Business Analysis Assessment: Identifying Hard and Soft System Problems

INF30003 Business Analysis: Assessment Task 1 – Business Problem Identification

Assessment Overview

This assessment requires you to assume the role of a Business Analyst engaged by the organisation described in the provided case study. Your primary objective is to deconstruct the current organisational situation, identify systemic issues, and propose analytical approaches for addressing them. You are expected to demonstrate a critical understanding of systems thinking, with particular emphasis on distinguishing between Hard and Soft systems, and to apply established business analysis frameworks to a realistic organisational context.

Your report should be written in a formal academic and professional tone, using clear structure, logical argumentation, and appropriate referencing throughout. Claims must be supported by evidence drawn from the case study and relevant academic literature.

Assessment details

• Weighting: 20%
  This task contributes a foundational proportion of marks and is designed to assess your ability to identify and frame business problems before solution design.

• Word Count: 2000 words (±10%)
  The word count includes in-text citations but excludes the reference list, tables, and figures. Staying within the range demonstrates effective academic communication.

• Submission Format: Professional Business Report
  The report should include headings, subheadings, tables, and diagrams where appropriate, and follow accepted report-writing conventions.

• Due Date: Week 6
  You are responsible for confirming the exact deadline in the official semester calendar and allowing sufficient time for submission.

---

Task Instructions

You must address all six components outlined below. Each section should be clearly labelled and integrated into a cohesive report. Failure to address any component adequately may result in a reduction of marks, even if other sections are well written.

---

Problem Identification and Treatment Analysis

Identify the key operational and strategic problems present in the case study. Each problem should be briefly but clearly explained, with attention to its causes and organisational impact.

• Compile a list of the main problems evident in the case study, avoiding superficial symptoms where deeper systemic issues exist.

• Select the single most critical problem and explain why it represents the greatest risk or constraint to organisational performance.

• Propose a treatment for this problem using Russell Ackoff’s framework, The Four Ways of Solving a Problem: Absolution, Resolution, Solution, and Dissolution.

• Justify your chosen treatment by linking evidence from the case study to Ackoff’s theoretical position, demonstrating conceptual accuracy and critical reasoning.

Your discussion should show that you understand not only what each treatment type involves, but also why one approach is more appropriate than the others in this context.

---

System Classification: Hard vs Soft Problems

Classify the problems identified in the previous section as Hard or Soft system problems.

• Define Hard Systems and Soft Systems using peer-reviewed academic sources.

• Analyse each identified problem against these definitions, focusing on problem structure, measurability, and the role of human interpretation.

• Justify your classifications by explaining whether each problem represents a well-defined technical optimisation challenge or a complex, socially constructed situation involving multiple perspectives.

Clear theoretical grounding and explicit justification are essential in this section.

---

Stakeholder Analysis

Conduct a structured stakeholder analysis to identify key stakeholders, problem owners, and affected parties.

• Apply a recognised stakeholder analysis framework such as the Power–Interest Grid, SALSA, or CATWOE.

• Explain why the chosen framework is suitable for this case and how it supports problem understanding.

• Clearly distinguish between stakeholders who own or control the problem and those who are indirectly or directly affected by it.

Your analysis should demonstrate awareness of conflicting interests, influence, and organisational dynamics.

---

Critique of Modelling Tools and Techniques

Identify potential models, tools, and techniques that could be used to analyse the current system, and critically evaluate their suitability.

• Address both Object-Oriented approaches, such as Use Case Diagrams or Class Diagrams, and Structured approaches, such as Data Flow Diagrams.

• Critique each tool in relation to the specific case study, explaining why it is appropriate or inappropriate.

• Discuss the strengths and limitations of each approach in terms of data availability, stakeholder engagement, and problem complexity.

Descriptive explanations alone are insufficient. Evaluation and contextual justification are required to achieve higher marks.

---

Rich Picture Visualisation

Construct a Rich Picture that synthesises the findings from the problem identification, system classification, and stakeholder analysis sections.

• The Rich Picture should visually represent organisational structures, processes, stakeholder relationships, conflicts, and cultural or political influences.

• Subjective viewpoints and areas of tension should be clearly illustrated using symbols, annotations, and relationships rather than extended text.

• The diagram should support holistic understanding and be clearly referenced and explained within the report.

---

Systems Thinking in Development

Conclude the report by reflecting on the relevance of Hard and Soft Systems Thinking to your future professional practice as a Business Analyst.

• Discuss how systems thinking informs system development lifecycles, requirements elicitation, and change management.

• Explain how combining Hard and Soft approaches can reduce the risk of technically correct but socially ineffective solutions.

• Support your discussion with high-quality academic sources and integrate theory with professional insight.

Sample Answer

Effective business analysis requires distinguishing between technical malfunctions and systemic human complexities. When applying Ackoff’s framework to the case study, the recurring inventory discrepancy represents a candidate for dissolution rather than simple resolution. Dissolution involves redesigning the system so the problem can no longer occur, whereas resolution merely suppresses symptoms. Checkland’s Soft Systems Methodology suggests that treating such discrepancies as purely hard data errors overlooks political pressures that encourage staff to bypass formal procedures. A Rich Picture makes these hidden cultural tensions visible alongside formal data flows, highlighting that the root cause lies in misaligned incentives rather than software failure. A combined approach using Use Case diagrams for technical specification and CATWOE analysis for stakeholder alignment supports more sustainable outcomes. Empirical studies indicate that multi-method approaches improve the success of organisational change initiatives by addressing both technical and social dimensions (Wainwright and Waring, 2020).

Marking Criteria

Recommended References

• Checkland, P. and Poulter, J. (2020). Soft Systems Methodology. In Reynolds, M. and Holwell, S. (eds), Systems Approaches to Making Change: A Practical Guide. 2nd edn. London: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7472-1_5

• Wainwright, D. and Waring, T. (2020). The application of Soft Systems Methodology in the management of digital transformation: A systematic review. European Journal of Information Systems, 29(1), 23–42.

• Hanafizadeh, P. and Ghandehari, M. (2022). Soft Systems Methodology for problem structuring in the healthcare sector. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 35(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-021-09564-w

• Kasser, J.E. (2019). Systems Engineering: A Systemic and Systematic Methodology for Solving Complex Problems. CRC Press.

• Ackoff, R.L. (2011). Systems Thinking for Curious Managers. Axminster: Triarchy Press.