View source

Socio-Technical Systems (STS) theory is rooted in principles that have their origin in action research field projects undertaken by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in British coal mines during postwar reconstruction of industry (Trist, 1950).  This was a time when mine productivity was failing to increase despite major investments in increased mechanization, while labor turnover and absenteeism were on a rapid rise.  In the course of this research (supported by the Rockefeller Foundation and the British government), Tavistock social scientists discovered work practice and organization innovations made by local coal mine management and workers who had evolved a way of working at a high level of mechanization, which recovered the work group cohesion and self-regulation that had existed in the pre-mechanized era (Trist et al., 1963).  

It was an alternative work organization for coalfields that were using the new technology, demonstrating that “the technological imperative could be disobeyed” (Trist & Murray, 1993).  Results of this “organizational choice” were positive in economic as well as human terms.  Accordingly, Tavistock social scientists proposed a conceptual reframing of work organization.  No longer would separate approaches to the social and technical dimensions of an organization suffice.  Although the social and technical arrangements are the substantive factors, the economic performance and human outcomes depend upon the “goodness of fit” between these factors within a work organization as an open “socio-technical system” (Emery, 1959; 1972).

This “new paradigm” of work organization was subsequently applied in the Indian textile industry (Rice, 1953).  Major experimentation continued in Norway during the mid-1960’s, where action research further applied and refined socio-technical systems (STS) theory and methodology in manufacturing and chemical process industries (Emery & Thorsrud, 1969).  From this work arose concepts of technical “variance analysis” and “psychological job requirements”.  From the late 1960’s to mid-1990’s, STS design methodology was then utilized successfully in many companies within North America, Europe, Scandinavia, and Australia to achieve high performance and quality in working life (Davis & Cherns, 1975; Kolodny & van Beinum, 1983).  American and European collaboration led to the articulation of a set of STS design principles (Cherns, 1976), while in Australia and Scandinavia, new processes were developed for “participative design” (Emery, 1982; 1989) and collaboration through “democratic dialogue” (Gustavsen, 1985; 1989).

However, in the midst of this industrial era, the growth of service industries and “office technology” inspired efforts to adapt socio-technical systems theory and methodology for a changed context and nature of work in an emergent information society.  Methods of work analysis for single linear conversion processes were extended to meet the demands of concurrent nonlinear conversion processes typical of non-routine office and professional work (Pava, 1983; Taylor et al., 1986).  A new conceptual language entered STS thinking, a “second-generation” of STS theory that focused on “deliberations” in technical analysis and “discretionary coalitions” in social analysis.

Pava (1983) defined deliberations as “equivocality reducing events” or “choice points” that are not simply the equivalent of decisions or meetings; rather, they are sense-making exchanges (Weick, 1994), communications and reflections dealing with “problematic issues”, the resolution of which propels the technical conversion process of nonroutine work. Deliberations are identified by the existence of an equivocal topic, which is explored in different types of forums, involving a particular group of interested parties. A focus on deliberations constitutes a “middle ground for analysis,” providing a method for examining nonobvious and counterintuitive patterns of work that would normally be invisible to approaches that limit their focus to formal organization, technical system features, or the efficacy of various IT solutions. In summary, deliberation analysis provides a more complex and rich description of the socio-technical dynamics involved in nonroutine work. 

During the 1990’s, this updated STS perspective was applied in a variety of settings such as new product development in software engineering, R&D in the chemical industry, a teaching hospital, and in advanced manufacturing systems, (Purser, 1990; Purser et al., 1992; Pasmore & Gurley, 1991; Shani et al., 1992; Stebbins & Shani, 1998).  The new concepts and methods to accommodate nonlinear throughput and knowledge work were combined with attention to the high involvement of knowledge workers in the design process (Pasmore & Purser, 1993).  Nevertheless, by the end of the 20th century, this version of STS was superceded in the white-collar world by “reengineering” of work processes in conjunction with information technology (Hammer & Champy, 1993). 
 
STS thinking did survive prior to and after the turn of the century, in traditional manufacturing applications, but more particularly, in three new streams of development.   One of the strongest applications has been in social principles for design of information technology.  Illustrative of this approach have been concepts of “human computer interaction” (HCI), or those aspects of information science dealing with the social impacts of computerization, i.e. “social informatics” (Kling, 2000); and, closer to the original STS thinking has been “ethical computer use” and the “ETHICS” method of system design (Mumford, 1995, 1996; Porra & Hirscheim, 2007).  The focus on technology is also implied in an oft-quoted definition of sociotechnical systems as “technical works involving significant social participation, interests, and concerns” (Maier & Rechtin, 2000). Also, in social computing, sociotechnical systems are defined as “systems of people communicating with people that arise through interactions mediated by technology” (Whitworth, 2009).
  
At the same time, there is growing understanding that information technology, though integral, is insufficient for development of knowledge work and knowledge management (McDermott, 1999; Shani & Sena, 2000).  This conclusion is based upon a distinction between “information”, and the discretionary and social dimensions of “knowing”. Information systems enable a knowledge economy, and yet, it takes human systems to achieve it.  Experience in design of such systems like “communities of practice” to leverage knowledge across disciplines or business units has revealed that this process involves technical, social, and socio-technical challenges (McDermott et al., 2002).

Finally, these two developments, information/communication technology (ICT), and an economy based on knowledge and innovation, have spawned a third effect, the emergence of “network organizations” (Van Alystne, 1997) that span the boundaries of individual teams and organizations.  The need for societies and single organizations to develop an “inter-organizational capability” was anticipated very early in socio-technical system literature that built upon von Bertalanffy’s (1950) theory of “open systems”, and profiled the “causal texture of organizational environments” (Emery & Trist, 1965).  The increasing “turbulence” in the real world of organizational environments and the emergence of issues “too extensive and too many-sided to be coped with by any single organization” has led to new theory for “referent organizations and development of the inter-organizational domain” (Trist, 1983).  Thus, socio-technical systems theory and its “socio-ecological” perspective (Trist et al., 1997) provide foundational understanding for “institution-building” and design of networks and their virtual form with cyber-infrastructure.

This historical and future-oriented perspective on socio-technical systems theory is also background for an STS “Discovery” initiative (“Using Action Research To Promote New STS Theory and Practice”) now being undertaken by an international network of academics and STS practitioners, The STS Roundtable (http://stsroundtable.com/wiki/STS_Roundtable). The objective is to discover a next, “third” generation of STS concepts and methodologies for the 21st century.    

= References: =

Cherns, A., 1976.  “Principles of Socio-Technical Design”, Human Relations 29, pp.783-792.
(See Cherns: "Principles of Socio-Technical Design", Vol. II: The Socio-Technical Perspective, Trist/Tavistock Anthology.)  
 
Davis. L. & Cherns, A. (editors) 1975.  The Quality of Working Life, Vol. 2: Cases and Commentary.  The Free Press, New York.

Emery, F.E., 1959. “Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems”.  London: Tavistock Institute Document 527.  Also in Design of Jobs, edited by L.E. Davis & J.C. Taylor.  Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1972. Vol. II, pp. 157-86.
(See Emery: "Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems", Vol. II: The Socio-Technical Perspective, Trist/Tavistock Anthology.)

Emery, F.E. & Thorsrud, E., 1969. Form and Content in Industrial Democracy: Some Experiences from Norway and Other European Countries. London: Tavistock Publications.

Emery, F. and Trist, E. 1965.  “The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments”, Human 
Relations 18, pp.21-32.
(See Emery & Trist: "The Causal Texture of Organizational Environments", Vol. III: The Socio-Ecological Perspective, Trist/Tavistock Anthology.)

Emery, M., 1982.  Searching.  Centre for Continuing Education, ANU, Canberra.
(See Emery: "The Search Conference", Vol. III: The Socio-Ecological Perspective, Trist/Tavistock Anthology.)
 
Emery, M., 1989.  Participative Design for Participative Democracy. Centre for Continuing 
Education, Australian National University (ANU), Canberra.  

Gustavsen, B., 1985.  “Workplace Reform and Democratic Dialogue”.  Economic and Industrial 
Democracy, 6. 
 
Gustavsen, B., 1989.  Creating Broad change in Working Life: The LOM Programme.  Ontario 
Quality of Working Life Centre, Toronto.

Hammer, M. & Champy, J., 1993.  Reengineering the Corporation: A Manifesto for Business Revolution. Harper, New York.

Kling, R., 2000. Learning about Information Technologies and Social Change: The Contribution of Social Informatics. The Information Society 16(3):217-232.

Kolodny, H. & van Beinum, H. (editors), 1983.  The Quality of Working Life and the 1980s, 
Praeger, New York.

Maier M. K. & Rechtin E., 2000. The Art of Systems Architecting 2nd Edition, CRC Press

McDermott, R., 1999. “Why Information Technology Inspired But Cannot Deliver Knowledge Management”, California Management Review, Vol. 41, No. 4., pp. 103-116.

McDermott, R., Snyder, W.M. & Wenger, E., 2002. Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business School Press, Boston. 

Mumford, E., 1995. Effective Systems Design and Requirements Analysis: the ETHICS Method. Macmillan, London.

Mumford, E., 1996. Systems Design: Ethical Tools for Ethical Change. Macmillan, London. 

