Elsevier

Applied Ergonomics

Volume 31, Issue 5, 2 October 2000, Pages 463-477
Applied Ergonomics

Sociotechnical principles for system design

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00009-0Get rights and content

Abstract

This paper offers a set of sociotechnical principles to guide system design, and some consideration of the role of principles of this kind. The principles extend earlier formulations by Cherns (1976, Human Relations, 29, 783–792; 1987, Human Relations, 40, 153–162). They are intended to apply to the design of new systems, including those incorporating new information technologies and a range of modern management practices and ways of working. They attempt to provide a more integrated perspective than is apparent in existing formulations. The principles are of three broad types: meta, content and process, though they are highly interrelated. They are for use by system managers, users and designers, and by technologists and social scientists. They offer ideas for debate and provide devices through which detailed design discussions can be elaborated. The principles are most likely to be effective if they are relatively freestanding, but supported by relevant methods and tools. The principles are necessary but not sufficient to make a substantial contribution to design practice.

Introduction

The aims of this paper are to offer a revised set of sociotechnical principles to guide system design, and to consider the potential roles and contributions of such principles. This is timely for a number of reasons. It is nearly 25 yr since Cherns (1976) published his landmark paper formulating for the first time a set of principles of sociotechnical design. A decade later he revisited them (Cherns, 1987).

It is apparent that industrial and commercial environments have changed enormously over this period. The rate of technological change has increased and has become dominated by new information and communication technologies. For example, the total spend on information technology in the USA in 1996 has been estimated at around $500 billion (Gibbs, 1997). Furthermore, not only are the new technologies becoming more prevalent and powerful; they also offer opportunities to work in more interconnected ways, providing the scope and catalyst for new working arrangements. The organization of work is also changing at unprecedented rates, partly as a result of the growth of a range of new management practices and techniques (Cairncross, 1998; Davenport, 1996; Dean and Snell, 1991; Hammer and Champy, 1993; Hanson et al., 1994; Oliver and Wilkinson, 1992; Storey, 1994). Teamworking, supply-chain partnering, empowerment, cell-based working, process-based working, just-in-time procedures, total quality management, and others, all constitute changes in work organization and working practices.

Inevitably many of these innovations are linked, for example as new management and working practices are accompanied, facilitated or enabled by the introduction of new technologies. Whilst these changes are usually not explicitly called as such by their designers and users, they can be interpreted as sociotechnical endeavours. Whether labelled as `sociotechnical’ or not, changes in sociotechnology continue at increasing rates. Given the scale and nature of these changes, it is timely to consider whether or not new or amended underlying design principles are required.

Whilst these changes in part reflect increased perceptions and levels of competition, there remains an underlying productivity paradox. For all the investments that have taken place and seem set to continue, and in spite of substantial reductions in the cost of computing power, it is apparent that many technical innovations are substantially less effective than intended (Blackler and Brown, 1986; Clegg et al., 1997; Gibbs, 1997; Kearney, 1990; Landauer, 1995; Norman, 1998; Roach, 1985). Nor is disappointing performance restricted to new technology. Modern management practices also often fail to meet the objectives set for them (Davenport, 1996; Hackman and Wageman, 1995; Ingersoll Engineers, 1991, Ingersoll Engineers, 1996; Waterson et al., 1997). Sociotechnical theory has at its core the notion that the design and performance of new systems can be improved, and indeed can only work satisfactorily, if the `social’ and the `technical’ are brought together and treated as interdependent aspects of a work system. Improvements in sociotechnical design principles and practice should contribute to enhanced levels of performance, where this can be taken to include operational measures such as effectiveness and productivity, along with psychological indicators concerned with well-being and attitudes.

It can also be argued that the application and diffusion of sociotechnical principles and practices have been disappointing, although one must recognize that there are international variations in this regard (van Eijnatten, 1993). Various interrelated criticisms can be levelled. The joint design and optimization of social and technical systems has been and remains rare (Matthews, 1997; Mumford, 1987; Pasmore et al., 1982). Most investments in IT are technology-led, reflecting too technical an emphasis. Many organizations lack an integrated approach to organizational and technical change, and, in most cases, users do not have substantial influence on system development (Clegg et al., 1997). Interventions often continue to take the technology as given, and the task becomes that of designing the social system around the technology. Criticisms have also been made that sociotechnical inputs are partial in their coverage and perspective. The core ideas and practices on which the sociotechnical contribution is based (the principles, the innovation of autonomous work groups, and the criteria for well-designed jobs) are largely social in their content and orientation (Klein, 1994; Czaja, 1997). There is little that is in widespread use, that helps guide the design and optimization of the technical aspects of the system, except by implication, or indeed that treats the social and the technical as an integrated whole (de Sitter et al., 1997). In sum, sociotechnical principles and ideas have not had the impact that their proponents might wish, especially given the changing context described above.

This is not to claim that the presentation of a revised set of principles will resolve all the above difficulties, in particular regarding levels of system performance and rates of diffusion. Rather these issues help illustrate the context within which such revisions are needed.

Before describing the principles, some further remarks help set the scene. The ideas are offered in the same spirit as were those in Cherns’ earlier work, to offer ideas, to promote further debate and to encourage action. They are not offered as finished products; indeed their articulation helps clarify where some of the gaps in our knowledge exist. Nor is their presentation intended to imply that design is thereby rendered non-problematic, that the principles alone are enough.

Nevertheless, a central assumption underlying this work is that social science has an interest in, commitment to, and contribution to, design (Simon, 1969). Too often in this domain, the contribution of social scientists is assumed to rest in a concern for the human and organizational impacts of new technologies, techniques or practices. The broad intent here is with making a contribution to design.

The principles have four main potential functions. They are intended to raise questions of design and designers that demand and merit attention. They advocate a series of interconnected perspectives on design, for example, arguing the need to include end-users in the design process, and identifying what makes for well-designed jobs, information systems and function allocations. These perspectives are concerned with content and process issues, but also with overall orientation (in the form of meta-principles). The principles also provide a potential framework for evaluation purposes. And finally here, they have some predictive value. Thus, for example, one can predict that failure to consider and resolve such issues (both at a general level and at the level of specific criteria) will result in designs that do not meet their objectives.

The principles are concerned with work system design and reflect a macro-ergonomic perspective (Hendrick, 1991). They reflect the author's experiences in undertaking a number of research and development projects over the past few years, focused both on new technologies and new management and working practices. They represent an attempt to synthesize personal experience in undertaking research and development with existing sociotechnical literatures.

The rest of this paper is organized in two main sections, involving the presentation of a revised set of sociotechnical principles, and consideration of the potential roles and contributions of principles of this kind.

Section snippets

Sociotechnical principles for system design

The new principles are summarized in Table 1, along with comments on the main points of similarity and difference with Cherns’ earlier work (1976, 1987). The principles are of three broad types. Some are labelled meta-principles since they are intended to capture a worldview of design, a `Weltanschauung'. Some are focused on more specific aspects of the content of new designs, whilst the third group is more concerned with the process of design. It is important to stress at the outset that the

What are the roles of sociotechnical principles?

Principles of this kind are not offered as blueprints for strict adherence. They are not intended as design rules for mechanistic application. Rather, they provide inputs to people working in different roles and from different disciplines who are engaged collaboratively in design. They offer ideas for debate, providing rhetorical devices through which detailed design discussions can be opened up and elaborated. Heuristic, rather than algorithmic, thinking is required.

It is important to consider

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions and comments of a number of colleagues including Carolyn Axtell, Cathy Cassell, Peter Gardner, Gudela Grote, Friso den Hertog, Kathryn Pepper, Toby Wall, and, not least, two anonymous referees.

References (56)

  • A. Ainger

    Aspects of an experimental industrial application of human-centred CIM systems

    (1990)
  • A. van Assen et al.

    From job rotation to organization design

  • D. Beevis et al.

    The NATO Defence Research Group Workshop on Function Allocation

  • Bevan, H. 1996. Managing today while creating tomorrow: the paradox of a re-engineering journey. Working Paper HWP...
  • F. Blackler et al.

    Alternative models to guide the design and introduction of the new information technologies into work organizations

    J. Occup. Psychol.

    (1986)
  • F. Cairncross

    Communications and distance

    Roy. Soc. of Arts J.

    (1998)
  • A.B. Cherns

    The principles of sociotechnical design

    Human Relations

    (1976)
  • A.B. Cherns

    Principles of sociotechnical design revisited

    Human Relations

    (1987)
  • Clegg, C.W. 1986. Trip to Japan: human resources and synergy. Personnel Manage. August,...
  • C.W. Clegg

    Social systems that marginalize the psychological and organizational aspects of Information technology

    Behav. Inform. Technol.

    (1993)
  • C.W. Clegg et al.

    Information Technologya study of performance and the role of human and organizational factors

    Ergonomics

    (1997)
  • C.W. Clegg et al.

    The Charge of the `Byte Brigade’ and a sociotechnical respose

    International Journal of Human–Computer Studies

    (2000)
  • C.W. Clegg et al.

    Software developmentknowledge-intensive work organizations

    Behav. Inform. Technol.

    (1996)
  • S.J. Czaja

    Systems design and evaluation

  • Dankbaar, B., 1997. Lean production: denial, confirmation or extension of sociotechnical systems design? Human...
  • T.P. Davenport

    The fad that forgot people

    Fast Company

    (1996)
  • J.W. Dean et al.

    Integrated manufacturing and job designmoderating effects of organizational inertia

    Academy of Management Journal

    (1991)
  • F.M. van Eijnatten

    The Paradigm that Changed the Workplace

    (1993)
  • F. Emery

    Report on the Hunsfoss Project

    (1964)
  • P.M. Fitts

    Human Engineering for an Effective Air Navigation and Traffic Control System

    (1951)
  • W.W. Gibbs

    Taking computers to task

    Sci. Am.

    (1997)
  • G. Grote et al.

    Criteria for the complementary allocation of functions in automated work systems and their use in simultaneous engineering projects

    Int. J. Ind. Ergon

    (1995)
  • J.R. Hackman et al.

    Development of the job diagnostic survey

    J Appl. Psychol.

    (1976)
  • J.R. Hackman et al.

    Total Quality Managementempirical, conceptual and practical issues

    Administrative Sci. Quart.

    (1995)
  • M. Hammer et al.

    Re-engineering the CorporationA Manifesto for Business Revolution

    (1993)
  • P. Hanson et al.

    Made in EuropeA Four Nations Best Practice Study

    (1994)
  • H.W. Hendrick

    Ergonomics in organizational design and management

    Ergonomics

    (1991)
  • P. Hornby et al.

    Human and organizational approaches to systems development

    Behav. Inform. Technol.

    (1992)
  • Cited by (531)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text