Soft systems methodology: Other voices

This issue of Systemic Practice and Action Research, celebrating the work o f Peter Checkland, in the particular nature and development of soft systems methodology (SSM), would not have happened unless the work was seen by oth ers as being important. No significant contribution to thinking happens wit hout a secondary literature developing. Not surprisingly, many commentaries have accompanied the ongoing development of SSM. Some of these are insight ful, some full of errors, and some include both insight and absurdity. Chec kland (1999, p. A42) opines, in the recently published 30-year retrospectiv e, that "SSM has been ill-served by its commentators." Scrutiny of the seco ndary literature on SSM provides support for this view and also identifies some general characteristics and trends that are important to the developme nt of SSM and, incidentally, reinforces some existing conclusions.