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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Bai C, Satir A, Sarkis J (2018) Investing in lean manufacturing practices: an environmental and operational perspective. Int J Prod Res 1–15

  2. Bell S, Morse S (2013) Rich pictures: a means to explore the ‘sustainable mind’? Sustain Dev 21(1):30–47

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bell S, Berg T, Morse S (2015) Rich pictures–beyond the tipping point in ISDR2015. oro.open.ac.uk. 1–8

  4. Bell, S., Berg, T. and Morse, S. (2016). Rich Pictures: encouraging a resilient community. Routledge, London and New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berg T (2015) Rich picture: the role of the facilitator. Syst Pract Action Res 28(1):67–77

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bhasin S (2012) An appropriate change strategy for lean success. Manag Decis 50(3):439–458

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bronte-Stewart M (1999) Regarding rich pictures as tools for communication in information systems development. Comput Inf Syst 6:83–102

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brydon-Miller M (2003) Why action research? Action Res 1(1):9–28

    Google Scholar 

  9. Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley and Sons, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  10. Checkland P (1985) Systems thinking, systems practice. Chichester, John Wiley and Sons Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  11. Checkland P (1999) Systems Thinking, Systems Practice: includes a 30-year retrospective. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester

    Google 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 Ltd

    Google Scholar 

  13. Checkland P, Scholes J (1999) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley and Sons Ltd, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Chen L, Meng B (2010) The application of value stream mapping based lean production system. Int J Bus Man 5(6):203

    Google 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):662–674

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cristancho S (2015) Eye opener: exploring complexity using rich pictures. Perspect Med Educ 4:138–141

    Google 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):713–725

    Google 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):207–214

    Google Scholar 

  19. Elbert M (2016) Lean production for the small company. Productivity Press: New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Fountas S, Sorensen CG, Tsiropoulos Z, Cavalaris C, Liakos V, Gemtos T (2015) Farm machinery management information system. Comput Electron Agric 110:131–138

    Google 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):215–222

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gibbert M, Ruigrok W, Wicki B (2008) What passes as a rigorous case study? Strateg Manag J 29:665–1474

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gilliers R, Jackson M (1997) Organisational theory and systems thinking: the benefits of partnership. Organisation 4(2):269–278

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gray D, Brown S, Macanufo J (2010) Gamestorming. O’reilly Media, Inc., Sebastopol

    Google Scholar 

  25. Grint K (2005) Problems, problems, problems: the social construction of leadership. Hum Relat 58(11):1467–1494

    Google 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)5

  27. Hindle GA, Vidgen R (2018) Developing a business analytics methodology: a case study in the foodbank sector. Eur J Oper Res 268(3):836–851

    Google 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):994–1011

    Google 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 Press

  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 257–262

  31. Jackson MC (2000) System approaches to management. Kluwer academic/plenum Pub, New York

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jackson CM (2003) System thinking creative holism for managers. John Wiley and Sons Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kesby M (2000) Participatory diagramming: deploying qualitative methods through an action research epistemology. Area 32(4):423–435

    Google 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):61–77

    Google 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):15–22

    Google 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, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  38. Liker JK, Hoseus M (2008) Toyota culture: the heart and soul of the Toyota way. McGraw Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  39. Liker JK, Ogden TN (2011) Toyota under fire: lessons for turning crisis into opportunity. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  40. Loosemore M (2010) Using multimedia to effectively engage stakeholders in risk management. Int J Manag Proj Bus 2(2):307–327

    Google Scholar 

  41. McKernan J (1991) Curriculum action research: a handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. KOGAN PAGE, London

    Google Scholar 

  42. McNiff J (1998) Action research principles and practice. USA: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  43. Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer academic/Plenum publishers, London

    Google 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):77–97

    Google 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):35–42

    Google Scholar 

  46. Midgley G, Ochoa-Arias AE (2004) Community operational research. Kluwer Academic, London

    Google 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):467–478

    Google 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 August

  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):983–997

    Google 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):167–191

    Google 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):127–136

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rapoport A (1970) Three dilemmas in action research. Hum Relat 23:499

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rittel WJ, Webber MM (1973) Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169

    Google 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):166–174

    Google Scholar 

  55. Senge PM (2006) The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organisation. UK. Mackays

  56. Shah R, Ward PT (2003) Lean manufacturing: context, practice bundles, and performance. J Oper Manag 21(2):129–149

    Google 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):146–168

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tsang EWK (2014) Generalisation from research findings: the merits of case studies. Int J Manag Rev 16:369–383

    Google 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 Kingdom

  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 1999–6918

  61. Ufua DE, Papadopoulos T, Midgley G (2018) Systemic lean intervention: enhancing lean with community operational research. Eur J Oper Res 268(3):1134–1148

    Google 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 Science

  63. White SM (2015) Systems theory, systems thinking. In Systems Conference (SysCon), 2015 9th Annual IEEE International (pg. 420–425). IEEE

  64. Williams MC (1998) Interpreting rich pictures symbolically. Syst Res 15:55–59

    Google Scholar 

  65. Williams MC (1999) Rich pictures on the path towards systemic being. Syst Res Behav Sci 16:369–373

    Google Scholar 

  66. Williams P (2002) The competent boundary spanner. Public Adm 80(1):103–124

    Google Scholar 

  67. Williams A, Kennedy S, Philipp F, Whiteman G (2017) Systems thinking: a review of sustainability management research. J Clean Prod 148:866–881

    Google Scholar 

  68. Wilson B (1984) Systems: concepts, methodologies, and applications. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  69. Womack JP, Jones DT (2005) Lean solutions. Simon and Schuster, London

    Google Scholar 

  70. Womack JP, Jones DT (2010) Lean thinking: banish waste and create wealth in your corporation. Simon and Schuster, London

    Google Scholar 

  71. Yamamoto Y, Bellgran M (2010) Fundamental mindset that drives improvements towards lean production. Assem Autom 30(2):124–130

    Google Scholar 

  72. Yin RK (1994) Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research. Eval Pract 15(3):283–290

    Google Scholar 

  73. Yin RK (2004) Case study research design and methods, 4th edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  74. Yin RK (2013) Case study research: design and methods. Sage Publications, London

    Google 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):28–35

    Google 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 128:240–249

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel E. Ufua.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ufua, D.E., Adebayo, A.O.I. Exploring the Potency of Rich Pictures in a Systemic Lean Intervention Process. Syst Pract Action Res 32, 615–627 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-019-9479-x

Download citation

Keywords

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