Always Available for Client to serve them with optimum performance and best results “Your most unhappy customers are your greatest source of learning.” -Bill Gates

Uppsala University Analysis

Executive Summary

The idea of doing this thesis arose from my personal experience studying in the Master’s Program in Sustainable Development at Uppsala University (MSD). To be admitted into this program was a milestone in my life, a milestone which made me awakened as well as puzzled. I had come from a purely technical field so I was supposed to focus mostly on the practical and technological aspects of SD but encountering a wide range of novel worldviews and emerging branches of knowledge made me doubtful about the adequacy of what I had learned previously.

Although sustainable development (SD) means different things to different professionals, a wide range of ambitions and visions about human well-being is supposed to be covered by this single term. In the MSD, the first cohort of the international students of which I was a member, was exposed to many of those different versions and persuaded to make our own version out of them that we would need to apply in our future careers. Meanwhile, we would come across some harsh critiques stating SD is nothing but an ‘impossible oxymoron’ that could be easily refuted by the notion of the adaptive cycle in systems ecology and the second law of thermodynamics in physics (Voinova and Farley, 2006). According to them, if sustaining means saving the system in its current situation and development is equal to growth in the outputs of the system, then having limited inputs i.e. resources and an open system, i.e. the planet seems like solving one equation with two unknown variables.

Nevertheless, SD was not always causing us despair, sometimes we had the chance to come across different interpretations of sustainability saying SD is possible to be achieved if we just revise the misleading definitions of it and put it in the context of creative destruction (Elkington, 2001). In that context, saving the system in its current situation is not the aim but rather by destroying much of today’s growth-driven economy and by releasing our creative energy we would be able to recreate the system that would not call for more growth. In this assignment I use SSM method in UPPSALA university in field master of development studies program.

Up to that point, the program was very successful in challenging my previous capabilities and ‘creatively destroying’ my small but secure home of mathematical and physical thoughts, yet it had not been able to build another solid base. A variety of hot topics in natural and social sciences, the critical pedagogical styles of some of the lecturers, a very modern academic environment besides the interaction with the students by diverse cultural backgrounds could be a source of confusion to anyone, let alone somebody who comes from a very traditional and monocultural system of academia. But, on the other hand, it could be a rich source of opportunities and choices. I took good advantage of this opportunity and examined as many as possible of the schools of thought, disciplines, courses and academic departments. That long and overwhelming process of trial and error gave me a chance to find a usage, not exactly for my previous knowledge but rather, for the mentality and the schemata of mind that I had obtained when studying in engineering. That point was the beginning of the phase that could be called: ‘the phase of epistemological shift’ (Ison, 2008). Namely I started to become aware of my own epistemological stand and restructure my mental models at a higher level of complexity. As Ison (2008) describes it as the process of going through an overwhelming phase of confusion and then making new mental models to embrace a higher level of complexity is a common experience of learners who seek to exploit more of And so the MSD program provided me with the opportunity of the ‘genuine openness’ but ‘restructuring of mental models at a higher level of complexity’ was mostly a result of a personal struggle and a bit of good fortune. The fortune arose out of knowing about the concept of ‘theoretical pluralism’ by Midgely (2000). According to him, each theory gives us a lens to see the world through, and by doing so it is inevitable that our seeing would be partial and to expand our view and to enrich understanding, we need to take advantage of more ‘lenses’ i.e. theories. The question however is how to balance between coherence and welcoming in a variety of theoretical perspectives (Midgley, 2000). He suggests an alternative approach that can help us to optimize flexibility and responsiveness when we need to gather a variety of theories and that is methodological pluralism. Applying this approach, however, requires admitting that pure subjectivity in science is neither possible nor desirable, but rather we have to be conscious that we always carry objective purposes influenced by our norms and values and by knowing that fact we are able to pick the methodologies required. Midgley believes:

