**5. Conclusions**

Since Checkland synthesized a coherent set of steps for soft systems methodology and Boardman developed his revised approach later, SSM has continued to evolve to address perceived challenges and new means of applying the principles in diverse disciplines. Boardman's significant contribution to the methodology and books on systems thinking significantly contributed to the expansion of use of SSM through his own version, commonly referred to as BSSM. His work to expand SSM into business and other disciplines is correlated with the major expansion of use of systemic diagrams as outcomes in research publications between 1993 and 2015. While the database search for SSM resulted in more than 32,000 citations, other soft research methods such as failure modes and effects analysis (228,524) and system dynamics (2,380,988) showed more impact by that measure. To grow the thinking about and use of SSM, we offer four propositions for improvement to soft systems methodology training and process.

• Improved university education

In Europe, where many of SSM's principles emerged and were formalized into method, graduate programs tend to teach it alongside the mathematically driven, positivist methods (e.g., linear algebra, regression analysis, etc.) common in USA business schools. However, outside of the books and articles that lay out the steps for SSM, limited formal training to use SSM currently exists in the USA outside of doctoral programs (e.g., Stevens Point, North Texas) that include faculty who have themselves received training. This is not an efficient means of transferring knowledge about how to employ the

methodology in different contexts, relying as it does mainly on cognitive apprenticeship and where one chooses to attend university.

• Training using public media outside of academia

Improved training and knowledge sharing could also be accomplished through the development of publicly available online training videos with activities, massive open online courses or similar pedagogical approaches to further disseminate the methods and train a broader array of researchers. Doing so could increase awareness, ability to appropriately employ, and overall acceptance of SSM across disciplines. We believe standardized, broadly available training would add value to researchers and organizational leaders who want to understand how using SSM can benefit them. Such training could increase the overall number of users who employ SSM to understand their complex problem situations, also increasing the academic impact and acceptance of the approach.

• More SSM-based research published in diverse field journals

Exposure of academics to SSM research outcomes through publication of articles in journals outside of business and engineering fields is also important to increase the perception that it is a valuable tool for social science research. The more often researchers see academic outcomes that can be used to solve problems in a variety of fields, the more likely we believe they will be to use them. With significant examples of application, acceptance of both method and findings should increase.

• Increase the diversity of authors using SSM for academic research

For a research methodology and related concepts to take hold in academia, it must be taught broadly, used regularly, and accepted by editors and reviewers alike. However, it must also be used by a significant number of authors, rather than just a small group of about ten core participants noted earlier who are responsible for much of the academic discourse around SSM, or it will not grow. To improve this situation will require mentoring and discussion from these core participants at conferences, willingness to review for journals that publish SSM research, and supportive feedback in coursework and theses produced with the methods. However, this is an important part of the collegiality and social construction of knowledge central to the academic mission.

The findings reported in this article have several limitations; however, it is intended to start new conversations about how to grow SSM as a robust methodology in academia in the future. Because all research is imperfect due to incomplete information available at any time due to access (e.g., limited article database access, books out of print, etc.) and author cognition (e.g., lack of knowledge about sources, distance from alternate sources, etc.), we are likely to have missed some publication that one reader or another may find foundational. However, the sample of data in the corpus presented here indicates that SSM as a methodology had some significant impact on academic thinking in the USA and Europe from 1980–2018. While SSM provided strong value in the past and has the potential for greater impact across many disciplines in the future, increasing its use and acceptance in academic disciplines requires change. Modifications to practice and thinking about SSM should take place in university education, academic publishing, and in conference discourses to help foster improved researcher attitudes towards non-positivistic research methods in engineering, business, and other fields. Future SSM research outcomes can better explain the value of the methodology to those that would benefit from it in academia and be a means for growing field-specific knowledge regarding complex problem situations.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization: S.W. and B.S.; methodology: S.W.; validation: B.S. and D.N.; formal analysis: S.W.; investigation: S.W.; resources: S.W., B.S., and D.N.; data curation: S.W.; writing—original draft preparation: S.W.; writing—review and editing: S.W., B.S., and D.N.; visualization: S.W.; supervision, B.S.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
