The Paradigm That Changed the Work Place: With Contributions of Hans Van Beinum, Fred Emery, Bjoern Gustavsen and Ulbo De Sitter (Social Science for Social Action: Toward Organizational Renewal)

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Series SOCIAL SCIENCE FOR SOCIAL ACTION: TOWARD ORGANI-�ATIONAL RENEWAL EDITORIAL BOARD Members: Hans van Beinum, Swedish Center for Working Life, Stockholm, Swe­ den, chairman Oguz Babiiroglu, Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey Claude Francheux, Fontainebleau; Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Werner Fricke, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, Bonn, Germany Davydd J. Greenwood, The Mario Einaudi Center for International Stu­ dies, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, USA Dennis Gregory, Ruskin Hall, University of Oxford, Oxford, England Bjorn Gustavsen, Swedish Center for Working Life, Stockholm; Univer­ sity of Oslo, Oslo, Norway Friso den Hertog, MERIT, University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Ne­ therlands Anders L. Johansson, Swedish Center for Working Life, Stockholm, Sweden Henk Leenen, publisher, Van Gorcum, Maastricht, The Netherlands Frieder Naschold, Wissenschaftszentrum, Berlin, Germany Robert Putnam, Action Design Associates, Natick, Massachusetts, USA Annemieke Roobeek, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Ne­ therlands Rene van der Vlist, University of Leiden, Leiden, The Netherlands

Frans M. van Eijnatten

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place with contributions of Hans van Beinum, Fred Emery, Bjorn Gustavsen and Ulbo de Sitter

1993

�

Arbetslivscentrum

The Swedish Center for Working Life, Stockholm Van Gorcum, Assen

"'1993 Van Gorcum & Comp B.V., Postbus 43,9400 AA Assen No parts of this book may be reproduced in any form, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, or otherwise, without the prior written permission from the publishers. CIP-DATA KONINKLUKE BIBLIOTHEEK, DEN HAAG Eijnatten, Frans M. van The paradigm that changed the work place I Frans M. van Eijnatten.- Assen [etc.] : Van Gorcum.­ (International series on action research) With ref. NUGI 652/684 Subject headings: organization renewal . . ISBN 90-232-2805-7 "' Cover illustrations: Ella Joosten, Eindhoven, Netherlands

"Tip Side Five/Seven", 1992, Mixed Media Art photography: Fred Sonnega, Breda, Netherlands Layout/word-processing/desktop-publishing: Marleen van Baalen, Eindhoven, Netherlands

Cover design: Ella Joosten, Eindhoven, Netherlands Printed by Van Gorcum, Assen, Netherlands

To Eric Trist: The pioneer and nestor of STSD

Table of Contents '

List of Figures List of Tables List of Boxes Preface The Author Acknowledgements

X

xii xiv xvi xviii xix

Foreword by Hans van Beinum

xxi

1

STSD: A Personal Reconstruction 1.1 Introduction Some Initial Statements to Explore the Field 1.2 1.3 Basic Editorial Considerations and Style Justifications General Organization of the Book and Chapters' Outline 1.4

2

STSD: Towards Some Root Definitions of the Paradigm Introduction 2.1 STSD: Brief Characteristics of Content 2.2 2.3 STSD Message: Goals, Mission and Metaphor 2.4 STSD Enquiry: Some Methodological Considerations STSD Images: Milestones and Development Trajectories 2.5

9 9 9 12 15 16

3

STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm 3.1 Introduction 3.2 The Pioneering Role of Tavistock 3.2.1 Ken Bamforth's Re-Discovery of a Work Tradition 3.2.2 Action Research as the Mere Context of Discovery 3.2.3 Latent STSD and the Contagious Spreading and Adoption of an Open-Systems View 3.2.4 STSD-Specific Concept Development to Support the Next Phase 3.3 Classical STSD 3.3.1 The Inspiration of the Norwegian Industrial DemocracyProgramme 3.3.2 The Diffusion of Industrial Democracy: Idiom versus Replica

21 21

1 1 2 4 6

22 22

25 26 29 32 32 34

continuation of table of contents on the next page

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Table of Contents

3.3.3 The Methodical Approach towards Industrial Democracy 3.3.4 An Outline of Basic Concepts in Classical STSD 3.3.5 An Impression of Projects as Reported in the Literature 4

5

STSD: Modem Variants of the Paradigm 4.1 Introduction 4.2 Variant A: Participative Design 4.2.1 The Australian Solution to the Problem of Diffusion 4.2.2 PD and the Educational Approach towards Learning 4.2.3 Further Diffusion of the Diffusion Model 4.3 Variant B: Integral Organizational Renewal 4.3.1 The Dutch Solution to the Problem of Integral Design 4.3.2 IOR and the Balance Model Based on Social Interaction 4.3.3 The Participative Process of Organizational Renewal of the Firm Variant C: Democratic Dialogue 4.4 4.4.1 The Scandinavian Solution to the Problem of Diffusion 4.4.2 The Concept of Democratic Dialogue and the Theory of Integrating Language and Practice 4.4.3 The DD Trajectory: Creating Scope by Engaging in a Broad Ecological Process 4.5 Variant D: Modem STSD in North America Epistemological and Methodological Foundations 5.1 Introduction Scientific-Philosophical Points and the Nature of 5.2 Explanatory Diagrams The Problem of the 'Openness' of Systems and Von 5.3 Bertalanffy' s Leap The Development of Systems Concepts and its Influence 5.4 on STSD Modelling STSD Methods and the Evolution of Models for Analysis 5.5 and Design STSD Practice and the Controversy Regarding Design 5.6 Content versus Process

vii

36 38 44

45 45 46 46 51 53 58 58 61 66 68 68 71 73 76 81 81 82 86 90 96 111

continuation of table of contents on the next page

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Table of Contents

viii

6

A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm 6.1 Introduction "-, 6.2 Constructive Criticism versus Widespread Pre-Judgements and Knowledge Gaps Further Analysis of the STSD Paradigm 6.3 6.3.1 A Systematic Comparison of Development Tracks and Variants 6.3.2 A Tentative Classification of STSD Approaches 6.4 Starting the Debate 6.4.1 Methodological Renewal of the STSD Paradigm 6.4.2 Degree of Elaboration in Terms of an Open-Systems Approach 6.4.3 A Further Examination of Basic Concepts and Theory Formation 6.4.4 Some Closer Look at the Diversity of SocioTechnical Methods 6.4.5 A Concise Critique of STSD Practice

7

The Future of the Socio-Technical Systems Design Paradigm

8

Ulbo 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5

8.6

112 112 113 116 116 124 129 129 132 137 144 145 150

de Sitter: A Socio-Technical Perspective 158 Introduction: The Burden of the Past 158 The Theory of Organization and Socio-Technical Theory 160 Towards a Theory of Social Systems or Social Technology? 166 Socio-Technical Systems Design: Social Engineering or Self-Design by Knowledge Transfer 171 Some Conceptual Remarks about the Dutch Version of Modem Sociotechnology 177 8.5.1 The Concept of Integral Design 177 177 8.5.2 The Concept of Controllability 8.5.3 The Twin-Concept of Interference Probability and Control Capacity 178 8.5.4. The Twin-Concept of Production Structure and Control Control Structure 179 8.5.5. The Concept of Structural Parameters 180 181 A Look into the Future

continuation of table of contents on the next page

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Table of Contents

9

ix

Bjom Gustavsen: Work Place Development and Communicative Autonomy

185

Epilogue by Fred Emery

192

References

198

Subject Index

248

Company /Institute Index Name Index List with Abbreviations Appendix: User Manual and Micro Floppydisk Containing A Full Bibliography of English-Language Literature Concerning the Socio-Technical Systems Design (STSD) Paradigm, Release FBEL 04T, by Frans M. van Eijnatten, April 1993

List of Figures ·�

�

Description

2.1

A SSM-inspired analysis of STSD paradigm The phases and milestones in the development of STSD Emery,M. & Emery,F., An open-systems model for diffusion 1978, p. 259/260; Emery, M., 1986, p. 416; Emery, M. (Ed.), 1989, p. 183 A graphical representation Hoevenaars, 1991, of the IOR balance model p. 20 Fry's variant of a system Fry, 1975, p. 57 'regulated by feedback': a schematic representation of the basic explanatory diagram of STSD STSD,a graphic represenVan Eijnatten, 1985, p. 55 tation A schematic representation Taylor, 1989, p. 28 of the Classical STSD method An analytical model for Van Eijnatten et al., 1988, p. 13; Van Eijnatten et al., more integral organiz1990,p. 8/1992,p. 189 ational redesign (IOR approach) Van Eijnatten et al., 1990, A method for Modem STSD, Dutch IOR approach p. 10/1992, p. 191 A mixed design content/ Kolodny & Stjemberg, 1986,p. 287 process model for contemporary STSD A SSM-inspired framework for a rough comparison of STSD approaches

2.2 4.1

4.2 5.1

5.2 5.3

5.4

5.5 5.6

6.1

author(s} + �ear of publ. + ref.page

continuation of

� 14 19 49

63 86

91 99

100

103 110

117

list of figures on the next page

xi

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - List of Figures

� Description

6.2

6.3

6.4

6.5

6.6

6.7

6.8 6.9

6.10

6.11

8.1

author(s} + )!:ear of publ. + ref.page

�

A rough SSM-inspired analysis of the Pioneering Phase of STSD A rough SSM-inspired analysis of Classical STSD/NorthAmerican Consultancy A rough SSM-inspired analysis of Modem STSD, Variant A: Participative Design A rough SSM-inspired analysis of Modem STSD,Variant B: Integral Organizational Renewal A rough SSM-inspired analysis of Modem STSD,Variant C: Democratic Dialogue Emery, 1989c, p. 90 The pattern of causal determination which express the dominant world view of Participative Democracy Van Eijnatten, 1992a A tentative classification of main STSD approaches A schematic representation Van Eijnatten & of developed 'temporary' Hoevenaars, 1989, p. 295; Van Eijnatten,1990c, methodology: a basic scheme for design-oriented p. 54; Van Eijnatten, 1992b, p. 2 research Taylor & Asadorian, The concept of Joint Optimization. Results are best 1985, p. 14; Chisholm, when the technical system 1988, p. 46 and social system are jointly optimized The use of 18 sociotechnical Pasmore, 1988, p. 104 (re)design criteria in 134 reported projects Design problems and practical solutions

De Sitter, 1993

117

118

119

121

122

123

128 131

141

146

181

List of Tables '

'

Table

Description

3.1

Outline of systems concepts from biology,logic and cybernetics dating before 1959, adapted by the Tavistock researchers Outline of area-specific STSD concepts Outline of important basic concepts in Classical STSD Outline of sociotechnical design principles of Classical STSD An impression of sociotechnical projects carried out during the Classical STSD period until 1980 Skill analysis techniques of the PD approach

3.2 3.3 3.4

3.5

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

5.1

Three types of partial analysis in the study of participation An impression of Dutch sociotechnical projects carried out in the period 1980-1992 An impression of NorthAmerican sociotechnical projects carried out during the period 1980-1990 Seven classes of functional systems

author(s) + ):ear of publ. + ref.page

� 28

30 38

42

43

Emery F. & Emery, M., 1975,p. 46-47; Emery, M., 1982, p. 306-307; Emery, M. (Ed.), 1989, p. 107-108 De Sitter, 198lb, p. 6

54

60

67

79

Ackoff & Emery, 1972, p. 29

84

continuation of list of tables on the next page

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - List of Tables

xiii

Table

Description

author(s) + �ear of publ. + ref.page

5.2

STSD concept development for nonroutine knowledge work settings Outline of the development of STSD method

Purser & Pasmore, 1991

5.4a

The application of the Semi-Parallel Streams (SPS) technique: Diagnosis of the existing production structure prior to parallelization. Dutch IOR approach

Hoevenaars, 1991, p. 36

107

5.4b

A schematic illustration of the use of the SemiParallel Streams (SPS) technique as applied to the elaborated production structure example of table 5.4a. Dutch IOR approach

Hoevenaars, 1991, p. 39

108

6.1

A compilation of some characteristics of the main STSD approaches A model for classification of organizations A comparison between Classical STSD, Anthropocentric Production Systems, and Lean Production A comparison between Modern STSD (Integral Organizational Renewal) and Lean Production

Gustavsen, 1992, p. 7; De Sitter, 1992; Emery, 1992; Karlsen, 1992, p. 6 Van Beinum, 1990a, p. 9 Kiviniitty, 1992, p. 25

125

Van Amelsvoort, 1992b, p. 8-9/1993, p.10

156

53 .

6.2 7.1

7.2

� 95

98

126 155

List of Boxes '

'

Box Description

2.1

Brief characterization of STSD as a new paradigm and as a changed personal attitude

3.1

An 'eye-witness' report of

3.2

3.3

3.4

4.1 4.2 4.3

4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

the difficult start of STSD The methodological approach of the Industrial Democracy programme in Norway A brief illustration of the original 'variance analysis' technique appljed in the period 1965-1967 by Engelstad at Hunsfos Detailed principles for the redesign of tasks

Results of the diffusion study of Emery et al., 1958 Characteristics of the period of Modem STSD The programme of a Development of Human Resources (DHR) Workshop Indicators of participation IOR as Modem STSD Some essentials of De Sitter's balance model Structural parameters for sociotechnical analysis and design (IOR approach)

author(s) + �ear of publ. + ref.page Trist, 1981, p. 42; Van Beinum, 1990a, p. 3; Ketchum & Trist, 1992, p. 40; Ketchum & Trist, 1992, p. 45 Trist, 1977; Emery, 1978, p. 5-6 Emery & Thorsrud,1976, p. 150-154

Page

10

23 36

Engelstad, 1969a/b; Engelstad et al., 1969

37

Emery, 1963d, p. 1-2; Emery & Thorsrud, 1964, p. 103-105; Emery & Thorsrud, 1976, p. 15-17 Qvale, 1976, p. 459

40

48

Elden, 1979a, p. 250-251; 50 Elden, 1979c, p. 373-374 Emery,M., 1982, p. 296 52 Emery, M. (Ed.), 1989, p. 115 De Sitter, 1981b, p. 8-12 De Sitter et al., 1990, p. 10 De Sitter et al., 1990, p. 10-11 De Sitter, 1989b, p. 234; De Sitter, 1989c, p. 14; De Sitter et al., 1990, p. 12

60 61 62 64

continuation of list of boxes on the next page

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - List of Boxes

Box Description

4.8

A selection of design principles from the !OR approach

author(s) + �ear of publ. + ref. page De Sitter, 1989b, p. 237249; De Sitter, 1989c, p. 16-25; De Sitter et al., 1990, p. 13-19

Main features of the LOM Van Beinum, 1990a, p. programme 16-17 4.10 The 13 commandments of Gustavsen, 1991, p. 6-7 the 'Democratic Dialogue' Gustavsen,1992, p. 3-4 approach 4.11 Gustavsen's phases in the Gustavsen, 1991, p. 55-80 development cycle a typical Democratic Dialogue process ma� imply 4.12 Criteria for participation, Gustavsen & Engelstad, public arena and legitimacy 1986, p. 109 5.1 Modern STSD method: Van Eijnatten et al., 1990, Dutch !OR approach p. 9-13/1992, p. 190-194

4.9

6.1

6.2

6.3

7.1

A summary of the most relevant objections against the original foundations of Classical STSD The most relevant differences in terms of content between the mainstream approach and the Dutch variant of STSD Beekun's (1989) metaanalysis of the effectiveness of Classical STSD interventions Some basic characteristics of Lean Production (LP)

De Sitter, 1974a, p. 70-72; Van Eijnatten, 1985, p. 53

De Sitter p. 27

et al., 1990,

XV

�

65

70 72

74

75 104 105 132

143

Beekun, 1989, p. 880-882/ p. 890-893

149

Womack et al., 1990; Van Amelsvoort, 1992b, p. 6-7

154

Preface

This book credits its existence to the normal human curi­ osity. The process started some ten years ago when the author developed a desire to learn more about the history of the Socio­ Technical Systems Design (STSD) paradigm. Searching through the literature, he discovered what many other colleagues already had found out: Such a comprehensive study did not exist. At least in this case, original disappointment evolved into a desire to actually write an overview of some 40 years of STSD. Although some col­ leagues repeatedly warned the author that such an endeavour was doomed to failure, his principal aim remained the same: To care­ fully document the entire field of STSD as accurately and complete­ ly as possible, considering the literature on the subject being the main source of enquiry. And yes, that road was indeed long and difficult, as was predicted: The library searches were inevitably slow, some sources appeared to be tainted, a number of important documents had been lost or were extremely difficult to attain. Throughout this risky process, patience and tenacity became the author's watch words, and quality became his salvation. The documentation process was also full of rather extraordinary experi­ ences: For instance, the discovery of the truth about the famous but, incomprehensibly irrelevant, Trist and Bamforth (1951) article (see box 3.1). The long search for and ultimate 'digging up' of the original version of the variance control technique (see box 3.3), or the surprise of receiving - all the way from India - some brown­ oxidated mimeos by the late Nitisch De. The author also recalls with pleasure, his first acquaintance with the friendly people behind all those familiar names frequented in the literature. Unfor­ tunately, one colleague in particular, Cal Pava, with whom the author made his first acquaintance in the elevator of the Union Square Grand Hyatt Hotel in San Francisco, was also his last. His untimely death was a shock to us alL This book was written over an extended period of time. The last two years were primarily used to further improve its layout and legibility. Unremitting dedication towards the objective appeared to be the only guarantee to finishing this lost labour. Fortunately, the author acquired valuable external support. Thanks to the critical, but always supportive role of the Board during the editing process, the manuscript evolved into an intricate and

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Preface

xvii

balanced structure. Also the Board's brilliant idea of having a dialogue within the book. This was achieved by asking some key opinion leaders to react to the contents of the manuscript, and this resulted in increased room for both the manoeuvre in the final composition and the actual editing prospects of the text. Subse­ quently, the author's personal correspondences with them appeared to be a fruitful experience. Especially the contacts with Fred Emery that developed into a debate that clarified a number of controver­ sial issues that were raised in the book. Because of the rather unique characteristics of these explanations - particularly Fred's ardent and almost lecture-like manner of speaking - the author was encouraged to incorporate a main selection of these statements into the texts of chapters five and six. Apart from being very informa­ tive, these personal interactions further enlivened the manuscript. This book was not written for transitory use. Quite the contrary, after displaying a rather high information density, it was primarily meant as a reference book. As such, it enables the reader to get encyclopaedic information about STSD. Some inquisitiveness appeared a powerful motive in producing this anthology of STSD. Certainly, the same sheer curiosity will prove to be your best companion to read "The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place ". It may even develop into some ambition to actually participate in Socio-Technical Systems Design. After 40 years, STSD is still very much alive!

Eindhoven, The Netherlands June 1993

Frans M. van Eijnatten

The Author '

The author, Frans M. van Eijnatten, who was born in The Hague (NL) in 1951, studied Psychology at Tilburg University and graduated in 1985 from Nijmegen University, The Netherlands. His Ph.D. thesis warranted the development and testing of what we call the 'Socio-Technical Task Analysis' (STTA), a detailed ques­ tionnaire for sociotechnical research, capable of measuring the quality of work more objectively, i.e., with less reliance on personal satisfaction. The instrument was tested using Philips' factory workers from The Netherlands, Belgium, West Germany and Austria. The author participated in several research and consultancy projects in Dutch industry (cf. Philips, DAF, Volvo, Mars), the Dutch government (d. Ministry of Home Affairs) and the Dutch service sector (PCGD-Dutch Giro, OHRA). Since 1988 the author has been an Associate Professor (UHD) at the Graduate School of Industrial Engineering and Management Science at Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands. For a number of years he studied the history of the Socio­ Technical Systems Design paradigm. He produced several English­ language review articles on the subject as well as a comprehensive bibliography of the paradigm. In 1989 he co-edited a book on the management of technological innovation, and he was invited to contribute to a polemic discussion about STSD, organized by a Dutch journal. In 1990 he assisted in editing a documentation of the Dutch Sociotechnical Variant which was presented to the international scientific forum. From 1989 onwards, he published articles about the methodological aspects of the paradigm. The author is a member of the Dutch Association of Psychologists (NIP), and a board member of the Dutch Foundation for Socio-Technical Systems Design (SSTN). He is currently partici­ pating in the Dutch State-funded research stimulation programme 'Technology, Work and Organization' (TAO), Industrial Sector.

Acknowledgements

This book would not have been published without the help of many people. The author wishes to express his gratitude to all those who supported him during the writing and editing phase of this anthology of the Socio-Technical Systems Design (STSD) paradigm. To begin with, the author would like to thank Hans van Beinum, Fred Emery, Bjorn Gustavsen and Ulbo de Sitter for their willingness to contribute, in their own characteristic way, to this anthology of STSD. It is the first time that these leading lights have been brought together in one volume. Moreover, Fred and Merrelyn Emery deserve special credit and thanks for their frank and helpful criticisms to earlier versions of the manuscript. The author had the rare opportunity of receiving expert support from the Editorial Board of the International Series on Action Research. Their competence and interest were of great value. The author wishes to give special thanks to the appointed subcom­ mittee for their ongoing encouragement and sound advice. He would also like to give particular mention to Hans van Beinum for his eagerness in helping to make and sustain contacts and, for the amount of good-fellowship he displayed. Also, a special thanks is owed to Oguz Babiiroglu for his highly appreciated, sharp and detailed criticisms that helped the author in planning some basic revisions. The author is extremely indebted to Annemieke Roobeek for her extraordinary talent to motivate and for her gentle, but persistent, nudging in helping to resolve any potential conflicts. The author is also grateful for the support given to him throughout, by the Graduate School of Industrial Engineering and Management Science at the Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. In particular, he would like to thank the library personnel for their helpful service and his colleagues in the Department of Technology and Work, for their fellowship and daily support. The author would like to express his sincere thanks to Marleen van Baalen, who in addition to her busy, daily job, that of university office manager, did all word-processil'\g and desktop­ publishing activities for both the book and the bibliography, both with superb accuracy and speed. Her professionalism was un­ equalled.

XX

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Acknowledgements

The author is also very indebted to Lori Mees and Corien Gijsbers of the Maastricht Economic Research institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIJ), at the University of Limburg, Maastricht, The Netherlands. The first major step towards this monograph was the translation of two voluminous preprints from Dutch to English, successfully concluded by Corien Gijsbers. Being both an excellent office manager and a professional translator, she found the time and the way to transpose even the finest text nuances into English. Lori Mees checked and polished the English of the numerous changes and extensions in the final draft with that sort of care and dedica­ tion, that only come from a native speaker. The author wishes to express appreciation to Stephan Eggermont for his invaluable technical support. He has been es­ pecially helpful in operating and improving the computer system for the production of the bibliography. Also, he deserves credit and thanks for developing the specialized application software for the micro floppydisk included in the cover of this book. Without his diligence and fortitude the 'electronic bibliography' would not have been possible. The author would like to use this occasion to say a big thank you to all those colleagues from all over the world who did respond to his repeated appeals for English-language STSD refer­ ences. Thanks to them, the resulting bibliography can grow into a main STSD reference base. This study demanded an excessive amount of time and money to complete. The author is very much indebted to his university for furnishing him with the proper resources. This study was also made possible by a grant from the Dutch research stimulation programme TAO (Technology, Work and Organization), industrial sector. The author would particularly like to extend his thanks to its director, Friso den Hertog, for his unique ability to deliver much needed and not a minute too soon, financial and emotional support. Finally, the author would like to mention his best friend Ella Joosten, for her companionship and joy of living. As a profes­ sional artist, she taught the author to appreciate the desirable pastime of modern-art-loving, which has enhanced his way of living. To all those mentioned, and to those who were not but should be mentioned, thank you very much.

Eindhoven, The Netherlands June 1993

Frans M. van Eijnatten

Foreword

When in 1949 Eric Trist of the Tavistock Institute and Ken Bamforth, a former miner and at that time a postgraduate fellow at the Institute, discovered in the South-Yorkshire coalfield the existence of the semi-autonomous group, they had their first glimpse of the new organizational paradigm. Their find was a radical one, it signified the relationship between participative democracy anq organizational design; it was a power­ ful demonstration of the reality of organizational choice. At the conceptual level, the researchers had begun to realize that the pro­ duction process had the characteristics of a socio-technical system. The N.E. Division of the National Coal Board responded to the findings of the study by refusing to allow the research to continue and by trying to suppress the publication of the results which were considered dynamite. Senior management was very apprehensive about a possible change in the power structure of the organization. It became clear that the innovation in work practice which Trist and Bamforth had observed in the Haighmoor seam was very significant, not only from an instrumental and organizational point of view,but also, and foremost as a contextual phenomenon. Today, more than forty years later, the scene has changed considerably but the dynamics of the present situation seem to be basically the same as those in 1949. The discussion is of course not any longer between a single institute on the one hand and a specific enterprise on the other. Developments of new forms of work organiz­ ation are now taking place on a glooal scale, and the theoretical and methodological aspects of socio-technical system design have become an established subject in the social sciences. Also, interna­ tional competition has sharply reinforced the need for organization­ al renewal and the relevance of the new socio-technical system design (STSD) principles. However, in spite of all this, the diffu­ sion of the new form of work organization is slow; there is a distinct

xxii

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

discomfort with participative democracy, particularly in an orga­ nizational context.. Add to this that the STSD paradigm is often misunderstood, also in professional and academic circles, and that there is a shortage of good literature. This makes the appearance of "The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place " very timely indeed. It is the first publication ever to present a systematic overview of socio-technical system thinking and practice as they have emerged since the original studies of the Tavistock Institute in the early SO's. Frans van Eijnatten has done an outstanding job in offering us with this volume a comprehensive survey of the concepts and methodol­ ogies underlying the various organizational design and development strategies. He places the different trajectories of the socio-technical system design paradigm in a historical as well as in a theoretical context and thereby provides some urgently needed transparency and clarification in the sometimes Babylonian scene of work place reform. Van Eijnatten's analysis shows that the modern STSD phase can be described by means of three main schools: Participative Design, Integral Organizational Renewal and Democratic Dialogue. The principal architects of these three approaches, i.e. Fred Emery, Ulbo de Sitter and Bjorn Gustavsen have written some special com­ ments and reflections for this occasion which give an additional and special significance to this publication. It is clear that there are some fundamental differences between the three schools, both with regard to the assumptions underlying their theoretical orientation and in their methodologies for effecting change. Nevertheless, in view of the critical import­ ance of the new paradigm for organizational renewal and indeed for social and economic development in general in a democratic society, the question must be asked whether there is also any common ground. The evidence indicates that, in spite of their very distinctive char­ acteristics, the three approaches share some fundamental orienta­ tions and assumptions which seem to suggest that, from a practical development point of view, the pluralistic features of STSD are basically not of a conflictuous kind. All three schools include in their theoretical position the notion that the effective organization should have a developmental orien­ tation and have the characteristics of a learning environment. Furthermore, they recognize, albeit in different ways, the essential correlation between participative democracy and their various

Foreword

xxili

strategies for organizational change. Also, they include in their understanding the democratizing significance of the STSD paradigm in a wider societal context. These common appreciations of the new paradigm reflect an image of man as a purposeful, capable and knowledgeable being, that is, as a responsible actor. They are views which refer in fact to the relationship between theory and practice, between social science and social reality, between epistemic subject and empirical object. They represent an epistemological position. The dominant feature of the relationship between subject and object in the social sciences and therefore in the STSD paradigm is that the object is also subject, it talks back. Their relationship is inter-subjective. The positivistic idea that this relationship is characterized by the fact that subject and object are separate and independent is no more. Modem physics did recognize this reality quite some time ago. The epistemology of today's social science has done away with the undue split between social science and reality, between observation and context, We are therefore faced with, what Anthony Giddens would call, a 'double hermeneutic'. The encounter of two languages, the interdependence of two interpretations. This raises the crucial question of the nature of the connection between the ordinary lan­ guage of the observed and the technical language of the social scientist. It is this 'logical tie' which will determine the nature of the relationship between the social sciences and the lives of the people whose behaviour is a nalysed, and whether this will contribute to exploitative domination or promote emancipation. The fact that the relationship between epistemic subject and empirical object is inter-subjective makes the logical tie between social science and reality, by definition, a dialogical one. It is in the epistemological context that STSD should be understood, and that Participative Design, Integral Organizational Renewal and Democratic Dialogue can find their common ground. The dynamics of the relationship between organizational design and organizational reality far exceeds the boundaries of the single organization. In a manner of speaking STSD is beyond socio­ technical systems. Organizational change is rooted in the interde­ pendencies between organization and environment. Organization and environment determine each other. It is not possible to describe or understand the features of the one without characterizing or know­ ing the other. The environment no longer acts as background, but forms an active and equal component in the process of organizational development. Furthermore, organizations are ubiquitous, not only because they are everywhere as actual operating social systems, but

xxiv

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

also as a result of the fact that organizing principles and organiz­ ational logic are p.art of the way we understand and manage our daily lives. Our valu..es and views with regard to the phenomenon of organization have 'been grounded in the course of history in a broad societal context. It is therefore not surprising that the tradi­ tional bureaucratic organization paradigm, locked in its Newtonian/ Cartesian logic, is still firmly entrenched in our culture and mani­ fest itself in widely differing social settings. It is obvious that the resistance to STSD cannot just be explained in terms of organization­ al variables; we are confronted with a process of societal and cul­ tural change.

In that connection we should recognize that STSD also has a .societal significance which it derives not only from its meaning as a 'tool' on the level of organizational change with participative democracy as a critical component in its organizational design focus, but also from the fact that its logic and values are very relevant for the various spheres outside the realm of work. STSD fits very naturally in the dynamics of the double hermeneutic on the societal level where social science knowledge and experience spirals in and out of the universe. of social life, reconstructing both itself and that universe as an integral part of the process. Frans van Eijnatten has done us a great service by writing a book which will enable us to be a more effective partner in this dialogue.

Uppsala, Sweden June, 1993

Hans van Beinum

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Chapter One A Personal Reconstruction

Table of Contents 1.1 1.2 1.3

Page

1.4

Introduction Some Initial Statements to Explore the Field Basic Editorial Considerations and Style Justifications General Organization of the Book and Chapters' Outline

1.1

Introduction

1

2 4

6

This study documents the Socio-Technical Systems Design (STSD) paradigm. A broad outline is presented of how the history of STSD has done justice to the wide range of available ideas and elaborations in this field. For the author, not belonging to the first generation of developers of the paradigm, this has proven to be a difficult task. In order for this delicate attempt to result in success, striving for completeness was a must. Due to the overwhelming number of details present, such an endeavour is doomed to failure, and thus the author faces some sort of a dilemma. Looking back on how the manuscript developed into a personal reconstruction instead of a particular notion, it seemed most appropriate to characterize the way out of this unfavourable situation. Some relevant aspects of the history of STSD have been reconstructed on the basis of the available literature. Since STSD has always operated at the cross­ roads of different disciplines and practices, writers from various backgrounds have been included. In this study, issues regarding methodology and conceptualization receive particular attention. When it is deemed necessary that a more in-depth explanation is required, the author refers to developments in science and systems theories. Whenever concepts regarding content and process are discussed, priority is given to the general idea rather than details, referring always, however, to specialized literature and a brief explanation of key concepts. This study is meant to provide an overview of STSD as a field. Although due care was taken to avoid the major pitfalls, it was a tremendous task to draw a completely valid picture of past events that were not distorted in some respect. As it turned out, it was also impossible to present an historic account that was entirely

2

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

acceptable to all its key actors. Although carefully prepared, this anthology of STSD is just one interpretation of ideas and events that will be judged �ry differently by its stakeholders, e.g., field workers and academics. Due to their distinct cultures and values, respective contributions to the field of STSD resulted in very differ­ ent kinds of frameworks. Even though field workers and academics contributed in their own characteristic way, to the development of the paradigm, they did not necessarily agree with one another about the centrality of their suggestions. Therefore, it was inevi­ table that the same sections in this anthology would simulta­ neously cause either small wafts of satisfaction or disappointment amongst those two groups of stakeholders. Thus, the accents placed provide quite a personal reconstruc­ tion of the development of STSD. An attempt is made to filter the main contributions and to present the different approaches within an established time framework.

1.2

Some Initial Statements to Explore the Field

To introduce Socio-Technical Systems Design to the reader, a rough caricature of its main features are presented by means of the following six statements: Statement 1: Socio-Technical Systems Design involves a basic shift in organizational paradigm. STSD adds as its basic philosophy a set of democratic values to organization theory. Statement 2: Socio- Technical Systems Design is neither a manage­ ment approach, nor a workers seizure. As an holistic approach, STSD tries to combine both interests. Statement 3: Socio-Technical Systems Design has strong roots in participation. With respect to organizational policy, STSD adds to the usual technical and economic goals a set by relevant human goals. Statement 4: Socio-Technical Systems Design propagates a dual design orientation, creating both democratic structures and demo­ cratic social processes at the same time. Statement 5: Socio-Technical Systems Design is not exactly a theory­ based sound academic discipline. Developed as an action research

Chapter One A Personal Reconstruction -

3

movement, STSD is, above all, pragmatic, applied and problem­ oriented. As such, it has acquired only a modest position in the for­ mal system of science. Statement 6: Socio-Technical Systems Design as a field is not very homogeneous. Although, there is a lot of shared common ground, conceptual and methodological diversity has developed over the years, resulting in various approaches, applied in different areas. It is tempting to immediately work out each statement in a rather detailed fashion. But this should not be the aim of an introduction, as this is no more than an appetizer that allows for some broad remarks. Looking at the six statements, it is evident they all refer in one way or another to the fundamental paradigmatic change that took place in the second half of our century. This paradigm shift can be summarized as a transition from an autocratic to a democratic work organization. When referring to democracy, we do not mean the generally known indirect representative form, described by Emery (1989a) as "chosing by voting from amongst people who offer themselves as candidates to be our representatives" (p.l). What is meant here is the more direct participative variant of democracy, which is aimed at "locating responsibility for coordination clearly and firmly with those whose efforts require coordination" (Emery, F. & Emery, M., 1989, p.lOO). The STSD paradigm can be roughly identified as the introduction of participative democracy in indus­ try. As will be further elaborated upon in paragraph 2.2, this also encompasses huge and fundamental changes, on the level of the enterprise, as well as on the level of management and individual workers. STSD means a radical departure from the common practice of Scientific Management, and is clearly ushering in a new era of organization design that is based on participative democracy. Some statements also point to the Siamese twins character­ istic of STSD, namely, the duality of the creation of democratic structures by means of the creation of democratic social processes. Van Beinum (1990a) summarizes this essential feature as a complicated democratization project carried out simultaneously at both the operational and the cultural levels. Failure to implement democratic values on both levels at the same time, will result in alternative readings of the old organizational paradigm, e.g., social engineering or parochial democracy (see paragraph 6.3.2). Real STSD should always be a well-balanced combination of synchronous structural and cultural change.

4

1.3

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Basic Editorial Considerations and Style Justifications

As previously .p:1.entioned, the main purpose of the book is to provide a broad outline of the history of STSD as it unfolded in different countries and continents from 1951 up until the present time (1993). An effort was made to cover the wide range of ideas and elaborations in this field, using original papers and sources of different kinds. The author has expressly avoided the production of yet another review along established lines and instead, he gives a personal and added contribution to this subject area, based on the literature. The book presents a shaded picture of the pluralistic development of different approaches, carefully reconstructed on the basis of the available literature, and where possible, distortions ·caused by information from secondary sources have been corrected. During the actual documentation process, the author was unable to escape formulating a set of criteria in order to classify the different (national) approaches to the extent that was reflected at the core of STSD. It must be overtly stressed here that this attempt also turned out to be a highly subjective endeavour. In order to facilitate the actual inclusion process, the following criteria were developed: 1. There should be a non-contested common practice of action re­ search in establishing the approach. 2. There should be an adequate number of clear incidents of specific concept development, that sets this approach apart from any other. 3. There should be a well-organized critical mass of action re­ searchers/practitioners who actually apply or implement the approach or design in practice. 4. There should be a substantive amount of traceable (English­ language) literature that documents the approach. 5. There should be some convergence in the applied concepts, methodology, and cited literature references. The author has tried to weigh the different regional approaches by using these criteria. Generally characterizing his ultimate attempt to document the field of STSD, the main focus is on North-West Europe, while Australia and North America rank second and third. Within the European context, French and German devel­ opments were not sufficient criteria for incorporation into this book. It is the impression of the author that in France the emphasis is primarily and historically on ergonomics. Recently there was some

Chapter One

- A Personal Reconstruction

5

theoretical enquiry on action research methodology (cf. Liu, 1991). According to the author's subjective judgement, Germany also has no unique STSD tradition. Although, there are several bulky state­ funded work and technology programmes (cf. Humanisierung des Arbeitslebens (Hd.A); Arbeit und Technik (AuT); Mensch und Tech­ nik. Sozialvertragliche Technikgestaltung (SoTech); Arbeit und Technik Bremen) with many hundreds of projects, the actual practice of Socio-Technical Systems Design-induced technical change or action research is found to be minimal (cf. Trebesh, 1990; Fricke, 1992, p. 305). At the same time, English-language literature concern­ ing German developments is very scarce. According to Den Hertog and Schroder (1989), German research for a long time was domi­ · nated by the engineering approach, while STSD projects were seldomly aimed at prevention, stressing instead the analytical aspects of the quality of the work conditions. Only the Bremen programme could be characterized as more holistic in its scope. Recently there are also some instances of 'Soziotechnische Fabrik­ innovation' (cf. Schallock, 1993). For ari excellent (German-lan­ guage) overview of the German context see Fricke (1990/1992). A special characteristic of this book is the rather uncon­ ventional use of personal communications. What motivated the author to include a large amount of this particular type of profes­ sional interactions is threefold. First, it was evident that the infor­ mation seemed to compensate for some established gaps in the literature; Second, from an editorial point of view, personal corre­ spondence strengthens the dialogue in the book. These critical voices link the main text with the key opinion leaders, imper­ ceptibly preparing the reader for the final chapters; Third, they facilitate the untainted communication of principal concepts by providing precise wordings, first hand. This is especially important as the literature is full of small mistakes, running the risk of saddling the reader with a highly inappropriate body of knowl­ edge. Personal correspondence significantly improved the external validity of this historic account. They enriched the understanding of STSD as both a scientific paradigm and an action research ap­ proach. The title of this monograph requires some further explana­ tion. Its meaning is twofold: First of all, it refers to the basic objective of STSD: To put an end to the extreme division of labour that, for too long, has dominated industrial work. The title is meant to reflect the far-reaching consequences of STSD for the quality of work and the workplace. It definitely has changed the way managers and employees are thinking about their organization

6

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

of work; Second, the title still has connotations of presenting a syntactic parody lo the bestseller "The Machine that Changed the World " by Womack"'�t al. (1990). This book about Lean Production, that gained victory in the world of managers and consultants at the time of publication of this study, advocates among other things, the revival of Taylorism with its characteristic division of labour. As will be elaborated in chapter seven, STSD is not so spectacular in its claims, but may be as effective - as Lean Production is said to be in improving productivity and overall throughput times.

1.4

General Organization of the Book and Chapters' Outline

This monograph can be roughly umaveled into five consecu­ tive parts: definitions, descriptions, comparisons, commentaries and references. The first part of the book, relating to the chapters one and two, provides basic definitions of STSD as a paradigm and as a field of enquiry. In chapter one and two a general outline of STSD is given in terms of method(ology), contents and phases of growth. Because the aim of the actually applied division is description and not integration, some discontinuities exist between the different phases/variants. This is an artifact of the applied method. In chapter two a Soft-Systems-Methodology(SSM)-based analytical framework has been developed in order to better discriminate theory of content aspects from theory of process issues. The term 'holon' is introduced to avoid confusion in the actual comparison attempt (see chapter six). The second part of the book, relating to chapters three and four, contains the minute descriptions of STSD. Chapter three docu­ ments the first two distinctive development trajectories, i.e., the Pioneering Phase and the phase of Classical Socio-Technical Sys­ tems Design. Placing emphasis on the highlights, these stages are first described as anecdotes. Moreover, the development of methods and concepts are characterized by supplying short descriptions. Chapter four documents the pluralistic development trajectories of Modern Socio-Technical Systems Design. Its main variants, i.e., Participative Design, Integral Organizational Renewal and Democratic Dialogue are presented, specifying both theories of con­ tent and process. Modern STSD in North America is also discussed. The third part of the book, relating to the chapters five and six, is about comparisons between distinguished STSD phases and variants. In chapter five some epistemological and method-

Chapter One - A Personal Reconstruction

7

ological foundations of STSD appear. Although our treatment is far from exhaustive, the reader will get an idea about the scientific­ philosophical points of departure, STSD systems methodology and model cycles, and some specific theories of content and process. Chapter six contains a critical evaluation of the STSD paradigm in terms of methodology, theory and practice. Tracks and variants are compared with one another using the framework that was devel­ oped in chapter two. The critique itself is contrasted to some wide­ spread pre-judgements and knowledge gaps that exist among authors using secondary sources. The fourth part of the book, relating to the chapters seven, eight and nine, and including the epilogue, accomodates future­ oriented commentaries. Chapter seven, written by the author, discusses the prospects of STSD both in general and in relation to Lean Production. Chapter eight, written by Ulbo de Sitter, explains and explores the past, present and future of the Dutch STSD variant of Integral Organizational Renewal. Chapter nine, written by Bjorn Gustavsen, looks ahead from the environment of the Swedish STSD variant of Democratic Dialogue. And last, but not least, the Epi­ logue of Fred Emery, where development of some future-oriented reflections about STSD as an action research approach within the Australian Participative Design context, are discussed. The fifth and final part of the book, relates to the liter­ ature references, and to the subject-, name- and company/institute indexes. They hold an extremely important collection of entries for further research. In addition to the usual literature reference list, a full English-language bibliography containing over 2,500 STSD literature references is included gratis on an IBM-compatible micro floppydisk, that is conveniently stored away in the cover of this book. On this micro floppydisk you will find also a tailor-made application programme. The basic idea is that the reader can use it for making private selections for further reading or for supporting the process of maintaining a personal and accurate reference list production. A few comments should be made about the distinction between the book reference list and the bibliography on the micro floppydisk. The book reference list is not just a partial copy of the bibliography, it also contains a notable number of non-English­ language references, as cited in the book. The bibliography copied on the micro floppydisk contains 400% more references than the book reference list. It contains a full English-language reference list of the Socio-Technical Systems Design (STSD) paradigm. Its nota­ tion system is in accordance with the contemporary American Psy­ chological Association (AP A) reference standards. This biblio-

8

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

graphy has been produced in several consecutive stages over a period of four years. From 1990 until 1992, four successive releases have been sent ouN:� key authors in fourteen countries, covering four continents. Most of these colleagues have kindly responded with ample corrections or have suggested new entries. Therefore, it would be no exaggeration to say that scholars from all over the world have contributed in the (further) completion of this most up to date STSD reference base. During the whole collection and editing pro­ cess, a great deal of effort was put into additionally cross-checking individual references as they appeared in the literature. Despite the fact that STSD articles and books have been published in almost all languages of the world, this bibliography only contains E nglish-language literature references. Of course, this sets certain limits to the overall representation of the reference list in question. In order to enable the user to consult relevant context literature, the definite selection of entries has been compiled on a rather broad basis, while at the same time, both cover key STSD sources and main antecedent roots. Also, many references on related issues have been included. It is re-emphasized here, that appropriate biblio­ metric possibilities add to the usefulness of this monograph for self­ study and research. T herefore, the author has also gone into a great deal of trouble to produce some highly-detailed subject-, name- and company/institute indexes, so that the text would open to any of the above-mentioned purposes. This study took many years to complete. T he collection and analyzing/synthetizing of so much literature, proved to be a diffi­ cult task. Thanks to the kind and freely given suggestions of many colleagues, this particular version could develop into the most momentous version to date. The author hopes that end product will be one of satisfaction.

Chapter Two

STSD: Towards Some Root Definitions of the Paradigm

Table of Contents

2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Introduction STSD: Brief Characteristics of Content STSD Message: Goals, Mission and Metaphor STSD Enquiry: Some Methodological Considerations STSD Images: Milestones and Development Trajectories

2.1

Introduction

Page

9 9 12 15 16

Since its inception in the fifties, the Socio-Technical System Design paradigm has never left the socio-scientific and management literature. Socio-Technical Systems Design (STSD) plays an import­ ant role in shaping the plants, offices and government institutions that follow modern patterns. Sociotechnical systems design is an applied science which is aimed at improving the quality of work and organization through adaptation or fundamental redesign of contents and composition of technology and human tasks. In the past four decades, many authors contributed to the development of this broad-minded approach. Before we describe the actual development of STSD on the basis of a division based on phases, we first give a general characterization of its goals, mission and metaphor, its methodology and aspects regarding its content.

2.2

STSD: Brief Characteristics of Content

As emphasized in chapter one, Socio-Technical Systems Design involves a basic shift in organizational paradigm. STSD can be concisely characterized as a reaction to the unilateral emphasis placed on either the technical or the social aspects of the organiz­ ation in previous paradigms (Scientific Management: Taylor, 1911; Bureaucratic: Weber, 1 947; Human Relations: Mayo, 1933). In the new perspective, both factors are integrated as being components of

10

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

one single 'sociotechnical entity'. Following Trist (1981), and renew­ ing the attempt ·to give a brief and concise typification of STSD, Van Beinum (1990a) listed nine characteristics of content of what he refers to as 'the new organizational p aradigm', which he put in c ontrast with the characteristic s of the ' o l d p aradigm ' : the Tayloristic Bureaucracy (cf. box 2.1). Ketchum & Trist (1992) trans­ lated these attributes into seven indications of personal paradigm change (cf. box 2.1).

Box 2 . 1

Brief characterization of S TSD as a new paradigm and as a changed personal attitude

"Old paradigm

"Give

* Redundancy of parts * External coordination and control • Autocracy •

•

up

* Feeling of having learned it all * Reductionist thinking * Dependence on procedures

Fragmented socio-technical system Technological imperative - man as extension of machine, a commodity

* False simplicity

* It is 'they' who are to blame * Organizational design based on total specification * Virtue of being certain * Maximum task breakdown, narrow skills * Belief in stability * Building block is one person - one task * Alienation

New paradigm * Redundancy of functions

New Reality

* Internal coordination and control * Democracy * Joint optimization of the socio-technical system * Man is complementary to the machine and a resource to be developed * Organization design based on minimum critical specification * Optimum task grouping, multiple broad skills * Building block is a self-managing social system * Involvement and commitment"

Trist (1981), p. 42 Van Beinum (1 990a), p. 3 Ketchum & Trist (1992), p. 40

* Learning never stops * Systems thinking * Focus on results * Complexity * Personal accountability * Doubt * Continuous change"

Ketchum & Trist (1992), p. 45

These listings can be further explained by making a number of para­ digm-based two and two comparisons:

- Redundancy of Functions versus Redundancy of Parts. Rather than maximizing the labour division (an over capacity of persons

Chapter Two - STSD: Towards Some Root Definitions of the Paradigm

-

-

-

-

11

having only one function within the organization), STSD suggests a minimal work division (an over capacity of functions in each person within the organization). Everybody is expected to be able to carry out different tasks, in order that p ersonnel is made available for multiple jobs. Internal versus External Coordination and Control. Self-regulation rather than stepwise supervision is considered to be of paramount importance in the sociotechnical paradigm. Emphasis is placed on small organization units with internal coordination and semi­ autonomous control. Democracy versus Autocracy. The aim of STSD practitioners is direct participation of personnel in decision making. The ap­ proach is based upon democracy in the workplace. Joint Optimization versus Fragmentation. STSD prefers to take an integral as opp osed to a p artial appro ach, which, imp lies optimization of various aspects rather than maximizing the own job-specific aspect. Man as Resource versus Commodity. The sociotechnical paradigm considers the working man as being complementary to the machine, and not as its useful extension. People are the most valuable asset of an organization, therefore, one must invest in them. Minimum Critical versus Total Specification. STSD practitioners will prevent an organization from designing its structure in a detailed manner. Only the contours need to be determined; the remaining parts are filled in by the users according to their own insights and needs. The current situation is, of course, a condition relevant to the actual organization of work.

- Maximum Task Breakdown versus Optimal Task Grouping (Narrow vers us B road Skills) . The sociotechnical paradigm strives for

complex jobs in a simple organization rather than simple jobs in a complex organization. This requires multi-skilled personnel. - Individual versus Group. In STSD, the smallest organizational unit is the group, not the individual. In this way, it is possible for individuals to take control of the organization of work. - Alienation versus Involvement and Commitment. Job erosion leads to alienation. Sociotechnically redesigned labour systems are characterized by 'whole tasks' : It is meaningful work, thus promoting personnel commitment. - Active versus Passive Disposition to Learning. The personal attitude of "having learned it all" should be replaced by a more open intellectual orientation wherein new ideas are welcomed and enthusiastically adopted.

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

12

- Thinking in Whales versus Partial Analysis. A piece-meal approach -

-

to problem solving is substituted for a personal rationale, based on the consideration of wholes (systems). Emphasis on Outcomes instead of on Procedures. The attitude of the individual should be one where they attach great value to attain good results instead of just adhering to some standard routines. Looking for Real instead of Oversimplified Solutions. Personal assumptions and pre-conceptions should be made explicit in the search for genuine answers to problems. Accepting versus Disclaiming Responsibility. Individuals should no longer b lame others for things that went wrong, instead they should accept full responsibility for their own work. A Sane Dose of Doubt instead of the Illusion of Self-Assurance. In a rapidly changing world, the personal trait of outward would-be certainty is no longer valued as a virtue. A more doubtful attitude is viewed as a better guarantee for greater achievement and learning. Continuous Change versus Stability. Despite our inborn endeavour for consistency, we have to accustom ourselves to uncontrollable change, because it is an indispensable feature of today's world.

2.3

STSD Message: Goals, Mission and Metaphor

STSD can be identified as a 'practical paradigm'. According to Van Strien (1 978) this is "a circumscribed way of dealing with a set of problems in practical reality" (p. 291). The author affirms (p. 291) that a practical paradigm should contain three elements: "a piece of scientific theory; some philosophy, in the sense of norms and goals, specifying an ideal state of affairs; and a coherent set of interventions, intended to solve problems and to change reality in the direction of the norms and goals stated in the guiding philo­ sophy". In the case of STSD, these constituents can be clearly ident­ ified. Starting with the second element, STSD' s guiding philosophy can be specified as Participative Democracy. Its basic mission is to improve the human condition at the workplace while at the same ing equal attention to the production goals. This primary time obje e of democratization of work is achieved by means of the dire participation of all the relevant stakeholders. To accomplish Pa 1cipative Democracy, a set of workable human values serves as The theoretical commodity of STSD is 'open-systems think-

Chapter Two - STSD: Towards Some Root Definitions of the Paradigm

13

ing ', with self-regulation as its characteristic feature. STSD inten­ tionally makes use of the metaphor of the organization as an adaptive whole, giving birth to the concept of a socio-technical system as a predominant frame of reference for description, analysis and design purposes. STSD interventions are unanimously aimed at substantial reduction of the division of labour in all sorts of work settings. Pre­ eminently participatory in character, these manners have been directly borrowed from 'action research ', while at the same time endorsing collective self-work design and group decision making. In order to further delineate the STSD paradigm into some logically separable relevant parts, an analytical framework is adopted which initially was used in Soft Systems Methodology (cf. Checkland, 1975 / 1 98 1 / 1 985a /b; Checkland & Scholes, 1990). This scheme is especially productive in distinguishing theory of content aspects from theory of process issues. Additionally, it offers a con­ venient way out of the confusion of tongues concerning the profes­ sional use of the systems concept. In recent literature, there has been an increase in condem­ nation of the word 'system' as the name for the abstract notion of a whole. Because it is widely used as a label in everyday language, Checkland & Scholes (1990) recommended to renounce the word 'system' as a technical term altogether. Checkland (1988) already suggested to employ Koestler's (1967 /1978) term 'holon' to unequivo­ cally designate the abstract idea of a whole, having emergent prop­ erties, and to rename 'systems thinking' as 'holonic thinking'. We have taken this advice for granted. To further incite transparency, we suggest that one define STSD paradigm as a 'twofold' holonic approach, applying systems thinking in both content and process. In Checkland's terminology, we typify STSD as a well-balanced combination of both a 'purposeful conceptual holon' and a 'purposeful human activity holon' (cf. figure 2.1). STSD is employing a modified 'open-systems model' as its purposeful conceptual holon. This device can be used to describe a work organization as a single whole that may be able to survive in a changing environment. As Checkland & Scholes (1990) have pointed out "this whole entity may exhibit emergent properties as a single whole, properties that have no meaning in terms of the parts of the whole". STSD's conceptual holon can be used to describe overall organizational performance as if it were a sociotechnical system.

...... ""'

the (perceived) reality itself

used in action research methodology ,

Socio-technical analysis and design systemic process of research/ enquiry viewed as purposeful human activity holon, based in specific world view ields

,

description of perceived reality

r-----J._....:;__..,

Sociotechnical conceptual model

work organization as a whole entity with emergent proporties

systemic content of research/ enquiry: the open systems model as apurposeful conceptual holon

� "'

'1j � ..... � I'>.

�·

;;:. �

g � �"'

I'>.

;;:. "'

Figure 2.1

A SSM-inspired analysis of STSD paradigm

�

*

'1j ;:; "'

0

Chapter Two - STSD: Towards Some Root Definitions of the Paradigm

15

STSD practises action research as its basic process of enquiry or purposeful human activity holon. The resulting set of both formal and informal sociotechnical analysis and design methods, is defined here as a 'human activity system' capable of planning the actions, that may be executed in reality in order to change the problematic work situation. This human activity holon is firmly based on the declared perspective of Participative Democracy, which, can be identified as STSD's normative world view.

2.4

STSD Enquiry: Some Methodological Considerations

For a long period of time, in academic circles, STSD was (considered) the odd one out. Such an holonic, action research­ oriented science did not quite fit into the system of academic disciplines developed at the universities. STSD was not only new as systemic participative design theory in terms of its contents, but it also implied a clearly different paradigm in terms of its metho­ dology. In order to gain insight into the actual meaning of STSD, academics had to take on a different attitude in various respects. Not only did they have to learn to think in terms of new schemes, they also had to change their work habits. - The fundamentally different way of thinking implied a shift from the 'machine' approach to the ' systems' approach (Ackoff, 1974). The main characteristics of the machine approach are: the emphasis being placed on reduction (converting whales into parts; disaggregation); the emphasis placed on analytical thinking (explaining the behaviour of entities from the addition into the behaviour of parts) ; as well as the emphasis being placed on mechanis tic thinking ( in terms of the uni-causal caus e I effect relationships). T he obj ect of the study is viewed here as a machine. The main characteristics of the systems approach include emphasis being placed on expansion (the parts are included in ever-expanding entities; aggregation); the emphasis on synthetic thinking (explaining behaviour from the role of the parts and how they function in the larger whole) ; and the emphasis on teleological thinking ( determining and changing obj ectives, adaptation; cause is essential though not sufficient for a certain effect) . The obj ect of the study is viewed here as an 'open system' which interacts with its environment. - The fundamentally different way of working implied a shift from the use of a predictive model cycle to a regulatory cycle on the

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

16

one hand, and a different attitude of the researcher on the other; from distant to eo-influencing. The empirical or predictive cycle (De Groot, 1980� accentuates the testing of hypotheses that are derived from an a priori formulated theory by means of the following steps: observation, induction (generalizing general connections from observed connections), deduction (formulating ideal-types /hypotheses), test (verifying I falsifying), evaluation. The regulatory or design cycle (Van Strien, 1986) stresses actual designing and, on the b asis of that, developing a theory of practice through the following steps: problem definition, diagnosis, plan, action, evaluation. The role of the researcher is no longer vaguely observant, but more involved and, in fact, eo­ influencing. The relevant process is referred to as 'action re­ s earch ' . It may b e clear that many res earchers have had difficulty with such a radical methodological changing para­ digm. Illustrative of this is Hackman's lamentation: 'It may be that the only good way to comprehend a sociotechnical message is to move from the library to the shop floor and then finally to understand'. Ah ha! That's what it means. ' (Hackman, 1981, p. 76).

2.5

STSD Images: Milestones and Development Trajectories

The history of STSD is a sequence of major and minor discoveries, projects, conceptualizations and developments of methodologies. The literature about it is very fragmented. English handbooks are lacking, whereas a number of key publications have, for a long period of time, not gone beyond the stage of 'internal report'. All of this combined makes it a difficult task to give a reasonable valid outline of its historical development. Other authors have recently made an attempt to record the history of the Socio-Technical Systems Design paradigm. Merrelyn Emery (1989a), for example, distinguishes a number of important 'milestones' : - The first relevant fact - basically not more than a pace-setter she mentions Lewin's leadership experiments just before the Second World War (cf. Lippitt & White, 1939). These laboratory studies pointed to three basic types of organizational structures: the autocracy (bureaucracy), the democracy, and the 'laissez­ faire' type (structureless variant). - The second relevant fact - the first factual milestone of STSD -

Chapter Two - STSD: Towards Some Root Definitions of the Paradigm

17

Emery refers to the British mine studies (cf. Trist & Bamforth, 1 951; Trist et al., 1963). In these field studies, researchers dis­ covered an alternative form of work organization (the so-called 'semi-autonomous work group'), which they tried out on a limited scale. - The third relevant fact - the second factual milestone of STSD Fred Emery mentions the Norwegian 'Industrial Democracy Project' (cf. Emery, F. & Thorsrud, 1 964/ 1969 / 1976). In this project, employers, employees and the government for the first time jointly carried out research into and improved the democratic quality I content of industrial sectors. - The fourth relevant fact - the third factual milestone of STSD Merrelyn Emery (1 989a) ' refers to the development of the so­ c alled 'P articip ative Design' methodology in Australia (cf. Emery, F. & Emery, M., 1974). Here, the employees themselves were given the opportunity to carry out the whole trajectory of sociotechnical analysis and redesign by means of 'participative design workshops' and 'search conferences'. - In addition to Emery, Van Beinum (1990a) has proposed a fourth factual milestone in the development of STSD, namely, 'large­ scale and broadly-based organizational change process with 'democratic dialogue' as the leading element on the conceptual as well as on the operational level' (cf. Gustavsen, 1985a / 1988). This has been brought into practice on a national scale. The Dutch approach to Integral Organizational Renewal (De Sitter et al., 1 990) may compete with this fourth 'milestone' classi­ fication (see chapter seven). Based on a bibliometrical analysis of the literature (cf. Van Eijnatten, 1990a/b) - and where possible corrected for changes in the actual sequence of events (Fred Emery, 1990 - personal correspon­ dence) - we have attempted to categorize the historical line of STSD into phases. The three development trajectories can be distin­ guished as follows: - Phase I ( 1949 - 1959+):

The period of the Socio-Technical Pioneering Work. - Phase II (1959 - 1971+): The period of Classical STSD. - Phase Ill (1971 - xxxx): The period of Modem STSD. The p eriod of Modern STSD can be further divided into four separate tracks:

18

-

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Variant A (1971-xxxx): Variant B (1973-xxxx): Variant C (1979-�x): Variant D (1971-xxxx):

Participative Design. Integral Organizational Renewal. Democratic Dialogue. North-American Consultancy.

Figure 2.2 is representative of the phases and tracks, thus distinguished, combined with the milestones previously mentioned. What immediately strikes the eye, is that the phases partly over­ lap in time. Sometimes, there almost exist parallel flows. Two main causes can be given for this. Firstly, from time to time the inven­ tors/developers of the paradigm, regroup to discuss new ideas while the implementors/consultants continue to follow the course taken for some time. Secondly, the development of STSD is a-synchronous in the different countries and continents. One country is already in the next phase whereas the other has yet to start the previous one. It also happened (for example, in the United States) that the entire development started off only after a number of years. This makes it difficult to link concrete end-dates to the various stages. Today, Classical STSD and the various Modern STSD approaches coexist as professional approaches at different locations. This situation frequently causes breakdown of communication among new-comers in this field. Several authors have tried to further identify some dis­ tinctive problem areas as covered by STSD (cf. Trist, 1981; Emery, 1982; Wright & Morley, 1989; Van Beinum, 1990a). Babiiroglu (1992) summarized and put together these attempts, merging them into four different, nameless tracks. We re-interpreted these tracks on the basis of our SSM-inspired STSD framework as three broad cat­ egories of perceived problem situations in the world of work. We distinguish:

- type 1 perceived problem situations: all sorts of work problems detected at the work group I department level. The main issue here is the (mal)adaptive functioning of the internal social work organization in relation to technological development, i.e., rationalization of production process.

- type 2 perceived problem situations: all sorts of organizational problems detected at the enterprise level. The main issue here is the (mal)adaptive functioning of the single whole organization in relation to active competitors under conditions of turbulence.

� � if 0

1

�

PHASE I

Track A

(/) � (/)

Track B

�

Track C t Contemporary STSD:

I I

ASE II semi-autonomous work group

classical STSD

variance analysis & control

Variant D: North-American Consultancy

...

==

self-

multi­

level

inter-org. networks

$:>

�

(/) 0 � "'

�

0 ..... tJ

� it ..... c;· ;:I

STSD Modern Approaches

search conf.

Track D

9

multi-

PD-workshop;

"'

-Q., s:. "'

� �

!:>..

1950

Figure 2.2

1960

1970

The phases and milestones in the development of STSD

1980

1990

�-

..... \0

20

The Paradigm that Changed the

Work Place

- type 3 perceived problem situations: all sorts of complex meta­ problems detected at the inter-organizational domain level. The main issue here Ss the (mal)adaptive functioning of referent organizations in relation to society under conditions of turbulence. Barbiiroglu (1992) made an addition to this list - a distinct type 4 perceived problem situation, characterized by severe and prolonged maladaptive response and contextual conflict portrayed by organizations under conditions of hyper-turbulence (see para­ graph 6.3.1 and chapter seven). For the first three types of perceived problem situations, the STSD paradigm applied specialized theories of content (concep­ tual holons) and/or theories of process (human activity holons). In ad dition to this previously-mentioned mixture of phases and variants, this picture illustrates the complex variety of STSD as a field. The ideal of Participative Democracy serves as the one and only umbrella under which all of these different approaches remain recognizable as mere manifestations of the master paradigm.

Chapter Three STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm Table of Contents 3.1 3.2

3.3

3.1.

Page

Introduction The Pioneering Role of Tavistock 3.2.1 Ken Bamforth's Re-Discovery of a Work Tradition 3.2.2 Action Research as the Mere Context of Discovery 3.2.3 Latent STSD and the Contagious Spreading and Adoption of an Open-Systems View 3.2.4 STSD-specific Concept Development to Support the Next Phase Classical STSD 3.3.1 The Inspiration of the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Programme 3.3.2 The Diffusion of Industrial Democracy: Idiom versus Replica 3.3.3 The Methodical Approach towards Industrial Democracy 3.3.4 An Outline of Basic Concepts in Classical STSD 3.3.5 An Impression of Projects as Reported in the Literature

21 22

22

25 26 29 32 32 34 36 38

44

Introduction

In the previous chapter the history of STSD was divided into three distinctive tracks. In this chapter, we will describe the first two phases by means of anecdotes. The first development trajectory is referred to as the 'Socio-Technical Pioneering Work', roughly spanning the period from 1949 to 1959. In paragraph 3.2, attention will be given to the inception and initial development of STSD by staff members and visiting scientists of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, in London. While delineating the discovery of the Semi-Autonomous Work Group, the well-known projects will briefly pass in review and the theoretical foundation, from the early years, will be discussed as it emerged from the prac­ tising of systems thinking. In paragraph 3.3, attention will be given

22

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

to the second deve)opment trajectory, hereafter referred to as 'Classical STSD'. This'phase is spanning the time period 1959-1971. We shall give a concise description of the first full-scale test of STSD in Norway. Also, the further spreading of Classical STSD will be discussed, and the development of concepts and methods during this period will be looked at.

3.2 3.2.1

The Pioneering Role of Tavistock Ken Bamforth's Re-Discovery of a Work Tradition

The cradle of STSD can be found in the postwar British coal mines. In the early fifties, a new, spontaneous form of work organ­ ization came into being, which today is referred to as 'the structural variant of self-managing work groups'. The turbulent British coal industry - that was continually plagued by labour conflicts and which was nationalized and further mechanized after the Second World War - was not exactly a working area that was easily access­ ible to social scientists. Yet, Ken Bamforth, ex-miner and a new researcher at the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London, was given the opportunity to visit the mine he used to work in, the Elsecar mine in South Yorkshire, which was closed to many other researchers. During his visit he observed an unknown form of work organization in a new coal seam, called 'the Haighmoor'. Due to the short coal front, the usual mechanization (the so-called 'long­ wall' method) could not be applied in this seam. Thanks to the fact that he was a former colleague, the local management gave him permission to carry out descriptive research to gether with Eric Trist. However, it proved to be difficult to obtain the management's permission to publish their findings. After some commotion, the mine management eventually agreed to a strongly censored version. In their now famous article - carefully included in an elab­ orate description of the mechanized coal mining process which was unravelled in small sub-tasks - Trist & Bamforth (1951) represented, in guarded terms, a unique underground alternative work organ­ ization that was composed of so-called 'composite work groups': small, relatively autonomous work groups consisting of eight miners, who were responsible, as a group, for a full cycle in the coal extrac­ tion process. This 'new' form of work organization much resembled the manual situation, as it had existed, before mechanization. The work organization observed in Haighmoor, proved that there were other, even better, ways of designing the work organ-

Chapter Three - STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm

23

ization within the same mine. This was flatly opposed to the prevailing 'one best way of organizing' practice "that fused Weber's description of bureaucracy with Frederic Taylor's concept of scientific management" (Trist, 1 9 8 1 , p. 9). Here, actual practice showed that within the same mine there were different, and even better ways to structure the work organization (the latter principle of ' organizational choice' ) . This so-called 'all-in method' soon developed into a success story, the starting point of the Socio-Tech­ nical Systems Design paradigm.

Box 3.1

An 'eye-witness ' report of the difficult start of STSD

"In the autumn of 1949, I went up to Elsecar Colliery in N.E. Division, Ken Bamforth's old pit, and found autonomous work groups in the Haighmoor seam. Improved roof control enabled them to mine it. ( ...) Teams of eight men interchanged tasks on shlft and each shlft took over where the last left off. ( . . .)

The method, called the all-in method, had been conceived by Reg Baker, then Area General Manager No. 3 Area, N.E. Division, formerly manager at Elsecar. (... )

The project was an immense success - human-wise, productivity-wise and every otherwise. I began to study it with Ken ( ... ). It was both moving and exciting to talk to the men about the value they placed on their experience in the newly formed autonomous groups. ( ... ) I read a paper with Ken on the 'all-in method' and its significance as a new paradigm ( ... ) in the winter of 1950 ( ... ) .

I then asked Baker about publishing an expanded version of the paper in Human Relations. He had to ask N.E. Division, who refused. ( ... ) They were frightened of the consequences of letting news about the 'all-in method' get out in the industry. They said it contained dynamite. ( . ..)

This is why the

original Trist-Bamforth paper ( ... ) was published simply as an analysis of the conventional longwall with only indirect references (which are nevertheless plentiful, the model provided by the ripping team) to there being something of another kind on the way. This something was suppressed. ( . . . )"

Trist's private communication, 1977; Emery (1978), p.S-6 As Trist later recalled in his correspondence with Emery, the start of the sociotechnical paradigm did not exactly go without a hitch (see box 3.1). In fact, the pioneering phase was on again, off again. The research by Trist & Bamforth (1951) in the British coal mines is generally considered as the starting point of the Socio-

24

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Technical Systems Design paradigm. Their study was later the subject of numerous elucidati.ons and discussions by many authors (cf. for only a handfuhof references: Katz & Kahn, 1 966; Hill, 1971; ' Klein, 1975; Cummings & Srivastva, 1977; Buchanan, 1979; Kuipers & Van Amelsvoort, 1990). Real experiments with autonomous groups were carried out in the Bolsover mines in the East Midlands coal field (Shepherd, 1951; Wilson & Trist, 1951; Emery, 1952; Trist, 1953). During his sabbatical leave from Australia in 1 952, Fred Emery visited these mines, where he found that autonomous groups had been introduced in seven locations. However, here too the National Coal Board was terrified of the consequences and cancelled a proposal for further diffusion. From January 1955 until March 1958, Trist c.s. performed a series of descriptive case studies and field experiments with semi­ autonomous work groups in the mines of North-West Durham. The reason for this was the 'discovery' of "the working of a conven­ tional, semi-mechanized, three-shift longwall cycle, by a set of autonomous work groups" (Trist, 1981, p. 16). Trist reported enthusi­ astically that groups consisting of 40 to 50 miners worked here while exchanging their various tasks and also drawing up the shift schedules themselves. Amongst one another, they had worked out an adapted 'fair' rewarding system. Comp ared to an identical situation, but with a traditional work organization, the output here was 25% higher, the costs lower, and absenteeism had been cut in half! A large number of reports were published pertaining to this Bolsover case (cf. Herbst, 1 958; Higgin, 1957/ 1 958; Murray, 1957a through h; Pollock, 1 9 5 7 / 1 958; Trist, 1 95 6 / 1957). A collected description of these mine studies can be found in Trist et al. (1963). Parallel to this, two 'naturally occurring' field experiments were observed in the Indian textile industry (the Jubilee and Calico Mills in Ahmedab ad, India; cf. Rice, 1 953 / 1 958 / 1 963). As Trist (1981) reports "Rice did no more than mention, through an inter­ preter, the idea of a group of workers becoming responsible for a group of looms" (p . 1 8) . Both in an automated and in a non­ automated weaving mill, the workers themselves created a system of semi-autonomous work groups, only in the former was there lasting success (Miller, 1 975). In the early fifties small groups were observed in both the London harbour (Trist, 1977), British retail trade (Pollock, 1954) and in Glasgow telephone exchange (Smith, 1952). Independently from Tavistock, Melman (1958) studied an elaborated type of semi­ autonomous work groups structure - the so-called 'gang system' - in the Standard Motor Company at Coventry, England. Other early

Chapter Three - STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm

25

' sociotechnical' reorganizations are known in Scandinavia. In Sweden, groups were introduced to the Sto ckholm telephone switchboard (cf. Westerlund, 1 952), while King (1964) reported to have been implementing self-regulating female teams in a Nor­ we gian clothing factory. In the United States, Kuriloff (1963) recorded an experiment with semi-autonomous work groups at Non­ Lineair Systems Inc. in California. In The Netherlands Van Beinum (1959) carried out a sociotechnical-tinged field experiment at the Dutch Giro Service in The Hague.

3.2.2

Action Research as the Mere Context of Discovery

The origin of the STSD paradigm is closely linked with the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London, founded in 1946, and with its portrayal conduct of enquiry: action research. One reason for this outspoken research policy was the fact that its founding members had all gained a diverse amount of wartime experience, with all sorts of action programmes, while in the British army. After the war, they continued this habit (cf. Wilson et al., 1 952) . Another rationale was that they had been under the direct influence of Lewin's (1946) novel group dynamics methodo­ logy, which straigthforwardly coupled research to action in a regu­ latory model cycle (see paragraph 2.4). The ultimate research aim became to study a complex situation by changing it! From its start, action has been prevalent at 'The Tavistock' and the researcher's role of being a change agent is broadly accepted as an essential prerequisite. The research focus is both client-oriented and problem­ oriented. As Rapoport (1970) says, the members of the Tavistock Institute attempted "to integrate medical and so cial science disciplines for the solution of social as distinct from individual problems. The main theme was the need to get collaboration from members of an organization while attempting to help them solve their own problems" (p. 500). Action research is not an academic discipline. It undeniably shows some characteristics of a 'movement'. As Curle (1949) put it, this type of applied social research "aims not only to discover facts, but also to help in altering certain conditions experienced by the community as unsatisfactory" (p. 269). Rapoport (1970) called it the art of seeing the relevance in knowledge for practice. According to Elden & Chisholm (1991), the researcher adds to his research a vision of how society could be improved. The field experiment served as a standard model for en­ quiring complex real-life settings since Lewin's action research

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

26

studies with children (Lewin et al., 1 939; Lippitt & White, 1 939; Lippitt, 1 940, Barker et al., 1 941), housewifes (Lewin, 1943; Radke & Klisurich, 1947) an'clhis research project in the clothing industry, experimenting with female employees at Harwood Manufacturing Company (Bavelas, 1 942; Maier, 1 946). According to Foster (1972) "the arguments by Lewin for the merits of action research were Gestaltist in origin. He stressed the limitations of studying com­ plex, real social events in a laboratory, the artificiality of splitting out single behavioural elements from an integrated system, and the advantages of understanding the dynamic nature of change, by studying it under controlled conditions as it takes place" (p. 530). Tavistock developed its own action research variant, which was first practiced in the Glacier project (Jaques, 1951; 1964), in which only the s ocial system was studied extensively. In the Elsecar Trist & Bamforth (195 1 ) success story, the eo-influencing researcher's role of action research was found minimal: The deviant form of work organization was already implemented by the miners themselves. The Tavistock researchers could do no more than only describe it and make a comparison with the current technology­ induced longwall metho d. Eventually, they also criticized the adequacy of the d ominant work organiz ation after longwall mechanization, which was characterized by fragmented jobs. They valued this as negative both from a human and from an organ­ izational point of view. As Emery (1991) put it: "They argued, very strongly, that the human costs of longwall coal mining could be ignored only at serious costs to overall system performance" (p. 1). In the subsequent mining studies - particularly the Bolsover case the Tavistock researchers were able to somewhat increase their factual action component, but strict limitations of the National Coal Board prevented any large-scale test of the new innovative work organization. In India, researchers played a minor role in the employed action research approach also. As Trist (1981) explained, the Ahme d a b a d field exp eriments h a v e b e en initi a t e d spontaneously b y the workers themselves, one o f them before, the other, after a visit and lecture by Rice. In the pioneering phase of STSD, action research served as a mere context of discovery, while democracy as a leading normative world view was only tacitly present.

3.2.3

Latent STSD and the Contagious Spreading and Adoption of an Open Sys tems Vi ew -

As previously illustated, the start of the STSD paradigm

Chapter Three - STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm

27

spontaneously took place in the subterranean galleries of the British coal mines. Despite the advancing mechanization, some coal seam miners chose to pursue their own old work tradition. It was an ex-miner who reported this phenomenon to the academic world. By the time these naturally occurring field experiments had shown some positive results in practice, the scientific explanation had only just begun. Initially, the formulation of theories was strongly influenced by the psycho-analytical orientation at 'The Tavistock'. The very first conceptualizations were hence based on the group theory (cf. Klein's object relations (1932/1948); Bion's 'leaderless group'/group dynamics (1949 /1950); and Lewin's field theory/group decision making (1947 / 1951 ) . Soon, however, the promising and simultaneous development of the systems approach inspired the STSD pioneers. Due to the lack of both time and resources at 'The Tavistock', it was difficult to develop its own concept in a system­ atic manner. Researchers, from the very beginning, were guided in their observations by the 'open-systems' way of thinking, which was initially propagated from biology, and later also from cyber­ netics. They enthusiastically adopted the new concepts and adapted them to actual practice, to test their usability (cf. table 3.1). - Therefore, the more commonly known 'Gestalt' notion (Kohler, 1929), renamed the 'holistic system' (Angyal, 1941), makes it possible to look at the whole coal mining situation, i.e., at both social and technical aspects and their mutual connection. - By means of the ' open-systems ' notion (Koehler, 1 938; Von Bertalanffy, 1950), attention is also directed towards the environ­ ment. Thus, the man-hostile and unpredictable work situation in mines can become explicitly involved in the research. - The researchers place the concept of 'self-regulation' at the basis of the observed semi-autonomous group (Roux, 1914; Weiner, 1950; Von Bertalanffy, 1950; Sommerhoff, 1950). Self-regulation of all steps of the coal mining process is most effective in an unpredict­ able environment, and 'requisite variety' (Ashby, 1956a/b, 1958) in other words, allround miners in the semi-autonomous group - are a prerequisite for that. This is exactly what Trist and Bamforth found in the Elsecar mine in South Yorkshire: Small semi-auton­ omous work groups consisting of eight miners, each of them equally rewarded and who, as a group, were responsible for a full production cycle in the coal mining process. The ever-progressive labour division, which was so typical of the mechanization of the industry at the beginning of the 20th century, was all of a

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

28

Table 3 . 1

Outline of sys tems concep t s from b iology, logic and cybernetics dating before 1959, adopted by the Tavistock researchers '",

Concept

Reference

Discipline

- adaptation

Tomkins, 1953

biology

- closed/open system

Sommerhoff, 1950

biology

Koehler, 1938

biology

Prigogine, 1947

thernno-dynamics

Von Bertalanffy, 1950

biology

- coenetic variable

Ashby, 1956b

cybernetics

- eo-producer

Singer, 1959

philosophy

- directive correlation - entropy

Feibleman

& Friend, 1945

philosophy

Sommerhoff, 1950

biology

Schrodinger, 1944

biology

Prigogine, 1947

thernno-dynamics

- negative entropy

Von Bertalanffy, 1950

biology

- equifinality

Von Bertalanffy, 1950

biology

- functional equivalent

Nagel, 1956

biology

Kohler, 1929

psychology)

(- gestalt

- goal-directed behavior Sommerhoff, 1950

biology

- goal-seeking b ehavior Schiitzenberger, 1954

biology

- homeostasis

Canon, 1932

- joint environment

Ashby, 1952

cybernetics

- learning

Tomkins, 1953

biology

Sommerhoff, 1950

biology

- morphogenesis

Spiegelman, 1945

biology

- multi-stable system

Ashby, 1952

cybernetics

- requisite variety

Ashby, 1958

cybernetics

- self-regulation

Roux, 1914; Weiner, 1950

cybernetics

Von Bertalanffy, 1950

biology

Sommerhoff, 1950

- (dynamic) steady state Hill, 1931 (Fliessgleichgewicht)

biology

biology biology

Von Bertalanffy, 1950

biology

- (holistic) system

Angyal, 1941

logic

- theory of feedback

Wiener, 1948/ 1961

cybernetics

mechanisms

Chapter Three - STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm

29

sudden, rigorously broken down. Actual practice provided all the necessary ingredients for developing a new organization theory, but its exact concept was not elaborated upon until the early sixties. It is interesting to note here, the early German discovery of 'Gruppenfabrikation' (Lang & Hellpach (Eds.), 1922), which may be considered a remarkable forerunner of the semi-autonomous work group concept (personal communication with Bernhard Wilpert, 1991). Trist (1981) mentioned that during World War 11, "military technology gave increasing scope for, and prominence to, small group formations, recognizing their power to make flexible decisions and to remain cohesive under rapidly changing conditions" (p. 13).

3.2.4

STSD-Specific Concept D evelopment to Support the Next Phase

The next phase in the development of STSD was heralded by Fred Emery's joining Tavistock in 1958 and the departure of its director, Wilson. As a re sult of increased tension, the socio­ technically oriented researchers, under the guidance of Trist, were separated from the 'Human Relations' oriented researchers that were being led by Rice. The latter had had close connections with psycho-analysts since the establishment of Tavistock. Trist's HRC group (Human Resources Centre), which also included Emery, continued the developing of STSD, but Rice and his CASR group (Centre for Applied Social Research) also continued for some time to publish sociotechnically oriented literature (cf. Menzies, 1960; Rice, 1963; Miller & Rice, 1967) . This did not help improve the mutual understanding between these two groups. When Trist finally succeeded in obtaining financial support for sociotechnical concept development, Emery, supported by Herbst and Miller, turned his energies towards the difficult task of tying up the numerous loose ends from the pioneering phase. Three documents (Tavistock 526-528: cf. Miller, 1959; Emery, 1959; Herbst, 1959) mark the transition from the pioneering phase to that of Classical STSD. In a commentary, Emery (1990 - personal correspon­ dence) called this trinity of theoretical papers "the handbook for the sixties" (p. 4). Lo oking b ack on this foundation process, he claimed some early recognition of their importance for a new theory of concepts: "From the beginning we realized we were talking about a radically different 'human use of human beings', but it was some time b efore we realized that this corresponded to the formal

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

30

distinction that Feibleman & Friend (1945 ) had noted b etween asymmetrical and symmetrical dependence. The relation between the social and techn o logical systems was clearly identified as correlative; not determinative, as in a causal relation" (Emery, 1991 personal corresponence, p. 3). At this point, the rupture with the Human Relations tradition becomes final. It was not until the late fifties that the first area-specific systems concepts were published (cf. table 3.2). Some of these concepts will be described in more detail below, because they belong to the basic notions of (Classical) STSD. -

Table 3.2

Outline of area-specific S TSD concepts

Concept

Reference

- composite work group - dissipative structure - disturbance control - joint optimization - organizational choice - primary task - primary work system - responsible autonomy

Trist & Bamforth, 1951 Emery, 1963 Herbst, 1959 Trist et al., 1963 Trist et al., 1963 Bion, 1950; FUce, 1958 Miller, 1959; FUce, 1963 Trist & Bamforth, 195 1 ; Wilson & Trist, 195 1 ; Trist et al., 1963 Herbst, 1962 - semi-autonomous work group - socio-tecbnical system Emery, 1959 - task and sentient system Miller & Rice, 1967 - technology, time, territory (boundary) Miller, 1959 - work method/task continuity Trist & Murray, 195 8

- The 'socio-technical system' concept i s central t o the ' open'­ systems approach. Only Emery (1959) made a serious attempt to demarcate and define this concept. Unfortunately, this was done in an internal paper which, to date, has not been integrally pub­ lished. As Emery (1991, personal communication, p. 3) replied "some 1,600 copies of this document were sent out on request by the mid-sixties. The document was summarized in Emery & Trist (1960) and (unacknowledged) in Katz & Kahn (1966)". Excerpts of

Chapter Three - STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm

31

this key document also have been published in Davis & Taylor (Eds.) (1972) and in Emery (Ed.) (1978). A sociotechnical system consists of a (in Emery's terms) technical and social sub-system. In Trist's (1981) view, these technical and social sub-systems are mutually independent in the sense that the former follows the laws of the natural sciences, and the latter follows those of the human sciences. However, they are mutually dependent, since they need each other in order to fulfill the production function. This is concerned with a link of heterogeneity. According to Emery (1959) the economic aspect does not constitute a separate third subsystem as Rice (1958) had previously suggested, but can be considered an instrument used to measure the effectiveness of the sociotechnical whole. - The concept of 'joint optimization' (Emery, 1959) refers to the most important sociotechnical objective: to achieve the 'best match' between technical instrumentation and social work organization. In 1963, Emery pointed to "the ideal of joint optimization of coupled, but independently based social and technical systems". The sociotechnical entity should be optimized. According to Emery and Trist, attempts with the sole purpose of optimizing either the technical or the social system, will necessarily lead to what they call 'sub-optimization' of the sociotechnical totality. - The key concept of ' organizational choice' is implicit in the latter notion. In general, it refers to the possibility of achieving one common goal through different means. More specifically, it indi­ cates that - given a certain technology - different forms of work organization are possible. In fact, this rejects the idea of tech­ nological determinism. Van Dijck (1981) states that the concept of 'organizational choice' has its direct origins in the biological system concept of 'equifinality' (Von Bertalanffy, 1 950) and the cybernetic law of 'requisite variety' (Ashby, 1956b). According to Emery (1959), the application of the open-sys­ tems concept to the production organization leads to the distinction of a 'socio-technical system'. A sociotechnical system consists of a social and a technical component. The technical component is viewed as being the 'internal environment' of the organization. After 1959, Emery also continued to work on the formalization and methodological foundation of STSD as an open-systems approach (cf. Emery, 1963a through d/ 1967) . Jordan's message (1963) that man is supplementary to, and not an extension of machines, inspired him to elaborate upon the design principle of 'joint optimization'. In the early sixties, Emery also carried out pioneering work in the area of

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

32

science theory and methodology. For example, he further developed Von Bertalanffy's (1950) 'open-systems' concept, so that a definition of the process of 'act� adaptation' was facilitated, and he based STSD on Sommerhoff's (1950) methodology of 'directive correlation' "as a rigorous framework for contextualism" (see also paragraph 5.2). The methodology of 'directive correlation' presented by Emery in 1963 is at the absolute core of the sociotechnical paradigm, and b riefly enc omp asses the fundamentally symbiotic relationship between an open system and its environment. The way in which these continuously follow from one another, was and still is, not fully understood by many people. This has been pointed out (by Emery in particular) time and time again (see also paragraph 5.3). Because of their revealing character and despite their diffi­ cult accessibility, the epistemological and methodological docu­ ments mentioned above have been of essential relevance to anchor STSD as a scientific p aradigm. The well-known environment typology can be viewed as being one of the results of this foundation process (see paragraph 3.3.4).

3.3 3.3.1

Classical STSD The Inspiration of the Norwegian Industrial Democracy Programme

One of the highlights in the period of Classical STSD was undoubtedly the Norwegian 'Industrial Democracy' (ID) programm e, spanning the period between 1962 and 1969. After the mine studies, it was practically impossible to carry out action research in the United Kingdom. The 'Purfleet Power Station' project was an exception (cf. Emery & Mar ek, 1 9 62) . In th e e arly sixties, a favourable climate for larger-scale experiments arose not in the United Kingdom, but in Norway. In early 1 962, employers' and employee organizations formed a joint committee in order to study problems surrounding Industrial Democracy (ID) . Later, the government also joined this committee. Research in this area was initially subcontracted to the Trondheim Institute of Industrial S o cial Res earch (IFIM ) , whom later c alled in th e Tavistock Institute. Eric Trist established the initial contacts, but from The Tavistock it was Fred Emery, together with Einar Thorsrud of the Norwegian Work Research Institutes (WRI) in Oslo, who gave actual shape and guidance to the ID project (cf. Emery & Thorsrud, 1964). The most important item of the research programme was

Chapter Three - STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm

33

formulated as "a study of the roots of industrial democracy under the condition of personal participation in the workplace" (Emery & Thorsrud, 1 976, p. 10). The programme included sequential field experiments in which alternative forms of work organization (mainly concentrated around semi-autonomous work groups) were developed and tested; subsequently, their effects on the partici­ pation of employees were examined at different levels within the organization. The firms participating in these projects had been carefully selected by the experts of the 'Joint Committee' from the most important sectors in Norway: the metal, paper and chemical indus­ tries. This selection was based on a rudimentary diffusion theory (Emery et al., 1958, see also paragraph 4.2.2). After 1967, a minor project was still proceeding in the shipping industry (cf. Roggema, 1968). The following is a brief description of the four main projects: - The first project began in 1964, in Christiania Spigerverk, a wire draw plant in Oslo (cf. Marek et al., 1964; Emery et al., 1970) . Group work was introduced by the research team, but the reward­ ing system immediately posed all kinds of problems. The change process was not under control in this pilot project. Local unionists and management hardly participated, and therefore the project was cancelled when the research team left the plant after more than a year. - The second project was started in February, 1965, after careful orientation and extensive consultation with unions and manage­ ment at the chemical pulp department of the Hunsfos paper mill, located in Vennesla, Kristiansand (cf. Engelstad et al., 1 9 69; Engelstad, 1 970). The change process was better controlled here: the intro duction and formation of ' extende d group s ' was accompanied by step-by-step project and work groups composed of representatives of employees, foremen and management. However, the project made rapid progress when the research team with­ drew to the background and the (top) management committed itself in a more pronounced way. In 1966, the new work organiz­ ation flourished and the effects of group work and multi-skilled personnel was proved convincingly, but early in 1967, the project became bogged down as a result of a crisis in the paper industry and the associated priority changes in management. In the seventies, the Hunsfos employees themselves took over and began to breathe new life into the project (cf. Elden, 1979a). - The Industrial Democracy programme has faced more setbacks. After an initial refusal of the management to join the programme

34

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

as a result of pol�tical developments within the firm, the third ID project was initiated - more than two years after the first application - in December, 1965, at NOB0 household appliances/ metalware in its establishment in Hommelvik near Trondheim (cf. Engelstad, 1970; Thorsrud, 1972a) . Here too, an experiment with semi-autonomous groups took place, carefully embedded within the organization, and has now been elaborated upon for a new production line for electric radiator heaters. This project has become the actual demonstration project of the ID programme that has attracted many interested people from Norway and Sweden. Later, when a new plant was required, as a result of increased production, the employees succeeded in maintaining the new organization. - The fourth ID project was initiated in 1967 - at the request of the firm itself - in the chemical concern Norsk Hydro. More specifi­ cally, in the reorganization of the old and design of a new fertil­ izer plant in Heroya, Porsgrun (cf. Bregard et al., 1968; Gulowsen, 1972/ 1974/1975). This project, in which Louis Davis also parti­ cipated, was yet another variant of the introduction of a group structure supported by a training programme and a rewarding system adapted to group work. It became a big success: The two plants with this sociotechnically based work organization functioned well until the late seventies. The four demonstration projects as described above, received a l o t o f attentio n in the liter a ture (cf. Emery & Thorsrud, 1969a/b/ 1976; Engelstad, 1972; Gustavsen & Hunnius, 1981). Their aim was to indicate the practical feasibility of the new sociotech­ nical organization principles, but unfortunately, these examples were seldom followed. In spite of the fact that the exp eriments were successful (cf. Gustavsen & Hunnius, 1981), they were largely limited to the department or the plant where they had been started. In their turn, the 'experimental gardens' became isolated from the rest of the organization, which even built up some kind of resistance against such a change. This phenomenon was referred to by Merrelyn Emery (1989 ) as 'paradoxical inhibition'. Although various diffusion schedules were set up, the Norwegian ID pro­ gramme became stagnated around 1970.

3.3.2

The Diffusion of Industrial D emocracy: Idiom versus Replica Things were much different in its neighbouring country

Chapter Three

-

STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm

35

Sweden where a cooperation project, the so-called URAF pro­ gramme, carried by employers and unions similar to that in Norway, was initiated. Because of its slow progress, the employers soon decided to start their own programme in more than 500 firms (cf. Jenkins, 1 9 75; SAP, 1 9 75; Lindholm, 1 9 75 / 1 9 79 ) . They also promoted a sociotechnical programme when new plants were built (cf. Aguren & Edgren, 1980). At Saab-Scania, final assembly in parallel loops were created in the new gasoline-engine factory in SoderHHje as early as 1 9 72 (cf. Norstedt & Aguren, 1973), and parallel working were successfully installed in car body grinding in Trollhattan (cf. Karlsson, 1 9 79 ) . Volvo, in particular, has the reputation of developing a whole range of pioneering new forms of work organization, where o'ne of which, the one in Kalmar (dock assembly I straight-line assembly) has become the most well known (cf. Aguren et al., 1976/1984). For a more elaborate overview of the Volvo projects, see Auer & Riegler (1990). In 1976, the Swedish 'new factories' project started. A mixed group of 80 researchers and development experts analyzed new techniques for industrial build­ ing, process technology, materials handling, layout, design of the individual work stations and product design (cf. Lindholm, 1979). Studying the many innovations implemented in practice since 1970, they identified a number of new production system engineering principles like 'flow groups', 'product shops', ' E-, J-, U- and Z­ shaped layouts, computer-controlled machines, robots and modular product designs (cf. Burbidge, 1975; Bostrup & Soderberg, 1975; Aguren & Edgren, 1980). They also discovered the 'smaller scale' for factories as an emergent trend (cf. Schumacher, 1975) and the use of new micro-electronics in production (for instance in new flexible transport systems in the automotive industry). Based on the new factories survey, four criteria for good production systems were developed: "1. small independent production units; 2. untying man from machine-pacing; 3. jobs with more personal involvement; 4. reliable, fast production systems" (cf. Aguren & Edgren, 1980, p. 105). Focusing on production engineering in the first place, they also fit in especially well with the contemporary STSD approach. In 1965, the Industrial Democracy programme was rehashed in the United Kingdom. The Norwegian example was 'copied' at Avon Rubber, Shell and RTZ (personal communication with Emery, 1990). However, one important element was lacking here: a steering group which was composed of employers and employees. "The Shell Philosophy programme was an innovation but not a change in trajectory. It was developed because in the UK, we were unable to obtain a sanctioning body of the union and employer leaders, as we

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

36

had in Norway" (Emery, 1990 - personal correspondence, p. 4). The Norwegian ID p r o g r amme and its variants are characteristic of the" period of Classical STSD, where the expert approach flourishes.

The Methodical Approach towards Industrial Democracy

3.3.3

In giving shape to and working out the ID programme in Norway, a great deal of attention was given to a systematic elab­ oration of the project approach - amongst other things, because of its demonstrative character (cf. box 3.2) . This has led to important 'breakthroughs' in the development of methods and concepts.

Box 3.2

The methodological approach of the Industrial Democracy programme in Norway

"1. Establishment of a Joint Coiil.Illittee representing labour and management. 2. Choice of experimental company.

3. Systematic analysis of the company as a system and its environment. 4. Choice of experimental sites. 5. Establishing action coiil.Illittees. 6. Socio-technical analysis of experimental sites: a.

description of variations in input and outputs and sources of variations.

b.

estimation of relative importance of different variations (matrix).

c.

description of formal organization.

d. analysis of communications network. e.

base-line measurement of (dis)satisfaction.

f.

analysis of wage and salary system.

7. Description of company policy. 8. Formulation of program for change, containing: a. b.

multi-skilling of operators. developing measures of variations and data analysis methods for control by operators.

c.

attachment of local repair men.

d. institutionalising of meetings. e.

training of foremen.

f.

design and introduction of new bonus arrangement.

9. Institutionalisation of a continued learning and organizational change process. 10. Diffusion of results."

Emery & Thorsrud (1976), p. 150-154 In the ID project approach, the p ro cess of change was defined and monitored in phases and steps. The starting point was a

Chapter Three - STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm

37

thorough sociotechnical analysis of the business situation found. The notions 'variance' and 'variance control' (cf. Engelstad, 1970; Hill, 1 9 71) were highly important here. Based on Herbst's (1959) concept of 'disturbance control', this principle of "signalling occur­ ring disturbances and their control, by the employees themselves, as close to the source as possible", was brought into practice through projects. The application of this principle took place by means of the so-called 'v ariance control matrix' - a table with specific disturbance sources as one input and (factual) disturbance controls as the other. This procedure was the first and most important formal s o c i o technical metho d . The ' tr a d itional v a riance analysis' technique was applied for the first time at the Hunsfos paper mill (cf. box 3.3).

Box 3.3.

A brief illustration of the original ' variance analys is ' technique applied in the period 1965-1967 by Engelstad at

Hunsfos " 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Identifying key success criteria Drawing the layout of the system List the steps in the process in order Identify unit operations Identify variances Construct a variance matrix Identify key variances Construct key variance control table Suggest technical changes Suggest social system changes." After: Engelstad (1969a/b); Engelstad et al. (1969)

A year later, the technique was applied from the Tavistock at the Stanlow oil refinery of Shell-UK (cf. Foster, 19 67; Emery e t al., 1967; Hill, 1971). Although, the number of steps mentioned in the literature varies to some extent, this method is known as the 'nine-step method' (cf. Emery & Trist, 1 9 78 ) . It was originally developed for application in the processing industry, but was later also used for the analysis of discrete production situations and for mapping administrative processes. Emery was opposed to this. The 'technical variance' analysis method, as describ ed above, was introduced in combination with the design criteria (see

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

38

box 3.4) in 1967, in North America, when Louis Davis returned to his country and Eric Trist arrived at UCLA from Tavistock. ..

3.3.4

'

An Outline of Basic Concepts in Classical STSD

The p eriod of Classical STSD is characterized by the further elaboration of concepts. Regarding the basic concepts, a clear 'idiomising' occurs whereby concepts from systems/rigid thinking are no longer adopted 'unthinkingly', but rather rewritten and where necessary, interpreted or simplified. From the beginning of the sixties onwards, a large number of publications further developed or refined the basic concepts of Socio-Technical Systems Design. An outline of these concepts can be found in table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Outline of important basic concepts in Classical STSD - environmental uncertainty

Emery & Trist, 1963/1964/1965/1972 Emery, 1967/1977

- clirected action

Chein, 1972

- job redesign principles

Emery & Thorsrud 1964/1969a/b/1976

- motivation theory of clirected action Susman, 1976 - sociotechnical design principles

Emery & Trist, 1972 Herbst, 1974a Emery, 1974a/1976a Cherns, 1976/1987

- sociotechnical system

Cummings & Srivastva, 1977

- unit operations

Davis & Engelstad, 1966

- variance control

Engelstad, 1970 Hill, 1971

A fundamental discourse concerning the changing nature of the environment has been of path-finding importance to the under­ standing of adaptation. On the basis of the study by Tolman & Brunswick (1935), and using Sommerhoffs (1950) 'directive corre-

Chapter Three - STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm

39

lation' methodology and Ashby's (1952) concept of 'joint envi­ ronment ', Emery & Trist ( 1 9 6 3 / 1 9 64 / 1 9 65) developed an environment typology that is based on 'causal texture', consisting of four categories increasing in complexity and unpredictability. They make a distinction between: 1 . placid, randomized environ­ ment; 2. placid, clustered environment; 3. disturbed-reactive environ­ ment; 4. turbulent field. This typology is a logical next step in socio­ technical conceptualization. It stresses the increase in (changeable) demands affecting the organization from its environment, since organizations, being viewed as open systems, have a constant exchange relationship with their environment. Adaptations of the organizational structure to changes in that environment are crucial in order to survive. Jurkovich (1974) refined this scheme further into a system that distinguishes between 64 factors. The original Emery & Trist typology was later expanded by the hyper-turbulent 'vortex' variant: 5. vortical environment (Crombie, 1972; McCann & Selsky, 1984; Babfuoglu, 1988). - Davis & Engelstad (19 66), adopted the concept of 'unit oper­ ations' that had been originally worked out in chemical engineer­ ing (A.D. Little Inc., 1965), and used it to describe the work of operators in terms of changes of state in the transformation pro­ cess in the context of 'technical system analysis' . Emery et al. (1966) rejected the concept in favour of directive correlations (cf. doe. 900). - The Norwegian ID programme was the first absolute opportunity to test the usability of the sociotechnical basic principles devel­ oped by the HRC group at Tavistock in actual practice. These demonstrations showed that a number of norms continued lacking at the workplace level. Therefore, Emery (1963d) and Emery & Thorsrud (1964) developed a series of job redesign principles on the basis of the work of Louis Davis (1957a /b), from the United States (cf. box 3.4), to be used for the actual experiments with Industrial Democracy at the Norwegian company Hunsfos in p articular. These so-c alled ' structural propositions for joint optimization' served as criteria for the assessment of the existing and newly created work situations. They were repeated in various publications (cf. Thorsrud, 1968; Emery & Thorsrud, 1969a/b/1976; Cum.mings, 1976; Cummings & Srivastva, 1977; Trist, 1981), and taken as point of departure by Hackman & Lawler (1971) and H a c kman & Oldham ( 1 9 76 ) in an altered form for the development of their Job Characteristics model. - From the perspective of the entire organization, Emery (1967),

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

40

Emery & Thorsrud (1969 a /b), Emery & Trist (1972), Thorsrud (1 972a), Herbst (1 975) and Susman (1976) made a set of socio­ technical design 'p.rinciples grouped by Chems (1976 /1987) into a logical, consistent whole and complemented them (cf. table 3.4). The simplification of concepts used here is remarkable. In the practice of sociotechnical design, the complex and little user­ friendly design principle of 'joint optimization' is replaced by the concepts of 'participant design' (Emery, 1967; Emery & Trist, 1972) and 'compatibility' (Cherns, 1 976) . Similarly, the new multi­ functional design principle (Cherns, 1976; 1987) substitutes the complex systems concepts of 'equifinality' and 'directive correla­ tion'.

Box 3.4

Detailed principles for the redesign of tasks

"Individual level: - Optimum variety of tasks within the job. - A meaningful pattern of tasks that grants to each job a semblance of a single overall task. - Optimum length of work cycle. - Some scope for setting production standards and a suitable feedback of knowledge of results. - The inclusion of auxiliary and preparatory tasks in the job. - Tasks include some degree of care, skill, knowledge or effort that is worthy of respect in the community. - The job should make some perceivable contribution to the utility of the product to the consumer. Group level: - Providing 'interlocking' tasks, job rotation or physical proximity: +

where there is a necessary interdependence of jobs for technical or

psychological reasons; + where the individual job entails a relatively high degree of stress; + where the individual jobs do not make an obvious perceivable contribution to the utility of the end product. - Where a number of jobs are linked together by interlocking tasks or job rotation they should as a gr:oup: + have some semblance of an overall task; + have some scope for setting standards and securing knowledge of results; + have some control over the boundary tasks. Over extended social and temporal units: - Providing for channels of communication so that the nUnimum requirements of the workers can be fed into the design of new jobs at an early stage. - Providing for channels of promotion to rank foreman that are sanctioned by the workers."

Adapted from: Emery (1963d), p. 1-2; Emery & Thorsrud (1964), p. 103-105; Emery & Thorsrud (1976), p. 15-17

Chapter Three - STSD: Initial Formulations of the Paradigm

41

- A sidetrack development is Susman's (1976) attempt to develop a motivation theory appropriate to the sociotechnical framework. Based on a link of Klein's (1932) concept of 'object relations' and Chein's (1972) concept of 'directed action', Susman's 'theory of directed action' departs from motives such as behaviour, as actions of human beings who are considered 'purposeful system'. - Finally, during the period of Classical STSD, a more acceptable definition of a sociotechnical system is also established as being a symbiosis between a technical system consisting of equipment and process layout, and a social system in which people carry out the tasks: "A socio-technical system is a non-random distribution of social and technical components that co-act in physical space-time for a specific purpose." C111Illlling s & Srivastva (1977), p. 1

This definition leaves room for both an open-system and a closed­ system perspective. Moreover, it allows for consideration of steady states in both social and technical systems, at different aggregation levels. - Elaboration of the concept of 'variance control' (Engelstad, 1 970; Hill, 1971) is highly relevant to the development of Classical STSD. Based on Herbst's (1959) concept of 'disturbance control', this principle of the control loop in projects was further developed and put into operation. Recently, Pasmore (1988) has once again systematically listed a set of 'technical system design principles' (p. 62-68), which is largely based on this concept: 1 . "Variances should be controlled at their source. 2. Boundaries between units should be drawn to facilitate variance control. 3. Feedback systems should be as complex as the variances that need to be controlled. 4. The impact of variances should be isolated in order to reduce the likelihood of total system failure. 5. Technical expertise should be directed to the variances with the greatest potential for systems disruption. 6. Technological flexibility should match product variability. 7. Technology should be appropriate to the task. 8. Inputs should be monitored as carefully as outputs. 9. Core absorbs support. 10. The effectiveness of the whole is more important than the effectiveness of the parts."

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

42

Table 3.4 Outline of sociotechnical design p rinciples of Classical STSD -. * emphasis on process of change - compatibilityI participant design *) (Emery, 1974a/1976a; Chems, 1976/1987) - minimum critical specification (inspired by Beurle, 1962) (Herbst, 1974a; Chems, 1976/1987) - the socio-technical criterion/variance control (Emery & Thorsrud, 1969a/b; Chems, 1976/1987) - the multifunctional principle/redundancy of functions (Emery, 1967; Emery & Trist, 1972; Chems, 1976/1987) - boundary location (Susman, 1976; Chems, 1976/1987) - information flow (Chems, 1976/1987) - support congruence (Chems, 1976/1987) - design and human values (Thorsrud, 1972a; Chems, 1976) - incompletion/Forth Bridge principle/ double loop learning (Chems, 1976 /1987; Argyris & Schon, 1978) - power and authority IAdmirable Crichton principle (Chems, 1987) - transitional organization (Chems, 1987)

)

*

)

*

�

Company

1962 Philips

1962 PCGD

Tn>e of Company Television factory

Aluminium factory

Sheltered experiment

1965 Alcan Aluminium

AJuminium factory

Reduction division

1965 PCGD

Audio/Video Post giro

1967 1%7 Shell UK

Oil refinery

1965 NOBeJ 1965 Philips

1966 Northe-rn Electric

1967 Norsk Hydito

Domestic appliances

1968 Coming Glass Works

Television factory

KNTU

1970 Orrelos Glass Works

Textile industry

Bodywork factory

1970 Fokker

Aircraft factory

1971 British Oxygen

Welding/heating eq.

1971 Saab·Scania

1972 Secours lARD

Engine factory

Advanced devices

Montreal, Ottawa

Canada

Gabarro & Lorsch (1968)

Microwax plant

Stanlow, Cheshire

England

New plant design

Topeka, Kansas

USA

Teesport

England

R&D deparbnent

Highly automated plant

Spinning mill Bamshoeve Assembly

Car assembly

1973 Rushton

Coal mine

1974 ESAB

Welding equipment

1975 SEMA

Pension fund

1974 Fliikt AB 1975 PhiUps

Machine factory

Ventilation equipment Machine factory

1975 Shell

Chemical plant

1976 Rolls Royce

Automobile factory

1975 Centraal Beheer

1976 Tannoy

1977 Trebor Sharps

1977 SEIHyrenees 1978 Siemens

1979 Sulzer

Nonvay

Brega.rd el nl. (1968);Gulowsen (1974)

USA

Netherlands Netherlands

Sweden

Burden (1972/ 1975); Emery
AUegro (1971)

Den Hertog & Kerkhol (1973) Karlsson (1979); logue (1981)

Sweden

Aguren & Edgren (1980)

SOde[talje

Sweden

Norsredt & Aguren (1973); Aguren & Edgren (1980)

Paris

France

Planet (1979)

Dordrecht

Bletchley

Netherlands England

Butera (1975)

Derunark

larsen (1979)

USA

Detroit, Michigan

USA

Stue-r

Grand Rapids, Mich. Kalmar

In 't Veld (1984)

Burbidge (1979)

Italy

Tarrytown, New York

USA

Sweden

Poza & Markus (1980)

Wolfish (1977); RundeU (1978) Robison (1977)

Miller (1978); Landen (1977 /1978)

Aguren el nl. (1976/1984)

Face work

Pennsylvania

USA

Tristel nl. (1977)

Semi-automatics shop

Llxa

Sweden

Agun'n & Edgren (1980)

Executive services

Paris

France

Canada

Tool department Production

Mechanical workshops

Eindhoven

Ljungarwn Eindhoven

Polypropylene plant

Samia, Ontario

Engineering works

Derby

Loud speaker departm.

Woodlord

Accounting

Pneumatic control eq.

Roggem• (1968); Herbst (1971)

Assembly division

Entire concern

Thorsrud (1970); Emery & Thorsrud (1976)

Van Beinum,
Nonvay

USA

Audio

Turbine paddles

Netherlands

Automotive coating plant

"Life" department

Domestic appUances

Eindhoven

Nonvay

lvrea Richmont, Kentucky

Insurance company

Audio

Twente

Saab 99 motor-assembly

Polishing

Automobile factory

1974 PhiUps

Medrield, Mass.

Trollh.iiHan

Fisher body plant

Automobile factory

HerOya, Porsgrunn

Grinding bodies

Automobile factory

1973 General MotorS

Marek el nl. (1964); Emery & Thorsrud (1976)

Archer (1975) Van Beinum (1966)

Does de Willebois (1968)

Pick-up assembly

1973 Volvo

Canada

Netherlands

Audio-Video

Automobile factory

Emery & Thorsrud (1969/1976); Engelstad (1972)

Elnd.hm•en

Leeuwarden/Tllbwg

1972 Bang and Oluken

1973 General MotorS

Ireland

Punch centres

Assembly

Components factory

1973 Ge-neral Motors

Dublin

Arvida, Kingston, Ontario

EJectrical panel heaters

Insurance

Paint fadory

Nonvay

Arvida, Kingston, Ontario

Van Beek (1964)

Nonvay

Gagnon & Blutot (1969); Chevalier (1972)

1972 Olivetti

1972 Shenvin·Williams

Oslo

VeMesla, Kristiansa.nd

Netherlands

Canada

New fertilizer plant

1%9 PhiUps

Van Beinum (1963)

Eind.hoven

Trondheim

Processing industry

Oil refinery

1969 Saal>-Scania

Bus sen•ice

Merchant ships

1968 SheD

1%9

Chemical pulp

Shipping

1968 Gaines General Foods Pet food factory

Netherlands

Wire drawing

19M Alcan Aluminium

1964 Coras Iompair Eireann Transport company

The Hague

Current account

Post gito Paper

1964 Christiania Spigerverk Steel industry

Authors

Cjly District

Assembly

1964 Hunsfos

mill

�

�

Computer department

Apeldoom

Netherlands

Sweden Netherlands Netherlands England

Atink & Wester (1978)

Aguren & Edgren (1980)

Leleb\•re & RoUoy (1976); Legros (1976) Den Hertog & Wester (1979)

Davls & Sullivan (1980); Halpem (1984)

AUegro & De Vries (1979); Glas (1980)

Mumford & Henshall (1979)

Coatbridge

Scotland

Lourdes

France

Grenier (1979)

Winterthw

Switzerland

Wamecke & Lederer (1979)

Karlsruhe

England

Germany

Weir (1980) Birchall el nl. (1978)

Schlitzberger (1978)

� � � w

<.n n � i:i � "'

�:;:::, · '1:3§" -

""t

Vl �

� 6· � 1::)

'1::$ -.Q.. �

"'

:;::,... gc;· .....

c;·

;:: � � ..... ::s-o � �· n 1--l \.() :0:::. oo ­ o '1:3 ""t

...8

.,·

n .....

�

�

� � � "' '

"(/}

�

� ;r

� '� 'T1 �

.,.

::t.

�

-Q,

� �

�

;·

"'

2 =4

�· :;::,... c � ..... :;::,... � ""t

· � �

tt

44

3.3.5

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

An Impression of Projects as Reported in the Literature

The previously-mentioned initial formulations of the STSD paradigm, urged practitioners in different countries and continents to engage in experimentation with the new form of work organization. Throughout the Classical STSD period, hundreds of sociotechnical projects were carried out, both in so-called 'greenfield' sites (new factories and offices) and in redesign situations. A schematic repre­ sentation of studies published during this period can be found in table 3.5. Some forty-five studies originating from thirteen countries have been selected from the literature, on the basis of completeness of the c ategories used (starting year, comp any name, type of company, department, city I district, country and reference). All studies were carried out prior to 1980. An excellent survey of over 120 work system design ' experiments' - mo stly from Europe, Australia and North Americ a - has been published b y Taylor (1977a/b). The majority of these projects can be labelled as Classi­ cal STSD (re-)design cases. We conclude that Classical Socio-Technical Systems Design is extremely widespread, both in terms of geography and in terms of company type. It should be emphasized here that this is just a small pick from the various projects launched during the period of Classical STSD.

Chapter Four

STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

Table of Contents

Page

4.1 Introduction 4.2 Variant A: Participative Design 4.2.1 The Australian Solution to the Problem of Diffusion 4.2.2 PO and the Educational Approach towards Learning 4.2.3 Further Diffusion of the Diffusion Model 4.3 Variant B: Integral Organizational Renewal 4.3.1 The Dutch Solution to the Problem of Integral Design 4.3.2 IOR and the Balance Model Based on Social Interaction 4.3.3 The Participative Process of Organizational Renewal of the Firm 4.4 Variant C: Democratic Dialogue 4.4.1 The Scandinavian Solution to the Problem of Diffusion 4.4.2 The Concept of Democratic Dialogue and the Theory of Integrating Language and Practice 4.4.3 The DD Trajectory: Creating Scope by Engaging in a Broad Ecological Process 4.5 Variant 0: Modern STSD in North America

4.1

45

46

46 51 53 58 58 61 66 68 68 71

73 76

Introduction

In chapter two the historic development of STSD was divided into three distinctive phases. In this chapter, we will provide a detailed description of the Modern STSD phase. This trajectory can be subdivided into four parallel tracks. In paragraph 4.2, Participative Design is introduced, a Modern STSD variant originated in Australia. In paragraph 4.3, Integral Organizational Renewal is described, a Modern STSD alternative that was devel­ oped in The Netherlands. In paragraph 4.4, Democratic Dialogue is outlined, as it emerged in Scandinavia. In paragraph 4.5 Modern STSD in North America is exhibited.

46

4.2

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Variant A: ·participative Design '

The first alternative to Modern STSD is called Participative Design (PD), developed in Australia. This variant breaks with the Classical expert-led STSD tradition. Being an genuine 'do-it­ yourself approach with only a minimum of theory of concepts, PD is aimed at participative design without the help of any expert/ consultant whatsoever.

4.2.1

The Australian Solution to the Problem of Diffusion

When Fred Emery returned to Australia in 1 969, a fter spending a period of ten years in Europe, he was swamped with applications for projects similar to those he had carried out in the United Kingdom and Norway. To some extent, he was forced to have firms set up and implement their own design projects. Inspired by good experiences with a 'vertical project group' (top-down cross­ section of the hierarchy) at Hunsfos, Emery developed the so-called 'vertical slice approach'. This approach implied the upgrading of 'Industrial Democracy' up to the level of the organization being an entity through the formation of 'self-managing design groups', con­ sisting of employees, foremen and managers at various levels, who cooperated on the basis of equality. Emery had learned a great deal from the negative ID diffu­ sion experience in Norway, and attributed the disappointing results mainly to the expert approach used by the researchers. The projects had been insufficiently supported by the (persons directly concerned inside) firms. Such an expert approach was no longer acceptable in view of the changed spirit of the times (the students' rows in Paris were still fresh in everyone's memory) . Sociotechnical researchers such as Emery began t o under­ stand increasingly that an entirely new democratic system of values was hidden at the basis of the semi-autonomous work group in the UK and the principles for task redesign developed in Norway. Emery & Thorsrud (1969, p. 105) initially spoke of "a limited num­ ber of general psychological requirements", but Emery (1977, p. 68) refers to "a set of workable and relevant values ( ... ), things ( ... ) valued in work regardless of sex, nationality or race". He summar­ izes these values as follows (p. 68): " 1 . Freedom to participate in decisions directly affecting their work a ctivity.

Chapter Four

2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

-

STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

47

A chance to learn on the job, and go on learning. Optimal variety. Mutual support and respect of their work colleagues. A socially meaningful task. Leading to some desirable future."

Trist (1976) also talks about new values, that enable us to cope with the increasing complexities concerning the environment, such as self­ actualization, self-expression, and 'capacity for joy'. The technique developed by Emery in 1971, referred to as the ' deep slice' method of Participan� Design, enables employees, (middle) management and union representatives to jointly take over the task and organization design from the start of the project. This was supp osed to eliminate any resistance against change. The initial applications of this technique took place at the South Australian Meat Corporation SAMCOR (Yearling Hall), the Royal Australian Airforce, and Imperial Chemical Industries ICI. Even before the now well-known, 'little golden book', consisting of 14 pages, was published (cf. Emery, F. & Emery, M., 1974/ 1975), the method had been 'exported' to India (cf. Nilakant & Rao, 1976), The Netherlands, and Norway. The long expected diffusion came about in Norway in 1972, because the firms' assumed control of the development themselves, but not until the disappointed researchers had retired. At the core of PD is an explicit diffusion strategy, that came about gradually, and which were recorded by Herbst (1976) and Emery, M. & Einery, F. (1978). The starting point of this strategy was the diffusion model developed by Emery et al. (1958) for an agricultural renewal programme in South-East Australia. Further diffusion took place after innovations had been successfully intro­ duced with those farms that were respected most. Within the agricultural community, which was characterized by an aggregate structure with relatively homogeneous components, these model firms were considered as being a sufficiently large 'critical mass'. Thoralf Qvale (1976) has made a concise summary of the findings of Emery et al. (1958) (see box 4.1). With the aim of explaining the (Norwegian) democracy experiments, Philip Herbst (1976) further elaborated upon this diffusion theory. The characteristics of the diffusion process depend upon the structure of the total system. The network concept appears central in Herbst's theory. According to him (1976, p. 33), a network group can be described as being the reverse of an autonomous work group: It is a temporary organization of similar thinking people,

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

48

Box 4.1

Results of the diffus ion study of Emery et al., 1958

"a Diffusion of new p\inciples must start within the existing structure, and in a way flow from one level of leaders to the next. b. Generally, external scientific advisors will only influence the diffusion process through the leaders. c. Oral and written communication is rarely enough to lead to change, except on the level of leaders. d. Outside the level of leaders diffusion depends upon the force of the example. In order to be effective the demonstration must be such that everyone can see the similarity with his own condition. e.

A well-respected person or group must be behind the example."

Qvale (1976), p. 459 from different locations, who meet occasionally for consultation. Such a meeting is sometimes referred to in the literature as a 'flocking session' (cf. Davis & Chems, 1975). Flocking is a phenomenon that involves different people, with common interests, coming together for a few days to intensively confer, without making new arrange­ ments for another meeting. According to Herbst (1976), flocking by members of a network is likely to occur, and it supports a network's objective, namely, maintaining 'long-term directive correlations'. The process consists mainly of stimulating one another in reaching a common, though not (fully) defined objective. The primary function is its common learning process. Emery, M. & Emery, F. (1978) base their PD paradigm on an open-systems model, which in their view, is applicable to the diffusion process (see Figure 4.1). The 'system' is composed here of the members of a PD workshop, search confer­ ence or network of firms, the 'environment' consists of "the extended social field of directive correlations" (Emery & Trist, 1981). In other words, the changed society as a whole. The input function is called 'learning', the output function is called 'planning'. Both Merrelyn and Fred Emery have stated in general, that the level of the envi­ ronment complexity determines the form assumed by the learning and planning functions in practice. In a competitive 'type Ill' environment ('disturbed, reac­ tive', compare paragraph 3.3.4), the learning function will assume the form of 'problem solving', and the planning function will assume that of 'optimizing', using only technical and economic criteria. In a turbulent 'type IV' environment (rapid, unpredictable changes, disturbed ecological chains), learning takes place through 'puzzling' (Angyal, 1 9 65), and planning through the active and adaptive development of 'desirable future scenarios' (Emery, 1977).

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

49

L22 (autonomous environment functions) The environment itself is a constant process of change (external dynamics) -

/

/

.......

%

" Lll (sub-system functions

The system itself is :Uso part of a constant process of change (internal dynamicsy

J

"" L21 --/ (input function) learning The environment changes the system Figure 4.1

L12 . (output function) planning The sys�em changes the envrronment

An open-systems model for diffusion

Legend: - system PD group or network, search conference; - environment = societal institutions and firms; - the indication 'L' stands for. systematic coherence; - the code '1' stands for system; code '2' stands for environment. Adapted from: Emery, M. & Emery, F., 1978, p. 259/260; Emery, M., 1986, p. 416; Emery, M. (Ed.), 1 989, p. 183. =

Puzzling is a form of learning - in the literature it is also referred to as 'double loop learning' (cf. Argyris, 1970/1976; Argyris & Schon, 1 9 78) - wherein individuals try to discover the more fundamental key questions in a nonhierarchical, friendly ambience. They try to find trends in an excess of data, filtering 'the leading p art' (Emery, 1 9 67). Planning subsequently involves step-wise plotting, evaluating and adapting a strategy consisting of jointly formulated 'desirable future scenarios'. According to Einar Thorsrud (1 972b) this type of policy-making is a form of active, adaptive planning, which is basically a continuous learning process. The actual motor behind PD is the pleasure experienced during this learning process. Rather than assuming an expectant attitude, one is willing to get to work. In the PD workshop, members start working as a group to adapt the working situation (in their own firm) all by

50

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

themselves; in the search conference, participants develop future scenarios. Another impq_rtant item is that they do not necessarily aim for consensus: The aim is 'rationalization of conflict' rather than 'resolution' (cf. Emery, M. 1 987). One tries to arrive at common starting points in a broad area. According to Merrelyn Emery (1989), the process of PD applies in a cross-cultural way that is, in contrast with its product (actual design as a concrete result). This process is described as the creation of possibilities for open-ended self-generat­ ive learni_ng, 'learning to learn', of 'searching for ends instead of means'. PD is an evolutionary process that involves the democ­ ratization of the working situation. It is certainly not a 'T-group' training oriented towards personal relationships ! It is a typ e of 'democratic planning', described by Roos ( 1974, p.218) as "man's conscious and colle ctive self-control of the development of a system".

Box 4.2

Characteristics of the period of Modern STSD

" 1. A design team representative of (if not elected by) the employees: at the very least, employees agree to a change effort and union representatives usually are redesign team members. 2. Employees receive some training in work redesign concepts and techniques. 3. Participatory search processes initiate the change effort and are not necessarily limited to the design team. 4. The design team develops its own criteria and alternatives (little reliance on installing some pre-designed package). 5. All employees concerned participate at least in evaluating alternatives. 6. There is a high degree of participation in all phases of the redesign process (planning, developing alternatives, evaluating, etc.) which is focused and paced by the people affected (not primarily by management or change experts). 7. Outside experts have a share learning role that changes over time (from some teaching to learning with the participants and eventually to learning from them). 8. There is a supportive network of co-operative relations between design teams from different organizations who learn from each other's experience (they are not entirely dependent on experts for the necessary learning)."

Elden (1979a), p. 250-251; Elden (1 979c), p. 373-374 The emphasis being placed on the diffusion process rather than the changes regarding the content itself, is a main character­ istic of the period of Modern STSD. In this context, one speaks of the difference with the previous phase as a 'figure-ground reversal' (cf. Herbst, 1976; Emery, M. & Emery, F., 1978; Emery, M., 1986). ThE

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

51

'figures' refer to our factual structures (the plants, offices, institu­ tions), the 'ground' to our lifestyles and values. The object of change is reversed, a change in attitude is at stake now: learning to participate. Max Elden (1 979a/c) has summarized the character­ istics of PD step by step (see box 4.2).

4.2.2

PD and the Educational Approach towards Learning

'Participative Design' (PD) is described by Merrelyn Emery as being "an environment for conceptual and experiential learning about democratic learning organizations" (cf. Emery, M. (Ed.), 1989, p. 114) . In the seventies, two such environments were further ela­ borated upon: the Participative Design Workshop (Emery & Emery, 1975; Crombie, 1978; Williams, 1982), and the Search Conference (Emery & Emery, 1978; Williams, 1979; Emery, M., 1982; Crombie, 1985). - The 'Participative Design' (PD) Workshop is a meeting lasting any­ where from 1 .5 to 3 days in duration, and where 4 to 10 members are selected from all levels of the organization ('deep slice') and brought together in order to map the working situation on the basis of equality, under the guidance of a so-called facilitator. The basis of its content which is at the core of this self-managing design group can be found in part I of the 'little golden book' (Emery & Emery, 1975). This part compares the six psychological re quirements as mentioned in p a ragraph 4. 2 . 1 . , with the 'genotypes' of the bureaucratic ('redundancy of parts') and the d emocratic ('redundancy of functions') structures, and gives a concise description of the advantages of the latter. The method­ ical basis that is at the core of the operation of the 'total design team' can be found in p art II of the golden book. Different personnel functions are assessed on the basis of the six psycholo­ gical job requirements, and the process flow is analyzed. Also, training requirements are derived from a so-called 'multi-skilling table', as to which evaluated skills per person for each (group) task (see table 4.1). The aim of the PD workshop is to achieve structural organizational change by those involved. Its set-up is 'anti-expert-oriented', and is based on the assumption that "the most adequate and effective designs come from those whose jobs are under review" (Emery & Emery, 1975). Emphasis is not placed on content, but rather on the participative process, in which the members of the organization create their own evolutionary learning process.

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

52

A specific collective learning environment for Participative Design is the so-called 'Development of Human Resources' (DHR) Workshop (cf. Emery, M., 1988). This is a training programme given at a universi for (recently composed) teams from various organizations. To illustrate the content of such a workshop, see box 4.3. A PD workshop considered ahead of its time, was the informal European network group that had been composed in the early sixties by sociotechnical researchers that had been in­ volved since the beginnin g. Aside from the researchers from the UK and Norway, this group also included Hans van Beinum and , Mauk Mulder from The Netherlands.

ty

Box 4.3

The programme of a Developmen t of Human Resources (DHR) Workshop "Plenary. Final briefing, expectations

Collection of data about changes in the extended social field Small groups work on desirable and probable futures Connections are made to democratic structures Plenary. Briefing on concepts and tools Mirror Design Groups. Two disparate groups work together A + B analyse and redesign A's organization. C + D do the same for C's Plenary presentation and discussion of designs Reverse mirror groups. A + B redesign B's; C + D redesign D's Plenary reports as above Team groups and/or plenary. Next steps. Strategy." after Emery, M. 1982; p. 296; Emery, M. (Ed.), 1989, p. 115 - Continuing with the PD workshop, Fred and Merrelyn Emery developed the so-called 'Search Conference' (cf. Emery & Emery, 1978; Williams, 1979; Emery, M., 1982; Crombie, 1985). This is a nonhierarchical, policy-preparing meeting based on the principle of 'redundancy of functions', involving a maximum of 35 persons,

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

53

all of whom cooperate for two to three days in order to give shape to the future on the basis of equality. The sociotechnical search conference utilises the indirect or 'broad front' approach, and is directed towards the joint development of 'desirable and probable future scenarios'. Special attention is given to the possi­ bilities and limitations of the environment, while considering the history of the firm. This participative form of pro-active planning, assumes that people are pragmatic and strive for meta­ objectives (ideals); that they are willing to learn and wish to determine their own future. Its explicit objectives are to establish policy, to plan and learn in a nondominant democratic structure. The original search conference (considered to be ahead of its time) was held at Tavistock in 1959, when Emery and Trist listed the theories of Bion, Selznick and Asch. In 1 975, a search confer­ ence was organized to plan a new projected town of Canberra, called Gungahlin (cf. National Capital Development Commis­ sion, 1973; Emery, M., 1982). - As previously mentioned, another central device in the PD approach is the so-called 'multi-skilling table' (cf. table 4.1b). This is a useful technique for analyzing the (acquired) skills of people in a semi-autonomous work group, in order to plan an appropriate training programme. As part of the analysis, the personnel functions are judged against the psychological criteria, mentioned in paragraph 4.2.1 (cf. table 4.1a). The multi-skilling table is also applicable in the Classical STSD approach.

4.2.3

Further Diffusion of the Diffusion Model

PD, as Modem STSD, has not been as widespread (yet) as its classical predecessor. This is probably connected with the anti­ expert character of the new approach, that puts consultancy agencies on a sideline. In the seventies, PD workshop projects out­ side Australia were confined mainly to Scandinavia, India, Great Britain and The Netherlands. Only a minority of these projects have been documented in the literature. - Even before the 'golden b ook' was published, 'off-site / do it yourself' workshops were regularly held in Norway as of 1972. Per Engelstad and Lars 0degaard (1979), reported the monitoring of five such consecutive year groups, each consisting of six teams from a total of 25 different firms (mass manufacturing, processing industry, batch industry and service sector). In 1975, Max Elden

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

54

Table 4.1

Skill analysis techniques of the PD approach ....

....

a. Class of job or skill grouping

Filing

Recep-

Account-

scores

Typists

Clerks

tionist

ant

range

-2

-4

3

5

-5 /+5

Psychological criteria for job satisfaction 1. Decision Making 2. Variety Optimal

-4

-5

0

2

-5 /+5

3. Learning

-2

-3

1

4

-5/+5

3

3

1

0

0/10

4. Mutual Support and Respect 5. Meaningfulness

3

1

5

7

0/10

6. Desirable Future

4

2

2

9

0/10

Emery, F.

& Emery, M. (1975), p. 46; Emery, M. (1982), p. 306; Emery, M.

(Ed.) (1989), p. 107

b. Multi-skilling Table Individuals

in the group

Skills required for group task J

typing

Mary

X

Jim

X

John

X

Alice

X

Joe

X

Jenny

X

Number

6

K

L

M

number

design art machining

publication

of skills

work

costing 2

X X

3

X X

2

X

4

1 X

X

1 2

3

2

with skill Emery, F.,

& Emery, M. (1975), p. 47; Emery, M.

(Ed.) (1989), p. 108

(1982), p. 307, Emery, M.

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

55

initiated a PD project in a bank (cf. Elden, 1974/1976/ 1977/1979b; Herbst, 1975; Herbst & Getz, 1977). In the shipping industry, the Work Research Institutes (WRI), in Oslo, also performed several PD projects (cf. Roggema & Thorsrud, 1974; Rogne, 1974; Roggema & Hamm.arstrom, 1975). Johansen (1975/ 1976/1979) reported on a PD project regarding the newly built merchant ship/ trading vessel MS 'Balao'. Engelstad & Rogne ( 1 9 77) and Thorsrud (1977b /1978) described a search conference in the Norwegian off­ shore industry. New legislation in Norway provided support for the PD paradigm. Support was also provided in the areas of education, municipal administration and hospitals. - The same holds true for Sweden (cf. Qvale, 1 975; Mills, 1978). Unions are allowed to negotiate With the management concerning all kinds of items. With the Industrial Democracy Act, that had been adopted by Parliament in June, 1976, Sweden led the way in Europe (cf. Gunzburg & Hammarstrom, 1979). As mentioned in paragraph 3.3.2, the diffusion of Industrial Democracy projects in Sweden was successful. In 1975, the so-called Demos project began (cf. Sandberg, 1979). It was concerned with democratic decision making and (corporate) planning and is aimed at supporting the activities of unions at various levels (centrally and locally - from work place analysis to negotiations). This project is backed by more fundamental research into the preconditions and limitations relative to democracy, planning and self-determination (Sandberg, 1976). - In Denmark, projects were performed between 1969 and 1973 that could fall under Modem STSD. Agersnap et al. (1974) report a number of experiments involving new kinds of cooperation in seven firms in the metal industry (N. Foss' Electric, Hilleroed; Hejbjerg Machine Factory, Aarhus; Philips Radio, Copenhagen; Danfoss, unknown location; Haustrup, unknown location; Nordic Cable and Thread Manufacturers NKT, Glostrup; Scandinavian Airlines System, Copenhagen). - Participative Design was also successful in India (cf. Nilakant & Rao, 1976). In the mid-seventies, the National Labour Institute (NLI) organized seven PD workshops throughout the country. In 1975, a classical Industrial Democracy project was initiated at Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (BHEL) in Tiruchirapalli. In 1976, this project was extended with a three-day workshop, organized by the BHEL in conjunction with Einar Thorsrud. Apart from a number of dep artments of this firm, representatives of the National Bank, the postal services and an insurance company particip ated in this workshop . As Nilakant and Rao ( 1 9 76 )

56

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

illustrate, Emery and Emery's ( 1 9 74) directions were closely followed, in terms of both the workshop's organization and the method applied {�valuation of psychological job requirements and the use of the multi-skilling table for outlining a training programme) . Subsequently, PD workshops were held in the Na­ tional Bank and the insurance company. - Great Britain also acquired a great deal of experience through PD. From Tavistock, projects were carried out from 1974 until 1979, within the Job Satisfaction Research Programme, in conjunction with the Work Research Unit (WRU) of the Ministry of Employ­ ment. Researchers actually made use of the PD workshop at As­ sociated Biscuits in Bermondsey. Supported by Margaret Butteriss and Archie MacKenzie of WRU, Mary Weir (1979) organized a PD workshop in Glasgow. Once again, Einar Thorsrud acted as introductory speaker for the teams that represented five Scottish firms (Scottish & New Castle Breweries Ltd., Edinburgh; Philips Ltd., Hamilton; Ladybird Ltd., Glasgow; Ailsa Trucks Ltd., un­ known location; Tannoy Products Ltd., location unknown). The work of Enid Mumford deserves mention here. She applied the participative approach in a British supplier company, a bank, an engineering firm and an insurance company (cf. Mumiord, 1979). Her explicit line of approach included the introduction of com­ puter systems in office settings. - In the United States and C anada, a c areful application of Participative Design has only recently emerged (personal commu­ nication with Fred Emery, 1990). Having read the draft of this chapter, Merrelyn Emery (1993, p. 4) began to question the classification of some of the above­ mentioned p rojects ( especially the S candinavian and British ventures) as instances of PD. She also concluded (p. 5) that in our description of PD the Participative Design workshop as a method of structural change, has been confused with the Search Conference as a method of p articipative planning (cf. paragraph 4 . 2 . 2 ) . Merrelyn's observations urged us to give a brief comment o n these two issues. First, the previously-cited Scandinavian and British projects have been carefully borrowed from the literature. Although their selection was conducted on the basis of an analysis of reported methods and concepts, this approach has not resulted in completely positive identifications or pure representations of PD. Second, according to Merrelyn Emery our description of PD methods in paragraph 4.2.2, appeared to be not explicit enough to correctly differentiate the Participative Design workshop from the Search

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

57

Conference. Because this mis-interpretation c ould have b een prompted by our employed editing format, we are happy to be able to correct for this likely misunderstanding. We would like to stress here the specific functions of both concepts. The PD workshop constitutes the main participative design method, based on the design principle of 'redundancy of functions'; or as Merrelyn Emery (1 993) described it: "locating responsibility for coordination clearly and firmly with those whose efforts require coordination if the common objectives are to be achieved" (p. 108). In the diagnostic phase of a PD workshop the participants, being a representative 'deep slice' of the section under consideration, evaluate their own work situation in terms of the six psychological requirements · and in terms of available skills per person (cf. table 4 . 1 ) . In the redesign phase they are given the opportunity to analyse their own w ork flow and to develop alternative options for a new organizational structure based on the design principle of redundancy of functions. They are also encour­ aged as a group to evaluate these options in terms of the psycholo­ gical requirements, to choose one, and to set goals for actual implementation of the new design, and to arrange for multi-skilling training. During a typical PD workshop several briefings are held to communicate the design principles and to provide all instructions for the diagnostic and design activities. We also want to assert here, that the Search Conference constitutes the main participative planning method: Our approach of mere presenting it under the heading of PD obviously has shown to easily create misunderstandings. However, we have used PD in a rather broad sense, that is to say, as a descriptive label c overing the whole Australian Modern STSD approach. The reader should bear in mind this nuance when considering the descriptions of both the PD workshop and Search Conference. In the second edition of "Participative Design for Participative Democracy " Merrelyn Emery is clearly differentiating these concepts as follows: "The Search Conference is a tool for the democratic learningful way of p lanning. It is n o t an approp riate metho d for changing organizational structures from design principle 1 (redundancy of parts) to design principle 2 (redundancy of functions) . It can certainly be used by organizations to plan their futures, including their goals and strategies for democratic working. But at this point the Search is replacing by the Participative Design workshop where the actual design work takes place." M. Emery (Ed.) (1993), p. 220

58

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Another conclusion is that the people who are actually participating in tlie planning activity are of course different from those participating l:u the design activity. Due to the lack of aca­ demic case studies or publications detailing discrete sites, it is impossible to present a detailed list of Australian PD projects. As Merrelyn Emery puts it: "With the advent of PD, responsibility and control p assed from academics and practitioners of PD to the organizations. It's their business, not ours. We don't follow up unless specifically requested and then it's usually only if they want help to go further. Often we don't know how it's gone and sometimes we find out years later. Only recently we discovered that a small team who attended a PD workshop in the early seventies had set up a green field site out in the country that, to this day, remains working well and is used to demonstrate democratic organizations to students at the local agricultural college" (author's personal correspondence with Merrelyn Emery, 1992). Apparently, the Australian solution to the problem of diffusion is very successful. According to Merrelyn Emery, Australia has definitely moved into the phase of implemen­ tation and diffusion.

4.3

Variant B: Integral Organizational Renewal

The second alternative of Modern STSD is called Integral Organizational Renewal (IOR). Unlike Participative Design, this approach offers very detailed structural principles in terms of design content (cf. De Sitter, 1989b; De Sitter et al., 1990), while at the same time specifying a theory of change by means of worker participation after training. IOR is a direct reaction to the static and partial concepts of Classical STSD, and in essence, a Dutch development with some roots in German sociology (cf. Luhmann, summarized by Sievers, 1971).

4.3.1

The Dutch Solution to the Problem of Integral Design

In the early seventies, De Sitter developed a new approach to qualitative system dynamics, which he c a lled "a system theoretical paradigm of social interaction" (cf. De Sitter, 1973) . It has become the foundation of the Modern STSD variant in The Netherlands. Initially, it appeared a rather complex and abstract, but clear-cut approach which was later worked out in more detail and incidentally applied in expert-led projects (cf. De Sitter, 1974a/ b / 1978/ 1980; De Sitter & Heij, 1975; Smets & Van der Zwaan, 1975;

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

59

Van der Zwaan & Vermeulen, 1974; Van der Zwaan et al., 1974). At the close of the seventies, the Dutch variant of STSD b ecame increasingly user-friendly, and by the late eighties, it developed into the practical design approach of 'Integral Organizational Re­ newal' (IOR) . According to De Sitter (1989a), an integral approach is a structure approach by definition. By 'structure' he means that part of a process that is relatively invariant in time (nature of the operations, norms) . The core of an integral approach is "that on the b asis of a strategic orientation external function demands are determined. ( ... ) Problems in the business management are evaluated in the light of the function demands ... " (De Sitter, 1989a, p. 36) . He refers to settling those problems that can be solved independent­ ly of one another as 'improvement' (partial change in structure), and to settling interdependent problems as 'renewal' (integral change in structure). In De Sitter's view, renewal basically means the reord­ ering of process functions with respect to order flows. De Sitter (1989a) typifies IOR as a fundamental shift from the old functional production concept to the new flow-oriented production concept. The Dutch approach has been influenced, to a large extent, by the 'new factories' project (compare paragraph 3.3.2). De Sitter maintained direct contacts with his Swedish colleagues in this respect. In the early eighties, new opportunities arose for the appli­ cation of STSD, because the quality of work was no longer viewed as a social luxury, but as an essential foundation for a flexible pro­ duction organization. De Sitter observed these developments, and placed the production and work organization in a socio-economic perspective (De Sitter, 1980). He was the first to connect such themes as the quality of working life, efficiency and effectiveness, as well as social binding and cooperation in a modeL His pleas for 'new factories and offices' based on modem STSD (De Sitter, 1981a) focus on more policy-based integration of the areas of attention of the quality of work (with stress and alienation as problems), the quality of the organization (with flexibility and controllability as bottlenecks), and the quality of the internal industrial relations (with employee turnover, absenteeism and labour conflicts as central issues) . He points out that the issue of industrial democracy has traditionally been fragmented in the above-mentioned problem areas, which are separately studied by psychologists, sociologists, economists and organization scientists. This has resulted in the well-known 'engineering, personnel and union-management approach', having as respective orientations isolated improvement of the quality of the organization, work and industrial relations (cf. table 4.2).

The Paradigm

60

that

Changed the Work Place

Three typ_es of partial analysis in the study of participation

Table 4.2

democratic '

type of

'ideat

approach

object of refom object of

expected

analysis production

the engineering

participation

primary pro-

approach

in managerial

cess regulation, control

functions

boundary

quality level

function organizational quality of performance

organization

structure

control betweex work units the personnel

integration of

autonomy and

task

work

quality of

approach

productive and

discretion

structure

motivation

work

quality of

regulative task functions the union-

representation

regulation of

structures of

stability of

management

of collective

working con-

collective re-

cooperation,

labour

approach

interests

ditions and

presentation,

effective

relations

the distribution rules and

of rewards

procedures

conflict regulation

De Sitter (1981b), p. 6

Box 4.4

Indicators of participation "a the number of regulative functions performed; b. the levels of regulation implied in a work role: - internal regulation; - external regulation; c. effectiveness or influence: - task complexity; - substitutability; d. symmetrical interdependence". De Sitter (1981b), p. 8-12

De Sitter recognized the functional relevance of parti­ cipation in decision making as a vehicle for industrial democracy, in order to have a synergetic effect on the above-mentioned problem areas. For an operational definition of participation, see box 4.4. Integral design is at the core of the IOR approach. A

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

61

fundamental problem is the ability to control the production system as a whole; the objective of STSD is to improve this ability by means of changes in structure. The balance model acts as the core of IOR in terms of content, with interference and control capacity being its central concepts. As summ arized in box 4.5, IOR is aimed at the explanation and design of a new architecture of structure for an entire organization which will improve its future controllability under turbulent environmental conditions.

Box 4.5

IOR as Modern S TSD

"1 A truly integral sociotechnical design is structural design. (...) It is, therefore, the specific architecture of a systems structure which should be viewed as the core of sociotechnical theory and design. 2.Sociotechnical theory should, therefore, integrate its explanatory function (how a specific architecture of structure determines the opportunities for

coordination, adaptation and innovation of system-internal and external

functions) with its design function (how alternative architectures change such opportunities in which direction).

3.(. .) no speculative assumptions are made as to basic specifiable human needs .

nor social system values. Social, rather than individual, structure is viewed as preconditional for the development of whatever needs and values as they come into being and change in the course of time (...) .

4. The basic problem is the control of future system states, at all levels of aggregation: individual, organization or network. (...) As we do not know what the future will bring us, we do not know the specific objects and problems to be controlled. Therefore, the designer's goal must be to improve a systems 'controllability': its generic capacity to control (...) .

S.Combining the notion of controllability with the notion of integral design, the conclusion must be that STSD should study the manner in which alternative architectures of structure influence systems' controllability."

De Sitter et al. (1990), p. 1 0

4.3.2

IOR and the Balance Model Based on Social Interaction

As a reaction to the static and partial nature of Classical STSD theorizing (in terms of needs and values), De Sitter (1973) developed a Modern STSD paradigm, which he based on social interaction. Having understood the basic message that resulted from the important Habermas-Luhmann debate in German sociology (d. Habermas-Luhmann, 1971), he used Luhmann's (1 967) social systems theory as point of departure for his rather ab stract, so-called

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

62

'balance model' (cf. De Sitter, 1974b ). Social interaction is basic in this new approach: De Sitter's contribution to Modern STSD is a structural theory of CQntent about the division of labour and its effects on 'interference probabilities' (cf. box 4.6).

Some essentials of De Sitter's balance model

Box 4.6

"1. An organization is modelled as a network of interaction cycles in which a 2.

3.

multitude of functions are produced. The network would be 'balanced' if all inputs and outputs involved in the interaction cycles were contingent, i.e. shape opportunities for the partners to produce required outputs by conversion of received inputs according to established norms. (...) For each individual or sub-system in a system, or for each system in a network of systems, an input is central to the degree that its deviation would block the normative completion of the remaining 'complementary' interaction cycles and their respective functions (.. ) Thus, process disturbances in interaction processes can always be analyzed in terms of interference between two or more interaction cycles. Maintaining the precarious complementary balance between interaction cycles by reduction of inte-rference and interference (disturbance) probabilities is therefore the basic practical setting of the problem of control in organizations (...) Reduction of actual interference can be defined as operational control, whereas the reduction of interference probabilities requires structural change. Systems may differ with respect to their 'probability of interference' which is a structural trait related to the specific architecture of a system's structure." .

4. 5.

.

.

6.

De Sitter et al. (1990), p. 10-11 As prevously mentioned, the balance model is at the centre of IOR's theory of concepts (cf. De Sitter, 1978). Essentially, it is an interpretation of Ashby's Law (Ashby, 1956 a / b ) . In general, it states that a system's variability should match environmental variability. Applied to the concepts of controllability, the balance model stipulates that an organization's viabilities for control should equal the environmental demands for control. Hoevenaars (1991) developed a graphical representation of the working of the balance model in the case of controllability (cf. figure 4.2).

'1':1

oq' 1':! "'t

(b) ineffective state

(a) inefficient state

�

"'

>!».

'T:1

0

f.v

;:: ....

if �

(J}

;A 9

i:;' e>q � "'t

'"' :<:> "> -.::!

�

;:! :::.

0 '"' ;::,.. :<:> ­ "'

- "'t "' � "'t "' "' "' �

f} .... internal self­

environmental

control viabilities

demands for control

;::!

;;;:

internal self­

"'t

;;;·

control viabilities

;::!

vr

.... :<:> ....

c; ·

�

::c 0 � � Ill

Ill "1 (/) ---­

...... \() \() ......

�

>'

N 0

�

g

;:::. -.::!

(c) advantageous equilibrium state

(d) disadvantageous equilibrium state

� ;;:. "' '1:l ;:::.

i:l

;::,..

.... � "'

�·

�

0 "'t "'"

;i'

OQ

�

.... �

"'

0 �

internal selfcontrol viabilities

� environmental � demands for control

internal self­

environmental

control viabilities

demands for control

�

64

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

As can be seen in the figure, four different states are poss­ ible: a. viabilities for control outrange demands for control (this state is inefficient: th'e.. organization has created too many control devices); b. demands for control outrange viabilities (this state is ineffective: the organization lacks adequate control possibilities); c. there is a state of equilibrium created with minimal demands and viabilities; d. demands and viabilities are b alanced without the prior creation of some minimum levels. The IOR approach typically strives for condition c. by reducing environmental complexity through parallelization of order flows. The balance model is equally applicable to the concepts of flexibility and quality of work (cf. Van Eijnatten, 1 992b; Wisman, l 992). IOR research consists of compiling an inventory of market demands and performance criteria (cf. Bolwijn et al., 1986; Bolwijn, 1988; Bolwijn & Kumpe, 1 989; Kumpe & Bolwijn, 1990), and, as its extension, the identification, analysis and introduction of structural parameters, which together, must reduce the chance of disturbance and sensitivity taking place (cf. box 4.7).

Box 4.7

Structural parameters for sociotechnical analysis and design (IOR approach)

1. Functional (de)concentration: Grouping and coupling performance functions with respect to order flows (transformations). There are two extremes: all order types are potentially coupled to all sub-systems (concentration), or each order type is produced in its own corresponding sub-system (deconcentration in parallel flows). 2. Performance differentiation: Separating the preparation, supporting and manufacturing functions into specialised sub-systems. 3. Performance specialization: Splitting up a performance function into a number of performance sub-functions and allocating them in separate sub-systems. 4. Separation of performance and control functions: Allocating a performance and corresponding control function to different elements or sub-systems. 5. Control specialization: Allocating the control of functional aspects to separated aspect-systems (quality, maintenance, logistics, personnel, etc.). 6. Control differentiation: Splitting feedback loops into separate control levels (strategic, structural and operational). 7. Division of control functions in the feedback loop: Allocating 'sensing', 'judging' and 'action selection' functions to separate elements or sub-systems.

Adapted from: De Sitter (1989b), p. 234; De Sitter (1989c), p. 14; De Sitter et al. (1990), p. 12

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

65

Performance and control are the basic functions here. Initially, De Sitter distinguished between two basic aspect-systems: the Produc­ tion Structure (P) as grouping and coupling of executive functions (performance), and the Control Structure (C) as grouping and coup­ ling of regulative functions (control). Later, these were expanded by the Information Structure (I) as technical elaboration of P and C. A whole series of design principles were formulated in the eighties (cf. box 4.8). Special attention was given to the shape of the produc­ tion structure through p arallelization and segmentation. This is really concerned with a method to fundamentally change the orga­ nization of the technical processes, which is an explicit objective of the sociotechnical paradigm. The IOR approach pays a great deal of attention to the p aralleliiation of order flows. For an elaborate study on the possibilities of Production Flow Analysis (Burbidge, 1975) as a technique for parallelization, see Hoevenaars (1991).

Box 4.8

A selection of design principles from the IOR approach

Design strate�

Structure

Level

Parameter

a. Parallelization

p

macro

1

b. Segmentation

p

meso

2+3

c. Unity of time, place and action

c

micro

4 t/m 7

d. Bottom-up allocation of feedback loops

c

micro, meso

4

e. Uncoupling of feedback loops in time

c

meso

6

f. Building in feedback loops in each task

c

micro

1 t/m 7

Adapted from: De Sitter (1 989b), p. 237-249; De Sitter (1989c), p. 16-25; De Sitter et al. (1990), p. 13-19 In addition, the formation of the control structure has also been elaborated upon in detail (cf. Landre, 1 990; Van Amelsvoort, 1 9 8 9 / 1 9 92a) . The information aspect is also explored (cf. Van Eijnatten & Loeffen, 1990).

66

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Further, the IOR approach distinguishes explicit design sequence rules (De·Sitter et al., 1986; De Sitter, 1989b; De Sitter e t al., 1990). Thus, the p�duction structure should be given shape prior to the control structure and the design of process technology, and the design of control circles should be in the or der of allocation, selection and coupling.

4.3.3

The Participative Process of Organizational Renewal of the Firm

Apart from the content of the (re)design, the process of change is also a focus of attention. IOR suggests a renewal trajectory of two to four years (Den Hertog & Dankbaar, 1989; De Sitter et al., 1990) including a strategic exploration, on-the-job training and training for self-design, as well as project phasing and management. The IOR approach has developed its own characteristic solution to ascertain a participative redesign process. In contrast with PD, the explicit strategy here is to engage in a careful and p rolonged educational programme of self-design for all those involved in a renewal project. During the intensive training (six periods of two days in a conference resort), w orkers and managers b ecome a c quainted w ith the maj or d esign p rinciples and metho ds, associated with holistic thinking, and the IOR strategy of change. The participants are placed in multi-disciplinary groups, in which there is ample room for experiential learning by applying the new c oncepts to their own organization. The specific business development is always taken as the main point of departure (cf. Den Hertog & Dankbaar, 1989). To administer these courses, a special institution was estal:r lished in 1984: the Dutch foundation for the Promotion of the Quality of Work and Organization (NKWO) . Thousands of blue and white-collar workers and managers, from all hierarchical levels, have followed their STSD-specific educational programme. Throughout the last decade, several hundreds of industrial IOR projects have been performed in The Netherlands, covering the whole trajectory of integral redesign or just parts of it. Unfortu­ nately, there are only a few small review studies (cf. Brouwers e t al., 1987; Fruytier et al., 1988; Joosse et al., 1991; Kommers et al., 1991; Den Hertog & De Sitter, 1993) that document only a few dozens of these projects. Although, the results are, in most cases, positive, there is no possibility for a more systematic attempt to bind the cases together for the purp ose of evaluation. Just to give an impression, a small number of projects the author is familiar with

;:;'3 <3"

Year

Company

Product/Service

1980

IHC-Smit b.v.

Ships/parts

Kinderdijk

Philips Domestic App.

Shavers parts

Drachten

DSM Chemicals

Sulia/ ZAV I ACN

1981

1982

1982

1982 1983

Philips Components Philips Lighting

Philips Domestic App.

Coal resistors TL tubes

Thermoplasts

1984

OAF Trucks

Truck shafts

1985

MONA

Desserts/sweets

1986

Grasso Products

1987

Philips Components

1984

1986

1987

1987 1988

1989

1989

1989

Dutch Government DAF Trucks

Semi-conductors

Stadskanaal

X

Transhipment

Truck cabines

Unichema Int. (Unilever) Oleochem.prod. Organon Int. (AKZO)

Thomas Drijver &

Den Haag

X

PO/TBA

Aegon Insurance

Eindhoven

Den Bosch

Arco Chemicals

1990

Drachten

Truck final assembly Eindhoven

Tobacco

Life insurances

Maarheeze

Westerloo (Belgium) Gouda

Den Haag

Pharmaceutical prod. Oss

Leeuwarden

Philips Components

C-SMD cond.

Roermond

1990

Philips Lighting

Armatures

Winterswijk

1991

Thomas Engineering b.v. Car components

1990

1990 1991

1992

1992

AVEBE

Farina

Stork PMT

Poultry proc. syst.

Holec-HAT

Parts manufacturing Hengelo

Philips Components

Cristals

x

Rotterdam

Colour jars

Verbli!a

X

Rotterdam

Rotterdam Botlek

Veendam Box.meer

x x x

x

�

Authors

X

AID

Maassen (1982); Van Arnelsvoort (1982); Verschuur (1985)

A

De Haes & Kalkman (1982)

Design

X

AID

X X

A

X

A

A

Vossen & Van Zelst (1982)

X

AID

Lichtenberg & Van Sinten (1986)

X X

X X X

X

x

Otten et n/. (1984)

AID

Eijnattenet al. (1986); Hendriks (1986); Desmares (1986)

x

x

X X

§:.

AID

Hoevenaars (1991)

�

AID

Van Hulten (1990); Hoevenaars (1991)

AID

Boonstra (1992)

AID

Terra (1988)

AID

Hoevenaars (1991)

A

Buitelaar et al. (1990)

AID

Koen (1991); Hoevenaars (1991)

& Philips (1990)

AID

Cobbenhagen

A

Loeffen (1991a); Pleij (1992)

A

Simonse (1992); Loeffen (1992)

AID AID

Kunst & Roberts (1990); Boons et al. (1991); Roberts et al. (1991a) Van den Heuvel (1992)

>-3

(/)

�

"' Q (")

Verschuur et al. (1989)

... I (/)

0 �
� c · �

Van Arnelsvoort & Vossen (1987); Van Arnelsvoort (1992a)

Van Amelsvoort (1988/1992a)

5: 61 I::

�

1--1 "'

AID

Van Arnelsvoort et a/: (1988); Landre (1990); Van Amelsvoort (1992a)

�

!=:>.. �

...

Van Arnelsvoort & Vogelzangs (1987); Van Amelsvoort (1992a)

AID

AID

x

Barten (1986); Van Arnelsvoort (1992a)

1�

Q

AID

AID

x

accountancy

A

AID

s:. "" � �

� -.

Nieuwenhuizen (1984); Van Eijnatten (1985) Borrie (1984); Buyse (1987)

X

w

Van de Westelaken (1983)

AID

labour relations

X

Van Eijnatten (1981a/b); Van Arnelsvoort & Vossen (1984)

X

product jpnov.

Utrecht

Doetinchem

.!l.

X

Compressors

Van Nelle DE

DAF Trucks

Roosendaal

Geleen

X

Hill-fabricates

Frans Swarttouw

X

Roermond

Zoetermeer

Philips Lighting

1989 1990

Min. of Jnt. Affairs

E

!:.it}'

� �

()

�

c· � �

[

� ... -.8

�·

�

� ...

§'
�

If � ;::1'>.

;·

ur

2

� Q 1:!

.....

s· "' '-1

68

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

are listed in table 4.3. IOR is an elaborate approach in terms of theory of concepts and process. In cont;r ast with the cases, all peculiarities of the approach have been well documented (in Dutch) in a simple compre­ hensible manner, paying particular attention to the feasibility of practical implementation. This synopsis only prese_nte4 the main \ points. \

4.4

Variant C: Democratic Dialogue

The third alternative to Modern STSD is called Democratic Dialogue (DD) . Unlike Participative Design and Integral Organiz­ ational Renewal, this approach goes far beyond the enterprise level. One example is the initiation of a large-scale change process in a broadly b ased societal context with democratic dialogue as vanguard (cf. Gustavsen, 1985b / 1988/ 1989). Basically, it is a reac­ tion to the Participative Design (PD) approach, while placing em­ phasis on the formation of networks and the development_ of local theories. More specifically, it is a reaction to the modest results of PD in Scandinavia. PD was put into practice at some large firms in the seventies, but it was not very successful in small and medium­ sized companies. This was attributed, amongst other things, to the lack of adequate mutual networks. Both in Norway and in Sweden an attempt was made to change this by means of DD. According to Engelstad & Gustavsen (1993), a network is "a relationship between organizations which is not based on formal ownership but on (voluntary) collaboration and complementarity" (p. 220) . DD put the idea of network development to the test, focusing primarily on open communication instead of on design. 4.4.1

The Scandinavian Solution to the Problem of Diffusion

The occurrence of DD in Norway and Sweden can be quickly characterized as a renewed attempt to disentangle the encapsul­ ation dilemma. A novel answer to this diffusion problem was found in a dialogue-based interactive approach, focusing both on the creation of inter-organizational networks and on the development of local theories. Or, as Nilsson & Nilsson (1990) put it, the b asic solution constituted the symbiosis of inter-organizational and intra­ organizational learning, as a result of what Gustavsen et al. (1991) have called a democr atic dialogue b etween management and workers at all levels and areas of the enterprise, and beyond.

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

69

In Scandinavia, DD highly motivated action researchers, who influenced the labour market parties that came to agree upon the broadly based programmes instead of incidental projects. In Norway, DD was introduced on a national level in 1982, when employers and employee confederations decided on a supple­ mentary 'Company Development' (CD) contract as p art of their 'basic agreement' . This CD accord aimed at improving the work organization by joint collaboration of management and workers. To implement it, the national HABUT stimulation programme was initiated, the Norwegian a cronym for 'The B asic Agreement' s Company Development Measures' . During the period 1983-1989, some 200 companies participated in the HABUT programme. Project support was mainly given to individual companies (85%). Only a small number of support activities (12%) were related to industrial branches (cf. Engelstad, 1991a) . The HABUT programme typically enabled different types of projects (cf. Engelstad, 1991b), actually stimulating the occurrence of planning conferences (65% of the projects), financing half-time scholarships for pairs of company pro­ j ect coordinators (19% of the projects), and directly supporting company projects for participative redesign of the workplace (16% of the projects). Professional backup for these measures was given by the Work Research Institute in Oslo, providing DD methodology and network strategy. In Norway, the tripartite SBA national programme for the democratization of work and work organizations began in 1988 (cf. Qvale, 1 989 / 1 991). The Norwegian Work Life Centre, in Oslo, is running this programme for five years. Covering both the private and public sectors, SBA is aimed at creating local networks. It applies an explicit multi-level change strategy, by focusing on the form or process through which solutions are generated (cf. Hanssen­ Bauer, 1991). After several evaluations, sector-based networks also became the new objective of the HABUT programme (cf. Engelstad, 1 991b). In line with the eo-Determination Act, the social partners in Sweden also decided on a Company Development agreement in 1982. To implement it in both the private and public sectors, the Swedish Work Environment Fund founded the LOM programme in 1 985. LOM is the Swedish acronym for 'Leadership, Organization and eo-determination'. Over a period of five years, LOM acted as the umbrella under which several separate, regional network pro­ grammes operated. According to Gustavsen (1989) more than 100 firms and institutions participated. Van Beinum (1990a) summarized the most important features of this broadly based, deep-sliced programme (see box 4.9).

70

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Box 4.9

Main features of the LOM programme

"1 Magnitude: more Than 80 enterprises and public institutions and about 50 researchers from different institutions all operating within a loosely

arranged common framework and forming networks of learning and diffusion. (. . . )

2. Unit of Change: a cluster of organizations collaborating with each other and with research. Broadly based approaches within and across organizations feed into processes of intra- and inter-organizational learning. The strategy is to link these clusters to other enterprises and clusters to form larger diffusion networks.

3.

Process of Organizational Change: based on and guided by the uniques of each local development. It rejects a general model for change and works with the notion of developing local theory, that is the local generation and continuous reconstruction of different patterns of work organization. Social research is in a support role to local action.

4. Ongoing Process: the actual existing experience is to form the base line for each project which therefore cannot be defined as a zero point but is defined in terms of an ongoing process. Participation in the programme commences with a project development conference in which representative vertical slices of the various enterprises jointly make

decisions about the organization and direction of their local projects.

5. Vanguard: the programme is founded on discourse-oriented democratic

theory. Democratic dialogue which encompasses large networks of people forms the vanguard of the approach and determines the direction of local development.

6. Infrastructure: the programme uses multi-level strategies which connect

local developments to the various elements in the larger infrastructure of Swedisch society. Its points of anchorage in laws, agreements and bi- and tripartite structures and its linkage with the broader social and political structure, make the LOM programme 'reform oriented' rather than 'organization development oriented' (Gustavsen, 1989)."

Van Beinum (1990a), p. 16-17 According to Engelstad & Gustavsen (1993), the LOM programme produced at least five lasting re gional networks in Sweden: Jiimtland (state institutions); Karlstad (public sector); Halmstad (mixed network); Stockholm (health services); and North Sweden (hotels I restaurants).

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

71

4.4.2 The Concept of Democratic Dialogue and the Theory of Integrating Language and Practice One of the most striking features of the Swedish LOM pro­ gramme is a considerable change in the basic approach: As in PD, it is not the content of the work system design that is particularly emphasized. On the contrary, its development process is inten­ tionally accentuated. But unlike PD, the communication component is explicitely put into the foreground. According to Engelstad & Gustavsen (1993), "the theoretical spearhead of the program is a theory of communication, not a theory of design ( ... ) . In this com­ municative theory an idea of good communication called 'democratic dialogue' is the point of departure" (p. 223) . Democratic Dialogue is best described by its originator Bjom Gustavsen, as being a concept of communication. He does not only present a definition but he also specifies the dos and don'ts of the approach (cf. box. 4.10). These '13 commandments' stress the reciprocate character of the dialogue and the duty of all participants to become involved in the settling on of agreements as primary courses for cooperative action. Democratic Dialogue is based on a linguistic-pragmatic type of theory of science (cf. Habermas, 1984 / 1 987; Luhmann, 1984), while stressing the generative means by which knowledge is produced, in deliberation and open conversation. As Gustavsen (1992) is presuming, DD can be depicted as a contextual elucidation of the discourse aspect of democracy (cf. Finlay, 1985). It focuses on the interdependence between work and dialogue, epistemologically linking language and practice not by field experiment, as Lewin did, but by ordinary vocabulary (cf. Gustavsen, 1991). The research process is conceived here as being identical with a restructuring of language. That language cannot be reshaped in the absence of a corresponding reconfiguration of practice, is used as a postulate. A theory of communication is at the basis of the DD approach. Its main purpose is to maintain scope in the development process by engaging in broad involvement and participation. Its central concepts are learning (the adeptness to conceive new ideas) and dialogue (the capacity to engage in open discussions, all-level participation, and in reaching all sorts of agreements) . Using an interactive logic, DD passes on to the workers both the privilege to form their own 'local theories' and the power to come up with their own solutions at the same time. The apparent shift in approach is evident: creating conditions for communication places emphasis on form/ process rather than structure I content, which was the case in Classical STSD. Also, the role of research has changed

72

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

from an expert duty to discussion partner.

Box 4.10 The 1 3 cp mmandments of the ' Democratic D ia logue ' approach ' "1 The dialogue is a process of exchange: ideas and arguments move to and from between the participants. 2. It must be possible for all concerned to participate. 3. This possibility for participation is, however, not enough. Everybody should also be active. Consequently each participant has an obligation not only to put forth his or her own ideas but also to help others to contribute their ideas. 4. All participants are equal. 5. Work experience is the basis for participation. This is the only type of experience which, by definition, all participants have. 6. At least some of the experience which each participant has when entering the dialogue must be considered legitimate. 7. It must be possible for everybody to develop an understanding of the issues at stake. 8. All arguments which pertain to the issues under discussion are legitimate. No argument should be rejected on the ground that it emerges from an illegitimate source. 9. The points, arguments, etc. which are to enter the dialogue must be made by a participating actor. Nobody can participate "on paper". 10. Each participant must accept that other participants can have better arguments. 11. The work role, authority etc. of all the participants can be made subject to discussion - no participant is exempt in this respect. 12. The participants should be able to tolerate an increasing degree of difference of opinion. 13. The dialogue must continuously produce agreements which can provide platforms for practical action. Note that there is no contradiction between this criterion and the previous one. The major strength of a democratic system compared to all other ones is that it has the benefit of drawing upon a broad range of opinions and ideas which inform practice, while at the same time being able to make decisions which can gain the support of all participants."

Gustavsen (1991), p 6-7; Gustavsen, (1992), p. 3-4 The above-mentioned concept of 'local theory' (cf. Gustavsen, 1976; Elden, 1983) is at the heart of DD. According to Gustavsen (1991), it represents a rather extreme strand of usual contingency thinking: "While contingency theory modifies the idea of a general theory of organization, local theory leaves this idea altogether and looks upon the construction of a map of any given organization as a local process, which can, however, rely on more general concepts. The

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

73

way the concepts are selected and assembled is, however, a local process" (p. 20). The technique of 'organizational mapping' (Elden, 1983) is used in DD to make an organization diagnosis in a participative way, using the workers' tacit knowledge (cf. Kusterer, 1 978) to generate their own unique, situation-specific local theory. This theory consists of a problem inventory and a process model of cause and effect relations that links the symptoms and core problems in an economical manner. Participatory action research has shown that even under attractive labour-management conditions, workers' perceptions of problems and their genesis differ sharply from management diagnostic appreciations of the actual work situation (cf. Herbst & Ryste, 1975; Qvale, 1978; Elden, 1979a/1981, Gustavsen & Hunnius, 1981). This is one of the reasons why DD abandoned the expert role of research. Local theories are better suited to allow workers and management to cooperate and start their own change programme on the basis of a valid organization diagnosis. 4.4.3

The D D Traj ectory: Creating Scope by Engaging in a Broad Ecological Process

Gustavsen (1991) delineated the phases that are normally present in a typical democratic dialogue process (cf. box 4.1 1). The example shows that the project development conference is of central importance for speeding up the dialogue process. A democratic dialogue can be given shape, particularly, at organized network meetings. Thus, conferences used as a platform for exchange are placed in a central position in this approach. In order to promote DD, Gustavsen & Engelstad ( 1 986) have defined the conditions under which such conferences should take place (cf. box. 4.12). On the b asis o f experiences thus gained, the so-called 'Development Organization' (DO) approach developed gradually (Engelstad, 1 990). This is a more indirect approach to PD, with the aim of creating a suitable platform for mutual exchange - also for SMEs - and of improving the quality of the mutual dialogue. The DO approach is based on five elements: 1. the strategy forum; 2. 'company-wide' conferences; 3. project groups beyond departments; 4. basic groups within departments; 5. sociotechnical changes in the daily work organization. In particular, the first two elements call for an additional elucidation. The strategy forum is not a steering group in its traditional sense, but rather a semi-open conditioning body of the network that

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

74

is also accessible to invited external experts. 'In order to avoid, to the best extent possible, a high degree of employee turnover over a period of time, the ferum is composed of two members from each participating party. The strategy forum formulates general objec­ tives, brings together (groups from) the participating cores in the organization network, stimulates fruitful discussions, and maintains contacts with the whole 'broad front' of activities.

Box 4.11 Gustavsen 's phases in the development cycle that a typical Democratic Dialogue process may imply 1. Establishing in each enterprise a central bipartite project group consisting of management and workers. 2. Arranging an initial project development conference at a conference centre

lasting for one and a half day, made up of 'vertical slice' project groups (7-10 people) consisting of line managers, staff and experts, first line supervisors, employee representatives and ordinary workers preferably originating from four different organizations, supported by an external conference staff of four people.

3.

Initiating a 'limited' development project/ action learning process in each enterprise.

4. Creating some scope by (gradually) engaging in more broadly defined development work, including both as much functions, levels and problems as possible.

5. Active and collective constituing of project 'achievements' (both product and process).

6. Deep and broad (organization-wide) discussing of future development activities which are based on actual experiences during the dialogue process.

After Gustavsen (1991), p. 55-80 Initially, the project development or planning conferences were largely built up in the same manner as tho se in the PD tradition. However, they became gradually more focused. Based on the experiences gained with projects in a specific line of business, so­ called 'branch projects' (cf. for example the garage-owners project: Engelstad, 1990), the 'Dialogue Conference' (DC) method was devel­ oped. The Dialogue Conferene is a type of PD workshop or search conference for network development. It begins with the assumption that the quality of the dialogue is an important vehicle for the change process. The DC method can be divided into three successive

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

75

phases: 1 . adoption in the 'branch' network; 2. business develop­ ment process; 3. expansion of the (supporting) network. During phase 1, the demonstration conference takes place, the strategy forum is composed and regional promotion conferences are held. In phase 2, a 'whole-company' conference is organized, and a part-time expert is admitted to the firm as a ' scholarship holder', paid and supported by the national programme. In phase 3, a 'network devel­ opment' conference is held to expand the number of participating firms and supporting institutions. The strategy forum acts as initiator and coordinator in all these activities.

Box 4.12 Criteria for participation, public arena and legitimacy "1. There must be a clear definition of arena(s) (...) It does ( ...) imply that the outcome of the conference is built primarily on what has emerged on the official arena. 2. Public issues are the only legitimate ones. This is a corollary to criterion (1).

3. Resource persons act only on the public scene. This is a further expression of criterion (1). Resource persons, such as researchers, ( ...) can only be used in public and not made accessible to 'off-the-record' consultations.

4. Analysis, problem solving, and decisions, have to build on what has emerged

through the public proceedings. ( ... ) For democratic processes to be possible, it must be clear to everybody what facts and other premises for decisions are relevant. ( ... ) Again, the point is to avoid 'hidden' alternatives to which everybody does not have access.

5. Personal grievances and frustrations are topics which often tend to surface in

developmental efforts. They should, however, as far as possible, be kept out of

the encounters. Democratic encounters provide a training ground in democratic competence, and are not therapeutic events. (...) However, personal grievances are not without significance ( ... ) it is not easy to distinguish between their 'personal' and 'structural' sides ( ...) people should as far as possible turn towards the 'structural' side of the issues. In this way, a certain amount of training in democratic dialogue can take place before the more personal issues are allowed to enter the scene. ( ... )"

Gustavsen & Engelstad (1986), p. 109 The content of the conferences is largely left to the partici­ pating groups. However, the order of the sessions and composition of the groups are carefully planned in advance. Take, for example, the regional promotion conference. This conference is held under 'social island' conditions and lasts two full days. Some 30 to 55 partici­ pants from four to seven firms take part, composed as 'vertical slice' groups varying in size from five to ten persons. The plenary opening of the promotion conference is followed by four parallel sessions involving a maximum of ten persons and a plenary reporting session (Engelstad, 1990). In the first session, homogeneous (in terms of function) groups (executive personnel distinct from management)

76

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

coming from different firms discuss the experienced business environ­ ment and its futur.e developments. In the second session, the homo­ geneous manager gr-oups are divided over the groups consisting of executive personnel. These heterogeneous groups discuss the improve­ ments required in a product and in the working environment in each department. In the third session, homogeneous groups of executive personnel from one s ingle firm are formed together with managers from other firms. These heterogeneous groups discuss what radical other organizational structures are needed in order to achieve better results. Finally, in the fourth session, only personnel from one single firm are brought together, in order to talk about the process of change rather than its structure. Each individual employee should take part in such change during working time. As previously illustrated, the ultimate unit of change in DD is a cluster of (ideally four) organizations. This implies b oth a multi-level approach including the organization-environment inter­ face, and a network-oriented fabric connecting the world of work with society. According to Van Beinum (1990a) the LOM progr amme can be viewed as a pre-eminent prelude to a s o cio-ecological approach. In Finland, a government-induced DO-like development, the so-called 'JOY-project', s tarte d in 1 9 8 8 (cf. Kauppinen, 1 9 8 8 / 1989/1991; Kasvio, 1991; Lansbury, 1992). In paper and pulp produc­ tion, metal industry and the municipal sector (hospitals) it stimu­ lated joint labour-management development programmes on law­ based subjects such as leadership, organization and cooperation.

4.5

Variant D: Modern STSD in North America

In the United States and Canada, although some elements of modem variants can be clearly recognized, and the present situ­ ation is becoming increasingly pluralistic, contemporary STSD is basically a continuation of the classical approach (cf. Taylor, 1 990). American s cholars still r ely heavily on the T avistock STSD experience, which was imported into the US by Davis and Trist in the late sixties. Rice's concepts are still widely used in expert­ driven 'greenfield' projects. Also, the use of technical variance analysis in most consultancy work has been prolonged (cf. Taylor & Asadorian, 1985). Recently, in the US, there have appeared several 'new' manifestations of the 'classical' approach. To illustrate this point, we refer to Pava's (1 983) deliberation analysis for nonlinear work;

Chapter Four - STSD: Modern Variants of the Paradigm

77

Shani & Elliott's (1988) Strategic Organizational Review and Design (ORD) framework; De Greene's (1991) macro (societal) systems approach; Lytle's (1991a/b) guides for linear and nonlinear work; Purser & Pasmore's (1991) design principles for knowledge work (product development); and Ketchum & Trist's (1992) center­ out model of change. Pava (1983) developed deliberation analysis as an alternative to traditional variance analysis. Deliberation analysis is especially applicable to nonlinear technical systems (white-collar work), and fits in nicely with the classical STSD approach. This is also true for Shani & Elliott's (1988) ORD frame­ work, which adds a new strategic correlative sub-system to the traditionally identified social and technical sub-systems. De Greene (1991) added a political sub-'system and accordingly commented on the rigidity and fragility of major sociotechnical systems, i.e., nations and world powers/ dominant coalitions. Lytle (1991a/b) developed comprehensive checklists for Block/Petrella/Weisbord for the analysis and design of linear and nonlinear work systems, that can be used to plan rather traditional STSD consultancy pro­ jects. Purser & Pasmore (1991) elaborated a classical STSD approach to knowledge work, substituting the concept of 'joint optimization' for 'dynamic synchronization' and the principle of ' controlling variances' for 'removing barriers to learning' (see paragraph 5.4). On the basis of the experiences at the Gaines pet food plant in Topeka, Kansas, Ketchum & Trist (1 992) created the center-out model of change. Following the classical theory of concepts, they developed a practical 'top down' holistic approach to change. Des­ pite the availability of all these applied 'instant approaches' to STSD consultancy, no major new development track or variant has emerged in North America up until now (cf. Taylor & Felten, 1993). Other impulses came from 'emigrated' Americans and native Scandinavi ans that are working ( ag ain) in North Ameri c a . Examples are Elden's (1985) participatory research and Kolodny & Stjernberg's (1986) mixed content/process model. From Australia, Fred and Merrelyn Emery influenced North-American STSD think­ ing to a great extent. As earlier mentioned, in North America, STSD projects are mainly carried out by consultancy firms and government/private institutions: STS International; Block-Petrella-Weisbord; Cotter & Associates; Pasmore & Sherwood; Alexander, Scott & Associates; American Productivity Center; Sociotechnical Design Consultants, Inc. ; US Army; International Revenue Service; Work in America Institute; Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre; National Center for Productivity and QWL; DEC /SME; UCLA CQWL; Management

78

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

& Behavioral Science Center (Warton School MBSC); and several US-State QWL centers. Not all of them survived throughout the years. Table 4.4 giv�s an impression of North-American STSD projects as carried out in the period 1980-1990. Cunningham & White (Eds.) (1984) documented another 15 QWL projects in North America. Taylor (1990) reported that at that time 115 STSD projects were in their execution phase. The majority (75%) was still running in the continuous process industry. Beekun (1989) made a meta-analysis of STSD projects in North America, showing the effectiveness of the approach in both blue­ and white-collar work. Although the majority of projects followed the classical pattern, there are some examples where the modern paradigm was used. For instance, Block-Petrella-Weisbord used variations of the PD workshop in printing, textile and contact lens manufacturing, and a type of search conferences in the steel, textile and financial services industries, and in the medical education, service organizations, schools and colleges throughout the US (cf. Weisbord, 1987 / 1991). Due to its unique characteristics, special attention is paid here to Trist's Jamestown venture. From 1973 onwards, Trist (assisted by his students Keidel, Eldred, McGuinty and Meak) performed an ambitious community development project in a small pauperized manufacturing city near New York (cf. Trist et al., 1978; Keidel & Trist, 1 980a/b ). Trist took the challenge to revitalize this area. In 1976, more than 40 projects were running in 12 plants (Trist, 1981), thanks to the active Jamestown Area Lab o ur-Management Committee (1975/1982). According to Trist (1981), "a community­ wide learning process ( . . . ) has been sustained at the community level over a period of seven years ( . . . ) despite 'casualties' at the level of particular organizations . ( . . . ) As the result of these developments, a major engineering company, Cummins Engines, was lured to the town. ( . . . ) One or two small companies have since followed, and a new hotel has been built in the city center" (p. 56). Because of its broad scope (in 1978 it was further expanded to the public sec tor, e . g . , scho ols and hospitals) the use of recruit conferences, the creation of an inter-organizational network, and the establishment of local management-labour cooperation, this project c onstituted a DD approach ahead of its time. Central to the Jamestown experience is the creation of a so-called 'representative referent organization' (Trist, 1983). This is an area-wide labour­ management steering committee representing several companies in the area. It started to organize cooperative skill training and stimu­ lated the installation of in-plant labour-management committees

� <::!"' � Company Name

Type of Company

Department

City. District

1980 Zilog lnc. (Exxon)

Microproc. chip plant Food processing Public sector

New plant Jay-out

Nampa, Idaho

1981 CSP Foods 1982 State Government 1982 United Hospital 1984 Signetics

Software house

Whole company

Harrowby, Man. Bismark, North Dakota Grand Forks, North Dakota Sunnyvale, California Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Natick, Massachusetts

Electronic/ control devices Aircraft engines

Fabrication I assembly

Airdrie, Alberta

Edible oil production Center for data processing Med. rehabilit. hosp. Entire hospital Serniconductor

1984 Soabar (Avery Label) Tag/label printing 1985 McCormack & Dodge 1985 Westinghouse Canada 1985 General Electric Canada 1985 Pratt & Whitney 1988 McNeil Consumer 1988 Northern Telecom 1989 X-TRBIE 1990 PG + E

Entire plant All departments

Fabrication/ assembly

Bromont, Quebeck

Fabrication/assembly Halifax, Nova Scotia Aircraft engines Fort Washington, Consumer products Whole factory Pennsylvania Santa Clara, California Telecommunication PBX assembly San Luis Obispo, Whole organization Software California development Computer department San Luis Obispo, Electrical power & California utility

� ""'

Country Authors Gustavson & Taylor (1984) Taylor & Asadorian (1985) Canada Chadwick & Clark (1981) Shani {1983) USA USA

USA

Shani & Eberhardt (1987)

""'

$:>.. �

�

Shani & Elliott (1988)

USA

Weisbord (1987 /1991)

USA

Henri (1987)

Canada

Kirby (1985)

Canada USA

Arnopoulos (1985) McGill Human Res. Ass. (1985) Betcherman et al. (1990) Weisbord et al. (1990)

USA USA

Shani et al. (1992) Sena & Shani (1992)

USA

Shani & Krishnan (1992)

Canada

1$"

"r:1 0 ;:: ... I

�

(/)

'"<::! .... "'t � "'

.tJ .

�- �i' � !!! Q. �

�

��

-·

USA

(")

-[

� &:

Oo -t <::> .... I �

� � 0

!t ;:s ;;: ...

;:;·

;:s

;;;-

��

-Q,

�·

�

<.o 9 � a

� "'

Q n

c;· .... �

if i

�·

�

�

;:; · �

'"<::! "'t

..s . , n ....

"' n �

� <;; · $:>.. Q ;:::: ....

�

80

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

(LMCs) . These LMCs initiated all sorts of projects (job bidding, layout red esign, · new product development, gain sharing, performance developtn...ent, work restructuring, administrative review and employment maintenance; cf. Keidel, 1981). Another novelty, in this respect, has been the 'entrepreneurial work teams', referred to by Eldred as the multi-level, multi-functional task groups in product development. Outside the US, in Sudbury (Ontario, Canada), a similar community development project occured (cf. Sudbury 2001, 1979; Trist & Bradshaw, 1981; Trist & Clarke, 1981). Finally, some American applications of STSD in developing countries are worth mentioning, such as the redesign of the railway locomotives maintenance depot at Sennar in Sudan (cf. Ketchum, 1981/ 1983/ 1984; Kidwell & et al., 1981; El Jack et al., 1981), some work in Tanzania (Kanawaty et al., 1981) and project evaluation in India (Kanawaty et al., 1981). Trist (1975) described a small project in Peru. Kiggundu reviewed the quality of working life in develop­ ing countries and explored STSD limitations and future directions (cf. Kiggundu, 1982/1986a/b; Kiggundu et al., 1983). As previously mentioned, contemporary STSD in the US and Canada use a combination of elements from classical and modem sociotechnical variants. Instead of STSD, North-American authors often use the label 'team approach' to describe it. According to Wellins et al. (1990), who did a team survey research study among almost two thousand consultants and executives, the current practice of 'self-directed teams' (SDTs) - as they call it - is of a recent date but has proved none the less to be rather widespread throughout the US, and certainly will become far more appreciated in the nineties. Central to contemporary STSD in North America, is the notion of 'empowerment'. But once again, only the word is new; its meaning already is very familiar to practitioners of STSD, as Wellins et a l . ( 1 9 9 1 ) have affirme d : "P ower means 'c ontrol, authority, dominion'. The prefix em- means 'to put on to' or 'to cover with'. Empowering, then, is passing on authority and responsibility. ( ...) Empowerment occurs when power goes to employees who then experience a sense of ownership and control over their jobs" (p. 22). 'Empowered teams' is just another label for the basic sociotechnical concept of semi-autonomous work groups. In the context of this chapter we were only able to lightly touch on sociotechnical developments in the US. For a more detailed description and analysis of the present situation see Taylor & Felten (1993).

Chapter Five Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

Table of Contents

5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6.

5.1

Introduction Scientific-Philosophical Points and the Nature of Explanatory Diagrams The Problem of the 'Openness' of Systems and Von Bertalanffy's Leap The Development of Systems Concepts and its Influence on STSD Modelling STSD Methods and the Evolution of Models for Analysis and Design STSD Practice and the Controversy Regarding Design Content versus Process

Page

81 82 86 90 96 111

Introduction

The previous chapters presented some highlights of the STSD paradigm, descriptions of the distinctive development trajec­ tories and tracks, and exposure of the different conc epts and methods were given. The basic historical account that followed did not enable a closer examination of methodology. This chapter will further elaborate on the scientific foundations of STSD: - In paragraph 5.2, the main scientific-philosophical points of departure and the nature of STSD explanatory diagrams will be presented. - In paragraph 5.3, the methodology of directive correlations, that are central to STSD, will be discussed. - In paragraph 5.4, the development of systems concepts and its influence on STSD modelling will be analyzed. - In paragraph 5.5, STSD methods will be looked upon. The dis­ cussion will concentrate on the evolution of models for analysis and design. - In paragraph 5.6, STSD practice will be described starting with the controversy over design content versus process.

82

5.2

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Scientific-Philos ophical P o i nts of D e p arture and the Nature of Expl�atory Diagrams

Although very implicit in the publications of the pion­ eering phase, the scientific-philosophical foundations of the STSD paradigm were not absent. Above all, it was Fred Emery who at first actually went into this matter. Already, in his thesis he had touched up on the maj or epistemological and metho dolo gical questions that concerns social scientists (Emery, 1946) . Keeping in line with American Pragmatism, in Tavistock Document 527 (Emery, 1959), he employed these ideas to create a firm and solid basis for the evolving STSD Paradigm, using contextualism as a root meta­ phor: "My position was realism versus nominalism and materialism versus idealism; in one word, contextualism. That position is very clear in my publications before Doe 527. In Doe 527, the opposition to nomi­ nalism is apparent in the stress that is placed on systems theory; the opposition to idealism in the critique on the Human Relations school. The latter point is strongly reinforced in Part Ill of Doe. 527'psychological requirements'. Here, short-shrift was given to indi­ vidualistic psychology and the answers sought in the reciprocal relations between persons and the objectively structured task environment. Implicitly rejecting Lewin's subjective 'life space' and explicitly using the conceptual framework introduced in "S ocial Structure and Personality ", 1 954. Methodologically, I was well and truely convinced, by 1946, of Lewin's arguments in his paper on "Aristotlean and Galilean modes of thought" (1935). Phil Herbst in those days was well into Formism (Pepper's term) and peripheral to our thinking". personal communication with Emery (1990), p. 7 Later, Herbst also contributed to the scientific grounding of STSD. He fully considered and published the consequences of devel­ opments in science philosophy for his own discipline (cf. Herbst 1 970 / 1974a b / 1 976). According to Herbst (1 976), the philosopher Spencer-Brown made an important discovery with his 'primary distinction', whose consequences for the formulation of theories should not be underestimated. Whereas classical epistemological schools such as Platonism, (Neo-)Positivism and (Neo-)Kantianism all depart from axioms in the form of dichotomies (cf. 'phenomena­ constructs', 'external-internal', 'objective-subjective'), Spencer-Brown

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

83

establishes a triad of elements (cf. 'internal-boundary-external'). This trichotomy is proclaimed an ' unexamined given' of each conceptual system, on the basis of which Herbst (1976) derives the following axiom: "The primary conceptual unit is given as a triad of distinguishable undefined components, which are definable in terms of one another." From this axiom he subsequently derives a theorem: "It is not possible for a single entity or a pair of entities to exist by itself or to be definable." Herbst (1976), p. 90 In the following step, he checked to see if the systems' concepts could be derived from the above-mentioned entities. This appeared to be possible by using an operational interpretation. It is not diffi­ cult to grasp the relevance of a similar contribution to a developing systems theory in general, and to STSD in particular. Ackoff and Emery published a revealing study in 1972, on scientific-philosophical and methodological principles, entitled 'On purposeful systems'. It took Ackoff more than 30 years to complete the manuscript! In this book, which is an absolute must for method­ ologists, he has rewritten and futher developed the insights that in the fifties and sixties proved to be usable metaphors from biology and cybernetics. According to Emery (personal correspondence, 1990), this book "enabled me to clear up some conceptual problems with the level of purposeful systems but it neither arose from mainstream STSD work nor fed back into it. Our methodology in STSD had been firmly based on Sommerhoff's directive correlation since 1963" (p. 10). For a further treatment of this subject matter see paragraph 5.3. Nevertheless, this publication offered a lot of conceptual 'digging up ', which is of major importance for the development of the p aradigm. Forty-two meticulously formulated definitions aptly illustrate the evolution of structural principles into functional sys­ tems concepts, followed by another ten statements elaborating seven classes of functional systems (cf. table 5.1). As this table shows, from now on there is a solid systems basis for distinguishing man from machine. In an inimitable way, the vital concept of the 'adap­ tive, purposeful system' is derived - one of the building stones of the STSD approach. According to Ackoff & Emery (1972), the develop­ ment from closed into open systems concepts also influences the nature of the explanatory diagrams. These authors place the tradi-

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

84

tional positivist principle of causality, whereby the cause is both necessary and sufficient for achieving a certain consequence (deterministic relation);,right opposite a new explanatory diagram wherein a cause, albeit necessary, is no t considered sufficient (producer/product relation).

Table 5.1

Seven classes offunctional systems FUNCTIONS OF OUTCOMffiS A. UNI-UNI

One function in all

environments

C. MULTI-MULTI

B. UNI-MULTI

One function in any one

Different functions

in same and different

environment. Different functions in some

environments

1. UNI-UNI


� �

0

I

One structure in all environments

2. UNI-MULTI

One structure in any on environment, different structures in some different environments 3. MULTI-MULTI Different structures

(meters)

(waste emitters)

2A. REACTIVE 2B. REACTIVE MULTI-FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL (servomecharusms)

(industrial robots)

3A. ACTIVE FUNCTIONA

in same and different environments

GPAL-SEEKJNG (smgle program (people)

automata)

Ackoff & Emery (1972), p. 29 Following Charles Peirce's (1898) 'logic of relations', which distinguishes between 'class membership ' (subsl..Ulg l.ffi the individual particular to a class of such particulars; containment) and 'class in­ clusion ' (inclusion by definition; inclusion of one class in another), Emery later distinguished four basic rules that govern the process of defining observables by classification:

"U-1 s im ilarity (familiarity) relation: classifying universals as nominalistic collections of particulars.

U-2

proximity (in time and space) relation: classifying by relative frequency, or tendency (frequency of interaction or co­ occurance).

U-3 U-4

cause-effect (producer-product) relation. relation of part-part within a whole (e.g. siblings) . " Emery (1990), p . 7

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

85

Early STSD classified particulars in terms of cause and effect (U-3 relation), whereas contemp orary STSD is also classifying particulars in terms of its function (U-4 relation). According to Emery (1989b) the basic form of logical infer­ ence that STSD uses, is neither deduction nor induction but a b d u c ­ tion (retroduction). According to Peirce, this form of inference yields 'reasonable ex post-facto hypotheses'. Emery typified it as 'a logic of discovery': "In the laboratory sciences we might know and be able to control 8090 percent of the variance. The small indeterminate element can then be systematically explored by varying our experimental con­ trols even if, as in the isblation of salvarsan, 606 variations are needed. In field experiments with sociotechnical systems in a non­ isolable environment we would be lucky to know and be able to control 20 percent of the variance. A radically different situation. It is a situation that does not permit a strategy of systematically exhausting possibilities because a) there are too many permutations and combinations; b) we do not know enough to establish the controls for such systematic variation; and c) we want to know what the system does in its characteristic environment, not what it does in laboratory. We have to follow scientific strategies appropriate to our special circumstances. Thus, we need to judge our theories by their fruitfulness in directing our inferential processes of retroduction. That is, we need sketch maps that convey the prominent features of the territory we are trying to traverse. We check those maps by following up on the hypotheses they suggest. It is the only way we can go. Deductive and inductive inferences will always be very secondary for us and the only forseeable future is a fistful of grubby sketch maps. Call them theories of the middle-range (Merton, 1968) or local theories, it does not matter. It adds up to the fact that any science of developing systems is limited to local logics - a grand logic would necessarily deny the qualitative changes that alone warrant our attention as scientists."

personal communication with Emery (1990), p. 10/11 The use of an open-systems approach also affects the way in which theories are formulated, as Melcher (1975) aptly illustrates: "Normally, model building involves defining independent and dependent variables. One of the minimum logical tests of the model

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

86

is whether the variables are conceptualized and measurable in independent terms. Otherwise, any relationships are tautological. The thrust of research studies is to determine the degree of influence the independent variabtes exert over the dependent variables. The strategy of building a systems model, on the other hand, is sharply different. The thrust is to define variables in relationship terms. ( . . . ) The adequacy of the definitions is tested in terms of the degree to which useful relationships can be described. Since the entire thrust is on relationships, it is considered essential to build the model in these terms." Melcher (1975), p. 7 It was not a simple task to find a schematic representation of such a new fundamental diagram in the literature. After a great deal of effort, only one example was discovered: Fry's variant of a system 'regulated by feedback' (cf. figure 5.1).

Figure 5.1

I

Fry 's varia n t of a system 'regulated by feedback ': a schematic representation of the basic explanatory diagram of STSD, Fry (1975), p� 57

ENVIRONMENT

11-----,

I

GOAL

r!f!

RELATION

H

RELATION

h

Fry (1975) explains this diagram as follows: "A goal drive causes a 'determining' relationship to influence a 'determined' relationship . At the same time, the determining relationship is also being influenced by other factors while it simultaneously influences the multiple factors working on it". Fry (1975), p. 57 These kinds of constructions are highly complex, but allow for both static and dynamic analyses. 5.3

The Prob l e m of the ' O p enness' of Systems and V o n Bertalanffy's Leap As pointed out previously, the notion of the 'open system'

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

87

(Von Bertalanffy, 1950) is of crucial importance in STSD method­ ology. Emery defines this construct by a set of four types of relations (cf. figure 4.1 in paragraph 4.2.1): 111-system functions; 122-auton­ omous, independent environment functions; 121-input functions and 112-output functions. Emery is proclaiming a dualistic relationship between system (i.e., organism) and environment: "As a general proposition we are saying that the organism cannot be characterized without characterizing its environment, and that the environment cannot be characterized without characterizing the kinds of organisms for whom it is an environment. We will go one step further, following Shaw & Turvey (1981), and argue that this symmetrical compatibility implies that the laws governing one must have some invariant relationship with the laws governing the other, i.e., 111 s 122, where s symbolizes symmetry. This can be termed the Postulate of Duality or the Postulate of Reciprocal Contexts." Emery (1989b), p. 9 Emery states (1989b, p. 10) that when the temporal dimension is added to the basic earlier mentioned four types of relations: "this expanded set corresponds to the form of the directive correlation postulated by Sommerhoff (1950 / 1969) to characterize the biol­ ogical concept of adaptive behavior". According to Emery: "this same set effectively defines the root metaphor of Contextualism (Pepper, 1942)". In the early fifties, Emery did indeed contribute to breaking new ground by developing a methodology of directive correlation. Because of the centrality of this epistemological pioneering work, we quote Emery's argument at full length here: "There was a further epistemological problem inherent in the position I had taken. This was the problem of the 'openness' of systems (what Pepper, following Peirce, terms dispersiveness versus integratedness). I was made aware of this by Bertalanffy's 1950 article in Science. I brought it to the attention of the Tavvy when I was there on the Bolsover experiment 1951-2. The solution of this problem was in the 'Progress in conceptualization' papers, 1963, and made public in the summer of 64. This was the conceptual leap from Bertalanffy's: 111 (112, 121) .. ?, to 111 (112, 121) 122. That is a leap that most so-called systems theorists have still not b e en able to make . A leap they c anno t make b e cause it is

88

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

academically unacceptable to deny Kantianism and accept that the L22 can be known -for what it is. However, it is only thus one can get from Formism, Orga.nicism or crude forms of Inter-actionism to the genuine contextualist'position of Trans-actionalism; acknowledging that L l l and L22 are complementary, mutually determining. Neither can be adequately characterized without characterizing the other. A system and, particularly, the system principle, cannot be characterized without characterizing what is an environment for it. Conversely, an environment cannot be characterized without specifying what sort of systems it is an environment for. (Which gives some idea of how far the concept of environment is from physics textbooks). Staying with Bertalanffy's immature concept of an open system had several serious consequences. Within that framework, our only knowledge of the L22 comes from the interaction L21. Ll2 is confined to the effqrts of adapting to whatever L21 discloses about L22. The purp oses of Ll l can then be no more than internal equilibrium that defines systems survival. This same model forces us to define the relation of Lll - L22 by inference from the observed interactions, i.e., Ll2, L21 . This level of interaction is no advance on Newton and the planets. The definition of open system that we advanced explains the interactions in terms of the relation of Lll and L22. In this m o del, w e can rigorously define ' a c tive adaptation'. Because the L22 exists for Ll l then L12's can b e purposefully selected to induce L 21 's that L l l can turn to its adaptive advantage. All of this was spelt out in Doe 527 before it was formalized in 1963. In that same document, it was repeatedly spelt out that when we speak of organizational missions, objectives or 'primary tasks' we are only using linguistic shorthand to refer to special forms of interdependence between the Lll and its L22. I do not know how often I have reasserted this but it has fallen on deaf ears because those who should have been listening think that the L22 is what the CEO, or his personal consultant, think is 'the world out there'. As the debate has spread to the physical sciences, due to ecological concerns, I have realized that the model we have used since the late fifties had to be elaborated. A case of dotting the i's and crossing the t's for those for whom this was not their native language. To adequately represent their mutual determination, we should use the following symbolization: Lll (L22') - L22 (Ll l ') . Such mutual determination can only be a result of a process of eo­ evolution. Our perceptual and affective systems have evolved so that we are, as a species, adapted to living in the environment the

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

89

world provides. We have shaped that world with a view to it supporting the purposes we consistently pursue. (OK we did not respect the time scales for adequate 'feedback'!). To accommodate the notion of active adaptation/purposeful­ ness (Emery, 1967) the paradigm has to have an intrinsic temporal dimension: L12 Lll (L22)

/

L22 (Lll)

'

/

'

' Lll (L22)"

Lll (L22)'

/

L22 (Lll)'

•••..•.......••••••••

tl

...............

/

'

L21 Time tO

Ll2

L22 (Lll)"

L21

....

....

t2

. ..

....... .

...................

t3

.

................ ..............

t4

With this step, the relation of the basic conceptual paradigm and the methodology of directive correlation is explicit. Note, if we consider the Lll chain in isolation, we can speak only of producer­ product relations. Only the totality of the joint action provides the necessary and sufficient conditions. This step also makes it clear that we are already into ontol­ ogy as we are talking about facts of development. Not surprising, as it is only when you assume an unknowable L22 that you have a free­ floating epistemology. Inability to make this conceptual leap to recognizing a knowable L22 has prevented system theorists from recognizing how advanced Sommerhoff's methodology of directive correlation is compared with Ashby, Prigogine and ilk. The latter use as much mathematical formalism as Sommerhoff but have been highly popularized, and prescribed as university texts. Sommerhoff, how­ ever, demanded that the L22 be given equal status with the Lll and that the asymmetry of the concept of adaptation be replaced by the logically symmetrical concept of directive correlation. The concept of directive correlation made no presuppositions about whether the relation of Lll - L22 was being determined by Ll2 or L21; that was a matter for empirical determination in each case. As Sommerhoff spelt out, this concept of directive correlation provided a rigorous methodological framework for contextualism. Something that R.A. Fisher's 'Design of Experiments ' fell far short of doing. Something that has still not been equalled. " personal communication with Emery (1990), p. 7-9

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

90

From its start, Classical STSD has been firmly based on the methodology of directive correlation. -..

5.4

'

The Development of Systems Concepts and its Influence on STSD Modelling

From the very beginning STSD modelling has been strongly infuenced by systems thinking: - As illustrated in table 3.1, paragraph 3.2.3, during the Pioneering Phase the Tavistock researchers adopted a whole array of sys­ tems concepts from biology, logic and cybernetics. In those early years the STSD pioneers hardly had any aspiration to develop their own coherent, STSD-specific theory of concepts (personal communication with Van Beinum, 1 989). They became merely fascinated by systems concep ts as they emerged from other disciplines and enthusiastically tried them out in practice. - As described in paragraph 3 .2.4, it was not until the end of the fifties that the first systematic attempts were made to develop what is refered to here as the Classical STSD theory of concepts (cf. table 3.2). In the sixties, this conceptual framework was further refined to the system of analysis and design principles as we know it today (cf. table 3.3 and 3.4, paragraph 3.3.4). - In general, it is not known that consecutive STSD concept devel­ opment has been redefined in the light of evolved systems think­ ing. This paragraph presents two contributions to the modern­ ization of (Classical) STSD concepts: De Sitter's 'Balance Model' for routine work systems, and Purser and Pasmore's 'Organizing for Learning' approach for nonroutine work settings. As an extension to the epistemological work of Luhmann (1968a/b) and Elias (1970), and taking into account the results of the Habermas/ Luhmann (1971) debate, De Sitter, in cooperation with other business sociologists, produced a new theoretical founda­ tion for Classical STSD from Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands, in the mid-seventies (cf. De Sitter, 1974a/b; Van der Zwaan & Vermeulen, 1974; Van der Zwaan et al., 1974; Smets & Van der Zwaan, 1975; De Sitter & Heij, 1975), which was adjusted in the early nineties to modify some minor points. First, De Sitter broadly describes STSD as the study and explanation of the manner in which technical instrumentation and

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

91

the division of work determine [system behaviour, capacity and functions] in their mutual connection and in relation to given (but changing) environmental conditions, as well as the application of this knowledge in (re)designing production systems (De Sitter, 1974a, p. 76). Fifteen years later, he replaced the above-captioned system behaviour, capacity and functions by "the possibilities for the production of internal and external functions" (De Sitter, 1989b, p. 232) . For a graphic representation of the core variables from this complex definition and their relationships, see figure 5.2.

given, ever changing turbulent environment

I

I

technical

conditions •

-

instrumentation

possibilities for the production of

" I

internal and

,

work division

external system

r

--

functions

object of study and (re)design

Figure 5.2

STSD, a graphic representation

Legend:

�

interdependence

� determining relationship

Adapted from: Van Eijnatten (1985), p. 55

Technical instrumentation is defined here as the technical equipment of people and means (in terms of capacity). Work division is defined as the grouping, allocation and coupling of executive and regulative functions. This is concerned with the separation of executive and regulative tasks on the one hand, and the splitting or division of executive and regulative tasks in sub-operations and subregulations re.>pectively. De Sitter (1980 /1981a) speaks of "the architecture of production control" and distinguishes four basic types of work division, which he does not specify in more detail (p. 44/p. 119). In the above-mentioned description of STSD, De Sitter stresses that, in particular, it is the nature of the interdependence

92

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

between technical instrumentation and work division that influences the behaviour of the· system, in terms of internal (directed towards purchase, preparation, �anufacturing and sales) and external system functions (directed towards various 'markets'). Basically, De Sitter develops a process theory of change, which he designates with the term 'Mo del of Balance ', where the dynamics of cyclic inter­ dependencies (both cause and result, compare the principle of the servo-controlled mechanism) is put central. An explicit point of attention of the balance model, is the structure of the selective labour process. The quantitative aspect of the labour process is the volume of goods and services exchanged, the qualitative aspect is the continuity and development of work relationships (De Sitter, 1989a). The labour process is viewed as an iri.tersection of various institutional and private exchange processes; needs and values are considered as being changeable social processes cultivated by so ciety and brought into the work situation by individuals and groups. According to De Sitter, giving meaning is a function that is inherent in selective social processes that is closely connected to the regulation of the labour process: "What structural conditions must my labour process comply with, in general, in order for me to solve changeable numbers and types of problems in time and participate in the process of giving meaning?" (De Sitter, 1978, p. 9). Although, rather abstract concepts are being used, this quote shows strong resemblance with Emery' s (1 977) 'general psycho­ logical requirements' (cf. paragraph 4.2. 1). Without regulative components in work, alienation occurs; but on the other hand, regulations provide involvement in work. Stress occurs when someone has problems and is unable to solve them. Using this model, which basically is applicable to all kinds of so cial systems, including firms, one is able to describe the dynamic process in a simple and economical manner, wherein open system and environment follow from each other's change in a constant manner, again and again, in different ways. As such, the model is a system-theoretical alternative to Emery's directive correlation methodology. In his elaboration, De Sitter concentrates primarily upon interaction conditions, upon conditions for structure. The operational problems in production control are the explicit point of departure. Once again: De Sitter makes a conceptual contribution here that breaks new ground. In 1973, he had already published a well­ defined and coherent systems concept framework, including the 'empty cartridge' concept of 'aspect-system' unknown to Tavistock (cf. De Sitter, 1973). In the same article, a strongly condensed effort can

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

93

also be found to fill the 'mould' of systems approach in terms of its content, by means of what is referred to as "a scheme of interaction strategy" (p. 1 3 8 ) . De Sitter directs his theory towards social interaction in which he integrates segments of value, regulative and power theory. He calls the product "a theory of qualitative system dynamics" (p. 1 13). After 1973, this scheme was converted into a more verbal model (De Sitter, 1978). Central in the balance model is the so-called 'interference' phenomenon, an effect which occurs in a situation where one process operation is disturbed or even totally obstructed by another. De Sitter describes interference as follows: "( ... ) the chance that two or more interaction processes meet each other in the labour process, and as a result of their normative and/ or material incompatibility, cause a disturbance which tends to affect the interaction possibilities which come into being through the labour process". De Sitter (1978), p. 15 The core of the new process model for Classical STSD is either preventing or curing interference and its diffusion in the system. This can be effected by means of regulation. Regulation can be broadly defined as keeping in balance processes which fulfill d if­ ferent functions in a system. The balance model uses the feedback loop as a basic model of the labour process. In the feedback loop, it is preferable not to separate and divide implementation (realizing connections) and regulation (selecting connections), but rather to integrate them (principle of minimal labour division). The balance model, as well as Classical STSD, depart from the so-called 'latitude premise', an assumption regarding control scope which is founded on the cybernetic 'Law of Requisite Variety' used as an axiom (Ashby, 1956a). This law roughly states that the external variability of the environment (turbulence) as input can be only compensated for or cancelled by a proportional internal vari­ ability of the open system (unprogramme d production control/ latitude). De Sitter (1978) defines the variability of the input as control need, and the potential open systems variability as control possibilities. The balance between control need and control possibi­ lities is defined as the quality of work. A key concept in the balance model is 'control capacity'. According to De Sitter (1978), this concept does "not refer to author­ ity but to control possibilities resulting from the objective nature of the labour process" (pp. 20/21). In 1980, he briefly defined control capacity as the problem-solving of disturbance reduction capability:

94

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

"In actual practice the control capacity present manifests itself in the disturbance sensitivity of the process, thus in the extent to which a disturbance is'f._eproduced without the possibility of reduc­ ing it through regulative action" (p. 69). According to Van Eijnatten (1985, p. 402), (internal) control capacity as a concept, refers to a structure condition of the labour system in which it is possible to choose from alternative activities in order to achieve the produc­ tion norms in different situations and under changing circumstances. A similar choice from possible situation leads to actual regulation (fulfilling a functi on) . De Sitter states that latitude provides control capacity in order to reduce interference. As pointed out earlier, in an objective sense there exists an adequate quality of work when the control capacity is relatively high and aligned with the existing control need (the complexity of the exchange relationship in terms of work orders, process specifi­ cations, time and work pressure). Karasek (1979) defines this combi­ nation as "the active work with social and technical learning opportunities". This American researcher made use of two sample surveys - the Quality of Employment Survey (USA, 1979, N=1016); and the Living Conditions Survey (Sweden, 1968/ 1974, N=2281) - to check the impact of work pressure (the amount of work, variance, and precision of assignments) and 'control capacity' (knowledge, skills, available technical resources and consultation possibilities) on absenteeism and dissatisfaction with work. He found that in the condition of combined high work pressure, together with various control possibilities, the scores regarding both dependent variables were lowest. De Sitter predicts - and this has been confirmed in a large number of cases in practice (cf. De Sitter, 1981a; Joosse et al., 1990) - that the production result in this situation would also be optimal. Karasek (1990) demonstrated that there exists a negative relationship between 'job control' and health risk in a sample survey of 25% of all office staff in Sweden (4481 men and 3623 women). Measuring instruments for control capacity (and latitude) have been developed in the course of time by De Sitter & Heij (1975), Egmond & Thissen (1975), Van Eijnatten (1985), Pot e t a l . (1989a/b) and D e Sitter (1989c) . Conceptually based on Miller & Rice (1 967) and method­ ologically departing from a non-equilibrium-oriented, dynamical model of open systems (Laszlo, 1987 / 1990; May & Groder, 1989; Nicolis & Prigogine, 1977) in which change is an integral aspect of organizational life, Purser & Pasmore (1991) re-interpreted Classi­ cal STSD analysis and design concepts to be of use in nonroutine

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

95

knowledge work settings. They came to define a couple of new STSD concepts (cf. table 5.2).

Table 5.2 S TSD concept development for nonroutine knowledge work settings STSD concepts for routine

STSD concepts for nonroutine

work settings (manufacturing process)

work settings (knowledge work process)

- joint optimization

- dynamic synchronization

- redundancy of functions

- redundancy of rhythms

- multi-skilling

- multi-phasing

- semi-autonomous work group

- multi-disciplinary, highly differentiated technical group

- controlling variances at their source - quality of working life

- removing barriers to learning during developmental phases in knowledge work - quality of thinking life

Adapted from: Purser & Pasmore (1991) - According to Purser & Pasmore (1991), dynamic synchronization: "is an ever active, renormalizing movement in which nonoptimal permutations are dampened and phasic mismatches in knowledge development conversion cycle are brought into harmony" (p. 1 1 / 12) . Dynamic synchronization is based on a new theoretical framework, i.e., the 'catastrophe' /'order through chaos' theory (Prigogine, 1976; Jantsch, 1980; Briggs & Peat, 1989). According to De Greene (1990) catastrophe models and chaos theory already have been applied successfully in physics (Grebogi et al., 1987), chemistry (Prigogine & Stengers, 1984), meteorology (Lorenz, 1963) and ecology (May, 1976). Devaney (1987) states that cha­ otic systems (i.e. which show turbulence) are unpredictable, indecomposable and recurrent. In this view self-organizing systems adapt to turbulent environmental conditions by admitting increasingly complex inputs. As complexity has reached a critical level, the system reorganizes itself into smaller parts through a process of 'willful bifurcation' (Abraham, 1988; Montuori, 1991). - Another related concept, described by Purser & Pasmore (1991), is the process of 'rhythmical organizing of temporally dynamic

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

96

-

·

-

-

structures' (Warner, 1988), which is attuned to phase-specific cyclically varying equilibrium levels in nonroutine systems . Instead of redundancy of functions, in sociotechnically redesigned knowledge work situations there should be 'redundancy of rhythms'. According to Pava (1983) multi-skilling is not a viable option in nonroutine work systems, because of the high training level of knowledge work professionals. Instead of multi-skilling, Purser & Pasmore (1991) suggest 'multi-phasing' which "has a variety­ increasing effect as contradictions and divergent perspectives are surfaced, coupled, and managed in deliberations" (p. 15). Instead of semi-autonomous work groups Purser & Pasmore (1991) suggest 'multi-phased groups': "highly differentiated technical groups to plan and solve problems in parallel with each other" (p. 15), in a highly participative manner. The STSD concept of variance control does not apply in nonroutine systems (Taylor, 1989; Purser & Pasmore, 1990) because process deviations are not easily detectable or traceable. Instead of con­ trolling variances at their source, STSD in nonroutine systems should aimed at removing barriers for learning during develop­ mental phases in knowledge work. Because the whole knowledge work process is occuring in peoples' minds, Purser & Pasmore (1991) suggest to adjust the notion of ' quality of working life' to 'quality of thinking life'.

Through the course of time, the Classical STSD theory of concepts has been set apart.

5.5

STSD Methods and the Evolution of Models for Analysis and Design

This is also true for the development of methods. Table 5.3 represents an outline of the complete range of STSD methodologies distilled from the literature. Van Strien's so-called 'regulatory model cycle' (1975 / 1 978/ 1986) was used here as criterion for division: - The pioneering w ork is characterized by the application of 'action research'. No specialized methods for analysis and design have been used. - The development of more formal methods of analyses began at the start of the 'Industrial Democracy' project in Norway. Around

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

97

1 9 64, Engelstad applied the so-called 'traditional variance analysis' technique, for the first time, in the Hunsfos paper mill. Two years later, this technique was repeated by the Tavistock institute in the Stanlow oil refinery of Shell UK (cf. Foster, 1967; Emery et al., 1967; Hill, 1971). In the literature, this method is known as the 'nine-step method', although - as table 5.3 shows ­ the number of sub-steps varies for each author. The method, which was initially developed to be applied in the processing industry, was later - very much to the dissatisfaction of Emery & Trist (1978) - also used for the analysis of other (discrete produc­ tion) situations and for mapping out administrative processes. According to Taylor (1989), the 'technical systems analysis methodology' was seldom or no longer applied in England after 1 9 70, with the exception of Hedberg & Mumford (1 975) and Mumford & Henshall (1979). The 'variance analysis' was much more widespread in other European countries and the United States to map out various manufacturing processes in the produc­ tion sector (cf. Cummings & Srivastva, 1977; Pasmore et al., 1982; Taylor & Asadorian, 1985), in insurance companies (Taylor, 1977c; Allegro & De Vries, 1 979), in the health care sector (Macy & }ones, 1976; Friss & Taylor, 1981; Boekholdt, 1981; Glor & Barko, 1982; Chisholm & Ziegenfuss, 1986), in the service sector (Taylor, 1978; Pava, 1983), in the development of MIS-systems (Bostrom & Heinen, 1977) and in R&D (Taylor et al., 1986). Although in 1974, Emery had already solved the problem of nonlinear processes by means of his 'participative redesign and search method' (cf. table 5.3), and although, Van Beinum had successfully applied this method at the technical department of Shell lab oratory in Amsterdam, additional variants for nonlinear processes were developed in the United States around 1980 (cf. Pasmore et al., 1978; Pava, 1983). Technical systems analysis, which places much emphasis on process, product and their functions in a wider whole, has thus made a large-scale and crucial contribution to the diffusion and recognition of Classical STSD as an alternative to Scientific Management. - The development of sociotechnical methods certainly went fur­ ther than just the phase of problem definition and diagnosis. The plan for (re)design and implementation was laid down in 'step diagrams' (cf. table 5.3). An illustration of the first ten-step me­ thod can be found in paragraph 3.3.3 (box 3.3), which represents the basic approach in Norway (Emery & Thorsrud, 1976). Later, this method was refined further for the entire (re)design cycle (cf. table 5.3: Cummings, 1976/1978; Cummings & Srivastva, 1977;

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

98

Pasmore, 1988). The ETHICS method (Mumford & Weir, 1979) deserves separate. mention. This method was the first of its kind to support explicitly.Jhe design of information systems. '

Table 5.3 •

Outline of the development of STSD method

Whole cycle: problem definition, diagnosis, plan, intervention, evaluation: - strategyfor industrial change: '10 step method'

(Norwegian Industrial Democracy Project) Thorsrud, 1966; Emery & Thorsrud, 1976 -strategyfor implementation: '8 step method'

(all organizations) Cummings, 1976/1978; Cummings & Srivastva, 1977 - change model: '9 step method' (redesign situations) Pasmore, 1988 - IOR model: '17 step method' (all organizations) De Sitter et aL, 1990; Van Eijnatten et al., 1990/1992 • Problem definition and diagnosis: 'technical system analysis'

- traditional variance analysis: '10 step method'

(linear conversion processes) Engelstad, 1969 a/b; Engelstad et al., 1969 - analytical model A: '6 and 9 step method' *) (linear conversion processes - continuous process) Foster,

1967; Hill, 1971; Emery & Trist, 1978; Pasmore, 1988 *)

- analytical model B: 7 step method'

(nonmanufacturing systems - office/service processes) Foster, 1967; Hill, 1971; Emery & Trist, 1978 - deliberation analysis: '5 step method' (nonlinear technical systems) Pava, 1983 -sociotask approach: '17 propositions' (nonlinear systems) Pasmore et al., 1978 •

Diagnosis, plan for redesign and evaluation:

- ETHICS method: 7 step method' (computer system design) Mumford & Weir, 1979 •

Process of change: - participative design

(all organizations) Emery & Emery, 1974; Emery, 1974b/1976b - participative

design workshop

(all organizations) Emery & Thorsrud, 1976; Thorsrud, 1977

- search conference

(all organizations) Emery & Emery, 1974; Emery, M. 1982/1987 - the change process in innovative work designs

(all organizations) Kolodny & Sljemberg, 1986 -organizational change as a societal multi-level strategy

(all organizations and their industrial relations settings) Van Beinum, 1986 - large scale change process in broadly based societal context with democratic dialogue as vanguard

(all organizations) Gustavsen, 1985b/1988 •) also in Emery et aL (1967); Cummings (1976); Cummings & Srivastva (1977).

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

99

1. Boundary specification

2. Environmental demands

3. Purpose definition

SOCIAL ANALYSIS

1.

1. Role network 2. Social system grid

Variance matrix 2. Variance control table

1

3. QWL critena

IDEAL ORGANIZATIOl\

FEEDBACK PROBLEMS

CONSTRAINTS

IMPLE!\fENTATION

1. Planrung 3. Evaluation

2. Execution 4. Redesign

Figure 5.3 A schematic representation of the Classical STSD method. Taylor (1989), p. 28

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

100

HOLONIC PARTICIPATIVE

(RE)DESIGN ACTIVITIES

'· · :1.,._..,.;:·. .-·h:�:-:.,, . _,;:: . ,. _

PARTICIPATIVE

METHODS AND

KNOWLEDGE

METHODOLOGY

Figure 5.4 An analytical model for more integral organiza tional redesign ([OR approach) After: Van Eijnatten et al. (1988), p. 13 Van Eijnatten et al. (1990)_ p. 8 Van Eijnatten et al. (1992), p. 189

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

101

- At last, the process of change also received more and more atten­ tion (cf. table 5.3). Participative design w orkshops, search conferences and the change process itself, have been elaborated in methodical terms (cf. Emery & Emery, 1 9 74; Emery 1 9 74b / 1 9 76b; Emery, 1 9 82 / 1 9 87; Emery & Thorsrud, 1 9 76; Thorsrud, 1977a; Kolodny & Stjemberg, 1986; Van Beinum, 1986; Gustavsen, 1985b/ 1988). In an attempt to briefly summarize the method of Classical STSD, Taylor ( 1 9 89) developed a 'master procedure', which is represented in figure 5 . 3 . The separate place assigned to the analysis and design techniques can be clearly recognized here. Special attention is paid to the IOR model, developed in The Netherlands, to support Integral Organizational Renewal (De Sitter et al., 1990; Van Eijnatten et al., 1990/ 1992). This Modem STSD method further elaborates the issue of (re)design implementation logic. A multi-level model for more integral organizational (re)design is proposed, containing a mixture of (re)design ends, (re)design means and (re)design processes (cf. figure 5.4). Central in the model is the so called ' (re)design interface' that means the ends and processes are tied together and lead to the factual (re) design intervention. The model specifies three main entries to this (re) design interface: environmental, knowledgeable and methodol­ ogical. 0

o

0

The environmental entry is producing market requirements and functional claims to guide design ends for the (re)design inter­ vention. These claims are normative in character. The knowledgeable entry specifies theories, practices and concep­ tual organizational paradigms to deliver design means for the (re)design intervention. These content-theories are supportive in character. The methodological entry consists of action planning procedures and participative methods/techniques for (re)designing, in order to support the process of (re)design intervention.

Modem Dutch STSD method - here it is once again stressed - is a mixture of content and process: it contains both rules and procedures based on structural paradigms sprung from several key disciplines (including management science, industrial engineering and account­ ancy), and (re)design strategies based on participative methods and techniques within a regulatory action cycle framework. What is 'really new' in the contemporary Dutch STSD

102

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

method, is the re-introduction of a proper balance of an up-to-date structural system paradigm with participative process paradigm, explicitly stressing b'Q� content and process on the same advanced level. The resulting holonic participative (re)design activities are guided by the normative multiple environmental claims, which have been analyzed and given a concrete form. The model stresses the multi-level quality of organization (re)design: the interface problem must be simultaneously dealt with at the macro, meso and micro levels, in order to count for the actual complexity of the (re)design intervention. This Modern STSD method follows the five methodological steps of Van Strien's regulatory cycle. Each of those steps will be divided into smaller portions in such a way, that the method con. tains a total of 17 steps (cf. figure 5.5 and box 5.1). The new method not only emphasizes the micro level, but also incorporates the meso and macro level to guarantee an integrative approach. It also is explicitly participative in character: a (re)design team of organiza­ tional members is trained to do the self-design. The proposed method for Modern STSD, has been primarily developed as a practical tool, which can be used in (re)design projects. As previously stated, it is an intricate part of the Dutch STSD package, which also contains elaborated structural systems concepts, (re) design principles advocating more integration of aspects, and procedures supporting participative self-(re) design process. At first sight, the proposed method looks very much the same as its famous predecessor, the admired and abused 'nine-step method' (Foster, 1967; Emery & Trist, 1978). But at a closer look, one notices some striking differences: - The proposed method for Modern STSD, clearly maintains an iterative character (see figure 5.5). This is true for the cycle as a whole, as well as for the constituting phases. Therefore, in practice, each project can have an unique intrigate pattern of specific iterations of 'successive' steps and phases. In each stage, already available techniques and instruments can be used and may improve the efficiency of the distinguished steps. We have briefly listed some of these for illustrative purposes. Systems Analysis (SA) can support the problem identification and diag­ nostic phase. A Dutch steady-state system model (In 't Veld, 1 9 78; Van Eijnatt en, 1 9 8 7b ) g o v erns the des criptive and evaluative process on all the levels of aggregation (macro, meso, micro). Socio-Technical Process Analysis (STPA) and Socio-Tech-

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

A. Identification of core problems

l. Global strategic 1analysis I (Tn,.M"n l"v<>l'

-1

-

- - - - - - - -

-

- -

2. G!obal system's analysis

fTn� l"v"n -

t-

3. Identification of bottle-necks

�

-

-

103

J

-

- -

-

r--14

- - - -

4. Demarcation of system's

B. Diagnosis

-'5. Detailed strategic

analysis (macm !evel

'

- - C. Action Planning

f-'

6. Detailed system's analysis (meso/micro

r----:

- - -

-

�

-

7. Diagnosis and specification of

-

(re}design objectives (all levels)

I - - - -

-

- - - -

8. (Re)consideratio of the product

ldesi= 'i.

l'rod.uction lU. l'rod.uctio structure - structure (re}design (re)design

�

I (micro level)

(meso !even

(macro !even

t

14. Control structure (re)design (macro level)

l l1 . 1'r0Cluction structure (re)design

le-

13. Control structure (re)design (meso level)

�

re-

12. Control structure (re)design (micro level)

,�

' 15. (Re)design of the information structurE

- - - -

(all levels)

�

- -

-

- - - -

16. Implementation of the new structure (all levels)

- - -

-

..

-

-

- - - -

17. Evaluation of (re)design, checking of bottle-necks

Figure 5.5 A method for Modern STSD, Dutch IOR approach after: Van Eijnatten et al. (1990), p. 10 Van Eijnatten et al. (1992), p. 191

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

104

Box 5.1

Modern ·sTSD method: Dutch IOR approach •

'

A) Identification of the problem 1) Global Strategic Analysis

The first step comprises a global strategic analysis of the system at hand on a macro leveL At this stage it is important that the system boundaries are widely chosen, preferably on the level of what Kotler

(1988) has called

'strategic business unit' (p. 39). Basically a strategic business unit is a single business or collection of related

businesses that can be planned separately and, in principle, can stand alone from the rest of the company. It has its own competitors whlch it is trying to equal or surpass. For the selected strategic business unit a global

analysis has to be done with respect to environmental demands, and the consequences of these for the (re)design of the system. It is important during this stage to start specifyUtg the environmental demands in terms of market claims with respect to controllability, flexibility and quality of work. In the succeeding phases of the regulatory

cycle these functional claims serve as design objectives.

2) Global System Analysis The second step is a global system analysis of the business unit on a meso or departmental level, starting with a pure description and ending with an estimation of the current achlevement in already specified design objectives. The purpose of the description is to provide insiders as well as outsiders with a global picture of the

system, talcing in matters such as layout, organizational structure, main inputs, transformations and outputs. An

estimation of the current achlevement in design objectives can be made by analyzing if and how much the system conforms to the requirements of the design objectives as specified in the previous step.

3) Identification of Bottlenecks Contrasting the design objectives of step

1 with the current state of affairs in step 2, results in an inventory of

bottlenecks. Herewith phase A of the regulatory cycle is completed, Le. the problems are identified.

B) Diagnosis 4) Narrowing the System's Boundaries To start the diagnostic phase, the system's boundaries are demarcated. Accurately demarcating the boundaries is an important step. Too wide a boundary results in unnecessary extra work. Too narrow a boundary results in incorrect design choices. The boundaries should be chosen such that the (re)design can provide a solution for all

bottlenecks. Often this will require that the system chosen originally has to be (re)designed entirely.

5) Detailed Strategic Analysis Step 1 is repeated in detail for the demarcated system. The parts of the organization which may have been deleted from the original system are now considered to be additional parts of the environment Environmental demands and the design objectives belonging to them are to be recorded in as much detail as possible.

6) Detailed System Analysis

Now step 2 is repeated in detail for the demarcated system. A complete inventory has to be made of material and

information inputs, transformations and outputs. It has to be established how materials and informations flow through the organization.

All decision tasks have to be specified within the context of regulation loops. An

inventory has to be made of all norms and of all supportive tasks. With the help of all these data it has to be

established who performs what tasks. Finally a detailed description has to be made of layout, organizational structure and units, and product design.

_......continuation of box 5.1 on next page

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

105

continuation box 5.1 7) Diagnosis and Specification of (Re)Design Objectives

The data collected in step 6 are used to determine the exact causes of the bottlenecks specilied in step 3.

At this point the semi-autonomous (re)design team has detailed knowledge of the environmental

demands (step 5) and of the causes of current problems. These insights into the system can be used to detail the (re)design objectives even further. With this full description of the (re)design objectives the diagnostic phase is completed. Cl Action Planning 8) Reconsideration of the Product Design

A good, efficiently constructed product is of vital importance. In this step an attempt is made to reduce

the number of components of the product and to minimize the number of manufacturing steps, to prepare for easier making (design for production).

9-11) Planning the (Re)Design of the Production Structure The (re)design of the production structure has to be done on all levels, planned in a top-down sequence. To start the planning of the action process, first the macro level has to be (re)designed (step 9). Next the production structure on the meso level is prepared for (re)construction (step 10). Finally the micro level production organization is (re)structured (step 11). In general the (re)design team will parallelize on the macro level, segmentize on the meso level and build in operational fleXJ.bility on the micro level.

12-14) Planning the (Re)Design of the Decision and Control Structure The (re)design of the decision and control structure is also done on all levels, but in reverse order (bottom-up). Starting on the micro level (step 12), the planning of the (re)design is continued on the meso level (step 13). The (re)design of the decision and control structure is completed on the macro level (step 14). In general the (re)design team will allocate decision power as close as possible to the point where the problems originate. 15) Planning the (Re)Design of the Information Structure The (re)design of the information structure should not be started before the planning of the new production and control structure satisfactorily has been finished. How this can be done, is still the subject of study (Van Eijnatten & Loeffen, 1990). With this step the action planning phase is completed. D) Intervention 16) Implementing the Plans

This step has many facets. From a sociotechnical point of view this step contains the actual building up of the planned production and decision (i.e. control) structures and information systems, in close co-operation with users and specialists. E) Evaluation

17) Checlcing of Bottlenecks After implementing the new system, an evaluation has to take place in terms of the (re)design objectives. If discrepancies are found, adjustments have to be made by starting a new regulatory cycle. A training program to master modern STSD concepts, rules and procedures supports the (re)design team in the same way as used to occur in the participative design tradition. Training of process and content matter is seen as an essential condition for effective self-(re)design and organizational learning (De Sitter et al., 1990).

Van Eijnatten et al. (1990), p. 9-13 Van Eijnatten et al. (1992), p. 190-194

106

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

nical Task Analysis (STTA) can be used for task analysis at the micro level during diagnosis and evaluation (Van Eijnatten, 1985 /1986). Recen!ly, alternative Dutch task analysis instrumen­ tation has become'available (Pot et al., 1989a/b; Wisman & Van Eijnatten, 1992). Stream Analysis (Porras, 1987) may be a great advantage in identifying core problems during the diagnostic phase as well as in planning the (re)design actions and tracking the interventions in the action planning and intervention phase. Wha t is very useful in the action planning stage, is TIED analysis (Schumacher, 1975 / 1979 / 1983; Van Amelsvoort, 1987) . This (re)design technique governs segmentation of production flows, while controlling machine interaction, process interaction and interferences. A similar technique to plan the parallelization of factory /manufacturing flows is Group Technology (Burbidge, 1975/ 1979; Aguren & Edgren, 1980). Production Flow Analysis (Burbidge, 1975; De Witte, 1980) can be used to recognize routes of production flows in the planning phase. The Semi-Parallel Streams (SPS) design technique (Hoevenaars, 1991) is a recently developed IOR tool for parallelization of the production structure (cf. table 5.4 a/b). We want to stress here the importance of technical (re)design of the production process. Therefore, techni­ cal analysis has once again become vital in Modern STSD. But the analysis and redesign of the coordination and control structure are also placed high on the agenda. Van Amelsvoort (1 992a) developed a practical model for the redesign of the control structure in which responsibility is re-allocated to self-managing production and staff groups. Of course, the entire array of OD techniques are satisfactory supporters of the diagnostic, action planning and intervention stages in a regulatory design-oriented cycle, ranging from process consultation (Harvey & Brown, 1988) to user participation and quality circle techniques (Juran, 1978; Dewar, 1980) such as Pareto Analysis, Ishikawa's 'fishbone' and Brainstorming. Also Soft Systems Methodology (Checkland, 1979a/b/ 1990a/b) can be used by all parties to organize and manage the process in each stage of the regulatory cycle. - The proposed method for Modern STSD, basically promotes controllable organizations and democratic work structures at the same time. Although, for traditional sociotechnologists, there is something of a paradox in that statement, Dutch STSD is trying

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

Table 5.4a

107

The app lication of the Semi-Parallel S treams (SPS) technique: Diagnosis of the existing production structure prior to parallelization. Dutch IOR approach SPS technique

Ust of symbols:

unit operations:

production clusters:

product code numbers:

a, b, c, d, e, f, g

old: A, B, C; new: I, II

1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Main structural characteristics of the production situation: product

production

financial

reqyired sequence

Existing allocation of unit

code nr.

volume

interest

of unit operations

operations to production clusters:

1 2 3 4 5

20 50 30 40

300 100 250 350

c-f-a-d

400

.JQ.

total

150 (100%)

b-c-e-g

prod. cluster

a-c-g

allocated unit operations a-c-f

b-d-f-g

A B

b-d

a-b - e - f

C

e-g

1400 (100%)

Diagnosis of the existing production structure:

product

routing of products

code nr.

(specific cluster sequence)

1 2 3 4 5

A-B B-A-C A-C B-A-C A-B-C-A synopsis of existing production structure

Computation of slack accretion in control demands:

Number ofproducts interchanges between clusters: from

to

assortment

volume

fin.interesl

A A B B C

B C A C A

2 3 2 1

30 120 90 10

700 700 450

1..

jQ

total

9% (180%)

I 1

I

400 400

Computation of total amount of control demands:

Number of different products runs within clusters: cluster

A B C total

assortment volume

6 4 4 14 (280%)

160 120 130 410 (273%)

fin.interesl

1800 1150 1100 4050 (289%)

260 (173%) 2650 (189%)

Hoevenaars (1991), p. 36

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

108

Table 5.4b A schematic illustration of the use of the Semi-Parallel S treams (SPS) techn ique as applied to the elabora ted productiQn s tructure example of table 5.4a. Dutch IOR approach ' technique

SPS

Recapitulation of the existing production structure of table 5.4a:

number of djyisjble madrine capacitiesper unit o;u:ration· unit operation code:

a b c d e f g

number of divisible machine capacities

6 3 3 2 1 2 2

Required sequence of unit ooerations DUprodud: �ence ofunito.perations Product£OdeN. 1 2 3 4 5

Fir&t step in the panllelization process:

c - f- a - d b -c-e-g a-c-g b-d-f-g a-b-e-f

Tentative outcome of the fi:rst step in the paralleli.zation process:

sortins out of indiyisibltcapacities· unit operation e

regpiredunitoperationsWcluster:

products callini at unitQperation e· 2, 5 (new duster I)

new duster i : a - b - c - e - f - g new duster !I: a -b - c - d - f - g

products not tallini at unit operation e: 1, 3, 4 (new duster li)

Second step in the paralleli.zation process: . further anaIySJ,s of the d"stn 1 sters· 1 bution of thespecificnumber of product CilllS J?
operation

new duster I number of calls per unit operation for products 2 and 5

new duster ll number of calls per unit operation for products 1, 3 and 4

total number of calls per unit operation

1 2 1 0 2 1 1

2 1 2 2 0 2 2

3 3 3 2 2 3 3

a b c

d e f

g

Third step in the paralleli.zalion process: definite alloqtion ofunit operation per cluster: duster !: a - b - e - e duster !I: a - b - c - d- f- g

product code nr 1 2 3 4 5

selected distribution

of machine capacities for duster i/II 2/4 2/1 1/2 0/2 1/0 0/2 0/2

specific duster � 2 1 -2 2 2 1-2

synopsis of SI'S production structure redesign Computation of slack accretion in control demal'l.ds:

Numberofproducts in!ir<;hanges between new clusters: from to assortment volume fin-interest I ll 2 60 500

total

Achieved reduction of slac.k acaeti.on in control demands:

2(40%) W(40%)

40%) 200 (133%)

7 (1

S00(36%)

2150 (153%)

Computation of total amount of control demands: Number of different nroduc;ts runs within new dustm: duster assortment volume fin.interes· I 2 60 500

n

total Achieved reduction in total control demands:

�

J..5Q

WO

7 (140%) 210 (140%) 1900 (136%)

7 (140%) 200 (133%) 2150 (153%)

Hoevenaars (1991), p. 39

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

109

to find a proper balance between variety increasing measures like segmentation of flows constituting 'whole tasks' and variety decreasing measures like inputs selection by means of parallel­ ization of process flow. The argument is discussed in more detail in De Sitter et al. (1990) . - The proposed method for Modern STSD basically supports a multi-level approach. The parallelization of flows is advocated on the succeeding level than that where segmentation is carried out. Also, a strategic analysis of the system at the macro level, is actually stimulated to discover the environmental demands of the very near future. In this context, of course, there is acknowl­ edgement of the S earch Conference (Emery, M., 1989b) as a network approach for creating desirable futures under turbulent field conditions using 'vertical slices'. In The Netherlands, the STSD (re) design tradition is gaining momentum for creating con­ ditions where technological, social and organizational innovation go hand in hand. A series of more integral organizational renewal proj ects is being carried out along the theoretical and method(olog) ical lines of The A pproach to Flexible Productive Systems (AFPS) . - The proposed method for Modern STSD, is not necessarily linear in nature. The 'successive' steps do not insistently represent a pre­ scribed time order. They also can be used as a checklist to manage aspects interconnections. First of all, the order of steps are indica­ tive of available degrees of freedom for change. For instance, a change in production structure will urge major successive changes in control and information structure, w hile a chang e in information structure is not expected to have much affect on the production and control structure (see figure 5.5). The steps stress dependencies in the (re) design process. - The proposed method for Modern STSD, is of course, highly political in nature. A lthough, it must be stimulated that the different parties are using it as a connecting and integrative device, insufficient democratic control of that process can easily result in coalition formation. Also, there will be some sort of paradoxical self-selection process going on among firms, with respect to adoption. Because the method basically supports a democratic approach, organizations that have adopted it, sympathize or have invested in the type of change that Modern STSD intends to accomplish.

...... ...... Cl

'1"1

<>q:;:! · "'! "'

�

0'\

- - -

feedback function

r

input function

en �

...,

en �

CJ "' >{·

!:>..

?<:: .......

!:>.. "' V> <>q · ;:,: (") C) ;:,: ..... "' ;:,: .... -ti-

$

(") "' V>

ll>

.... .... .. (!) !"1 0 0

!G"

Cll ..!:!". (!) >-t

g. (!)

>-t OQ

.--.. ,__. \()

00

�

�

N 00 '1

"'! C)

I

,

�

,.

� "'

'1:1 ;::,

;::

!::>..

;·

V>

;:t

C) !:>..

"' � "'! (") C) ;:,: .... "' �

'"<::!

C) "'! :;::, "'! <>:::

. I

feedback function

proactive search (+) or reactive response (-) (affects long-term survival of the organization)

l

feedback function

shared vision (+) or encapsulation (-)

l

_

feedback functi'2!!....

learning strategy (+) or expert strategy (-)

l

function - feedback - -

;:;:. ;::, ....

- ·

everyday rationalizations (+) or resistance to change (-)

(affects management

(affects employee commitment

(affects ongoing

commitment and diffusion)

and system viability)

performance)

n � ;::,

�

!::>..

;:;:. "'

�

* '\::1 ii>

(") "'

Chapter Five - Epistemological and Methodological Foundations

5.6

111

STSD Practice and the Controversy Regarding Design Content versus Process

In the course of its development, the STSD paradigm has placed teetering importance on design content versus process: - During the period of Classical STSD, a great deal of emphasis had been put on the content of design principles. STSD practice was dominated by an expert approach. - During the period of Modem STSD, the accents had been placed more and more on the process of change. STSD practice was guided by a participative approach. The main reason for this change in design strategy, was the disappointing diffusion of the new work structures in the sixties. Although, the shift in approach is all but absolute in consecutive projects, it has significantly stagnated the additional development of design concepts. It was only in The Netherlands, that further designing of content principles flourished in the seventies (cf. paragraph 5 .4), minus apprehensibility from the international forum. In the seventies and eighties, both STSD content and process design approaches were repeatedly practised simulaneously (see chapter four), in rather distinct geographic areas (e.g., countries / continents), but seldomly resulting in a well-balanced combination. STSD modelling itself, prevented such endeavours for many years. In the mid eighties, the first 'mixed content/process models' became available to facilitate an integrative approach. Figure 5.6 shows Kolodny & Stjernberg's (1986) 'change process in innovative work designs' model.

Chapter Six

A Critical Ev�luation of the STSD Paradigm Table of Contents

6.1 Introduction 6.2 Constructive Criticism versus Widespread Pre-Judgements and Knowledge Gaps

6.3 Further Analysis of the STSD Paradigm 6.3.1 A Systematic Comparison of Development Tracks and Variants

6.3.2 A Tentative Classification of STSD Approaches ·

6.4 Starting the Debate 6.4.1 Methodological Renewal of the STSD Paradigm 6.4.2 Degree of Elaboration in Terms of an Open- ' Systems Approach

Page

112 113 116 116 124 129 129 132

6.4.3 A Further Examination of Basic concepts and Theory Formation

6.4.4 Some Closer Look at the Variance Control Matrix as a Method for Analysis and Design

6.4.5 A Concise Critique of STSD Practice

6.1

137 144 145

Introduction

In chapter six, a cautious beginning is macrerof the critical analysis and evaluation of the STSD paradigm, using the historical context and carefully evading the widespread pre-judgements _and knowledge gaps, caused by the use of secondary sources. Reviewing STSD metho dology, constructive criticism is put forward with respect to its basis, the open-systems approach, basic STSD concepts and analysis/ design methods. Also, a concise critique of STSD practice is provided. To rightly and fairly evaluate some 40 years of STSD theory and practice is no easy feat. It is, however, an easy job in comparison with the task of trying to do equal justice tothe various other authors who have also contributed to the field of STSD. No critique c an meet all th es e requir ements at the same time. Therefore, our contribution ought to be modest in every respect. This is not to say that this critical evaluation does not make a stand, because it does, although at the same time it avoids being too conservative or chauvinistic. The reader should bear in. mind, that the author, operating in a Dutch context, inevitably, is

Chapter Six - A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

113

unable to fully escape such biases.

6.2

Constructive Criticism versus Widespread Pre-Judgements and Knowledge Gaps

As mentioned in chapter two, based on the literature, three phases are distinguished: the Pioneering Phase of Tavisto ck, Classical STSD and Modem STSD. An important characteristic of these trajectories, is that in terms of time, they partially overlap. They are also illustrative of the discontinuous development of STSD in different countries and continents. Each development trajectory, more or less concerns specific concepts, individual methodologies and views. Constructive criticism should take into account the peculiarities of these distinctive phases. Our criticism of the STSD paradigm, in many respects, contradicts what has been previously written. According to Van Eijnatten et al. (1990 / 1 992), literature seems to provide only slow progress in system-theoretical, methodological and conceptual debates concerning what is generally known as core STSD. I t is more than likely that any of the following circumstances be held accountable for this: "STSD key publications have been highly dispersed in hetero­ geneous volumes and in exotic international journals, while a number of conceptual papers have never reached these media. Prolonged difficulties in obtaining such documents have urged authors to copy older or non-original sources, resulting in inaccurate or incomplete discussions of the subject matters; STSD literature is seldomly organized with respect to the para­ digmatic generations. Each author implicitly represents his/her country with its own idiosyncratic time schedule of STSD phases and specific mixture of conceptual developments. STSD lacks a universal approach; STSD paradigm is mainly strategy. Originally, it had been devel­ oped as a method, not as a theory. The STSD method can produce an entire array of concrete, highly situation-specific end results, which are not always reported as STSD-inspired endeavours. STSD has been strongly based on (a narrow version of) the open­ systems concept. Early design principles lacked appropriate con­ ceptual profoundness. As earlier stated, part of the problem

114

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

inevitably had to do with the severe immaturity of systems thinking that existed in the fifties and sixties. It was not until the seventies, tha't.. more b asic solutions were put forward. Paradoxically, these new insights have not been incidentally acquired by the STSD literature. During this same period, the STSD paradigm gradually shifted from an expert approach to participative process. Because of this, further development of more specific and accurate structural design concepts faded and moved farther and farther into the background." Van Eijnatten et al. (1990), p. 5-6 Van Eijnatten et al. (1992), p. 186 Due to these circumstances, potential supporters of the STSD paradigm find it hard to acquire untainted phase-specific knowl­ edge. But experienced practitioners are also often bogged down in polemic discussions about STSD's scientific status and methodology. Because primary sources are not easily attainable, and there is a lack of systematic handbooks or specialized sociotechnical journals, STSD knowledge is rather fragmented. Consequently, many knowl­ edge gaps exist among practitioners. The literature is full of 'small mistakes' that add up to a highly inappropriate body of knowl­ edge. Take for instance, the critical analysis by Kelly (1978). He 'discovered' some differences in emphasis in the search for theoreti­ cal explanations for the semi-autonomous work group phenomenon. According to Kelly, both Trist and Rice gave the work group a socio­ cultural basis by stressing the social organization of production and the local and industrial cultur e. Kelly wrote that Emery & Thorsrud (1964/ 1969), also supported by Davis (1957 / 1962), later turned away from this explicit viewpoint, in favour of a more individually-oriented task design, within a group context. But, he was wrong because he was not acquainted with the splitting of the Tavistock into the HRC and CASR, or the reasons for the split (per­ sonal communication with Emery, 1990) . Kelly's 'distortion' in Human Relations, up until this point, went uncorrected. Another instance can be found in the centrality of some STSD publications. Although, Herbst's (1962) "Autonomous Group Functioning ", provided an attempt to ground the STSD paradigm in a deductive way (Emery 1990, personal correspondence), it was unhelpful and misleading. Rice's ( 1 9 63 ) " E n terprise a n d Its Environment " was not the spearhead of Tavvy's work on STSD, as Kelly (1978) suggested, but only a sort of 'hang-fire' after the split.

Chapter Six

-

A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

115

As Emery wrote me, the same is true for Miller & Rice's (1967) " Systems of Organization ". Being a mere 'copy' of the Tavistock work on STSD, Katz & Kahn's (1966 / 1967/ 19 78) " The S o c ia l Psychology of Orga n iz a tions " was b y n o means an original contribution. It contained no new information, but was responsible for helping the introduction of Classical STSD in the United States. In attempting to 'de-mythologize' STSD while simultaneous­ ly putting it into the broader cultural context of social architecture, Van Beinum (personal communication, 1989) pays attention to the central points of confusion as summarized in the following three statements: - "Sociotechnical systems design is used as a tautology: all work organizations have the characteristics of some sociotechnical system, both those that function well and those that are ineffi­ cient. It is a tautology and, therefore, it makes no sense to state that work systems should be designed as sociotechnical systems; - The sociotechnical concept is used as a 'straw man', i.e., it is a metaphorical way of speaking. Sociotechnical systems thinking, is the core of a conceptual strategy. It is the method, where the aim is to map out the interdependencies between a social and a technical system; Tavistock never presented it as a theory. By elevating the sociotechnical metho d to a theory, and, sub­ sequently, labelling it a bad theory, one follows the disastrous route of non-argumentation with Don Quixote-like characteristics. In addition, one also discourages the use of a perfectly suitable method; - Sociotechnical systems design is used in such a way that it is given the meaning of 'misplaced concreteness'. STSD is correctly applied when the sociotechnical systems characteristics of work organizations are mapped out by means of STSD. That is to say, as a descriptive and analytical model that can be used for design purposes, in a much broader and different context. However, if the logic of sociotechnical analysis is identified with the lo gic dealing with organizational change, and as a result, it is used to understand and handle processes of organizational change and learning, one b ecomes the victim of the ' d eception of inappropriate concreteness'. This causes the most critical form of confusion, whereby two different realities are mixed up. The process of cultural change - the core of the radical conversion from the old to the new organizational paradigm - which is based on the design principle of 'redundancy of functions', can neither be merely understood, nor just be led by the sociotechnical systems

116

The Paradigm that Changed the

Work Place

way of thinking. This will inevitably lead to a form of 'social engineering', which implies that we reduce the subject to object. Despite our good intentions we then throw away the baby with the bath water. Van Beinum (1989), personal communication The above-stated misconceptions are described as simple ideal types. In reality, however, they occur in numerous com­ binations, variations and gradations. Throughout the course of time, the socio-technical way of thinking has developed into a subtle approach that extends far beyond the original method. Neverthe­ less, it does happen that the way of thinking, as described in the misconceptions, are inherent in the advanced design approach as assumptions (these are not visible at first sight) (Van Beinum, 1990a). As a means escaping from those delusions, and to set the stage for more balanced evaluations, a further analysis of STSD tracks and variants was made using the SSM-inspired framework that was developed in chapter two (cf. figure 2.1).

6.3 6.3.1

Further Analysis of the STSD Paradigm A Systematic Comparison of D evelopment Tracks and Variants

To enab le a rough comparison, the different STSD ap­ proaches were further analyzed as far as their applied purposeful conceptual holon and their purposeful human activity holon were concerned (cf. figure 6.1). In paragraph 6.3.2, we will refer to this distinction as content versus process of research. In each approach, the perceived problem situation and the domi­ nating world view will be specified. The results of the examination that are summarized in figure 6.2 to 6.6, are as follows: - The STSD Pioneering Phase (cf. figure 6.2) uses as its purposeful conceptual holon some earlier developed open-systems models and concepts from biology, logic and cybernetics (cf. table 3.1). As its normative design theory, it uses the composite work group as a successful theory of practice, destilled from the English mining studies. Originally, Tavistock used as its p urpo s efu l human activity holon action research-based rules o f thumb, aimed at work group and department level. This fabric developed later into the Classical STSD approach.

Chapter Six - A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

117

used in

systemic content of research/ enquiry purposeful conceptual holon

Figure 6.1

A SSM-inspired framework for a rough comparison of STSD approaches Dominant world view: not specified

used in

systemic process of research/enq purposeful human activity holon

- descriptive open-systems yields

model I - normative design theory I - models and concepts from other disciplines - composite work group

as theory of practice

Figure 6.2 A rough SSM-inspired analysis of the Pioneering Phase of STSD

118

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

- Classical STSD and North-American Consultancy (cf. figure 6.3), use as their purposeful conceptual holon, a further develop ed descriptive variant oi the original open-systems models from the above-mentioned disciplines (see paragraph 5.3), including a typ ology of different environments and the methodology of 'directive correlations' (see paragraph 5.2/5.4, and paragraph 3.2.3/3.2.4). As their normative design theory, they use task redesign principles (cf. box 3.4) to create semi-autonomous work groups, predominantly stressing the quality of work aspect. Classical STSD and North-American Consultancy use, as their purposeful human activity holon, an expert analysis and design methodology using the nine-step method, including the analysis of variances, and the joint optimization appr oach of b oth the · technical and social 'system' (see paragraph 6.4.3, and paragraph 3.2.4/3.3.3). Classical STSD and North-American Consultancy, define the problem situation at work group / department level (type 1, see paragraph 2.5 /4.5), while their dominant world view is Participative Democracy (see paragraph 1 .2). Dominant world view: parti.cipative democracy

- descriptive open-systems " elds

model II - normative design theory II - environment - social system - technical system - quality of work

typology - directive correlation - task redesign principles - semi-autonomous work group

Figure 6.3 A rough S SM-inspired analysis of Classical S TS D! North-American Consultancy

Chapter Six - A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

119

- Participative Design (cf. figure 6.4) uses, as its purposeful con­ ceptual holon, a further refined variant of the Classical STSD open-systems model, which is capable of supporting active adapt­ ive planning of desirable future scenarios (see paragraph 4.2.1). As its normative design theory, it uses the democratic organiz­ ational genotype, the general psychological requirements, the concept of self-managing groups and the redundancy of functions/ skills philosophy (see paragraph 4.2.2). Participative Design uses, as its purposeful human activity holon, a participative analy­ sis and self-design methodology accompanied by skills and process training (participative design workshop, multi-skilling table, development of a human resources workshop, skills training programme, search conference; see paragraph 4.2.2). Participative Design defines the problem situation at the work group, depart­ ment, enterprise and inter-organizational domain level (types 1 to 3, see paragraph 2.5), while its dominant world view is aimed at Participative Democracy (see paragraph 1 .2). Dominant world view: participative democracy

resources workshop - skills training programm �:;==±::==::::� ::; - descriptive - search conference open-systems model ill-A - normative design theory ill-A - PD open-systems model

- organizational genotypes - general psychological

- active adaptive planning - desirable

requirements (work values) - redundancy

futures

of functions I skills

Figure 6.4 A ro ugh S SM-inspired a n a ly s is of Modern S TS D , Variant A : Participative Design

120

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

- Integral Organizational R enewal (cf. figure 6.5) uses, as its purposeful conceptttal holon, a broad and integral PC! open-systems model, which has de,arly benefitted from new system-theoretical insights (see paragraph 4.3.1 and paragraph 5.4). As its norma­ tive design theory, it uses the balance model based on social inter­ action and aimed at the integral design of flexibility, control­ lability and quality of work, with interference and demands for control/control capacity being its main concepts, and whole task groups/operational groups being its main organs (see paragraph 4.3.2). Integral Organizational Renewal uses, as its purp oseful human activity holon, a participative integral organizational renovation methodology, supported by training courses (design strategies and rules, informed self-design including all aspects, at all levels, with all parties, parallelization and segmentation of the production structure, reduction of complexity, and control capacity built into every task; see paragraph 4.3.2/ 4.3.3). Integral Organizational Renewal defines the problem situation at the work group, department, and enterprise levels (types 1 and 2, see paragraph 2.5), while its dominant world view is aimed at the functional variant of Participative Democracy (see later in this paragraph and paragraph 6.4.2). - Democratic Dialogue (cf. figure 6.6) has not yet specified its purposeful conceptual holon as far as its systems model is concerned. It uses, as its normative design theory, a mixture of criteria for participation and some critical theory, and applies democratic dialogue, local theories and everyday language, as central concepts (see paragraph 4.4.2). Democratic Dialogue uses, as its p urposeful human activity holon, a participative development methodology and career training (development organization approach, dialogue conference method, restructuring of language/ communication, development phases/ cycle; see paragraph 4.4.3). Democratic Dialogue defines the perceived reality as complex meta-problem situations at inter-organizational domain level (type 3, see paragraph 2.5), while its dominant world view is Participative Democracy (see paragraph 1 .2). - An analysis of North-American Consultancy, principally follows the same lines as Classical STSD, although, this approach also combines elements of other variants, and by doing so, somewhat broadens its design theory and the perceived problem situation. We think it is worthwhile here to say something concerning Morgan's (1986) classification of STSD. Entirely based on STSD's descriptive holonic concept only, while disgarding its pivotal ana-

Chapter Six - A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

121

- design strategies and rules - informed self-design: including all aspects, at all levels, with all partie - parallelization/ segmentation of P - reduction of complexity

re..t:ta::::s=k±==::;"l

--' control capacity built in ev

- descriptive open-systems model ill-B - normative design theory ill-B - PCI-model

- interference

- Production structure - Control structure - Information structure

- integral design - controllability balance - whole task group - operational group

Figure 6.5 A ro ugh S SM-insp ired a n alysis of M o d e r n S TSD, Variant B: Integral Organizational Renewal lytical human activity holonic process, Morgan's (1986) classifica­ tion of STSD, as a systems approach using mainly a organism-kind of metaphor, is rather limited and, further, does not take into account, its explicit action research context. On the b asis of the SSM-inspired analysis, we can now make a rough comparison between the different STSD approaches, excluding the pioneering phase for centrality reasons: - With respect to the content of enquiry (purposeful conceptual holon), each approach has its own typical descriptive model and normative design theory. Open-systems models and concepts are clearly different, in terms of content, actually arousing consider­ able confusion of tongues. Also, the design concepts are highly approach-specific, although, all share the key construct of auton­ omous groups. - Regarding the pro cess of enquiry (purp os eful human activity holon), all approaches use some sort of training programme and a

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

122

"

Dominant world view: ..participative democracy

- development organization approach - dialogue conference method - restructuring of language/ communication - development phases/ cycle

yields - critical theory

not specified - democratic dialogue - criteria for participation - local theories - everyday language

Figure 6.6 A ro ugh S S M-insp ired a nalysis of Modern S TS D , Variant C : Democratic Dialogue specified (re) design method, although, the peculiarities are rather distinct and often only comparable on paper. Each ap­ proach uses a ideosyncratic methodology towards change, which is not easily understood by the respective adherents, or is increas­ ingly criticized as erroneous. - Looking at the several definitions of the problem situation, it should be noted that the approaches could be supplementary to each other. Participative Design covers the broadest range, but could still be extended with some aspects of the larger societal problem definitions of Democratic Dialogue and vice versa. Inte­ gral Organizational Renewal could also gain from Democratic Dialogue and the other way around. American Consultancy, could profit from all other approaches, and actually, is increasingly trying to do so. - Although, there are some differences in emphasis, conceptual arti­ culation and wording, all approaches share the dominant world view of Participative Democracy. This means, some proclamation of the paragon in which the preferred power relation is deline-

Chapter Six

-

A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

123

ated as symmetrical dependence between workers, supervisors and managers (cf. Emery, 1982). Emery (1977, p. 77) suggested the ideals of beauty, humanity, homonomy and nurturance are important ingredients of such a world view. He is also enumer­ ating the pattern of causal determination inducing the transition from the old to the new organizational paradigm (cf. figure 6.7). Emery (1989) states: "The critical problem is the introduction of a form of work organization that both demands and creates new skills for an obvious return in higher productivity" (p. 85).

democratization of work itself

commitment

multi-skilling

Figure 6.7 The pattern of causal determination which express the dominant world view of Participative Democracy. Emery (1989c), p. 90 Although, the Dutch approach of Integral Organizational Renewal is rejecting the pushing forward on any specific values or ideals as postulates, because they are constantly changing through social interaction, the declared reduction in the division of labour, actual­ ly serves the same function in that approach. Other authors have also tried to contrast the different (Modem) STSD approaches. We will elaborate on such attempts. Babiiroglu (1992) articulates that the development of STSD, as a paradigm, has been influenced by the systemic-pluralistic problem contexts that action res earchers have exp erienced. Although he is discriminating somewhat divergent tracks and variants, and is labeling them differently, his basic mapping out of STSD approaches is almost identical to ours. According to Babiiroglu (1991), in STSD's pioneering phase, "it was the development of the technical system that moved faster than the developments in the social system" (p. 42), whereas in Classical STSD/ Participative Design "it was the realization that social systems had to cope with turbulent environments produced by the increasing rate of change, uncertainty and the complexity of multi-directiona interdepen­ dencies between and within the social system and its environment" (p. 42-43). In regard to Democratic Dialogue, Babiiroglu (1991) stated that it has "emerged owing to the societal problems that were clearly outside the domain of one single organization" (p. 43). Inte-

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

124

gral Organizational Renewal was not mentioned .in his comparison attempt. As previously" mentioned (see, paragraph 2.5), Babiiroglu def.ined an additional type 4 perceived problem situation .in order to articulate the phenomenology of a stalemated social system that is embedded .in vortical environments (cf. Babiiroglu, 1988/1992). We did not mention type 4 .in our analysis of STSD tracks and variants. Babiiroglu affirmed that basically STSD is not applicable to pro­ blem situations, characterized by severe and prolonged, maladapt­ ive, response and contextual conflict portrayed by organizations under conditions of hyper-turbulence. He states: ·

"�t doesn't fit well with the Socio-Technical Systems Design (STSD) umbrella because adaptation in such contexts is fundamentally different ( ... ). The classical and modern STSD assumptions about adaptation fall apart under vortical conditions. When polarization defines the .interactional rules within stalemated social systems, it is impossible to resort to collaborative strategies that are supposed to enhance participation and democratic dialogue. When dogmatism reigns in the stakeholders' (true believers') minds, appreciation and learning are at best useless for creating conditions for self-regulation and s elf-mana g e ment. ( . . ) Adap tation strategy in v o rtical environments has to be twofold: 1) surrendering of power and control by the actors of the stalemated social system into neutral domains (assuming that such adaptive capacity is left in other contexts) and 2) the willingness, the readiness and the capability of the neutral domain to intervene in the situation ( ... ). The experiential world in vortical contexts is very much a post-modern world beyond the modern STSD variants ( ... )." .

Babiiroglu (1992), author's personal communication All key authors have tried to contrast their own approach with one or two significant others. A compilation of those attempts is shown in table 6.1. The four final aspects have been added by Karlsen (1 992). As can be seen in this table, each Modern STSD variant has developed its own typical approach as a reaction to Classical STSD.

6.3.2

A Tentative Classification of STSD Approaches

Van Beinum (1990a), presented a model for classification of organizations on the basis of democratic pr.inciples and values,

Classi
Participative Design

Integral Organizational Renewal

Demo cratic Dialogue

basic methodological

experimentally

diffusion

professionally

dialogue

orientation

oriented

oriented

oriented

oriented

Aspect

� <:r' �

?' ....., ;:t. 8

view on functional requirements: initial conditions

�

- relationships between

definition of zero point

future search

� ..... c;· ;:,:

production structure and control structure - relationships between

ongoing processes

� {J)

structure and problem definitions by inside and

0

outside interest 11:roups the logic of the (re) design project chief theoretical sources

linear socio-technical theoryI

socio-psychologicaI theoryI theory of

sell-generative

iterative learning

�

"'

interactive

�

learning open-systems model

the theory of integral

theory of

for diffusion/

open-systems design

partidpative

redundancy of

(sociotechnology)

democracy

organization

skills

the content of the

active adaptive

the functional

participation

solution

planning

requirements

process which creates

leading actors

few

vertical slice

at the start: the given

many

situational map

highly structured

moderately structured

procedure

big jump

stepwise

legitimacy

in

the solution centres of power

single enterprises

Vl

t:l

single enterprises/

single enterprises/

network/

clusters/network

clusters

dusters

human resource

institutional commit-

mobilization

ment (labour and

orientations

and employees

(labour and management)

management)

consultant/trainer

communicative

integral

loosely structured

expert

process facilitatorI anti-expert

problem definition

highly structured

moderately

;:::. s·

stepwise

between employers

research roles

�

stepwise implementation

high level of trust

management

if

minimally structured

relations

industrial

ti' � .....

the 11:iven structure of an integral concept

scope

;::: n .... . � V)• .....

n

ir

� .....

�

Vl

R· I

;:t.

n ;::!, .....

[

t"T1

g

;:: ;:::.

. c;.... ;:,: ·

�

if

Vl

� t:l

�

;::: ;::,.

�·

�

�.... 0

;:::.

if

{J)

structured

after: Gustavsen (1992), p. 7; De Sitter (1992), personal communication; Emery (1992), personal communication; Karlsen (1992), p. 6

,_.

�

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

126

expressed in both organizational structures and social processes (c.f. table 6.2). ·

'­

'

Table 6.2 A model for classification of organizations democratic values/principles expressed in SOCIAL PROCESS low

high

low

high

TYPE 4 social engineering

TYPE 2: participative democracy

TYPE 1: bureaucracy

TYPE 3: parochial democracy Van Beinum (1990a), p. 9

He distinguished four types of organization: 1. Bureaucracy: organization with nondemocratic structures and nondemocratic processes. 2. Participative Democracy: organization with democratic structures and democratic processes. 3. Parochial Democracy: organization with democratic processes, but with undemocratic structures. 4. Social Engineering: organization with democratic structures, but with undemocratic processes. On the basis of this categorization, Van Beinum identified type 2 as the new organizational paradigm, which he called 'Par­ ticipative Democracy'. A type 2 organization should be the ulti­ mate goal of S9cio-Technical Systems Design (STSD) . According to Van Beinum, types 1, 3 and 4 are merely alternative readings of the old organizational paradigm. This simple, but elegant model, can be used to classify the following four main STSD approaches:

Chapter Six - A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

127

a. Classical STSD: The STSD approach that was developed and used by Fred Emery, in Norway, in the sixties. b. Participative Design: The STSD approach that was developed and used by Fred and Merrelyn Emery, in Australia. This started in the seventies. c. Democratic Dialogue: The STSD approach that was developed and used by Bjorn Gustavsen, in Sweden. This began in the eighties. d. Integral Organizational Renewal: The STSD approach that was developed and used by Ulbo de Sitter, in The Netherlands. This originated in the eighties. Figure 6.8, summarizes the attempt to classify these main STSD approaches in terms of Van Beinum's model. Each approach is shown as a 'vector' in the two-dimension­ al space, spanned by the structural and process dimension. The nota­ tion suggests that the approaches are, so to speak, 'on the move'. In the course of their development, they move in a certain direction. As can be seen in figure 6.8, the Classical S TS D/No rth­ Am erican Consultancy approach created moderate, democratic structures (only on shopfloor and departmental level), and started as an external consultative or expert approach (democratic process is nearly absent), which gradually had changed in the direction of a more p articipa tive app roach (moderate internal democratic process). Figure 6.8, also illustrates that Participative Design started as a design approach with a moderate democratic process (organiz­ ational deep slice), and a minimal democratic structure (the 'little golden book' contains just the archetypes). In its course of develop­ ment, there was further improvement of the democratic process (PD­ workshop; Search Conference), but no additional guidance with respect to democratic structures (for instance design suggestions for supportive staff structures are absent). As can be determined from figure 6.8, the strong point of the Democratic Dialogue design approach, is its more than moderate democratic process (inter I intra-organizational network-oriented activities/ conferences), which is still improving, while the weak point can be found in its initial neglect of democratic structure. This weakness is recognized and accounted for. Figure 6.8, is also explicit in stating that In tegral Organiz­ ational Renewal approach is just the other way around. Strong in democratic structures (all sorts of suggestions on micro, meso and macro level), but initially weak in democratic process (expert-

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

128

driven developments and implementation). A more participative approach has been recently developed. "'

'

democratic structure

, �

INTEGRAL

=

ORG

TI NAL

� .

RENEW

DE SITTER

I

CLASSICAL STSD

.,.

I

NORTH-AMERICAN CONSULTANCY TRIST/EMERY

PARTICIPATIVE DESIGN

----

EMERY

democratic undemocratic ----t----1'process process

DEMOCRATIC DIALOGUE GUSTAVSEN

I

C}i

bureaucra

undemocratic structure

Figure 6.8 A tentative classification of main STSD approaches. Van Eijnatten (1992a) The developmental vectors of the first two approaches are exclusively located in the 'Participative Democracy' quadrant of Van Beinum's model: in a way, one can say that Classical STSD/ North-American Consultancy and Participative Design are pure Participative Democracy design approaches. But the length of their development vectors is restricted, which indicates that their devel­ opmental trajectories are limited.

Chapter Six

-

A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

129

The developmental vectors of the second two approaches are not exclusively located in the Participative Democracy quadrant. It seems plausible to state that Democratic Dialogue started from the Parochial Democracy quadrant, while Integral Organizational Renewal started from the Social Engineering quadrant. These approaches are, so to speak, not pure in their Participative Demo­ cracy origin, but that their developmental vectors are much longer and more sloped. This indicates that there is serious improvement, on both dimensions, towards ideal STSD. Of course, this is not an attempt to look for the best STSD approach. All of the approaches mentioned are well-established and highly valued in their own world context. This tentative classification is only made a·s a means to help clarify the positions of the authors that are being taken from the respective lines of developments for polemic discussions and scientific debate.

6.4

Starting the Debate

6.4.1

Methodological Renewal of the STSD Paradigm

Of course, it is impossible to present an exhaustive listing of all potential methodol ogical discussion items. Let's b egin b y deb ating t h e innovation issue. Pava ( 1 9 8 6 ) , c omplains that "methodologically, little has been developed beyond the conven­ tional 'nine-step method', forged by the pioneering efforts of Emery (1959 / 1977) and of Davis and Canter (1956), based on early change projects" (p . 202). But he is not exactly right. There has been significant methodological innovations outside the US, in the last two decades. Although, most problems concerning methodology and systems theory have already been solved, international diffusion is hampered by the fact that a majority of studies have been stated in their own national language. Take for instance, the Dutch approach of Integral Organizational Renewal of the firm. Almost twenty years of age now, the visibility in the international literature remains minimal despite the fact that its c ontribution to the methodological renewal of STSD has been quite significant. We shall illustrate: •

With respect to system-theoretical aspects, there have been two major developments. First, at the time that Ackoff & Emery ( 1 9 72) published ' On p u rposefu l system s ', De Sitter ( 1 9 73 ) presented a system-theoretical paradigm of social interaction in

130

•

•

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

which there is a systematical thorough definition of systems concep ts. Second,· In 't Veld (1 978) developed an elaborated analytical model of.. a steady-state system with equifinality, have also made it p o s sible to systematically differentiate between succeeding systems levels in an ordered way. Both contri­ butions can be characterized as 'empty cartridge' approaches, constituting some neutral system-theoretical framework on which the Classical STSD view can be more firmly based. With respect to methodological aspects, there also have been significant Dutch contributions. In an attempt to support the process of giving full scientific status to the action model, Van Strien (1 975) proposed the 'regulatory cycle of diagnostic and con­ sultative thinking'. This cycle contains five phases: identification of the problem, diagnosis, action planning, intervention and evaluation. The unique aspect here is not the action cycle as such, but rather, the epistemological and methodological treatment of action res earch as an equal alternativ e to the traditional scientific method (Van Strien, 1986). Central in it, is the 'theory of practice'. According to Van Strien (1975), "the view of science as a system of statements is making place for a view of science as a set of conceptual and methodological tools in approaching reality" (p . 6 0 1 ) . Mo d ern STSD interventions can b e methodologically treated a s theories of practice. On the basis of Van Strien's (1 986) regulatory cycle and Den Hertog's (1988) knowledge cycle, Van Eijnatten (1990c/ 1 992b) developed the so­ called 'basic scheme for design-oriented research', a tentative conceptual framework to describe the multi-cycled methodology of S TS D (cf. figure 6 . 9 ) . The action-b a s ed STSD kn owledge production always starts within companies/enterprises with the design of new practice (cf. box A in figure 6.9), eventually - if so required - supported by (process) consultancy (cf. box B in figure 6.9). Successful new practice can be seen as an N=1 local theory of practice that can be controlled in different settings and evaluated by research in order to try to generalize them to the middle-range theories of practice (cf. box C in figure 6.9). Those theories will be documented in the literature and communicated to practitioners and consultants (cf. box D in figure 6.9). With respect to design aspects in Holland, the last decade saw the widening of the Modern STSD paradigm, towards an integral approach, covering more relevant systems aspects (production, control, information), including different levels of aggregation (micro, meso and macro level in the organization and its relevant environment) and at the same time combining design content (inte-

Chapter Six - A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

c

131

Limited generalizing: from N=l to N=K

Knowledge faults Skill faults Selection faults

Local theory of

��� ��

� < S

�

t

r.IJ

��

�

�"" ""'-' " ""

�

�

e

�

�

�

0� �

� 0 � u

r.IJ -....

gz t(l

� r.IJ

5 52 6�

<2 �

A >u

� �m 5u �� f-<

.211

LITERATURE

u-r

D

gj < �

B

CJ

u

�

e::..

Figure 6.9 A schematic representation of developed ' temporary ' methodology: a basic scheme for design-oriented research Van Eijnatten & Hoevenaars (1989), p. 295; Van Eijnatten (1990c), p. 54; Van Eijnatten (1992b), p. 2

after:

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

132

gration of tasks in self-controlled organizational units) and process (training for self-design, participation, organizational learning). '-

Certainly, it is 'the individual researcher's own responsibility to present important findings to an international scientific forum. Paradoxically, despite the increasing international scientific networks, language barriers still prevent scholars from taking full notice of the work of colleagues for whom English is not their native language.

6.4.2

D egree of Elab oration in Terms of an Open-Systems Approach

Another Dutch contribution to the development of STSD, which helped in the breaking of new ground, was provided by Ulbo de Sitter. He was the first to formulate objections against the original paradigmatic elaboration of Classical STSD, both in terms of content and metho dology. The most important items of his fundamental criticism are briefly summarized in box 6.1.

Box 6.1

A summa ry of the most relevan t o bjections agains t the original foundations of Classical S TSD

"- The inadequacy of static structure concepts used. - The logical contradiction of sociological value and psychological need postulates proclaimed into axioms, which exclude one another. - The impossibility of the use of models that are partial in their cores at different aggregation levels, and as an extension, the impossibility to arrive at an integral approach. - The logical insolubility of a, once assumed to be unambiguous, relation between the form of behaviour and its function. - The impossibility to trace so-called 'operational disturbances' caused by processes obstructing each other, within a static, partial model."

Adapted from: De Sitter (1974a), p. 70-72 Source: Van Eijnatten (1985), p. 53 De Sitter's objections are concerned with, among other things, the original system-theoretical foundation of the paradigm and with its partial and static elaboration as socio-scientific ap­ proach in the area of the quality of work. Van der Zwaan (1970/ 1971 / 1 973b), also points to the lack and insufficient specificity of the definitions used. These should, in his view, be determined by the exchange axiom of social systems. In view of the minimum

Chapter Six

-

A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

133

availability of numerous 'Tavvi' documents, where Fred Emery, in particular, has performed a lot of significant conceptual digging, one may wonder whether all this criticism is justified. It is my con­ clusion that, even after having read these development papers and considering the directive correlations methodology, the above­ mentioned points of criticism does actually stand up to scrutiny. Let me elaborate upon two central points for illustration purposes. From The Netherlands, comes the reproach that (the American variant of) Classical STSD has used a partial problem definition, placing too much stress on the human conditions: "The ( ...) point of criticism concerns the theoretical elaboration on the open- system characteristic of production systems in traditional STSD. This principle implies that a production system cannot be autonomous in its choice with respect to technolo gy, industrial relations, social values, products and services because from all sides it is tied to time-dependent and changing, technological, political, cultural, economic and environmental conditions that govern the relationships between a system and its environment. It seems that traditional sociotechnical systems design has departed from this point of view by stressing the primary importance of the human conditions which production systems should meet: the 'Quality of Working Life'. It is this bias that has given a dominant branch in sociotechnical systems design the image of a specialism in the area of QWL and Industrial Democracy. As such, it had to base its identity in fulfilling a critical function, by contending that the quality of work is important and should no longer be kept in disregard. This rather unconditional stress on QWL cannot be recon­ ciled with a truly 'open' theory of systems. The theoretical problem is not to formulate a plea for a reshuffling of priorities, but to acquire insight into the manner in which structures impede or foster the b alance b etween a differenti ated set of fun ctions to b e performed. This implies that from a sociotechnical point o f view, functional requirements with respect to customers, the physical environment, the labour market, suppliers of capital, workers etc., should be regarded as functionally equivalent. So ciotechnical systems design should be as good in shortening delivery times and in designing effective information systems as in improving jobs. An open systems model presupposes a comprehensive or integral rather than partial problem definition. As a partial theory with respect to a partial set of functions, sociotechnical systems design would simply j oin the r ange of alre a dy too numerous managerial specialisations such as informatics, production technology, logistics,

134

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

auditing, maintenance, marketing, quality control and so on." De Sitter et al. (1990), p. 5-6 De Sitter's IOR approach uses an integral rather than a p artial problem definition. Consequently, IOR projects differ from most QWL programmes both in their focus on multi-level and multi­ aspect design of structure. Because IOR concepts are based on modem systems dynamics, they are able to facilitate an holistic view of organizations as socio-technical systems with a variety of output functions (e.g. economic, cultural, ecological, etc.). IOR lacks an explicit social science, multi-disciplinary background, as is the case in PD and DD. Instead, IOR developed from a management science, ·interdisciplinary background, that is not equivalent with 'social engineering' (cf. table 6.2) . IOR is similar to PD and DD, indeed aimed at Participative Democracy, although its process is different (see paragraph 8.4) . The second point of criticism concerns the original system­ theoretical foundation of the paradigm. From The Netherlands, comes the reproach that the system basis of (the American variant of) Classical STSD has not been adapted to new insights on time: "The ( . . . ) point of criticism concerns the definition of a socio­ technical system as a combination of social and technical 'systems' viewed as sub-systems [Emery, 1959; Trist, 1981]. A s an applied s cience, STSD holds the view that the approach to organizational (re)design must be an integral one: social as well as technical aspects are involved and insight into their mutual interdependence is the designer's key to strike a b alance between the two. In (social) systems theory, a system structure is defined in terms of relationships between sub-systems and aspect-systems and their couplings to the system's external structure. A sub-system is defined as the complete set of all functional relationships between a subset of system elements, and an aspect-system is defined as a subset of functional relationships between the complete set of elements. Thus, conceived as a sub-system, the social (sub-)system would contain all human elements (and their attributes such as attitudes, values and norms), and the technical (sub-)system would represent mostly human artifacts such as chairs, tables, telephones, ( . . . ), machines, buildings, and so on. Clearly, the relationships between elements grouped in such a manner are nominal. The conventional sociotechnical definition of the social and

Chapter Six

-

A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

135

technical 'systems' as sub-systems contradicts the notion of a produc­ tion system as an integral functional system. The relations that constitute a real production system are functional relationships in which matter, energy and time are involved. The separation of social and technical system-elements into sub-systems transform these functional relationships into nominal ones. Consequently, the concepts destroy the very object of analysis and impede rather than foster a comprehensive understanding of organizational dynamics. The twin concept of the social and technical system can also be used in a functional instead of nominal sense. In this instance the meaning is drastically changed. The nominal difference between subsets of 'social' and 'technical' elements are no longer used as the basic distinction, but the furictional difference between 'social' or 'technical' relationships between the same set of elements are used as the fundamental criterion. In regards to systems theory, social and technical systems, they would be conceived as aspect-systems. In principle, this redefinition would present the opportunity to view organizational dynamics as a set of interactive relationships between functionally differentiated processes within and between sub- and aspect-systems. In social systems theory, however, in each functional relationship, cognitive, as well as normative and technical dimensions would, of course, b e implied. This is so, because in order to 'close' an interaction cycle - whatever its function - three sets of correlated norms must be implied: cognitive (semantic) norms (in order to map a state of affairs), pragmatic norms (in order to attach value to cognitions), and technical norms (in order to make a choice of action b ased on insight into 'if ... then' relationships). Aspect-systems, as they come into being in the form of subsets of interactions engaged in the production of a specific input-output function, do not differ in this respect, as they always constitute a configuration of social (semantic and pragmatic) as well as tech­ nical (syntactical) functions. In other words, the choice for an integral approach implies that the focus should be on studying the manner in which a system 's

structure determines its capacity to select, develop, coordinate, reconcile and balance a multitude of input-output functions with respect to a multitude of interaction partners within and between systems in each of which cognitive as well as evaluative and technical dimensions are implied. " De Sitter et al. (1990), p . 6-7 One might wonder what sort of reactions this statement might elicit from the o ther main actors. In this respect, the

136

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

following is one that we received from Fred Emery: "The social 'elements;_ !people!) are organized in social systems and the technical elements into technical systems. 'The social elements' b ehave, the technical elements only act or interact. The laws governing technical elements 'are functional relationships in which matter, energy and time are involved': they are rate-dependent laws, the variables are epistemically dependent and they lead us to the integral, closed systems models for which we can thank Descartes, Newton and Laplace. The laws or 'rules' governing bio­ logicat psychological and sociological behaviors are time indepen­ dent and hence epistemically independent of the variables of matter, energy and time (Pattee, 1977; Sommerhoft 1950) . In the year 1950, Ashby was trying to sell us a cybernetic model that enabled feedback (and hence learning, adaptation, etc.) to be described in Skinnerian terms of physically defined stimuli, or messages, and responses. In Science (1950), Von Bertalanffy intro­ duced us to a pseudo-model of open systems (for which Prigogine would subsequently receive a Nobel) . That same year, Sommerhoff and Trist were grappling with the fact that we had to cope intel­ lectually with different, but coordinated levels. In 1954, Nicolas Rashevsky publicly renounced the strategy - that he himself, had pioneered - of trying to reduce biological phenomena to integral metrical models. In trying to revive this strategy, De Sitter and his mates are, to use a nautical phrase, pis sing up-wind; they are simply replaying a cracked recording. De Sitter's theory is a reversion to General Systems Theory and I think, I made clear, what I think of that, in the introductions to my Penguin collections, Systems Thinking (1969 /1981). It is not related to STSD and its development, except for representing what STSD rejected and sought to replace. It would certainly be mis­ leading to label it 'Modem STSD' as it has nothing to do with STSD, it is just straight industrial engineering systems theory. Of course, the concept of 'joint optimization' only becomes meaningful if one is studying the coupling of different kinds of systems. The coupling of unlike systems is inherently nonlinear but, as Sommerhoff has demonstrated, their study need not be less scientific, just different." Emery (1992), author's personal communication Even the unexperienced reader would notice the polemic potentials in these two statements. The positions taken are quite the opposite.

Chapter Six

-

A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

137

Although I have no intention to continue the debate at full length, I would like to stress here that I do not agree with Emery's assertion that IOR is basically a regression to the original ideals of GST (see also paragraph 8.3). I also reject the idea that IOR should not be viewed as Modern STSD. To me, IOR is just as central to Socio­ Technical Systems Design as PD or DD is. Let me quickly add that, although I think the above-quoted statements are quite helpful in clarifying the respective p ositions, it is more than likely the impression has been given that things are at a deadlock. I am also aware that - another negative side effect - sharp tongues might easily disturb the uninformed reader. Still; I will not attempt to resolve this dispute because behind these polemics there are huge fundamental differences in epistemology in the approaches of Emery, De Sitter and Gustavsen, that make it almost impossible to carry on any type of constructive dialogue. It is my opinion that this epistemological diversity speeds up rather than hinders the appreciation of STSD in different world contexts.

6.4.3

A Further Examination of B asic Concepts and Theory Formation

In the literature, most often STSD is associated with the early Tavistock pioneering work. Several authors have been criti­ cizing the initial conceptualizations that indeed suffer from the growing pains of systems thinking as they stood in the fifties and sixties. The conceptual roots of the traditional STSD paradigm lay in biology, cybernetics and neurophysiology (Litterer, 1963; Herbst, 1974a; Lilienfeld, 1978) . Although, epoch-making insights such as the open-system conception, steady state and equifinality (Von Bertalanffy, 1950), the law of Requisite Variety (Ashby, 1 958) and learning in random networks (Beurle, 1962) have had considerable impact on STSD scholars, an adequate translation and incorporation of these new concepts in early STSD models is problematic. In his commentary to the historical review by Trist (1981) Hackman (1981) has p ointed to the elusive character of STSD's basic notions. According to Van der Zwaan (1 975), generally, the definition of concepts is poor. Also, the system-theoretical model hasn't been worked out properly. For instance, the vital concept of 'steady state' is not very well elaborated. A main point of theoretical critique is that traditional STSD has not reached a satisfying level of matur­ ity. Conceptual clarity as well as coherence is especially criticized. Soci otechnical des ign principles have primarily b e en

138

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

borrowed from 'natural occurring field experiments'. Although, Chems (1976/1987} did try twice to summarize those principles, the resulting theory has never become a very coherent one. According to Kuipers and Rutte ( 1 9 8 7) , the principles haven't been clearly attributed to different kinds of organizational structure (production, control, preparation), while design application order has been totally neglected. Also, the scope of traditional STSD theory has been judged as being too narrow. In a ddition, conventional STSD is not as integral as it claims to be. According to Van der Zwaan (1975), traditional STSD has occupied itself almost exclusively with psychological needs, resulting in unacceptable reductionism with respect to the social aspect of the system. In addition, there is the ·controversy over technology and organizational structure. According to Van Dijck (1981), this concerns a tautology, because the system­ theoretically founded technology concept of traditional STSD includes some organizational-structural characteristics. In conceptual terms, there are more points of criticism, for example, Van der Zwaan's (1975) reproach regarding the fact that Classical STSD had refrained from giving a precise definition of central concepts. An analysis of norms, values and structure of the social system is also lacking. Finally (perhaps the reason for the first two statements), the available knowledge is too fragmented. It is his opinion that a good handbook on Classical STSD has never been published. One can ask if this criticism is justified. This is an anony­ mous version of Fred Emery's reply: "One would expect an upholder of either the Mechanist or Formist versions of General Systems Theory (GST) to feel uneasy with the imprecision, and apparent lack of logical rigour, that characterizes contextualist approaches such as STSD. Both of the former are analytical and the latter is synthetic. The dispersiveness of STSD would also conflict with the integrative aspirations of the Mech­ anist (Pepp er, 1 9 5 0 , p. 1 4 6 ) . Engineers tend to fav our the mechanistic version of GST; mathematicians the formist. I have no wish to leave the matter with this argument ad hominen. ( ... ) As a baseline reference I will take 'Some Character­ istics of Sociotechnical Systems (SCSTS)' (Emery, 1 959). Although, some commentators judge that 'a good manual for sociotechnical research workers has never appeared', this document has served this purpose for us. It was deliberately labelled 'Some characteris­ tics' because it was the first manual of its kind and much more

Chapter Six - A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

139

practical and theoretical work was obviously needed. It was, in fact, designed to elicit funds for such research from the DSIR (UK). 1. Industry or organization as system. The very first matter discussed in SCSTS, is why the enterprise is taken as the reference for STSD; not the industry, company nor organization. 'It has more of the connotation of an organization of men and materials about some human endeavour' (SCSTS, p. 38). We were concerned with the logic of sets of concrete systems i.e., with concrete logics (as we would now describe what we were trying to do); not with the formal logics of sets of abstract systems (see J.K. Feibleman, 'Assumptions of Grand Logics '). Commentators simply did not notice the critical choice that was being made about 'the unit of analysis' . They simply assumed that we were waffling because, as mechanists/formists, they 'knew' that all science has to do with abstract universals. 2. Commentators think that the first new point we are making is about 'openness'. They are not impressed. ( ... ) But it simply summarized the ways in which 'enterprises' had to sustain mutual interdependencies with their environments if they were to survive, or survive and grow. The document returns to this on pages 70-75. ( ... ) We were then, as now, grateful for Bertalanffy's demonstration (Science, 1950) that even thermodynamics had to go beyond closed systems dominated by the second law of thermodynamics. No more than that. In SCSTS, we were already going beyond the restrictions that Bertalanffy bequeathed to GST. Specifically, we were pointing to the fact that for enter­ prises, openness required us to specify the environment (soon to be labelled by me as the 122); we were not satisfied to simply take B ertalanffy ' s transport equations ( 1 1 2 & 1 2 1 ) as arbitrary givens. 3. Boundary conditions. ( . . . ) We had already broken out of the conceptual restrictions that had focused on boundaries as if they were similar to cell boundaries in physiology, or walls and fences in geography. We saw boundaries as defined, dynamically, by the set of processes 112 & 121; not by structural properties such as permeability or rigidity. We saw boundary control as explicitely involving new forms of interdependency with the 122, which was the other term of the mutual interdependency of system and environment. We did not see it as plugging holes in dykes, fixing fences or building fortress walls (all of which are just 1 1 2 activities). Some commentators missed this conceptual leap. 4. ( . . . ) Steady state. Would elaboration have helped? Commentators

140

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

read us as saying that 'The abstract definition of this is: that form of mutual dependence between system and environment that guarantees that the. potential energy to reach a goal is utilized to its maximum, despite changes in the environment'. I can never imagine writing a proposition like that, unless, maybe, I was describing a reflex-bormd system in a Type I environment. What we were postulating in saying that enterprises seek steady-state c onditions rather than equilibrium c onditions is that 'The enterprise seeks to establish and maintain those forms of interdependence that enable it to maximize its potential energy or capacity for work' (Emery, 1969). I can see a difference in these formulations. ( ... ) How non-concisely and non-vague does one have to define concepts so that critics can see the differences? ( .. . ) "

Emery (1992), author's personal communication The above-quoted criticisms once again clearly rmderline the thesis that any constructive debate between representatives of distinct STSD approaches is easily troubled by incompatible epistemologies, methodologies and world contexts. Perhaps it is better to accept pluralism as a basic characteristic of contemporary STSD. After a delay of more than 10 years, STSD spread to the United States. There, the sociotechnical approach was renamed 'Quality of Working Life' . In the seventies, this approach was used in a large number of North-American c ompanies (cf. Davis & Cherns, 1975; Taylor, 1990) . The problem with the poor availabil­ ity of STSD's basic papers and the specific characteristics of the blue and white collar consultancy environments abroad, urged North-American researchers to re-work/re-publish Classical STSD concepts for their own convenience (cf. Taylor, 1975/1989; Susman, 1976/ 1983; Cummings & Srivastva, 1977; Pasmore & Sherwood (Eds.), 1978; Davis & Taylor (Eds.), 1979; Pava, 1979 / 1983 / 1 985; Taylor & Asadorian, 1985; Pasmore, 1988). Unintentionally, their ambitions sometimes evolved into some conceptual ambiguity, prompting Pasmore et al. (1982) to state that STSD had become eclectic. Take for instance, the fundamental Classical STSD design principle of 'joint optimization' (Trist et al., 1963; Emery, 1963a). Shani & Elliott (1988) quoted their own lecture, in 1985, where they point to the variety of definitions North-American scholars devel­ oped with regard to this concept:

Chapter Six

-

A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

141

"Elliott, Shani and Hanna (1985) ( ) note that 'best-match' (Pava, 1983), 'best-fit' (Susman, 1975), and 'optimal alignment' (Golomb, 1981) are all used to describe ( .. ) that an organization will function optimally if the social and technological sub-systems are designed to fit the demands of each other and the environment. A closer examination of the constructs used, further revealed the influence of a variety of disciplines such that it somewhat alters this essence of the STSD theory and its focus." Shani & Elliott (1988), p. 54 ...

.

Technical Approaches

A

B

Organizational Approaches

PROCESS ALTERNATIVES

Figure 6.1 0 The concept of Joint Optimization. Results are best when the technical sys tem and s o cial system are join tly optimized Taylor & Asadorian (1985), p. 14 Chisholm (1988), p. 46 Taylor & Asadorian ( 1 985) defined 'joint optimization' most accurately, using the same terminology as Emery (1963a) and Emery & Thorsrud (1976) did, while visualizing the principle as a 'good­ ness of fit'-approach regarding process alternatives (cf. figure 6.10).

142

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Obviously, in the US, at that time the Dutch novelty of the basic STSD aspect-systems of production and control structure was not known (see paragraph �.3.2). Communication and language barriers apparently prevented the unhindered flow of new ideas, resulting anno 1985, in a dated North-American Classical STSD approach. The Dutch criticism - although from a different world context - is straightforward and at the same time cautiously spelled out: "The 'best match' approach toward 'joint optimization' of the social and technical system in traditional STSD contradicts both the concepts of an open and integral system. The openness of the system refers to its external structure. The focus here, is on the problem of adaptive and innovative control and balanced coordination of a multitude of separate external functions (better: input-output transactions or transformations), where each function contains social as well as technical dimensions. The integral character of the system refers to its internal structure. Here the focus is on the problem of adaptive and innovative control and balanced coordination of the relationship b etween e xternal func tions and a multitude of functionally differentiated internal functions, where, again, each function contains social as well as normative and technical dimensions. In the 'best match' approach, however, apart from being unclear as to how the supposed social and technical system should be conceived, the problem of compatibility is treated as a matter of counting pluses and minuses attached to alternative partial designs of separate social and technical aspect-systems. You cannot design a whole starting with the parts, but you can design (integral) parts starting from a vision of the whole." De Sitter et al. (1990), p. 7 The above-mentioned criticism primarily deals with the theor­ etical elaboration of integral design in Classical/North-American STSD. In practice there is much less reluctance about employing the operational design procedure of weighting differentially distinct process alternatives using various criteria including production­ technical and human-resource considerations, provided that the major design sequence rules are respected. Once again in the history of STSD, it is not practice but theory that stays behind. Other authors also have pointed to the absence of epoch­ making conceptual developments in the US. Evaluating the (North­ American) STSD paradigm, Pava ( 1 9 8 6) c o mplains that the sociotechnical systems design approach is decaying. The concepts,

Chapter Six - A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

143

that at one time were considered revolutionary, have now become 'old-fashioned' . But evidently, also Pava is not referring to the modernization of systems concepts and to the: inauguration of alternative Modern STSD tracks. Box 6.2, illustrates how far apart traditional STSD concepts are from contemporary ones. The socio-

Box 6.2

The most relevant differences in terms of content between the mainstream approach and the Dutch variant of STSD SOI'vfE CONCEPTIIAL DIFFERENCES TRADIDONAL STSD

DUTCH STSD

definition of system

social system (5)

production structure

components (aspect-

technical system

(T)

systems) main (re)design

control structure (C)

(P)

information structure quality of work (partial improvements)

objective(s)

flexibility controllability

(I)

(integral renewal)

quality of work (re)design scope/

work groups

total organization

aggregation

micro

micro-meso

level of intervention basic concepts

open system

integral design

responsible autonomy

controllability

self-regulation

interference control capacity

main (re)design principles

minimum critical specification

redundancy of functions

requisite variety

parallelization of P

segmentation of P

unity of time, location and action (C)

(C)

incompletion

uncoupled control cycles whenever possible

human values

control capacity built in every task

main (re)design

reaching the 'best match' between

reduction of complexity by obtaining a balance

strategies

technology and organization

between required variation and available

(ideal of joint optimization)

opportunities for process variation, both

by using:

brought back to acceptable minimum levels,

- search conference - 9-step method (variance control)

advocating informed self-design: - including all aspects

- participant design

- at all levels - with all parties

form of work

semi-autonomous work group

whole-task group

organization

discretionary coalitions

semi-autonomous work group

(self·regulating

operational group

units)

result-responsible unit business unit

De Sitter et al. (1990), p. 27 sociotechnical message still remains the same, but the theory of concepts have changed dramatically over the course of time.

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

144

6.4.4

Some Closer Look at the Variance Control Matrix as a Method for Analysis and Design \.

'

Considering the different steps in the methodological 'regulatory cycle', the separation of the analytical and design models in Classical STSD is problematic. This point focuses on the improper use of the Variance Control Matrix for redesign purposes. As De Sitter et al. (1990) underline, an analysis of disturbance sources coupled to disturbance controllers is only useful to explain the operation of the existing architecture of the production system, but is absolutely unsuitable for giving shape to a renewed structure, since it is organized in a totally different manner: " Conceptually nested within the wrongly assumed 'technical subsystem', traditional STSD relies almost exclusively on variance control as both an analysis and design technique (Emery & Thorsrud, 1969; Pava, 1983; Pasmore, 1988). Because there is no clear distinction/procedural separation between the analytical and action models (Van der Zwaan, 1970), variance analysis activities carried out in the diagnostic phase are easily contaminated with variance control activities in the (re)design phase, making it very unlikely or even impossible to actually change the interaction of the system, with the environment. We would like to stress that, in our opinion, the Variance Control Matrix [Engelstad, 1970; Hill, 1971] as used in STSD projects, can only be used as an inventory of prevailing types of variance or disturbance in a current architecture in order to analyse how system members try to cope with such variance and with what results. The next step should be to explain recurring variance by relating it to the specific 'architectural' characteristics of the pre­ vailing structure. Redesign, however, cannot be based on current variance displayed in the matrix, but only on insight into the quantity and quality of variance in a future architecture of structure and the expected emergent opportunities to improve variance control. The designers' goal should be to design an architecture of structure sustaining and reinforcing the development of interactive relationships that support and reinforce each other with respect to all functional requirements such as flexibility, delivery time, throughput time, product quality, innovative capacity, pollution control, quality of work and industrial relations. Modem STSD can only open new perspectives by fulfilling a truly comprehensive function with respect to the question of how sets of differentiated and purposive functions can be grouped and

Chapter Six

-

A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

145

coupled into an organizational structure in such a manner that they mutually sustain and reinforce each other." De Sitter et al. (1990), p. 7 6.4.5

A Concise Critique of STSD Practice

Now, what exactly are the results of the 'normal research' period of STSD? In order to answer this question we had another look at the literature, particularly, the voluminous review of Pasmore et al. (1 982), which encompasses some 134 sociotechnical experiments until 1980, including the projects evaluated earlier by Friedlander & Brown ( 1 9 74 ) , Srivastva et al. ( 1 9 75 ) , T aylor (1977a/b), and Walton (1979). The results are summarized in Figure 6.11. - Although, the design criteria listed in Figure 6 . 1 1 are usually applied in specific combinations, it clearly illustrates that the formation of semi-autonomous groups and the induction of employees to new tasks are most popular in the 134 projects examined. An important point of criticism is, therefore, that despite the ideal of 'organizational choice' it is remarkable how often the 'one best way' solution of the semi-autonomous group is turned to in a ctual practice. Pava ( 1983) is one of the few exceptions here. In particular, the automatism with which this happened time and again, sparked off a great deal of criticism from b oth the inside ( cf. K elly, 1 9 7 8 ) and the outside ( cf. Hackman, 1981). The sociotechnical type of organization is thus given the character of a 'trick', a 'deus ex machina', an 'off-the­ shelf' solution (Pava, 1986). - Another aspect coming to the fore in Pasmore's et al. (1982) study, is that almost exclusively successful projects are reported in the literature, making mention only of those output indicators that had shown improvements. However, more than half of the studies that mention improvements regarding all output indicators evaluated (productivity, costs, absenteeism, employee turnover, attitudes, safety, and quality), introduced the semi-autonomous group as form of organization. . - In this connection, Wall et al. (1986), observed that few of the research designs applied allow for causal deductions and that the research designs cover too limited a time span. A longitudinal study performed by the authors as mentioned above, showed that at the micro level the formation of autonomous work groups in a

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

146

greenfield situatiop. has a very specific effect on the behaviour and attitudes of colleagues. Although, intrinsic satisfaction increases, intrinsic woFk motivation, performance and attitudes do not show a noticeable increase! The a dvantages were said to concentrate one-sidedly on organizational level. Kelly (1978), more or less shares this view when he states that the principle of 'joint optimization' at Tavistock led to more intensifie d labour more than once. Rather than adapting the technical system, the social system was changed one-sidedly, which eventually resulted in a heavier work load and higher work pace. In their review of

% studies using this feature

1

2

3

4

5

6

1 Autonomous Groups (53%) 2 Technical Skill Development (40%) 3 Action Group (22%) 4 Change Reward System (21 %) 5. Self-inspection of Quality (16%) 6 Technological Change (1 6%) 7 Non-rating Teams (1 6%) 8 Facilitative Leadership (14%) 9 Operators Perform Maintenance (12%)

Figure 6.1 1

7

8

9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

10 Minimum Critical Specifica­ tion (9%) 11 Performance Feedback (9%) 12 Interface with Customers (9%) 13 Self-Supply (8%) 14 Iniormation Sharing (7%) 15 16 17 18

Group Selection of Peers (6%) Status Equalization (4%) Pay for Knowledge (4%) Peer Review (3%)

The use of 1 8 sociotechnical (re)design criteria i n 134 reported projects. Pasmore et al. (1982), pp. 1 1 92/1 1 93 (This figure has been integrally borrowed from Pasmore, 1988, p. 1 04)

Chapter Six

-

A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

147

30 years, STSD Pasmore et al. (1 982), also draw the conclusion that on balance only little was contributed to technological inno­ vation. As Figure 6 . 1 1 shows, only 21 out of the 134 studies examined, made mention of changes in the technical system. Thus, machine design and process layout were apparently considered - in spite of all good intentions unchangeable much more often than was to be assumed on the b asis of the socio-technical design philosophy. The Volvo Kalmar plant is probably one of the few really favourable exceptions here. - Moreover, according to Kelly (1978), a large number of sociotech­ nical projects involve an increase in financial remuneration. In his view, observed improvements might be attributed especially to this. The study by Pasmore et al. (1982), provides some insight into the actual use .of wage increases, at least, insofar as this aspect was reported. Looking at Figure 6 . 1 1 , we see that Kelly's ob­ servation should be put somewhat in perspective: in only 22% of the successful studies the remuneration system altered. - Finally, we would like to point to the methodology used in the projects, which was, of course, much criticised. According to Cummings et al. (1977), sociotechnical studies generally score badly in regard to internal and external validity. The necessity to operate in field situations with the associated restrictions, undoubtedly, is to blame for this. However, this point of criticism should also be given a broader perspective. Already in the early sixties, 'hard' field experiments were being carried out in The Netherlands, complete with experimental and control groups as well as pre and post-measurements (cf. Van Beinum, 1963; Van Beinum et al., 1968). Nevertheless, quasi-experimental designs (Campbell & Stanley, 1966; Cook & Campbell, 1976) could be applied more often. Although, this is sometimes in contrast with the objective of organizational change, Cummings et al. (1977) , provide some suggestions to improve on the research itself: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

"Assess whether and t o what extent the treatment took effect; Use multiple measures where possible; Use unobtrusive measures where possible; Seek to avoid changes in instrumentation; Where the selection of experimental and control groups on a random basis is not possible, the use of a control group - even an unmatched or non-equivalent control group - represents a considerable improvement in design; 6. Avoid bias in the choice of groups, and, especially, avoid the selection of experimental or control groups because they

148

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

manifest some characteristic to an unusual degree; Use statisticat tests in order to eliminate the threat from instability; ", 8. Collect time series data; 9. Protect the experiment; 10. Record all occurrences and circumstances that might reasonably be expected to pose a threat to internal and external validity, or would otherwise qualify the findings." 7.

Cummings et al. (1977), p. 703-706 However, since sociotechnical research is operating at the crossroads of different parties of interests, as pointed out above, the question remains whether scientific interest of thoroughness and well­ considered choice - as put forward in points 2 through 8 always and completely corresponds with the various practical business interests. The first quantitative evaluation study concerning the effects of STSD interventions has been published by Beekun (1989). He carried out a meta- analysis on 17 Classical STSD studies from the Pasmore et al. (1982) review. He developed seven so-called 'contingency hypotheses' (cf. box 6.3) and tested them using the original statistical data that he converted into a common metric. Outcomes have been categorized as related to two measures of effectiveness: 'productivity' (changes in the volume of output, costs of input, and quality and skills required) and 'escape behavior' (changes in turnover, absenteeism and tardiness). As box 6.3 shows, most hypotheses were confirmed. With the assertion that most STSD failures are underreported, Beekun (1989), concluded: "These estimates are important because they support most of the claims that STSD rese archers have b een making for three decades concerning the beneficial nature of this organizational redesign strategy" (p. 893). With respect to the Modern STSD variants, such evaluation studies are lacking. As is argued in chapter four, the documentation of PD and !OR projects is poor and does not allow for any quanti­ tative analysis. In the case of DD, a qualitative evaluation study was being conducted at the time this manuscript was undergoing completion (cf. Naschold et al., 1992). -

Chapter Six

Box 6.3

1.

-

A Critical Evaluation of the STSD Paradigm

B eeku n 's (1 9 89) meta-analy s is of the effectiveness of Classical STSD interventions

Research hypothesis

Research outcome

Sociotechnical interventions involving autonomous

Fully confirmed

work groups (a) will be more effective than socio­ technical interventions involving non-autonomous

(a) showed 38% more productivity than (b) (a) showed 35% less improvement in escape behaviour than (b)

work groups (b)

2.

3.

149

Sociotechnical interventions involving technological changes (c) in conjunction with social systems changes will be more effective than

Rejected (d) showed 160% more productivity than (c)

sociotechnical interventions involving no technological changes (d)

(d) showed 42% less escape behaviour than

Sociotechnical interventions involving a change in pay (e) will be more effective than sociotechnical

Partly confirmed (e) showed 67% more productive than (f)

(c)

interventions involving no change in pay (f)

(e) showed 56% less decrease in escape behaviour than (f)

4.1

The longer the duration of the intervention, the less effective the sociotechnical intervention

Confirmed only for productivity first 2.5 years (linear work), later trend reversal

4.2

The duration of a sociotechnical intervention will not affect organizational effectiveness

Confirmed only for escape behaviour

Sociotechnical interventions taking place in a blue­ collar work setting (g) will be more effective than

Rejected

5.

sociotechnical interventions taking place in a white-collar work setting (h)

6.1

Sociotechnical interventions involving a large number of employees

6.2

(i) will be more effective

than sociotechnical interventions involving a small number of employees Gl

Sociotechnical interventions involving a small number of employees Gl will be more effective than

Rejected

Confirmed for productivity Gl up to 40 employees

sociotechnical interventions involving a large number of employees (i)

7.