Knowledge cannot be seen as cumulative (building into a more and more accurate picture of reality) so the theories should be seen as more or less useful in terms of the purposes of the intervention being pursued and there always an agent making choices amongst a plurality of options and we should talk in terms of locally relevant rather than universal standards for choice. At the methodological level respecting the fact that others might have useful insights that we may learn from in constructing our own methodological ideas and the level of methods we can draw upon methods originally produced within other methodologies (Midgley, 2000, p. 168). Therefore, when it comes to complex situations where understanding them calls for knowing about variety of theories, methodological pluralism is helpful. In the case of SD, even if we take the very basic definition of Brundtlant report about three constituents of SD, i.e. the economic, social and environmental pillars, we acknowledge that SD is a complex notion and thus theoretical pluralism is inherent in the education for it. Consequently, methodological pluralism has to be pursued in education for sustainable development.

Thus this study follows a set of objectives enlisted below.

· To identify the important problematic issues of the MSD by the participation of the key stakeholders in the program.

· To address some of those issues by applying SSM.

· To improve some problematic situations in the MSD with the contribution of the key stakeholders. 

· To investigate the strengths and Weakness.

Table of Contents

Introduction 1

Being Aware Phase 1

Engaging Phase 1

Site Map 2

Tutor Report

1

Introduction

In the MSD(Master in Sustain Development ), the first cohort of the international students of which I was a member, was exposed to many of those different versions and persuaded to make our own version out of them that we would need to apply in our future careers. Meanwhile, we would come across some harsh critiques stating SD is nothing but an ‘impossible oxymoron’ that could be easily refuted by the notion of the adaptive cycle in systems ecology and the second law of thermodynamics in physics. According to them, if sustaining means saving the system in its current situation and development is equal to growth in the outputs of the system, then having limited inputs i.e. resources and an open system, i.e. the planet seems like solving one equation with two unknown variables.

Nevertheless, SD (Sustain Development) was not always causing us despair, sometimes we had the chance to come across different interpretations of sustainability saying SD is possible to be achieved if we just revise the misleading definitions of it and put it in the context of creative destruction. In that context, saving the system in its current situation is not the aim but rather by destroying much of today’s growth-driven economy and by releasing our creative energy we would be able to recreate the system that would not call for more growth.

Soft Systems Methodology in Action

Soft Systems Methodology is an approach for combining and optimizing different mental models of a problematic situation. Systems Thinkers believe everything we know about the world is just a ‘model’ (Meadows, 2009) and ‘all models are wrong but some are useful’1987 SSM proposes a way to make a useful model which results in a beneficiary action for all the people involved in the problem situation (the stakeholders).

Seven-Stage Process for Soft Systems Methodology

Peter Checkland is known as one of the main founder of Soft Systems Methodology. The methodology is based on the belief that ‘reality is not a given but socially constructed’ (Checkland, 1999). In other words what we define as reality is just our model from reality and the model is highly influenced by the social context that we live in. If as a rational being, our model from reality is a basis for our decisions, the more we expand the context and include more models, the more effective we could make decisions that come through with actual change. Drawing on this belief SSM is divided into two realms, realm of the abstract world and the realm of the real world.

2

1. The Unstructured Problem Situation:

Everything about SSM starts with observing, direct experiencing and knowledge extracting from a situation. Researchers and/or practitioners who choose SSM as a way of knowledge extraction act as facilitators of brainstorming and initiators of social learning too.

In the first stage of SSM the situation, which is regarded problematic by the people connected to it i.e. the stakeholders, is scanned broadly by the facilitator. Although s/he might not be blank-minded about the situation but it is very essential for her/him to stay as open-minded as possible and gathers the various perspectives of the stakeholders. Facilitator can also act as a conveyor of perspectives between different stakeholders and hence assists the process of learning among them.

7 Stages of SSM

3

2. The Problem Situation Expressed:

After enough digging into the situation, the facilitator is able to express the problem situation in better terms. S/he puts all the information and different perspectives together to compile them in a big picture which demonstrates significances, connections, agreements and disagreements. The big picture therefore is a rich resource for assimilating the situation and making meaning out of its complexity. That’s why it is also called the rich picture. This will reveal the more important themes and issues to be selected for further work.

3. Development of Root Definitions of Relevant Activity Systems

Now it is time for the facilitator to distance himself from the real world, start thinking abstractly and pick some bolder themes of concern out of the rich picture by analysing the thoughts and expresses them in Systemic terms. The expression of the themes of concern makes a basis for conceptual modeling and in fact is a compact version of our understanding about the situation. For each of the themes and with having an ideal future in mind, the facilitator formulates a statement of human activities that can realize the ideal future and transform the current system. This statement is called root definition since it is meant to be the source for designing more detailed human activity systems and conceptual modeling. By discussing these root definitions with the stakeholders, the facilitator finds out what is desired by them as improvements to the system and what core transformation process should be the focus. This stage contains many iterations, corrections and modifications during discussions with stakeholders.

4. Development of Conceptual Models for Improving the Situation

Once a vision of an improved situation shaped, and the transformation processes required for improving the situation identified, the facilitator starts to build conceptual models of the activities that would be carried out to realize each of the transformation processes. It is very important to be clear about each of the human activities and express it with one main verb to spell out one concrete actions respectively rather than general recommendations. The models designed in this stage are no plans to be implemented, but they are bases for comparison with the real situation and encouraging further discussions among the stakeholders.

5. Comparison of Conceptual Models with Reality

Now we have conceptual models of human activities required for the realization of the core transformations towards ideal future. The facilitator must put the conceptual models against

4

the real situation to discern differences between reality and abstract thinking. In order to do so there are certain questions that could be asked like which of the activities are currently being carried out and how, which of them are missing and why? How and for how long is the activity monitored.

6. Identification of Feasible and Desirable Changes

In this stage the nature, reason, means of bringing, obstacles and consequences of the change must be studied more carefully. By doing so it would be possible for the facilitator to identify which of the activities proposed in the last stage are mostly desirable within in the current politics and culture of the system and at the same time are feasible in terms of availability of resources and overcoming environmental constraints.

7. Action to Improve the Problem Situation

Now the change is going to happen by the implementation of the most feasible and desirable activities. The outcome of this stage thus would a plan consisted of concrete and implementable actions. Means of measurement of success and effectiveness as well as indictors of progress have to be included in the plan. Nonetheless it is not the end of process; any change in the systems creates another system which needs to be monitored and maintained. Some times the level of improvement is not enough, or the new situation could initiate a new sense of dissatisfaction and conflict. Therefore another cycle of the sevenstage SSM needs to be followed again. Improvement of a situation (unlike solving a problem) is a gradual and iterative process.

Client Report

Conclusion

At this point I experienced difficulties of acting as the facilitator of emancipation. Nevertheless it increased my patience in dealing with people who have different styles of learning. It also helped me to be a more attentive listener and restrain my own views when I am trying to understand the other views. It reduced the amount of time I used to spend on organizing my scattered thoughts. I also discovered some unknown areas of my thinking abilities, yet I need to train them more.

I believe after writing this thesis, I have acquired a better mental capability that brings me one step closer to understanding complexity, and thus now I am able to learn more about sustainable development. Launching and pursuing these types of holistic and integrated study programs is regarded as a necessary step towards achieving SD globally, however as seen in my personal account, has not been an easy task whatever. Such study programs face many theoretical, educational and organizational challenges to come up with the best possible interdisciplinary curriculum, pedagogy styles, program structure, scope of cover, and above all the most acknowledged definition for SD. Each of these challenges could be a distinct topic for a master thesis, but the ambition of this work is to address all of them at once and look at them as interconnected parts of a bigger picture in order to transform the MSD to a good example of productive ESD in the Decade of Education for SD.

