Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content

Hardening Soft Systems Conceptual Modelling

  • Conference paper
People and Computers XIV — Usability or Else!

Abstract

There are many ways in which Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) is soft to advantage. While ‘bubble and arrow’ diagrams are a popular style of depicting SSM conceptual models, SSM explicitly accommodates alternative systems modelling approaches, without affecting its other desirable soft properties. Two, harder notations and methods to the ‘bubble and arrow’ style of conceptual modelling are proposed. First, if a similar graphical notation to it is to be used, then SSM conceptual analysts should profit from adopting the more rigorous notation and methods of software engineering’s Data Flow Diagram (DFD) analyses. Second, the formal method Simplified Set Theory for Systems Modelling (SST4SM) has been designed so that it requires little mathematical knowledge to understand and use. The SST4SM algebraic expressions in tabular systems models are claimed to be easy to construct and reason with, even by the mathematically challenged. The use of the SST4SM method is claimed to lead to systems models that are better in many ways from those likely to arise from the ‘bubble and arrow’ type approaches. Furthermore, the size of an SST4SM system model, which can be grown iteratively, is not as limited as graphically based conceptual models.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashworth, C. & Goodland, M. (1990), SSADM: A Practical Approach, McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D. E. & Taylor, V. (1997), “Information Systems Development Methodologies: A Classification According to Problem Situation”, Journal of Information Technology 12(1), 73 - 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Avison, D. E., Golder, P. A. & Shah, H. U. (1992), “Towards an SSM Toolkit: Rich Picture Diagramming”, European Journal of Information Systems 1(6), 397 - 407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. D. (1992), “Grounding Soft Systems Research”, European Journal of Information Systems 1(6), 387 - 95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. D. (1993), “Soft Systems Methodology: A Case for User-dependent Methodology — A Reply”, European Journal of Information Systems 2(4), 309 - 11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1972), “Towards a Systems-Based Methodology for Real-world Problem Solving”, Journal of Systems Engineering 2(1), 9 - 38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. (1978), “The Origins and Nature of ‘Hard’ Systems Thinking Applied Systems Analysis”, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 5(1), 99 - 100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. & Wilson, B. (1980), “Primary Task and Issue-based Root Definitions in System Studies Applied Systems Analysis”, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 7(1), 51 - 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P. B. (1981), Systems Thinking, Systems Practice, John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaper, D. (1989), Task Analysis for Knowledge Description (TAKD), inD. Diaper (ed.), Task Analysis for Human—Computer Interaction, Ellis Horwood, pp. 108–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaper, D. (1990), Simulation: A Stepping Stone between Requirements and Design Simulation and the User Interface, inA. Life, C. Narborough-Hall & W. Hamilton (eds.), Simulation and the User Interface, Taylor & Francis, pp. 59–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaper, D. (2000), The Model Matters: Constructing and Reasoning with Structural Models, To be submitted.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaper, D. & Johnson, P. (1989), Task Analysis for Knowledge Descriptions: Theory and Application in Training, inJ. Long & A. Whitefield (eds.), Cognitive Ergonomics and Human—Computer Interaction, Cambridge University Press, pp. 191–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaper, D. & Zhu, H. (1999), Systems And Task Analysis Method Integration, Research proposal to the ESRC/EPSRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaper, D., McKearney, S. & Hume, J. (1998), “Human—Computer Interaction and Software Engineering: Integrating Task and Data Flow Analyses using the Pentanalysis Technique”, Ergonomics 41(11), 1553 - 82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowell, J. & Long, J. (1989), “Towards a Conception for an Engineering Discipline of Human Factors”, Ergonomics 32(11), 1513 - 35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, E., Clare, P. & Coe, I. (1988), Structured Systems Analysis and Design Method: Application and Context, Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eva, M. (1994), SSADM Version 4: A User’s Guide, McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, M. D. & Thimbleby, H. W. (eds.) (1990), Formal Methods in Human—Computer Interaction, Cambridge Series on Human—Computer Interaction, Cambridge University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kreher, H. (1993), “Critique of Two Contributions to Soft Systems Methodology”, European Journal of Information Systems 2(4), 304 - 8.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. (1997), Research and the Design of Human-Computer Interactions or ‘What Happened to Validation’, in H. Thimbleby, B. O’Conaill & P. Thomas (eds.), People and Computers XII (Proceedings of HCI’97), Springer-Verlag, pp.223–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. & Dowell, J. (1989), Conceptions of the Discipline of HCI: Craft, Applied Science and Engineering, inA. Sutcliffe & L. Macaulay (eds.), People and Computers V (Proceedings of HCI’89), Cambridge University Press, pp. 9–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Long, J. B. (1986), People and Computers: Designing for Usability, inM. D. Harrison & A. Monk (eds.), People and Computers: Designing for Usability (Proceedings of HCI’86), Cambridge University Press, pp. 3 - -23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patching, D. (1990), Practical Soft Systems Analysis, Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressman, R. S. (1987), Software Engineering: A Practitioner’s Approach, second edition, McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, K. A. & Wright, C. R. B. (1988), Discrete Mathematics, second edition, Prentice-Hall.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, H., Jin, L. & Diaper, D. (1999), Testing Software Requirements with Task Analysis, in 11th. International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE’99), Knowledge Systems Institute, pp. 239–45.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag London

About this paper

Cite this paper

Diaper, D. (2000). Hardening Soft Systems Conceptual Modelling. In: McDonald, S., Waern, Y., Cockton, G. (eds) People and Computers XIV — Usability or Else!. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0515-2_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0515-2_13

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-318-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0515-2

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics