AN UPDATED REVIEW ON THE CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL RICH PICTURE BUILDING EXERCISES (RPBEs) IN P.B. CHECKLAND’S SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY (SSM)

1516
AMERICAN RESEARCH THOUGHTS
ISSN: 2392 – 876X
Available online at: www.researchthoughts.us
http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1425133
Volume 1 │ Issue 7 │ May 2015
Impact Factor: 2.0178 (UIF)
AN UPDATED REVIEW ON THE
CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL
RICH PICTURE BUILDING EXERCISES (RPBEs)
IN P.B. CHECKLAND’S SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY
(SSM)
Joseph Kim-Keung Ho
Independent Trainer, Hong Kong, China
Abstract: The topic of rich picture building exercise (RPBE) comes from the Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM) of P.B. Checkland in the early 80s. Since then, it has been studied and reported
in the academic literature. The recent academic works inspires the writer to review this topic and
argues that the mainstream study on RPBE can be considered as a conventional RPBE. The paper
then points out that there is also an unconventional RPBE which has been neglected in the academic
community. It reasons that the unconventional RPBE is also useful to express the problem situation,
which is what stage 2 of the conventional SSM is all about. The unconventional RPBE can be
conducted either solely or as a complementary exercise with the conventional RPBE. A number of
RPBE options are identified in the discussion. The paper is intended to contribute to the theoretical
development of the RPBE.
Key Words: Problem situation; Relationship-managing organization; Rich picture building
exercise (RPBE) options; Soft Complexity; System Complexity model; Soft Systems
Methodology (SSM)
INTRODUCTION
The topic of rich picture building has been discussed since the first publication of P.B.
Checkland’s seminal work on the Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) (Checkland, 1981).
In the 90s, the rich picture building exercise (RPBE) has also been explained by other
writers’ works on Soft Systems Methodology, such as Checkland and Scholes (1990),

Joseph Kim-Keung Ho- AN UPDATED REVIEW ON THE CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL RICH
PICTURE BUILDING EXERCISES (RPBEs) IN P.B. CHECKLAND’S SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY (SSM)
1517
AMERICAN RESEARCH THOUGHTS- Volume 1 │ Issue 7│2015
Flood and Jackson (1991) and Bell and Wood-Harper (1998). In the present day,
teaching materials on RPBE can be found on the Internet, e.g., Open University (2015),
Gore (2009) and Oakden (2015). The research interest with the RPBE arises recently with
a number of newly published academic works on the RPBE, i.e., Bell and Morse (2013a;
2013b), Berg (2015), Berg and Pooley (2013), Pain (2015), Walker et al. (2014) and Horan
(2000). Specifically, the recent works on the RPBE cover the following topics:
 Walker et al. (2014): The RPBE can be employed to evaluate project delivery.
 Berg (2015): The work examines (i) how the RPBE can be employed to more
comprehensively identify user requirements for an information system project in
a complex situation and (ii) how to facilitate a collaborative group to conduct the
RPBE.
 Bell and Morse (2013a) studies the ‚group processes‛ and ‚diverse use of
pictures‛ involved in the RPBE.
 Bell and Morse (2013b) applies the RPBE to help a group of participants to
perform ‚problem identification and action planning‛.
 Berg and Pooley (2013) examines a set of generic ‚distinguishable icons and
shapes for the RPBE, which reveals ‚a natural intrinsic grammar‛ within rich
pictures.
These recent works on the RPBE stimulate the writer to conduct an updated literature
review on the RPBE to contribute intellectually to this topic.
AN ACCOUNT OF THE CONVENTIONAL RICH PICTURE BUILDING EXERCISE
A rich picture is ‚a simplistic pictorial representation of the problem as perceived by
those embroiled within the ‚problem situation‛.‛ (Walker et al, 2014). It heeds the
wisdom of the adage that ‚a picture tells a thousand words‛. With regard to the
conventional mode of SSM, which has seven stages, the rich picture building exercise
(RPBE) is a technique employed in stage 2 (‚Problem situation expressed‛). This stage
follows logically from SSM stage 1 (‚Problem situation considered problematic‛)
(Checkland and Scholes, 1999). The RPBE follows a number of steps (Ho, 2012):
Step 1: Formulate a problem theme.
Step 2: On a piece of paper, do the following:
Step 2.1: Draw the main stakeholders and clearly label them.

