SDM5002 - Bus Transport in Singapore Report

SDM 5002 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
BUS TRANSPORT IN SINGAPORE
TEAM MEMBERS
CHONG KHAI SIN HT072850H
GOH SIONG TECK HT072853R
HOSSAM EL SHENAWY HT072894R
LIM CHING WU, LESLIE HT063039Y
LIM CHUN PENG, ALVIN HT063324Y
TAN SUNG CHYN HT062932E
Division of Engineering & Technology Management
SDM5002 System Engineering
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................3
Soft Systems Methodology ...........................................................................3

Singapore Bus System ..................................................................................3
2. SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY PROCESS STEPS .................................5
3. APPLYING SSM TO THE SINGAPORE BUS SYSTEM CASE ......................7
Descriptive Scenario Questions ...................................................................7

Normative scenario questions ......................................................................8
Root Definition Statement #1: .....................................................................12
Conceptual Model based on Root Definition #1 ........................................12
Comparison between conceptual model #1 and real situation ................13
Root Definition Statement #2 ......................................................................13
Comparison between conceptual model #2 and real situation ................15
4. LESSONS LEARNED & TEAM DYNAMICS .................................................18
5. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................20
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................21
2
1. INTRODUCTION
SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY
Peter Checkland at Lancaster University developed Soft Systems

Methodology (SSM) in the 1960s. The methodology was developed to
address difficulties in solving complex, dynamic and multi perspective social
problems using traditional ‘hard’ systems engineering principles such as
Operations Research (OR).
SSM is a participative process of enquiry that stimulates thinking about the

real word situation. Through the enquiry process, the method formulates a
‘root definition’, which describes what the system should do in an ideal view. A
root definition is developed on the basis of a certain world-view. There can be
multiple world-views, which will yield multiple root definitions.
Subsequently, an idealized conceptual model is built based on the root

definition. The conceptual model incorporates all the activities that are
necessary to fulfill the requirements of the root definition. This conceptual
model is then compared to the perceived reality with the aim of highlighting
key differences between the systems where changes can be made for
improvements.
SINGAPORE BUS SYSTEM
The bus system in Singapore provides a means of public travel for the
masses with over two million rides taken daily. There are two main operators
in this system, SBS Transit and SMRT Corporation. The two operators serve
designated areas of operation, and plan the bus routes based on commercial
considerations, subject to minimum service obligations. Bus routes can be
broadly categorized into Trunk (routes that ply between towns) and Feeder
(Operating within neighborhoods).
As reported in the 2008 Land Transport Review study, key criticisms of the
system include long waiting time, erratic bus arrivals, circuitous feeders and
overcrowding. This has led to a situation where out of more than 250 bus
services; only 35% are run at intervals of 10 minutes or less.
The recent transport initiative addresses primarily on vehicle congestion, road

pricing and public transport service standards. There will be a road expansion
program with plans to improve expressways (CTE/TPE), building roads for
future and upgrading of road interchanges. Given our limited land space, the
road network expansion will reduce over the next 15 years. As a result, it is
planned to reduce vehicle growth rate from 3% to 1.5% and the increase in
travel demand must be met largely by public transport. The effectiveness of
congestion /road pricing system will be enhanced by refining the
measurement of traffic speeds and revision of the ERP rate structure. Efforts
are also planned to manage congestion in city area.
3
The key public transport initiative is to make public transport a choice made.
The bus and rail will be planned as an integrated system from commuter’s
viewpoint, with more frequent services and seamless transfers expected.
There will be expansion to the rail network. Bus services will be affected
greatly where LTA will undertake centralized bus network planning.
Improvements will be made to the fare system, travel information, transport
hub and road priority measures. Feeder and premium bus service is also
targeted for improvements. Some of the details are listed below:
− Distance-based through fares to facilitate transfers
− More integrated public transport service information
− More integrated public transport hubs
− More bus priority measures to speed up buses and improve
timeliness
− Bus services will be allowed to duplicate routes along sections of
North-South and East-West lines with heavy passenger loading,
giving commuters more choices
− Increasing Basic Bus Service Frequencies
• On corridors affected by ERP, all bus services will have peak
period frequencies of no more than 12 min by June 08 and
10 min by Aug 09
• Frequency for feeder buses will be increased to allow quicker
connections to MRT stations and bus interchanges
− Expand premium bus services to corridors affected by ERP (by
June 08)
• New services will link more residential areas (Punggol,
Katong, Balestier, Holland, Choa Chu Kang, Yishun) to city
areas (Shenton Way, Suntec City and Orchard Road)
• Return trips in the evenings for high demand services
4
2. SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY PROCESS STEPS
The steps of SSM consist of seven stages.
Stage 1: Enter the real-world situation considered problematic

This stage aims to capture the main data and information on the situation.
Methods used are both formal and informal, including examination of written
records, interviews and direct observation.
Stage 2: Expressing the problem situation

The findings from the first stage are summarized in a ‘rich picture’. This is
typically a cartoon-like sketch or diagrammatic representation of the current
situation.
Stage 3: Formulating Root Definitions

A root definition is an idealized view of the system. Checkland designed the
mnemonic CATWOE to ensure that root definitions are well defined. The main
portion of the root definition is the Transformation process, which describes
the purposeful activity that changes some defined input into some defined
output.
Use it when seeking to implement the solution, to help consider the impact on
the people involved. CATWOE stands for:
C = Customers
• Who is on the receiving end?
• What problem do they have now?
• How will they react to what you are proposing?
• Who are the winners and losers?
A = Actors
• Who are the actors who will 'do the doing', carrying out your solution?
• What is the impact on them?
• How might they react?
T = Transformation process
• What is the process for transforming inputs into outputs?
• What are the inputs? Where do they come from?
• What are the outputs? Where do they go?
• What are all the steps in between?
W = World View (Weltanschauung)

• What is the bigger picture into which the situation fits?
• What is the real problem you are working on?
• What is the wider impact of any solution?
5
O = Owner
• Who is the real owner or owners of the process or situation you are
changing?
• Can they help you or stop you?
• What would cause them to get in your way?
• What would lead them to help you?
E = Environmental constraints
• What are the broader constraints that act on the situation and your
ideas?
• What are the ethical limits, the laws, financial constraints, and limited
resources? Regulations, and so on?
• How might these constrain your solution? How can you get around
them?
Stage 4: Building Conceptual Models

This step models the ideal system using the five Es as criteria: Efficacy
(whether it will work); Efficiency (whether it will work with minimum resources);
Effective (whether it helps to achieve the higher-level aim); Elegance (whether
it is beautiful) and Ethicality (whether it is moral).
Stage 5: Comparing models and reality

The conceptual model is then compared with the current system. This can be
done by a series of questions such as whether activities in the model exist in
the current system etc.
Stage 6: Defining Change

This stage aims to define a change that is both systemically desirable and
culturally feasible and the steps to effect the change.
Stage 7: Taking Action

This stage completes SSM analysis by implementing the changes that are
considered both desirable and feasible.
6
3. APPLYING SSM TO THE SINGAPORE BUS SYSTEM CASE
DESCRIPTIVE SCENARIO QUESTIONS
a) Who uses the bus system? And why?

• Social Class Perspective:
• Blue-Collar Workers, Middle Class.
• Ownership Perspective:
• Those who do not own a private car or can’t drive.
• Economic Perspective:
• Those who cannot afford buying a private car, or those who
want to save money by riding bus to work.
• Demographic Perspective:
• Students, the elderly, the handicapped.
b) What kinds of buses are there? Who operates them?

• Large public listed companies (e.g. SBS Transit)
• Private small businesses.
c) What is the use of the bus system? Why can’t we do away with it?
• It is an essential enabler to the national economy (efficient point
to point transportation system as long as the economy is largely
depending on jobs that stipulate physical presence.)
• Environmentally demanded (limited space, pollution, energy
consumption.)
• Provides greater reach than arterial means like MRT trains etc.
• Cheaper alternative to taxis.
d) What are the current features of the system? Are they good (or bad)? To
what are they attributable?
• Long route/ short route bus transport.
• Accessibility/ inaccessibility (tied to bus station location and bus
frequency, service not continuous in both space and time.)
• Air-con subsystem (climate control/ respiratory disease
transmission.)
• Fare structure favors students and the elderly.
• Fossil fuel based.
e) What’s wrong with the current system? Are these symptoms? Or are there
more fundamental causes?
• Service not continuous in both space and time (inherent).
• Pollution, climate control subsystem problems, etc. (can be
mitigated).
• Minimal control over external factors, road conditions, traffic
congestion. Affects service levels.
7
NORMATIVE SCENARIO QUESTIONS
a) What would an ideal bus system for year 2018 be like? Would there even
be one then?
• The ideal bus system has to satisfy the following criteria:
• Free of Charge.
• Service is continuous both in space and time.
• Responsive to real-time capacity changes.
• Optimizes travel time and distance for every passenger.
• Zero environmental pollution.
• Seamlessly connects to or subsumes other means of
transportation (e.g. air, train, etc.)
• Zero accident rate.
• Healthy climate control system eliminates the risk of contracting
respiratory diseases.
• 100% secure (crisis and emergency response system.)
• Information service (about destination, weather, connections,
etc.)
• Comfortable.
• Used by everyone in the society.
• Used any time, reaches everywhere, i.e. continuous access both
in space and time.
• Doorstep delivery
• No limit on cargo (i.e. if I am carrying large parcels or pets, I can
and would take the bus)
• Possibly customizable routes, perhaps in times of low demand
b) There will be always a bus system as long as the needs for it do exist
(economic/ environmental.)
• There may not be a bus system if other personal transport
means take off and become affordable and widely supported
(e.g. Segway)
c) Who would be using the bus system? And why?

• Everyone in society (as it becomes very convenient to use,
population of Singapore would be around 5.5 mi).
• It may have already become the default mode of transport. i.e.
Private transportation is reduced through legislation or other
measures.
d) What features/ functionalities are necessary and what’s desirable?

• All features and functionalities mentioned in the ideal solution are
necessary. Even being “free of charge” which appears to be a
desirable feature, remains necessary to make it attractive for
everyone to use.
e) How should a bus system be organized?
8
• Publicly owned (competition entails fragmentation and the system

becomes difficult to manage and be integrated.)
• Centrally planned.
• Seamlessly integrates with or subsumes other passenger
transport systems.
f) What technologies would be available? What would be the impact on the

bus system?
• Autonomous Car Technology (driverless).
• New cheap and clean energy sources.
• Artificial intelligence (in control subsystem).
• Superconductivity.
• Self-maintenance/ cleaning capabilities.
• Alternative fuels
• Real-time and predictive info on arrivals etc.
9
STAGES 1 & 2: The team brainstormed the answers to the descriptive

scenario questions. A ‘rich picture’ is then derived to
represent the problem situation.
COMMUTERS:
• BLUE COLLAR WORKERS
• DO NOT OWN/CANNOT REGULATORS
AFFORD CAR
• STUDENTS, ELDER,
HANDICAPPED SMRT
PRIVATE BUS
SBS COMPANIES
• ESSENTIAL ENABLER TO
NATIONAL ECONMY
• ENVIRONMENTALLY DEMANDED
• LONG/SHORT ROUTE
• ACCESSIBLE
• AIRCON SYSTEM
• FARE STRUCTURE FAVORS
STUDENTS AND ELDERLY
• INACCECESSIBLE IN TERMS OF
STATION LOCATION AND BUS
NEEDS
FREQENCY
REVIEW
• SERVICE NOT CONTINUOUS IN TIME
AND SPACE
• FOSSIL FUEL BASED
• POLLUTION, CLIMATE CONTROL
SUBSYSTEM PROBLEMS
10
STAGE 3: The team then builds on the existing resources to attempt to

come out with a ‘root definition’ by means of CATWOE analysis.
Keywords were focused on, analyzed and then summarized to
become the root definition.
CUSTOMERS ACTORS TRANSFORMATION WORLD VIEW OWNER ENVIRONMENTAL

PROCESS CONSTRAINTS
• Public • LTA Moving people Cheap • LTA • Space
• Blue-collars • Bus companies transportation • Private • Noise
• Middle-class • Vendors Input: Customers’ network based service • Emission
• Non-car • Comfort Delgro needs to travel to on routes. providers • Pollution
owners • Shell destination. Accessible, • Regulation
• Poor people • Exxon Mobil commodity for • Geography
• Dependents • SMRT Transformation: the mass • Traffic (Other road
Customers market.
(Student / • URA users)
Elderly) transported Average
service with
Output: Customers’ acceptable
needs fulfilled and safety and
transported to comfort
destination. requirements,
congestion
level and
operating
hours.
STAGES 4 AND 5: From the CATWOE analyses, the team then proceeded
to describe the system with one or more root definitions.
After the development of the root definition, this ideal
system is then modeled using the five Es, namely
efficacy, efficiency, effectiveness, elegance and ethicality.
• This conceptual system is then compared with the

