a gradual development process of the methodology as a whole from 1972 to 1990. During this period of time, four different representations of SSM were designed, becoming more sophisticated and at the same time less structured and broader in scope. Blocks and arrows (1972) The first studies in the research programme were carried out in 1969, and the first account of what became SSM was published in a paper three years later called ‘Towards a systems-based methodology for real-world problem solving’ (Checkland 1972). In this paper, soft systems methodology is presented as a sequence of stages with iteration back to previous stages.The sequence was as follows: analysis, root definition of relevant systems, conceptualisation, comparison and definition of changes, selection of change to implement, design of change and implementation and appraisal. The overall aim to implement change instead of introducing or enhancing a system implies that the thinking was ongoing as a result of these early experiences, even if the straight arrows in the diagrams and the rectangular blocks in some of the models can now be misleading! Seven stages (1981) The initial book about SSM methodology, recognized a cluster of seven steps in a cyclical learning process and it was called the seven stage-model. These were categorically used to identify problems causes and further the line of questioning in order to come up with viable solutions. The seven steps are; Enter situation in which a problem situation(s) have been identified Address the issue at hand Formulate root definitions of relevant systems of purposeful activity Build conceptual models of the systems named in the root definitions : This methodology comes into place from raising concerns/ capturing problems within an organisation and looking into ways how it can be solved. Defining the root definition also describes the root purpose of a system. The comparison stage: The systems thinker is to compare the perceived conceptual models against an intuitive perception of a real-world situation or scenario. Checkland defines this stage as the comparison of Stage 4 with Stage 2, formally, “Comparison of 4 with 2”. Parts of the problem situation analysed in Stage 2 are to be examined alongside the conceptual model(s) created in Stage 4, this helps to achieve a “complete” comparison. Problems identified should be accompanied now by feasible and desirable changes that will distinctly help the problem situation based in the system given. Human activity systems and other aspects of