SOCIO-TECHINICAL SYSTEM and DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

8/14/2019 SOCIO-TECHINICAL SYSTEM and DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS

1/16

SOCIO-TECHINICAL SYSTEM or STS:

Socio-technical systems (or STS) in organizational development is an approach to

complex organizational work design that recognizes the interaction betweenpeople and

technology in workplaces. The term also refers to the interaction between society's

complex infrastructures and human behaviour. In this sense, society itself, and most of its

substructures, are complex socio-technical systems. The term socio-technical systems

was coined in the 1960s by Eric Trist and Fred Emery, who were working as consultants

at the Tavistock Institute in London.

A socio-technical system is a mixture of people and technology. It is, in fact, a much

more complex mixture. Many of the items are found in STS. Many of the individual

items of a socio-technical system are difficult to distinguish from each other because of

their close inter-relationships.

Socio-technical systems include:

HardwareMainframes, workstations, peripheral, connecting networks. This is

the classic meaning of technology. It is hard to imagine a socio-technical system

without some hardware component (though we welcome suggestions). In our
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_designhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Tristhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Emeryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tavistock_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Londonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizational_developmenthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_designhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplacehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Tristhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Emeryhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tavistock_Institutehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London


2/16

above examples, the hardware is the microcomputers and their connecting wires,

hubs, routers, etc.

SoftwareOperatingsystems, utilities, application programs, specialized code. It

is getting increasingly hard to tell the difference between software and hardware,

but we expect that software is likely to be an integral part of any socio-technical

system. Software (and by implication, hardware too) often incorporates social

rules and organizational procedures as part of its design (e.g. optimize these

parameters, ask for these data, store the data in these formats, etc.). Thus,

software can serve as a stand-in for some of the factors listed below, and the

incorporation of social rules into the technology can make these rules harder to

see and harder to change. In the examples above, much of the software is likely tochange from the emergency room to the elementary school. The software that

does not change (e.g. the operating system) may have been designed more with

one socio-technical system in mind (e.g. Unix was designed with an academic

socio-technical system in mind). The re-use of this software in a different socio-

technical system may cause problems of mismatch.

Physical surroundings. Buildings also influence and embody social rules, and

their design can effect the ways that a technology is used. The manager's office

that is protected by a secretary's office is one example; the large office suite with

no walls is another. The physical environment of the military supplier and the

elementary school are likely to be quite different, and some security issues may be

handled by this physical environment rather than by the technology. Moving a

technology that assumes one physical environment into a different environment

one may cause mismatch problems.

PeopleIndividuals, groups, roles (support, training, management, line personnel,

engineer, etc.), agencies. Note that we list here not just people (e.g. Mr. Jones)

but roles (Mr. Jones, head of quality assurance), groups (Management staff in

Quality Assurance) and agencies (The Department of Defense). In addition to his

role as head of quality assurance, Mr. Jones may also have other roles (e.g. a


3/16

teacher, a professional electrical engineer, etc.). The person in charge of the

microcomputers in our example above may have very different roles in the

different socio-technical systems, and these different roles will bring with them

different responsibilities and ethical issues. Software and hardware designed

assuming the kind of support one would find in a university environment may not

match well with an elementary school or emergency room environment.

Proceduresboth official and actual, management models, reporting

relationships, documentation requirements, data flow, rules & norms. Procedures

describe the way things are done in an organization (or at least the official line

regarding how they ought to be done). Both the official rules and their actual

implementation are important in understanding a socio-technical system. Inaddition, there are norms about how things are done that allow organizations to

work. These norms may not be specified (indeed, it might be counter-productive

to specify them). But those who understand them know how to, for instance, make

complaints, get a questionable part passed, and find answers to technical

questions. Procedures are prime candidates to be encoded in software design.

Laws and regulations. These also are procedures like those above, but they carry

special societal sanctions if the violators are caught. They might be laws

regarding the protection of privacy, or regulations about the testing of chips in

military use. These societal laws and regulations might be in conflict with internal

procedures and rules. For instance, some companies have implicit expectations

that employees will share (and probably copy) commercial software. Obviously

these illegal expectations cannot be made explicit, but they can be made known.

Data and data structures. What data are collected, how they are archived, to

whom they are made available, and the formats in which they are stored are all

decisions that go into the design of a socio-technical system. Data archiving in an

emergency room it will be quite different from that in an insurance company, and

will be subject to different ethical issues too.


4/16

SOCIO-TECHNICAL THEORY:

Socio-technical systems theory is theory about the social aspects ofpeople and society

and technical aspects ofmachines and technology. Sociotechnical refers to the

interrelatedness ofsocialand technicalaspects of an organisation. Socio-technical theory

therefore is aboutjoint optimization, with a shared emphasis on achievement of both

excellence in technical performance and quality in people's work lives. Socio-technical

theory, as distinct from socio-technical systems, proposes a number of different ways of

achieving joint optimisation. They are usually based on designing different kinds of

organisation, ones in which the relationships between socio and technical elements lead

to the emergence of productivity and wellbeing.

Socio-technical refers to the interrelatedness ofsocialand technicalaspects of an

organization. Socio-technical theory is founded on two main principles:

One is that the interaction of social and technical factors creates the conditions for

successful (or unsuccessful) organizationalperformance. This interaction is

comprised partly oflinearcause and effect relationships (the relationships that

are normally designed) and partly from non-linear, complex, even

unpredictable relationships (the good or bad relationships that are often

unexpected). Whether designed or not, both types of interaction occur when socio

and technical elements are put to work.

The corollary of this, and the second of the two main principles, is that

optimisation of each aspect alone (socio or technical) tends to increase not only

the quantity of unpredictable, un-designed relationships, but those relationships

that are injurious to the systems performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-linearhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoplehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machineshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organisationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performancehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linearhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-linearhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity


5/16

Some of the central principles of socio-technical theory were elaborated in a seminal

paper by Eric Trist and Ken Bamforth in 1951. They are:-

Responsible autonomy

Socio-technical theory was pioneering for its shift in emphasis, a shift towards

considering teams or groups as the primary unit of analysis and not the individual. Socio-

technical theory pays particular attention to internal supervision and leadership at the

level of the group and refers to it as responsible autonomy The overriding point seems

to be that having the simple ability of individual team members being able to perform

their function is not the only predictor of combat effectiveness. There are a range of

issues in team cohesion research, for example, that are answered by having the regulation

and leadership internal to a group or team. These, and other factors, play an integral and

parallel role in ensuring successful teamwork which socio-technical theory exploits. The

idea of semi-autonomous groups conveys a number of further advantages. Not least

among these, especially in hazardous environments, is the often felt need on the part of

people in the organisation for a role in a small primary group. It is argued that such a

need arises in cases where the means for effective communication are often somewhat

limited. As Carvalho states, this is because operators use verbal exchanges to produce
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Tristhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Bamforth&action=edit&redlink=1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Tristhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Bamforth&action=edit&redlink=1


6/16

continuous, redundant and recursive interactions to successfully construct and maintain

individual and mutual awareness The immediacy and proximity of trusted team

members makes it possible for this to occur. The co-evolution of technology and

organizations brings with it an expanding array of new possibilities for novel interaction.

Responsible autonomy could become more distributed along with the team(s) themselves.

The key to responsible autonomy seems to be to design an organization possessing the

characteristics of small groups whilst preventing the silo-thinking and stovepipe

neologisms of contemporary management theory. In order to preserve intact the

loyalties on which the small group [depend]the system as a whole [needs to contain] its

bad in a way that [does] not destroy its good. In practice this requires groups to be

responsible for their own internal regulation and supervision, with the primary task ofrelating the group to the wider system falling explicitly to a group leader. This principle,

therefore, describes a strategy for removing more traditional command hierarchies.

Adaptability

Carvajal states that the rate at which uncertainty overwhelms an organisation is related

more to its internal structure than to the amount of environmental uncertainty. Sitter in

1997 offered two solutions for organisations confronted, like the military, with anenvironment of increased (and increasing) complexity: The first option is to restore the

fit with the external complexity by an increasing internal complexity. ...This usually

means the creation of more staff functions or the enlargement of staff-functions and/or

the investment in vertical information systems. Vertical information systems are often

confused for 'network enabled capability' systems (NEC) but an important distinction

needs to be made, which Sitter et al. propose as their second option: the organisation

tries to deal with the external complexity by reducing the internal control and

coordination needs. ...This option might be called the strategy of simple organisations

and complex jobs. This all contributes to a number of unique advantages. Firstly is the

issue of human redundancy in which groups of this kind were free to set their own

targets, so that aspiration levels with respect to production could be adjusted to the age


7/16

and stamina of the individuals concerned. Human redundancy speaks towards the

flexibility, ubiquity and pervasiveness of resources within NEC.

