Socio-Technical Systems - Assignment Example

Socio-Technical Systems Introduction Socio technical systems are tools that help a business anticipate and resolve any interdisciplinary issues in a successful manner. By referring to ‘Interdisciplinary’ problems, one refers to the notion of financial values that are dependent on ethical, cultural, social, technical and political dimensions. Given their degree of interdependence and the level of interactivity, Socio-Technical Systems (STSs) are the foremost systems within a business organization. Further, this enhanced level of interactivity are known to induce changes in other components in addition to having an influence on the system as a whole (William Pasmore, 1978). The drive towards initiating change for good and prevent any discrepancies and deficiencies required the need to adjust the various elements in cohesion with one another and ensure that the key values associated the system are constantly strengthened. STSs have several distinct components that interact with each other and include business processes, surroundings, the interests of various stakeholders, operational procedures as well as the legal regulations in place. Further, the uses of information, financial, environmental and marketing systems are always in progress in order to manage these entities and as such are some of the first components that need to be identified with respect to their importance and relevance for the organization. Further, Socio-Technical systems embody core values that are eminent from the components of the system as well as when viewed at the system as a whole. It is possible that such values may be vulnerable or be susceptible to a certain degree of risk. For instance, companies’ store details of employees and their various activities and the manner in which this is done determines the level of vulnerability that such data is to unauthorized access. Such vulnerability not only endangers any encroachment of privacy, but also compromises the interests of the organization. In many other situations, all such values may seem to be in certain conflict with each other, which may induce the need to make adjustments to the entire architecture of the system. further, it is possible that the system including its individual components may evolve over time to produce risks or attain critical behavior (John Miner, 2007). The change witnessed among STSs follows a trajectory and is brought about by the entrenched interests of various elements and stakeholders in the system. In line with all these elements of Socio-Technical systems, the current paper will discuss the various aspects of such systems from a number of perspectives that will include the historical, managerial and organizational aspects. this will include a discussion on the evolution of STSs over the years, their implementation in modern organizations as well as their acceptance into different work environments. Historical Perspective The term ‘Socio-Technical Systems’ was coined to avoid the simple determinism that was evident from the technological angle, when such a phenomenon was studied within the provisions of organizational theory. The term was initially used by the Tavistock Institute for Human relations, which was based in the United Kingdom, which made use of organizational choice to guide related studies under applied research. Earlier approaches had accepted the conventional approach and wisdom that the human relations movement had brought about. Industrial sociology, which was based on technical features within the plant was influencing the quality of social interaction and relationships at work. The researchers at Tavistock were of the opinion that technology merely played the role of restricting the range of human action instead of working towards being favorable towards the determination of behavioral outcomes with a rigid outcome. Studies by the Tavistock institute showed that there was a certain degree of experimentation within industries over conscious choices that were found to develop and evolve human relations along a technical workflow. It is quite proper to agree that for every issue associated with productivity, there is generally a technological workaround or solution to overcome their effects (Kenyon De Greene, 1973). However, such attitude was found to have varied implications on the relations among human beings in the same social setting. The emphasis on the notion of choice combined with the influence of technology in the backdrop of social systems within a work environment was a way of deviating from the technological determinism that helped pave the way for better appreciation from the higher levels of the organizational set up thereby emphasizing on the need for innovation, consultation, open-mindedness and flexibility. This was found to have a profound influence on the working of teams through an effective design of their procedures and processes. Initial research work that led to a formal constitution of Socio-technical systems was undertaken in Great Britain and in India during the 1940s and 50s, where the developments were studied in workplaces such as textile factories and coal mines (Andrea Silva, 2004). The studies showed that teams which were allowed the freedom of more flexibility were prone to lesser absenteeism, increased productivity and lesser issues at work. In contrast, work teams which were not provided such possibilities through segregation and inflexibility in tasks were found to underperform across all these parameters. Towards the end of the 1950s, the studies began to witness a wider range of problems associated with the contextual environment, which began to be categorized on the basis of a socio-ecological perspective. Further, managerial styles evolved to encompass the effects of environmental turbulence and make an effort towards understanding the presence of work processes that were indulging in an unconscious fashion within the workplace. Efforts were initiated to educate on the right ways to work with such processes and encourage group relation through related events. Over the 1970s, all forms of participation and culture were diffused into the industrial democracy and the era began to witness the rise in prominence of movements that aimed to