Organisational change is routinely initiated by opportunities or challenges in the way in

which an organisation operates. However, other causes of change exist which includes
instances where the incoming management team has new ideas that would enable any
organisation to secure better success. Change may also stem from replacement of a
head of an organisation. According to Paul Strebel, “change may be constant, but it is
not always the same and different types of change require different responses”. It is
Strebel who is also quoted as saying “those who pretend that the same kind of change
medicine can be applied no matter the context, are either naïve or charlatans”. In his
opinion, as influenced by his findings, leaders cannot afford to blindly apply a generic
change formula in the hopes that it will work (Strebel, 1996).

This paper will establish what organisational change is and what are hard and soft
system approaches. We will explore and analyse the advantages and disadvantages of
the theories with special focus on the hard systems approach to change.
Organisational changes signify a procedure in which a company switches the structure
of its operations, strategy, engineering or even the organisational culture to affect
adjustments in business and including the effect of change. These modifications can be
spread over varying time periods. Organisational change is interdisciplinary and
consists of elements of psychology, sociology, political science, management, and
economics with no perfect concept or theory.

One can distinguish and classify all organisational system changes into two broad
categories- soft and hard changes. Depending on the requirements as posed by
specific organisational situations, a specific change approach can support and aid in
delivering the desired result. According to the Harvard Business Review article,
‘Gateways to Entry’, “hard’ concerns material assets (things) and ‘soft’ concerns people”
(George, 1982). In design, analysis and implementation of either change, conversation
style coupled with the content of the conversation are essential in fostering success of
various change processes. In many instances, hard change embraces change of
organisational technological structures, which are easier to design and implement in
comparison to soft changes. This is because “soft problems are hardest to manage”
(Burnes, 2009). This makes soft problems predominantly hard to handle and align with
the changes to the organisational culture.

Organisation issues could be resolved, solved and at times dissolved. Problem solving
involves the selection of an action that has a suitable consequence founded to some
degree in trial and error and what is commonly referred to as good sense. This process
in an innate part of management, its decision-making and innovation processes; it is a
clinical strategy that requires the consensus of a team on how to resolve the issue. This
strategy is one that keeps employees in sync with the elements of change, however, it
lacks analytical rigor of aim formation, and thus, does not effectively communicate the
desired objectives and goals. Decisions should be made, not merely based on good
sense but solidly grounded in quantitative and scientific information. A problem denotes
a situation that satisfies a triad of conditions: firstly, decision-makers can opt to choose
another readily available alternative plan; secondly, the choice is one of great bearing
and thirdly, the decision-maker is uncertain about which course of action should be
used. As was stated earlier, problems (organisational or otherwise) can be resolved,
solved or dissolved (Ackoff, 1981).

Soft systems methods (SSM) are designed to address issues which can be difficult to
outline and where individuals can view the issue in focus or the purpose of change
conflictingly, or both (Augustsson, 2019). Soft systems methods classify a learning
procedure that involves suitable stakeholders in a planned study of a messy situation to
build a ‘purposeful model of activity’ to understand and improve the solution process.
Checkland describes the steps in soft systems methods as dependent on an initial
identification of all issues that form a part of the problem; then he suggests that next
steps are systems modelling and planning for improvement. Soft systems comprise of
two (2) activity components: the real-world and systems thinking. Soft systems
methodologies of change offer a blended approach which incorporates varying and
conflicting world views. In Figure 2.0, we observe the stages of soft system
methodologies of change.
 Figure 2.0: Soft System Methodology (Bustard, He, & Wilkie, 1999)

Stages 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7 are the activities within the ‘real-world’ containing the problem
situation, while stages 3 and 4 are ‘systems thinking’ which may be involved in the
problem situation, depending on the individuals that conduct such research.

In order to resolve an issue, it’s important to alter the dynamics and if possible, the
surroundings to resolve the issue. This strategy is known as the layout strategy since
problem solvers seek to redefine the qualities of the system in which the mess appears.

Hard systems methodologies of change are determined from problem-solving and

decision-making strategies to include systems engineering, project management and
operational investigation. These strategies expect that change goals are clear and
identifiable and the finest strategies can be created to attain them. The targets must be
quantifiable or at the very least sufficiently precise to ascertain when they have been
accomplished. It is instrumental when a segment of the organisation needs to be
altered without interfering with the other parts, as well as when choices can be shaped
from sound decision-making. Hard systems provide a thorough and orderly manner of
deciding on goals; typically taken by the generation of a range of options for actions with
the final step of testing those alternatives against a set of unequivocal criteria.

The processes of the hard systems can be classified by three (3) interrelated phases,
which are designated as the description, options and implementation phases. The
description phase ranges from the point of admission that change is needed either to
solve a problem or capitalize on an opportunity and encompasses the establishing of
specific objectives, as well as the methods for measuring. The options phase allows for
the brainstorming process which identifies possible options, edits them and examines
them against the measures. Finally, the implementation phase is where strategies are
developed and executed.

Organisations embrace a style of thinking that questions numerous cherished,

traditional hard systems practices. Checkland and his partners (Checkland and
Scholes, 1990) emphasized the social perspective as well as the individuality of
appreciative systems based on previous studies to include Vickers (1965), Jenkins
(1969) and Churchman (1971 to devise soft systems methods. In 1999, Checkland
confirmed that the soft approach deviates from hard systems methodologies as a
bystander observes the real world, not all systems can be plotted and planned. Soft
systems are the investigation processes about complex messes that are systemic.

We began explaining the importance of diagnosing a change situation appropriately to

find the best approach to deal with it. We gave a general description of hard and soft
methodologies of change and included the stages of both methodologies. Different
situations require different models of change and there are two (2) methods that exist to
manage change. Hard systems methodologies of change are needed for change
models centered on rational and logical thinking, which includes complex issues with
minimal people issues. Soft systems methodologies of change are more appropriate for
change methods with power, politics and leadership having a prominent and critical role.
Problems that are clearly defined and quantifiable are more appropriate for hard
systems methods, while messy situations are more appropriate for soft systems
methods. Together, both methodologies present organisations that need changes with
techniques to tackle issues in both their simplistic and complex states to improve the
organisation and the live of the people who work there.
References
Ackoff, R. L. (1981, February). The Art and Science of Mess Management. The Institute of
Management Sciences, 11(1), 20-26.

Augustsson, H. C. (2019). Mapping the use of Soft Systems Methodology for Change
Management in Healthcare: A Scoping Review Protocol. BMJ Open, 9(4).
doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026028

Burnes, B. (2009). Managing Change. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Bustard, D., He, Z., & Wilkie, F. G. (1999). Soft Systems & Use-Case Modelling: Mutually
Supportive or Mutually Exclusive? doi:10.1109/HICSS.1999.772894

George, Y. (1982). Gateways to Entry. Harvard Business Review, 60(1), pp. 85-93.

Grundy, T. (1993). Managing Strategic Change. London.

Johnson, S. D. (1998). Who Moved my Cheese.

Sibbald, A. (2021). Custom eBook, Edinburgh Napier University, Organisational Behaviour, A

Contemporary Approach (3rd ed.). Pearson Education.

Siriram, R. (2011, June 06). A Soft & Hard Systems Approach to Business Process
Management. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 29(1), 87-100.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/sres.1095

Strebel, P. (1996). Why Do Employees Resist Change. Harvard Business Review.

Todnem, R. (2005). Organisational Change Management: A Critical Review. Journal of Change

Management, 5(4), 369-380. doi:10.1080/14697010500359250