The second issue is that ofcomplexity. Complexity lies at the heart of many

organisational contexts (there are numerous organizational paradigms that struggle to

cope with it). Trist and Bamforth (1951) could have been writing about these with the

following passage: A very large variety of unfavourable and changing environmental

conditions is encountered ... many of which are impossible to predict. Others, though

predictable, are impossible to alter.

Many type of organisations are clearly motivated by the appealing industrial age,

rational principles of factory production, a particular approach to dealing with

complexity: In the factory a comparatively high degree of control can be exercised over

the complex and moving figure of a production sequence, since it is possible to

maintain the ground in a comparatively passive and constant state. On the other hand,

many activities are constantly faced with the possibility of untoward activity in the

ground of the figure-ground relationship The central problem, one that appears to be

at the nub of many problems that 'classic' organisations have with complexity, is that

The instability of the ground limits the applicability [] of methods derived from the

factory. In Classic organisations problems with the moving figure and moving

ground often become magnified through a much larger social space, one in which there

is a far greater extent of hierarchical task interdependence. For this reason, the semi-

autonomous group, and its ability to make a much more fine grained response to the

ground situation, can be regarded as agile. Added to which, local problems that do

arise need not propagate throughout the entire system (to affect the workload and quality

of work of many others) because a complex organization doing simple tasks has been

replaced by a simpler organization doing more complex tasks. The agility and internal

regulation of the group allows problems to be solved locally without propagation through

a larger social space, thus increasing tempo.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexityhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity


8/16

Whole tasks

Another concept in sociotechnical theory is the whole task. A whole task has the

advantage of placing responsibility for the [] task squarely on the shoulders of a single,

small, face-to-face group which experiences the entire cycle of operations within the

compass of its membership. The Sociotechnical embodiment of this principle is the

notion of minimal critical specification. This principle states that, While it may be

necessary to be quite precise about what has to be done, it is rarely necessary to be

precise about how it is done This is no more illustrated by the antithetical example of

working to rule and the virtual collapse of any system that is subject to the intentional

withdrawal of human adaptation to situations and contexts.

The key factor in minimally critically specifying tasks is the responsible autonomy of the

group to decide, based on local conditions, how best to undertake the task in a flexible

adaptive manner. This principle is isomorphic with ideas like Effects Based Operations

(EBO). EBO asks the question of what goal is it that we want to achieve, what objective

is it that we need to reach rather than what tasks have to be undertaken, when and how.

The EBO concept enables the managers to manipulate and decompose high level

effects. They must then assign lesser effects as objectives for subordinates to achieve.

The intention is that subordinates actions will cumulatively achieve the overall effects

desired. In other words, the focus shifts from being a scriptwriter for tasks to instead

being a designer of behaviours. In some cases this can make the task of the manager

significantly less arduous.

Meaningfulness of tasks

Effects Based Operations and the notion of a whole task, combined with adaptability

and responsible autonomy, have additional advantages for those at work in the

organization. This is because for each participant the task has total significance and

dynamic closure as well as the requirement to deploy a multiplicity of skills and to have

the responsible autonomy in order to select when and how to do so. This is clearly hinting


9/16

at a relaxation of the myriad control mechanisms found in the more classically designed

organizations like.

Greater interdependance (through diffuse processes such as globalisation) also bring with

them an issue of size, in which the scale of a task transcends the limits of simple spatio-

temporal structure. By this is meant conditions under which those concerned can

complete a job in one place at one time, i.e., the situation of the face-to-face, or singular

group. In other words, in classic organisations the wholeness of a task is often

diminished by multiple group integration and spatiotemporal disintegration. The group

based form of organization design proposed by sociotechnical theory combined with new

technological possibilities (such as the internet) provide a response to this often forgotten

issue, one that contributes significantly to joint optimisation.

