socio technical systems engineering
lecture 2 - defining and scoping sts
Paola Di Maio
IIT MANDI
fall SEMESTER 2013
PURPOSE OF THIS LECTURE
LEARN THE BACKGROUND TO STS
LEARN THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
LEARN HOW TO APPLY THESE PRINCIPLES TO THE DESIGN OF FUNCTIONAL COMPUTER/INFORMATION SYSTEMS
WHAT ARE SOCIO TECHNICAL SYSTEMS?
STS are dynamic, adaptive systems resulting from the interaction of people, technologies and environment.
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES
In Organizational development is an approach to complex organizational work design that recognizes the interaction between people and technology in workplaces. (social sciences)
In computer science, and engineering is an approach to develop jointly optimised functional systems
WORKING DEFINITIONS
“purposeful interacting socio-technical systems…” (Wilson, 2000, p. 557)
“complex Sociotechnical Systems …” (Woo & Vicente, 2003, p. 253)
“sociotechnical work systems…” (Waterson, Older Gray & Clegg, 2002, p. 376).
A sociotechnical ‘system’,
1. Descriptive term given to any practical
instantiation of socio and technical elements engaged in purposeful goal directed
behaviour, is a particular expression of Sociotechnical Theory.
WHY DO WE NEED STSE
because systems fail for non technical reasons
to reduce risk of failure despite non tecnical failure
to design and implement functional systems
concepts and metaphors of general systems theory, in particular the notion of ‘open systems’ (e.g. Bertalanffy, 1950), as a way of describing, analysing and designing systems with joint optimisation in mind, particularly those that embody some degree of non-linearity within themselves as well as the environment they reside in
two PROVEN ASSUMPTIONS (ie FACTS)
1. IN MOST CASES, FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM PERFORMANCE DEPENDS ON THE INTERACTION BETWEEN PEOPLE AND TECHNOLOGIES. WITHOUT THE PEOPLE THE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK, OR WITH HUMAN ERRORS THE SYSTEM DOES NOT WORK AS IT SHOULD
2. Optimisation of either socio, or technical, tends to increase the quantity of unpredictable, ‘un-designed’, non-linear relationships, and interactions that diminish the system’s performance
UNDERLYING PRINCIPLE : JOINT OPTIMISATION
The theoretical basis for joint optimization introduced at London’s Tavistock Institute early 1950s
accepted strategic intervention for organizational change (Cummings & Worley, 2001).
Sociotechnical theory focuses on the interface of the worker and the technology of the work. In its simplest form, it states that joint optimization of the social and technical aspects of the organization will produce better results than if either is separately optimized. There is synergy available in the collaborative and cooperative process.
There is synergy available in the collaborative and cooperative process. Appelbaum (1997) further explains that:
Because the social and technical elements must work together to accomplish tasks, work systems produce both physical products and social/psychological outcomes. The key issue is to design work so that the two parts yield positive outcomes; this is called joint optimization. (p. 453)
Achieving joint optimization is complicated, due to the simultaneous need to address multiple systems within the organization, and delicate, due to the dynamic interrelationship of these systems (Appelbaum, 1997). Despite the challenges, achieving joint optimization is important. Joint optimization offers the organization more robust interventions that have higher probabilities of success. Further, change supported by efforts in both the social and technical aspects of work seems more likely to be sustained (Appelbaum, 1997)
tangible physical attributes of the facility, including its architecture, interior design, equipment, logistic systems, communications infrastructure, and information systems ARE integral part of the work technology.
For example, the care provider interacts with the equipment that is on the headwall in the patient’s room or experiences the layout of the floor plan as efficient or inefficient.
intangible social aspects of the organization include the social roles of humans as they interact with work technology, as well as the organizational culture, norms, structure, governance, team- work, policies and procedures, along with reward systems. Norms associated with working teams of care providers will powerfully influence performance.
Sociotechnical
systems theory, reflects certain specific methods of joint
optimisation in order to design systems that exhibit open systems properties and can
thus cope better with environmental complexity, dynamism, new technology, and
competition
HOW TO ACHEIVE JOINT OPTIMIZATION?
SOME PRINCIPLES...
1. Responsible Autonomy
INDIVIDUALS /STAKEHOLDERS TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OUTCOME/PERFORMANCE
CAN MAKE DECISIONS AUTONOMOUSLY
2. ADAPTABILITY
TASKS AND SCHEDULES AND OVERALL WORK PROCEDURES CAN BE ADJUSTED BY INDIVIDUAL TEAM MEMBERS TO INCREASE OPTIMISATION
(DISTRIBUTED OPTIMISATION VS CENTRAL OPTIMISATION)
3. MEANINGFULNESS OF TASKS
‘core job characteristics’ (Hackman & Oldman, 1980):
• Skill variety (e.g. simple organisations but complex varied jobs that rely on a multiplicity of skills; Sitter et al., 1997).
• Task Identity (e.g. “entire cycle of operations” or whole tasks; Trist & Bamforth, 1951).
• Task Significance (e.g. “dynamic closure” and meaningful tasks; Trist & Bamforth, 1951).
• Autonomy (e.g. human redundancy, adaptability, semi-autonomous work groups; Trist & Bamforth, 1951).
• Feedback (e.g. continuous, redundant and recursive interactions; Carvalho, 2006).
Systems thinking created the conceptual language from which notions of ‘networks’ and
‘distributed systems’ Its application to
sociotechnical theory came in 1959 with a paper by Emery, expanding the field by
drawing on the specific case of open systems theory (Kelly, 1978, p. 1075). Open
systems theory gave sociotechnical theory a more tightly defined grounding as well as a
unifying conceptual language.
problems increasingly framed in terms of non-linearity and/or complexity, macro ergonomics (e.g. Kleiner, 2006; Kirwan, 2000), cognitive systems engineering (e.g. Hollnagel, 1983; Hollnagel & Woods, 2005) and other nascent systems based developments attest to a growing shift in ergonomics methods and modes of thought.
For Volvo, sociotechnical systems theory
has given way to lean production, which has a rather different value base and
assumptions about human workers (Niepce & Molleman, 1998). There is no doubt that
the subsequent character of sociotechnical research has been affected. Certainly, the days
of ambitious large scale implementations of sociotechnical principles have largely given
way to work of a much smaller and somewhat more self-effacing theoretical nature, some
of which is surveyed below.
Current sociotechnical thinking,= NEC
NETWORKED ENABLED CAPABILITIES…..
(MY PHD)
opportunities and issues raised by information technology and the Internet
Hirschhorn, Noble & Rankin (2001) complain that sociotechnical approaches are, to their ongoing detriment, often rooted in notions of mass production and labour use and are not always well attuned to the contemporary concerns of industry (see also Pava, 1986). primary focus /REQUIREMENT/is to be highly
responsive to the needs of the recipients of the services which the organisation dispenses, that is to say organisations should be able to learn: the quicker and more adaptively the better (Adler & Docherty, 1998).
Comparison of sociotechnical contexts (adapted from Hirschhorn et al, 2001, p. 249).
STS NEC
Mass production Mass customization
Minimising down time Minimising learning time
Producing product Producing information
Maintaining a steady state Finding information
Open systems
have boundaries with other systems and some form of exchange that exists between them: “A system is closed if no material enters or leaves it;
it is open if there is import and export and, therefore, change of the components” (Bertalanffy, 1950, p. 23).
original biological conception of open systems this exchange would be ‘matter’ such as haemoglobin or oxygen. As systems theory has expanded, the inviolable characteristic of all such exchanges is now seen as essentially informational (e.g. Kelly, 1994; Ciborra, Migliarese & Romano, 1984). Exchange between system elements is input, which causes state changes, outputs of which become further inputs for other elements. An appropriate visual metaphor for such a system might be a block or venn diagram in which the properties of the components and the links between them are not as well defined and subject to change
OPEN INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEFINE SOME FEATURES AND REQIREMENT OF OPEN INFORMATION SYSTEMS
( ASSIGNMENT)
“A closed system must, according to the second law of thermodynamics, eventually attain
a time-independent equilibrium state, with maximum entropy and minimum free energy
[…] An open system may attain (certain conditions presupposed) a time-independent
state where the system remains constant as a whole…though there is a constant flow of
the component materials. This is called a steady state” (Bertalanffy, 1950, p. 23).
To use a computer science metaphor, a
closed system is an entity that is ‘programmed’ while an open system is something that
‘learns’ (or programmes itself).
EQUIFINALITY
Von Bertalanffy thus: “A profound difference between most inanimate and living systems can be expressed by the concept of equifinality. In most physical systems,
the final state is determined by the initial conditions…Vital phenomena show a different
behaviour. Here, to a wide extent, the final state may be reached from different initial conditions and in different ways” (p. 25). ...self-synchronisation and what sociotechnical theory offers in terms of adaptability and semi-autonomy
Trist (1978) could have been describing NEC when saying
that open systems grow “by processes of internal elaboration. They manage to achieve a
steady state while doing work. They achieve a quasi-stationary equilibrium in which the
enterprise as a whole remains constant, with a continuous ‘throughput’, despite a
considerable range of external changes.” (p. 45).
by Rice (1958) in textile mills in
Ahmedabad, India. ;
the sociotechnical re-design led to a radically
different organisation that, it was argued, was now jointly optimised. Indeed, the “reorganization was reflected in a significant and sustained improvement in mean percentage efficiency and a decrease in mean percentage damage [to goods]…the improvements were consistently maintained through-out a long period of follow up” (Trist, 1978, p. 53).
The most famous example of sociotechnical design is undoubtedly that undertaken at Volvo’s Kalmar and Uddevalla car plants (e.g. Hammerstrom & Lansbury, 1991; Knights & McCabe, 2000; Sandberg, 1995). Whilst many commercial instantiations of sociotechnical systems theory are criticised for theirlimited degree of ‘technological’
change (choosing to focus instead on the altogether less expensive aspects of ‘socio’ and ‘‘organisational’ change; Pasmore et al 1982)
From a systems perspective, according to Dekker’s more contemporary work on network structures (e.g. 2002), this new configuration has something of a ‘hybrid’ feel to it. In
structural terms there is a mixture of hierarchical subdivision (albeit to a far lesser extent
than before) and peer to peer interaction (within groups rather than everybody literally interacting with everyone else). Hierarchical interaction is still required so that task
complexity at the level of the entire system can be managed but peer to peer interaction allows rapid response to local conditions without the need for lengthy vertical interaction and effort on the part of higher management.
Another major effect of this network structure, as Trist (1978) notes, is that “whereas the former organisation had been maintained in a steady state only by the constant and arduous efforts of management, the new one proved to be inherently stable and self correcting” (p. 53). To put this into the language of systems theory, the organisation started to behave like an open system, one that could achieve a steady state based on a constant throughput of inputs and outputs, and maintaining this steady state despite considerable changes in the environment. In the language of NEC this phenomenon would be referred to as ‘self-synchronisation’ (e.g. Ferbrache, 2003).
Attributes of jointly optimised sociotechnical systems and/or evaluation criteria for NEC systems (from Davis, 1977, p. 265-266) Systemic “…all aspects of organisational functioning are interrelated”. Open System “…continuous adaptation to requirements flowing from
environments”.
Joint Optimization The principle that socio and technical elements of an organisation should be jointly considered and maximised. Organisational Uniqueness “…Structure of the organisation…suits the specific individual organisation’s situation” (relates back to
adaptation above). Organisational Philosophy The design of structures and roles is “congruent with agreed organisational values” (In other words, not a ‘bolton’ solution but pervasive and ubiquitous). Quality of Working Life “…integrity, values, and needs of individual members are reflected in the roles, structure, operations, and rewards of the organisation.” The intrinsic nature of work is enhanced (e.g. Hackman & Oldman, 1980). Comprehensive Roles for Individuals or Groups
The content of work and the people used to carry it out
(and their organisation into teams or groups) should reflect the principles of ‘meaningful’ and ‘whole tasks’.
Self-Maintaining Social Systems “…social systems are such that organisational units can carry on without external coercion…i.e. they are to become self-regulating”. This attribute relates well to Effects Based Operations as well as ad-hoc teams and flexible forces.
Sociotechnical System
(one that is jointly optimised) =“fewer
organisational layers or levels”.
Participation “…democratization of the work place” with individuals able to contribute to problem solving and governance. Minimal Status Differentials This attribute seems to run counter to military thinking in
terms of there being, “minimal differences in privileges
and status” but on closer inspection it can be noted that any differences which are, “unrelated to role and organisational needs” are regarded as divergent from a sociotechnical ideal.
“Make Large Small “Organisational and physical structures provide both a smaller, more intimate organisational boundaries and a feeling of smaller physical environment for individuals or groups”.
.
“Organisational Design Process “…components of the organisation evolve in a participative, iterative manner, only partially determined by advance planning”.
“Minimal Critical Specification This principle is (tacitly or otherwise) at the heart of Effects Based Operations. In organisational design terms, “…designers specify (design or select) the crucial relationships, functions, and controls, leaving to rol
SCALES
INTERACTIONS
TECHNICAL: LINEAR (OBSERVABLE CAUSE /EFFECT)
SOCIAL : NON LINEAR (CHAOTIC, RANDOM, NON OBSERVABLE CAUSALITY)
socio technical interactions are complex because they are a mixture of linear and non linear , due to social issues, even predictable technical behaviours become erratic
ASSIGNMENT 3
3.1. MAKE A SHORT SUMMARY OF THREE CASE STUDIES IN CLASSICAL STS THEORY (FOR EXAMPLE LONGWALL, VOLVO, ALHABAD)
3.2. THINK OF WHAT WE LEARN FROM THESE CASE STUDIES AND HOW IT APPLIES TO COMPUTER SYSTEM DESIGN. USE BULLET POINTS, OR A DIAGRAM TO SHOW YOUR THINKING
3.3 MAKE A LIST OF CORE CONCEPTS FROM THIS LECTURE
REFERENCES
A Review of Sociotechnical Systems Theory: A Classic Concept for New Command and
Control Paradigms
http://www.healthdesign.org/chd/research/culture-change-and-facility-design-model-joint-optimization
VERIFICATION
1. distiguish the notion of 'system' from 'socio-technical system'
2. provide two (or more) alternative definitions for system and sts
3.explain the purpose of socio technical systems engineering
4. explain what is joint optimization (JO), using three different examples taken
from case studies
5. explain what are the principles of JO
6. what are the methods to achieve JO? give some examples
7. summarise a sts CASE STUDY of your choice, (one paragraph) highlighting
key points and lesson learned (bullet points)
8. explain the basic difference between open and closed sytem
9. what is equifinality? how does it impact system design?
10. pick 5 Attributes of jointly optimised sociotechnical systems
and/or evaluation criteria for NEC systems (from Davis, 1977, p. 265-266)
and provide a brief explanation/example
additional reading role of functional knowledgehttp://www.ucalgary.ca/files/haskaynefaculty/emergence.pdf