- Email: [email protected]
The STSD Tool IT-Support for Socio-Technical System Design
Copyright @ IFAC Analysis, Design and Evaluation of Human-Machine Systems, Kassel, Germany, 2001
THE STSD TOOL IT-SUPPORT FOR SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEM DESIGN
Scott Little*, Martin van de Bovenkampo, Ruben JongkindO, Toni WiiOer*, Frans van EijnattenO, Gudela Grote*
*Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Institute of Work Psychology, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland; [email protected] °University of Technology (TUE), Faculty of Technology Management (TM), Eindhoven; e-mail [email protected]
Abstract: The concept of the socio-technical system design tool (STSD tool) is presented. The STSD tool supports participatory re-design of assembly enterprises on the basis of the socio-technical approach. It is aimed at a joint optimization of social and technical factors. For this the tool offers criteria for analysis and guidelines for the development of solutions. Arguments for the chosen concept as well as the theoretical approach the STSD tool is based on are explained. The procedure of the tool application is described in detail and results of a test of the concept of the STSD tool are summarized. Copyright C 2001lFAC Keywords: Socio-technical system design, software tools, assembly, optimization, simulation.
I . INTRODUCTION
new quality possible neither to the human or the technical factor alone. The STSD tool is designed to be used by the staff of assembly enterprises. This participatory approach allows the employees from different levels of the hierarchy and different professional backgrounds (operators, supervisors, managers and engineers) to develop design solutions together. Consequently all the experience and knowledge of the involved staff can be taken into consideration. The STSD tool guides the user group step by step through a solution development process. For this process it is essential to analyze certain aspects in detail but also to consider the system as a whole. Therefore the STSD tool supports a procedure that takes both the analytical and the holistic perspective into account by integrating two socio-technical approaches. Whereas the Integral Organizational Renewal (JOR) approach (e.g. De Sitter et aI., 1990; De Sitter et aI., 1997; Van Eijnatten and Van der Zwaan, 1998) focuses on the holistic perspective, the KOMPASS method (Grote et aI., 1995; 2000) focuses on the analytical perspective. The distinction between the analytical and holistic perspective in these two approaches is not strict however; it is rather an accentuation of focus.
The socio-technical system design tool (STSD tool) is being developed within the project PSIMi . The STSD tool is a software tool conceived for the analysis and redesign of production processes and work organization according to the socio-technical approach. The socio-technical approach considers social and technical factors therefore making interactions apparent and allowing a joint optimization that aims at avoiding technical biases in system design. Such biases not only neglect the potential of the human factor but - in the extreme even destroy human potentials. Instead, a system design is aimed at, that explicitly considers the differences in strengths and weaknesses of both human and technical factors, in order to reach a
This research has been carried out in the EU IST-IMS PSIM Project (farticipative !£imulation environment for Integral Manufacturing enterprise renewal (IMS 1999-00004» . The project is funded by the European Commission and the Swiss Federation. PSIM is part of HUMACS, a project within the international IMS research program.
351
Criteria on the level of the work system (a work system is a unit of an enterprise that was created to execute a certain task), criteria on the level of the human work task and criteria focusing on the human-machine function allocation. All work system related criteria are derived from the key notion that work systems should be designed such that system variances and disturbances can be regulated at their source, thereby avoiding their uncontrolled propagation or even preventing their occurrence. Examples of criteria for the work system are independence of the work system, boundary regulation by superiors and autonomy of work groups. The criteria related to the human work task stress the importance of complete tasks for individual competence development and job motivation. Examples for these criteria are planning and decision making requirements, opportunities for learning and personal development, variety, and transparency of work flow. The controllability of the technical system by the human formed the core assumption for the development of the criteria for the human-machine function allocation. Examples for these criteria are process transparency, decision authority and flexible function allocation. The holistic part of the STSD tool is relevant for the solution development and elaboration. The guidelines and examples that support the users in this task are based on the Integral Organizational Renewal (JOR) approach. IOR advocates the integration of different types of performance capacities (operative, preparative, supportive) as well as different types of control capacities (strategic, tactical and operational) into every organizational unit. The procedure presented in the next chapter consists of three phases of which the second phase focuses on the analytical perspective and the third phase focuses on the holistic perspective.
Analyzing interactions between social and technical factors systematically and developing a solution that takes these interactions into account is a complex undertaking. To support the tool users in this task the STSD tool is conceived as a software tool with specific features that help dealing with complexity. By means of visualization relations are made transparent and an interactive simulation network allows the tool users to anticipate possible consequences of system changes. The development of the STSD tool is not completed yet. A paper and pencil version of the tool was tested in a workshop at an enterprise with participation of the staff. Currently a software prototype is being developed that will be tested at another assembly enterprise. In the following chapter the theoretical background of the STSD tool is explained, chapter three contains a detailed description of the procedure, in chapter four the results of the first tool test are summarized and chapter five contains a short conclusion and outlook.
2. ANALYTIC AND HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVES OF THE STSD TOOL Within the socio-technical approach it is assumed that the social and the technical part of a production system function according to fundamentally different principles. The social system functions according to human patterns and the technical system follows the rules of engineering sciences. Yet they are correlative in that one requires the other for the transformation of an input into an output, which comprises the functional task of a work system (Trist, 1981). In order to allow the entire system to function both types of principles need be considered likewise (Grote, 1997). In order to develop design solutions the current situation of a production system needs to be analyzed in detail. For this the STSD tool supports an analytical perspective. It must be examined how different variables of production systems influence each other in order not to improve one variable and simultaneously worsen others. Once the complex interrelations of a production system's different variables are comprehensible a solution must be developed that considers the production system as a whole The solution must take all the different aspects together into account, as developing several specific solutions will not enable a joint optimization, as the interactions are not considered. Therefore the holistic perspective is applied for the development of a solution. The KOMPASS method is integrated in the STSD tool for the analytical perspective. This method contains a set of socio-technical criteria for the analysis and redesign of production processes and work organization. The KOMP ASS method distinguishes three levels of socio-technical criteria:
3. PROCEDURE OF STSD TOOL USE The procedure consists of several easy to follow steps that support and guide the users in developing and evaluating a solution. The STSD tool supports the users in developing solutions by offering guidelines, examples, socio-technical design criteria and information on the socio-technical approach; it does not provide the users with a ready-made solution. The software version of the tool will allow executing some steps of the procedure individually on computers connected to a network; other steps however need to be accomplished together in a group. The STSD tool is flexible regarding the starting point of tool use. Starting points of tool use can be problems related to production processes and work
352
organization, the evaluation of already eXlstmg ideas for re-design or the general goal to optimize production processes and work organization. In this section the procedure is explained assuming that the STSD tool is used for finding a solution for problems related to production processes and work organization. Before using the STSD tool the following points have to be clarified: First the problem that is being addressed (e.g. less absenteeism of personnel, large fluctuations in production) and the section of the enterprise that is affected by this problem need to be defined. Secondly the group of employees that will develop a solution for the problem has to be composed. The STSD tool procedure consists of three phases: In the first phase the user group has to make a detailed description of the current situation of the unit of analysis. The "unit of analysis" is designated as that part of the enterprise that needs to be considered when developing a solution for a problem. In the second phase the user group defines the objectives they want to achieve and make an evaluation of the unit of analysis using the sociotechnical tool criteria provided by the STSD tool. The user group then relates the tool criteria to the objectives establishing the participatory simulation network. This phase supports the analytical perspective. In the third phase the user group is provided with conceptual solutions as support for generating, concretizing and evaluating solutions. This phase focuses more on the holistic perspective. Following the three phases are described in detail.
organization (hierarchy levels, teams etc), communication paths, interfaces with other organizational units, wage system (are individuals or teams rewarded?). Questions related to the tasks focus on the task(s) of the unit of analysis, inputs and outputs of the unit of analysis considering information and material as well as the tasks of the individuals. Furthermore all the problems occurring in the unit of analysis have to be listed. On ground of this description the user group can reconsider the unit of analysis (do other organizational units need be included?) and the project group (who else needs to join the user group?) This description guarantees a common view of the unit of analysis to which the user group can refer to at any point in the tool procedure. In phase 3 (solution development) this description can be used to see which consequences the derived solution has on the unit of analysis.
3.2 Socio-technical Analysis (phase 2)
In the second phase objectives are set and the unit of analysis is evaluated by means of these objectives and the socio-technical tool criteria. The objectives define the situation that needs to be achieved by the solution that is being developed with the STSD tool application. The aim of this phase is to create insight into the relations between the socio-technical design criteria and the objectives. For a better understanding the tool provides background information on the sociotechnical approach and specific information for the socio-technical tool criteria. As a first step the user group has to define objectives. The tool offers specific support for defining objectives by presenting four categories: Business management objectives, organizational objectives, employee-related objectives and technological objectives. The user group collects all the objectives they consider relevant and assign them to one of these categories. The categories are provided as orientation help for the user group and to assure that none of these relevant categories are overseen. The tool also provides a set of objectives that are generally considered important for production units. As a next step the user group has to cluster all the objectives by similarity (objectives from different categories can form a cluster) and filter those objectives that are not within the application range of the STSD tool. Then for every objective cluster a superordinate term must be defined that expresses best the essence of the cluster. After this the user group has to rank the clusters according to their relevance for the unit of analysis. The objective clusters (maximum eight) considered the most relevant will be used in the further tool procedure. This objective generating process is necessary to
3. / Description of the unit of analysis (phase 1)
In this phase the user group has to establish a detailed as is description of the unit of analysis. This description contains information about the tasks, the organization and the interfaces with other organizational units. Furthermore the communication within the unit of analysis and the communication with external organizational units is described. For this the STSD tool presents visualizations and questions the user group has to work on . The tool presents visualized schemes of the unit of analysis in which the user group is asked to mark communication and process paths as well as the different individual tasks that are performed. Next to working on visualizations the user group has to answer questions concerning the unit of analysis. Employee related questions focus on the number of staff, the level of education, the tasks the employees have to perform, the number of employees directly involved in the production process, the number of employees not directly involved in the production process. Questions related to the organization focus on the overall
353
collect all the objectives the user group considers relevant and to clarify side and long-term effects of these objectives. In a next step the STSD tool presents the theoretical background on the STSD-approach by explaining keywords of the socio-technical approach as well as a summary of the tool criteria that will be used in the next step. Now the tool criteria are explained in detail. For every criterion the users have to decide if it is relevant for the analysis. If it is not considered relevant it can be dismissed and the next criterion is addressed. If the criterion is considered relevant the user group has to assess this criterion in respect to the unit of analysis. For this a scale is offered. For instance the users have to decide if the autonomy of the work groups in the unit of analysis is low, medium etc. The users then have to write a short explanation why they chose a certain score. This is done to assure that at a later point of the tool procedure it can be recalled why a certain score was chosen. The result of this step is a socio-technical evaluation of the unit of analysis. As a next step the user group has to relate the STSD tool criteria they considered relevant for the unit of analysis to the objective clusters they defined previously (in the following referred to as the objectives). In order to relate the criteria to the objectives the STSD tool presents a scale for the possible relations (strong positive relation, positive relation, no relation, negative relation, strong negative relation). The users have to relate every tool criterion to each objective. For instance the criterion autonomy of the work groups has to be related to the objective less absenteeism. The users need to proceed as follows : First they have to answer the question : Would the increase of the autonomy of the work groups have a positive, a negative or no influence on the absenteeism rate? The users decide e.g. that this would have a positive effect. Then the strength of the relation has to be assessed. For this again a scale is provided. The user group then decides for instance that the relation between the criterion autonomy of the work groups and the objective less absenteeism is positive very strong. Here again the users have to write a short explanation why they chose a certain type of relation. This step is repeated for all possible relations between the criteria and the objectives. The result of this step is a participatory developed network containing the objectives and the criteria considered relevant for the unit of analysis (Figure I). This network represents the core of the STSD tool as it visualizes the assumptions made by the tool users concerning the interactions between tool criteria and objectives. With its help the tool users can simulate the dependencies between the objectives and criteria in an interactive way. Scores such as low, medium or high can be changed on the criteria and the tool simulates the effects of these
Objectives
Criteria
, ~,
~
....,
~lc~c~c~.~c~I~~~-----------------'-'~'·I·ccccl Fig. I. Example for a visualized network containing the relations of four criteria and four objectives. The rectangles represent the criteria and the objectives. The small black squares within the rectangles represent the scores on the criteria and the objectives. The arrows represent the relations between the criteria and the objectives. The dotted lines indicate a negative relation, the solid lines a positive relation. changes on the objectives according to the assumptions of the tool users. This interactive simulation helps coping with the complexity that arises when analyzing several objectives by means of the tool criteria. The final step of the second phase is to explore the dependencies between the criteria and the objectives by use of this network. The network will be applied in phase 3 for investigating possible consequences of solutions on the objectives.
3.3 Solution evaluation (phase 3) In the third phase support is offered for developing and evaluating socio-technical solutions. The aim of this phase is to have an evaluated and concretized solution that reaches the defined objecti ves. In the first step conceptual solutions are introduced and explained, for instance self-managed work teams. For every conceptual solution the general principles are explained, background information is provided, cases and points of attention are presented. The user group can choose freely which information they want to view. Once the user group has examined all the information they consider relevant they can choose one or a combination of the conceptual solutions or pursue an own idea for a solution. In the next step the user group has to concretize the chosen conceptual solution and adapt it to the situation of the unit of analysis. For this the STSD tool presents questions reflecting possible consequences of the solution on the unit of analysis. These questions relate to the consequences for the employees, the production processes and the
354
organization. Furthermore limitations are taken into consideration (e.g. the production process can only be changed to a certain extend) as well as the advantages and the disadvantages of the "new" situation compared to the current situation. Once the solution has been concretized and it has been considered how the solution affects the unit of analysis the user group can proceed to the final step of the STSD tool procedure. In the final step of the STSD tool the criteriaobjectives network (figure I) is used to examine the effects of the solutions on the objectives. It has to be assessed how the solution would change the scores on the criteria. A scale is provided for this evaluation. For each criterion the user group has to assess how the solution would change the unit of analysis. For instance if the solution were implemented in the unit of analysis would the autonomy of the work groups stay the same, increase or decrease? This assessment is entered into the criteria-objective network. As the network connects the criteria to the objecti ves the network can simulate the effects of the solution on the objectives via the tool criteria. By changing the scores on the criteria according to the solution (the "new" situation) the scores on the objectives change e.g. the score on the objective absenteeism rate can change from high to low. Depending on the effects on the objectives the user group can reconsider the solution (make changes to the solution). The tool users can also view the description made in phase I of the procedure and implement the changes there for a further comparison of the current situation with the situation according to the solution. The result of the STSD tool use is a concretized and systematically evaluated solution that is in accordance with the socio-technical approach. The STSD tool however does not support the actual implementation of the solution in the production environment.
was not tested. The following problems had been detected at the unit of analysis: Decreasing production rate, no transparency of the performed actiVIties, nsmg absenteeism rate, growing frustration of the employees regarding the work situation, no integration between management and production personnel and a insufficient utilization of the capacity of the technology. The production manager participating in the workshop suggested two ideas for possible solutions of the problems: Job rotation and selfmanaged work teams. The task of the workshop participants was to elaborate these suggestions. As a first step the workshop participants had to determine objectives as described in phase 2 of the tool procedure. The following objectives were defined: Improvement of the knowledge of the employees, an increase of the togetherness and of the responsibilities of the employees, better resource planning and a new rewarding system to increase motivation. The participants considered this step as a typical way to approach problems and discussing ideas of solutions. One problem was stated in this step: It was difficult to discern between solutions and objectives. When asked to derive objectives (what do we want to achieve?) several solutions were already proposed (how are we going to reach the objectives?). The proceeding in the socio-technical analysis (phase 2) was considered helpful, interesting and supportive in developing new insights. Relating the objectives to the tool criteria at first was not clear to some participants and needed further explanation. In order to explore the dependencies of criteria and objectives the relations defined by the participants were entered into the IT mock-up. As it was not possible that every participant individually could work with the IT mock-up it was difficult to assess the benefit or the difficulties of this step. We believe nonetheless that with adequate visualization this step will be a strong support for the tool users to understand better the interaction between objectives and criteria and dealing with the complexity of the numerous relations. Furthermore, in the final tool information on the theoretical background of the socio-technical approach and specific information regarding the tool criteria will be presented by means of multimedia. In the third phase (solution evaluation) the two ideas of solutions suggested by the manager (job rotation and self-managed work teams) were elaborated and evaluated by means of the IT mockup containing the criteria-objective network. The solution self-managed work teams turned out to have a stronger positive impact on the objectives than the solution job rotation. During the further elaboration of self-managed work teams it was regarded necessary to integrate job rotation into the solution self-managed work teams. Due to time constraints it was not possible to develop new solutions from scratch but as the
4. RESULTS OF THE FIRST TOOL TEST The tool was tested at an industrial enterprise. The aim of the tool test was to evaluate the STSD tool procedure and the support offered by the tool as well as to give the enterprise the opportunity to find a solution for the problems of the unit of analysis. As the STSD tool at the time of the tool test was merely a paper and pencil concept (except for an IT based mock-up modeling the relations between criteria and objectives) the test was realized as a workshop of three and a half days. Eight employees from different levels of the hierarchy with different professional backgrounds participated in the workshop that was facilitated by three members of the STSD tool development team. The description of the unit of analysis was made in advance and therefore the first phase of the STSD tool procedure
355
suggested solutions were merely basic propositions there was enough degrees of freedom to implement own ideas. The information presented for supporting this phase was regarded very helpful and easy to understand. The problems and difficulties that occurred in the workshop are taken into consideration in the further development of the STSD tool. It was also realized that some extra support will be needed for defining the preconditions for a successful implementation of the developed solution.
Sitter, L.U. de, Hertog, 1.F. den and Eijnatten, F.M. van (1990). Simple organizations. complex jobs: The Dutch socio-technical approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Management, San Francisco, I2-15 August. Sitter, L.U. de, Hertog, 1.F. den and Dankbaar, B. (1997). From complex organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. Human Relations, 50 (5), 497534. Trist, E. L. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems. Issues in the Qualify of working Life, No. 2. Ontario: Ministry of Labor.
5. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK The STSD tool is a software tool that supports the development of solutions in assembly enterprises in a participatory way according to the principles of the socio-technical approach. Both a holistic and an analytical perspective are considered in the solution development process. The STSD tool offers specific help for handling the complexity of this undertaking by means of visualization and an interactive simulation network that is based on the assumptions of the tool users. This simulation network allows the tool users to observe possible effects the developed solution can have. The procedure and the support offered by the tool were tested in a workshop with participation of assembly staff and regarded as interesting, challenging and supportive. The concretized and evaluated solution was considered promising. The information collected and the experiences made during the workshop served as input for the further development of the software prototype of the STSD tool that currently is being developed and will be tested at an assembly enterprise.
REFERENCES Eijnatten, F.M. van and Zwaan, A.H. van der (1998). The Dutch IOR approach to organizational design . An alternative to Business process Re-engineering ? Human Relations, 51 (3) March, 289-318. Grote, G. (1997). Autonomie und Kontrolle: zur Gestaltung automatisierter und risikoreicher Systeme. Zurich: vdf, Hochschulverlag an der ETH Zurich. Grote, G., Weik, S., Wafler, T. and Zii1ch, M. (1995). Criteria for the complementary allocation of functions in automated work systems and their use in simultaneous engineering projects. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomis, 16, 367-382. Grote, G., Ryser, c., Wafler, T., Windischer, A. and Weik, S. (2000). KOMPASS: A method for complementary function allocation in automated work systems. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 52, 267-287.
356
THE STSD TOOL IT-SUPPORT FOR SOCIO-TECHNICAL SYSTEM DESIGN
Scott Little*, Martin van de Bovenkampo, Ruben JongkindO, Toni WiiOer*, Frans van EijnattenO, Gudela Grote*
*Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Institute of Work Psychology, CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland; [email protected] °University of Technology (TUE), Faculty of Technology Management (TM), Eindhoven; e-mail [email protected]
Abstract: The concept of the socio-technical system design tool (STSD tool) is presented. The STSD tool supports participatory re-design of assembly enterprises on the basis of the socio-technical approach. It is aimed at a joint optimization of social and technical factors. For this the tool offers criteria for analysis and guidelines for the development of solutions. Arguments for the chosen concept as well as the theoretical approach the STSD tool is based on are explained. The procedure of the tool application is described in detail and results of a test of the concept of the STSD tool are summarized. Copyright C 2001lFAC Keywords: Socio-technical system design, software tools, assembly, optimization, simulation.
I . INTRODUCTION
new quality possible neither to the human or the technical factor alone. The STSD tool is designed to be used by the staff of assembly enterprises. This participatory approach allows the employees from different levels of the hierarchy and different professional backgrounds (operators, supervisors, managers and engineers) to develop design solutions together. Consequently all the experience and knowledge of the involved staff can be taken into consideration. The STSD tool guides the user group step by step through a solution development process. For this process it is essential to analyze certain aspects in detail but also to consider the system as a whole. Therefore the STSD tool supports a procedure that takes both the analytical and the holistic perspective into account by integrating two socio-technical approaches. Whereas the Integral Organizational Renewal (JOR) approach (e.g. De Sitter et aI., 1990; De Sitter et aI., 1997; Van Eijnatten and Van der Zwaan, 1998) focuses on the holistic perspective, the KOMPASS method (Grote et aI., 1995; 2000) focuses on the analytical perspective. The distinction between the analytical and holistic perspective in these two approaches is not strict however; it is rather an accentuation of focus.
The socio-technical system design tool (STSD tool) is being developed within the project PSIMi . The STSD tool is a software tool conceived for the analysis and redesign of production processes and work organization according to the socio-technical approach. The socio-technical approach considers social and technical factors therefore making interactions apparent and allowing a joint optimization that aims at avoiding technical biases in system design. Such biases not only neglect the potential of the human factor but - in the extreme even destroy human potentials. Instead, a system design is aimed at, that explicitly considers the differences in strengths and weaknesses of both human and technical factors, in order to reach a
This research has been carried out in the EU IST-IMS PSIM Project (farticipative !£imulation environment for Integral Manufacturing enterprise renewal (IMS 1999-00004» . The project is funded by the European Commission and the Swiss Federation. PSIM is part of HUMACS, a project within the international IMS research program.
351
Criteria on the level of the work system (a work system is a unit of an enterprise that was created to execute a certain task), criteria on the level of the human work task and criteria focusing on the human-machine function allocation. All work system related criteria are derived from the key notion that work systems should be designed such that system variances and disturbances can be regulated at their source, thereby avoiding their uncontrolled propagation or even preventing their occurrence. Examples of criteria for the work system are independence of the work system, boundary regulation by superiors and autonomy of work groups. The criteria related to the human work task stress the importance of complete tasks for individual competence development and job motivation. Examples for these criteria are planning and decision making requirements, opportunities for learning and personal development, variety, and transparency of work flow. The controllability of the technical system by the human formed the core assumption for the development of the criteria for the human-machine function allocation. Examples for these criteria are process transparency, decision authority and flexible function allocation. The holistic part of the STSD tool is relevant for the solution development and elaboration. The guidelines and examples that support the users in this task are based on the Integral Organizational Renewal (JOR) approach. IOR advocates the integration of different types of performance capacities (operative, preparative, supportive) as well as different types of control capacities (strategic, tactical and operational) into every organizational unit. The procedure presented in the next chapter consists of three phases of which the second phase focuses on the analytical perspective and the third phase focuses on the holistic perspective.
Analyzing interactions between social and technical factors systematically and developing a solution that takes these interactions into account is a complex undertaking. To support the tool users in this task the STSD tool is conceived as a software tool with specific features that help dealing with complexity. By means of visualization relations are made transparent and an interactive simulation network allows the tool users to anticipate possible consequences of system changes. The development of the STSD tool is not completed yet. A paper and pencil version of the tool was tested in a workshop at an enterprise with participation of the staff. Currently a software prototype is being developed that will be tested at another assembly enterprise. In the following chapter the theoretical background of the STSD tool is explained, chapter three contains a detailed description of the procedure, in chapter four the results of the first tool test are summarized and chapter five contains a short conclusion and outlook.
2. ANALYTIC AND HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVES OF THE STSD TOOL Within the socio-technical approach it is assumed that the social and the technical part of a production system function according to fundamentally different principles. The social system functions according to human patterns and the technical system follows the rules of engineering sciences. Yet they are correlative in that one requires the other for the transformation of an input into an output, which comprises the functional task of a work system (Trist, 1981). In order to allow the entire system to function both types of principles need be considered likewise (Grote, 1997). In order to develop design solutions the current situation of a production system needs to be analyzed in detail. For this the STSD tool supports an analytical perspective. It must be examined how different variables of production systems influence each other in order not to improve one variable and simultaneously worsen others. Once the complex interrelations of a production system's different variables are comprehensible a solution must be developed that considers the production system as a whole The solution must take all the different aspects together into account, as developing several specific solutions will not enable a joint optimization, as the interactions are not considered. Therefore the holistic perspective is applied for the development of a solution. The KOMPASS method is integrated in the STSD tool for the analytical perspective. This method contains a set of socio-technical criteria for the analysis and redesign of production processes and work organization. The KOMP ASS method distinguishes three levels of socio-technical criteria:
3. PROCEDURE OF STSD TOOL USE The procedure consists of several easy to follow steps that support and guide the users in developing and evaluating a solution. The STSD tool supports the users in developing solutions by offering guidelines, examples, socio-technical design criteria and information on the socio-technical approach; it does not provide the users with a ready-made solution. The software version of the tool will allow executing some steps of the procedure individually on computers connected to a network; other steps however need to be accomplished together in a group. The STSD tool is flexible regarding the starting point of tool use. Starting points of tool use can be problems related to production processes and work
352
organization, the evaluation of already eXlstmg ideas for re-design or the general goal to optimize production processes and work organization. In this section the procedure is explained assuming that the STSD tool is used for finding a solution for problems related to production processes and work organization. Before using the STSD tool the following points have to be clarified: First the problem that is being addressed (e.g. less absenteeism of personnel, large fluctuations in production) and the section of the enterprise that is affected by this problem need to be defined. Secondly the group of employees that will develop a solution for the problem has to be composed. The STSD tool procedure consists of three phases: In the first phase the user group has to make a detailed description of the current situation of the unit of analysis. The "unit of analysis" is designated as that part of the enterprise that needs to be considered when developing a solution for a problem. In the second phase the user group defines the objectives they want to achieve and make an evaluation of the unit of analysis using the sociotechnical tool criteria provided by the STSD tool. The user group then relates the tool criteria to the objectives establishing the participatory simulation network. This phase supports the analytical perspective. In the third phase the user group is provided with conceptual solutions as support for generating, concretizing and evaluating solutions. This phase focuses more on the holistic perspective. Following the three phases are described in detail.
organization (hierarchy levels, teams etc), communication paths, interfaces with other organizational units, wage system (are individuals or teams rewarded?). Questions related to the tasks focus on the task(s) of the unit of analysis, inputs and outputs of the unit of analysis considering information and material as well as the tasks of the individuals. Furthermore all the problems occurring in the unit of analysis have to be listed. On ground of this description the user group can reconsider the unit of analysis (do other organizational units need be included?) and the project group (who else needs to join the user group?) This description guarantees a common view of the unit of analysis to which the user group can refer to at any point in the tool procedure. In phase 3 (solution development) this description can be used to see which consequences the derived solution has on the unit of analysis.
3.2 Socio-technical Analysis (phase 2)
In the second phase objectives are set and the unit of analysis is evaluated by means of these objectives and the socio-technical tool criteria. The objectives define the situation that needs to be achieved by the solution that is being developed with the STSD tool application. The aim of this phase is to create insight into the relations between the socio-technical design criteria and the objectives. For a better understanding the tool provides background information on the sociotechnical approach and specific information for the socio-technical tool criteria. As a first step the user group has to define objectives. The tool offers specific support for defining objectives by presenting four categories: Business management objectives, organizational objectives, employee-related objectives and technological objectives. The user group collects all the objectives they consider relevant and assign them to one of these categories. The categories are provided as orientation help for the user group and to assure that none of these relevant categories are overseen. The tool also provides a set of objectives that are generally considered important for production units. As a next step the user group has to cluster all the objectives by similarity (objectives from different categories can form a cluster) and filter those objectives that are not within the application range of the STSD tool. Then for every objective cluster a superordinate term must be defined that expresses best the essence of the cluster. After this the user group has to rank the clusters according to their relevance for the unit of analysis. The objective clusters (maximum eight) considered the most relevant will be used in the further tool procedure. This objective generating process is necessary to
3. / Description of the unit of analysis (phase 1)
In this phase the user group has to establish a detailed as is description of the unit of analysis. This description contains information about the tasks, the organization and the interfaces with other organizational units. Furthermore the communication within the unit of analysis and the communication with external organizational units is described. For this the STSD tool presents visualizations and questions the user group has to work on . The tool presents visualized schemes of the unit of analysis in which the user group is asked to mark communication and process paths as well as the different individual tasks that are performed. Next to working on visualizations the user group has to answer questions concerning the unit of analysis. Employee related questions focus on the number of staff, the level of education, the tasks the employees have to perform, the number of employees directly involved in the production process, the number of employees not directly involved in the production process. Questions related to the organization focus on the overall
353
collect all the objectives the user group considers relevant and to clarify side and long-term effects of these objectives. In a next step the STSD tool presents the theoretical background on the STSD-approach by explaining keywords of the socio-technical approach as well as a summary of the tool criteria that will be used in the next step. Now the tool criteria are explained in detail. For every criterion the users have to decide if it is relevant for the analysis. If it is not considered relevant it can be dismissed and the next criterion is addressed. If the criterion is considered relevant the user group has to assess this criterion in respect to the unit of analysis. For this a scale is offered. For instance the users have to decide if the autonomy of the work groups in the unit of analysis is low, medium etc. The users then have to write a short explanation why they chose a certain score. This is done to assure that at a later point of the tool procedure it can be recalled why a certain score was chosen. The result of this step is a socio-technical evaluation of the unit of analysis. As a next step the user group has to relate the STSD tool criteria they considered relevant for the unit of analysis to the objective clusters they defined previously (in the following referred to as the objectives). In order to relate the criteria to the objectives the STSD tool presents a scale for the possible relations (strong positive relation, positive relation, no relation, negative relation, strong negative relation). The users have to relate every tool criterion to each objective. For instance the criterion autonomy of the work groups has to be related to the objective less absenteeism. The users need to proceed as follows : First they have to answer the question : Would the increase of the autonomy of the work groups have a positive, a negative or no influence on the absenteeism rate? The users decide e.g. that this would have a positive effect. Then the strength of the relation has to be assessed. For this again a scale is provided. The user group then decides for instance that the relation between the criterion autonomy of the work groups and the objective less absenteeism is positive very strong. Here again the users have to write a short explanation why they chose a certain type of relation. This step is repeated for all possible relations between the criteria and the objectives. The result of this step is a participatory developed network containing the objectives and the criteria considered relevant for the unit of analysis (Figure I). This network represents the core of the STSD tool as it visualizes the assumptions made by the tool users concerning the interactions between tool criteria and objectives. With its help the tool users can simulate the dependencies between the objectives and criteria in an interactive way. Scores such as low, medium or high can be changed on the criteria and the tool simulates the effects of these
Objectives
Criteria
, ~,
~
....,
~lc~c~c~.~c~I~~~-----------------'-'~'·I·ccccl Fig. I. Example for a visualized network containing the relations of four criteria and four objectives. The rectangles represent the criteria and the objectives. The small black squares within the rectangles represent the scores on the criteria and the objectives. The arrows represent the relations between the criteria and the objectives. The dotted lines indicate a negative relation, the solid lines a positive relation. changes on the objectives according to the assumptions of the tool users. This interactive simulation helps coping with the complexity that arises when analyzing several objectives by means of the tool criteria. The final step of the second phase is to explore the dependencies between the criteria and the objectives by use of this network. The network will be applied in phase 3 for investigating possible consequences of solutions on the objectives.
3.3 Solution evaluation (phase 3) In the third phase support is offered for developing and evaluating socio-technical solutions. The aim of this phase is to have an evaluated and concretized solution that reaches the defined objecti ves. In the first step conceptual solutions are introduced and explained, for instance self-managed work teams. For every conceptual solution the general principles are explained, background information is provided, cases and points of attention are presented. The user group can choose freely which information they want to view. Once the user group has examined all the information they consider relevant they can choose one or a combination of the conceptual solutions or pursue an own idea for a solution. In the next step the user group has to concretize the chosen conceptual solution and adapt it to the situation of the unit of analysis. For this the STSD tool presents questions reflecting possible consequences of the solution on the unit of analysis. These questions relate to the consequences for the employees, the production processes and the
354
organization. Furthermore limitations are taken into consideration (e.g. the production process can only be changed to a certain extend) as well as the advantages and the disadvantages of the "new" situation compared to the current situation. Once the solution has been concretized and it has been considered how the solution affects the unit of analysis the user group can proceed to the final step of the STSD tool procedure. In the final step of the STSD tool the criteriaobjectives network (figure I) is used to examine the effects of the solutions on the objectives. It has to be assessed how the solution would change the scores on the criteria. A scale is provided for this evaluation. For each criterion the user group has to assess how the solution would change the unit of analysis. For instance if the solution were implemented in the unit of analysis would the autonomy of the work groups stay the same, increase or decrease? This assessment is entered into the criteria-objective network. As the network connects the criteria to the objecti ves the network can simulate the effects of the solution on the objectives via the tool criteria. By changing the scores on the criteria according to the solution (the "new" situation) the scores on the objectives change e.g. the score on the objective absenteeism rate can change from high to low. Depending on the effects on the objectives the user group can reconsider the solution (make changes to the solution). The tool users can also view the description made in phase I of the procedure and implement the changes there for a further comparison of the current situation with the situation according to the solution. The result of the STSD tool use is a concretized and systematically evaluated solution that is in accordance with the socio-technical approach. The STSD tool however does not support the actual implementation of the solution in the production environment.
was not tested. The following problems had been detected at the unit of analysis: Decreasing production rate, no transparency of the performed actiVIties, nsmg absenteeism rate, growing frustration of the employees regarding the work situation, no integration between management and production personnel and a insufficient utilization of the capacity of the technology. The production manager participating in the workshop suggested two ideas for possible solutions of the problems: Job rotation and selfmanaged work teams. The task of the workshop participants was to elaborate these suggestions. As a first step the workshop participants had to determine objectives as described in phase 2 of the tool procedure. The following objectives were defined: Improvement of the knowledge of the employees, an increase of the togetherness and of the responsibilities of the employees, better resource planning and a new rewarding system to increase motivation. The participants considered this step as a typical way to approach problems and discussing ideas of solutions. One problem was stated in this step: It was difficult to discern between solutions and objectives. When asked to derive objectives (what do we want to achieve?) several solutions were already proposed (how are we going to reach the objectives?). The proceeding in the socio-technical analysis (phase 2) was considered helpful, interesting and supportive in developing new insights. Relating the objectives to the tool criteria at first was not clear to some participants and needed further explanation. In order to explore the dependencies of criteria and objectives the relations defined by the participants were entered into the IT mock-up. As it was not possible that every participant individually could work with the IT mock-up it was difficult to assess the benefit or the difficulties of this step. We believe nonetheless that with adequate visualization this step will be a strong support for the tool users to understand better the interaction between objectives and criteria and dealing with the complexity of the numerous relations. Furthermore, in the final tool information on the theoretical background of the socio-technical approach and specific information regarding the tool criteria will be presented by means of multimedia. In the third phase (solution evaluation) the two ideas of solutions suggested by the manager (job rotation and self-managed work teams) were elaborated and evaluated by means of the IT mockup containing the criteria-objective network. The solution self-managed work teams turned out to have a stronger positive impact on the objectives than the solution job rotation. During the further elaboration of self-managed work teams it was regarded necessary to integrate job rotation into the solution self-managed work teams. Due to time constraints it was not possible to develop new solutions from scratch but as the
4. RESULTS OF THE FIRST TOOL TEST The tool was tested at an industrial enterprise. The aim of the tool test was to evaluate the STSD tool procedure and the support offered by the tool as well as to give the enterprise the opportunity to find a solution for the problems of the unit of analysis. As the STSD tool at the time of the tool test was merely a paper and pencil concept (except for an IT based mock-up modeling the relations between criteria and objectives) the test was realized as a workshop of three and a half days. Eight employees from different levels of the hierarchy with different professional backgrounds participated in the workshop that was facilitated by three members of the STSD tool development team. The description of the unit of analysis was made in advance and therefore the first phase of the STSD tool procedure
355
suggested solutions were merely basic propositions there was enough degrees of freedom to implement own ideas. The information presented for supporting this phase was regarded very helpful and easy to understand. The problems and difficulties that occurred in the workshop are taken into consideration in the further development of the STSD tool. It was also realized that some extra support will be needed for defining the preconditions for a successful implementation of the developed solution.
Sitter, L.U. de, Hertog, 1.F. den and Eijnatten, F.M. van (1990). Simple organizations. complex jobs: The Dutch socio-technical approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Management, San Francisco, I2-15 August. Sitter, L.U. de, Hertog, 1.F. den and Dankbaar, B. (1997). From complex organizations with simple jobs to simple organizations with complex jobs. Human Relations, 50 (5), 497534. Trist, E. L. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems. Issues in the Qualify of working Life, No. 2. Ontario: Ministry of Labor.
5. SUMMARY AND OUTLOOK The STSD tool is a software tool that supports the development of solutions in assembly enterprises in a participatory way according to the principles of the socio-technical approach. Both a holistic and an analytical perspective are considered in the solution development process. The STSD tool offers specific help for handling the complexity of this undertaking by means of visualization and an interactive simulation network that is based on the assumptions of the tool users. This simulation network allows the tool users to observe possible effects the developed solution can have. The procedure and the support offered by the tool were tested in a workshop with participation of assembly staff and regarded as interesting, challenging and supportive. The concretized and evaluated solution was considered promising. The information collected and the experiences made during the workshop served as input for the further development of the software prototype of the STSD tool that currently is being developed and will be tested at an assembly enterprise.
REFERENCES Eijnatten, F.M. van and Zwaan, A.H. van der (1998). The Dutch IOR approach to organizational design . An alternative to Business process Re-engineering ? Human Relations, 51 (3) March, 289-318. Grote, G. (1997). Autonomie und Kontrolle: zur Gestaltung automatisierter und risikoreicher Systeme. Zurich: vdf, Hochschulverlag an der ETH Zurich. Grote, G., Weik, S., Wafler, T. and Zii1ch, M. (1995). Criteria for the complementary allocation of functions in automated work systems and their use in simultaneous engineering projects. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomis, 16, 367-382. Grote, G., Ryser, c., Wafler, T., Windischer, A. and Weik, S. (2000). KOMPASS: A method for complementary function allocation in automated work systems. International Journal of HumanComputer Studies, 52, 267-287.
356