DEVELOPMENTS IN SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEM:

More recently, the Internet and information systems (IS) hold the potential to link

information technology (IT), such as search engines, message boards, e-zines, and

knowledge management (KM), for instance, together with "tacit" experiences that

connect people with technology. In every aspect this has the appearance of a socio-

technical experience. Today, many organizations are developing KM systems that are

intended to increase the flow of knowledge at multiple levels: in the workplace, at home,

and in the broader community. With the advent of the Internet, our work experiences

continue to transform from production-oriented to knowledge-centered, from competitive

to collaborative, and from mechanistic to organismic. IT and KM provide the technical

framework for knowledge sharing while allowing supervisors to manage the boundary

conditions of the workplace environment. As such, autonomous work groups have once

again emerged everywhere freeing its members to flexibly manage their own activities.

It is this continued redirection away from one person/one task micro-management

focusing instead on information exchange and the advancement of knowledge technology

that is fueling the re-emergence of socio-technical systems at the primary group and


10/16

organizational level. The innovations of many entrepreneurs and the combined

knowledge derived from think tanks, skunk-works, and rogue sub-groups within

organizations are contributing to the advancements that continue to connect us socially

and technically. Indeed, producing and sharing knowledge is a key characteristic of

socio-technical systems. Current IT and KM systems attempt to shrink the epistemic gap

by creating a virtual space for collaborative learning. In this view, autonomous work

groups enact common values, social cooperation, and self-control. After all, the Internet

is fundamentally based on the cybernetic concept of self-regulation. Trist always believed

that a catalyst for change was new technology--more complex primary work systems

would emerge as computer-aided technology advanced. This appears to be so.

On the surface such IT, KM, and e-learning have the appearance of a true socio-

technical system. But not all efforts to connect people with technology are socio-

technical systems. Emery distinguished between operative and regulative institutions.

Socio-technical systems are exclusively operative. The vast majority of Internet-based

learning processes described above are regulative in that management is primarily

concerned with instilling the "interest group's" (those in power positions), values, norms,

and goals upon their subordinates. A technocratic approach has the appearance of the

appropriate technology, one that fits people with technology. However, such regulative

models fail to spark innovation and change.

The Internet exemplifies many of the socio-technical features first set forth by Emery

and Trist. Many organizations are enabling the goodness of fit between technology and

human systems applying STS at the primary group and organizational level. On the Web,

virtual learning community members participate in structured and nonstructured learning

experiences made possible by open systems or e-learning technology. Another area where

STS has once again emerged is online learning or e-learning. Both traditional and

nontraditional universities now offer online classes. Computer-mediated learning or e-

learning as it is currently practiced and applied connects people with technology. In

addition, the open systems nature of e-learning enables collaborative decision-making,

self-regulation, and work group autonomy. This interface again has the appearance of a

socio-technical system.

A few distant learning programs have emerged with an intentional socio-technical


11/16

design. Individuals participating in virtual work groups undergo a transformation through

which they establish the validity for new ways of learning and knowing. This type of

learning is often an emotional as well as an intellectual experience undertaken in terms of

the concept of a learning society. In this example learning and knowing takes place at

three levels, the individual level, the group level, and at the macrosocial level where

participants are encouraged to apply theory to practice. This is the basis for the

researcher/practitioner model. However, the vast majority of distance-learning

institutions are much more regulative as they are not a genuine STS effort.

Trist often referred to these type of efforts as technocratic bureaucracies

overemphasizing the technologies that drive the system from a strictly (IT) or scientific

view, the view that science and technology are the only legitimate and useful modes of

knowledge. Trist believed that an over-emphasis on an (IT) solutiona system for

change belonging to engineering disciplines far removed from socio-technical

considerationsminimizes the role of the individual and the significance of social

interaction. In other words, IT-developed e-learning frameworks often remove

responsibility from the individual by placing it instead on the technology. In this view

engineers following the "technological macrosocial imperative" simply designing

whatever organization the technology seems to require. Proceeding in this way creates

barriers that are presumed to be offset by improving socioeconomic conditions. For

instance, regulative e-learning resembles that of an online classroom where learning is

hierarchical and highly transactional. Information has a price.


12/16

DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS (DSS):

Decision Support Systems (DSS) are a specific class of computerized information system

that supports business and organizational decision-making activities. A properly designed

DSS is an interactive software-based system intended to help decision makers compile

useful information from raw data, documents, personal knowledge, and/or business

models to identify and solve problems and make decisions.

