB cognitive filter for management: A set of inter-related key MPSB concepts
that are used by managers to make sense of the various management approaches
and management viewpoints that they encounter from time to time in the world
of management practices.
|
Not covered in Jackson (2003).
|
|
13. Enlightening management education: Management education that endorses
critical systems thinking and makes use of the MPSB Research.
|
Not covered in Jackson (2003).
|
|
14. The key MPSB concepts: The concepts that have been identified as
highly relevant for the conduct of MPSB Research.
|
Not covered in Jackson (2003).
|
Referring to Table 1, Jackson (2003) provides an
updated and clearly expressed version of critical systems thinking that enables
the writer to clarify a number of key MPSB concepts. It is also clear from
Table 1 that some of the MPSB concepts cannot find corresponding insights from
Jackson (2003). This absence of Jackson’s discussion directly related to
certain key MPSB concepts (i.e., the MPSB Research, MPSB frameworks, a
migration of perspective, an MPSB knowledge compiler, an MPSB cognitive filter,
enlightening management education, and the key MPSB concepts) is not unexpected,
bearing in mind that Jackson’s (2003) is primarily focused on utilizing
critical systems thinking to inform action research and organizational
intervention. Another reason is that the MPSB Research has not caught much
attention in the systems thinking community. In other words, Jackson (2003)’s
focus is not on using critical systems thinking to review management
disciplines as the MPSB Research is. Nevertheless, Jackson (2003) offers an
updated and highly accessible version of critical systems thinking that enables
the writer to lay the theoretical foundation for the key MPSB concepts. Thus,
his book is vital for understanding the MPSB concepts. Regardless, those key
MPSB concepts not directly associated with Jackson’s book, i.e., the MPSB
Research, MPSB frameworks, an MPSB knowledge compiler, an MPSB cognitive filter
for management, enlightening management education, and the key MPSB concepts, are
explained in the MPSB Research publications direct. Therefore, they are not
further discussed here. Additionally, since 2013, there are new key MPSB
concepts proposed in the MPSB Research literature, e.g., the MPSB managerial
intellectual learning (Ho, 2015) and the MPSB knowledge supply chain framework
(Ho, 2014a). Since they are less directly related to the work of Jackson
(2003), these more recent key MPSB concepts are also not considered in this
research note. Yet another way to study the MPSB Research is to illustrate how
the key MPSB concepts can be applied to examine a topic in a management
discipline. This kind of exercises of using the key MPSB concepts in the
conduct of concepts and topics in management disciplines has been reported in
the MPSB Research literature, the major recent source of which being the
journal of European Academic Research.
Here, it is illustrated with an article on performance measurement models in
the management accounting field, i.e., Kasperskaya and Tayles (2013).
Some remarks on Kasperskaya and Tayles (2013)’s
article on performance measurement models in terms of the key MPSB concepts
The brief review exercise involves identifying some
intellectual viewpoints raised by Kasperskaya and Tayles (2013). Their management
accounting article examines the bewildering phenomenon that, despite the causal
assumptions in performance measurement models being found to be weak in
reliable statistical associations, the model users still express satisfaction
with the experience of using these models. This prompts Kasperskaya and Tayles
(2013) to conduct a conceptual study to explore why this phenomenon exists.
Here, the review exercise by this writer is to make some evaluative remarks on
their viewpoints in terms of the key MPSB concepts. By doing so, it endeavors
to convey the idea that the key MPSB concepts, grounded on critical systems
thinking, are capable of offering intellectual insights to inform theoretical
development of the topic of performance measurement models in the Management Accounting
field. The exercise is presented in Table 2.
Table
2: Key ideas raised by Kasperskaya and Tayles (2013) on performance measurement
models and related evaluative remarks in terms of the key MPSB concepts
|
Key ideas by Kasperskaya and Taypes (2013)
on performance measurement models
|
Evaluative remarks in terms of the key MPSB
concepts[4]
|
|
Idea 1: Kasperskaya and Taypes
(2013: p. 427): “the assumption of quantifiable and predictable causal links
appear to be problematic in real-life applications..”
|
1.1. An indication of the limitation of the
hard systems perspective and the
associated machine metaphor to comprehend a company’s strategy.
|
|
Idea 2: Kasperskaya and Taypes
(2013: p. 427): “many of the users of the causal PMMs have associated these
models with improvements in perceived organizational performance..”
|
2.1.An indication of the need to conduct an MPSB rich picture building exercise
to explore the context of the situation to comprehend why users have got this
perception of satisfaction or have expressed this satisfaction feeling.
|
|
Idea 3: Kasperskaya and Taypes
(2013: p. 431): “The overview of causal PMMs[5]
suggests that these models are aimed to help set clear and definite goals for
organizations, measured by explicit standards…”
|
3.1.These PMMs appear to embrace a hard systems-affiliated
image of organization; the PMs can be explicitly anchored on the hard systems
perspective. Such an exercise is
called a perspective anchoring.
|
|
Idea 4: Kasperskaya and Taypes
(2013: p. 431): “….accounting practices may play different roles depending on
the degree of uncertainty of cause-and-effect and organizational objectives…”
|
4.1.The contingency viewpoint is still essentially
grounded on the hard systems perspective;
no serious attempt is made to switch
perspective to evaluate the existing accounting practices.
|
|
Idea 5: Kasperskaya and Tayles
(2013: p. 432): “High uncertainty about cause-and-effect and objectives can
lead to situation where accounting models play the role of “rationalization
machines”. In other words, they are employed for creating meaning and
portraying organizational rationality..”
