Soft systems methodology (SSM), an analytic method commonly employed in engineering and business research, produces models focused on human activities and relevant structures used to explain complex, engineered systems. The original version of SSM involves seven stages; five address real-world aspects and observable data, while two stages leverage a systems thinking viewpoint. This approach allows the development of a simplified depiction of complex systems representative of the multi-perspective lenses used to comprehend the systemic complexity of a problem and provide a clearer picture to analysts and decision makers. This bibliometric meta-analysis of 286 relevant publications in engineering, business, and other social sciences fields explores the historic impacts of SSM on academic research and systems thinking in relevant publications that described or employed SSM for research from 1980-2018. This study produced descriptive narrative outcomes and data visualizations including information about top SSM authors, author citation impacts, common dissemination outlets for SSM work, and other relevant metrics commonly used to measure academic impact. The goal of this piece is to depict who, what, why, when, and where SSM had the greatest impact on research, systems thinking, and methodology after nearly 40 years of use, as we look towards its future as a methodological approach used to comprehend complex problem situations.Systems 2019, 7, 10 2 of 15 their research, which may limit the method's effectiveness [3]. Other criticisms of the method include its slow speed, difficulty in using it with stakeholders during analysis or to implement suggested solutions; further, the complexity of the problems under study may limit its acceptance as a valuable research methodology by some academics or managers [4].Checkland [5] noted that there are different ways of thinking about systems. Systems are a group of interacting elements or subsystems with a unified goal and defined by its boundary as well as the nature of the internal structure linking its elements (e.g., physical, logical, functional). "Hard systems thinking assumes that the world is a set of systems (i.e. is systemic) and that these can be systematically engineered to achieve objectives. In the soft tradition, the world as it naturally exists is assumed to be problematic; but, it is also assumed that the process of inquiry into the problematic situations that make up the world can be organized as a system" (p. S49-50). "Hard" systems may be considered as organized systems with features and goals upon which stakeholders agree. "Soft" systems often contain identified elements such as outcomes, processes, strategies, or other features about which there is imperfect stakeholder agreement. Further, the system elements may change dynamically in response to local needs as system participants learn new information about their own or external, related systems. However, it is difficult to retain agreement about the best way to organize complex systems permanently, requi...