Talk:Soft systems methodology

message: In the [Methodology] section, the statement "...the decision makers will arrive at consensus..." is wrong and has been changed to "...the decision makers will arrive at accommodations (or, exceptionally, at consensus)..."
In "Learning for Action", Checkland & Poulter, Wiley 2006, p54, the authors state that; "When describing the discussion/debate in SSM, much - perhaps most - of the secondary literature about the approach makes a remarkable and fundamental error.  It assumes that the purpose of the discussion/debate is to find consensus.  It is a 'remarkable' mistake in that anyone who had read the primary literature with care would not make it, and it is 'fundamental' because, in order to cope with the complexity of human affairs, SSM uses a much more subtle idea than 'consensus'.  It works with the idea of finding an accommodation among a group of people with a common concern.  This does not abandon the possibility of consensus rather it subsumes it in the more general idea of accommodation."
Chris.hoggarth 08:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this explaination. To be honest I didn't understand the recent changes you made in the article untill I read it now. I think we should copy this explaination into the text (with a reference) so this will become more clearer to all readers. - Mdd 11:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accommodation, not [[Consensus]] 

message: In the existing description of the 7 stage process does not contain enough detail. Also, it is not clear what the stages are.
They are:
1. The problem situation unstructured
2. The problems situation expressed
3. Roof Definitions of Relevant Systems
4. Conceptual Models
5. Compare 4 with 2
6. Identify/define desirable feasible changes
7. Action to improve the problem situation
This seven stage process is shown in the same form in Checkland (1981) Checkland & Scholes (1990) and Wilson (1990)
The existing article seems to fizzle out with only 2 lines on conceptual models of human activity systems. These models play the all important role in Wilson's method of information system design.
I can make the appropriate corrections and additions. However, I am new to writing/editing on Wikipedia and am unsure about the best way to proceed. Is it best to discuss changes on a page like this or dive straight in? Logicalgregory (talk) 09:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's best to dive straight in - Be bold ! Make sure you cite reliable sources to support the content you add. You can discuss changes which others might object to, such as moving the article or removing sections etc. on the talk, but for non-controversial improvements there's no need to. Claritas §  09:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  7 stage version and conceptual models 

message: I have replaced the information about Wilson's current occupation (at the start of the page) with a link to Wilson's biography. --Logicalgregory (talk) 05:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilson, Haperen and the Yorkshire police 

message: I am a Phd graduate from Lancaster University and have done my research under the supervision of Peter Checkland and to my dismay I have seen this warning in this page and I cannot agree with it. I have carefully read this article and could not detect any of such advertisement led text entries. Could you please be more specific about them? Meanwhile, I remove the warning.--Nunesdea (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the warnings of being writen like advertisement 

message: There are quite a number of citations and the references are sound and solid. I remove this warning, please be more specific about this in the specific section, overall the article is well supported.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunesdea (talk • contribs) 21:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of inline citation 

message: I have no idea why there is a request to re-write this section. Can someone please suggest some editions. I find them perfectly right and well supported with solid references.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunesdea (talk • contribs) 21:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section re-write? 

message: Tonight I tried all four external links and none of them are working.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.212.242 (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links broken