Exploring the Potency of Rich Pictures in a Systemic Lean Intervention Process

  • Daniel E. UfuaEmail author
  • Angie O. I. Adebayo
Original Paper


This paper explores the usefulness of rich pictures as a method in Systemic Lean Intervention (SLI) process. It combines Lean and Systems Thinking analytical tools. Lean emerged with the main objectives of waste identification and removal in an operational system - which is synonymous to cost reduction, and value maximization. The research focuses on the use of rich pictures alongside lean tools such as workshop and interviews in a participatory research process, involving the identified stakeholders who are affected by the operational process. The research applies these tools with the intent to recognise the impacts of the various parts that function together in the operational process. A single case study organisation of a commercial Livestock farm in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria was used. The research found out that the application of rich pictures could be influenced by certain factors like the participants’ interest, power and authority possession of some participants, familiarity with the issues considered, and the participants’ level of background knowledge on the usage of rich pictures. Rich pictures were also found to be time-consuming in its interpretation and application to addressing identified issues.


Commercial farming Operational waste identification Application of rich pictures Systemic lean intervention Affected stakeholders 



  1. Bai C, Satir A, Sarkis J (2018) Investing in lean manufacturing practices: an environmental and operational perspective. Int J Prod Res 1–15Google Scholar
  2. Bell S, Morse S (2013) Rich pictures: a means to explore the ‘sustainable mind’? Sustain Dev 21(1):30–47Google Scholar
  3. Bell S, Berg T, Morse S (2015) Rich pictures–beyond the tipping point in ISDR2015. 1–8
  4. Bell, S., Berg, T. and Morse, S. (2016). Rich Pictures: encouraging a resilient community. Routledge, London and New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Berg T (2015) Rich picture: the role of the facilitator. Syst Pract Action Res 28(1):67–77Google Scholar
  6. Bhasin S (2012) An appropriate change strategy for lean success. Manag Decis 50(3):439–458Google Scholar
  7. Bronte-Stewart M (1999) Regarding rich pictures as tools for communication in information systems development. Comput Inf Syst 6:83–102Google Scholar
  8. Brydon-Miller M (2003) Why action research? Action Res 1(1):9–28Google Scholar
  9. Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley and Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  10. Checkland P (1985) Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons LtdGoogle Scholar
  11. Checkland P (1999) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: includes a 30-year retrospective. John Wiley and Sons, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  12. Checkland P, Poulter J (2006) Learning for action. A short definitive account of soft system methodology and its use for practitioners, teachers and students. England, Wiley and Sons LtdGoogle Scholar
  13. Checkland P, Scholes J (1999) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley and Sons Ltd, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen L, Meng B (2010) The application of value stream mapping based lean production system. Int J Bus Man 5(6):203Google Scholar
  15. Cloutier R, Sauser B, Bone M, Taylor A (2015) Transitioning systems thinking to model-based systems engineering: Systemigrams to SysML models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 45(4):662–674Google Scholar
  16. Cristancho S (2015) Eye opener: exploring complexity using rich pictures. Perspect Med Educ 4:138–141Google Scholar
  17. Cristancho S, Bidinosti S, Lingard L, Novick R, Ott M, Forbes T (2015) Seeing in different ways introducing “rich pictures” in the study of expert judgment. Qual Health Res 25(5):713–725Google Scholar
  18. Cristancho S, Lingard L, Forbes T, Ott M, Novick R (2017) Putting the puzzle together: the role of ‘problem definition’in complex clinical judgement. Med Educ 51(2):207–214Google Scholar
  19. Elbert M (2016) Lean production for the small company. Productivity Press: New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Fountas S, Sorensen CG, Tsiropoulos Z, Cavalaris C, Liakos V, Gemtos T (2015) Farm machinery management information system. Comput Electron Agric 110:131–138Google Scholar
  21. Frerichs L, Lich KH, Dave G, Corbie-Smith G (2016) Integrating systems science and community-based participatory research to achieve health equity. Am J Public Health 106(2):215–222Google Scholar
  22. Gibbert M, Ruigrok W, Wicki B (2008) What passes as a rigorous case study? Strateg Manag J 29:665–1474Google Scholar
  23. Gilliers R, Jackson M (1997) Organisational theory and systems thinking: the benefits of partnership. Organisation 4(2):269–278Google Scholar
  24. Gray D, Brown S, Macanufo J (2010) Gamestorming. O’reilly Media, Inc., SebastopolGoogle Scholar
  25. Grint K (2005) Problems, problems, problems: the social construction of leadership. Hum Relat 58(11):1467–1494Google Scholar
  26. Habib L, Juell E (2014) Before and after Lightfoot/León. Using rich pictures to illustrate an educational journey through the world of opera and ballet. FormAkademisk-Research Journal of Design and Design Education (7)5Google Scholar
  27. Hindle GA, Vidgen R (2018) Developing a business analytics methodology: a case study in the foodbank sector. Eur J Oper Res 268(3):836–851Google Scholar
  28. Hines P, Holweg M, Rich N (2004) Learning to evolve: a review of contemporary lean thinking. Int J Oper Prod Manag 24(10):994–1011Google Scholar
  29. Hogg R (2008) Executive proscription of terrorist organizations in Australia: exploring the shifting border between crime and politics. In Fresh perspectives on the “War on Terror”. ANU E PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Horan P (2000) Using rich pictures in information systems teaching. Proceedings of the first International Conference on Systems Thinking in Management, Geelong, Australia pp 257–262Google Scholar
  31. Jackson MC (2000) System approaches to management. Kluwer academic/plenum Pub, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson CM (2003) System thinking creative holism for managers. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Kesby M (2000) Participatory diagramming: deploying qualitative methods through an action research epistemology. Area 32(4):423–435Google Scholar
  34. Kish K, Bunch MJ, Xu BJ (2016) Soft systems methodologies in action: environment, Health & Shanghai’s elderly. Syst Pract Action Res 29(1):61–77Google Scholar
  35. Kwamina EB, Ockie JHB, Nam CN (2015) A systemic intervention to access resource impact on the quality of life among women farmers in developing countries: evidence from Ghana. Acad J Agric Res 3(2):15–22Google Scholar
  36. Lane DE, Moll RH, Beigzadeh S, O’Sullivan T, Berkes F, Kuziemsky C, Charles A (2017) A system model of collaborative community response to environmental emergencies. Int J Clim Change Impacts Responses 9(4)Google Scholar
  37. Liker JK, Convis GL (2012) The Toyota way to lean leadership. McGraw-Hill, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  38. Liker JK, Hoseus M (2008) Toyota culture: the heart and soul of the Toyota way. McGraw Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Liker JK, Ogden TN (2011) Toyota under fire: lessons for turning crisis into opportunity. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Loosemore M (2010) Using multimedia to effectively engage stakeholders in risk management. Int J Manag Proj Bus 2(2):307–327Google Scholar
  41. McKernan J (1991) Curriculum action research: a handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. KOGAN PAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  42. McNiff J (1998) Action research principles and practice. USA: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer academic/Plenum publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Midgley G (2003) Science as systemic intervention: some implications of systems thinking and complexity for the philosophy of science. Syst Pract Action Res 16(2):77–97Google Scholar
  45. Midgley G, Milne A (1995) Creating employment opportunities for people with mental health problems: A feasibility study for new initiatives. J Oper Res Soc 46(1):35–42Google Scholar
  46. Midgley G, Ochoa-Arias AE (2004) Community operational research. Kluwer Academic, LondonGoogle Scholar
  47. Midgley G, Munlo I, Brown M (1998) The theory and practice of boundary critique: developing housing services for older people. J Oper Res Soc 49(5):467–478Google Scholar
  48. Midgley G, Foote J, Ahuriri-Driscoll A, Wood D (2007) Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic and participative methods. Proceedings of the 51st Annual Conference of the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Tokyo, Japan, 5-10 AugustGoogle Scholar
  49. Odukoya JA, Adekeye O, Igbinoba AO, Afolabi A (2018) Item analysis of university-wide multiple choice objective examinations: the experience of a Nigerian private university. Qual Quant 52(3):983–997Google Scholar
  50. Papadopoulos T, Radnor Z, And Merali Y (2011) The role of actor associations in understanding the implementation of lean thinking in healthcare. Int J Oper Prod Manag 31(2):167–191Google Scholar
  51. Percy R (2005) The contribution of transformative learning theory to the practice of participatory research and extension: theoretical reflections. Agric Hum Values 22(2):127–136Google Scholar
  52. Rapoport A (1970) Three dilemmas in action research. Hum Relat 23:499Google Scholar
  53. Rittel WJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169Google Scholar
  54. Santos A, Powell JA (2001) Assessing the level of team work in Brazilian and English construction sites. Leadersh Org Dev J 22(4):166–174Google Scholar
  55. Senge PM (2006) The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organisation. UK. MackaysGoogle Scholar
  56. Shah R, Ward PT (2003) Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance. J Oper Manag 21(2):129–149Google Scholar
  57. Stanton NA, Mcllory RC (2012) Designing mission communication planning: the role of rich pictures and cognitive work analysis. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 13(2):146–168Google Scholar
  58. Tsang EWK (2014) Generalisation from research findings: the merits of case studies. Int J Manag Rev 16:369–383Google Scholar
  59. Ufua DE (2015) Enhancing lean interventions through the use of systems thinking in the food production industry: a case in the Niger Delta Region, Nigeria. PhD Thesis, Hull: University of Hull, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  60. Ufua, DE, Papadopoulos, T, Midgley, G (2015) Enhancing Lean Interventions through the use of Systems Thinking in the food production industry: A case in the Niger Delta region of Nigeria. In proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of ISSS. July27th-Aug. 1st. Washington D.C. USA. ISSN 1999–6918Google Scholar
  61. Ufua DE, Papadopoulos T, Midgley G (2018) Systemic lean intervention: enhancing lean with community operational research. Eur J Oper Res 268(3):1134–1148Google Scholar
  62. Venters W, Cushman M, Cornford, T (2003) Creating knowledge for sustainability: using SSM for describing knowledge environments and conceptualising technological interventions. London School of Economics and Political ScienceGoogle Scholar
  63. White SM (2015) Systems theory, systems thinking. In Systems Conference (SysCon), 2015 9th Annual IEEE International (pg. 420–425). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  64. Williams MC (1998) Interpreting rich pictures symbolically. Syst Res 15:55–59Google Scholar
  65. Williams MC (1999) Rich pictures on the path towards systemic being. Syst Res Behav Sci 16:369–373Google Scholar
  66. Williams P (2002) The competent boundary spanner. Public Adm 80(1):103–124Google Scholar
  67. Williams A, Kennedy S, Philipp F, Whiteman G (2017) Systems thinking: a review of sustainability management research. J Clean Prod 148:866–881Google Scholar
  68. Wilson B (1984) Systems: concepts, methodologies, and applications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  69. Womack JP, Jones DT (2005) Lean solutions. Simon and Schuster, LondonGoogle Scholar
  70. Womack JP, Jones DT (2010) Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Simon and Schuster, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Yamamoto Y, Bellgran M (2010) Fundamental mindset that drives improvements towards lean production. Assem Autom 30(2):124–130Google Scholar
  72. Yin RK (1994) Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research. Eval Pract 15(3):283–290Google Scholar
  73. Yin RK (2004) Case study research design and methods, 4th edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  74. Yin RK (2013) Case study research: design and methods. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  75. Zabbey N, Vincent-Akpu IF, Etela I (2014) Green economy: challenges and prospects for improved aquatic agricultural system (AAS) in Niger delta communities. Environment 3(6–1):28–35Google Scholar
  76. Zhan Y, Tan KH, Ji G, Chung L, Chiu AS (2018) Green and lean sustainable development path in China: Guanxi, practices and performance. Resour Conserv Recycl 128:240–249Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business ManagementCovenant UniversityOtaNigeria
  2. 2.Department of Mass CommunicationCovenant UniversityOtaNigeria

Personalised recommendations