1518
Step 2.2: Relate the stakeholders to (i) intangible structures, e.g., organization
charts or different forms of grouping and (ii) tangible structures, e.g., buildings
and equipment.
Step 2.3: Relate the stakeholders and structures to relevant processes, e.g.,
communication processes, workflow processes and business processes, etc.
Step 2.4: Write down the main concerns of various stakeholders and use the
‚eye‛ symbols to indicate the directions of attention of stakeholders, if required.
Step 2.5: Write down the main conflicts between stakeholders with the symbols of
‚swords‛.
The following diagram (re: Figure 1) is an illustrative example of a rich picture on the
theme of part-time teaching as an entertainer on accounting taken from Ho (2007),
which (i) examines the teaching activity of part-time accounting students preparing for
professional examination primarily from a teacher-cum-entertainer’s perspective and
(ii) explores opportunities for employing hybrid learning methods in this education
sector.

1519
From the rich picture of Figure 1, the main rich picture elements can be identified as
follows:
Element 1: Stakeholders and their concerns:
 Teachers as entertainers; their concerns are: (i) It is unpleasant to try to make
frequent quotations of past exam questions in lecturing, and (ii) How to make the
teaching process enjoyable and make a reasonable income from this job?
 Profit-making accounting educational institutes; their concerns are: (i) How to
enroll more students to our courses, and (ii) How to gain market share in the
accounting education sector?
 Other higher educational institutes/ universities; their concern is: How to recruit
accounting students to study for our programmes?
 Accounting students; their concern is: How to pass the professional
examinations, given the tremendous day-time workload and the substantial
exam materials to master in a short period of time?
 Students studying for other business disciplines; their concern is: Studying for
professional accounting exam is tough for me!
 Employers; their concern is: How to make sure that the employees will be
dedicated to their daily work?
 ACCA (a professional accounting body); its concerns are: (i) How to build up a
competent group of members with a satisfactory size of membership worldwide
and (ii) How to ensure that our professional qualification is recognized
worldwide as a good accounting qualification?
 IT vendors; their concern is: How to sell user-friendly IT-based solutions for
hybrid learning to the education sector?
Element 2: Directions of attention *the ‚eye‛ symbols+:
 IT vendors pay attention to opportunities of selling IT-based solutions for hybrid
learning to the marketplace.
 Employers pay attention to how accounting students’ part-time study can affect
their daily work performance.
 Other higher educational institutes/ universities pay attention to the competitive
activities from profit-making accounting educational institutes in the
marketplace.

1520
 Other professional accounting bodies pay attention to how ACCA’s activities
affect their own member recruitment performance.
 Students studying for other business disciplines pay attention to accounting
students’ professional exam performance to gauge the accounting exam
difficulties.
Element 3: Tangible structures:
 Examples are: (i) the Internet, (ii) Buildings with classrooms, and (iii) ACCA
website.
Element 4: Intangible structures:
 No explicit examples; one can say that accounting students are student members
of ACCA, so they belong to one professional group, which is an intangible
structure.
Element 5: Processes:
 Examples include: (i) teachers and accounting students travel to classrooms, (ii)
ACCA builds and maintains its website to serve its members, and (iii) the ACCA
website delivers online services to its members.
Element 6: Conflicts *the ‚swords’ symbols+:
 Examples of conflicts and disagreements are those between: (i) teachers and
accounting students, (ii) employers and their employees who are accounting
students, and (iii) teachers and profit-making accounting educational institutes.
The RPBE is similar to a brainstorming sesson (Flood and Carson, 1988). It is intended
not only to express ‚emotion, human and soft issues‛ (Walker et al., 2014) and the
stakeholder-participants’ ‚subconscious‛ and ‚conflicted understandings‛ (Bell and
Morse, 2013a) of the problem situation but also, more importantly, to portray the
situation’s soft complexity, i.e., as a number of interacting elements as well as
differences in perceptions and conflicts among various stakeholders. Due to soft
complexity, it is not imediately clear what can be done to improve the situation. Such
soft complexity is considered to be prevalent in organizations that are perceived to be a
relationship-managing organization (Ho, 2015) (re: the appendix). The nature and extent

1521
of soft complexity as manifested in the rich picture constructed for the problem
situation can be further clarified by means of the System Complexity Model of Hoi (Ho,
1986; Ho, 2014a; Ho and Sculli, 1995). Subsequently, the rich picture informs the
generation of insightful ideas which are relevant for producing ‚systemically desirable
and culturally feasible change‛ (Checkland and Scholes, 1990) to impove the situation
in a never-ending collective learning process that makes use of systems thinking.
AN ACCOUNT OF THE UNCONVENTIONAL RICH PICTURE BUILDING
EXERCISE
Other than the conventional RPBE, it has been suggested by Ho in 1986 that there are
other diagrammatic ways to express the problem situation besides using the pictorial
cartoon format. Writings on such an unconventional RPBE are Ho (1986), Ho and
Jackson (1987) and Ho and Sculli (1994). These published works have been around for
30 years but have been ignored by the academic community. The unconventional RPBE
is prepared to make use of various management concepts and instruments, such as
Mintzberg’s (1983) organization model of ‚structure in fives‛, Ansoff’s (1984) strategic
management rating forms and Eden et al.’s (1983) cognitive mapping, to express the
problem situation in diagrammatic forms. The rationale for doing so is explained by Ho
and Jackson (1987) as follows:
‚Checkland suggests building a rich picture by examining a problem situation for
elements of structure… and process… and looking at the relationship between the two –
the climate… Checkland does not go into detail on how to study the relationship
between structure, process, climate and environment. Two other theorists can be used to
enrich Checkland’s thinking here. Henry Mintzberg’s approach …to describing
organizations provides a way to study the interaction of structure, process, climate and
environment…. Also, it can be argued that Igor Ansoff’s approach …is helpful…
According to Ansoff… the more turbulent the external environment, the more
aggressive the process be… ‛
A case study application of this unconventional RPBE is Ho (1986), which was
subsequently reported in Ho and Jackson (1987) and its underlying rationale was
i The System Complexity Model is made up of the following components: (i) the nature of the system under
consideration, (ii) a particular system under consideration, (iii) the analyst’s/ decision-maker’s ability to cope
with complexity, (iv) the analyst(s)/ decision-maker(s) with specific objectives and resources, (v) ability to
observe and intervene, and, finally, (vi) real world situation (Ho, 2014a).

1522
further elaborated on by Ho and Sculli (1994). Table 1 compares the conventional and
unconventional RPBE in a summarized way, based on Checkland and Scholes (1990),
Ho and Sculli (1994), Ho (1996; 2014b; 2015) and Ho and Jackson (1987).
The conventional RPBE The unconventional RPBE
Applied in stage 2 of the conventional Soft
Systems Methodology (Checkand and Scholes,
1990).
Applied in stage 2 of the conventional Soft
Systems Methodology (Checkand and Scholes,
1990).
Use cartoons and pictures (Checkand and
Scholes, 1990).
Use management models, rating forms and
cognitive maps (Ho, 1996; Ho and Jackson,
1987; Ho and Sculli, 1994)ii to produce
diagrams as rich pictures.
Avoid systems language in the diagram (Ho
and Sculli, 1984).
Does not avoid systems language and
academic jargons in the diagrams (Ho and
Sculli, 1984).
In line with the soft systems version of the
relationship-managing organization notion
(Ho, 2014b). Also see the appendix.
In line with the hard systems, soft systems,
emancipator systems and post-modern
versions of the relationship-managing
organization notion (Ho, 2014b; 2015).
Table 1: A comparison of the conventional and unconventional RPBE
Both the conventional and unconventional RPBEs involve using diagrams and pictures
of all sorts. For Bell and Morse (2013b), using diagrams and pictures as ‚a means to aid
the thinking process is now a well-trodden path‛. Nevertheless, until now, this writer
has been the primary proponent of the unconventional RPBE for stage 2 of the SSM in
the academic community. All the recent works on the RPBE, e.g., Bell and Morse (2013a;
2013b), Berg (2015), Berg and Pooley (2013) and Walker et al. (2014), have all directed
their attention to the conventional RPBE. It can also be said that the academic
community is unfamiliar with the works on the unconventional RPBE though they have
been around for many years. This is, in this writer’s view, not a satisfactory situation
because the unconventional RPBE is also useful, by depicting the inter-relatedness of
structures, processes, climate and the environment of a problem situation with
management and other social science theories (Ho and Jackson, 1987). It can be
ii It is possible that certain problem situations do not involve strategic management or organizational design
issues. In this case, the unconventional RPBE is quite willing to apply other concepts and approaches to portray
the structures, processes and the environment of the problem situation. Cognitive mapping remains useful for
exploring these problem situations.