current system in the real situation through a
series of questions pertaining to the activities
occurring in the system.
• The team used a benchmarking approach and look

for dramatic changes between the systems by
focusing on the key deliverables and practicality of
ideas.
11
ROOT DEFINITION STATEMENT #1:
An affordable and regulated means of public transportation, which provides

acceptable safety and comfortable service within existing space, legal and
traffic constraints.
CONCEPTUAL MODEL BASED ON ROOT DEFINITION #1
Plan staffing
requirements
Maintain buses in
good operating
Set
reasonable
fare price Plan &
schedule
Observe and adhere routes
to government and Provide
environmental comfortable
regulations environment
during commute
Provide safety
Transport
and protection
passenger to
during
destination
commute
Take control
Monitor action
activities
Measures of performance for the bus system:

• Efficacy: Are the passengers being transported to their desired
destinations?
• Efficiency: Are the passengers being served at a reasonable cost and
trip duration?
• Effectiveness: Does the bus system serve the transportation needs of
the masses?
• Elegance: Is the system comprehensive?
• Ethical: Is the transformation morally correct?
12
COMPARISON BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL MODEL #1 AND REAL

SITUATION
Activity Is it done in the real Comments

situation? How?
Plan staffing Service providers Cases of poor bus
requirements allocate staffing conditions could be due to
requirements poor maintenance
according to demand planning
Set reasonable fare Fare is generally Centralized (government)
price affordable, but fare planning may regulate
increases do not fares but remove price
always come with competition for service
improved service improvement.
Maintain buses in good Service providers keep Breakdowns are
operating condition buses regularly occasional and dirty buses
maintained and possible.
cleaned
Plan and schedule Service providers plan Overcrowding and
routes routes according to bunching of buses point to
demand after meeting poor planning and
minimum obligations anticipation of traffic
set by government conditions.
Observe and adhere to Road system is Some Euro (IV) buses
governmental and regulated by LTA. newly introduced, but all
environmental Buses are at least still remain fossil fuel
regulations Euro III. based.
Provide safety and Buses give moderate Low floor aids
protection during protection in event of embarking/disembarking.
commute accidents. No seat belts.
Provide comfortable Air-conditioned, Overcrowding affects
environment during cushioned seats, comfort levels
commute damped rides.
Transport passenger to Passengers embark Reach of bus network can
destination and disembark at bus be improved.
stops.
ROOT DEFINITION STATEMENT #2
A transportation system to provide mass transit through managing fleets of

buses, in order to move people safely & comfortably at affordable prices
under legal and traffic constraints.
13
Conceptual Model based on Root Definition #2
Managing of resources $$
Planning of routes Purchasing bus

of choice
Consideration
of choices
Setting of bus
frequency Maintaining
of buses
Setting of fares
Choice to taking bus
Acting to
Moving people remedy
Following traffic
rules
Meeting statutory
standards
Measures of performance for the bus system:

• Efficacy: Are the passengers being transported to their desired
destinations?
• Efficiency: Are the passengers being served at a reasonable cost and
trip duration?
• Effectiveness: Does the bus system serve the transportation needs of
the masses (comfort and safety)?
• Elegance: Is the transformation comprehensive?
• Ethical: Is the transformation morally correct?
14
COMPARISON BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL MODEL #2 AND REAL

SITUATION
Activity Is it done in the real Comments

situation? How?
Managing of resources Service providers Often results in minimal
allocate resources performance standards
based on profitability with no social obligation
Planning of routes / Service providers plan Overcrowding and
Setting of bus routes according to bunching of buses point
frequency demand & profitability to poor planning and
after meeting minimum anticipation of traffic
obligations set by conditions.
government
Consideration of MRT, taxi or private Rising taxi fares makes
choices cars are the other the price gap even wider.
options. MRT serves Cost of private car
different routes. Rests ownership is also
are not priced close to escalating due to higher
be considered ERP, fuel and COE.
substitutes.
Choice of taking bus Wide reach of bus Without price comparable
network makes it alternatives, many
favorable. choose to take bus
despite all of its
shortcomings. Becoming
a case of make-do.
Meeting statutory LTA states maximum Service provider usually
standards bus frequency and meets LTA’s standards
service standards in but not commuter’s
terms of comfort and expectations.
safety
Moving people Passengers embark Reach of bus network
and disembark at bus can be improved.
stops.
15
Stage 6: Possible solution based on SSM analysis
A possible solution based on the above analysis would draw heavily on the
recent advances in Autonomous Car Technology (see picture and technology
overview below). The new driverless vehicles will allow the public bus system
to evolve into a more personalized one, where a large number of smaller
driverless vehicles, each with a typical capacity of 4 passengers, will replace
the conventional large-vehicle system.
Unlike their old predecessors, the new environmentally-friendly, electrically-

powered vehicles will be able to stop anywhere along the roadside, and are
available for use 24hrs/7 weekdays. After bringing its customers to the exact
location they wished for, an autonomous
vehicle will be able to choose its next
parking location, regroup or distribute with
other vehicles according to real-time
fluctuations in demand. A parking vehicle
will make use of its idle time to recharge its
batteries from the continuously available
electrical power source along the roadside.
Their movement will be confined to a
specially reserved two-lane partition on all
roads nationwide. The public vehicles will be allowed to park, drop-off, and
pick-up passengers from the lane next to the roadside. The other lane is
reserved for the speeding vehicles. In the unlikely occasion of one vehicle
suffering from a breakdown, a nearby idle vehicle will be able to sense this
and will dock with it and ‘tow’ it to the nearest service station.
A great part of the service cost, if not all of it, will be absorbed by advertising
revenues. In-vehicle interactive advertisements can take the passengers with
just one click to the restaurant that offers their favorite dish, or enables them
to buy discounted tickets to a movie that will start shortly, and the movie
house is willing to accept a lower price for the tickets. The sky is the limit for
possible advertisement schemes in this new setting.
Technology Overview
“Stanley” is the name of the autonomous vehicle shown in the above picture.
It is the result of collaborative efforts between Volkswagen's Palo Alto
Electronic Research Laboratory, Volkswagen Research Centre (Germany)
and Stanford University (US). It is only one example for success in the field of
Autonomous Car Technology. For other research in this field, please consult
the DARPA website below.
The development of Stanley began in July 2004. Dubbed “a mobile high-tech

laboratory,” Stanley is built with a high-performance computer centre
consisting of six interconnected Intel® Pentium® M 1.6 GHz processors and
Intel motherboards located in the vehicle's luggage compartment. The system
16
is managed by complex and unique software for steering, acceleration and

deceleration to control Stanley electronically via "drive-by-wire" systems that
react to any special features of the Grand Challenge course route in real time.
In addition, Stanley's array of laser detectors, stereoscopic viewing devices,

radar and Global Positioning Systems allowed it to find and follow the
prescribed course route of the Grand Challenge, avoid obstacles as well as
negotiate turns while travelling at very high speeds.
While the vehicle is in motion, the environment is perceived through four laser
range finders, a radar system, a stereo camera pair, and a monocular vision
system. All sensors acquire environment data at rates between 10 and 100
Hertz. Map and pose information are incorporated at 10 Hz, enabling Stanley
to avoid collisions with obstacles in real-time while advancing along the 2005
DARPA Grand Challenge and 2007 Urban Challenge routes.
The original robotic prototype vehicle, Stanley was on display at the

Singapore Science Center from June to August 2007.
The DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Grand

Challenge 2005 held in the rigorous settings of the Mojave Desert was
designed to be a rigorous field test for Autonomous (Driverless) Robotic
Ground Vehicles. The aim of this robotic vehicle challenge and the DARPA
Urban Challenge of November 2007 is to accelerate research and
development into autonomous vehicles that can be deployed in battlefield
situations, and may be in many other civilian applications in the future.
17
4. LESSONS LEARNED & TEAM DYNAMICS
In the course of applying SSM on the Singapore Bus system, team dynamics
played an important role, as there was insufficient domain expertise. Team
members freely expressed their ideas frankly and vocally. All disagreements
were resolved through cordial exchange and sharing of opinions mindfully
maintaining focus on the subject matter. Due to the nature of SSM, the scope
of view in the project is wide with no specific constraints. As a result,
enthusiasm often led us off-track and the discussion had to be re-directed.
The process arriving at the root definitions from the CATWOE was based on
general consensus. The approach used was systematic but with a systemic
view using self-organizing debate. The team adopted a voting system when
defining keywords in the forming of the root definition. It is noted that there will
be different root definitions when there is different interpretation from different
point of view. Hence through brainstorming using the mnemonic CATWOE,
discussions within the team lead to more than one root definition. Bearing in
mind that the objective was not to arrive quickly at one correct answer, the
team proceeded to develop multiple root definitions and conceptual models.
This allowed for differing views of the system to be captured. The team
generally found that SSM stimulates thinking in a concise and thorough
manner.
Finally, it is clear from the two conceptual models that there is a missing link
between current system and ideal conceptual system. Below are the excerpts
of the team dynamics and experience in the application of SSM:
Q: How would you benefit from seeing alternative descriptions?
A: The group will have a wider perspectives and a multi-dimensional