Typical information that a decision support application might gather and present

would be:

Accessing all of your current information assets, including legacy and relational

data sources, cubes, data warehouses, and data marts

Comparative sales figures between one week and the next

Projected revenue figures based on new product sales assumptions The consequences of different decision alternatives, given past experience in a

context that is described


13/16

DEFINITIONS:

DSS are a model-based set of procedures for processing data and judgments to

assist a manager in his/her decision [Little, 1970]

DSS couple the intellectual resources of individuals with the capabilities of the

computer to improve the quality of decisions. Its a computer-based support for

management decision makers who deal with semi-structured problems [Keen &

Scott-Morton, 1978]

DSS is a system that is extendable, capable of supporting ad hoc analysis and

decision modelling, oriented towards future planning, and of being used at

irregular, unplanned intervals [Moore & Chang, 1980]

DSS enable mangers to use data and models related to an entity (object) ofinterest to solve semi-structured and unstructured problems with which they are

faced [Beulens & Van Nunen, 1988]

Main feature of DSS rely in the model component. Formal quantitative models

such as statistical, simulation, logic and optimization models are used to represent

the decision model, and their solutions are alternative solutions [Emery, 1987;

Bell, 1992]

DSS are systems for extracting, summarising and displaying data [McNurlin &

Sprague, 1993]


14/16

FEATURES:

assist managers in unstructured/semi- structured tasks

support rather than replace the human DM

improve the effectiveness rather than the efficiency

combine the use of models or analytical techniques with data access functions

Emphasise flexibility and adaptability to respect changes in the decision context

TYPES OF DSS:

A decision support system may present information graphically and may include an

expert system or artificial intelligence (AI). It may be aimed at business executives or

some other group of knowledge workers.

Typical information that a decision support application might gather and present would

be, (a) Accessing all information assets, including legacy and relational data sources; (b)

Comparative data figures; (c) Projected figures based on new data or assumptions; (d)

Consequences of different decision alternatives, given past experience in a specific

context.

There are a number of Decision Support Systems. These can be categorized into five

types:

Communication-driven DSS

Most communications-driven DSSs are targetted at internal teams, including

partners. Its purpose are to help conduct a meeting, or for users to collaborate.

The most common technology used to deploy the DSS is a web or client server.

Examples: chats and instant messaging softwares, online collaboration and net-meeting systems.

Data-driven DSS

Most data-driven DSSs are targeted at managers, staff and also product/service

suppliers. It is used to query a database or data warehouse to seek specific

answers for specific purposes. It is deployed via a main frame system,


15/16

client/server link, or via the web. Examples: computer-based databases that have a

query system to check (including the incorporation of data to add value to existing

databases.

Document-driven DSS

Document-driven DSSs are more common, targeted at a broad base of user

groups. The purpose of such a DSS is to search web pages and find documents on

a specific set of keywords or search terms. The usual technology used to set up

such DSSs are via the web or a client/server system. Examples:

Knowledge-driven DSS:

Knowledge-driven DSSs or 'knowledgebase' are they are known, are a catch-all

category covering a broad range of systems covering users within the organization

seting it up, but may also include others interacting with the organization - for

example, consumers of a business. It is essentially used to provide management

advice or to choose products/services. The typical deployment technology used to

set up such systems could be slient/server systems, the web, or software runnung

on stand-alone PCs.

Model-driven DSS

Model-driven DSSs are complex systems that help analyse decisions or choose

between different options. These are used by managers and staff members of a

business, or people who interact with the organization, for a number of purposes

depending on how the model is set up - scheduling, decision analyses etc. These

DSSs can be deployed via software/hardware in stand-alone PCs, client/server

systems, or the web.

BENEFITS OF DSS:

1. Improves personal efficiency

2. Expedites problem solving (speed up the progress of problems solving in an

organization)

3. Facilitates interpersonal communication


16/16

4. Promotes learning or training

5. Increases organizational control

6. Generates new evidence in support of a decision

7. Creates a competitive advantage over competition

8. Encourages exploration and discovery on the part of the decision maker

9. Reveals new approaches to thinking about the problem space

10. Helps automate the managerial processes

Documents

SOCIO-TECHINICAL SYSTEM and DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS