Rich picture building in the soft systems methodology

P. J. LEWIS
Department of Systems and Information Management, The Management School, Lancaster Universit y,. Bailrigg› Lancaster
LA1 4YX UK

This paper examines the nature of rich picture building and its role within soft systems methodology. From
an examination of published literature and accounts of the use of the methodology it is found that there
is little agreement as to what is meant by ‘building a rich picture of the problem situation’. It is found that
there is confusion about whether a ‘rich picture’ is considered to be an abstract, conceptual understanding
of a problem situation or a literal diagram, about whether rich picture diagrams are a requirement of SSM
and about their content and format. This paper identifies possible reasons for this confusion and discusses
issues arising from it. A final section provides recommendations for the teaching of soft systems
methodology.

IRtfiOdUCtlOH application and may be used in the investigation of many

The technique of rich picture construction has long been
associated with the practice of soft systems methodology
(SSM). However, with knowledge of SSM now becom-
ing more widespread, and descriptions of the method-
ology multiplying, there is a need for a re-examination
of the subject. Not only is there confusion as to whether
the term ’rich picture’ refers to an abstract understanding
or a physical diagram (in order to avoid further confu-
sion within this paper we shall refer to the latter as a rich
picture diagram), but also an increasing tendency to pre-
sent the creation of rich picture diagrams as part of SSM
rather than merely one technique which may be used
within SSM.
This paper therefore reviews the nature and use of the
technique of rich picture building and the sources of the
confusion that surround it.
The soft systems methodology and rich
pictures
The soft systems methodology (SSM) is an approach
to bringing about improvement in situations in which
peo- ple play a major role and where ‘the problem’
cannot be, without distortion, formulated in terms of
choosing bet- ween alternative means of achieving pre-
defined objec- tives. The development of the
methodology and its conceptual basis are described in
detail in Checkland (1981) while Checkland and Scholes
(1990) provide insights into, and examples of, its use.
SSM has wide
Received: 15 November 1991. Accepted: 6 January
1992.
O 1992 Operational Research Society Ltd
Eur. J. Inf. Systs. Vol. 1, No. 5, pp 351-360, 1992
types of organizational problem. Readers of EHS may
be most aware of the methodology through its use in the
Multiview and COMPACT development methodologies
and its application to problems of information systems
planning.
SSM recognises that subjectivity is inherent in all
human affairs and that any part of the real world may
be understood differently by observers with different
sets of values, beliefs and norms. Within SSM such dif-
ferences in perception are explored rigorously through
the formal definition and modelling of purposeful
activities deemed relevant to the situation. Discussion
and debate will then lead to learning and to the iden-
tification of changes to the real-world situation which
are both desirable and feasible.
Because SSM is a methodology rather than a method
(a distinction which has become somewhat blurred
within the field of information systems) there is no stan-
dard form of its use. Typically though, the SSM analyst
will be involved in two interacting streams of enquiry. In
a logic-driven stream of enquiry the analyst will explore
different perceptions of the situation and different
‘issues’ through systemic modelling. In a stream of cul-
tural enquiry the analyst will attempt to understand the
problem situation in terms of social interactions and
politics, and examine the nature of the intervention pro-
cess itself. The two streams of enquiry are intrinsically
linked, each informing and affecting the other.
SSM practitioners may at times during a study pro-
duce pictorial representations of their current
understan-
ding of the problem situation. Figure 1 shows one such
diagram relating to the information systems develop-
ment described in Lewis (1989). A considerable amount
351
P. 1. LEWIS

Leadio boIid*y ’* PP!7 of

down-Landlords
STUDENT LEASE
may equal many

Guaranteed
Strategic plansBT'ds req’d

Universit
Hooray! What does it do?
UNIVERSITY
-ACCOMMODATION OFFICE

COMPETITOR
INSTITUTIONS
Revi ew?

Figure I Example of a rich picture diagram.

of information, which would require many pages of

text to describe, is here captured in a concise manner.
Such diagrams are commonly described as being ‘rich leads to
pictures”, the remainder of this paper will examine
whether this use of the term is methodologically justi-
fiable and, perhaps more importantly, whether its asso- Theory Practice
ciation with a diagram impoverishes understanding of
the process of SSM.
generates
A review of rich picture use
disseriañons

Rich picture diagrams are so familiar to SSM users and Figure 2 Outputs from the learnin8 cycle of SSM
development.
so closely associated with the practice of the method-
ology that some may be surprised to discover that they how, at any point in time, SSM was understood and how
did not appear in their present form until several years it was applied.
after the emergence of SSM.
This may be discovered from the written records DlScussiozi of hfch pictures in publications
generated from each learning cycle of SSM (Figure 2);
publications record changes in the theory of SSM, while It is in Checkland (1972) that we first find a description
reports to clients and the dissertations of students of a seven-stage methodology, for use in dealing with
involved record the practice of SSM. These documents real-world problems. Stage 2 of the emerging method-
352
provide a rich archive through which we may investigate ology is described as a non-systemic analysis of what

383
P. J. LEWIS

exists at present in the problem situation. Guidelines for Checkland and others from Lancaster University are
conducting this stage are provided in so far as the analyst consistent in subsequent publications in that it is the pro-
is recommended to explore environments of the problem cess of building an appreciation that is of paramount
situation, and to examine structure, process and climate importance; the creation of any diagram is merely one
within the problem situation. This first exposition of means by which this process may be facilitated and
SSM, though, contains no mention of rich picture crea- encouraged. To provide just two examples:
tion, and the development from hard systems method- • By 1985 understanding of SSM had grown; SSM is
ologies is evident in the advice that: explained in terms of a different seven-stage mosaic
and ‘human activity systems’ are more clearly defined
It is difficult to know when to finish the analysis phase - as epistemological devices through which to examine
even if only temporarily! But the analysis should not be the real-world situation. However, Checkland’s
regarded as complete until at least the following questiORS understanding of what is involved in ‘rich picture
can be answered convincingly and in some depth. Within building’ is unchanged. Checkland’s (1985) recom-
and/or around the problem situation: mendation to ’record, preferably pictorially’ details of
1. What resources are deployed in what operational pro- structure, process and climate encourages the use of
cesses under what planning procedures within what
rich picture diagrams but does not require their use.
structure, in what environments and wider systems, by
whom? Indeed, he goes on to describe as a ‘mainstream
2. How is this resource deployment monitored and con- application’ of SSM a study in which rich picture
trolled. (p 100) building took place but no creation of rich picture
diagrams resulted.
Later, in Checkland (1975), we find not only the * Wilson (1984, 1990) is careful to describe the dia-
familiar, emblematic mosaic of seven SSM stages but grams, which he finds it useful to produce, as
‘pictures also the first direction that the analyst should be con- Of the situation’, thus avoiding associating the term
cerned with assembling a ‘rich picture’ of the problem ‘rich picture’ with the physical diagram. The impor-
situation. Stage 1 of the methodology is a consideration tant point is made that although such pictures may be
of 'the problem situation: unstructured’ while in stage 2: used to convey an interpretation of a situation to a
third party, the real benefit from such a picture comes
It is necessary to see the problem situation in a more from the process of its construction.
struc- tured way, but without commitment to any However, publications from the originators of SSM
particular solution, or even a particular kind of solution. do provide some scope for confusion. Checkland’s
(p 279) (1981) choice of words is perhaps unfortunate. His
description of the process of formulating an apprecia-
and tion of the problem situation as being one of assembling
The end point of this stage in the analysis should be a pie- ‘the richest possible picture of the situation being
ture of the problem situation, one as rich as can be Studied’ (p 165) may be easily misinterpreted as an
assembled in the time available. (p 281) instruction to produce a physical diagram. Such an
impression is strengthened by Checkland's reference to
That such a ’rich picture' is an appreciation of the pro- Naughton’s constitutive and strategic rules for SSM.
blem situation rather than any particular form of Naughton (1977), in order to assist the teaching of
diagram, and that to gain such an appreciation many dif- SSM to students of the Open University, differentiated
ferent methods and many diagrams may be used, is clear between constitutive rules, which must be obeyed if the
when Checkland writes user is to claim to be carrying out an SSM enquiry, and
strategic rules that
During phases (1) and (2)..., when problem-situation
analysis is the goal, all the developments within
. are heuristic rules which have been found useful in
systems science, and within the whole range of
facilitating various stages of the investigation. The recom-
management science are available to those making
mendation to search for structure and process in the pro-
the systems study, and may be used as a means of
blem situation falls into this latter category, and cannot
developing a rich apprecia- tion of the situation. In
order to obtain a ‘feel’ for the structures and processes
therefore be taken as a defining characteristic of the
involved it may well be fruitful to construct systems
Checkland system. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to con-
dynamics models, to simulate opera- tional systems, duct the analysis using other, different, heuristic rules.
Naughton, 1979, p 70
to make cash flow models, to analyse regulative
mechanisms by making use of the concepts and laws of
cybernetics. The important point is that the status
of such efforts must be that they are only a means to Unfortunately, while the recommendation to search
achieving the desired end, namely a rich appreciation of for structure and process was categorised as a strategic
 RICH PICTURE BUILDING IN THE SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY
the situation. (p 282) rule, included in Naughton’s constitutive rules
(Naughton, 198 I) was that each stage of SSM has a together this suggestion, that a hierarchy of rich pic-
defined output, and that one of the outputs from stage ture diagrams might be used, is both a novel and
2 of the methodology is a rich picture. This publication, useful contribution.
of some importance to the history of SSM and widely
• Atkinson’s (1986) description of a study previously
used in teaching, for the first time associated the term
described in Checkland (1985) is most illuminating
‘rich picture’ with a concrete output rather than the pro-
for the purposes of this paper in that he writes that:
cess of gaining conceptual understanding.
Checkland (1981) reproduces Naughton’s constitutive
A number of the activities which evolved were partly
and strategic rules for SSM and comments that they are as a result of the group of inquirers not possessing a
useful in that they high degree of competence in the techniques of soft
systems methodology. Checkland, for example, built a
. make the user aware that if he chooses to break a number of the conceptual models. In the initial stages
con- stitutive rule he may lose some of the help which of the Project, Activity 2, a single rich picture was not
the methodology can provide when it is used as a developed; instead a brainstorming technique was
linked whole, as an enquiring system. (p 252) employed to structure an impression of the problem
situation from which 26 problem candidates were
In doing so he inadvertently encourages the idea of rich defined. This may be attribut- able to this lack of
picture diagram creation as a requirement of SSM and expertise in the SSM. This lack of an explicit rich
picture, then, is the first difference between
promotes the fear for the would-be SSM practitioner
Checkland’s official version of soft systems methodology
that failing to produce a rich picture diagram may have and the methodology used in this case. (p 25)
dire consequences.
It is, perhaps, therefore not surprising that, as SSM
Within this extract we can see that Atkinson
has become widely used and re-described, there have
interprets ‘rich picture’ to mean rich picture diagram
arisen a number of different perceptions of ‘rich picture
and accepts that the production of a single such
building’. The result of this is considerable confusion
diagram is part of SSM. From this starting point, that
concerning the nature of rich picture building and the
the problem solvers in this study may have not
status of rich picture diagrams. The nature of this confu-
produced a rich pic- ture diagram is clearly of some
sion is illustrated by the following selection from the
surprise, attributable perhaps to ‘their lack of
literature of SSM:
expertise in the SSM’.
• Gunawardena (1981) provides an early example of the
• Patching (1987) describes the work of stage 2 of
ambiguity concerning the nature of ’rich pictures’;
SSM to be to develop ‘a picture, metaphorically and
here stage 2 of the methodology is defined as 'Express
liter- ally, that is “rich” enough to reflect the
the problem situation as a “rich picture” ’, suggesting
important and meaningful aspects of the
that a physical diagram needs to be produced.
organization’. Unfortu- nately, he then goes on to
• Within Multiview (Wood-Harper ei al., 1985;
discuss root definitions as follows:
Avison & Wood-Harper, 1990) also the rich picture
is assumed to be a physical diagram, a rich picture
being defined as ’a pictorial representation of an The root definition is a statement of what the system
shown in the rich picture is designed to achieve, based
organization’ (p 35).
either on the issues which have been uncovered, or on
Rich picture diagramming is correctly identified as a the ‘primary task’ of the organisation. (p 17)
technique but use of the technique is made com-
pulsory, for the rich picture diagram is used as the
SSM employs the concept ’system’ as an epistemo-
basis for comparison with conceptual models and is
logical device for investigating a problematic real-
used to identify primary tasks. Multiview, though,
world situation, not as a label for any part of the real
provides a good example of the way in which re-
world. Thus, it is erroneous to suggest that a rich
interpretation may lead to useful new insights. Avison
picture diagram may be a representation of any real-
and Wood-Harper (1990) expand upon the earlier
world system, unless one uses the term in its
comment of Wood- Harper et al. (1985) that
impoverished form as descriptive of mere procedure.
• In their description of SSM, Avison and Fitzgerald
In some situations it is not possible to represent the
(1988) provide a generally excellent account of the
organisation in one rich picture. In this case, further
detail can be shown on separate sheets. (p 35) uses of a rich picture diagram, but in doing so clearly
associate the term ’rich picture’ with a physical
diagram and strengthen the impression that the crea-
They suggest that a rich picture may be decomposed
tion of such a diagram is the first step of SSM.
into others of greater detail. Although, in the past,
many different types of diagram have been used
• Waring (1989) provides a poor interpretation of what
is described as the ‘soft systems method’ in which the
354
creation of rich picture diagrams is made a require-
ment of SSM by including ‘draw rich picture’ within

355
P. J. LEWIS
an adapted version of Checkland’s seven-stage
mosaic. Here it is clear that a rich picture is taken to
be a literal picture, and Waring goes so far as to pro-
vide an example set of symbols that might be used
in their construction. Waring presents rich picture
diagrams as an aid to, and constructed by, an external
problem solver, not as an output of a participative
process of organizational learning. This results in the
odd suggestion that the analyst may use two different
rich picture diagrams;
Bear in mind, however, that you may wish to show your
rich pictures to other people and especially actors in the
problem situation. You can avoid possible offence by
hav- ing two versions - one for your own reference and a
cleaned-up version for showing to other people. (p 79)
• Patching (1990) correctly identifies the production of
a rich picture diagram as a useful alternative to a tex-
tual description of the problem situation rather than
as a requirement of SSM but uses the phrase ‘rich
pic- ture’ as a label for a type of diagram. He urges
that the analyst should
. wherever possible keep them factual, with opinions
shown only where the source can be identified, or when
they can be substantiated by sound argument. There is
also the danger of the analyst imposing a structure on the
picture, allowing preconceived ideas to colour judgement.
Whereas it is difficult to remain objective, particularly
about a situation that the analyst is now part of, there
should be a deliberate and conscious effort to retain a
neutral outlook and show only those facts and issues that
have been gathered by the investigation. (p 56)
This advice is somewhat curious for, as Atkinson
(1984) has shown, there are close relationships
between rich picture building and problem theme
development in SSM and the appreciation of a situa-
tion via fact and value judgements in Vickers’ theory
of appreciative systems. Thus we would expect that
during stage 2 of SSM the expressed perception of the
problem situation would be neither ‘neutral’ nor
necessarily ‘factual’.
Some of this confusion may be removed by the
detailed exposition of current understanding of SSM by
Checkland and Scholes (1990). Here the previous seven-
stage model of SSM is replaced by a more fluid account
of the process of SSM, within which the process of
appreciating the problem situation is a continuing
activity, and consideration of structure, process and
culture is now Contained within a continuous stream of
cultural enquiry, one which includes analyses of the
intervention itself, the situation as a social system and
the situation as a political system. Conventional rich pic-
ture diagrams may be used within this cultural enquiry,
but so too may various other kinds of diagram. It is in
the spirit of this new view of SSM that Frederickson
(1990) usefully emphasises, by defining a rich picture as
an ‘evolving diagram’, that if a diagram is used then it
must continually change to reflect the analyst’s con-
tinually changing appreciation. Checkland and Scholes
directly address the issue of whether the production of a
rich picture diagram is a requirement of SSM. As a
precursor to a detailed re-examination of what might
now constitute constitutive rules for SSM the point is
made that:
It can be argued that if constitutive rules are expressed in
terms of a concrete output - a literal ‘rich’ picture, say,
rather than an abstract ‘appreciation’ — then this may have
the effect of reducing methodology to method, and
lightening the looked-for emphasis on change accom-
plished rather than reports written. (p 157)
It is also made clear that there is no requirement to use
a rich picture diagram at all:
It is an efficacious way of recording the finding-out phase
because relationships and interactions are more briskly
captured in pictures than in linear prose. However, the
fundamental requirement is to gain a discussable appre-
ciation of a problem situation; pictorial representation is
simply one means of doing that which has been found
useful. But it is not an axiomatic requirement. The guide-
line is: do what you find to be insightful and comfortable.
(pp 156-157)
Rich pictures in accounts of the use of SSM
Further understanding of the way in which ‘rich picture
building’ has been understood and used can be gained by
examining accounts of the use of SSM in real-world pro-
blem situations by students under the supervision of
Checkland, Wilson and their colleagues. The disserta-
tions produced by these students provide a rich source of
material for understanding the development of SSM.
This derives from their structure, it being a requirement
that the dissertations should be divided into two parts;
the first describes the activities of the problem solvers
and their results, the second contains the individuals’
reflections upon their project experience and the use of
the methodology.
If we examine the accounts of systems studies prior to
1972 we find that these employ the systems
engineering approach described by Jenkins (1969). As
a conse- quence, the concern at the start of the project
is to iden- tify systems within the problem situation,
to locate such systems within a hierarchy of wider
systems and to iden- tify environmental influences
upon those systems. The most common outputs from
this process are ‘systems maps’ that show the
identified systems and inter- relationships, and
problem-relationship diagrams that attempt to define
the webs of interconnected problems.
Following the proposal for an alternative methodology
in Checkland (1972) we find SSM users less willing
immediately to ‘find’ systems in the problem situation,
choosing instead to accumulate factual data concerning
the structures and process of the organizations in which
they are working. The occurrence of systems maps
therefore declines and a greater variety of diagrams are
produced.
It is now that we first encounter talk of ‘rich picture
building’, ’painting a rich picture’ or investigating the
situation in order to ‘gain a “good rich picture” of the
organization*, there are, though, no examples of what we
would now recognise as being a rich picture diagram in
any of these dissertations and it is clear that the phrase
‘rich picture building’ is being used to describe a process
of understanding the problem situation. This, and that
many different forms of diagram might be used to make
explicit the analysts’ understanding, is evident in the
following extract from one report of the time:
THE RICH PICTURE
The next stage of the project was an attempt to obtain as
rich a picture as possible of the existing procedures and
their objectives within the organisation... The picture so
derived was recorded in the form of organisation charts,
activity tables of particular departments within the firm,
and a diagram showing the flow of information between
departments. Cassidy (1973), pp 2-3
In the following years we find that the language of
SSM grows considerably more sophisticated and that
there is much reflection upon the role of the analyst vis-
â-vis the intervention, and the relationships between and
within the ‘problem-content’ and ’problem-solving’
systems. The variety and the number of diagrams used
typically increases, with students providing diagram-
matic representations of many different aspects of the
problem situation; we find diagrams showing the inter-
connections between aspects of the perceived problem,
geographical maps, influence diagrams, pictorial repre-
sentations of the roles and issues concerning intervention
in the situation as well as the more familiar representa-
tions of facts about the organization (organization
charts, etc.).
In 1978 there was an interesting development.
Although there were, as in previous years, many students
who titled a textual description of the problem as ’the
rich picture’, a few students began to make use of dia-
grams that were explicitly labelled as rich pictures. The
format of these diagrams varies and there is nothing new
about the use of symbols such as ‘matchstick men’ or
‘crossed swords’ to indicate areas of potential conflict,
these having appeared in various types of diagram
previously. What is significant is the attempt to convey
within a single diagram the issues and concerns of those
involved, as well as factual data concerning the organiza-
tion. This only occurred once previously, where Regan
(1974) included among many other forms of diagram
what he describes as ’a single, non-systemic, rich
picture of the problem situation’.
In subsequent years the occurrence of such rich
picture diagrams became increasingly commonplace.
such that over 70'7« of students in 1984 produced an
explicitly named rich picture diagram. It is interesting
that one who did not (Huggins, 1984) felt it necessary to
justify the omission. It would appear then that even by
the mid-1980s the building of‘a picture of the problem
situa- tion, one as rich as can be assembled in the time
avail- able’ had become synonymous with the creation
of a single, physical rich picture diagram, and the
production of such diagrams was an expected part of
‘doing SSM’.
Three areas of confusion
Three areas of confusion concerning rich picture
building are apparent in the history of SSM
development and use. These concern the association of
the term ‘rich picture’ with an actual diagram, the status
of rich picture building within SSM, and the format and
content of rich picture diagrams.
Association of the term ffcfi picture’ with an actual
diagram
From examining the available records of SSM use,
it becomes evident that there have been no sudden
‘paradigm shifts’ concerning rich picture building but
instead a gradual proliferation of changing conventions.
That there should have been a shift in terminology, with
the phrase ’rich picture’ becoming used as label for a
par- ticular type of diagram, is not important in itself
that ’assembling a rich picture’ should become
synonymous with creating a diagram and that the focus
of interest should become the diagram rather than the
process of appreciation, is potentially dangerous. At the
very least, rich picture diagrams may become regarded
as merely: ‘a more graphic, and amusing form of
relationship diagram...’(Cameron, 1991, p 124) with
attention being diverted away from the subtle and
complex ways in which appreciations of the problem
situation are formed towards, instead, the simple
mechanics of diagram creation.
Perhaps more serious is the lack of precision which
may result. This may be best explained by means of
Figure 3. This presents a model of reflective
intervention in which analysts intervene in some part of
the real world (‘X’). The nature of this intervention
willAe partly deter- mined by their appreciation of ‘X’
(inevitably only approximating to the ultimately
unknowable reality), which in Figure 3 is labelled ‘Y’.
This appreciation may be recorded physically in some
form of diagram of ‘Y’. But analysts are simultaneously
aware that they are

ho forms
Fig•re 3 A model of rcfleciive intervention.
intervening, and so also form an appreciation of the
intervention, including their own activities. This appre-
ciation, ‘Z’ in Figure 3, may itself be recorded in a
physical diagram.
The great danger that arises from the confusion over
rich picturing is an uncertainty about whether the ‘rich
picture’ refers to ‘X’, ‘Y’, ’Z’, or to a diagram of any of
the three. This lack of precision is already apparent in
the literature where:
• the focus of rich picturing may be presented as the
problem content, the intervention process or both;
• a rich picture may be recognised as a subjective con-
ceptualisation or as an objectively true representation
of reality;
• the result of ‘assembling a rich picture’ may be taken
to be a conceptual understanding of a situation or a
physical diagram.
The stottzs a rich picture building within SSL
Closely linked with the association of ‘rich picture
building’ with the production of actual diagrams is the
confusion as to the status of rich picture building within
SSM, and whether or not rich picture diagrams are a
required part of SSM.
One cause of this may be that the originators of SSM
have consistently regarded the creation of such diagrams
as a useful technique rather than a required part of SSM
itself; therefore, within a rapidly developing and chang-
ing understanding of SSM, the nature of rich picture
which may be
’°°°’d“' adiagram
of ’Y'
building has never been subject to the same scrutiny and
regular re-examination as the core components of the
methodology. This lack of attention has enabled confu-
sion to develop.
A second cause of difficulty may be the ease with
which one may fall into the linguistic trap of describing
the processes that occur as part of SSM in terms of the
products of those processes; Wood-Harper e1of. (1985),
for example, use the drawing of a rich picture diagram
as a label for activities equivalent to stages 1 and 2 of
SSM.
A third possible cause of confusion may be the con-
straints of teaching SSM within formal educational set-
tings. In such settings there is a need to present the
methodology in an easily assimilable form and to be able
to assess the student’s understanding through exercises
and possibly examinations. These things are easier to do
if the practice of SSM is presented as a step-by-step
enactment of defined stages rather than as a flexible
application of a methodology. Furthermore, both par-
ticipants in a teaching relationship find it reassuring to
have some measure by which to determine the extent to
which an individual area of teaching has been satisfac-
torily assimilated. The most obvious measure of pro-
gress is the degree to which some defined deliverable
has been produced, such deliverables then forming the
basis for discussion and perhaps assessment. For the
early stages of SSM the only concrete such deliverable
may be a rich picture diagram.
It is perhaps therefore all too easy for anyone learning
SSM to perceive the production of the rich picture trayed as a medieval castle, with the presently qualified
diagram as the purpose of the early stages of SSM, rather members pulling up the drawbridge and pouring boiling
than as a by-product of the process of investigation of
the problem situation.

Format and content of rich picture diagrams

Reviewing the rich picture diagrams produced as part

of past SSM studies reveals the increasing use of a
limited set of symbols and cartoon type
characterisations (often humorous) of the problem
situation.
There can be no strict rules about how to draw a rich
picture diagram since each one will be unique and will
reflect the particular meaning that those creating it
attribute to the figures on the paper. This is partly why
examples of rich picture diagrams are often omitted
from published descriptions of the use of SSM; their
inclusion would only mislead readers into believing that
the rich picture shown was ‘right’ and encourage them to
try to imitate that in their own work. The only possible
answer to the question ‘what should be shown in a rich
picture diagram and how should it be presented?’ is
simply ‘whatever seems important to you in dealing with
the situation and will be helpful to your use of SSM’.
However, the comments of Stowell (1991), in review-
ing Checkland and Scholes (1990), highlight that this
freedom can be intimidating to newcomers to the
methodology:

Although the text provides many examples of the use

of diagrams throughout the application of the
methodology there is a dearth of examples of
’conventional’ Rich Pictures which would have been
useful for student reference - a casualty of the new
thinking about SSM perhaps? Students have often
asked what should a Rich Picture look like, ‘whatever
is meaningful to you and is as rich as you can make it’
is the stock reply. But they have got a point, for the
novice there are few good examples of Rich Pictures. It
is not so much a Rich Picture that is required but
examples of the diagrammatic representation of the
kind of analytical information gathering and inter-
pretation that goes on at the problem appreciation
stage. (p 140)

A tendency towards a standardisation in the format of

the diagrams may then be the inevitable result as each
new ‘generation' of SSM users seeks guidance from
past studies and the few published examples of rich
picture diagrams.
The injection of humour into rich picture diagrams
can on occasions be useful, presenting issues in a novel
way that stimulates open and revealing discussion. In
one study (Crellin, 1988) of a large financial institution
facing radical change and the removal of certain profes-
sional entry requirements, the organization was por-
oil over would-be new entrants. This intentionally
humorous depiction of the situation focused attention
upon a contentious issue in a non-threatening manner
and in doing so led to useful discussions that might not
otherwise have occurred. Trying to make a rich picture
diagram humorous for its own sake, however, is a
waste of time and rarely successful.
Also evident is a trend towards unannotated and
unex- plained symbolic representations of aspects of
the pro- blem situation. This has certain dangers, for the
use of symbolism and pictorial metaphor may lead to
ambi- guity, particularly if no key is provided for the
diagram. For example, if the originator of a rich picture
diagram chooses to characterise the role of the data
administrator as an organizational policeman (Figure 4)
then they may have in their mind the idea of a friendly
‘Dixon of Dock Green’ character (itself a cultural
reference of limited accessibility) who protects the
organization’s data resource for the benefit of all.
Someone else however may interpret that
characterisation as something quite different, perhaps
seeing that DA as an unnecessary obstacle to users of
the data.
Symbols are, of course, also culturally dependent
and it is interesting to speculate as to what difficulties
might arise where the members of a problem-solving
group do not share a common cultural background or
iconography.

Figure I A possible representation of the data administrator’s role.

DATA BANK

Perhaps in order to overcome the problem. of ambi-

guity, there have been an increasing number of sugges- Authorized
tions that some set of standard symbols might be used. account holders
The use of standard symbols is attractive if one does
not consider oneself ‘artistic’ or if one wishes to
prepare the diagram quickly using graphics software
packages. It does, though, have disadvantages. There
can be a ten- dency to try to express subtle and complex
aspects of the situation too simplistically (mildly
differing opinions may for example be shown in the
same way as wildly antagonistic beliefs), and also lead
to diagrams that are too stylised and lack originality.
Additionally, one of the reasons that standard sym-
bols are advocated, to make the’reading’ of a rich
picture diagram easier, is based upon an incorrect
perception of SSM as a set of techniques used by an
external analyst
upon a problem situation; within such a view the need conventional rich picture diagrams. This is curiously
for the analyst to communicate their appreciation to the similar to the early uses of SSM where many different
problem owners might provide some argument for using techniques were employed to gain understanding of,
a standard language of symbols. But SSM is primarily a and to make explicit, the richness of the problem
methodology for learning through participative action, situation.
in which problem owners, clients and stakeholders may However, teaching the new model of SSM to an inex-
all be part of the problem-solving team working within perienced audience may present difficulties, and some
the problem situation. Used in such a way, there is less may wish to introduce the methodology through the con-
need for a standard set of symbols; each use of SSM will ventional, mode I use of SSM as summarised in the
generate its own set of symbols, meaningful to those seven-stage mosaic. If this is so, then the lesson of this
involved in that particular instance of enquiry. paper is that care must be taken in doing this, and it may
be useful to bear in mind that:
• Most authors find it impossible to separate discussion
of the first two stages of SSM, suggesting that many
Gaining an appreciation of the problem situation is a people find it difficult to distinguish between them.
vitally important step in SSM, for it is the basis not only For pedagogical purposes it may be advantageous to
for identifying relevant systems that may later be subsume both under a more general stage of ‘forming
modelled but also for deciding the scope and nature of an appreciation of the problem situation”, this would
the intervention. The originators of SSM have been con- serve to emphasise the importance of the process
sistent in their treatment of the appreciation forming undertaken rather than any resulting output.
process but have not discussed its nature in such detail • Phrases such as’building a rich picture of the problem
as other parts of the methodology. This, together with situation’ have proved to be a major source of confu-
the novelty and immediate impact of rich picture sion, being ambiguous, and so easily equated with the
diagrams, has led to confusion and three serious creation of an actual diagram. It may be useful, and
misunderstandings: that creating a rich picture diagram more precise, to use ‘rich picture diagrams’ to
identify is sufficient to gain an appreciation of the problem situa- the physical diagrams which may, or may
not, be pro- tion; that a single diagram of a particular format will be duced as part of the process of
’forming an apprecia- produced; and that the creation of such diagrams is an tion of the problem
situation’.
axiomatic requirement of SSM. • While rich picture diagrams can be a very effective
means of making explicit representation of the
Implications for the teaching of SSM analyst’s appreciation of the problem situation, they
are only one possible such means. Providing examples
One might hope that with the latest exposition of SSM of alternatives and encouraging the invention of
given in Checkland and Scholes (1990) some of this con- others will not only serve to combat the misapprehen-
fusion might evaporate, or at least become less poten- sion that the production of rich picture diagrams is a
tially dangerous. In the new model of the process of SSM requirement of SSM but also help individuals in find-
many forms of diagram may be used within the stream ing ways of using SSM best suited to their individual
of cultural enquiry, including some that closely resemble cognitive styles.