analysis of the problematic real world situation.
Q: What would you do with the outcome? What's the next step?
A: The next step will be to apply the stages of SSM and iterate between
the stages in order to adapt to the different situations at different stages.
Q: Consider the process that your group took from the raw input to
the final form. Can you present an account of the evolution of
concepts? Consider the process of selection, negotiation,
evaluation, and ranking.
A: (i) Selection
The group brainstormed the answers to the descriptive scenario
questions. A ‘rich picture’ is then derived to represent the problem
situation. The group then builds on the existing resources to attempt to
come out with a ‘root definition’ by means of CATWOE analysis.
18
Keywords were focused on, analyzed and then summarized to become

the root definition.
(ii) Negotiation
There is cordial exchange and sharing of ideas. Vocal expression.
(iii) Evaluation
After the development of the root definition, this ideal system is then
modeled using the five Es, namely efficacy, efficiency, effectiveness,
elegance and ethicality. This conceptual system is then compared with
the current system in the real situation through a series of questions
pertaining to the activities occurring in the system. The group based on
a benchmarking approach and look for dramatic changes between the
systems by focusing on the key deliverables and practicality of ideas.
(iv) Ranking
A scoring system was used.
Q: Can you describe the methodology that you used in general

terms? Can your methodology be recursively applied? Can it scale
(in terms of level of detail)?
A: Soft System Methodology (SSM) was used in:

• Describing the current situation through perspective of major
stakeholders.
• Imagine an ideal solution.
• Defining the boundary of systems and draft out a diagrammatic
representation of the current problematic situation.
• Formulating an idealized view of the system
• Generating an ideal conceptual system
• Comparing the ideal system to current system
Q: What major difficulties were encountered? Gaps in framework

objects? In DS questions? Weakness in process steps? In outputs
generated?
A:
• There is insufficient domain expertise.
• There seems to be a missing link between current system and ideal
conceptual system.
• CATWOE –voting system was used to define keywords, which
eventually form the root definition. If keyword changes, statement will
be different. There will be different root definitions when there is
different interpretation from different point of views.
• No incentive to compare between the process steps.
• Scope of project is too wide with no specific constraints.
19
Q: How would you characterize the process used? Systematic?

Systemic? Self-organizing?
A: Systematic approach using CATWOE steps while adopting a systemic
view. Team discussions and debate were self-organizing by generally
keeping to standard brainstorming and brain-writing ground rules.
5. CONCLUSION
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) was extensively used in the study of the
bus system in Singapore. A multi-dimensional analysis was done and a vast
number of viewpoints, each with their specific feasibility and applicability, were
considered. These wide perspectives were conscientiously selected,
negotiated, evaluated and ranked. Numerous rounds of clarification,
interpretation and intervention resulted in the formation of robust root
definitions. Through the different robust root definitions, different idealized
systems were described and modeled. Efficacy, Efficiency, Effectiveness,
Elegance and Ethicality were used as the criteria for developing the
conceptual models to ensure that the models’ characteristics are
systematically and cultural feasible/desirable. It is a systematic approach with
a systemic view using self-organizing debate. A possible solution is also
formulated to propose changes in the current bus system in Singapore. We
suggest that our solution, along with the innovative solutions of other teams,
to be shared with to LTA to benefit from the recently unveiled Innovation fund
of $50 million by this governmental body to improve the public transportation
system in Singapore. Such projects can now be studied further and put to
experimentation in an effort towards the betterment of the quality of life for all
the people of Singapore.
20
REFERENCES
1. Green, Stuart.D. and Simister, Stephen ,J. (1999) ‘Modeling client
business processes as an aid to strategic briefing ‘, Construction
Management and Economics, 17:1, 630-76
2. http://www-staff.it.uts.edu.au/~jim/bpt.ssm.html
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_systems_methodology
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_transport_in_Singapore
5. Speech By Mr. Raymond Lim, Minister For Transport And Second
Minister For Foreign Affairs, At The Launch Of The Land Transport
Gallery, 18 January 2008, 9.20 am
6. http://www.lta.gov.sg/corp_info/doc/190108.pdf
7. ‘Systems Approach in the Land Transport’, Presentation by Mr. Yam
Ah Mee, CEO of the Land Transport Authority (LTA), at the IES/DSTA
Systems Engineering Seminar, Orchard Hotel Singapore, 19 March
2008.
8. http://www.darpa.mil/grandchallenge
9. http://www.stanfordracing.org
10. http://cs.stanford.edu/group/roadrunner/
11. http://www.science.edu.sg
21

SDM5002 - Bus Transport in Singapore Report

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SDM5002 - Bus Transport in Singapore Report

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

SDM 5002 SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

BUS TRANSPORT IN SINGAPORE

Soft Systems Methodology ...........................................................................3

3. APPLYING SSM TO THE SINGAPORE BUS SYSTEM CASE ......................7

Descriptive Scenario Questions ...................................................................7

SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY

Peter Checkland at Lancaster University developed Soft Systems

SSM is a participative process of enquiry that stimulates thinking about the

Subsequently, an idealized conceptual model is built based on the root

SINGAPORE BUS SYSTEM

The recent transport initiative addresses primarily on vehicle congestion, road

2. SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY PROCESS STEPS

The steps of SSM consist of seven stages.

Stage 1: Enter the real-world situation considered problematic

Stage 2: Expressing the problem situation

Stage 3: Formulating Root Definitions

W = World View (Weltanschauung)

Stage 4: Building Conceptual Models

Stage 5: Comparing models and reality

Stage 6: Defining Change

Stage 7: Taking Action

3. APPLYING SSM TO THE SINGAPORE BUS SYSTEM CASE

DESCRIPTIVE SCENARIO QUESTIONS

a) Who uses the bus system? And why?

b) What kinds of buses are there? Who operates them?

NORMATIVE SCENARIO QUESTIONS

c) Who would be using the bus system? And why?

d) What features/ functionalities are necessary and what’s desirable?

e) How should a bus system be organized?

• Publicly owned (competition entails fragmentation and the system

f) What technologies would be available? What would be the impact on the

STAGES 1 & 2: The team brainstormed the answers to the descriptive

STAGE 3: The team then builds on the existing resources to attempt to

CUSTOMERS ACTORS TRANSFORMATION WORLD VIEW OWNER ENVIRONMENTAL

• This conceptual system is then compared with the

• The team used a benchmarking approach and look

ROOT DEFINITION STATEMENT #1:

An affordable and regulated means of public transportation, which provides

CONCEPTUAL MODEL BASED ON ROOT DEFINITION #1

Measures of performance for the bus system:

COMPARISON BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL MODEL #1 AND REAL

Activity Is it done in the real Comments

ROOT DEFINITION STATEMENT #2

A transportation system to provide mass transit through managing fleets of

Conceptual Model based on Root Definition #2

Planning of routes Purchasing bus

Choice to taking bus

Measures of performance for the bus system:

COMPARISON BETWEEN CONCEPTUAL MODEL #2 AND REAL

Activity Is it done in the real Comments

Stage 6: Possible solution based on SSM analysis

Unlike their old predecessors, the new environmentally-friendly, electrically-

The development of Stanley began in July 2004. Dubbed “a mobile high-tech

is managed by complex and unique software for steering, acceleration and

In addition, Stanley's array of laser detectors, stereoscopic viewing devices,

The original robotic prototype vehicle, Stanley was on display at the

The DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) Grand

4. LESSONS LEARNED & TEAM DYNAMICS

Q: How would you benefit from seeing alternative descriptions?

A: The group will have a wider perspectives and a multi-dimensional

Keywords were focused on, analyzed and then summarized to become

Q: Can you describe the methodology that you used in general

A: Soft System Methodology (SSM) was used in:

Q: What major difficulties were encountered? Gaps in framework