5

Project Log

Weekly Work Summary

Date: 1-11-2018

To: Norah Amajid

From: 22-11-2018

Subject: Summary of My Activities during the Previous Week

Project Log

The Weekly Summary

Week Number	What was done
Week 1	At the first week the system practitioner started to prepare herself to award the project. She saw it as a challenge and could not believe that she can make it because she was not sure about how well she is with analyzing. In addition to feel like she has a hard work to do and will learn a lot from this course. A lot of feelings were went through.
Week 2	She started to search in internet and other sources of information to reach for one good and strong organization that has a business problem. After a lot of searching she found a really well-known company which lately has some issues with their customer loyalty, so she decided to choose this as a topic for her project “Customers Loyalty Issues at Best Buy”. The reason for choosing this topic was that a lot of Best Buy’s customers were complaining about the services and experience they had with best buy.
Week 3	She started to search more about the company and founded that Best Buy is facing a lot of loss because of their customer service failure, and makes people not buying from their again. After being sure from different trusted sources were went through the decision of choosing the company was taken. And the system practitioner sent a summary of what she founded to the tutor to get approval and she approved it.
Week 4	After getting approval she started to work in the project index, which include the objectives and goals of the project and the structure of it, including tutor report, client report and project log. It was noticed that each part of this has its importance and characteristics. Each part adds information to complete the other, and considering different points to focus on. After that the system practitioner started to work with BECM balls which helped in getting a full picture of the situation.
Week 5	At week five the systems practitioner started to work on the BECM balls. BECM ball are a shortcut of being, engaging, conceptualization and managing. In this week system practitioner started to work with b ball which is about being in the situation as a part of it to see the actual diminutions of the situation as a whole. The situation was messy and it was a challenge to get primary full understanding.
Week 6	In this week started to work in the second ball which is engaging, here where the system practitioner started to point out the messy characteristics of the situation and figure out the issues. Then she started to work on the conceptualization ball which is about applying the system method that is suitable for the situation. In Best Buy case the most suitable approach was SSM because the situation is messy and hard to figure out the real causes behind the issues. The first stage of SSM was applied this week which include diagrams to get full understanding of the case study without focusing in the problem.
Week 7	in this week she started to do the second stage of the SSM which is drawing a rich picture that shows the whole situation with mentioning the problem in order to make more able to be showed as in real life situation. A drawing was done and attached in the project file with mentioning the primary tasks which are the main objectives that Best Buy aims to and the issues they have faced when they were trying to reach them.
Week 8	Here the third stage which is relevant systems and root definitions was done by doing the CATWOE checklist to point out the factors that affect Best Buy and know exactly the systems that are rounding them in order to know how to deal with everything. After doing this a conceptual model of Best Buy issue in customer loyalty is done which shows the consequences and sequence of the actions that happened in the problem and how it should be done.
Week 9	A comparison between the rich picture and the conceptual model was done and if the actions should be in the agenda or not. Most of the points in the conceptual model was actually in real life and should be included in the agenda in order to make better dictions regarding their customer’s problems. After that she debated with stakeholders in order to see their perspectives and what we see right to do.
Week 10	The stakeholders with the help of us are ready to implement the steps and strategies that we found useful to use and the changes that we found the most important in the Best Buy case in order to get better employees abilities and customers served properly. Then she did the last ball of the BECM balls which is managing where she managed the implementation that should be done and make them in order summarized. A client reports was done after that and a project log which shows what she did in the weeks of working in the project. The project took 10 weeks to be done. An overall summary was following this to show the whole process of the project and what she found out.

Bibliography Beckhard, R. (1969). Organization Development: Strategies and Models. Addison-Wesley. Bergvall-Kåreborn, B. (2002). Multi-modal approach to soft systems methodology. Doctoral Thesis. Luleå, Sweden: Luleå University of Technology, Department of Systems Sciences. Box, G.E. P. and Draper N. R. (1987). Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. Wiley. Burke, W. W. (2008). Organization Change, Theory and Practice. Sage Publications Inc. CEMUS. (2009). Aim and History. Available at: <http://www.csduppsala.uu.se/cemus> [Accessed 30 October 2009]. Chapman, J. (2002). System Failure, Why Governments Must Learn to Think Differently. London: Demos, [online] Available at: <http://www.demos.co.uk/files/systemfailure2.pdf> [Accessed 30 October 2009] Checkland, P., and Scholes, J. (1990). Soft Systems Methodology in Action. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Checkland, P. (1999). Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: Includes a 30-Year Retrospective. West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons Ltd