Idea 6: Kasperskaya and Tayles
(2013: p. 436): “Maps may contain inconsistent and equivocal relationships,
yet they may be valuable tools for construction of meaning and communication
in organizations because they assimilate uncertain events into a structure
and generate meanings for the event..”
|
5.1./ 6.1. The discussion of accounting models,
e.g. models with the causal maps, while still dominated by the hard systems
perspective, also considers ideas affiliated with the soft systems perspective. It indicates a migration of perspective with the
accounting model design, albeit a cautious one for that.
|
|
Idea 7: Kasperskaya and Tayles
(2013: p. 435): “Further shortcomings of causal maps are that causal linkages
are assumed monolithic, that is, without time delays and disruptions, though
this can be significantly different from reality…”
|
7.1.The discussion on the shortcomings of
causal maps remains primarily dominated by the hard systems perspective.
|
The review exercise as presented in Table 2 stresses
the dominant hard systems perspective adopted by Kasperskaya and Tayles (2013),
although some limited and cautious attempt has been made by them to switch
perspective to the soft systems one in the discussion as well as to migrate somewhat
the underlying perspective of the performance measurement models from the hard
systems one to the soft systems one. All in all, Kasperskaya and Tayles (2013)
is not multi-perspective, systems-based. From the MPSB Research perspective, its
primarily singular perspective is considered restrictive when dealing with
real-world performance measurement practices that can be quite messy. An MPSB
Researcher, in this case, will recommend further investigation of the
performance measurement models topic based on the MPSB concepts, so as to be
more holistic and creative. In addition, an MPSB Researcher will also suggest
that the MPSB Research literature on management accounting, i.e., Ho (2014c;
2014d; 2014e), is useful for informing the performance measurement models study.
[Note: the writer has full respect to Kasperskaya and Tayles who produced a
conceptual paper that is informed by high quality literature review and is
presented with clearly expressed reasoning. The main purpose of the discussion
in this section is to demonstrate how to employ the key MPSB concepts to review
a topic in a management discipline.]
Concluding remarks
The theoretical evolution of critical systems thinking
and the associated intellectual venture of the MPSB Research necessarily
dictates the need to update their ingredient conceptual notions from time to
time. In the case of the MPSB Research, specifically, it is crucial to do so
for the key MPSB concepts so as to maintain the topicality of the MPSB Research.
Together with the illustrative and brief exercise on the review of the
performance measurement models article written by Kasperskaya and Tayles, the
research note serves to contribute to the theoretical development of the MPSB
Research.
Bibliography
1. Ackoff, R.L. 1981. Creating
the corporate future. Wiley. Chichester.
2. Ho,
J.K.K. 1995. “An Example on the
Operation of the MPSB Filter” Systems
Research 12(4). Wiley. Chichester: 297-308.
3. Ho, J.K.K. 1996a. Development of Multi-Perspective, Systems-Based Frameworks July, a
thesis submitted to Faculty of Engineering, University of Hong Kong, for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The University of Hong Kong.
4. Ho,
J.K.K. 1996b. “MPSB Research
Explained” Journal of the Operational
Research Society 47. Stockton: 843-852
7.
Ho,
J.K.K. 2014b. “Mapping and explaining the Multi-perspective, Systems-based
Research sub-Systems Movement” European
Academic Research 2(9) December: 11880-11900.
Ho, J.K.K. and D. Sculli. 1994. "A Multi-perspective, Systems-based
Framework for Decision Support Systems Design" Systems Practice 7(5). Plenum Press: 551-563.
13. Jackson, M.C. 2003. Systems Thinking: Creative Holism for Managers. Wiley. Chichester.
14. Kasperskaya, Y. and M. Tayles. 2013. “The role of
causal links in performance measurement models” Managerial Auditing Journal 28(5). Emerald: 426-443.
[1]
The representative book on an updated version of critical systems thinking is
Jackson (2003), which is also declared to be “the last book” by Jackson (2003:
xvii).
[2]
There are quite a number of writings in the systems thinking literature that explain
what systems thinking is, e.g., Ackoff (1981) and Jackson (1995; 2003).
[3]
The original version of the MPSB Research, based on the critical systems
thinking at that time, comprises 3 perspectives, namely, the hard systems, the
soft systems and the emancipator systems perspectives, without the postmodern
systems perspective. A representative work on the original version of the MPSB
Research is Ho and Sculli (1994) which studies decision support systems.
[4] The key MPSB concepts in the table are in bold.
[5] PMMs means performance measurement models.
No comments:
Post a Comment