highlight and improve the quality of professional life. The subsequent years have seen an increasing realization among companies for the need to improve groups and networking and have therefore worked towards using the provisions of operations research for developing the necessary strategic choices (Paolo Giorgini, 2005). This was developed both through learning as well as making a calculated change towards innovation. Disciplines such as Supply chains and Human resources have since then gained profound influence both within an organization’s working as well as their strategic initiatives. The studies into STSs have often been criticized for overlooking and underestimating the various difficulties that were evident with reconciliations among the social, technical and economic elements although the notion of such systems has slowly transgressed into the conventional working of modern organizations. Such transitions have initiated the much awaited changes in terms of flexibility and technical change, an issue that will be dealt with by subsequent chapters. Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations A lot has been said about the ‘tipping point’, which is a point in time when a particular trend being pursued is known to spread throughout the target population in an exponential manner. the point being driven forth here signals towards the concept of change, which irrespective of being for good or bad, can propagate in a social system in a domino effect. The idea of the tipping points has its origins from the diffusion theory, which professes a series of generalizations that help explain the evolution of innovation as part of a social system at work. The work of Everett Roger in this field has turned somewhat into a standard reference for study that provides an explanation of the factors that provide an estimation and overview of an innovation that is capable of reaching an observable tipping point. In fact, the basic tenets of innovation including its context have been found to be in correlation with the sense of diffusion that can be speeded up through efficacious actions (Wyatt Burke, 2003). In short, the Diffusion of Innovation simply acknowledges that the attainment of a tipping point helps spread any intended change within the organization. Socio-Technical Systems can be implemented through a mechanism of diffusion by communicating innovations through specific channels that over time become integral parts of the social system. Provided that decisions are not collective or even authoritative, every member belonging to a STS will have to experience a innovation driven decision that undergoes the process in a series of 5 steps. The first step allows the individual to gain awareness of a particular innovation and gain an overview of its functions and capabilities. This knowledge then empowers the person with persuasive skills that enable them to achieve a positive or negative perception towards such innovation. The decisions to engage in certain activities that lead to the adoption or rejection of the innovation constitute the decisive phrase of any diffusive scenario. The decision guides the individual and their group to implement the provisions of such innovations and thereby confirm its utility and results through constant evaluation (Kim Vicente, 2006). One of the most striking features of innovation through diffusion is that it depends heavily on similar contributions from other members within the system. From an empirical point of view, the successful implementation of an innovative concept follows an S shaped curve whereby any range of adoption beyond 15-25% among the members results in a subsequent rapid pace among others (Maureen McKelvey, 2006). Roger’s evaluations of the factors that affect the association with an innovation help elucidate the goal of decisions that are driven through such practices. Team based approaches Socio-Technical Systems are considered pioneering owing to their emphatic shift from the focus on individual to the consideration of groups and teams as the fundamental area of study. The related theory lays special emphasis on internal supervision as well as leadership among group levels, which provides them with a credible level of autonomy. The primary aspect here seems to be that average ability of individuals within teams to perform their responsibilities does not seem the only determinant to evaluate effectiveness (Paolo Giorgini, 2005). Over the years, organizations have devoted resources to studying the effects of team cohesion such as in the case of leadership and regulation within a team. Similarly, sociotechnical theory has aimed to exploit several parallal roles and responsibilities in this regard through innovative ideas such as groups with semi-autonomous powers that have conveyed a number of fundamental advantages. In special cases such as hazardours environments, there has always been a need to involve people within small groups, which is essentially necessary to develop effective communication, which are otherwise restricted. The use of verbal exchanges to develop the interactions continuously helps maintain mutual awareness among group members, which is aided by trust and proximity (Kim Vicente, 2006). The parallel evolution in technology as well as organizations help expand the horizon of new possibilities that pave the way for novel forms of interaction and providing greater autonomy in a responsible manner among the team members. References 1. William Pasmore (1978), Sociotechnical systems: a sourcebook. University of Michigan. 2. John Miner (2007), Organizational behavior. New York: M. E. Sharpe. 3. Kenyon De Greene (1973), Sociotechnical systems: factors in analysis, design, and management. University of Michigan. 4. Andrea Silva (2004), Requirements engineering for sociotechnical systems. London: Idea Group. 5. Paolo Giorgini (2005), Agent-oriented information systems: 5th international bi-conference workshop. Melbourne: Springer. 6. Wyatt Burke (2003), Organization change: theory and practice. London: SAGE. 7. Kim Vicente (2006), Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. New York: Lawrence Elbraum. 8. Maureen McKelvey (2006), Flexibility and stability in the innovating economy. Oxford University Press.   Read More