technical
rich pictures in soft systems methodology
relevant to Professional Scheme Paper 3.4
a holistic view?
Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) was
originally developed by Peter Checkland and
colleagues (working in the department of
systems at Lancaster University in the UK)
in order to bring a systematic approach to
the solution of ill-defined management-type
problems. The methodology requires
that the analyst enters what is referred
to as the ‘problem situation’ and that,
as a consequence of this intervention,
‘systemically desirable and culturally
feasible’ changes can ensue (Checkland and
Scholes, 1990).
One of the techniques most commonly
associated with SSM, and sometimes
mistakenly assumed to be SSM, is that
of developing rich pictures. Davies and
Ledington (1991) describe rich pictures
as ‘…an aide-mémoire for gaining an
appreciation of the problem situation…
[which] are intrinsically individualistic in
their expressive style’. However, there is
more to rich pictures than this aspect alone.
Indeed, rich picture development drives the
subsequent stages of SSM. If pictures are
not focused correctly, then the output from
subsequent stages is likely to be flawed or
unusable: ‘…any view of the situation will
both shape and restrict subsequent action
[so] it is essential that all those involved
in an SSM study have a broadly similar
appreciation of the present situation and
expectation of what the intervention will
achieve’ (Lewis, 1994).
In this respect, a rich picture brings shared
appreciation of the problem situation. Without
this shared appreciation it is probable that the
rich picture will drive subsequent investigation
in an unintended and potentially useless
direction.
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF SSM
The ‘classic’ model of SSM consists of seven
stages:
66 student accountant January 2007
Stage 1 The problem situation unstructured tool for describing and teaching the process
Stage 2 The problem situation expressed of the logic-driven stream of enquiry within
(the stage at which, traditionally, SSM. In reality, this supposedly outmoded
rich pictures are developed) version of the methodology is still widely
Stage 3 Root definitions of relevant systems used, particularly because first-time users feel
Stage 4 Development of conceptual models the need to follow a prescribed process (for
Stage 5 Comparison of conceptual models example, Akers-Smith, 2004).
with the real-world problem Figure 1 provides a generalised account
situation of activities in each of the seven stages in
Stage 6 Identification of feasible, desirable order to contextualise the specific role that rich
changes pictures play within an SSM investigation.
Stage 7 Taking action to improve the
problem situation. FIGURE 1: SEVEN-STAGE MODEL (AFTER
CHECKLAND, 1981)
Although the model suggests a linear
progression from stage to stage, this is not
how many SSM studies usually progress:
‘…the most important thing about the stages
taken together is the relationship between
them, rather than their order, and as long as
that relationship is remembered the work done
does not have to start at Stage 1 and proceed
to Stage 7… work can, in fact, start at any
intermediate stage’ (Checkland, 1981).
The seven-stage model represents a
Mode 1 application of the methodology, in
that the usage of SSM is sequential and
prescribed by the methodology rather than
by the specific situation (Checkland, 1999).
In other words, the methodology drives the
process. However, Checkland suggests that
a Mode 2 usage is more likely to be fruitful,
where the situation drives the process of
SSM use. In a Mode 2 analysis, the analyst Stage 1
will have become proficient in using SSM by The analyst enters the problem situation and
having internalised the methodology. Typically, interacts with the other actors involved to
once internalised, several stages are likely to begin to understand the problem situation.
run in parallel, with iteration both between
and within stages, and with no specific need Stage 2
to follow through all the stages if the situation Rich pictures are then drawn to express the
suggests that not all are needed (Checkland, problem situation and to provide the basis
1999; Checkland and Scholes, 1990). The for a discussion designed to engender shared
Mode 1 model, despite a (supposed) paucity appreciation of the problem situation and the
of use in the real world, remains the best drawing out of pertinent issues.
Stage 3
Next, the real world is left behind and relevant
systems are developed for the chosen issues.
At this point, real-world constraints are ignored
(unless primary task systems are considered).
Generally, the relevant systems represent
perfect systems, though dystopian systems
modelling can also be extremely useful (Lewis,
1994; Lynch, 1997).
Stage 4
Root definitions and conceptual models are
developed to surface the activities that must
exist for the relevant system to exist in the real
world.
Stage 5
Re-entering the real world, these conceptual
models are then compared with the real-world
situation to see whether any of the activities
currently exist.
Stage 6
Generally, there is a gap between the perfect
system and the current system which leads
to a discussion of feasible and desirable
changes.