Pasmore, W.A. & Gurley, K., 1991. "Enhancing R&D across functional areas", in Kilmann,, R.H. (Ed.), Making Organizations Competitive,  Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Pasmore, W.A. and Purser, R.E. (1993), "Designing work systems for knowledge workers", Journal For Quality and Participation, July-August,  pp. 78-84.
Ordowich, C., Painter, B., & Posey, P., 2007. “Using Action Research To Promote New STS Theory & Practice”, Paper presented to the International Action Research Conference, Oslo, Norway.
Pava, C.H. (1983), Managing New Office Technology: An Organizational Strategy,  Free Press, NY.
(See Pava: "Nonroutine Office Work", Vol. II: The Socio-Technical Perspective, Trist/Tavistock Anthology.)

Porra, J. & Hirscheim, R., 2007. A lifetime of theory and action on the ethical use of computers. A dialogue with Enid Mumford. JAIS, 8(9), 467-478.

Purser, R.E.,  1990. “The Impact of Variances and Delays on NonRoutine Decisions and Knowledge Utilization in a Product Development Organization”, Ph.D. Thesis, Case Western University.
Purser, R.E., Pasmore, W.A. & Tenkasi, R., 1992. "The influence of deliberations on learning in new product development teams", Journal of Engineering & Technology Management, Vol. 9:1, pp. 1-28.
Rice, A.K., 1953. “Productivity and Social Organization in an Indian Weaving Shed: An Examination of the Socio-Technical System of an Experimental Automatic Loomshed”.  Human Relations, 6:297-329.
(See Rice: "Productivity and Social Organization in an Indian Weaving Shed", Vol. II: The Socio-Technical Perspective, Trist/Tavistock Anthology.)

Shani, A.B., Grant, R. & Krishnan, R., 1992. "Advanced manufacturing systems and organizational choice: a sociotechnical systems approach", California Management Review, Vol. 34: 4, pp. 91-111.
Shani, A.B. & Sena, J.A.,  2000. “Knowledge Management and New Product Development: Learning from a Software Development Firm”, Proceedings of the Third International. Conf. on Practical Aspects of Knowledge Management (PAKM2000), Basel, Switzerland.

Stebbins, M.W. & Shani, A.B., 1998. "Organization Design and The Knowledge Worker", The Journal of Knowledge Management Practice, Volume I: 1998-1999.
Taylor, J.C.,  Gustavson, P.W. & Carter, W.S., 1986. "Integrating the social and technical systems of organizations" in Davis, D.D. (Ed.), Managing Technical Innovation, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Tenkasi, R. V., Boland, R. J., Te’eni, D. (1994). “Designing Information Technology to support Distributed Cognition”, Organization Science, Vol. 5 (3), 456-475.

Trist, E.L., 1950. “The Relations of Social and Technical Systems in Coal-Mining”, Paper 
presented to the British Psychological Society, Industrial Section.
(See Trist E.L. & Bamforth, K.: "The Stress of Isolated Dependence: The Filling Shift in the Semi-Mechanized Longwall Three-Shift Mining Cycle", Vol. II: The Socio-Technical Perspective, Trist/Tavistock Anthology.)

Trist, E.L., Higgin, G.W., Murray, H., & Pollock, A.B., 1963. Organizational Choice: Capabilities of Groups at the Coal Face Under Changing Technologies: The Loss, Rediscovery & Transformation of a Work Tradition.  London: Tavistock Publications.
(See Trist, E.L., Higgin, G., Murray, H. & Pollock, A.: "Alternative Work Organizations: An Exact Comparison", Vol. II: The Socio-Technical Perspective, Trist/Tavistock Anthology.)


Trist, E.L., 1983. “Referent Organizations and the Development of Inter-Organizational Domains”, Human Relations, 36: 269-84.
(See Trist, E.L.: "Reference Organizations and the Development of Inter-Organizational Domains", Vol. III: The Socio-Ecological Perspective, Trist/Tavistock Anthology.)

Trist, E.L. & Murray, H., (editors) 1993. The Social Engagement of Social Science: Volume II: The Socio-Technical Perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.  Also retrievable from 
http://www.moderntimesworkplace.com/archives/archives.html

Trist, E., Emery, F., & Murray H. (editors) 1997.  The Social Engagement of Social Science, A Tavistock Anthology, Volume III: The Socio-Ecological Perspective, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Retrievable at http://www.moderntimesworkplace.com/archives/archives.html

Van Alstyne, M., 1997.  “The State of Network Organization: A Survey in Three Frameworks”, Journal of Organizational Computing, Vol. 7, No. 3.
von Bertalanffy, L., 1950. “The Theory of Open Systems in Physics and Biology”, Science,  Vol. 3:23-29.  
Whitworth, B., 2009, “A Brief Introduction to Socio-Technical Systems”, Encyclopedia of Information Science and Technology, Second edition, Edited by Claude Ghaoui, Hershey: Idea Group Publishing, 394-400.


'''''Bert Painter, May 2009.'''''
http://www.moderntimesworkplace.com