References

Aninson C J (1984) Metaphor and systemic praxis. PhD dissertation, In Progress in Cyberzielics and Systems Research, Vol 2 (Tumor R
University of Lancastcr, Bailrigg, Lancaster. and Hwmcx F de P, Eds), pp 278—283. Hemisphere, New York.
ATxinso« C (19C6) Towards a plurality of soft systems methodology. CHECxLAno P B (1981) Systems rhinking. Sysiems Practice.
W“tley,
Journal of Applied Systems Analysis 13, 19-31. Chichester.
Avison D E and Frrzcenncn D (1988) Information Systems Cuecitcznn P B (1983) Achievin8 'desirable and feasible' change: an
Develop- ment: Methodologies, Tech»iq«e «»‹i run. Blackwell application of soft systems methodology. Journal of Operational
Scientific,
Oxford. Research. 36t9I› 821-831.
Avison D and WooD-HwRPER T (1990) Muliivie +•': An Exploration in CHECKLaND P B and Scholes J (IP90) Soft Systems J\feihodologr in
I ormalion Systems rvefopmenr. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford. Action. Wiley, Chichester.
Cwenon S (1991) TAe ñf&A ff‹iiidbook: An Essential Guide to CReLcin B (l988J An organizational review of objective setting and
Effective Study. Pitman, London. appraisal within the context of culture at the International Stock
CAssIDY P A (1973) A system study of customs delivery service. MSc Exchange. MSc dissertation, Lancaster University, Bailrigg,
dissentation, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster. Lancaster.
CHECftLAF'ID P B (l972J Towards a systems-based methodology for FREDeaiczson N (l9m) IntFodUction of soft systms methodology real-
world problem solving. Journnf o/ Sjsretns Engineering 3t2J, and its application in work in schools. In Soft Systems ñferAod- 87-
 116. ofogy: Practical Application in Work with Schools (FREDERICKSOi'4
CHECKLAt4n P B (1975) The dgYelopment of systems thinking by N, Ed), pp I -10. University College London. London.
systems practice — a methodology from an action research program. GUNAWARDENA W (1981) A systems study of a university research
 council in a developing country. Journal of App/ied Systems
Analysis B, 115-121.
Huccins R A J (1984) A systems study at a vehicle body manufactur-
ing firm. MA dissertation, University of Lancaster, Bailrigg,
Lancaster.
JEn8ins G M (1969) The systems approach. Bourne/ of Systems
Engineering 1(V, 3—49.
Lewls P I (1989) Prototyping information systems - lessons from
practice. In Implementation of Small Computer Systems: Case
Studio of Applicatio r (WHIDDETT D, Ed), pp 143-161. Ellis
Horwood, Chichester.
NAUGHTObI J (1977) The Checkland Methodology: A Reader’s
Guide
(Znd edn). Open University Systems Group. Milton Keynes.
NaUGHTON I (1979) Functionalism and systems research: a
comment.
Jourztal of Applied Systems Analysis 6, 69—73.
NAUGHTON J (1981) Theory and practice in systems research.
Journnf
of Applied Systems Analysis B, 61-70.
Pzicunso D (1987) Soft systems methodology and information
technology. M‹inagement Services 31(7), 16-19.
PATCHING D (1990) Practical Soft Systems Analysis. Pitman,
London. BEGAN K H (1974) A desk-study of the system which puts
on courses for students of business oriented professional bodies in the
Orpart- ment of Management and Business Studies, Bolton Institute
of Technology. MA dissertation, University of Lancaster, Bailrigg,
Lancaster.
STOWELL F (1991) Book review of Checkland and Scholes (1990)
q.v. in Syslemisi t3t3), 139-141.
WnRIbIG A (19891 Systems Methods for Managers: A Practical Guide.
Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.
WiLso6i B 19841 Systems: Concepts. Methodologies, and Applica-
tions. Wiley, Chichester.
WiLsoiv B (1990) Systems: Concepts, Methodologies, and
Applica- tion (2nd edu). Wiley, Chichester.
WOOO-HARPER A T, ANTlcc L and Avison D E (1985)
Information Systems Definition: The Multiview Approach.
Blackwell Scientific, Oxford.