Stage 7
This generally leads to action being taken to
improve the problem situation, which could
include attitudinal change, structural change,
procedural change, or a combination of these
(Checkland, 1981; Flood and Jackson, 1991;
Lewis, 1994).
The seven-stage model is unfortunately limited
in that it fails to explicitly show the strand
of cultural, political, and ethical enquiry that
must be present to ensure that the output
of the analysis is acceptable in context and
which, according to Flood and Jackson
(1991), is the most important element of
SSM. A simple amendment to the model can
make this second strand of analysis explicit.
Refer to Figure 2 on page 68.
January 2007 student accountant 67
technical
FIGURE 2: THE SEVEN-STAGE MODEL
EXPLICITLY SHOWING THE CULTURAL,
POLITICAL, AND ETHICAL STRAND OF
ANALYSIS
‘RULES’ AND CONVENTIONS FOR RICH
PICTURE DEVELOPMENT
According to Lewis (1994) there are ‘…no
strict rules…’ for developing rich pictures,
although there are some guidelines to ensure
that those within the problem situation can
easily understand a rich picture’s meaning.
Rich pictures are tools to generate discussion,
both in order to reach an understanding of the
problem situation and to tease out relevant
issues for systematic investigation. The
requirement, therefore, is that the drawing
should do just that, rather than the analyst
create something of artistic merit just for the
sake of it. It is also suggested that the rich
picture should include a key so that the various
actors can see what the various pictograms
used represent, although if a picture is
self-explanatory in context, and promotes
useful discussion, this is not strictly a
requirement.
COMPUTER-GENERATED RICH PICTURES
Various authorities suggest reasons why
computer-generated rich pictures (as shown
68 student accountant January 2007
in Figure 3 on page 69) should and should
not be used. Checkland (1999) suggests
that hand-drawn pictures are clearly views
of subjective rather than objective realities:
‘The more organic style of …rich pictures …is
meant to indicate that the status of all these
artefacts is that they are working models,
currently relevant now in this study, not
claiming permanent ontological status.’
This said, Checkland and Scholes
(1990) use both hand-drawn and
computer-generated examples – the inference
being that fitness for use is the baseline
justification for choice of medium. Lewis
(1994) argues that using sources such as
clip-art (or other formalised pictograms), in
rich pictures can affect perception: ‘…there
will always be the danger of trying to express
subtle and complex aspects of the situation
in an over-simplistic manner. If all clashes
of appreciation must be signalled by crossed
swords then mildly differing opinions may
be indistinguishable from wildly antagonistic
beliefs.’
It is interesting that Lewis should choose
crossed swords as an example, as there is just
such a rich picture in Checkland and Scholes
(1990) made up of computer-generated
images, where crossed swords and
handshakes (the latter signifying agreement, or
perhaps merely denoting compromise?) appear
with startling regularity and where the context
(not helped by the lack of a key) seems to
differ from instance to instance.
Another problem of using a ubiquitous
source of pictogram, such as clip-art, is that
people often already associate specific pieces
of clip-art (such as the image of a duck
holding an axe over a computer) with specific
situations or emotions. It may be difficult
to appreciate that an analyst may want to
illustrate a very different point when using a
well-known image.
Also note that if rich pictures are
computer-generated the result will be reliant
on, and constrained by, the technological
proficiency of the user and the limitations of
the software used (such pictures also take
considerably longer to produce than a
hand-drawn equivalent). Indeed, many
of the so-called rich pictures present in
texts critiquing or explaining SSM tend
to convey little or no meaning to an
intelligent audience because they mix poorly
thought out computer-generated pictures,
incomprehensible pictograms, a lack of key,
or any combination of these. It is no wonder,
given many of the poor examples in print, that
a mystique lies over rich picture development
and use, and that potential users cannot see
how, if at all, the printed example could have
helped shape appreciation of a complex,
real-world situation.
Lewis suggests that rich pictures can
incorporate hypertext links to enable a focus
on more detailed descriptions of the problem
situation. Similarly, Avison and Wood-Harper
(in Lewis, 1994) suggest that rich pictures
can be decomposed (in much the same way
as activity diagrams and other traditional
systems analysis techniques), with lower
level diagrams showing individual areas in
greater detail.
Although this approach is potentially
useful, it can prevent the user considering
the problem situation as a whole. As
Checkland (1999) says: ‘Pictures can be
taken in as a whole and help to encourage
holistic rather than reductionist thinking
about a situation.’
