Reference:Principles of STS Analysis and Design/Design Process
From STS Roundtable
| Important note: This page is part of the reference library of the STS Roundtable wiki. Items in the reference library are published, copyrighted works that are reproduced here by permission of the author. Edits to these pages will be removed unless those edits are explicitly to correct an error that may have occurred during the transcription of the original article to this wiki. |
Some Principles of Sociotechnical Systems Analysis and Design was originally published in 1992 by the Dr. Eli Berniker for the School of Business Administration, Pacific Lutheran University and is copyright Dr. Eli Berniker. Reproduced here with permission.
| Cover page | Introduction | Philosophical Premises and Values | Design Process | Structuring Work Groups | Work Design | Continuity | Epilogue | References |
|
The design process is inseparable from its outcomes (Churchmen, 1971). The three principles that follow specify the relationships between that process and its objectives.
Principle 8: Compatibility
The process of design should be compatible with its objectives. If adaptive competence is a design objective, then a process self-design is appropriate.
Participation has been discussed as a right. Here, participative design is justified as a more effective expedient than expert design. The people who own the problem should own the solutions. Ownership of problems and opportunities links design decisions with responsibility for successful implementation.
If the objective of design is a system capable of self-modification, of adapting to change, and of making the good use of the creative capacities of individuals, then a constructively participative organization is needed (Cherns, 1976). participative design develops adaptive capacity so the work team can creatively responds to emergent challenges by reassigning tasks, reorganizing itself, and inventing responses. The team will be poorly prepared for this role without experience in the original invention of their work roles and team structure. So compatibility is, foremost, a principle that recognizes the necessity of adaptation and enables a work team to gain concrete experience in its exercise.
Principle 9: Minimum Critical Specification
This principle has two aspects, negative and positive. The negative simply states that no more should be specified than is absolutely essential; the positive requires that we identify what is essential. (Cherns, 1976)
A pervasive fault of much design is the premature closing of options. We over design both to reduce uncertainties and to insure that we get our own way. Minimum critical specification means that we design as little as possible and only specify what is essential (Cherns, 1976). Clearly, this is a more stringent principle for a new project design team than a participative design team drawn from an existing work organization. But even self-design should seek to preserve future options as paths to future adaptive capacities.
There are several reasons for limiting the design role . We never have sufficient knowledge or control to completely specify a work group design (Cummings, 1981). Whatever optimal benefits we could hope to achieve through specification would become obsolete rapidly as tasks, challenges, and problems changed. Over specification would then cripple the adaptive capabilities of the work group. It also constrains learning and experimentation that are essential if emergent problems are to be solved.
The essential must be specified. A technical system must be sufficiently well specified to be built and operated. A good specification strategy is to choose those alternatives that keep the most adaptive options open. Another is to locate decision authority in the design team instead of delegating that responsibility to technical specialists.
Principle 10: Constraint-Free Design
Create ideal alternative designs. Avoid premature "realism".
Ideal designs should be sought without reference to assumed or real organizational or technical constraints. This is a controversial principle. Many advise greater respect for constraints in order to assure that designs can be implemented (Markus, 1984; Mumford and Weir, 1979).
In the interests of "realism" and efficiency, design teams will often seek alternatives that can be implemented in practice. This approach usually results in the uncritical acceptance of current organizational constraints (Cherns, 1976). The outcome is often 'embroidery,' a motivational overlay on existing arrangements without substantial change. Innovation requires that we 'cut cloth,' that we question current constraints to achieve ideal designs.
The point of the principle is to be innovative, not to produce impractical designs. Constraint free design establishes an ideal standard; an optimal vision enabling the team to gain a perspective on its efforts. Subsequently, the constraints can be evaluated in terms of that standard and the costs and benefits of removing each of them. Some constraints become opportunities; others prove irrelevant. Bjorn-Anderson and Hedberg (1977) found some perceived constraints that did not actually exist (Cummings, 1981). Some constraints may remain to compromise the design. But, if constraints are allowed to dominate the initial creative thinking, many worthwhile innovations will not emerge or will be prematurely rejected.
The initial designs should be ideal. The final designs should be well thought through compromises that take into account only such constraints whose costs make removal prohibitive.