1523
employed to portray a complex problem situation either by itself or as a complementary
exercise with the conventional RPBE. Table 2 makes explicit the options available for
RPBE when both the conventional and unconventional RPBEs are recognized.
Group-based learning Individual-based learning
The conventional RPBE Option 1 Option 2
The unconventional RPBE Option 3 Option 4
Table 2: Options available for the rich picture building exercise
Referring to Table 2, the RPBE can be conducted by a group of participants as a
brainstorming session or by an analyst as an individual learning endeavour. This is
indicated in the column labels of ‚Group-based learning‛ and ‚Individual-based
learning‛. Sometimes, due to cultural and political reasons, it is not feasible to for a
researcher to conduct a SSM/group-based collaborative learning process (i.e., group-
based learning); nevertheless, the researcher is still able to employ SSM, including the
RPBE, as a personal self-reflection tool, to facilitate an individual-based learning. Table
2 also covers the two types of RPBE, i.e., the conventional and the unconventional
RPBE. With these two dimensions (group-based/ individual-based;
conventional/unconventional), the following six RPBE options are distinguished:
Option 1: Use the conventional RPBE for group-based learning
Option 2: Use the conventional RPBE for individual-based learning
Option 3: Use the unconventional RPBE for group-based learning
Option 4: Use the unconventional RPBE for individual-based learning
Option 5: Use options 1 and 3 together for group-based learning
Option 6: Use options 2 and 4 together for individual-based learning
The mainstream systems thinking literature on the RPBE primarily studies option 1
while the writings on the unconventional RPBE, e.g., Ho (1986) and Ho and Jackson
(1987), mainly focus on options 3 and 4. Now, Table 2 reveals additional RPBE options
that can be investigated in future research works and offers choices for RPBE
practitioners.

1524
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The substantial content about the conventional RPBE in the academic literature and on
the Internet indicates that it has been a popular topic in both the academic world and
the world of management practices. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that the
unconventional RPBE has been neglected by the academic community - it actually has
practical value in expressing a problem situation, which is the main task of stage 2 in
the conventional SSM and is complementary to the conventional RPBE. In other words,
the unconventional RPBE is able to enrich the whole RPBE. Furthermore, studying the
unconventional RPBE can improve our knowledge of the conventional RPBE, because
the two RPBEs are quite different in their practices and draw on different sources of
ideas. By examining both the conventional and unconventional RPBEs, this paper
creates a broader space of imagination to make theoretical development on the RPBE
topic.
BIBLOGRAPHY:
1. Ansoff, H.I. 1984. Implanting Strategic Management. Prentice/ Hall International.
Englewood Cliffs. New Jersey.
2. Bell, S. and S. Morse. 2013a. ‚How People Use Rich Pictures to Help Them Think
and Act‛ Systemic Practice and Action Research 26. Springer: 331-348.
3. Bell, S. and S. Morse. 2013b. ‚Rich Pictures: A Means to Explore the ‘Sustainable
Mind’?‛ Sustainable Development 21. Wiley: 30-47.
4. Bell, S. and T. Wood-Harper. 1998. Rapid Information Systems Development: a non-
specialist’s guide to analysis and design in an imperfect world 2/e. The McGraw-Hill
Companies. London.
5. Berg, T. 2015. ‚Rich Picture: The Role of the Facilitator‛ Systemic Practice and
Action Research 28. Springer: 67-77.
6. Berg, T. and R. Pooley. 2013. ‚Rich Pictures: Collaborative Communication
Through Icons‛ Systemic Practice and Action Research 26. Springer: 361-376.
7. Checkland, P.B. 1981. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. Wiley. Chichester.
8. Checkland, P.B. and J. Scholes. 1990. Soft Systems Methodology in Action. Wiley.
Chichester.

1525
9. Eden, C., S. Jones and D. Sims. 1983. Messing about in Problems: An informal
structured approach to their identification and management. Pergamon press. Oxford.
10. Flood, R.L. and E.R. Carson. 1988. Dealing with Complexity: An Introduction to the
Theory and Application of Systems Science. Plenum. New York. NY.
11. Flood, R.L. and M.C. Jackson. 1991. Creative Problem Solving: Total Systems
Intervention. Wiley. Chichester.
12. Gore, T. 2009. ‚Tom Gore Rich Picture‛ cipelcov November 4 (url address:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TfRiC0ty8s) [visited at May 12, 2015].
13. Ho, J.K.K. 1986. A study of problem contexts, problems, and attempted solutions using
systems concepts at Harlands of Hull. MA in Management Systems thesis.
Department of Management Systems and Sciences. The University of Hull. UK.
14. Ho, J.K.K. 2007. ‚Teaching information systems subjects to part-time accounting
students in HK from an entertainer’s perspective‛ Proceedings of Symposium on
Hybrid Learning 2007, on July 9 at Open University, HK, organized by HK Web
Symposium Consortium: 66-77.
15. Ho, J.K.K. 2012. ‚Basic steps to construct a rich picture‛ Joseph KK Ho e-resources
blog July 31. (url address: http://josephho33.blogspot.hk/2012/07/basic-steps-to-
construct-rich-picture.html) [visited at May 12, 2015].
16. Ho, J.K.K. 2014a. ‚An Elaboration of a Systems-based Housing Imagination
Evaluation Framework for Research and Pedagogical Practices‛ European
Academic Research 2(4) July: 5099-5121.
17. Ho, J.K.K. 2014b. ‚Using the Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong as an
illustrative case study on the relationship-managing organization (RMO) notion
in Soft Systems Thinking‛ European Academic Research 2(9) December: 11847-
11879.
18. Ho, J.K.K. 2015. ‚A Multi-perspective, Systems-based (MPSB) knowledge
compilation exercise on the notion of relationship-managing organization
(RMO)‛ European Academic Research 2(10) Jan..: 13113-13127.
19. Ho, J.K.K. and D. Sculli. 1994. ‚Organizational Theory and Soft Systems
Methodologies‛ Journal of Management Development 13(7). MCB University Press:
47-58.
20. Ho, J.K.K. and D. Sculli. 1995. ‚System Complexity and the Design of Decision
Support Systems‛, pp. 505-516, Systems Practice 8 (5). Plenum Press.

1526
21. Ho, J.K.K. and M.C. Jackson. 1987. ‚Building a ‚rich picture‛ and assessing a
‚quality management‛ program at Thornton Printing Company‛ Cybernetics and
Systems: An International Journal 18: 381-405.
22. Horan, P. 2000. ‚Using Rich Pictures in Information Systems Teaching‛ Ist
International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management. (url address:
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-72/039%20Horan%20SSM.pdf) [visited at May 12, 2015].
23. Mintzberg, H. 1983. Structure in Fives. Prentice-Hall International. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.
24. Oakden, J. 2015. ‚Soft Systems Methodology: The Use of Rich Pictures from
Evaluation‛ Fourth Webinar in the 2015 Series April 8. (url address:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7CTREXtFuk) [visited at May 12, 2015].
25. Open University. 2015. ‚Rich picture‛ Systems Thinking and Practice: Diagramming
– T552. Open University, U.K. (url address:
http://systems.open.ac.uk/materials/T552/) [visited at May 12, 2015].
26. Pain, A. 2015. ‚Rich pictures‛ Sustainable sanitation and water management
(SSWM) (url address: http://www.sswm.info/content/rich-pictures) [visited at
May 12, 2015].
27. Walker, D., P. Steinfort and T. Maqsood. 2014. ‚Stakeholder voices through rich
pictures‛ International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 7(3). Emerald: 342-
361.

1527
APPENDIX
Underlying worldviews of the four versions of relationship-managing organization
(RMO)
RMO (Hard Systems
version) [RMO-hsv]
RMO (Soft Systems
version) [RMO-ssv]
RMO (Emancipatory
Systems version)
[RMO-esv]
RMO (Postmodern
Systems version
[RMO-psv]
Primary
organizational
concerns
Efficiency, efficacy,
viability, effectiveness
Primary
organizational
concerns
Effectiveness,
elegance
Primary
organizational
concerns
Empowerment,
emancipation, ethics
Primary
organizational
concerns
Exception, emotion
engagement, fun,
ethics
Related theories of
management
The traditional model
Human relations
model
Related theories of
management
Human resources
model
Related theories of
management
Human resources
model
Related theories of
management
Critical postmodern
organization theory
Organizational
metaphors
Machines, organisms
Organizational
metaphors
Organisms, brains
cultures,
communities,
Organizational
metaphors
Psychic prisons,
political systems,
coercive systems
Organizational
metaphors
Carnivals
Re: Ho (2015)

AN UPDATED REVIEW ON THE CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL RICH PICTURE BUILDING EXERCISES (RPBEs) IN P.B. CHECKLAND’S SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY (SSM)

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (17)

Similar to AN UPDATED REVIEW ON THE CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL RICH PICTURE BUILDING EXERCISES (RPBEs) IN P.B. CHECKLAND’S SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY (SSM) (20)

More from American Research Thoughts (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

AN UPDATED REVIEW ON THE CONVENTIONAL AND UNCONVENTIONAL RICH PICTURE BUILDING EXERCISES (RPBEs) IN P.B. CHECKLAND’S SOFT SYSTEMS METHODOLOGY (SSM)