This is where a fundamental dichotomy
exists between the holistic and reductionist
intentions for rich pictures: if a rich picture
is rich enough to be of use, it will probably
be too detailed to be taken in completely in
overview (even if it does succeed in
portraying complex situations without
having to resort to lengthy prose), which
contradicts Checkland’s raison d’être for rich
picture creation.
Critics agree, however, that rich
pictures should show those structures and
processes considered important to those
within the problem situation (Davies and
Ledington, 1991). As Flood and Jackson
(1991) comment: ‘…the rich picture …is a
model of processes and structures and their
relationships’. This is to give a recognisable
context to what might otherwise remain a
very abstract perceived reality about which
the various actors have to come to some
consensus of agreement.
 technical
BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING AND USING The best reason for developing rich where different actors have different ideas
RICH PICTURES of the constituents of the problem situation:
Validation and appreciation of multiple pictures over and above any other ‘“Problems” arise when individual actors’
perspectives technique, is that rich pictures allow perceptions of reality do not overlap’ (ibid).
Rich pictures can act as a validation Lewis suggests that rich picture creation can
technique for the analyst to double-check
a holistic view to be built up, rather be a group activity, so that the very act of
whether their perception of the problem than engendering a reductionist developing a rich picture becomes part of
situation corresponds with the actors’ view of the problem situation. If the appreciation alignment process. Analysis
individual perceptions (bearing in mind that paralysis is thereby obviated as the process
all actors in any problem situation, including a rich picture neither conveys any of appreciation caused by the development of
the analyst, will have their own individual meaning to the various actors in the rich pictures also acts as a catalyst to push
Weltanschauung, or subjective bias, as even the most reluctant analyst or set of actors
regards the problem situation and attributes
problem situation, nor generates any into moving into the notional thinking stages
thereof). Checkland (1999) states that rich meaningful discussion, then the rich and beyond.
pictures can be explicitly used to ask those in picture is not worth doing. It is only
the problem situation: ‘Have we got it right Surfacing culture, roles, norms and values
from your perspective?’ In Lewis’ (1994) by bringing appreciation, thereby Rich pictures tell the analyst (and other actors)
terms, rich pictures can be used to ensure that surfacing relevant issues, that a rich something of the culture within the problem
an ‘…alignment of appreciation occurs…’ prior situation by surfacing roles, norms and values
to then using rich pictures to surface issues for
picture justifies its existence. in a way that might be difficult to describe
systematic investigation. in prose (Lewis, 1994). The rich picture can
Allied to this is the concept that rich surface the formal and, often more usefully,
pictures can show ‘complex-pluralist’ problem the informal role(s) of the various actors in
situations (Flood and Jackson, 1991), the problem situation, and their interaction
graphically showing multiple perspectives, with both the general and task environments:
‘Elements of the rich picture will include the
clients of the system, the people taking part in
FIGURE 3: AN EXAMPLE OF A COMPUTER-GENERATED RICH PICTURE it, the task being performed, the environment,
and the owner of the system’ (Avison and
This is useful Help! Information Fitzgerald, 1988).
– we can forward Hundreds of e-mails overload
I’m monitoring my staff’s
e-mails. They’re cheap to
hundreds of e-mails According to Davies and Ledington (1991):
together
send, but my staff cost more in
wasted time by sending jokes One e-mail ‘…cultures have subcultures, and constantly
and chatting
We can forward
changing various aspects and focus, and often
jokes too!
Hey, good joke have many hidden conflicts. There are many
though!
viewpoints expressed within cultures and they
Here’s an easy to How do I know often appear illogical when placed beside
follow audit trail you’re working?
each other. Cultures should not be viewed as
I enjoy working
a jigsaw puzzle in which all the pieces neatly
from home fit together, rather they are a kaleidoscope of
many different forms which often conflict and
How dare you
spy on me? I’m seem to be in opposition to each other.’
going to the
union It is because of this that rich pictures
should be developed to represent ‘…both
subjective and objective perceptions of the
problem situation in diagrammatic and
pictorial form…’ (ibid). This makes it clear
I don’t like working
from home – I miss
Another traffic jam
– I wish I could work why rich pictures must show the structures
Oh no! The boss will
my workmates from home!
and processes that exist within the problem
find out that I’ve been
sending personal situation, and why there must be a shared
e-mails in work time
– I’ll lose my job appreciation of the problem situation between
the various actors involved. To pick up on an

January 2007 student accountant 69

technical

earlier point, without including recognisable will be found amusing or offensive by those because they alter existing power structures,
structures and processes, the problem within any given problem situation. Humour or because they will cause unemployment
situation as represented in a rich picture might is subjective and culturally bound and what of long-term loyal staff, and so on. Indeed,
only make sense to the person drawing it. may appear as a humorous approach or rich pictures often illustrate actors’ different
remark in one organisation might be viewed perceptions of previous IT solutions, thus
Surfacing the informal organisation as an unwarranted attack against widely-held giving the analyst clues as to what IT
Allied to the above, rich picture development cultural beliefs in another. development projects or approaches are likely
can surface not only the formal but also the to lead to acceptance or rejection in the future.
informal organisation. When analysing the Surfacing the real problem instead of Often, the analyst is presented with
problem situation, official documentation attempting to cure the symptoms a ‘solution’ at the outset of an SSM
should give good coverage of what processes SSM is not, as is often mistakenly stated, investigation, such as the observation from
and information flows should be present, but a systems development methodology in its the client that, for example, a new e-mail
the reality is often far removed, with people own right, but it can be used to good effect in system is required because users don’t like
finding different ways to do things, for example feasibility, analysis, and requirements elicitation the current e-mail system. Through the
by circumventing ‘difficult’ or unpopular (as well as subsequent) stages to discover if drawing of rich pictures, and the subsequent
procedures. Without these informal methods, potential technical ‘solutions’ are likely to be discussion they generate, it may become
most organisations would find it difficult to culturally, politically, and ethically acceptable to obvious that e-mail system usage is not the
work, because the informal way of doing those within the problem situation. problem, but rather the visible symptom of a
things modifies and eventually subsumes the Many technically-sound IT projects fail more subtle (set of) problem(s). For example,
formal way (if not controlled). If a ‘solution’ to because they do not fit the culture of the users may have had inadequate training
a problem situation does not take into account organisation in which they are introduced, or on the e-mail system, or may operate in a
the informal organisation then it is likely to be
rejected.
FIGURE 4: EXCERPT FROM A RICH PICTURE DEVELOPED AS PART OF AN SSM ANALYSIS
Adding a humorous element INTO OUTSOURCING ISSUES
An emergent property of drawing rich pictures
is that, being cartoon-like, a humorous
element can be introduced (sometimes
unconsciously) by the analyst. The benefit
of introducing humour into rich pictures is
that difficult situations can be presented
in a non-threatening way. For example,
if a discussion between widely differing
viewpoints within the problem situation might
become acrimonious, a humorous pictorial
representation of these differing viewpoints
can diffuse a potentially explosive situation:
‘…[the] intentionally light-hearted depiction
of the situation focused attention upon
a contentious issue in a non-threatening
manner, and useful discussions resulted that
might not otherwise have occurred… an
understanding of the politics of the situation
(from the stream of cultural enquiry) and the
context in which the diagram would be used,
justified making a joke of a very serious issue’
(Lewis, 1994).
Care has to be taken when adding a
humorous element, however, because it
is easy, especially in the early stages of
analysis, to misjudge whether ‘humour’

70 student accountant January 2007


culture where face to face consultation is
preferred to communicating by e-mail, or they
may prefer a telephone conversation where
human attributes (such as mood) can be
better judged. In this instance, implementing
a new e-mail system is unlikely to impact on
the real underlying problems. In addition, a
new e-mail system is likely to be viewed as
a failure in turn if introduced as a ‘knee-jerk’
response to an incorrectly identified problem.
Indeed, the ‘logical’ solution in these
circumstances will often exacerbate the
problem situation with, perhaps, a failed
new e-mail system provoking management
to attempt to force system use by imposing
punitive control measures.
This illustrates that rich pictures can
help to surface the real underlying problem
where other techniques might waste time and
resources on trying to solve only the visible
symptoms, believing that these symptoms are
the problem: ‘For every issue raised one may
ask questions such as: Is this really a problem
or merely a symptom of some other malaise?’
(Lewis, 1994). Avison and Fitzgerald (1988)
concur, stating, ‘Rich pictures…may stimulate
the drawing out of some of the parts of the
‘iceberg’ which normally lies hidden when
using traditional methods of investigation.’
They point out further that rich pictures should
only be used to surface these problems and
not to recommend solutions, though this point
could be argued.
EXCERPT FROM A RICH PICTURE
DEVELOPED AS PART OF AN SSM
ANALYSIS INTO OUTSOURCING ISSUES
Figure 4 on page 70 is redrawn (so as
to isolate several particular and related
aspects of a more widely-focused problem
situation) from a much larger rich picture,
which was originally developed as part of an
undergraduate research project, the output
from which then formed the basis for a
successful postgraduate research project. It
illustrates the problem situation of outsourcing
IS/IT, and comprises physical and abstract
elements including structures, processes,
relationships, power struggles, conflicts and
other issues which ‘reveal a rich moving
pageant of relationships’ (Checkland and
Scholes, 1990) by incorporating both objective
and subjective elements, such as ‘official’
points of view and subjective bias (including
that of the analyst).
The rich picture was developed to
investigate the specific problem situation of
what makes an equitable IS/IT outsourcing
contract, how it can be best managed and how
the ensuing relationship between client and
vendor is affected. No key is used because the
picture and its elements are either labelled or
are unambiguous in the context of the problem
situation. Successful outsourcing contracts can
help the client to achieve major benefits such
as cost savings, access to specialised skills,
improved quality of service, flexible resourcing,
and releasing of management to concentrate
on core business activities.
However, the rich picture surfaces many
problems associated with outsourcing including
dependency on vendors, loss of confidentiality
of corporate data, difficult contract terms that
tend to benefit the vendor, contract ‘lock-in’,
loss of expertise, and loss of competitive
advantage among other potential undesirable
emergent properties, such as loss of staff
potentially leading to industrial action. The
picture shows how both parties view the
relationship and the different ideas they are
likely to have as regards what would constitute
a successful contractual agreement.
CONCLUSION
Development of rich pictures can be seen to
be useful in many ways, such as providing
a quick and easy understanding of complex
situations, but it is useful to dwell on a final
point: ‘…the value of rich picture diagramming
lies in the process rather than in the product
of the process… the novelty of rich picture
diagrams has often led to this being forgotten,
with the emphasis being placed upon the
diagram rather than the process by which it is
produced’ (Lewis, 1994).
Those new to SSM tend to over-emphasise
the role of rich pictures (Lewis, 1994). It is
a useful method for generating appreciation
and meaningful discussion about a problem
situation, but any technique that does the
same might be just as good. The best reason
for developing rich pictures over and above
technical
any other technique, is that rich pictures allow
a holistic view to be built up, rather than
engendering a reductionist view of the problem
situation. If a rich picture neither conveys any
meaning to the various actors in the problem
situation, nor generates any meaningful
discussion, then the rich picture is not worth
doing. It is only by bringing appreciation,
thereby surfacing relevant issues, that a rich
picture justifies its existence.
REFERENCES
1 Akers-Smith L, The Road Less Travelled:
The Role of SSM in Recovery from
Alcoholism, Systemist, 26 (2), pp 84–96,
2004.
2 Avison D and Fitzgerald G, Information
Systems Development, Oxford: Blackwell,
1988.
3 Checkland P, Systems Thinking, Systems
Practice, Chichester: John Wiley, 1981.
4 Checkland P, Soft Systems Methodology:
a 30 Year Retrospective, in: Soft Systems
Methodology in Action, Chichester: John
Wiley, 1999.
5 Checkland P and Scholes J, Soft Systems
Methodology in Action, Chichester: John
Wiley, 1990 (in 1999 edition).
6 Davies L and Ledington P, Information
in Action: Soft Systems Methodology,
Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991.
7 Flood R and Jackson M, Creative Problem
Solving: Total Systems Intervention,
Chichester: John Wiley, 1991.
8 Lewis P, Information-Systems
Development, London: Pitman, 1994.
9 Lynch M, The Use of Soft Systems
Methodology in Multi-Voiced Groups, in:
Anon (Ed) Organizing in a Multi-voiced
World, Leuven, Belgium 4–6 June 1997,
Brussels, The European Institute for
Advanced Studies in Management and
K U Leuven, Department of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 2/2, 1997.
Dr George Bakehouse is examiner for
Paper 3.4. Tony Wakefield, Dr Kevin
Doyle, and Tom Barnes are lecturers at the
University of the West of England, Bristol,
UK. Mark Clinton Jones is a technical
writer/trainer at the University of Bristol
January 2007 student accountant 71