The effectiveness of sociotechnical interventions will vary as a function of cross-olltural differences

Confirmed

Beekun (1989), p. 880-882/p. 890-893

Chapter Seven

The Future of the S ocio-Technical S ys tems

Design Paradigm "

'

Socio-Technical Systems Design (STSD), is now more than 40 years old. During its four decades of existence, the paradigm has developed from a coincidental rediscovery of a flexible form of work organization in a British coal mine, into an integral alternative to Taylorism. The open system and self-regulation are its key concepts. In the course of its existence, the sociotechnical approach has been rejuvenated and renewed time and time again: - In Tavistock's pioneering phase, the mine studies were globally

founded, in theoretical terms, with a hybrid system of concepts that were derived from the rapidly emerging revolutionary systems approach. - In the period of Classical STSD, these conceptualizations were expanded, adjusted in more detail in terms of content, made logically consistent, and founded in method(olog)ical terms. - During the period of Modern STSD, models and methods were brought into line with developments in systems do-it-yourself method, and directed to the formation of inter-organizational networks and integral production renewal. However, despite these external metamorphoses, the ultimate objective of STSD was never lost; the integration of aspects was, and still is, of paramount importance. This integration thinking will continue to b e prevalent in the future. But what are the chances for STSD in the nineties? Van Beinum (1990b), predicts a shift from sociotechnical to socio-ecological design. The organization plus its environment will be b oth obj ect and obj ective of change. In Sweden, the LOM programme (see paragraph 4.4) is possibly the forerunner of such an approach. De Sitter ( 1 990, personal communication), speaks of a similar development. He points to pollution control as a relevant new function demand for the integral design of production organiz­ ations, and to the integration of the information aspect (cf. Van Eijnatten & Loeffen, 1990; Loeffen, 1991b). Emery (1990), foresees that the next phase in STSD, as

Chapter Seven - The Future of the Socio-Technical Systems Design Paradigm

151

being concerned "with the development of organizational forms for the managing of self-managing groups" (personal communication, p. 6-7). He also suggests that middle managers should "plan their own department's work over a much larger time span" (cf. Emery, 1989d, p. 3). He foresees new prospects for management by objectives (cf. Emery, 1990, p. 2), suggesting explicitly that the setting of three to seven negotiable obj ectives, precisely defined and objectively assessed, while serving hierarchically-ordered operational, mana­ gerial and corporative functions: "At the higher levels of manage­ ment more obj ectives may need to be spelt out but if they are organized in levels, e.g., with respect to time span, there need be no more than seven at any level" (Emery, 1990, p. 3). If Emery is right, the Dutch Mo dern STSD variant of Integral Org aniz ational Renewal (IOR) is a serious candidate for, and could get win the race in the fourth-milestone contest. Dutch experiments with the setting of goals by self-man­ aging groups, using the American Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System (ProMES) (cf. Pritchard, 1990; Pritchard et al., 1988/ 1989), are promising (cf. Van Tuijl, 1992; Kleingeld & Van Tuijl, 1992; Pleij, 1992) . Also, the creation of operational groups as self­ managing teams composed of both decentralized staff members and line managers, are put into practice in The Netherlands (cf. Van Amelsvoort, 1992a). New accounting systems have been introduced that provide a focus towards the decentralized c ontrol of the primary process of the organization (cf. Boons et al., 1992; Roberts e t al., 1991b /c; Kunst & Roberts, 1990; Den Hertog & Roberts, 1990) . Over a six-year period, Roberts carried out pioneering case study research in three Dutch firms (Van Nelle Tobacco, Rotterdam; Zilv erstad Silversmithing, S cho onhoven; St. Antonius Vessel­ Heads, Maasbracht) to study in depth STSD based, decentralized and participative management accounting systems (cf. Roberts, 1993), using a grounded theory approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). On the basis of grounded analyses and cross-case comparisons, he concluded that the STSD based accounting systems studies were primarily simple administrations based on simple organizations, which design procedure shares equal logics as the Dutch IOR variant of STSD. He also stipulated a supportive role of manage­ ment accounting in order to actually stimulate organizations to learn and to continue learning. According to Roberts (1993), STSD based accounting systems have a number of common elements in common: 1 . Usual textbook accounting instruments are used in different ways: Cost standards are applied for local control by task groups who

152

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

set their own standards. 2. Accounting information is primarily available for communicative purposes (for ins�ce the state of work transfers between task groups at a transfer price). 3. Control information supply is carefully tuned to the level of the respective task groups (disaggregation). 4. N onfinancial information ( t echnic al, quality, time-based production data, etc.) i s actually integrated in the STSD based management accounting system at the task group level. 5. The management accounting system elements are constantly tuned to (changes in) the organizational design. 6. STSD based management accounting systems clearly allows the tracing of costs because of the transparent organization. Also in other organizational areas IOR based systems are being developed: New personnel policy and management, and career development systems are being set up (cf. Van Sluijs et al., 1990/1991; Den Hertog et al., 1991; Van Sluijs & Van Terwisga, 1991). Also, product and process innovation are on the research agenda (cf. Cobbenhagen et al., 1990; Cobb enhagen & Van Reeken, 1 9 9 0 ; Cobbenhagen et al., 1991a /b; Van Eijnatten & Simonse, 1993) a s well as labour relations (cf. Dankbaar, 1991; Buitelaar, 1991; Dankbaar et al., 1991). The sociotechnical paradigm is indeed becoming a full­ scale alternative to Taylorism. Babtiroglu (1991), following Trist, displayed a rather pessi­ mistic vision about the next phase of STSD. Based on his addition­ al distinction of a 'vortical environment' as a fifth category to the original Emery & Trist (1965) typology (cf. Babiiroglu, 1988; see paragraph 3.3.4), he predicts an almost apocalyptic situation in which social systems act like closed systems (see paragraph 6.3.1). Because of inappropriate results in developing successful exchange relationships with turbulent environments, organizations find themselves stuck in a situation of hyper-turbulence (cf. McCann & Selsky, 1 9 84) . According to Babiiroglu (1991): "The maladaptive responses to turbulent environments that rigidify all of the self-regu­ lating, self-governing, self-managing, self-planning and self-learning capabilities of social systems are represented by stalemate, polariz­ ation and dogmatism" (p. 29). If this prognosis is true, the STSD paradigm is bound to decease. According to Trist (1985), however, one could avoid the occurrence of hyper-turbulence. He referred to this as 'action learning'. This is a combination of self-design, self­ regulation and eo-production, actively and intentionally created by all those participants concerned. Action learning is of utmost

Chapter Seven - The Future of the Socio-Technical Systems Design Paradigm

153

imp ortance in agenda themes Morley and Wright ( 1 9 8 9 ) , distinguished on the basis of a thorough analysis of Trist's complete works. Lo oking towards the future, Morley and Wright (1989), predict a transition to 'contextual environments' (p.272). Meanwhile, the complexity and unpredictability of the environment in many instances do take on 'turbulent' forms. At the same time, the new Swedish Volvo plant of Uddevalla has had to stop experiments with full parallelization of the production process of the Volvo 740, in which self-managing workplace teams (each with 10 members of varied age and gender) assemble a complete passenger car (learning time: one year and a half; cycle time: more than two hours; construction kit: consisting of more than 2,500 components and subassemblies), while in the United States one is more and more willing to pass into a more integral and partici­ pative STSD approach. Recently, the English colleagues Flood and Jackson (1991), propagated total systems intervention, and from Japan comes the futuristic idea of 'Holonic Production Systems', i.e., decentralized adaptive assembly systems built up from autonomous cells, involving 'Human Integrated Manufacturing' (HIM), a concept in which man takes part in one or more holons, brings in the creativity and makes decisions, while the equipment provides the adaptive implementation (Sol, 1990). Another very imp ortant new development, which is increasingly discussed in Europe and the United States, is the Japanese approach of Lean Production, which was the result of many years of actual practise in Toyota and other Japanese firms. It had become known as a concept as a consequence of an extensive comparative MIT study in the automotive industry. The main peculiarities of Lean Production (LP) are summarized by Van Amelsvoort (1992b) (cf. box 7.1). Lean Production as a concept is presented in the bestseller "The Machine that Changed the World " by Womack et al. (1990). As can be read on the very first page, the basic claims of LP are truly impressiv e : "H alf the human effort in the factory, half the manufacturing space, half the instrument tools, half the engineering hours and half the time to develop new products", in comparison with Western mass production systems (p.O). But how realistic are these assertions? In order to assess this, Williams et al. (1 992) analyzed many of the 116 original MIT research monographs that have been produced by a variety of affiliates for the International Motor Vehicle Program (IMVP). They concluded that: "( ... ) for the crucial assertions in the book the corroborating evidence in the IMVP papers is either weak or non-existent" (p. 323). Womack et al.

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

154

Box 7.1

Some basic �haracteristics of Lean Production (LP)

"1 integration of business proc�ses

6. direct and close relationships with a

(purchase, production, sales, product

restricted number of reliable

development, process development)

suppliers

2. integTation of preparatory and supporting

7. direct and close relationships with a

tasks and competences with production

restricted number of main dealers

3. teams as building blocks in the primary process

4. minimal changes in volumes of production,

8. teams as building blocks in innovation ·

processes

9. geogTaphic integTation of product-/ process development with production

given much product variants

5. direct disturbance signalling and problem-

10. individual carriers aimed at gaining broad insights in all business processes"

solving at its source

after: Womack et al. (1990); Van Amelsvoort (1992b), p. 6-7 (1990) indeed declared in their introduction that the book "presents the personal views of the three program leaders and should not be taken as an official statement agreed to by all participants" (p. 8). According to Alders (1993), LP is primarily a clever integration of separately developed production and c ontr ol e quipment and procedures, such as a conventional assembly line, multi-functional machines, rapid tool setting facilities, short cycle times, no buffer stocks due to a special production control system (Kanban), just in time production control (JIT), total quality control (TQC), continuous improvement (Kaizen), contract work put out to certified contractors, single sourcing /lasting relations with a restricted numb er of suppliers, and compulsory task rotation in teams supervised by a strong leader. A comparison between LP and STSD is not easily made. Kiviniitty (1 992) contrasted the Nordic version of Classical STSD with Lean Pro duction and with the Finnish Anthropocentric Production System (APS) variant (cf. Lehner, 1991; Wobbe, 1991). APS combines aspects of both STSD and LP (cf. table 7.1). As can be seen from the table, Lean Production is far removed from (the Nordic version of) Classical STSD. This is especially true in respect to its goal and scope. As for the above-mentioned aspects in table 7.1, the � variant of Anthropocentric Production System (APS) seems t� bridge the gap in an elegant manner.

Chapter Seven - The Future of the Socio-Technical Systems Design Paradigm

155

Table 7.1 A comparison between Classical S TSD, Anthropocentric Production Systems and Lean Production

�

Nordic Socio-

APS Anthropocentric

LP

Technical Model

Production System

Lean Production

Allocation of

man-machine

skilled worker

skills in production

Tasks/Skills

system

et

Main Orientation

harmonization of

production require-

teams orientation to

shared destiny

customer needs

ments and worker Aspect-System

quality of work life

Emphasis Scope of

long life span

specialization, quality

wide variation in

of products

products

short life cycle

short life cycle

no safety net

Intervention Most Central

optimization of

optimization of

Feature

balance

production

Coordinating

humanization of

use of strengths

Goal

work

(cultural benefits)

pursuit of perfection

after: Kiviniitty (1992), p. 25 A comparison between LP and Modem STSD (IOR approach) is made by Van Amelsvoort (1992b / 1993). He differentiated both approaches on the basis of 12 central aspects (cf. table 7.2). From both juxtapositions one can conclude that the Japanese concept of Lean Production is very different from STSD, both in its emphasis on Tayloristic control and in its one-sidedness approach of stressing organizational goals. Despite fundamental criticism (cf. Williams et al., 1992) diffusion of LP is very rapid, not only in the automotive industry but - as it seems - also in steel and assembly work. This will apply great pressure on the quality of the labour relations, especially in Europe. Again we see that in times of economic crisis, there is a real risk of a decline to Tayloristic control, as if (40 years of) STSD did not show the worn-out viability of a democratic dialogue. LP with its return to time-and-motion studies and its formal bureaucratic structures is indeed Modern Taylorism, or as Adler (1993) put it: "T aylor-as-villain to the design of a tru ly learning-ori ented bureaucracy" (p. 108). Dohse et al. (1985) called the original

The Paradigm that Changed the

156

Work Place

Table 7.2 A comparison between Modern S TSD (Integral Organiz­ ational Renewal) and Lean Production \,.

�

'

Modem STSD

Lean Production

IOR

LP

t

Ultimate Goals of the

quality of work,

quality of

Enterprise

organization and

organization

labour relations Typical form of

uncoupled conveyor-belt/

(conventionally) paced

Production Structure

assembly-line or dock structure

conveyor-belt/ assembly-line

(whole task domain)

·

Typical Form of

self-managing teams

work teams with small

Control Structure

performing whole tasks

operational tasks, controlled by a strong hierarchical leader

Preferred Type of

integral, using organizational

integral, using cross-functional

Control

renewal

management

Preferred Type of

fixed, on the basis of skills

variable, dependable upon actual

Remuneration

and personal development

plant performance

Degree of

low, standardization by way of

high for both products and

Standardization

a control memory built up in the

processes

heads of the workers Required Availability

optimal, dependable upon

maximal, at all jobs/tasks/work

of Personnel

personal potential and ambition

stations

Attainable Cycle

long and changeable: from eight

short and fixed: approximately

Time

minutes to several hours

one minute

Desirable Career

small discretionary job rotation

broad management job rotation

Development Path

within self-managing teams

over different business processes

Allocation of

self-<:ontrol by autonomous

autocratic control by a strong

Authority

teams/'leaderless' groups

hierarchical team leader

Basic Source of

continuous personal development

pay-based moral/ psychological

Motivation

and participation in team decision

contract

making Kind of Personal

democratic dialogue with respect to

Incentive

collective interests

enforced commitment to some rather anonymous collective interest

after: Van Amelsvoort (1992b), p. 8-9 Van Amelsvoort (1993), p. 10 Japanese development 'high Fordism'. These and other develop­ ments will largely eo-determine what new appearance STSD will

Chapter Seven - The Future of the Socio-Technical Systems Design Paradigm

157

evolve into in the nineties. But it's only the form that will change, not its function! The history of the Socio-Technical Systems Design (STSD) paradigm, as we have tried to carefully reconstruct it in this book, did not show by any means the development of a universal approach. We have illustrated STSD as becoming over the course of time a rather pluralistic fabric, with particular local or regional specialties and tracks. But in spite of these differences in approach, we have emphasized that these respective variants all share the ultimate goal of facilitating a real democratic dialogue, which is at the heart of the organizational p aradigm shift, even in the nineties. In the next two chapters, contemporary STSD key-opinion leaders in Europe, Ulbo de Sitter and Bjorn Gustavsen, give their comments concerning several issues and controversies mentioned in this book, while the godfather of STSD, Fred Emery, provides the epilogue p ertaining to some 40 years o f STSD. All of the commentaries share a future-oriented approach, one that speculates about the following stage of STSD. After having completed some years of research in order to be able to write this antholo gy, the author once again wishes to underline the mere subjective quality of such an endeavour, that was aimed at car efully d ocumenting the STSD field from th e p ersp ective of the literature. Although the risks had b een considerable, the author felt somewhat reassured in having achieved his goal, thanks to the various commentaries that were voiced in the numerous personal communications in this book. For the author, this 'positive opposition' functioned as an important stimulant in his struggle for validity.

Chapter Eight

A Socio-Technical Perspective Ulbo de Sitter

Table of Contents Introduction: The Burden of the Past The Theory of Organization and Socio-Technical Theory Towards a Theory of Social Systems or Social Technology? Socio-Technical Systems Design: Social Engineering or Self-Design by Knowledge Transfer 8.5. Some Conceptual Remarks about the Dutch Version of Modem Sociotechnology 8.5.1 The Concept of Integral Design 8.5.2 The Concept of Controllability 8.5.3 The Twin Concept of Interference Probability and Control Capacity 8.5.4 The Twin Concept of Production Structure and Control Structure 8.5.5 The Concept of Structural Parameters 8.6 A Look into the Future 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4

8.1

Page 158 160 166 171 177 177 177 178 179 180 181

Introduction: The Burden of the Past

The excellent overview of Frans van Eijnatten illustrates that Socio-Technical Systems Design can boast of a long tradition, historically rooted in the famous and successful intervention of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations by solving chronical labour conflicts in an English coalmining district. Against the background of the current s tate of the art of applied s o cial science, the Tavistock approach implied an innovative breakthrough. For the first time in the history of applied social science its intervention was pointed to the very heart of production organization: t h e s tructure of the division of labour. This was in comparison to the conventional partialized scientific specializations with respect to personnel selection, leadership training, industrial relations, work satisfaction etc., an absolute novelty. In the beginning, however, it

Chapter Eight

-

A Socio-Technical Perspective

159

was far from clear that this aspect would become the key variable in the new sociotechnical approach. Over the years an accumulating number of documented applied cases followed and ever since a growing number of sociotechnologists have been working on the formulation of design theory and the construction of an integrative design methodology for production systems. Looking back, one can observe that applications at that time were primarily based on implicit practical insight and common sense rather than on sociotechnical theory. Applied science in the sense of craftmanship, was ahead of a well­ founded theory. During the fifties and sixties the leading para­ digms in social science were still very much founded on static notions with respect to values and norms in sociology and needs in (social) psychology. Consequently, the concept of structure was used in the sense of Weber: as an idealized set of characteristics of a social appearance rather than as a specific configuration of rela­ tionships between social entities engaged in interaction in a specific network. Following the work of Parsons (Parsons & Shils, 195l ) r structures were viewed as molded and determined by values and norms. Even Peter Blau, a conscientious scholar in the study of bureaucratic organization, defines 'structure' ultimately in terms of culture, or in his words in terms of 'nominal' parameters . You can find this in his contribution to an interesting book where leading American theorists of the sixties discuss the meaning of the concept of structure and where the notion of structure as the architecture of functional relationships in an interaction network is strikingly absent (Blau et al., 1976) . During the fifties and sixties, Webers' distinction between the categories of 'goal- oriented' (Zweck­ rational) and 'value-oriented' (Wertrational) behaviour was still regarded as being of fundamental importance. Thus, idealized structures could be distinguished according to the dominant 'type of rationality' on which they seem to be founded. In the same vein, it became common practice to make distinctions between types (rather than dimensions) of behaviour such as 'social behaviour' as opposed to 'instrumental behaviour', or leadership styles such as 'initiating structure' (oriented on production) against 'consideration' (oriented towards the worker), or between types of systems such as the 'social system' as opposed to the 'technial system'. The problem of structure is also involved in the relation between the sociology and social psychology at that time: How to connect psychological need theory with the value theory of social systems? How could the axiomatic character of both visions be

160

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

reconciled when social psychologists view structures of interaction as emerging from individual communications driven b y psychological forces? (�aslow, 1954; Argyris, 1957; Me Gregor, 1960; Homans, 1961) while sociologists explain the same phenomenon by assuming superpersonal values? Indeed, the question was, as Leavitt put it once, to integrate models of 'organizations without people' with models of 'people without organization'. As we know, Parsons tried to solve this dilemma by simply postulating that institution­ alized role-sets always meet both social and individual functions because they 'coincide' (Parsons, 1951). Thus, although in applied sociotechnology, the object of redesign was from the beginning the structure - or better, the architecture - of the division of labour, a clear conceptual apparatus was lacking to base practical field work on a theory of interactive structures.

8.2

The Theory of Organization and Socio-Technical Theory

It is, therefore, not surprising that sociotechnical practi­ tioners fitted their theoretical notions in the given theoretical frameworks. It was in this endeavour that the sociological value­ oriented dimension came to light in the sociotechnical interest for democracy whereas the psychological point of view is predomi­ nantly in the design of tasks compatible with (assumed) generic human needs. Within the context of production organization, the discussion of industrial democracy evolved in the direction of participative decision making while organizational design required the development of a list of sociotechnical principles for work design. Cons equently, the sharp dichotomy b etween both ap­ proaches remained: One could freely discuss participation without taking into account limiting conditions as a function of a given structure of the division of labour, and one could legitimize the design of tasks on the basis of assumptions with respect to human needs without creating difficulties that would influence the structural formation, content and change of needs and behavioural orientations. Finally, one can discuss the internal 'social' dimensions of production in a rather loose connection with the operational and transformational functional requirements of production. The manner in which Miller and Rice (Miller & Rice, 1967) base the design of small task groups on needs for a 'defense against anxiety' that rests on a 'inner world' of 'unconscious drives' is illustrative, and in studies on industrial democracy the lack of interest in a theoretical formulation of decision making within the

Chapter Eight - A Socio-Technical Perspective

161

context of production control of a concrete product as an aspect-system of a given structure of the division of labour is striking. In other words, the connecting context between the partial levels of analysis, that being the actual structure of a production system conceived as t h e

specific grouping and coupling of performance and control functions in relation to the production of specific goods or services for a specific market did not function as the central theoretical theme in early sociotechnology. This in itself is a remarkable fact because in appli­ cation the core of the sociotechnical approach has, from the begin­ ning, been focused on the redivision of labour with respect to the production of a product or service. During the sixties, we saw expectations rising towards the possibility of merging the social psychological small group ap­ proach and the more sociologically oriented democratic approach. Fostered by an increasingly ideological coloured climate, applied organizational science advocates value oriented social change. A striking description was given by Bennis: "These new values that are espoused, indicate a certain way of behaving and feeling. For example, they emphasize openess rather than secrecy, superior­ subordinate collaboration rather than dependence or reb ellion, cooperation rather than competition, consensus rather than indivi­ dual rule, rewards based on self-control rather than externally induced rewards, team leadership rather than a one-to-one relation­ ship with the boss, authentic relationships rather than those based on political manoeuvrings and so on" (Bennis, 1966). It became difficult to distinguish between philosophies about 'how things should be' and theory. The idea that organizations are systems characterized by a high degree of normative integration where organizational b ehaviour takes place within the framework of Parsonian reciprocal roles in which behaviour, conforming to shared values, coincides with the realization of personal needs, seems to prevail. Typical for this participative-consensus strain in organiz­ ational science at that time is the importance attached to training and indoctrination. The new mode in organizational change is, of course, also criticized. Horowitz, for example, writes: "( ... )Consensus theory thus tends to become a metaphysical representation of the dominant ideological matrix. It rests on the principle of 'general interests' that every member of society is supposed to imbibe if he wishes to avoid the onus of being a deviant, or an unconnected isolate." The sociology of small groups has been especially active in this view; the implication being that a condition of social conflict necessarily is a world of deviants and isolates, quite incapable of

162

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

attending problems of functional survival" (Horowitz, 1967). More specific is the criticism of Crozier and Lautmann with respect to training a s a strategy of chang e . Organiz a tional structures determine the positions of organizational members in a network of interactive relations. They structure the problems individuals will have in coping with and shaping or limiting their opportunities for problem solving. Thus, attitudes and behavioural orientations should be viewed as the outcome of 'organizational life' structured by the current division of labour: "Ainsi pour la determination d'un programme de formation, l'etude de la structure de l'entreprise se revele indispensable. Nous plaisons en consequence pour qu'on accorde moins d'interet aux comportements psychologiques dans l'entreprise ou, du moins, a ce qui dans ces comportements, qui depend des caracteristiques individuelles. Ils paraissent en effet dependre des elements structuraux plus que les c onditionner. L'importance que les interesses accordent aux facteurs affectifs et la place qu'ils leur font dans !'explication des p roblemes qu'ils rencontrent est tout a fait injustifiee et risque de masquer certaines causes fondamentales" (Crozier & Lautman, 1963). As structural change constitutes the very core of the applied sociotechnical approach, one could have expected that sociotechnologists, in particular, would have formed the centre of criticism and would have affiliated themselves with Crozier and other 'structuralists' (for example: Burns & Stalker, 1961; Easton, 1958; Buckley, 1967; B errien, 1 9 6 8 ) . Ho wev er, a l o gical integration b e tween the structural orientation of sociotechnical redesign in practice and a structural theory with respect to the division of labour has not yet been accomplished. Rather, the status of sociotechnical theory at that time is perhaps best characterized by 'fundamental ambiva­ lence'. On the one hand actual sociotechnical changes are primarily focused on the redistribution of control and performance functions in a production system and, by consequence, a redistribution of opportunities to play a role in production control. In this practical respect the sociotechnical approach is purely structural. On the theoretical level however, the tendency remains to legitimize redesign on current values regarding industrial democracy within a participative context and to base redesign of tasks on traditional need theory. As a result, Sociotechnology developed itself into a partial organizational science direction. As such, it only became just the social member of a fast growing family of partial organizational sciences specialized either in logistics, or marketing, or financing, or str ate gy, or inform atics or cost accounting, or mana gement development, etc.

Chapter Eight - A Socio-Technical Perspective

163

The trademark of a partial organizational science is that it is oriented towards the optimization of one specific function. Very often these mono-functional optimization techniques contain structural factors. In the context of partial theory, the questions if and how such a one-sided structural change could interfere with other structural conditions, with respect to other functional require­ ments, remains undiscussed. This fact is, of course, not surprising. An integral concept of organizational design cannot be deduced from the differentiated opinions of partial sciences about the relations of their respective 'aspect-systems' toward 'the whole'. This is, by sheer logic, an impossible endeavour. You cannot deduce a consistent total system concept from specialized knowledge on sub- and aspect­ systems. This would require· a model on the relationship between sub- and aspect-systems and this is, by definition, exactly the kind of knowledge not contained in partial mono-functional sciences. Even multidisciplinary cooperation would not produce results. It should, therefore, be recognized that Sociotechnology in potence covers an extremely important field of inquiry, with a complementary and integrating function in relation to the established design-oriented specialisms in the area's of administrative science and industrial engineering. A structural theory of total system functioning requires, of course, insight into the basic question: How are alternative architectures of structure related to probabilities of in terference between functions; and how structural conditions shape or impede opportunities to cope with such interference by flexible self-redesign based on experience and learning. I am convinced that Sociotechnology could provide the general theoretical foundation of applied organizational science. It could potentially procure the integrating context of the growing number of partial organizational sciences. At the start of the seventies however, there was still a long way to go. The situation at that time can perhaps b e summarized as follows: •

•

As an applied science the primary object of sociotechnical inter­ vention is the structure of the division of labour or, what amounts to the same, the structure of production systems. In the theory of organizations a clear-cut structural theory is however lacking. The concept of structure is rather vague. In sociology it is strongly imbedded in value theory. Values are the stuff out of which cultures emerge, where they determine the structures of social systems. In social psychology, structure is viewed as a network of social relationships and as a function of communications between individuals consistuted by personal

164

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

experiences, affections and drives. These circumstances lead to a double opposition between theory and practice. First, t�re is the contradiction between structurally oriented redesign in the field of application, whereas in theory, it is not structural parameters but norms, values and needs that figure as the constituting factors. Secondly, structural changes imply multifunctional consequences. Structural change induces not only changed conditions with respect to QWL, cooperation and process control, but also with respect to a wide range of other functions such as throughput times, work in process, quality, maintenance, transport, etc. However, current theory does not furnish a model of how such 'social' and technical' factors are structura lly related. On the contrary, theory fosters the · traditional view that the 'technical' and 'social' components of organization are separate categories of behaviour based on fundamentally different types of rationality. • Most of the results were derived from the circumstances already mentioned: Sociotechnology develops into the direction of a partial science. Just as the logistic engineer provides a theory for delivery time and stock, the sociotechnologist offers theory and advice for the optimalization of QWL. • This gives rise to the question: How are partial theories and practices mutually related? It is true that sociotechnologists were among the first to put forward the question. Drawing attention to the problem is no guarantee of obtaining the right answer. Partial, mono-functional theories do not provide a basis for integral thinking. • Unable to solve the dilemma, sociotechnologists try to find a way out by inventing and embracing the idea of joint optimization. Though the technical and social worlds remain separated, it is possible to look for improved structural alternatives in the 'tech­ nical system' based on technical rationality. Guided by socio­ technical principles of 'social rationality' one could study options for optimization of the 'social system'. Next, the two sets should be compared and compatible design options from both sets that meet the best mix of separate social and technical requirements, should be selected. •

Of course, such an approach is again based on partial thinking. The best fit produces at best, a feasible reconciliation between require­ ments that are viewed as competing demands and the problem of compatibility is treated as a matter of counting minuses and plusses attached to alternative designs of separate social and technical

Chapter Eight - A Socio-Technical Perspective

165

systems and not as a problem of dynamic functional interdependence. Needless to say, the very concept of the technical and social system is obsolete. In human interaction (social) goals and (technical) me ans are always intertwined as complementary functional components in the course of selective interaction. From the idea that best fit follows the accepted view that the assumed 'social' and 'technical' systems have, in reality, an interface. This circumstance should have led to the insight that a truly sociotechnical theory should at least explain how and why functions interfere instead of sustain and reinforce each other as a function of a given architecture of structure. It is in this respect that Emery does not seem to understand our argument (see his comment cited in paragraph 6.4.2). The question is not whether 'social' elements (people) behave just as 'technical' elements according to 'rate-dependent' laws, of course they do not and neither do 'technical' elements, but rather, the question is whether it is useful to use the concepts of the 'socio' and 'technical' sub-systems as cornerstones in a theory of sociotechnical design. More simply speaking, things in the world around us become 'technical' only in the minds and at the hands of man. A fallen branch may be picked up and used as a stick for some purpose. In doing so, the b ranch becomes the actor's b earer of 'technical' meaning. The creation of meaning, however, can only be understood in the interactive context of man's existence. By using it, the branch becomes the bearer of social meaning. This same branch can represent very different meanings and it is, therefore, not the 'thingness' of something, nor its subjectedness to 'rate-dependent' laws, that makes it 'technical' but the type of instrumental meaning attached to it. Thus, technical elements can be material as well as immaterial. Software elements are just as technical as machines or machine components. How one assembles a sentence out of words to be used as an effective and efficient vehicle of communication or 'meaning transfer', is a 'syntactical' or technical problem, and, as such, a social problem. In short, technical problems are human problems and technical elements are the product of man's creative thinking as a social being. Technological change is social change and is therefore not a function of rate-dependent laws, etc. This is the way the term 'technical 'is applied to everyday living, and I do not see any reason why scientists should take a different stand. The idea of joint optimization in traditional STSD is impli­ citly or explicitly based on some notion of potential interference between types of system functions and, so far, so good. You might even wish to a ssert that different functions are produced by

166

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

different rationalities: the rationality of delivery time, quality, personal health, pollution control, cost accounting, etc. As in all interaction, a technological dimension is always involved. All these 'rationalities' po ssess a technological dimension. As long as you analyse along the d emarc ation lines of functional differentiation, you will notice and begin to understand a lot. Once you heap together the technological dimensions of all the se different functions, however, you disconnect the very relationships that are to be studied. There is no advantageous theoretical argument to reduce and regroup types of functionally differentiated processes into the well-known 'social' and 'technical' dichotomy. By doing so you disassemble a real-life system of organizational relationships into a (nominal) system of words where the relation­ ship between John and Sarah is not a function of the fact that they work together (indeed in a time dependent process) but a function of the fact that they b elong to the same cla ss of human b eings whereas their machines (placed in the same product flow) together with all other objects of instrumental interest, both outside and inside their department, are viewed as related because they belong to the class of artifacts. To be sure, nominal thinking can distort the structure of real-life social systems. Suppose you find a tooling department handling all the tools of the company. At a second look, you discover that large sets of tools differ completely in terms of technology and are used in completely separated production flows connected to different products and markets. What brings these tools together in the department? Yes, the nominal fact that they all belong to a class of artifacts called 'tools' . In sound sociotechnical thinking the department should be abolished and the tool handling should be redistributed to the product flows where they belong - the bearers of meaning.

8.3

Towards a Theory of Social Systems or Social Technology?

The given picture of 'the state of the art' at the beginning of the seventies is, of course, a bit one-sided. Already during the second half of the sixties, discontentment with the static, axiomatic and descriptive character of social and organizational theory resulted in a search for new perspectives for old problems. A some­ what inconspicious but fundamental aspect in new formulations is the introduction of the factor time in a dynamic model of inter­ active systems. The influential Parsonian theory offered an excel­ lent model for explaining main tenance of structures but failed to

Chapter Eight - A Socio-Technical Perspective

167

picture interaction in the dimension of time. The new trend concentrates on organizational dynamics and social change, a subject that became very actual with the cultural revolution at the end of the sixties. In general, four interrelated and fruitful theoretical branches can be distinguished. The first branch is clearly a child of the cultural revol­ ution. It advocates social change founded on neo-marxistic theory. The 'critical sociology' critises materialism and contains a plea for spiritual rather than material emancipation. Critical theory was, for a rather short time, very influential and attracted an impres­ sive number of social scientists. The theoretical foundation implied, however, too much the past, especially nineteenth century German philosophy. According to the critical branch, the social structure of the industrialized world rests solely on the unidimensional logic of technical rationality. The theory c oncedes that the basic inter­ actional dimension of technical rationality is 'power'. Moreover, power relationships transform subjects into objects loosing their individuality and spiritual conscience. Habermas, as the leading representative of this, in essence, ethical 'theory', takes a radical stand and denies the possibility of an empirical (time, energy and matter bounded) theory of social or 'communicative' behaviour (Habermas, 1969). The second branch refers to the development of general systems theory. It introduced fruitful logical models for the description of controlled processes on the basis of cybernetic concepts. Sociotechnical pioneers such as Emery showed a clear understanding for the promising imp ortance of systems theory for a further elaboration and modernization of sociotechnical theory (Emery, 1969). The third branch is formed by an assembly of theoretical notions that have in common the fact that they abstract from assumed or even perceived, current and measureable values, needs, utilities or whatever, and look for less substantial and time-depend­ ent factors that lay at the root of human interaction. The b asic themes are: •

The introduction of the concept of 'uncertainty' (Thompson, 1967), 'equivocality' (Weick, 1969) and 'interference probability' (De Sitter, 1973). The new concepts imply that an important change in perspective has taken place. The basic and exclusive time­ invariant character of social interaction is that it is selective. Selectivity of social interaction does not only refer to maintain­ ing given structures according to prevailing 'nominal' values and

168

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

meanings, but also refers to the problem of con trollability or selectivity as such: The capacity of a system to cope with problems

•

yet unknown. This vJew offers a new perspective for sociotechnol­ ogists in search of a theoretical foundation of integral organiz­ ational design. Instead of postulating fixed needs and values as guiding principles of action, behaviour c an be interpreted as coping with uncertainty, or better - with the ever-changing conditions, the meaning of which has yet to be defined. In the same vein, the traditional idea that stress is a function of a discrepancy between a perceived and (according to need theory) preferred conditions can be transformed into the view that stress is a function of structural conditions. Such conditions prevail when two or more interaction cycles in which an individual or system is engaged interfere with each other while the means to reduce interference by choosing from alternative strategies of action that are not available. It is along this line of reasoning that both interference risks or -probabilities built into the design of specific structures, and coping options or control capacity that alternative structures do or do not provide, can be studied. The p a r a digm shift implies the ab olition of such traditional distinctions as ·the 'so cial' and ' technical' system and social (value) and technical (goal) oriented b ehavioural categories. Such distinctions loose their meaning in a model where values, norms and needs are viewed as historical time-dependent solutions to a far more fundamental interactive problem: the reduction o f 'uncertainty ' , ' e quiv o c ality' or ' interference probability'. The importance attached to the 'open' system character of organizations, and the study of the relationship b etween the external and internal structure of systems as examplified in the ' contingency approach' (Woodward, 1965; Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967 ).

From a theoretical point of view the different themes can be moulded into an integrated comprehensive paradigm. At the time, however, the picture remains somewhat eclectic and erratic. The theoretical p a s t is, in p art, still p r esent. Especially in the contingency approach. How should empirical findings with respect to contingent relationships b etween the external and internal structures of organizations, be evaluated? Should such findings be treated as 'laws' of interactive systems in the old positivistic sense, or just as empirical statements about a reality that could be other­ wise, dependent upon our own choice? Sociotechnologists are, of

Chapter Eight A Socio-Technical Perspective -

169

course, fully aware of the new thoughts that emerging, but it seems as though they do not yet offer a firm b asis for the formulation of a modem systematic sociotechnical design methodology. The fourth b ranch is related to the third, but is more explicitly oriented towards developing a theory of social systems as a specific branch in the General Theory of Systems. Of special importance here, is the pioneering work of Luhmann. His work falls under the category of grand theories and as such, Luhmann offers a comprehensive theoretical scheme in which the new idea's emerg­ ing from the second and third branches can be fitted into a well­ founded paradigm of interrelated concepts. In this para digm, values, norms and social needs loose their long standing explanatory status. They are now viewed as historical and, therefore, context­ ual, a time-dependent expression of meaning that is not regarded as given, but on the contrary is continually produced by making selections from an endless range of possibilities. The infiniteness of 'meaning' or 'contingency' is the fundamental b inding problem between human beings. Only by making interactive selections, can structure come into b eing and only against the background of structure can ' things', 'movements ', ' appearances', 'actions ' or whatever, become the bearers of these meanings. Interactive systems produce meaning by selection and by doing so, they produce structure. From selective interaction new properties emerge, the meaning of which must be 'produced' by new selections rather than ascertained, because in the world of contingency given points of reference do not exist. Meaning or value bear, according to this view, of course, no positive or negative connotation. The inverse of meaning is not meaninglessness, but emptiness: The sheer absence of points of reference for interactive selections that could function as the envisioning background of meaning. The simplicity Luhmann's point of departure procures, is a wealth of new theoretical perspectives and options for solving old dilemmas. For example, the traditional opposition b etween subj ect and obj ect is transformed into complementarity. Subjects or objects - it does not matter you refer to them - are autonomous. Not in a causal sense but in existential sense because a subject can only be subject or an object only an object as a function of a boundary between systems, which in a cogenetic manner simultaneously defines their interdependence. It is interesting to recognize here the affinity with the work of the sociotechnical theorist Herbst, especially where he, in a fundamental article, shows that the concept of 'boundary' must, by sheer logic, b e independent o f the respective concepts 'system' and 'environment': if you, as is mostly the case, define the environment of 'A' as 'not A'

170

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

you have only concluded that 'not-not A' is identical to A (Herbst, 1976). As the problem of selectivity presupposes the threefold context of system-boundary-environment, social selectivity or 'meaning' can only l, e understood in an interactive context. Interaction, however, requires not only the attachment of meaning to the environing world but also the conversion of meaning into action: "To control a situation is to impose meaning on it by acting on it" (Dawe, 1973). It is, therefore, impossible to regard 'value-oriented' and 't echnica l-orient ed' behaviour a s separate b ehavioural rationalities, because b oth must b e implicated in each single interaction cycle. Thus, selective action requires not only selection of perception and ascription of value (meaning) to the perceived world, b ut also a 'technical' selection of action based on inter­ ·actively obtained causal models of that world. Even Habermas' idealized 'free discourse' between human beings is necessarily subject to such conditions. As selective interaction presupposes structure, and structure implies that members of an interaction network occupy specific positions, their opportunities for selective interaction are structurally conditioned. From this follows that power relations result from structurally differentiated opportunities for selective interaction. Habermas' dream of a 'Herrschaftsfreie Diskurs'; or free and open spiritual communication not distorted by power is, therefore, an illusion. Power is implied in every structured network and a p owerles s structure is only thinkable in an unstructured anomic world. In that case selective communication would be impossible by definition, and individuals would indeed freely drift around in an enthropic space. Luhmann stresses the p o int, that p ow er l o gically pres upp o ses the autonomy (the existential boundary of a system with respect to others) of subjects exposed to power. Without such a boundary, alter would become part of ego, in which case it would become nonsense to speak of a power relationship (Luhmann, 1975). It is not surprising that Luhmann's work gave rise to an inte resting debate b etween him and his 'natural' opp onent Habermas under the title 'Theorie Sozialer Systeme oder Sozial Technologie?' (Habermas & Luhmann 1971). It is interesting to note that the term 'So zial Technologie' emerges here in a debate between two the orists who probably were neither aware nor interested in the existence of Socio-Technical Systems Design as an applied science, while many STSD designers in their turn probably did not realize that a fundamental debate about the theoretical foundation of Sociotechnology was going on. One of Luhmann's theses is, that with increasing environmental (external) complexity,

Chapter Eight - A Socio-Technical Perspective

171

the internal complexity of systems must also increase. One recognizes here the application of Ashby's law of 'requisite variety' on social systems. Without further elab oration, however, the statement could, from a sociotechnical point of view, be easily misunderstood, because an experienced sociotechnologist would in this case often advocate a drastic reduction of an organizations' internal complexity through horiz ontal and vertical integration combined with differentiation in separate product flows. This is one example of the circumstance that several statements in Luhmann's texts need some reformulation and annotation before they could be built into a modern sociotechnical redesign-oriented paradigm. The theoretical foundation of his influential and innovative approach, however, is in no doubt of great importance for the development of a truly Modern Sociotechnology. For already too long a p eriod, axiomatic value and need theory, obsolete idea's about the optimiz­ ation of the 'social' and 'technical' system, a biased orientation towards QWL and the idea that a variance control matrix could provide cues for redesign, have blurred our thoughts and impeded theoretical and methodological progress.

8.4

S o cio-Technical Systems D esign: Social Engineering or Self-Design by Knowledge Transfer

In the traditional sociotechnical paradigm it is largely and implicitly taken for granted that there is a logical and complemen­ tary relationship between democratic decision making on the level of a system as a whole and individual needs and values at the level of individual members. The sociotechnologist as agen t of change is confronted here with a complex 'double' problem. Can democratic decision making produce undemocratic decisions ? Is it possible that undemocratic decision making could produce demo­ cratic decisions? Is Schumpeter right when he concedes that demo­ cracy should be defined as an 'arrangement' for decision making independent of the content of decisions (Schumpeter, 1943)? How is democracy on the level of the national community and democracy on the level of organiz ations related? Which type of participative decision making is democratic and which type is not? And last but not least: Is democracy an indispensable concept in applied socio­ technical design? The double character of these questions appears when a sociotechnologist fulfils the role of agent of change. If only change on the basis of democratic decision making is regarded as accep table, how then c ould a system that by its centralistic

172

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

autoritarian structure, have fostered alienation and disinterest among its member's ever change democratically? How could a sociotechnologist as" lie r v ant of power render his services to a managment that simply imposes a sociotechnical redesign? In short: How could a fundamental undemocratic structure 'democratically' be changed into a democratic one? The question is, according to Van Eijnatten's overview, an actual one and a short comment from a modem sociotechnical point of view might be of interest. In the national policy of industrial nations, labour relations play an increasingly important role. Since redesign of the division of labour is always implied in the sociotechnical approach, the mutual interdependence between members of work organizations �ith respect to production control, will change from asymmetrical to (more) symmetrical. Consequently, labour relations on the level of the individual firm will change as a function of the redesign of work structures. If sociotechnical restructuring could be accomplished on a nation-wide scale, this would induce fundamental changes in the labour relations on the national level. It would, however, be entirely wrong to foster a sociotechnical ambition to exert influence on the political orientation of such a change. Sociotechnological structures enlarge options and opportunities for decision making on the basis of organizational learning, not with respect to specific problem definitions but with respect to problem solving as such. In this sense the position of Sociotechnology should be kept modest. It should rest on the notion that democracy at the macro (national) level is bounded by structural conditions on the meso and micro levels of a social system. The idea that democracy on the national level requires participative structures within the institutions that constitute a national community is still not an altogether shared view in p olitical science. However, an impressive amount of research in this field sustains theory in this regard. People who participate in decision making at work tend to be less alienated and see themselves as more committed. They are more often active members of associations, labour unions or political parties while a pluriform institutional differentiation in its turn sustains political pluralism and the open 'individualizing' character of society. As a sociotechnical redesign of the division of labour always implies that more members perform more tasks in production control on the operational as well as the tactical (design) and strategic levels, the degree of participation and the opportunities for learning will be substantially enlarged. In this sense sociotechnical redesign undoubtedly enforces the micro-structural foundation of a democracy within the realm of w ork. This view, which also in political

Chapter Eight - A Socio-Technical Perspective

173

science has its strong supporters (Pateman, 1970; Naschold, 1971/ 1972), deserves more attention and interest because emancipatory movements and institutions often underestimate the fundamental social (as opposed to individual) function of the quality of work. In Labour Unions, for example, the idea that emancipation stands for increased wages and social security benefits are still dominant and Unions tend to treat their members as consumers rather than as

producers. Besides the democratic structural potential implied in Sociotechnology, there is the much discussed problem of its imple­ mentation in work organizations. There are, in my view, two basic questions: First, is it possible to change an undemocratic structure in a democratic manner? Second, is the content of a democratically chosen change as it where legitimated by itself, and is the content of an undemocratically imposed change automatically wrong because the choice rests on an undemocratic decision? The answer to the first question is simple. Of course, it is by logical necessity impossible to transform an undemocratic structure in a democratic manner. If, as a function of the prevailing division of labour, the relationships between people in an organization are outspoken asymmetrical in terms of power and interdependence, the structure is by definition undemocratic. Just as in the political theory of the nation as a whole, a distinction is made between the form of decision making and its structural prerequisites, democracy at work is more than an decision making arrangement. The positions members hold in an organizational network impede or foster their opportunities to develop insight, knowledge and skill with respect to the process to be designed and controlled and determine their opportunities on the labour market. Such conditions limit the options for effective participation, even if participation was freely be granted. Members of an organization could come to the agreement only to design and implement structural change on the basis of consensus and they could wish to make their decisions in a 'free ' debate or 'Diskurs' in the sense of Habermas. But they could only wish to do so. Such agreements have no effect whatsoever on the current structure and its eventual uneven distributed opportunities for effective participation. Production systems are no debating clubs. They are c omplex systems producing goods or services in a competitive market. One can deplore or enjoy this fact of life, but you cannot ignore it. This conclusion brings us to the second question: the legitimacy of the content of a decision with respect to a redesign. Again the answer is, in principle, a simple one. The core of the

174

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

question is, whether it is possible to base a judgement of a given organizational design on scientific arguments. Suppose the criterion for such a judgement o¥YOuld be based on the potential capacity of a system to contribute to the development of an optimally balanced society. The term 'balanced' refers here to multifunctionality: Not only a competitive product, but also a nonpolluting product. Not only healthy and safe work, but also inspiring work with reduced risks for stress and alienation and more opportunities for developing one's own resources. Not only a structure ensuring optimal control of the current process, but also a structure that fosters innovation by learning. Not only optimal QWL, but also optimal product quality. Not only profitability in the short run, but also employment in the . future, etc. This amounts to a practical time-bound summary of a balanced production function. On the theoretical level, multifunctional balance could, without becoming more concrete, be defined as 'functional complementarity'. As the future is unknown, the specific functions to be kept in balance are also unknown. The sociotechnical problem refers to the question that structural conditions constitute the generic capacity for balanced controL If one believes, as I do, that such a sociotechnical science is possible, as a result of a concequence, you must accept the possibility that an organization decides democratically to implement a structure that could, from a sociotechnical point of view, be judged as unsatisfactory. Of course, the probability of the effective implementation of a resolved redesign increases with the degree of consensus reached. The opportunities given to members where they have actual influence on organizational change can reduce resistance to change and foster consensus and commitment. But such opportunities depend on the given initial structure. In the asymmetrical situation of a strong management and a large volume of unskilled repetitive labour, such opportunities are unevenly distributed. And even where this is not be the case, there is no guarantee for successful redesign. There was once a Dutch case where weavers were given a free hand in the redesign of their department. They designed new nice tasks for themselves and proposed a transfer of all originial repetitive task elements to a new group of unskilled men. In Dutch Socio­ technology we have, therefore, been working on the development of design methodology that prescribes the best sequence in which questions of a redesign should be discussed and what kind of knowl­ edge and set of design techniques is connected to each step. With the help of such knowledge the members of an organization can make their own redesign. For example, we teach them the rule that

Chapter Eight - A Socio-Technical Perspective

175

the redesign of the production structure always precedes the redesign of the control structure (the design of the latter being dependent on the first). Very often the current structure will be based on the prin­ ciple of functional concentration. Such a structure is characterized by functionally specialized departments bringing people with the same type of work together: planners with planners, drillers with drillers, painters with painters and so on. All orders pass some or all of these departments according to their specific routing and processing times. This results into a complex structure that fosters centralized control, directive supervision, high disturbance sensitivity, unreliable cost accounting, low QWL, long throughput times etc. The sociotechnical contribution would, in this case, be to make people understand why at first sight the complete set of different and unrelated problems share the same structural cause. In addition, it would also show why self-supporting flows per product or family of products would drastically reduce complexity, and why and how such a structural and consequently, an integral approach could provide an integral solution. Specifically, the aim is to transfer sociotechnical knowledge in 'macro-design' by way of specific, carefully developed courses. Completion of such courses may take between 6 to 14 full days. Next, the members are asked to make their own redesign because they are much better equipped to judge which products would, for example, constitute a feasible self­ supporting flow. In this manner each step in the design sequence is preceded by a course were sociotechnological design expertise is transferred, annotated and discussed. Restructuring of production in separate flows could, for example, be followed by the important question as how to differentiate each flow into flow segments and how to establish well-chosen boundaries between segments, once again from an integral balanced point of view. After establishing the external structure of a segment, a discussion of the design of the internal structure would constitute the next logical step. The pros and cons of whole task groups with built-in capacities for production control and methods to judge the quality of work will be important topics. As the sequence of design steps implies that one designs the production structure top-down from macro level to meso and micro levels, whereas the control structure should be designed in the opposite sequence, starting with the micro-level and stepwise proceeding to the macro level, the design steps indicates for whom participation is especially important and in which design problem. Of course the different design groups work within the framework of a steering group composed of representatives of management and the

176

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

workers' council. _In Dutch practice, the sociotechnical agent of change sees the democratic nature of the change process as · dependent upon the �ituation at hand. He views that situation as an object of change and his aim is to enable as many organization members as possible to engage in 'self-design by knowledge transfer'. In summary, a redesign is undertaken within a participative context with the practical aim to ensure consensus and commitment as much as possible, not to establish a truly democratic design process. As democratic decision making constitutes more than an arrangement for decision making, specific additional structural conditions must be met. These conditions often do not prevail. Within the boundaries of what is feasible a sociotechnical agent of change strives for: a) commitment; b) according to his own professional conviction and judgement a good, 'balanced' design by; c) 'self-design by knowledge transfer'. The theory of democracy came into being around the question of the national state. From the start, theorists paid attention to theory and research with respect to structural prerequisites of democracy. One example is the theme on the relationship between democratic decision making at the macro level and the pluralistic structure of society. Another is the genial concept of the 'trias politica'. This design principle is, in general, not included in a sociotechnical redesign of work organizations. On the contrary, we could in most cases (nuclear power stations are an interesting exception ) expect a plea for integrating instead of separating control and performing functions. In other words, on behalf of the same democratic thinking, we find between different systems on different levels of aggegration different principles of design. The uncritical generic use of the term 'democratic' can blur these differences and it remains, in my opinion, necessary to develop a specific theory of production control on the level of production systems. In the Dutch version of 'Modern Sociotechnology' the question of control structure design is, therefore, regarded as an integral part of a more comprehensive design theory on the relationship between production and control structures in the setting of production systems. As Van Eijnatten has already provided an overview of this approach, a short comment on some specific conceptual considerations should suffice.

Chapter Eight - A Socio-Technical Perspective

8.5

177

S ome Concep tual Remarks about the D utch Vers ion of Modem Sociotechnology

8.5.1

The Concept of Integral Design

Traditional sociotechnical design was rather ambiguous in relation to the open character of a production system. It stressed the importance of QWL to the point where it runs the risk of becoming an aspect-system science instead of an integral-system science. As such, not some, but all system functions should be considered and treated as structurally interdependent. A truly sociotechnical design is, therefore, a structural design. It should be based on insight into the interaction between aspect-systems (the logistic aspect-system, the quality asp ect-system, the maintenance asp ect-system, the personnel aspect-system, etc.) and sub-systems (the sales sub-system, product-design sub-system, planning sub-system, manufacturing sub­ system, etc.). All system elements (individuals as well as tools and machines) involved in the differentiated sets of aspect-systems and sub-systems are, by definition, tied and coupled in time as a function of the systems' network structure. It is, therefore, the sp ecific architecture of a systems' structure that should be considered as the core of sociotechnical theory and design. Therefore, sociotechnical theory should integrate its explanatory function (how a specific architecture of structure determines the opp ortunities for coordination, adaptation and innovation) with its design function (how alternative architectures change such opportunities in which direction) . 8.5.2

The Concept of Controllability

In accordance to the developments in general sociology and social systems theory, as developed by Luhmann (1975/ 1984), no speculative assumptions should be made as to b asic specifiable human needs nor system values. For an overview of earlier articles written by Luhmann in the sixties, see Sievers (1971). Social, rather than individual structure, is viewed as a precondition for the development of whatever requirements and values as they come into being and in the course of time undergo change, in the enduring human effort of cop ing with ' c ontingency' (Luhmann, 1975 ) , 'interference probability' (De Sitter, 1973), 'uncertainty' (Thompson, 196 7) or ' e qu i v o c ality' (Weick, 1969) . T h e r e a r e v a rying interpretations here, but the main point is, of course, that social

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

178

structures do not d�velop according to given notions with respect to values, needs or utilities but produce such meanings in a continuous effort to structure the,future of meaning; i.e. selectivity. The basic sociotechnical question is, therefore, not to improve a systems' capacity to control a certain function according to given time­ dependent criteria, for example, the criterion of delivery time or product quality or QWL, but to improve a systems' 'controllability': Its generic capacity to maintain a balance between a multitude of ever-changing functional configurations. 8.5.3

The Twin-Concept of Interference Probability and Control Capacity

An organization is viewed as a network of interaction cycles wherein a multitude of functions are produced. The network would be balanced if all inputs and outputs involved were contingent, i.e. would shape opportunities to produce required outputs by conversion of received inputs. For each individual or sub-system in a system, or for each system in a network of systems, input is central to the degree that its deviation would block the completion of the remaining complementary interaction cycles and their respective functions. An input would be named peripheral to the degree that its deviation would have no disturbing effects on its capacity to continue exchange with the remaining environment according to current norms. Thus, process disturbances in interaction processes can always be analyzed in terms of interference or contingency between two or more interaction c ycles. Maintaining the 'p recarious complementary balance' between interaction cycles by reduction of interference and interference probabilities is, therefore, the practical setting of the problem of control in organizations (see Herbst's concept of disturbance control, Herbst, 1959). Systems may differ with respect to their probabilities of interference, which is a structural trait related to the specific architecture of a systems' external and internal structure. Control capacity refers to the options for the reduction of interference and interference probabil­ ities by exertion of operational (throughput) and transformational (in/ output) control respectively. The location and dispersion of control capacities in a network is of central importance for its controllability. Without control capacity, sub-systems would not only transfer interference, but also reinforce or amplify interference instead of absorbing pending disturbances. The logic of the import­ ance of evenly dispersed control capacity holds for all levels of aggregation. On the individual level control capacity determines

Chapter Eight - A Socio-Technical Perspective

179

the individual's options for interference reduction: Structural possibilities to cope effectively with variance as a function of the ratio between the number and type of problems to which he may be exposed and his opportunities to cope with them. In such a model, the quality of work is defined in terms of control capacity built into a task independent of, and without any assumptions with respect to needs, satisfaction criteria and so on. 8.5.4

The Twin-Concept of Production S tructure and Control Structure

The specific architecture of a production systems' structure fosters or restricts the opportunities for effective and efficient control of the required coordination between functionally differentiated processes that may interfere with one another. The core of sociotechnical inquiry is, therefore, the analysis and identification of structural parameters that together determine a systems' interference probability and sensitivity in reference to a balanced production of internal and external functions in time. This endeavour requires at least the identification of these structural parameters. In structural analysis, the traditional distinction between the 'social' and 'technical' system should, therefore, be abolished and replaced by a fundamental distinction between two functions involved in every purposeful process, regardless of its function: • •

To control: to select relations to be performed. To perform: to realize, effectuate or produce selected relations.

From the point of view of design methodology it is, therefore, useful to introduce a distinction between the structure of three interrelated aspect-systems: •

Production structure:

The grouping and coupling of performing

functions. •

Control structure:

The allocation, selection and coupling of control

functions. •

Information structure: In sociotechnical design, an information structure is derived from the production and control structure and design questions are concerned mainly with technical matters relative to sensing, coding, retrieval and transfer of data.

As aspect-systems, the three dimensions of structure are completely

180

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

interrelated. However, from a logical point of view of design it is impossible to consider the design of a control structure without a dear and well-founde,.d view of the object to be controlled; i.e. the production structure. The more complex the production structure, the more complex the control structure will be. From this follows the first unconditional law of design sequence: design the production structure first, then proceed with the design of the control structure. The matter is not only a question of design strategy because the relationship between the three structural levels is rather specific. For example, different architectures of a control structure are possible, when applied to a given production structure. However, a change of production structure always implies a change in the architectural possibilities of the control structure. In other words, within a given division of work, there are different remaining options for controlling that work. As soon as you change the division, however, these possibilities will change. 8.5.5

The Concept of Structural Parameters

Sociotechnical design is structural design and by sheer logic only structural design can be conceived as integral design. The designer should, therefore, know how structural paramaters (see box 4.7) are related to organizational deficiencies, which parameters are in fact involved in various design questions and why. In a modem sociotechnical paradigm the parameters should, therefore, refer to the primary architectural characteristics of both the production and control structure. The parameters have a specific relevance within the framework of the interference contingency model, because their configuration in a specific architecture is viewed as being very important in connection to the ratio between probabilities of interference and probabilities of interference reduction on all levels of aggregation. As sociotechnical design was and is, oriented towards restructuring the division of work in relation to goods or services to be produced, problems of design are always related to the choice of structural parameters. Therefore, the core of sociotechnical theory should be concerned with the relationship between alternative configurations of structural parameters in relation to the problem of balanced controllability. Although the theoretical level design problems can be defined in similar terms, practical solutions differ between different production situations (cf. figure 8.1).

Chapter Eight- A Socio-Technical Perspective

basic problems

design strategy

balanced control- -

181

reference models --for solutions

specific adapted

--solution

!ability interference probability

reduce probabilities

architecture type 1

design case 1

& interference-reduction

of interference, enlarge architecture type 2

design case 2

capacity

control capacity

architecture type n

design case n

Figure 8.1 Design problems and practical solutions 8.6

A Look into the Future

Historic roots, problems in the area of implementation, and a short outline of what Modem Sociotechnology is about have been discussed. Perhaps it is interesting to take a look into the future. In my view, much has already been accomplished. In The Netherlands, a new law on safety, health and well-being at work, has passed parliament in which the part dealing with 'well-being ' is fully based on modem sociotechnical considerations. But there is still a lot of work ahead. The method of implementation as described above, for example, requires a fully developed set of practical courses in applied integral design, with specific sets adapted to specific personnel levels. There are several experienced sociotechnical consulting firms in Europe, but the competitive climate impedes an organized exchange of experience and materials in this field. Socio-Technical Systems Design should become the core of managerial science and designers should learn to look at themselves as 'architects of structure'. There is no other road. Even coming to g rips with such a normative concept as Human Resources Management, requires structural thinking. To begin with, the terminology is incorrect. There is a lot you can manage, but not human resources. The very core of human resource is his creativity. Managing creativity is to deny creativity. However, there is another HRM: 'Human Resources Mobilization'. Although you cannot manage a human resource, you can indeed shape environments that mobilize human resources. Human environments are configurations of structured interactive relationships, the specific structure of which may foster or impede the potential deployment of human resources. Just as the normative concept of democracy can only develop within the framework of structural conditions in a social system, creative organizational cultures can only develop within specific structural

182

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

contexts. 'Learning Drganizations' is another actual issue. However, organizations do noJ learn. Only human beings can eventually, if their position in a network structured by the division of labour contains opportunities to perceive, judge and choose between alternative courses of action. A sociotechnologist would translate the problem of organizational learning into the structural problem of organizational structures for learning. He would scrutinize structural parameters and search for those configurations that would shape and sustain structural conditions for learning. Putting forth the right question is the half of the answer. Apart from improving design methodology by further research into the structure of the division of labour, much effort . should be invested in a systematic inventory of the 'state of the art'. Van Eijnatten's work is an excellent example. From the point of view of research strategy, I think it would be wise to strive for a certain amount of balance in the development of divers areas of researc h. In a global sense, I think fut ure work should b e particularly related to the following somewhat neglected problem areas: •

•

•

With regard to social system theory: Further elaboration of the theory of control structure design. With regard to system functions: Industrial pollution and product development. With regard to aspect-system functions: Integrating partial theories in the theory and methodology of integral structural design.

In general, we have developed a well-founded theory and methodology with respect to the redesign of production structures. Moreover, Sociotechnology is able to refer to a rather large number of successful cases. Principles for the redesign of control structures are in my view, less elaborated upon and require additional attention. For example, the term span of control does not suffice. Span with respect to what? With respect to levels of control, domains of control, process range of control, or with respect to functional completeness in a control cycle? What is the measure of effective control and what of efficient control? How do we formulate a comprehensive design theory on the allocation, selection and coupling of control cycles with respect to a production structure? A comprehensive design theory on control structures should mention the relevant structural paramaters of control by which control

Chapter Eight A Socio-Technical Perspective -

183

structures can be defined or described. It should study the relationships between possible parameter configurations and an integral set of functional requirements, and study the probabilities of interference between functional requirements in relation to alternative control structures. In the past, sociotechnologists stressed the importance of including QWL to the list of traditional functional requirements organizations should meet. Today, we should extend the range of functions for integral design to the problem of industrial pollution. How could modem sociotechnical structures for production control, fulfil a function in the formulation of the strategy of the firm with regard to the environment; and how could the responsibility of 'whole-task groups' be extended to pollution control? Product development is another example. Many organizations have split themselves up into the three basic functions: Prepare, support and m a k e . T o date a p p l i e d Sociotechnology has been concentrated o n the production and control structure of the making or manufacturing function. We should pay more attention to the Sociotechnology of the product development sub-system and its interfaces with markets on the one hand and supporting and manufacturing functions on the other. An ever in­ creasing number of academic workers are working under unfavorable conditions of stress, in obsolete structures of R&D departments unable to keep budgets and time schedules on target. Members of R&D teams tend to agree that craftmanship and innovative potential is not the problem. The more urgent question is how to combine available human resources in this respect into an effective and efficient innovative system. Modem project organization seems to be the common answer. However, the complexity of projects in product innovation tend to reflect the complexity of production systems in which they are embedded. From a sociotechnical point of view then, the options for effective project organization are bounded by the overall structural characteristics of a production system and the manner in which the internal structure of R&D departments reflect these characteristics. Functional concentration (structural parameter no.l) is not only a dominant characterisitic of manufacturing departments, but also in R&D, it is common practice to base its internal structure on a complex subdivision of R&D departments according to the domains of partial and specialized knowledge. And last but not least, partial theories and partial expert­ ise in such fields as logistics, quality assurance, information sys­ tems, cost accounting and personnel need to be adapted to integral

184

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

sociotechnical design. At first sight this would seem a nearly impossible endeavour. In our experience, however, actual problems within organizations,may help to fill the cultural gap between specialists. In 1987, Johnson and Kaplan published their well-known book on cost accounting under the revealing title "Relevance Lost" (Johnson & Kaplan, 1 9 8 7 ) . Today, sociotechnologists in The Netherlands hold discussions with accountants, on how to go about restructuring production into self-supporting flows and flow segments, creating new opportunities for relevant and reliable cost accounting. In the same vein, established consulting firms in information systems begin to understand that information structures depend as much on control structures as the control structures themselves depend on production structures. As the complexity of a given production structure determines the complexity of the information system designed for production control, the options for improving production control by redesign and automation of information structures are severely restricted. The real breakthrough appears by integrating sociotechnical design of production- and control structures with the design approach of the information analyst. Thus, a common ground of interest begins to take shape. Indeed, Socio­ technology is an exiting science.

Chapter Nine Work Place Development and Communicative Autonomy Bjorn Gustavsen

Some months ago, when the Volvo management publically made it known that they intended to close the Kalmar and Uddevalla plants, the decision triggered a renewed discussion of work reform. Did this decision emerge because the group model for the final assembly of cars for which these factories had become world famous (Aguren et al., 1984; Ellegard et al., 1989; Berggren, 1 990; Forslin, 1990), turn out to be impractical and unproductive? Volvo does not argue that these factories are less productive than the more conventional factories such as Torslanda (in Gothenburg), but it can be argued that neither are they more productive. Being relatively small, located in medium-sized communities, a consider­ able distance from the other plants upon which they rely for supplies, the argument is that it is reasonable to close these fac­ tories and focus on the larger, more centrally located production complex in Gothenburg. In the debate that followed this decision, a number of hypotheses have been put forward concerning the possi­ bility of hidden agendas behind the decision. This contribution will taken for granted, Volvo's reasons are as they say they are - in fact, we will not enter upon any discussion of motives in a subjective sense since there is nothing known beyond Volvo management anyway. Instead, we will look at the decision in a broader context, and in this sense follow-up on the discussion as introduced by Womack e t al. (1990) when they argue that 'the Swedish solutions' t o the organization of the assembly of cars is inferior to 'Japanese solutions'. Is there any reason to believe that this is the case, or is the lack of peak productivity - so far at least- in the Kalmar and U ddevalla factories more of a local phenomenon that can be redeemed by smaller adjustments in the basic model? The Kalmar and Uddevalla factories can be seen as major symbols in the work reform movement in Scandinavia. The work reform movement, in turn, emerged as an alternative to Taylorism. Taylorism, can be characterized in different ways. Here, it is suffi­ cient to put this characterization in terms of a few principles:

186

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

- First, the principle of full specification of the task performance '" ... of the workers. - Second, the principle of no task autonomy for the workers, which is actually only a rephrasing of the first principle. - Third, since it is management, or those who may act on behalf of management, i.e., rationalization experts who develop the speci­ fications, while the workers are granted no influence, it follows that the difference, or gap, between management and workers is maximized (the principle of maximum vertical division of functions). - Finally, the solutions created by Taylorism are claimed to be applicable everywhere (the principle of universalism). When the sociotechnical school rose to challenge Taylorism, it was, among other things, on the basis of the following principles: - The principle of minimum critical specifications. - The principle of task autonomy for the workers. - Since task autonomy provides the workers with decision-making rights, the boundaries between workers and management become fluid (the principle of fluid division of functions). - The idea of universally accepted solutions was - at least stepwise - replaced with the idea that the ability of units such as work groups, are able themselves, to develop optimal patterns for their task performance (the principle of local solutions). Since no principle is ever practised in its pure form, one cannot say that plants such as the above-mentioned Volvo factories in an abso­ lute sense embody this second set of principles. They proceed, how­ ever, a long way in this direction, within the framework of their specific type of industry - car production. Now, what are the characteristics of the system, or systems, which seem to emerge to challenge this pattern? Here, we are con­ fronted with a complex, and to a large extent, conflicting picture the characteristics of 'Japanese' patterns remain unclear. Staying within the framework of some simple principles, as indicated above, it seems, however, that one may begin with the following: - First, the principle of full specification must be clearly applied (cf. Adler, 1992 on the NUMMI plant), although not universally. If anything, 'Japanese' strategies seem to imply quite an eclectic view on the issue of work organization, applying those patterns

Chapter Nine - Work Place Development and Communicative Autonomy

187

that seem most suitable in each case. - Second, task autonomy may not disappear, but there is little to indicate that a very high value is put on it either (again, the NUMMI plant is illustrative - here the work cycles seem on the whole, to be less than one minute; see also Helling, 1991, particu­ larly pp. 179-193). - Finally, the idea of universal best solutions is making a comeback -not in the quasi-scientific form of Taylorism, but in the form of ideas like 'global best practices'. The idea that work groups or even whole factory organizations are able to fully work out optimal practices on their own is rejected (Naschold, 1991). Does this mean that high performance systems in the car industry are actually a retrogression to Taylorism? If we confront the return to Taylorism, how is it then, that the systems seem to have escaped the motivation problems, legitimation crises, excess health and safety problems, etc., which characterize Taylorism, and which were quite well-documented by research in the 40s, 50s and 60s? One possible answer is that some of the systems that have been more thoroughly described - particularly the NUMMI plant - are of a recent origin (at least in their present form) and that it takes some time for the problems to surface (see also Parker & Slaughter, 1988, for a critical analysis from a work environment perspective). While in some cases, this may be part of the explanation, it cannot carry the entire burden of explaining in full the Japanese advances. While Japanese work organization seems to be character­ ized by eclecticism, there is one feature of Japanese organization that stands out and constitutes a major difference compared to the West and that is the improvement work. Japanese improvement work first became known to Western industry in the form of quality circles. Quality circles seem, however, to be only a modest part of a much more comprehensive picture. According to Womacket al. (1990, see also Helling, 1991), about 90% of all employees of the Japanese factories included in the car industry study, participated in some form or another on a group-based activity that went beyond ordi­ nary production and had to do with discussions of change and im­ provement: The comparable figure for European car factories was 25% and the Swedish factories did not reach even this level. The systematic improvement activities have a broad range of spin-offs, for instance, a very high average number of proposals from each worker, which all are practically acted upon. It seems reasonable to make a more fundamental distinction between two aspects of a workplace of enterprise organization

188

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

(Gustavsen, 1992; EI).gelstad & Gustavsen, 1993):

- The work organizakm, which is the framework in which the 'ordinary' work is done.

- The development organization, which is the framework that involves everything necessary to do with change and develop­ ment and where it is done, i.e., quality circles, project groups, discussion groups, workplace meetings. If the development organization is as broad and intense as argued by, for instance, Masaaki (1986), or Belling (1991), it is one expla­ nation as to why Japanese firms have been able to launch one major rationalization campaign after the other (in logistics, production, customer relationships, quality, product development, etc.), and keep them up over time until the overall relationship between resources and output has significantly changed, warranting the use of such a concept as 'Lean Production'. Insofar as what is here referred to as the development or­ ganization, the key to understanding the Japanese advances, it also follows that the ability to escape the problems of Taylorism - in respect to short work cycles where little content is applied -lies in keeping up a rate of change that is sufficient in the prevention of becoming frozen into one specific pattern for a long time. Heavy wear and tear on the body can be prevented, or at least slowed down, through a strategy that lets people pass through a sequence of different, albeit monotonous, jobs, compared to being forced to stand in the same monotonous job indefinitely. Returning to tenets, three additional principles can be added to the three mentioned above, and it is in these principles that the significant break with Taylorism can be found: - The fourth principle, is the right for everybody to participate in work improvement, combined with the establishment of arenas and procedures that allow for a broad, while at the same time, intense work with change and development (the principle of continuous improvement work). - Along with this there seems to be a reasonable free right to dis­ cuss and to criticize - provided that it has to do with perform­ ance (the principle of communicative (semi)autonomy). - Due to the system for discussion and joint improvement, the prin­ ciple of a fluid relationship between management and workers is maintained.

Chapter Nine - Work Place Development and Communicative Autonomy

189

The application of the principle of communicative autonomy at the workplace level, and the creation of a broad range of arenas on which to apply the principle, seems to be only part of a much broader society level process. Here, only scattered elements of infor­ mation and analyses are available. Helling (1991) indicates that the Japanese language has undergone such a major process of change that today, it has become the world's most advanced industrial language. This means that workplace dialogues can rely on highly sophisticated linguistic resources. Johnson (1987) makes the point that Japan is organized as an 'innovation supportive state' where the state apparatus sees it as one of its major tasks, to set-up broad society-level networks for the exchange of experience and diffusion ' of innovations. Upon closer analysis, this picture may turn out to be exaggerated or to have its cracks and weak spots. So far, however, the picture that appears is one of a tremendous society-level devel­ opment organization where 'the grass roots' is the broad web of ongoing workplace discussions concerning improvement in a form and on a scale unknown in our part of the world. What this indicates is that communication lies at the spear­ head of the process. Insofar as this provides a frame of reference for understanding the problems Volvo may face, it indicates that these problems do not consist of a work organization deficit but of a devel­ opment organization deficit. This does not mean that Volvo is lagging behind other Scandinavian companies in this area, but it is likely that it is in the fr ont h e r e to o , but the front is not sufficiently advanced. W orkplace dialogues that have a scope, magnitude and intensity comparable to the Japanese pattern, are still on the whole, lacking in Scandinavia. Elements of dialogues do, of course, exist. When bipartite production committees were introduced as a general system, just after the end of World War !I, one may even argue that Scandinavia moved to the lead in this type of development. Furthermore, the system has been subjected to continuous revision and enrichment, on the formal as well as on the informal level, but not at the rate needed to grasp with the new rationalization strategi e s . More than a minute amount o f bureaucracy has crept in, rendering this a n incorrect context in which these aspects can be pursued. For an analysis that covers some of the points, see Gustavsen (1993). The main purpose of the LOM progr amme, and the associ­ ated idea of ' democratic dialogue' (that is very well presented, however, briefly, in chapter four of this book) as the leading edge in processes of change, was to enter this terrain. When the pro­ gramme was originally conceptualized, in the middle 1980s, it was

190

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

less clear then today, that the most pressing need in Scandinavian workplace development was not continued design efforts but initi­ ating significant steps towards the establishment of a community of communication on enterprise level as well as on the national level, with respect to change and improvement in working life. Further­ more, such a community should be established on an autonomous basis in terms of theory and not be seen as the n'th transformation of participative design strategies. In a sense, a communicative approach of the type applied in the LOM prog ramme, is the anti­ thesis of the type of systems theory on which the main focus is located in this book. According to Van Eijnatten's own presentation, socio-technical systems thinking has its historical roots in some of the naturalist systems theories from the 1950s with universalist 'Claims (even though it has undergone several transformations). If we see organization development as occurring in the cultural sphere, the opposite of a naturalist systems theory with universalist claims would be a theory of cultural transformation possessing the same claims, and if we want such a theory, a Habermas-type theory of communication presents itself, not as an 'empirical picture' of any­ thing, but a set of premises on which to stake out a direction and start developing action parameters. If systems theory and communication theory represents dif­ ferent types of rationalities, the question is: How are they related to each other? Such contributors to systems theory as Luhmann (1984) and Teubner (1990), solve the problem by deconstructing much of the traditional content-oriented principles of rationality in sys­ tems theory and replacing them with a communicative and linguis­ tic turn in system theory itself. Habermas builds much of his dis­ cussions of such issues as 'life world' and 'systems world', and of (misdirected) modernization as 'colonization of the life world' by systems thinking, on a relationship of competition and conflict between the approaches (see also McCarthy, 1991). This author prefers a third way, based on positive and constructive interaction and on avoiding a systems theory that colonizes the communicative sphere, but also the reverse alternative. Clearly, as pointed out by Naschold (1993), Cole (1993) and others, the LOM programme as a five-year 9 million dollar effort, reaching about 150 organizations and involving around 60 research­ ers - most of which have no previous experience in this type of research and development effort - was no match for the Japanese productivity train. It would have been somewhat surprising if it had been. It did, however, introduce communication as an auton­ omous issue in Scandinavian and to some small extent, even

Chapter Nine - Work Place Development and Communicative Autonomy

191

European workplace development and did perform some demonstra­ tions of the potential of communication generated workplace change. From recent developments in Sweden as well as in Norway (Gustavsen, 1993), it is of little doubt that moving from 'communi­ cation' as an everyday, trivial phenomena with little contours, to seeing communication as a major factor in further industrial devel­ opment, and, in this context, to sufficiently reverse figure-ground relationships for communication to become an issue of fundamental strategic importance, now appears as an issue of the first order of priority.

Epilogue Fred Emery

As an epilogue this is not an attempt to say the last words on the forty years of STSD that Frans van Eijnatten has so assidu­ ously and ably reviewed. This note is an epilogue only in the sense of last thoughts or speculations on where I think STSD is taking us, in 1993, as it becomes a significant influence in the world of work. I do not intend ·to take up points in the ongoing debate about the forms of STSD as that would settle nothing. We can expect continued variation in the forms of STSD that are being advocated because the advocates stand in their own special relations to the world of work. As STSD achieved a high profile in the seventies and eighties academics sought ways to scholasticize it, consultants sought ways to sell it and politicians sought ways to turn it into vote-winning pro­ grammes. STSD was not developed to serve any of these special ends but that will not prevent others from continuing to adapt STSD to better serve their special ends. We can only seek to understand what drives their efforts at adaptation, and make due allowances. Scholasticizing STSD is the means of extending the univer­ sities' monopoly over this newly emerging field of knowledge. This requires that the subject matter be so abstractly generalized, conceptually complicated and mathematicized that only the gifted few can grasp it. These qualities have to be much enhanced if the subject is to be offered at post-graduate level. In the years since World War II we have seen this happen to operations research, most of the so-called management sciences and such diverse fields as geography and sociology. There is no mystery about the dynamics of this process. True knowledge is held to reside in the logical interrelations of abstract universals. Few people can, or will, think at the level of abstract universals and the universities' monopoly is based on their unique role in selecting and preparing minds for this level of functioning. The academic acceptability of a new field of knowledge presumes that it is a challenge to abstract, logical thinking; with each subsequent year of study being even more challenging. Appointment to academic staff, and subsequent promotion, requires that one prove to other established academics that one can be relied upon to further scholasticize the subject. Such

Epilogue

193

proof lies primarily in publishing papers in peer-refereed journals controlled by established academics. That is a testing process, but it tests only for the prized academic qualities. Reality testing is of secondary importance, if any. For the future of STSD this academic influence may be of little immediate importance. Over the longer run it could distort the perceptions of managers returning to do MBA's and the professionals who end up in the Human Resources field or in consultancy. Consultancy brings its own pressures on the development of STSD. Consultants depend for their livelihood on client dependency. They usually have nothing to gain from increasing client independence. Naturally they will stretch out an organizational change process; seek to lower their costs by standardizing consulting services to meet multiple requirements, and seek to offer the latest fads that permit the highest mark-ups of service prices. As STSD becomes fashionable they offer 'needs assessment', 'skills devel­ opment', 'team training', and even training of in-house STSD designers, before they even consider the re-design of the actual job. The third 'trade wind' that will continue to shape the forms of STSD is political accomodation. When it is accepted that paradigmatic change is inevitable, in an area as central as the world of work, the only defensible conservative position is to slow down the rate of change. The slower the rate of change the better are the chances of the winners in the old paradigm preserving something for themselves. Basically the plea is 'not to throw the baby out with the bathwater'. Effectively it seeks to mask or belittle the future inherent in STSD; in order to gain time. These efforts are made easier when even apparently serious scholars cannot distinguish between attractive appearances and organiz­ ational realities. For examples we have Womack et al. (1990) on so­ called 'Lean Production' and Adler (1991) on 'learning bureau­ cracies'. In both cases they are describing (very well) what happens when decisions about control and coordination are located with work teams but in both cases they sum up their observations as if they had seen the leopard of Taylorism change its spots. Unfortunately, many of their readers will have no clearer idea than those authors of what constitutes the essence of taylorism or bureaucracy. Namely, that both systems insist that decisions about coordination and control be located at least one level above the doers. We decide, they do. The influences that I have mentioned, academic, consultant and political, are only environmental factors, so to speak. They may facilitate or hinder STSD fulfilling its potential but they do not

194

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

define the problems inherent in STSD that may inhibit its own development. It is. the latter problems on which I wish to concen­ trate. But, before doing that, let be qualify my previous comments on the influence of academic, consultant and political concerns. Those influences may change their direction, if the society gets to the stage of recognizing that it must make the radical change from a traditional workforce based on a mass of relatively unskilled labour, deployed as readily replaceable parts in narrowly defined jobs, to a multi-skilled workforce deployed in self-managing teams. In Australia the government had firmly set its goals on such a transformation of the workforce (as a realistic alternative to becoming a 'banana republic'). That change of heart came from politicians (from both major parties) and their manipulation of Federal funds has ensured that significant sections of academia, and of the consultants, have climbed on the bandwagon. It is probable that this means only that they will pursue their sectional interests more subtly. Now to the serious matter of the problems that confront STSD if it is to have a future in the world of work. Currently, the usual response is that we have to design participative models for work teams that we cannot expect to be fully multi-skilled. Research and development teams and management teams are very obvious examples but increasingly automated plants are showing the same characteristics (cf. Zuboff, 1988). In those work settings some of the people have 5 of 6 years of specialist professional education to qualify them for their work role. It is not feasible to multi-skill everyone up to the equivalent of one, two or three five-year special­ ist educations. This is not a new problem. The document on "Participative design" (Emery & Emery, 1974) was written after we had thrown off the last shreds of 'technological determinism' (thanks to the Norwegian field experiments), and after we had helped redesign the organization of R&D groups and management teams. We formulated and presented in that document a coherent model for democratizing decision making in such groups where multi-skilling was not a feasible option. This was possible because we had learnt that the critical questions were, a) what decisions about coordination and control were necessary for effective group working and b) how far can these decisions be located with the group responsible for doing the work. These were the critical questions regardless of the technology employed, whether production was discrete, batch or continuous, whether tasks were routine or nonroutine, or whether the tasks were physical or mental. I have not yet seen anything that goes beyond

Epilogue

195

that model or that demonstrated incompatibilities in that model (Pava, 1983). I do not see any remaining serious scientific problems in the formation of self-managing work teams that will be productive and self-regulating. The major problem that faces us at the present is that we have not worked out how self-managing work groups are to be managed. We are at the point where we have the scientific and practical knowledge to release a great deal of productivity and creativity at the workface but we continue with traditional managerial practices that stifle or misuse that potential (Emery, 1991). Rethinking the role of management will also involve re­ design of the support systems for the self-managing work groups and their connections with each other, and with customers and outside suppliers. In the past, as we introduced self-managing groups, these matters were handled on an ad hoc basis to suit local conditions. Such arrangements kept getting whittled away as the support systems (stores, personnel, finance etc.) tried to get back to their old ways and powers. For STSD this is an unfinished task. It is prob­ ably a task that can be solved only after the general problem of management has been resolved. If only because, in the traditional model, management's reserve powers over production have lain in its controls over the supports. This is particularly true for corporate or departmental control over the constituent enterprises. STSD came into being as an attempt to solve one of the most central problems in modern industrial civilisation. The alienation of an increasingly de-skilled workforce was a barrier to increased productivity, despite technological innovation and higher levels of education. The same developments were making it harder to societies to be self-regulating. They were increasingly relying on imposed regulation and policing. The grand experiments we have seen with state socialism and public ownership of enterprises obviously did nothing to solve the problem. After forty years of experimentation and innovation I think it is fair to say that we now know how to achieve productive participation of the workforce at the enterprise level. However, solving the problem at the enterprise level is only the first step. The enterprise is probably the largest unit that can usefully be treated as a sociotechnical sys­ tem. Enterprises emerge and are embedded in a social environment which they share with a host of institutions that are primarily psycho-cultural in their orientation. When many enterprises move to transform their workplaces we start to confront socio-ecological problems that take us beyond

196

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

STSD. We have see� in this volume how socio-technical systems theory evolved by giving partial solutions that created new problems, and proceeded to solve those. Sometimes STSD theory turned back on itself to find a firmer basis for tackling the newly emergent problems. There is no reason to believe that the dynamics have changed. It might still be that some of our present problems are of our own making and require us to go back and rethink our premises. On the other hand, some problems have emerged because STSD theory, and the practise of participative design, have already changed the world of work. Where once we were concerned with posing a theoretical challenge to Frederick Taylor's concept of the scientific management of work we are now confronted with the real­ world problem of managing multi-skilled workforces organized as self-management work teams, and expecting a lifetime career structure. Necessarily the social context must change. Educational systems must be geared to supplying and sustaining such a workforce and an appropriately selected and educated managerial strata. The institutional structures and legislation obviously have to be radical­ ly changed in order to serve industrial relations that are increasing­ ly symmetrically dependent; and a very far call from the tradition­ al concept of master-servant relations. These are problems that we knew would occur once a nation­ al workforce was restructured to be based on multi-skilled, self­ managing work teams; instead of the traditional basis of a mass of easily replaceable, narrowly trained, semi-skilled labour. No-one, to my knowledge, tackled these problems, because we did not know when they would become real problems. They have been niggling problems in some of the large corporations that moved early to basing themselves on multi-skilled, self-managing work teams. In Australia they have become national problems. Not because the transformation of the workforce has been completed, or even more than fractionally attained. It has become a problem because the process of change seems, to the leaders of industry, unions and politics, to be unavoidable. Unavoidable if Australia wishes not to be reduced to the status of a 'banana republic'. The consequences have been like the breaking of the wall of a dam. Over the past eight years the tertiary, secondary and primary school systems have been subjected to massive restructuring to remove status giving academic education from its traditional central place. The central­ ized industrial relations system,which gave legal standing to the

Epilogue

197

Taylorized division of labour is in the process of being replaced by local enterprise bargaining. This is in acceptance of the fact that it is only at the enterprise that managerial prerogatives can be realistically traded for work group rights of self-management and increased productivity. Within a remarkably short time (two years) the trade union movement has transformed itself from hundreds of unions to just more than twenty industrial sector unions. This reflects their new responsibilities for negotiating industry frameworks for enterprise bargaining. It is not possible to see where the social changes will flow onto. As I write measures are being debated, at the national level, for child care provisions that would permit mothers to fully participate in an increasingly career oriented work­ force. STSD was never just an academic or scientific exercise. We are now confronted, thanks to STSD, with policy matters that go well beyond the scope of STSD.

References ...

'

Abraham, R. (1988). Chaos in myth and science. Santa Cruz, California: University of Santa Cruz, unpublished paper. Ackoff, R.L. (1974). Redesigning the future: a systems approach to societal problems. New York: Wiley. Ackoff, R.L., & Emery, F.E. (1972). On purposeful systems. London: Tavistock Publications. Adler, P.S. (1991). The learn ing bureaucracy: new United Mo tor Manufactu ring Inc. California: University of Southern California, School of Business Administration. Adler, P.S. (1992). The learning bureaucracy: new United Motor Manufacturing, Inc. In: B.M. Staw, & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press. Adler, P.S. (1993). Time-and-motion regained. Harvard Bu siness Review, January/February, 97-108. Agersnap, F., M0ldrup, P., Junge, F., Brinch, L., & Westenholz, A. (1974). Danish experiments with new forms of cooperation on the shop floor. Personnel Review, 3 (3), 34-50. Aguren, S., & Edgren, J. (1980). New factories: job design through factory planning in Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Employers' Confederation SAF. Aguren, S., Hansson, R., & Karlsson, KG. (1976). The Volvo Kalmar plant: the impact of new design on work organization. Stockholm: The Rationalisation Council SAF-LO. Aguren, S., Bredbacka, C., Hansson, R., Ihregren, K, & Karlsson, K G . (1984). Volvo Kalmar revisited: ten years of experience. Stockholm: Trykert Balder. Alders, B. (1993). Lean production: is er sprake van een West-Euro­ pees perspectief? (Lean production: what about a West-European perspective?) M&O: Tijdschrift voor Organisatiekunde en Sociaal Beleid, 47 (1), 39-54, (Dutch language). Alink, J.B., & Wester, Ph. (1978). Organisatieverandering in een

gereedschapsmakerij (Organizational change in a machine factory). Eindhoven: Philips (Dutch language). Allegro, J.T. (1971). Sociotechnische organisatie-ontwikkeling en veranderend leiderschap (Sociotechnical organization devel­ opment and changing leadership). Mens en Onderneming, 25, 252259, (Dutch language). Allegro, J.T., & Vries, E. de (1979). Project: Humanization and parti/

References

199

cipation in Centraal Beheer. In: A. Alioth, J. B lake, M . Butteriss, M. Elden, 0. Ortsman, & R . van der Vlist (Eds.), Working on the quality of working life: developments in Europe (pp. 223-237). Boston: Nijhoff, International Council for the Quality of Working Life. Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van (1982). Samen werken aan samenwerking:

een sociotechnische proces-analyse van de sector werf van IHC-Smit b. v. te Kinderdijk (Working together to accomplish cooperation: a sociotechnical process analysis of the shipyard sector of IHC-Smit b. v. in Kinderdijk). Eindhoven: Technische Hogeschool, afdeling der Bedrijfskunde, vakgroep Organisatie-sociologie (Dutch lan­ guage). Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van (1 987) . De Schumacher aanpak bij het

integraal ontwerpen van stroomsgewijze produktiestrukturen vanuit de lijnsituatie: een bewerking en aanpassing van de oorspronkelijke Schumacher-aanpak (The Schumacher approach to integral design of flow production structures starting from a line situation: a revision and adjustment of the original Schumacher approach). Den Bosch: Adviesgroep Koers b.v., intern rapport (Dutch language). Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van (1988). Herontwerp van de organisatie Frans

Swarttouw (Redesign of the organization at Frans Swarttouw). Rotterdam: Frans Swarttouw, intern rapport (Dutch language). Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van (1989). Een model voor de moderne bestu­ ringsstructuur volgens de sociotechnische theorie (A sociotechni­ cal model for the control structure according to modern socio­ technical theory). Gedrag en Organisatie, 2 (4/5), 253-267, (Dutch language). Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van (I992a). Het vergroten van de bestuur­

baarheid van produktie-organisaties (Increasing the controllability of production organizations). Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit, proefschrift (Dutch language). Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van (1992b). Het 'lean production' concept: Japanse sociotechniek of neo-taylorisme? (The concept of 'lean production': Japanese sociotechnique or neo-taylorism?). Pa nta Rhei, 2 (1), 6-9, (Dutch language). Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van (1993). Het 'lean production ' concept in de

Nederlandse industrie (The lean-production con cep t in Du tch industry). Eindhoven/ Oss: Technische Universiteit/ ST-Groep (Dutch language). Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van, & Vogelzangs, H. (1987). Analyse en her­

ontwerp van regelkringen (Analysis and redesign of control loops). Maarheeze: Philips, intern rapport (Dutch language). Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van, & Vossen, H.P. (1984). Voorstel voor een

200

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

nieuwe fabricagestructuur (Proposal concerning a new fabrication structure). Roermond: Philips, intern rapport (Dutch language). Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van, & Vossen, H.P. (1987). Integrale kwaliteits­ zorg tabaksfabrie!C Van Nelle (Total quality management tobacco­ factory Van Nelle). Rotterdam: Van Nelle (Dutch language). Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van, Scholtes, G., & Knol, G. (1988). Voorstel voor de produktie- en besturingsstructuur van MPRS (Proposal concerning the productio n and control structures of MPRS). Stadskanaal: Philips, intern rapport (Dutch language). Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of personality (pp. 243261). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Angyal, A. (1965). Neurosis and treatment: a holistic theory. New York: Wiley. Archer, J. (1975). Achieving joint organizational, technical and per­ sonal needs: the case of the sheltered experiment of the alumin­ ium casting team. In: L.E. Davis, & A.B. Cherns (Eds.), T h e quality of working life: cases and commentary (pp. 253-268). Free Press: New York. Argyris, C. (1957). Personality and organization. New York: Harper. Argyris, C. (1970). Intervention theory and method: a behavioral science view. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Argyris, C. (1976). Single-loop and double-loop models in research on decision making. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 363-375. Argyris, C., & Schon, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: a theory of action perspective. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Arnopolous, S. (1985). Participative management in an advanced technology plant: Canadian General Electric in Bromont. Montreal: McGill Human Resource Associates. Ashby, W.R. (1952). Design for a brain. London: Chapman and Hall. Ashby, W.R. (1956a). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Uni­ versity Paperbacks. Ashby, W.R. (1956b). Self-regulation and requisite variety, introduc­ tion to cybernetics, chapter II. In: F.E. Emery (Ed.) (1 969), Systems thinking: selected readings (pp. 105-124). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Ashby, W.R. (1958). An introduction to cybernetics. London: Chapman and Hall. Auer, P., & Riegler, C. (1990). Post-Taylorism: the enterprise as a place

of learning organizational change. A comprehensive study on work organization changes and its context at Volvo. Stockholm/ Berlin:

The Swedish Work Environment Fund/Wissenschaftszentrum fur Sozialforschung. Babi.iroglu, O.N. (1988). The vortical environment: the fifth in the

References

201

Emery-Trist levels of organizational environments. H u m a n Relations, 41 (3), 181-210. Babiiroglu, O.N. (1991). Tracking the development of the Emery-Trist Systems Paradigm (ETSP). Ankara: Bilkent University, Manage­ ment Department, preprint. Babiiroglu, O.N. (1992). Tracking the development of the Emery­ Trist Systems Paradigm (ETSP). Systems Practice, 5 (2). Barker, R., Dembo, T., & Lewin, K. (1941). Frustration and re­ gression: an experiment with young children. University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 18 (2), 1-43. Barten, A.W.H.M. (1986) . Vervanging van draaibanken gebru ik­

makend van groepentechn ologie (Group technology to support decision-making concerning an adequate replacement of lathes). Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit, Faculteit Bedrijfskunde (Dutch language). Bavelas, A. (1942). Morale and the training of leaders. In: G. Watson (Ed.), Civilian morale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Com­ pany. Beek, H.G. van (1964). The influence of assembly line organization on output, quality and morale. Occupational Psychology, 38 (3/4), 161-172. Beekun, R.A. (1989). Assessing the effectiveness of socio-technical interventions: antidote or fad? Human Relations, 42 (10), 877-897. Beer, M., & Huse, E.F. (1972). A systems approach to organization development (at Coming Glass). The Journal of Applied Behav­ ioral Science, 8 (1), 79-101. Beinum, H.J.J. van (1959). Interim-rapport over de proefafdeling Zaan­

straat (Half-term report concerning the test-department Zaanstraat). Den Haag: Post-cheque- en girodienst (Pcgd), afdeling Sociaal­ Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek, intern rapport, februari (Dutch language). Beinum, H.J.J. van (1963). Een organisatie in beweging (An organ­ ization in motion). Leiden: Stenfert Kroese, proefschrift (Dutch language). Beinum, H.J.J. van (1966). The morale of the Dublin busmen. London: Tavistock. Beinum, H.J.J. van (1986). The warp and weft of Q WL. Toronto: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre. Beinum, H.J.J. van (1990a). Observations on the development of a new o rganizational paradigm. Stockholm: The Swedish Centre for Working Life. Beinum, H.J.J. van (1990b). Swedish workplace reform: from socio­ technical to socio-ecological design. In: B. Viklund (Ed.), Infor-

202

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

mation fro m the Swedish cen ter for wo rking life (pp. 6-7). Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum. Beinum, H.J.J. van'-�1990c). Over participatieve democratie (About participative democracy) . Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit, (tweede) intreerede (Dutch language). Beinum, H.J.J. van, Gils, M.R. van, & Verhagen, E.J. (1968). Taak­ ontwerp en werkorganisatie: een sociotechnisch veldexperiment (Job design and work organization: a sociotechnical field experiment). Den Haag: Commissie Opvoering Produktiviteit, COP / SER (Dutch language). Bennis, W.G. (1966). Changing organizations. New York: McGraw­ Hill. Berggren, C. (1 990). Det nya bilarbetet (The new way of building cars). Stockholm: Arkiv (Swedish language). Berrien, K. (1 968). General and social systems. New Jersey, New Brunswick. Bertalanffy, L. von (1950). The theory of open systems in physics and biology. Science, 111, 23-29. Betcherman, G., Newton, K., & Godin, J. (1990). Systems and people: managing socio-technical change at Pratt and Whitney Canada. In: Canadian Government Publishing Centre (Ed.), T w o

steps forward: human resource managemen t i n a high-tech world. Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing Centre. Beurle, R.L. (1962). Functional organization in random networks. In: H. V. Foerster, & G.W. Zopf (Eds.), Principles of self-organization. Oxford: Pergamon. Bion, W.R. (1949). Experiences in groups, III. Human Relations, 2 (1) , 13-22. Bion, W.R. (1950). Experiences in groups V. Human Relations, 3 (1), 314. Birchall, D.W., Carnall, C.B., & Wild, R. (1978). A s t udy of

experiences with new models for work organizations in the United Kingdom. Final project report for the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Blau, P .M. et al. (1976). Approaches to the study of social structure. London: Open Books Publishing. Boekholdt, M.G. (1981). Invoeren van groepsverpleging (Imple­ mentation of team nursing). Utrecht: Rijksuniversiteit, proef­ schrift (Dutch language). Bolwijn, P.T. (1988). Continui"teit en vernieuwing van produktie­

bedrijven (Continuity and renewal of production en terprises) . Enschede: Technische Universiteit Twente, Faculteit Bedrijfs­ kunde, intreerede (Dutch language).

References

203

Bolwijn, P.T., & Kumpe, T. (1989). Wat komt na flexibiliteit? De industrie in de jaren negentig (Flexibility, what's next? Indus­ trial development in the nineties). Mens en Onderneming, 43 (2), 91-111, (Dutch language). Bolwijn, P.T., Boorsma, J., Breukelen, Q.H. van, Brinkman, S., & Kumpe, T. (1986). Flexible manufacturing: integrating technological and social innovation. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Boons, A.N.A.M., Roberts, H.J.E., & Roozen, P.A. (1991). Activity­

based cos ting: s trategisch cost management voor vernieuwende bedrijven (Activity-based costing: strategic cost management for renewing enterprises). Deventer: Kluwer (Dutch language). Boons, A.N.A.M., Roberts, H.J.E., & Roozen, P.A. (1992). Contrasting activity-based costing with the German/Dutch cost pool method. Management Accounting Research, 3 (2), 97-117. Boonstra, J.J. (1992). Integrale organisatie ontwikkeling: vormgeven

aan fundamentele veranderingsprocessen (Integral organizational development: shap ing fundamental changes) . Utrecht: Lemma (Dutch language). Borrie, H.F. (1984). Kwaliteit van de arbeid in een industrieel bedrijf:

een toepassing van de ST-methode in een afdeling aandrijfassen (Quality of work in an industrial enterprise: an application of the ST method in the truck shafts production department). Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit, Vakgroep Psychologie van Arbeid en Organisatie (Dutch language). Bostrom, R.P., & Heinen, J.S. (1977). MIS problems and failures: a socio-technical perspective. MIS Quarterly, 1, 17-32. Bostrup, L., & S o derberg, G. (1975) . Flodesgrupper for

Smapartitillverkning (Flow groups in small batch production) . Stockholm: IVF-Resultat (Swedish language). Bregard, A., Gulowsen, J., Haug, 0., Hangen, F., Solstad, E., Thorsrud, E., & Tysland, T. (1968). Norsk Hydro: experiment in the fertilizer factories. Oslo: Work Research Institute. Briggs, J. , & Peat, F. (1989). Turbulent mirror. New York: Harper & Row. Brouwers, A.A.F., Buitelaar, W.L., Verkerk, J., & Glittinger, V.A. (1987). Monotone arbeid nu en straks (Monotonous work now and later). Leiden/ Apeldoorn/Den Haag: NIPG/STB/ TNO/DGA/ SoZaWe, HUMAR rapport ru. HA 330 (Dutch language). Buchanan, D.A. (1979). The development of job design theories and techniques. Westmead: Saxon House. Buckley, W. (1967). Sociology and modern systems theory. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Buitelaar, W.L. (1991). Indus trial relations and environment. A

204

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Dutch case study report of DSM Chemicals Rotterdam. Apeldoom: STB/TNO, Paper for the European Foundation for the Improve­ ment of Living'q,nd Working Conditions. Buitelaar, W.L., Dankbaar, B., & Klaveren, M. van (1990). Philips Winterswijk: een casestudie-verslag over technologie en arbeids­ verhoudingen (Philips Winterswijk: a case study report about techno logy and labour rela tions). Apeldoorn /M aastricht/ Amsterdam: STB-TNO/MERIT/STZ (Dutch language). Burbidge, J.L. (1975). Introduction of group technology. London: Heinemann. Burbidge, J.L. (1979). Group technology in the engineering industry. London: Mechanical Engineering Publications. Burden, D.W.F. (1972). Particip a tive app roach to management: Microwax Department. Shell UK, unpublished report. Burden, D.W.F. (1975). Participative management as a basis for improved quality of jobs: the case of Microwax department, Shell U.K. Ltd. In: L.E. Davis, & J.C. Taylor (Eds.), The quality of working life, vol. II. New York: Free Press. Burns, T, & Stalker, G.M. (1961). The management of innovation. London: Tavistock. Butera, F. (1975). Environmental factors in job and organization design: the case of Olivetti. In: L.E. Davis, & A.B. Cherns (Eds.}, The quality of working life, vol. 2 (pp. 166-200). New York: Free Press. Buyse, J.J. (1987). Kwaliteit v a n w erk en orga n is a tie op de

produktievloer: een integrale studie op mikro-nivo (Quality of work and organization of the shop floor: an integral study at the micro level). Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit, proefschrift (Dutch language). Campbell, D . T. , & Stanley, J. (1966). Experimental and quasi­ experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Canon, W.B. (1932). The wisdom of the body. New York: Norton. Chadwick, M., & Clark, F. (1981). Design of a new plant at CSP Foods. Ottawa, Ontario: Labour Canada, KIA OJ2 Cat.No. L441188/83E. Checkland, P.B. (1975). The development of systems thinking by systems practice - a methodology from an action research pro­ gramme. In: R. Trappl, & F.P. Hanika (Eds.}, Progress in cybernetics and systems research, Vol. II. Washington: Hemisphere Publications. Checkland, P.B. (1979a). Techniques in soft systems practice. Part 1: systems diagrams - some tentative guidelines. Journal of Applied Systems analysis, 6, 33-40.

References

205

Check.land, P.B. (1979b). Techniques in soft systems practice. Part 2: building conceptual models. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 6, 41-49. Checkland, P . B . (1981 ) . Systems thinking, sys tems p r a c t i c e . Chichester: WHey. Check.land, P.B. (1985a). Achieving desirable and feasible change: an application of soft systems methodology. Jou rnal of the Operational Research Society, 36 (9), 821-831. Check.land, P.B. (1985b). From optimizing to learning: a develop­ ment of systems thinking for the 1990s. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 36 (9), 757-767. Check.land, P.B. (1988). The case for 'holon'. Systems Practice, 1 (3), 235-238. Check.land, P.B. (1990a). Techniques in soft systems practice. Part 3: monitoring and control in conceptual models and in evaluation studies. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 1 7, 29-37. Check.land, P.B. (1990b). Techniques in soft systems practice. Part 4: conceptual model building revisited. Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 1 7, 39-52. Check.land, P.B., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. Chichester: Wiley. Chein, I. (1972). The science of behaviour and the image of man. New York: Basic Books. Cherns, A.B. (1976). The principles of socio-technical design. Human Relations, 29 (8), 783-792. Cherns, A.B. (1987). The principles of socio-technical design revi­ sited. Human Relations, 40 (3), 153-161. Chevalier, G . G . ( 1972 ) . S o cio-technical experiment in cas ting department. Aluminium Company of Canada, unpublished report. Chisholm, R.F. (1988). Introducing advanced information technology into public organizations. Public Productivity Review, 1 1 (4), 39-56. Chisholm, R.F., & Ziegenfuss, J.T. (1986). A review of applications of the socio-technical systems approach to health care organiz­ ations. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22 (3), 315-327. Cobbenhagen, J.W.C.M., & Philips, G. (1990). Case study versnellend

vernieuwen: AVEBE 's voedingsvezel project (Case study 'speeding up renewal': AVEBE 's nutritive fibre project). Maastricht: MERIT (Dutch language). Cobbenhagen, J.W.C.M., & Reeken, T. van (1990). Info rmatie en

innoveren: twee handen op een buik? (Information and innovating: they are hand and glove?). Maastricht: MERIT, research memo­ randum 90-018 (Dutch language). Cobbenhagen, J.W.C.M., Hertog, J.F. den, & Philips, G. (1990).

206

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Management . of innovation in the proce ssing industry: a theoretical framework. In: C. Freeman, & L. Soete (Eds.), N e w explorations in fhe economics of technological change. London: Prances Pinter. Cobbenhagen, J.W.C.M., Hertog, J.F. den, & Philips, G. (1991a).

Managing innovation processes: lessons from three case studies in the processing industry. Paper presented at the workshop on Technology Management, Technology Strategies and Integrated Information systems in Production, Stockholm, June. Cobbenhagen, J.W.C.M., Hertog, J.F. den, & Philips, G. (1991b).

Versnellend vernieuwen. Lessen uit de procesindustrie (Speeding up renewal. Some lessons from the processing industry). Paper gepre­ senteerd op het symposium 'Produktontwikkeling en Innovatie', Amsterdam (Dutch language) . Cole, R. (1993) . Japanese production systems. In: F. Naschold e t a l . (1993). Constructing the new industrial society. Maastricht: Van Gorcum. C ook, T.D., & Campbell, D.T. (1976). Quasi-experiments in field settings. In: M. Dunnette (Ed.), Han dbook of indus trial and organizational psychology. New York: Rand McNally. Crombie, A.D. (1972) . Planning for turbulent social fields. Canberra: Australian National University, Ph.D. thesis. Crombie, A.D. (1978). Participative design: An educational approach to industrial democracy. Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Continuing Education. Crombie, A.D. (1985). The nature and types of search conferences. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 4 {1), 3-33. Crozier, M., & Lautman, J. (1963). La contribution du sociologie a !'etude de problemes de formation (The contribution of sociology to the study of organization design). Sociologie du Travail, 5 (4), (French-language). Cummings, T.G. (1 976). Socio-technical systems: an intervention strategy. In: W.W. Burke (Ed.), Current issues and strategies in organization development (pp. 187-213). New York: Human Science Press. Cummings, T.G. (1978). Socio-technical systems : an intervention strategy. In: W.A. Pasmore, & J.J. Sherwood (Eds.), S o c io ­ technical systems: a sourcebook (pp. 168-187). La J olla, California: University Associates. Cummings, T.G., & Srivastva, S. (1977). Management of work. A socio-technical systems approach. Kent, Ohio: State University Press, Comparative Administration Research Institute. Cummings, T.G., Molloy, E.S., & Glen, R. (19 77). A methodological

References

207

critique of fifty-eight selected work experiments. H u m a n

Relations, 30 (8), 675-708. Cunningham, J.B., & White, T.H. (Eds.) (1984), Quality of working l ife: con temporary cases. Ottawa, Ontario : Labour C anada, Ministry of Supply and Services, L82-48 / 1984E. Curle, A. ( 1 94 9 ) . A theoretical appro ach to action r es earch. Human Relations, 2, 269-280. D ankb aar, B. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Dom mels B ier, rep ort of a case s tudy o n technol ogy a n d l a b o u r relatio ns. Apeldoorn / Ma astricht/ Amsterdam: Mimeo. D ankb aar, B . , Buite laar, W . L . , & Klaveren, M. van ( 1 9 9 1 ) .

Integrale organisatievernieuwing en arbeidsverhoudingen - een position paper (Integral organizational renewal and labour relations - a position paper). Maastricht: MERIT research memorandum 91004 (Dutch language). Davis, L.E. (1957a). Job design and productivity: a new approach. Personnel, 33, 418-430. Davis, L.E. (1957b ) . Towards a theory of job design. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 8 (5), 19-23. Davis, L . E . ( 1 9 6 2 ) . The effects of automation on j ob design. Industrial Relations, 2, 53-72. Davis, L.E., & Canter, R.R. (1956). Job design research. Journal of Industrial Engineering, 7 (4), 275-282. Davis, L.E., & Cherns, A.B. (1975 ) . The quality of working life: problems, prospects and state of the art, Vols. I and II. New York: Free Press. Davis, L.E., & Engelstad, P.H. (1966). Unit operations in socio­ technical systems: analysis and design. London: Tavistock document T894. Davis, L.E., & Sullivan, C.S. (1980). A labour-management contract and quality of working life. Occupational Behavior, 1 (1), 29-41. Davis, L . E . , & T a ylor, J . C . ( E d s . ) ( 1 9 72 ) , D e s ign of j o b s . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Davis, L . E . , & Taylor, J.C. (Eds.) (1 979), Design of jobs. S anta Monica, California: Goodyear, second edition. Dawe, A. (1973). The two sociologies. British Journal of Sociology, 21, 207-211 . De Greene, K.B. (1990). Non-linear management in technologically induced fields. Systems Research, 7 (3), 159-168. De Greene, K.B. (1991). Rigidity and fragility of large socio-tech­ nical systems: advanced information technology, the dominant coalition, and paradigm shift at the end of the 20th. century. Behavioral Science, 36 (1), 64-79.

208

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Desmares, J.G.W. (1986). Groepsvormingsprocessen bij het formeren

van P-cellen: een studie in de truck-eindassemblage (Group devel­ opment processes.. accompanying the design of production cells: a study in truck final assembly). Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit, KWO-Research-Groep (Dutch language) . Devaney, R.L. (1987). Dynamic bursts in non-linear dynamical sys­ tems. Science, 235, 342-345. Dewar, D.L. (1980). International significance of the QC circle movement. Quality Progress, 13 (11), 18-22. Dijck, J.J.J. van (1981). De sociotechnische systeembenadering van organisaties (The sociotechnical systems approach of organiz­ ations). In: P.J.D. Drenth, H. Thierry, P.J. Willems, & Ch.J. de Wolff (Eds .), Handboek arbeids- en organisatiepsychologie (pp . 4.5.1-4.5.31). Deventer: Van Logchum Slaterus (Dutch language). Does de Willebois, J.L.J.M. van der (1968). Werkstructurering als organisatie-ontwikkeling: een eerste en voorlopig overzicht na 3 jaar,

deel I en II (Work structuring as organization development: a first and provisional survey after three years, part I and Il). Eindhoven: N.V. Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken, Sociale Zaken, afdeling onderzoek, (Dutch language). Dohse, K., Ji.irgens, U., & Malsh, T. (1985). From 'Fordism' to 'Toyotism'? The social organization of the labor process in the Japanese automobile industry. Politics and Society, 14 (2), 115-146. Easton, D. (1958). A systems analysis of political life. New York: Wiley. Egmond, C., & Thissen, P. (1975). Een onderzoek ten behoeve van het

ontwikkelen van regelprofielen, u itgevoerd op de shop-floor (A research project in behalf of the development of regulation profiles, executed at shop floor level). Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit, Afdeling der Bedrijfskunde (Dutch language). Eijnatten, F.M. van ( 1 98 1 a) . S ociale aspekten van de wijze van

produceren en de organisatie van het werk in de koolweerstanden­ fabrikage: een case study bij Philips in Roermond (Social aspects of p r o d u c tion m o des a n d work o rg a n iz a t i o n in c o a l res i s t o r fabrication: a case study at Philips i n Roermond). Nijmegen/ E indhoven: Katholieke Universiteit/ Philip s' Gloeilampen­ fabrieken N.V. (Dutch language). E ijnatten, F.M. van (1981b). S o c iale aspekten van het Ohmega­

fabrikageproces-ontwerp/ontwerpproces: een case study bij Philips in Eindhoven (Social aspects of the Ohmega manufacturing process design/design process: a case study at Philips in Eindhoven) . Nijmegen/ Eindhoven: Katholieke Universiteit/ Philips' Gloei­ lampenfabrieken N.V. (Dutch language) .

References

209

Eijnatten, F.M. van (1985). STTA: naar een nieuw werkstrukturerings­

paradigma (STTA, towards a new work structuring paradigm). Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit, proefschrift (Dutch lan­ guage). Eijnatten, F.M. van (1986). Benadering van Flexibele Arbeidssystemen (BFA). Methoden: 1 . Ontwerpfilosofie; 2. Systeem-Analyse (SA); 3. Socio-Technische Proces-Analyse (STPA); 4. Socio-Technische Taak­ Analyse (STTA); 5. Socio-Technisch ontwerp (STO) (Approach to Flexible Productive Systems (AF P S ) . Methods: 1 . D es ign Philosophy; 2. Systems Analysis (SA); 3. Socio-Technical Process Analysis (S TPA); 4. Socio-Technical Task Analysis (STTA); 5. Socio-Technical Design (STD). Nijmegen: Katholieke Univers­ iteit, KWO-Onderzoeks- en Adviesgroep (Dutch language). Eijnatten, F.M. van (1 987a) . Benadering van Flexibele Arbeids­ systemen (BFA): ontwerpfilosofie (The Approach to Flexible Productive Systems (AFPS): design philosophy) . In: A.L.M. Knaapen, W.J.M. Meekel, R.J. Tissen, & R.H.W. Vinke (Eds.),

Handboek methoden, technieken en analyses voor pers oneels­ management (pp. 101-1 12). Deventer: Kluwer, aflevering 5 (Dutch language). Eijnatten, F.M. van (1987b). Systeem-analyse van de PZ-manager ( Systems analysis for the personnel manager ) . In: A.L.M. Knaapen, W.J.M. Meekel, R.J. Tissen, & R.H.W. Vinke (Eds.),

Handboek methoden, techn ieken en analyses voor personeels­ management (pp. 101-114). Deventer: Kluwer, aflevering 4 (Dutch

language). Eijnatten, F.M. van (1990a) . A bibliography of the classical socio­ technical systems paradigm. Eindhoven: University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, Report EUT/BDK/39, ISBN 90-6757-041-9. Eijnatten, F.M. van (1990b). Classical socio-technical systems design: the socio-technical design paradigm of organizations. Eindhoven/ Maastricht: TUE / MERIT, TUE Monograph B D K / T & A0 0 1 , I\1ERIT Research Memorandum 90-005. Eijnatten, F.M. van (1990c). Her-inrichting van het primaire proces:

o n twikkelingen in o n derzoek, theorie en methodologie (Re­ designing the primary process: developments in research, theory and methodology) . Lezing op NIP thema-middag Technologie, Arbeid en Organisatie, Utrecht, 26 januari (Dutch language). Eij natten, F . M . van ( 1 9 9 1 ) . From a u t o n o m o us w o rk group to democratic dialogue and integral organizational renewal: 40 years

of development and expansion of the Socio-Technical Sys tems Design paradigm. Eindhoven I Maastricht: University of Technol-

210

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

ogy, Graduate School of Industrial Engineering and Management Science I Univers ity o f Limburg, MERIT, BDK/ T&A 007, Research memotattdum 91-015. Eijnatten, F.M. van (1992a). A tentative classification of main STSD approaches. Eindhoven: University of Technology, Faculty of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, internal report, first concept, January. Eijnatten, F.M. van (1992b). Ongoing R&D on new methodology and practical tools for holis tic and participative (re)design. Paper presented at the International Conference Social Research as Support for Technological Development: Methodological Trends and Issues, April 10-13, Houthem-Valkenburg, The Netherlands. Eijnatten, F.M. van, & Hoevenaars, A.M. (1989). Moderne Socio­ techniek in Nederland: recente ontwikkelingen in aanpak en methode ten behoeve van integraal organisatie (her)ontwerp (Modern Sociotechnique in The Netherlands: recent develop­ ments in approach and method on behalf of integral organiz­ ation (re)design. Gedrag en Organisatie, 2 (4/5), 289-304, (Dutch language). Eijnatten, F.M. van, & Loeffen, J.M.J. (1990) . Some comments about

info rmation systems des ign for production c o n trol from the perspective of an integral socio-technical organization philosophy. Eindhoven: University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, BDK/T&A 003, Paper presented at the International Conference Computer, Men and Organization, Nivelles, Belgium, May 9-1 1 . Eijnatten, F.M. van, & Simonse, L.W.L. ( 1 993). S troomsgerich t

ontwikkelen en produ ceren: een sociotechnische s tructuur voor intern ondernemerschap (Stream-oriented product development and production: a sociotechnical structure for internal entrepreneurship). Eindhoven: Technische Univ er siteit, F aculteit Te chnische Bedrijfskunde, vakgroep Technologie en Arbeid, intern rapport BDK/T&A 013 (Dutch language). Eijnatten, F.M. van, Ho evenaars, A.M., & Rutte, C.G. ( 1 9 8 8 ) .

Integraal ontwerpen van organisaties rand nieuwe technologieen (Integral organization design and new technologies). Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit, Faculteit Bedrijfskunde (Dutch lan­ guage). Eijnatten, F.M. van, Ho evenaars, A.M., & Rutte, C . G . ( 1 9 9 0 ) .

Holistic and participative (re)design: a method for more integral designing flexible and productive systems. Contemporary Dutch socio technical developments. Eindhoven/ Nijmegen: Technical University, Graduate School of Industrial Engineering and Man-

References

211

agement Science/Catholic University, Department of Adminis­ trative and Policy Sciences, The Netherlands, BDK/T&A-006. Eijnatten, F . M . van, Hoevenaars, A.M., & Rutte, C . G . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . Holistic and participative (re) design: STSD modelling i n the Netherlands. In: D. Hosking, & N. Anderson (Eds.), Organizing changes and innovations: European psychological perspectives (pp. 183-207) London: Routledge. Eijnatten, F.M. van, Buyse, J.J., Hendriks,H.J., & Desmares, J.G.W. (1986). Grenzen voor produktiecellen: ervaringen met het formeren .

van pseudo-autonome groepen in een truck-eindassemblage-fabriek (Boundaries for production cells: experiences with designing pseudo­ a u to n o m o us work groups in tru ck-assem bly) . Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit, KWO-Research-Groep (Dutch lan­ guage). El Jack, A., Ketchum, L., & Kidwell, J. (1981). Sociotechnical study for locomotive maintenance workshop at Sennar, Sudan. Report for Sudan Railways Corporation. Elden, J.M. (1974). One week in a bank: some observations on task and social structure. Oslo: Work Research Institute, unpublished note. Elden, J.M. (1976) . Bank employees begin to study and change their organization. Oslo: Work Research Institutes. Elden, J.M. (1 977). Sharing the research work: researcher 's role in participatory action research. Trondheim: Institute for Social Research in Industry. Elden, J.M. (1979a). Three generations of work-democracy experi­ ments in Norway: beyond classical socio-technical systems analy­ sis. In: C.L. Cooper, & E. Mumford (Eds.), The quality of working life in Western and Eastern Europe (pp. 226-257). London: Asso­ ciated Business Press. Elden, J.M. ( 1 9 79b). Participatory research leads to employee­ managed change: some experience from a Norwegian bank. In: A. Alioth, J. Blake, M. Butteriss, M. Elden, 0. Ortsman, & R. van der Vlist (Eds .), Working on the quality of working life: devel­ opments in Europe (pp. 240-250). Boston: Nijhoff, International Council for the Quality of Working Life. Elden, J.M. (1979c). Concluding notes. In: A. Alioth, J. Blake, M. Butteriss, M. Elden, 0. Ortsman, & R. van der Vlist (Eds .), Working on the quality of working life: developments in Europe (pp. 371-377). Boston: Nijhoff. Elden, J.M. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Political efficacy at work: the connection between more autonomous forms of workplace organization(s) and a more participatory politics. American Political Science Review, 75, 43-58.

212

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Elden, }.M. (1983). Democratization and participative research in developing loc..al theory. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 4 (1), 21-34, (special iss..ue). Elden, }.M. (1985) . V arieties of participative research. In: A.B. Cherns, & M. Shelhav (Eds.), Communities in crisis. Brookfield: Gower Press. Elden, J.M., & Chisholm, R.F. (1991). Generating varieties of action research: an international perspective on empowering inquiry. Draft of introduction to special issue of Human Relations on varieties of action research in work life/ organizations, June. Elias, N. (1970). Was ist Soziologie? (What is Sociology). Miinchen: Juventa (German language). Ellegard, K. et al. (1 989) . Principer och realiteter. Projekteringen au

Volvos fabrik i Uddevalla (Principles and realities. The planning of the Valva factory in Uddevalla). Stockholm: Arbetsmiljofonden (Swedish language). Elliott, 0, Shani, A.B., & Hanna, D. (1 985). S trategic thinking and socio-technical system design: a high tech merger. Paper presented at the 26th Annual C onference of the Western Academy of Management, San Diego, California. Emery, F . E . ( 1 9 4 6 ) . Prej u dice toward A b o riginals. C anberra: Australian National University, Ph.D. thesis. Emery, F.E. (1952). The deputy 's role in the Bolsover sys tem of continuous mining. London: Tavistock Document Series. Emery, F.E. (1959). Some characteristics of socio-technical systems. London: Tavistock Institute Document no. 527. Emery, F.E. (1963a). First progress report on conceptualization. London: Tavistock document T67. Emery, F.E. (1963b). In search of some principles of persuasion. London: Tavistock Document T10. Emery, F.E. (1 963c) . Second progress report on conceptualization. London: Tavistock Document Tl25. Emery, F.E. (1963d). Some hypotheses about the way in which tasks may be more effectively put together to make jobs. London: Tavistock Document T176. Emery, F.E. (1967) . The next thirty years: concepts, methods and anticipations. Human Relations, 20, 199-237. Emery, F . E . (Ed.) ( 1 9 6 9 ) , Systems thin king: s elected readings . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Emery, F.E. (1969). The next thirty years: concepts, methods and anticipations. In: F.E. Emery (Ed.), Systems thinking: selected readings. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Emery, F.E. ( 1 9 74a) . B ureaucracy and b eyond. O rga n izational

References

213

Dynamics, 3, winter, 3-13. Emery, F . E . (1 9 74b ) . Participan t design . Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Continuing Education. Emery, F.E. (1976a), Searching for common ground. In: F.E. Emery (Ed.), Systems thinking, Vol. II. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Emery, F . E . (1 976b). Participant design. In: F . E . Emery, & E . Thorsrud (Eds.), Democracy a t work. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Emery, F.E. (1977). Futures we are in. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Emery, F.E. (Ed.) (1978), The emergence of a new paradigm of work. Canberra: Centre for Continuing Education, Australian National University. Emery, F . E . (Ed . ) ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Open systems thinking, V o l . 1 & 2 . Hatmondsworth: Penguin Books. Emery, F.E. (1982). New perspectives on the world of work. Socio­ technical foundations for a new order? Human Relations, 35 (12), 1095-1122. Emery, F.E. (1989a). Toward real democracy. Toronto: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre/Ministry of Labour. Emery, F.E. (1989b). Toward a logic of discovery. Canberra: Australian National University, internal paper. Emery, F . E . ( 1 9 8 9 c ) . The light on the hill : skill formation or democratization of work. In: M. Emery (Ed.), Participative design for participative democracy (pp. 84-93) . Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Continuing Education. Emery, F.E. (1989d) . The management of self-managing work groups. Canberra: Australian National University, note, November. Emery, F.E. (1990). Management by objectives. Canberra: Australian National University, note, October. Emery, F.E. (1991). The management of self-managing work groups. In: M. Dugan (Ed.), Furious agreement. Ringwood, Australia: Penguin Books. Emery, F.E., & Emery, M. (1 974). Participative design : work and community life. C anberra: Australian National University, Centre for Continuing Education. Emery, F.E., & Emery, M. (1975). Guts and guidelines for raising the quality of work life. In: D. Gunzburg (Ed.), Bringing work to life: the Australian experience (pp. 28-54). Melbourne: Cheshire Publi­ cations/Productivity Promotion Council of Australia. Emery, F.E., & Emery, M. (1989). Participative design: work and community life, part 1-3. In: M. Emery (Ed.), Participative design for participative democracy (pp. 94-1 13). Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Continuing Education. Emery, F.E., & Marek, J. (1962) . Some socio-technical aspects of auto-

214

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

mation. Human Relations, 15 (1), 1 7-26. Emery, F.E., & Thorsrud, E. (1964). Form and content of industrial

democracy. Some..... experiments from Norway and other European countries. Oslo: Osto University Press. Emery, F.E., & Thorsrud, E. (1969a). Form and content of industrial democracy. Some experiments from Norway and other European countries. London: Tavistock. Emery, F.E., & Thorsrud, E. (1969b). Form and content of industrial democracy. Some experiments from Norway and other European countries. Assen: Van Gorcum. Emery, F.E., & Thorsrud, E. (1976). Democracy at work: the report of the Norwegian industrial demo cracy program. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Emery, F.E., & Trist, E.L. (1 960). Socio-technical systems. In: C.W. Churchman, & M. Verhulst (Eds.), Management s cience: models and techniques, Vol. II, (pp. 83-97). Oxford: Pergamon Press. Emery, F.E., & Trist, E.L. (1 963). The causal texture of organizational environments. Paper presented to the International Psychology Congress, Washington D.C. Emery, F.E., & Trist, E.L. (1964) . The causal texture of organiz­ ational environments. La Sociologie du TravaiL Emery, F.E., & Trist, E.L. (1965). The causal texture of organiz­ ational environments. Human Relations, 18 (1), 21-32. Emery, F.E., & Trist, E.L. (1972). Towards a social ecology. Appreci­ ations of the future in the present. New York: Plenum Press. Emery, F.E., & Trist, E.L. (1978). Analytical model for socio-techni­ cal systems. In: W.A. Pasmore, & J.J. Sherwood (Eds.), S o c io ­ technical systems: a sourcebook (pp. 120-131). L a Jolla, California: University Associates. Emery, F.E., & Trist, E.L. (1981). The causal texture of organiz­ ational environments. In: F.E. Emery (Ed.), Systems Thinking (Vol. I). London: Penguin Books. Emery, F.E., Foster, M., & Woollard, W. ( 1967). Analytical model for socio-technical systems. In: F.E. Emery (Ed.) ( 1978), Th e emergence of a new paradigm of work (pp . 95-1 06). Canberra, Australian National University, Center for Continuing Educa­ tion. Emery, F.E., Oeser, O.A., & Tully, J. (1958). Information, decision and action. Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Emery, F.E., Thorsrud, E., & Lange, K. (1966). Field experiments at Christiania Spigerverk. Industrial Democracy Project Paper 2, Phase B . London: Tavistock Document T807. Emery, F.E., Thorsrud, E., & Lange, K. (1970). Field experiments at

215

References

Christiania Spigerverk. London: Tavistock Document T807. Emery, M. (1982). Searching: For new directions, in new ways, for new times (revised edition). Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Continuing Education, occasional paper no. 12. Emery, M. (1986). Toward an heuristic theory of diffusion. H u m a n Relations, 3 9 (5), 41 1-432. Emery, M. (1987). The theory and practice of search conferences. Paper presented at the Einar Thorsrud Memorial Symposium, Oslo. Emery, M. (1988) . Further readings about participative design. In: M. Emery (Ed.) (1989), Participative design for participative democracy (pp. 1 14-126). Canberra: Australian National Univer­ sity, Centre for Continuing Education. Emery, M. (Ed.) (1989), Patticipative design for participative demo­ cracy. Canb erra: Australian National University, Centre for Continuing Education. Emery, M. (1989a). Introduction. In: M. Emery (Ed.), Participative design for participative democracy (pp. 1-22). Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Continuing Education. Emery, M. (1989b). Training search conferences managers. Canberra: Australian National University. Emery, M., & Emery, F.E. (1978). Searching: for new directions, in new ways, for new times. In: J.W. Sutherland, & A. Legasto Jr. (Eds.), Management handbook for public administrators. New York: Van N ostrand Rheinhold. Engelstad, P.H. (1969a). Sosio-teknisk analyse i prosessindustrien ved <>-methoden (Sociotechnical analysis in proc essing industries: towards a variance analysis matrix method) . Tidsskrift for Samfunnsfo rskn ing, 3/4, (Norwegian language). Engelstad, P .H. (1969b). Sosio-teknisk analyse i prosessindustrien ved <>-methoden (Sociotechnical analysis in proc essing industries: towards a variance analysis matrix method). In: P.G. Herbst (Ed.) (1971), Demokratiserings prosessen i arbeidslivet (pp. 125-143). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget (Norwegian language). Engelstad, P.H. (1970). Sociotechnical approach to problems of process control. In: F. Bolam (Ed.), Papermaking systems and their control. British Paper and Board Makers Association. Engelstad, P . H . ( 1 9 72 ) . Abstract of the Hunsfos c a s e of the Norwegian industrial democracy project. In: L.E. Davis, & A.B. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of working life. Vol. II: cases and commentary (pp. 334-335). New York: Free Press. Engelstad, P.H. (1990). The evolution of network strategies in action _

216

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

research s upported s o cio-technical redes ign p rogram s in Scandinavia. 8slo: Work Research Institute. Paper presented at the 1 9 9 0 Natio.� al Aca demy of Management Meeting, San Francisco, August 12-15. Engelstad, P.H. (1991a). The HAB UT program and its development measures. Oslo: Work Research Institute. Engelstad, P.H. (1991b). The HAB UT program in Norway: experiences and evolution of strategy. Paper presented at the Third 1 9 9 1 Symposium o n Arbeit und Technik, Bremen, Germany. Engelstad, P.H., & Gustavsen, B. (1993). Swedish network develop­ ment for implementing national work reform strategy. H u m a n Relations, 46 (2), 219-248. Engelstad, P.H., & Haugen, R. (1979). Sokekonferansen Skjervey, i

gtir, i dag og i morgen (Search conferences in Skjervey, the past, the present and the future). Oslo: API (Norwegian language). Engelstad, P . H . , & Ro gne, K. ( 1 9 77 ) . K o nfe ra n s e o m o b oljevirksomket i Nordsjoeu. Beskrivelse og analyse an konferense prosessen (Conference on oil activities in the North Sea: description and analysis of conference processes). Oslo: Work Research Insti­ tute, AI-doc. 47/ 77 (Norwegian language). Engelstad, P.H., ·Emery, F.E., & Thorsrud, E . (1969). The Hunsfos experiment. Oslo: Work Research Institute. Feibleman, J.K. (1979). The assumptions of grand logics. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Feibleman, J.K., & Friend, J.W. (1945). The structure and function of organization. Philosophical Review, 54, 19-44. Finlay, M.I. (1985). Democracy ancient and modern. London: The Hogarth Press. Fisher, R.A. (1942). The design of experiments. Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, third edition. Flood, R.L., & Jackson, M.C. (1991). Creative problem solving: total systems intervention. Chichester: Wiley. Forslin, J. (1990). Det brutna bandet. En Volvoindustri byter kultur

(The broken conveyor belt. A Volvo factory changes its culture). Stockholm: Norstedts (Swedish language). Foster, M. (1967). Developing an analytical model for socio-technical analysis. London: Tavistock Document HRC 7I HRC 15. Foster, M. (1972) . An introduction to the theory and practice of action research in work organizations. Human Relations, 25 (6), 529-556. Fricke, W. (1990). Forschungen zu Arbeit und Technik (Research in work and technology). Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung (German language).

References

217

Fricke, W. (1992). Technikgestaltung und industriesoziologische Forschung (Design of technology and research in industrial sociology). In: H. Daheim, H. Heid, & K. Krahn (Eds.), S oziale Chancen. Forschungen zum Wandel der Arbeitsgesellschaft (pp. 277310). Frankfurt am Main: Campus (German language) . Friedlander, F., & Brown, L. (1 974). Organization development. Annual Review of Psychology, 25, 313-341 . Friss, L., & Taylor, J.C. (1981). Socio-technical systems: hospital application. In: C. Tilquin (Ed.), Systems science in health core. Toronto: Pergamon Press. Fruytier, B.G.M., Have, K. ten, Peters, R., Bolk, H., Duren, A.J. van, Manen, M. van, Slagmolen, G., & Tack, P. (1988). De kwaliteit

van mensen en machines: -een kwestie van organisatie (The quality of people and machines: an issue of organization). Tilburg/Leiden/

Den Haag: IVA/Intervisie/COB/SER (Dutch Language). Fry, D.E. (1975). A methodology for developing theory of feedback systems. In: A.J. Melcher (Ed.), General systems and organization theory: methodological aspects (pp. 57-85}. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. Gabarro, J., & Lorsch, J.W. (1968). Northern Electric Company (A), (B), (C), (D), and (E). Harvard Business School, internal report. Gagnon, J.J., & Blutot, E. (1969). Autonomous groups in aluminium reduction. Unpublished report. Glas, G.A. (1980). Menselijker werken en meer te zeggen hebben: een

beknopte weergave van het verloop en de resultaten van het project Humanisering en medez eggen s chap b ij Cen traal B eheer te Apeldoorn ( Working more humanly and having more to say: a brief rep ort o n the co u rs e a n d the res ults of the project Humanisation and co-partn ersh ip a t C e n traal B eheer in Apeldoorn). Den Haag: COB/SER (Dutch Language) . Glor, B., & Barko, W. (1982). Socio-technical systems using an industrial tested technology to design quality assurance stan­ dards in health care systems. Military Medicine, 147 (4), 313-317. Golomb, N. (1981). A socio-technical strategy for improving the effec­

tiveness and the QWL of three kibbutz plants and one governmental institute. Israel: The Ruppin Institute Kibbutz Management Centre (working paper). Grebogi, C., Ott, E., & Yorke, J.A. (1987) . Chaos, strange attractors, and fractal basin boundries in non-linear dynamics. Science, 238, 632-638. Grenier, V. ( 1 9 79 ) . L 'architecture industrielle et les conditions de travail (Industrial structure and labour conditions). Paris: ANACT, Collection experiences et realisations (French language).

218

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Groot, A.D. de (1980). Methodologie: grondslagen van onderzoek en

denken in de gedragswetenschappen (Methodology: bases of inquiry in the behavioural sciences). Den Haag: Mouton, 7e druk (le druk

1961) (Dutch Language). Gulowsen, J. (1972). Norsk Hydro. Oslo: Work Research Institute. Gulowsen, J. (1974). The Norwegian participation project. The Norsk Hydro Fertilizer Plant. Oslo: AI-Doc. Gulowsen, J. ( 1 9 75 ) . A rb eider-vilkar: et tilbakeblikk p a

samarbeidsprosjektet LO/NAF (Working conditions: a review of the Norwegian indus trial democracy project) . Oslo: Tanum-Norli, (Norwegian language). Gunzburg, D., & Hammarstrom, 0. (1979). Swedish industrial demo­ cracy, 1977: progress and new government initiatives. In: A. Alioth, J. Blake, M. Butteriss, M. Elden, 0. Ortsman, & R. van der Vlist (Eds.), Working on the quality of working life: develop­ ments in Europe (pp. 35-43). Boston: Nijhoff. Gustavsen, B. (1976). The social context of investment decisions. Acta Sociologica, 19 (3). Gustavsen, B. ( 1985a). Direct worker participation in matters of work s afety and h e alth. In: S. B a gnara, R. Misiti, & H . Wintersberger {Eds.), Work and health in the 1980s. Berlin: Sigma. Gustavsen, B. (1985b). Workplace reform and democratic dialogue. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 6 (4), 461-479, London: Sage. Gustavsen, B. (1988). Creating broad change in working life: the LOM programme. Toronto: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre. Gus tavsen, B . ( 1 9 9 1 ) . D ialogue a n d developm e n t : theory of

communication, action research and the restructuring of working life. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum, preprint for book. Gustavsen, B. (1992). Dialogue and development: theory of commu­ nication, action research and the restructuring of working life. Assen/Stockholm: Van Gorcum/The Swedish Center for Working Life. Gustavsen, B. (1993). Creating productive structures: the role of research and development. In: F. Naschold et al. (1993). C o n ­ structing the new industrial society. Maastricht: Van Gorcum. Gustavsen, B., & Engelstad, P.H. (1986). The design of conferences and the evolving role of democratic dialogue in changing working life. Human Relations, 39 (2), 101-116. Gustavsen, B., & Hunnius, G. (1981). New patterns of work reform. The case of Norway. Oslo: Norwegian University Press. Gustavsen, B., & Sorensen, B.Aa. (1982). Aksjonsforskning (Action research). In: Kvalitative methoder i samfunnsforskningen. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget (Norwegian language).

References

219

Gustavsen, B., Hart, H., & Hofmaier, B. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . From linear to interactive logics: characteristics of workplace development as illustrated by projects in large mail centers. Human Relations, 44 (4), 309-332. Gustavson, P.W., & Taylor, J.C. (1 984) . Socio-technical design and new forms of work organization: integrated circuit fabrication. In: F. Butera, & J.E. Thurman (Eds.), Au tomation and work

design: international comparative study of automation and work design (pp. 627-713). Amsterdam: ILO/North-Holland. Habermas, J. (1969). Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie (Tech­ nology and science as ideology). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (German language). Habermas, J. (1976). Legitimation crisis. London: Heinemann. Habermas, J. (1 984) . The theory of communicative action, Vo l . I . Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermas, J. (1 987) . The theory of communicative action, V o l . II. Cambridge: Polity Press. Habermass, J., & Luhmann, N. (1971). Theorie der Gesellschaft oder

Social-technologie - Was leistet Systemforschung? (Societal theory or so cial technology - What accomp lishes systems research ? ) . Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkampf (German language). Hackman, J.R. (1981). Socio-technical systems theory: a commentary. In: A . H . v an de Ven, & W . F . Joyce (Eds . ) , Perspectives on organization design and behavior (pp. 76-87). New York: Wiley. Hackman, J.R., & Lawler Ill, E.E. (1971). Employee reactions to job characteristics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55 (3), 259-265. Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1 976) . Motivation through the design of work: test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279. Haes, A.A. de, & Kalkman, W. ( 1 982) . Proces-inn ova tie en de

kwaliteit van het werk: een onderzoek bij de machines voor de montage van scheerapparatenmotoren bij Kleine Huishoudelijke Apparaten te Drachten (Process innovation and the quality of work: a research project in shaver motor assembly at Philips KHA in Drachten). Rotterdam/Eindhoven: Erasmus Universiteit/Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken N.V./ Centrale Groep Organisatie-Ver­ nieuwing (Dutch language). Halpern, N. (1984). Socio-technical system design: the Shell Sarnia experience. In: J.B. Cunningham, & T.H. VVhite (Eds.), Quality of working life: contemporary cases (pp . 31-75). Ottawa, Canada: Ministry of Supply and Services, L82-48/ 1984E. Hanssen-Bauer, J. (1991). Design or dialogue? A case to illustrate a

mu ltilevel strategy for work life development within a social-

220

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

ecological framework in Norway. Oslo: The Norwegian Work Life Center (SBA), paper presented at the International Work Confer­ ence on Action E,esearch and the Future of Work, August 28-30, Leeuwenhorst, The Netherlands. Harvey, D.F., & Brown, D.R. (1988). An experiential approach to organization development. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Hedberg, B., & Mumford, E. (1975). The design of computer systems. In: E. Mumford, & H . Sackman (Eds . ) , H u m a n c h o i ce a n d computers (pp. 31-59). Amsterdam: North Holland. Belling, J. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Viirlds m ii s t a r n a (The w o rld cha m p io n s ) . Stockholm: Sellin & Partners (Swedish language). Hendriks, H.J. (1986). Kriteria voor produktiecellen: praktijk en theorie (Criteria for p roduction cells: p ra ctice and theory). Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit, KWO-Research-Groep (Dutch lan­ guage). Henry, L. (1987). Reorganization at McCormack & Dodge: getting everybody in on the act. Personnel, November, 48-52. Herbst, P.G. (1958). Study of an autonomous working group. London: Tavistock Document 423. Herbst, P.G. ( 1 9 5 9 ) . Task s tructure and work relations. London: Tavistock Document 528. Herbst, P.G. (1962). Autonomous group functioning: an exploration in behavio u r theory a n d measurement. London: Tav istock Publications. Herbst, P.G. (1970). Behavioural worlds: the study of s ingle cases . London: Tavistock Publications. Herbst, P.G. (Ed.) (1971), Demokratiseringsprosessen i arbeidslivet:

Sosio-tekniske studier (Democratization processes in working life: sociotechnical studies). Oslo: Universitetsforlaget (Norwegian language). Herbst, P.G. (1971). Socio-technical and psychodynamic variables in ship organization design. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1 (1), 47-58. Herbst, P.G. ( 1 9 74a). Socio-technical design: stra tegies in multi­ disciplinary research. London: Tavistock Publications. Herbst, P.G. (1974b). Some reflections on the work democratization project. Oslo: Work Research Institutes, AI-Doc. 13/1974, revised in Herbst (1976). Herbst, P.G. ( 1 9 75 ) . Omlegging til off-line sys temet pa D okka (Conversion to an off-line system at Dokka). Oslo: Work Research Institute, AI-Doc 17/75 (Norwegian language). Herbst, P.G. (1975). The product of work is people. In: L.E. Davis, &

References

221

A.B. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of working life, Vol. 1, (pp. 439442). New York: Free Press. Herbst, P.G. (1976). Alternatives to hierarchies. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff. Herbst, P.G., & Getz, I. (1977). Work organization at a b anking branch: toward a participative research technique. Na tional Labour Institute Bulletin, 3 (1), 29-35. Herbst, P.G., & Ryste, Q. (1975). One day at Mishmar Ha-Hegev, a Kibbutz factory. Ruppin Institute, Kibbutz Management Center. Hertog, J.F. den (1988). Technologie en organisatie, mythe of missie (Technology and organization, myth or mission). Maastricht: Rijks­ universiteit Limburg, intreerede (Dutch language). Hertog, J.F. den, & Dankbaar, B. (1989). De sociotechniek bijgesteld (The sociotechnique adjusted). Gedrag en Organisatie, 2 (4/5), 269287, (Dutch language). Hertog, J.F. den, & Kerkhof, W . H . C . ( 1 9 73 ) . Experiment work

structuring television receiver factory Eindhoven, Part Il: evaluation of the social psychological effects of autonomous task-oriented production groups. Eindhoven: Philips Industrial Psychology

Department, project 72-42. Hertog, J.F. den, & Roberts, H.J.E. (1990). Learning strategies for management accounting in unprogrammable contexts. Maastricht: MERIT, University of Limburg, research memorandum 90-011. Hertog, J.F. den, & Schroder, P. (1989). TAO-buitenlandrapport (TAO foreign country report). Maastricht: MERIT, rapport no. 89-015 (Dutch language). Hertog, J . F . den, & Sitter, L . U . de ( 1 9 9 3 ) . Cases in i n tegral organization renewal. Den Bosch: Koers Consultants, preprint for book. Hertog, J.F. den, & Wester, Ph. (1979). Organizational renewal in engineering works : a comparative process analysis. In: C .L . Cooper, & E . Mumford (Eds.), The quality of working life: the European experiment. London: Associated Business Press. Hertog, J.F. den, Sluys, E. van, Diepen, S. van, & Assen, A. van (1991). Innovatie en personeelsbeleid: de beheersing van de kennishuishouding (Innovation and personnel management: controlling the knowledge enterprise). Bedrijfskunde, 63 (2), 5867, (Dutch language). Heuvel, R.E.F. van den (1 992) . Aspectmatige integrale organisatie­

ontwikkeling: paradox of balans ? (Partial integral o rganization development: paradox or bala n ce ?) . Eindhoven: T echnis che Universiteit, Faculteit Technische Bedrijfskunde (Dutch lan­ guage).

222

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Higgin, G . W . (1957) . Comparative s t u dy of min ing system s . A conventional cu tting longwall I: the technical system. London: Tavistock Document 466. Higgin, G.W. ( 1958). Comparative s t u dy of mining system s . A conventional longwall II: task roles and social relationships. London: Tavistock Document 486. Hill, A. V. (1931). Adventures in biophysics. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hill, C . P . ( 1971 ) . Towards a n ew philos ophy of m a n agem e n t . London/Kent: Gower Press /Tonbridge. Hoevenaars, A . M . (1991 ) . Produktie-strukt u u r en o rganisa tie­

vernieuwing: de mogelijkheid tot parallelliseren nader onderzocht (Production structure and organizational renewal: the possibility of parallelization further explored). Eindhoven: Technische Universi­ teit, proefschrift (Dutch language). Homans, J. (1961). Social Behaviour. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Horowitz, J.L. ( 196 7) . C onsensus, conflict and cooperation; a sociological inventory. Social Forces, 41 (2). Hulten, W.J.M. v an ( 1990 ) . Techn iek en mensen: een keuze of synergie ? (Technical systems and people: a choice or synergy ? ) . Eindhoven: Technische Univ ersiteit, Faculteit Technische Bedrijfskunde (Dutch language). Jamestown Area Lab or-Management C ommittee (1975 ) . T h r e e productive years. Jamestown, New York: City Hall. Jamestown Area Labor-Management Committee (1982). A decade of change. Jamestown, New York: City Hall. Jantsch, E. (1980). The self-organizing universe: scientific and human implications of the emerging paradigm of evolution. New York: Pergamon Press. Jaques, E. (1951). The changing culture of a factory. London: Tavistock/ Routledge. Jaques, E. (1964). Social analysis and the Glacier project. H u m a n Relations, 1 7, 361-376. Jenkins, D. ( 1975 ) . fob reform in Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Employers' Confederation SAF. Johansen, R. (1975). Nettverk der skip mf!ter skip (Network: ship meets ship). Oslo: Work Research Institutes, AI-Doc. (Norwegian lan­ guage). Johansen, R. (1976). Opplaering om bord M. S. Balao ( Training on board the B a la o ) . Oslo: Work Research Institutes, AI-D oc. (Norwegian language). Johansen, R. (1979). Democratizing work and social life in ships: a

References

223

report from the experiment on board M/S Balao. In: A. Alioth, J. Blake, M. Butteriss, M. Elden, 0. Ortsman, & R. van der Vlist (Eds .), Working on the quality of working life: developments in Europe (pp. 117-129). Boston: Nijhoff. Johnson, C. (1987). MITI and the Japanese miracle. New York: Charles G. Tuttle. Johnson, H.T., & Kaplan, R.S. (1987). Relevance lost: the rise and fall of management accoun ting. B oston, Mass achusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Joosse, D .J. B., Ykema-Weinen, P.M.L., Mass elink, W.G., & Ris, B.G.M. (1990). Zelfstandig samenwerken in autonome taakgroepen:

praktijk-ervaringen in industrie en dienstverlening (Self-supporting cooperation in autonomous task groups: experiences from practice in industrial and service organizations). Den Haag: SER/ AWV /NIA (Dutch language). Jordan, N. (1963). Allocation of functions between man and machines in automated systems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47 (3), 1611 65. Juran, J.M. (1978). International significance of the QC circle move­

ment: can non-Japanese culture apply this concept of using work force creativity to improve company performance? Paper presented

at the International QC Circle Convention, Tokyo, October. Jurkovich, R. (1 974). A core typology of organizational environ­ ments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1 9, 380-394. Kanawaty, G., Thorsrud, E., Semiono, J.P., & Singh, J.P. (1981). Field experiences with new forms of work organization. International Labour Review, 12 0 (3), 263-277. Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude and mental strain: implications for job redesign. Adminis trative S cience Quarterly, 24, 285-307. Karasek, R. (1990) . Lower health risk with increased job control among white collar workers. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1 1, 171-185. Karlsen, J.I. (1 992). Dialogue versus design. Paper presented at the International Conference Social Research as Support for Technol­ ogical Development: Methodological Trends and Issues, April 1013, Houthem-Valkenburg, The Netherlands. Karlsson, U. (1979). Alternativa produktionssystem till lineproduktion (Alternative production systems for line production). Gothenburg: Gothenburg University, doctoral diss ertation ( Norwegian language). Kasvio, A. ( 1 9 9 1 ) . Editorial to special English edition. F in n ish Work Research Bulletin, 2 (b), 3-4.

224

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The social psychology of organiz­ ations. New York: Wiley. Katz, D . , & Kahn, R.L. (1967). The social psychology of organiz­ ations. New York: Wiley. Katz, D., & Kahn, R.L. ( 1 9 78 ) . The social psychology of organiz­ ations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Kauppinen, T. (1988). Technological change and worker participation: the JOY project in Finland. Stockholm: Arbetslivscentrum. Kauppinen, T. (1989). Management of change and the JOY project in Finland. Finnish Labour Relations Review, 3. Kauppinen, T. (1991). Leadership, organization and co-operation: the JOY-project in Finland. Helsinki: Ministry of Labour, Paper pre­ sented at the International Work Conference on Action Research and the Future of Work, 28-30 August, Noordwijkerhout, The Netherlands. Keidel, R.W. (1981). Theme appreciation as a construct for organiz­ ational change. Management Science, 27, 1261-1278. Keidel, R.W., & Trist, E.L. (1980a). Community economic devel­ opment in Jamestown. In: D. Morley et al. (Ed.), Making cities work. The dynamics of urban innovation. London: Croom Helm. Keidel, R.W., & Trist, E.L. (1980b). Decline and revitalization: the Jamestown experience. In: D. Morley et al. (Ed.), Making cities work: the dynamics of urban innovation (pp. 119-124). London: Croom Helm. Kelly, J.E. (1978). A reappraisal of socio-technical systems theory. Human Relations, 31 (12), 1069-1099. Ketchum, L.D. (1975). A case study of diffusion. In: L.E. Davis, & A.B. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of working life, Vol. II. New York: Free Press. Ketchum, L.D. (1981). A sociotechnical study in a developing country. Paper presented at QWL and the 80's Conference, Toronto. Ketchum, L.D. (1983). A sociotechnical study in a developing country. In: H.F. Kolodny, & H.J.J. van Beinum (Eds.), Q WL and the 8 0 's (pp. 1 5 7- 1 5 8 ) . N e w York: Praeger, excerpt by A . Armstrong. Ketchum, L.D. ( 1 984). Sociotechnical design in a third world country: the railway maintenance depot at Sennar in the Sudan. Human Relations, 37 (2), 135-154. Ketchum, L.D., & Trist, E.L. (1992). All teams are not created equal: how employee empowerment really works. Newbury Park, Cali­ fornia: Sage. Kidwell, J., El Jack, A., & Ketchum, L.D. (1981). Sociotechnical

study for locomotive maintenance workshop at S ennai, S u d a n .

References

225

McLean, Virginia: Parsons Brinckerhoff CENTEC International. Kiggundu, M.N. (1982). The quality of working life in developing countries: beyond the sociotechnical systems model. Paper presented at the 20th International C ongress of Applied Psychology, Edinburgh, Scotland. Kiggundu, M.N. (1986a). Limitations of the application of socio­ technical systems in developing countries. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22 (3), 341-354. Kiggundu, M.N. (1986b ) . S o c io technical systems in developing countries: a review and directions for future research. Ottawa, Ontario: Carleton University, School of Business, working paper No. WPS-86-01. Kiggundu, M.N., J6rgensen� J.J., & Hafsi, T. (1983). Administrative theory and p ra ctice in developing countries: a synthesis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28 (1), 66-84. King, S.D.M. ( 1 9 64 ) . Tra ining within the organization. London: Tavistock. Kirby, P. (1985). A socio-technical aproach to reducing manufacturing cycle-time: a case study. Dearborn, Michigan: Society of Manu­ facturing Engineers, technical paper :MM: 85-721. Kiviniitty, J. ( 1 992) . Work, culture and technology: focus on engineering workshops. Finnish Work Research Bulletin, 2 (b), 2425. Klein, L. (1975). A social scientist in industry. Farnborough: Gower. Klein, M. (1932). The psycho-analysis of children. London: Hogarth Press. Klein, M. (1948). Contributions to psycho-analysis 1921-1945. London: Hogarth Press. Kleingeld, P.A.M., & Tuijl, H.F.J.M. van (1992). Individual and group productivity enhancement in a service department. Eindhoven: E indhoven University of Technolo gy, Graduate School of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, internal report. Koehler, W. (1938). The place of value in a world of fact. New York: Liveright. Koen, M.M. (1991). Samen sterk: een nieuwe produktiestructuur in een

bestaande organisatie-cultuur (Strong together: a new production s tructure in an exis ting o rgan ization culture). Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit, F aculteit Technische Bedrijfskunde (Dutch language). Koestler, A. (1967). The ghost in the machine. London: Hutchinson. Koestler, A. (1978). Janus: a summing up. London: Hutchinson. Kohler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright. Kolo dny, H.F., & Stjernberg, T. (1986). The change proces s of

226

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

innovative work designs: new design and redesign in Sweden, Canada and the U.S. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22 (3), 287-301. " Kommers, J . C . M .J . ,' Fransen, E . , & Fruytier, B . M . G . ( 1 9 9 1 ) .

Automatische produktiebesturing werkt niet vanzelf (Automated production control does not work au tomatically) . Tilburg/Den

Haag: IVA/COB/SER, no. 91-70/ 91-71 (Dutch language). Kotler, P. (1988). Marketing management: analysis, plann ing and control. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Kuipers, H., & Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van (1990). Slagvaardig organi­

seren: een inleiding in de sociotechniek als integrale ontwerpleer (Quick-witted organizing: an introduction of sociotechnique as an integral design theory). Deventer: Kluwer (Dutch language). · Kuipers, H., & Rutte, C.G. (1987). Sociotechnische ontwerpprincipes: een analyse (Principles of soc iotechnical design: an analysis) . Rotterdam: NOBO (Dutch language). Kumpe, T., & Bolwijn, P.T. (1990). Fabrieken met een toekomst. De invloed van nieuwe markt-eisen en technologieen op produkties (Factories which will make it in the future. The impact of new market claims and technologies on production). lnformatie, 3 2 (11), 837-847, (Dutch language). Kunst, P.E.J., & Roberts, H.J.E. (1990). Sociotechnical systems design and management accounting. Maastricht: MERIT 90-0 1 7, paper presented at the annual conference of the European Accounting Association, Budapest. Kuriloff, A.H. (1963). An experiment in management: putting theory Y to the test. Personnel, 40, 8-17. Kusterer, K.C. (1978). Know-how on the job: the important working knowledge of 'unskilled ' workers. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Landen, D.L. (1 977) . The real issue: human dignity. S u rvey of Business, 12 (5), 15-17. Landen, D.L. (1978). Quality of work life and productivity. Detroit: General Motors C orp oration. Paper presented at the 2 1 st. National Automotive Division Conference, February. Landr e, C.J.W. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . Een methode voor het inrichten van de

bes tu ring van de p roduktie met beh ulp van s ociotechnis che principes: van ontwerptheorie naar een concrete (her)ontwerp­ m e t h o de (A meth o d fo r the s o c io t echnical o rga n iza t i o n of produ ction c o n trol: fro m design theory towards a p ractical (re)design method. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit, Faculteit Technische Bedrijfskunde (Dutch language). Lang, R., & Hellpach, W. (Hrs g . ) ( 1 9 22) , Gruppenfa brikation

References

'227

(Production with groups). Berlin: Springer (German language). Lansbury, R.D. (1 992) . JOY to the world? A brief analysis of the contributions of the JOY project to workplace change in Finland in the context of international developments. Finnish Work Research Bulletin, 2 (b), 8-10. Larsen, H.H. (1 979) . Humanization of the work environment in Denmark. In: C.L. Cooper, & E. Mumford (Eds.), The quality of working life in Western and Eastern Europe (pp. 124-158). London: Associated Business Press. Laszlo, E . ( 1 9 8 7) . E v o l u tio n : the grand synthesis. Boston, Massachusetts: New Science Library. Laszlo, E. (1990). Global bifurcation. New York: Gordon & Breach. Lawrence, P.R., & L o r s ch, J . W . ( 1 9 6 7) . O rga n iz a t i o n a n d environment: managing differen tiation and in tegration. Boston: Irwin. Lefebvre, C., & Rolloy, G. (1976). L 'amelioration des conditions de travail dans les emp l o is adminis tra tifs (Imp roving work in administrative organizations). Paris: Chotard et Associes Editeurs (French language). Legros, M. (1976). Experience de restructuration des taches dans un groupe de caisses de retraite (Experiences with the restructuring of jobs in pension scheme insurance). In: C. Lefebvre, & G. Rolloy (Eds.), L 'amelioration des conditions de travail dans les emplois administratifs (pp. 196-200). Paris: Chotard et Associes Editeurs (French language). Lehner, F. (1991). Anthropocentric production systems: the European response to advanced manufacturing and globalization. C E C/ FAST/APS Research Series, 4. Lewin, K. (1935) . The conflict between Aristotlean and Galilean modes of thought in contemporary psychology. In: K. Lewin (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill. Lewin, K. (1943). Forces behind food habits and methods of change. Bulletin of the National Research Council, 1 08, 35-65. Lewin, K. (1946 ) . Research on minority problems. The Technology Review, 48 (3). Lewin, K. ( 1 947) . Group decision and social change. In: T.M. Newcombe, & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Lewin, K. ( 1951 ) . Field theory in social science. New York: Harper and Row. Lewin, K. ( 1954) . Social structure and personality. Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R.K. ( 1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created 'social climates'. Journal of

228

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Social Psychology, 10, 271-299. Lichtenberg, A., & Sinten, L. van (1986). O rganiseren kan o o k anders: een orgll{lisatie-analyse met behulp van d e systeembenade­ ring. Een pleidooi' voor kwaliteit van werk en organisatie (Organ­ izing differen tly: an o rgan ization analysis using the systems approach. A plea for quality of work and organization. Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit, Vakgroep Psychologie van Arbeid en Organisatie (Dutch language). Lilienfeld, R. ( 1 9 78 ) . The rise of systems theory: an ideological analysis. New York: Wiley. Lindholm, R. (1975). Job reform in Sweden: conclusions from 500 shop floor projects. Stockholm: Swedish Employers' Confederation SAP. Lindholm, R. (1 979). Towards a new wo rld of work. Swedish development of work organizations, production engineering and eo-determination. International Journal on Production Research, 1 7 (5), 433-443. Lippitt, R. (1940). An experimental study of authoritarian and democratic group atmospheres. University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 16, 45-195. Lippitt, R., & White, R.K. (1939). The social climate of children's groups. In: R.G. Barker, J.S. Kounin, & H.F. Wright (Eds.) (1943), Child behaviours & development. New York: McGraw-Hill . Litterer, J.A. (Ed.) ( 1 963 ) , Organizations: systems, c o n trol and adaptation, vol. I and II. New York: Wiley. Little, A.D. Inc. ( 1965). Analysis of automation potential by means of unit operations. US Deparbnent of Labor c-66411. Liu, M. (1991 ) . Fundamentals of action research. Paris: Ecole Centrale des Arts et Manufactures, Laboratoire Economique Industriel et Social, Doe. 17 A/91 (French language) . Loeffen, J.M.J. (1991a). Besturing en informatievoorziening bij Stork

PMT in Boxmeer. Een verkennende studie (Control and information s upply at S tork PMT in Boxm eer. An explora tory s tu dy) . Eindhoven/Boxmeer: Technische Universiteit, Faculteit Tech­ nische Bedrijfskunde I Stork PMT, bedrijfsrapport (Dutch lan­ guage). Loeffen, J.M.J. (1991b). Integral organizational renewal and resulting changes in the process of information exchange. In: A. van Ha rten, & B . G . F . Pol (Eds. ) , Bedrijfs k u n d igen info rm eren bedrijfskundigen (pp. 115-120). Enschede: NOBO. Loeffen, J.M.J. (1992). Info rmatievoorz ien ing b ij Holec-HA T in

Hengelo. Analyse en herontwerp - werktitel (Information supply at Holec-HAT in Hengelo. Analysis and redesign - work title) .

References

229

Eindhoven / Hengelo: Technische Universiteit, Faculteit Tech­ nische Bedrijfskunde I Holec-HAT, bedrijfsrapport (Dutch lan­ guage). Logue, G. (1981). Saab /Trollhattan: reforming work life on the shop floor. Working life in Sweden (no. 23), Stockholm: The Swedish Institute. Lorenz, E.N. (1963). Deterministic non-periodic flow. Jo urnal of Atmospheric Sciences, 20, 130-141. Luhmann, N. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . Soziolo gie als Theorie Sozialer Systeme ( S o ciology as a theory of s o cial systems ) . Zeitschrift fur S oz i o l ogie u n d S ozial P sychologie, 1 9 6, 6 1 5-644, ( German language). Luhmann, N. (1968a). Selbststeuerung der Wissenschaft (Self-control of science). Jahrbuch fur Sozialwissenschaft, 19, 147-170, (German language). Luhmann, N. (1968b). Zweckbegriff und Systemrationalitat: uber die

Funktionen von Zwecken in Sozialen Systemen (The concept of goal and sys tem ra tionality: about the func tions of goals in s ocial systems). Tuebingen: Mohr (German language). Luhmann, N. (1975). Macht (Power). Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag (German language). Luhmann, N. (1984). Soziale Systeme: Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie (Social systems: foundations for a general theory). Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp (German language). Lytle, W.O. ( 1 9 9 1 a ) . Socio-technical systems analysis and des ign guide for linear work. Plainfield, New Jersey: Block/Petrella/ Weisbord, Inc. Lytle, W.O. (1991b ) . S ocio-technical systems analysis and design g u ide fo r non-linea r w o rk. Pl ainfield, New Jersey: Block/ Petrella/Weisbord, Inc. Maassen, H. (1982). Samen op weg: een begin van werkstrukturering

in de afdeling Voorbewerking van IHC-Smit b.v. te Kinderdijk (Setting off together: making a start with work structuring in the pre-manufacturing department of IHC-Smit b.v. in Kinderdijk). Eindhoven: Technische Hogeschool, afdeling der Bedrijfskunde, Vakgroep Organisatie-sociologie (Dutch language). Macy, B.A., & Jones, A. (1976). The socio-technical system at Bethesda hospital. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research. M aier, N.R.F. (1946 ) . Psychology in industry. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Marek, J., Lange, K., & Engelstad, P.H. (1964). Report 1 . Industrial

democracy project. The wire drawing mill of Christiania Spigerverk. Trondheim: IFIM, Institute for Industrial Social Research.

230

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Masaaki, I. (1986). Kaizen. New York: Random House. Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper. May, J., & Grodey, M. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . Jungian thought and dynamical systems: a new 'Science of archetypal psychology. Psychological Perspectives, 20, 142-155. May, R.M. (1976). Simple mathematical models with very compli­ cated dynamics. Nature, 261, 459-467. Mayo, E. (1933). The human problems of an industrial civilization. New York: Macmillan. McC ann, J.E., & Selsky, W.J. ( 1 9 84). Hyperturbulence and the emergence of type-S environments. The Academy of Management Review, 9, 460-471. McCarthy, T. (1991). Complexity and democracy: the seducements of system theory. In: T. McC arthy (Ed.), Ideas a n d illu s i o n s . Cambridge, Massachussets: MIT Press. McGill Human Resource Associates Inc. (1985). Canadian General

Electric in Bromont: participative management in an advanced technology plant. Montreal. McGregor, D. (1960). The human s ide of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill. Melcher, A.J. (Ed.) (1975), General systems and organization theory: methodological aspects. Kent, Ohio: Kent State University Press. Melman, S. ( 1 95 8 ) . Decis ion making and productivity. Oxford: Blackwell. Menzies, I.E.P. (1960). A case study in the functioning of social systems as a defence against anxiety. A report on a study of the nursing service of a general hospital. Human Relations, 13, 90121. Merton, R.K. (1 949 ) . Social theory and social structure. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press. Merton, R.K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York: Free Press (enlarged edition) . Miller, E.C. (1 978) . GM's quality of work life efforts. An interview with Howard C. Carlson. Personnel, juli-aug, 11-23. Miller, E.J. ( 1 9 5 9 ) . Technology, territory and time: the internal differentiation of complex production systems. London: Tavistock Document 526. Miller, E.J. (1975). Socio-technical systems in weaving, 1953-1970: a follow-up study. Human Relations, 28 (4), 349-386. Miller, E.J., & Rice, A.K. (1 967). Systems of organization: the control of task and sentient boundaries. London: Tavistock Publications. Mills, T. (1978). Europ e ' s industrial democracy: an American response. Harvard Business Review, 56 (6), 143-152.

References

231

Montuori, A. (1991). Toward a theory base for evolutionary learning. San Francisco, C aliforni a : Saybrook Institute, unpublished doctoral thesis. Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organizations. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications. Morley, D., & Wright, S. (1989). Epilogue: organizational and contextual change. In: S. Wright, & D. Morley (Eds.), Learn ing

works: searching for organizational futures. A tribute to Eric Trist (pp. 256-278). Toronto, Ontario: York University, Faculty of Environmental Studies, ABL Group. Mumford, E. ( 1979). Participative work design: a contribution to democracy in the office and on the shop floor. In: A. Alioth, J. Blake, M. Butteriss, M. Elden, 0. Ortsman, & R. van der Vlist (Eds .), Working on the quality of working life: developments in Europe (pp. 193-211). Boston: Nijhoff. Mumford, E., & Henshall, D. (1979). A participative approach to computer systems design. London: Associated Business Press. Mumford, E., & Weir, M. (1979). Computer systems in work design,

the ETHICS method: effective technical and human implementation of computer systems. London: Associated Business Press. Murray, H . ( 1 9 5 7a ) . Changing fro m convent ional to compos ite organization. London: Tavistock Document 484. Murray, H . ( 1 9 5 7b ) . Co mpara t ive s t u dy of min ing systems I: 'Composite cutting longwalls. London: Tavistock Document 462. Murray, H. ( 1 9 5 7c ) . C o m p o s ite c u t ting l o ngwalls II: w o rk organization. London: Tavistock Document 463. Murray, H. (1957d). Composite cutting longwalls Ill: the production record of two double unit longwalls. London: Tavistock Document 465. Murray, H. (1957e). Composite cutting longwalls IV: the assessment of performance. London: Tavistock Document 465. Murray, H. (1957f). Composite cutting longwalls VI: work roles and activity groups. London: Tavistock Document 473. Murray, H. (1957g). Composite cutting longwalls VII: social adaptation to increased work stress. London: Tavistock Document 472. Murray, H. (1957h) . Composite cutting longwalls VIII: regulation of cycle progress. London: Tavistock Document 482. Nagel, E. (1956). Logic without metaphysics. A formalization of functionalism. In: F.E. Emery (Ed.), Systems thinking: selected readings (pp. 297-329). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Naschold, F. (1971). Organisation und Demokratie (Organization and democracy). Stuttgart: Kohlhammer (German language). Naschold, F. (1972). Systemsteuerung (Systems control). Stuttgart:

232

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Kohlhamm er (German language). Naschold, F. (1991). Developments in work design. In: J. Thurman e t al. (Ed.), On l'n4.siness a n d work. Geneva: The International Labour Office. Naschold, F. (1993). Evaluation report, commissioned by the board of the LOM program. In: F. Naschold et al. (1993). Constructing the new industrial society. Maastricht: Van Gorcum. Naschold, F. et al ( 1 992) . Evaluation das L OM-Programm (An evaluation of the LOM programme). Berlin: Wissenschaftscentrum (German language). National Capital Development Commission (1973) . How to build an utopia - or not bomb out by much. Canberra: NCDC report. Nic olis , G . , & Prigogine, I. ( 1 9 77) . Self- o rga n ization in n o n ­

equilibrium systems: from dissipative structures t o order through fluctuations. New York: Wiley. Nieuwenhuizen, H.J. (1984). Speelruimte past iedereen (Latitude suits everybody). Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit, KWO-Research­ Groep, Vakgroep Psychologie van Arbeid en Organisatie (Dutch language). Nilakant, V., & Rao, V.R. (1976) . Participative design: the hard­ ware experience. National Labour Institute Bulletin, 2 (8), 277-287, New Delhi. Nilsson, K., & Nilsson, P. (1990). The symbiosis of interorganiz­ ational and intra-organizational learning. Umea: Umea Business School. Norstedt, J . P . , & Agur en, S. ( 1 9 73 ) . The S a a b - S c ania rep o r t . Stockholm: Swedisch Employers' Confederation SAP, Technical Department. Otten, J.H.M., Poppel, G . C .J.M., Roosbr oek, H.F.M., & Swiiste, W.H.T.M. (1 984) . Niet-technische aspekten van kantoor-automa­

tisering bij het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken: verslag van een voormeting (Non-technical aspects of office automation at the Ministry of Internal Affairs: a pre-measurement report). Nijmegen: Katholieke Universiteit, KWO-Research-Groep, Vakgroep Psy­ chologie van Arbeid en Organisatie (Dutch language). Parker, M., & Slaughter, J. (1988). Unions and the team concept. Boston: South End Press. Parsons, T. (1951). The social system. Glencoe, IDinois: The Free Press. Parsons, T., & Shils, E.A. (1951 ) . Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. Pasmore, W.A. (1988). Designing effective organizations: the socio­ technical systems perspective. New York: Wiley. Pasmore, W.A., & Sherw ood, J.J. (Eds.) (1 978), Socio - techn ical

References

233

systems: a sourcebook. La Jolla, California: University Associates. Pasmore, W.A., Srivastva, S., & Sherwood, J.J. (1978). Social rela­ tionships and organizational performance: a sociotask approach. In: W.A. Pasmore, & J.J. Sherwood (Eds.), S o c io - techn ical systems: a sourcebook. San Diego: University Associates. Pasmore, W.A., Francis, C., Haldeman, J., & Shani, A. (1982). Socio­ technical systems: a North-American reflection on empirical studies of the seventies. Human Relations, 35 (12), 1179-1204. Pateman, C. ( 1 970). Participation and democratic theory. London: Cambridge University Press. Pattee, H.H. ( 1 977). Dynamic and linguistic models of complex systems. International Journal of General Systems, 3, 259-266. Pava, C. (1 979). State of the art in American autonomous work group design. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Management and Behavioral Science Center, The Wharton School. P ava, C. (1983 ) . Managing new office technology: an organizational strategy. New York: Free Press. Pava, C. (1985). Managing new information technology: design or default? In: R.E. Walton, & P.R. Lawrence (Eds.), HRM: trends and challenges (pp. 69-102). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press. Pava, C. (1986). Redesigning socio-technical systems design: concepts and methods for the 1990s. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 22 (3), 201-222. Peirce, C.S. (1898). The rules of philosophy. In: M. Konvitz, & G . Kennedy (Eds.) (1960), The American pragmatists. New York: New American Library. Pepper, S . C . ( 1 942). World hypotheses. Los Angeles, B erkeley: University of California Press, second edition (1961). Pepper, S.C. (1950). World hypotheses. University of California. Pionet, F. (1979). Experiences de reorganisation au travail dans la communaute europeenne (Experiences with the reorganization of work in the European Economic Community). Paris: Fondation Europ eenne p our !' amelioration des condition et de travail (French language). Pleij, F.J.E . ( 1 992). Prestatie-beoordeling van afdelingen en hele

taakgroepen: con troleren of sturen ? (Performance appraisal in departments and whole-task groups: supervision or contro l ? ) . Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit, Faculteit Technische Be­ drijfskunde (Dutch language). Pollock, A.B. ( 1 954) . Retail shop organization. London: Tavistock Documents Series. P ollock, A . B . ( 1 95 7 ) . S ingle place working. London: Tavistock

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

234

Document 420a. Pollock, A.B. (1958). A composite hewing longwall unit. London: Tavistock Docll.l;_nent 504a, 26 pp. Porras, J.I. (1987). Stream analysis: a powerful way to diagnose and manage organizational change. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison­ Wesley. P o t , F . D . , Christis, J . H . P . , Fr uyti er, B . G . M . , Kommers, H . , Middendorp, J., Peeters, M.H.H., & Vaas, S. (1989a). Functie­

verbetering en organisatie van de arbeid (Job improvement and the organization of work). Voorburg: Directoraat Generaal van de Arbeid, Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en W erkgelegenheid, 571 (Dutch language). Pot, F.D., Peeters, M.H.H., Vaas, 5., Christis, J.H.P., Middendorp, J., Fruytier, B.G.M., & Kommers, H. (1989b). Functieverbetering en Arbowet Gob improvement and the Work Environment Act). Gedrag en Organisatie, 2 (4/5), 361-382, (Dutch language). Poza, E.J., & Markus, M.L. (1980). Success story: the team approach to work restructuring. Organizational Dynamics, winter, 3-25. Prigogine, I. ( 1 947). E t u de thermodyna m i q u e des phen o m e n es

irrevers ibles (The study of the termo-dynamics of irreversible phenomena). Durrod (French language). Prigogine, I. (1976). Order through fluctuation: self-organization and social systems. In: E. Jantsch, & C. Waddington (Eds.), Evolution a n d c o n s ciousness: h u ma n systems in tra n s itio n . Rea ding, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos: man 's new dialog with nature. New York: Bantam. Pritchard, R.D. (1990). Measuring and improving organizational productivity: a practical guide. New York: Praeger. Pritchard, R.D., Jones, S.D., Roth, P.L., Stuebing, K.K., & Ekeberg, S.E. (1988). Effects of group feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, 73 (2), 337-358. Pritchard, R.D., }ones, S.D., Roth, P.L., Stuebing, K.K., & Ekeberg, S . E . ( 1 9 8 9 ) . The evaluation of an integrated app roach to measuring organizational productivity. Personnel Psychology, 42,

69-115. Purser, R.E., & Pasmore, W.A. (1990) . Advances in non-routine socio­

technical systems thinking: curren t applications and fu ture implications for the design of knowledge-producing organizations. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Organization Development Meeting, San Francisco, California. Purser, R.E., & Pasmore, W.A. (199 1). Organ izing for learning.

References

235

Chicago, Illinois /Cleveland, Ohio: Loyola University / Case Western Reserve University, preprint. Qvale, T . U . ( 1 9 75 ) . A rbeidsm ilje og arbeids o rganisasjo n i et

smelteverk (Work environment and work organization in smelting works) . Oslo: Work Research Institutes AI-Doc. (Norwegian language). Qvale, T.V. (1976). A Norwegian strategy for democratization of industry. Human Relations, 29 (5), 453-469. Qvale, T.U. (1978). Bureaucracy or productivity - experience with board level worker representation in Norway. Human Futures, 1, 61-64. Qvale, T.U. (1989). A new milestone in the development of indus­ trial democracy in Norway. In: C.J. Lammers, & G. Szell (Eds.), International Handbook of participation in organizations, Vol. 1 . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Qvale, T.U. (1991). Participation for productivity and change: a multi­

level, cooperative strategy for improving organizational performance. Oslo: Norwegian Work Life Centre, SBA, Paper presented at the Conference Workplace Australia, Melbourne, 24-28 February. Radke, M., & Klisurich, D. (1 947). Experiments in changing food habits. journal of the American Dietists Association, 23, 403-409. Rapoport, R.N. (1970). Three dilemmas in action research: with special reference to the Tavistock experience. Human Relations, 23 (6), 499-513. Rashevsky, N. (1938). Mathematical biophysics. Chicago: University Press. Rashev sky, N. (1 954) . Top ology and life: in search of general mathematical principles in biology and sociology. B ulletin of Mathematical Biophysics, 1 6, 317-348. Rice, A.K. (1953) . Productivity and social organization in an Indian weaving shed: an examination of the socio-technical system of an exp erimental automatic loomshed. Human Relations, 6 (4), 297-329. Rice, A . K . ( 1 9 5 8 ) . P r o d u ctivity and s o c ial o rga n iz a t i o n : the Ahmedabad Experiment. London: Tavistock Publications. Rice, A.K. ( 1 9 6 3 ) . The en terprise and its en vironment. London: Tavistock Publications. Roberts, H.J.E. (1993). Accountability and responsibility: the influence of organization design on management accounting. Maastricht: Universitaire Pers, Ph.D. thesis. Roberts, H.J.E., Boons, A.N.A.M., & Roozen, P.A. (1991a). Strate­ gische kostenanalyse (Strategic cost analysis). Maandblad voor Accounting en Bedrijfseconomie, 65 (9), 383-392, (Dutch language).

236

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Roberts, H.J. E . , B o ons, A . N . A . M . , & R o o zen, P . A . ( 1 9 9 1 b ) . Reflections on· activity-based costing. Paper presented a t the fMA Congress, Erasmus University Rotterdam. Roberts, H.J.E., Boons, A.N.A.M., & Roozen, P.A. (1991c) . The use of

activity-based costing systems in a European setting: a case study analysis. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Congress of the

European Accounting Association, Maastricht. Robison, D. (1977). General Motors business teams advance QWL at Fisher Body Plant. World of Work Report, 2 (7) . Roggema, J. (1968). Survey of interview data collected on the Hoegh Aurore and Hoegh Merchant. Groningen: Institute for Social Psy­ chology. Roggema, J., & Hammarstn�m, N.K. (1975). Nye organisasjonsformer till sjes (New organizational forms in seafaring). Oslo: Tanum-Norli (Norwegian language). Roggema, J., & Thorsrud, E. (1974). Et skip i utvikling (A ship in development). Oslo: Tanum (Norwegian language). Rogne, K. (1974). Redesigning the design process. Applied Ergo­ nomics, 5 (4), 213-218. Roos, J.P. (1974). Theoretical problems of democratic planning. A c ta Sociologica, 1 7 (3), 218-235. Roux, W. (1914). Die Selbstregulation (Self-regulation). Berlin (German language). Rundell, C.R. (1978). Quality of work life in General Motors. Paper presented at the 21st National Automotive Division Conference, Greater Detroit Section Arutual Forum. Sandberg, A. (1976) . The limits to democratic planning: knowledge, power and methods in the struggle for the future. Stockholm: Liber. Sandberg, A. (1 979) . The Demos project: democratic control and planning in working life. In: A. Alioth, J. Blake, M. Butteriss, M. Elden, 0. Ortsman, & R. van der Vlist (Eds.), Working on the quality of working life: developments in Europe (pp. 292-302). Boston: Nijhoff. Schallock, B. (1993). Soziotechnische Fabrikinnovation (Sociotech­ nical factory innovation). Berlin: Fraunhofer-Institut fiir Pro­ duktionsanlagen und Konstruktionstechnik IPK, Produktions­ technisches Zentrum PTZ (German language). Schlitzberger, H.H. (1 978). Planning von Arbeitssysteme mit Hilfe von Strukturierungsbausteine (Planning of labour systems with the help of structuring principles). Refa Nachrichten, 31 (3), 131134, (German language). Schrodinger, E. ( 1 9 44) . What is l ife ? C ambridge: Cambridge University Press.

References

237

Schumacher, E.F. (1975). Small is beautiful: economics as if people mattered. New York: Harper Colophon Books. Schutzenberger, M.P. ( 1 954). A tentative classification of goal­ seeking b ehaviours. In: F.E. Emery (E d . ) ( 1 9 6 9 ) , S y s t e m s thinking: selected readings (pp. 205-213). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Schumacher, P.C. (1975). The Schumacher workstructuring method. London: Philips Electronic Industries, Central O&E Department, internal paper. Schumacher, P.C. (1979). Principles of work organization. London: Philips Electronic Industries, Central Organization and Effi­ ciency Department. Schumacher, P . C . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Ma n ufa c t u ring system d e s ig n : the Schumacher workstructuring methods, steps I to VI. Surrey/London: Philips Electronic Industries, Central O&E Department, training manual. Schumpeter, J. (1943). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. London: Alien and Unwin. Sena, J.A., & Shani, A.B. (1 992). The technological component of sociotechnical system thinking: a case study of a local area net­ work implementation. In: L.A. Masters (Ed.), Proceedings of the

Twenty-First Annual Meeting of the Western Decision Sciences Institute (pp. 290-295) . San Bernardino: California State Uni­

versity. Shani, A. B. (1983). The durability of sociotechnical systems approach to change. Grand Forks, North Dakota: Bureau of Business and Economic Research, technical report. Shani, A.B., & Eberhardt, B .J. (1987) . Parallel organization in a health care institution: an exploratory action research study. Group and Organization Studies, 12 (2), 147-173. Shani, A.B., & Elliott, 0. (1988). Applying socio-technical system design at the strategic apex: an illustration. Organization Devel­ opment Journal, 6 (2), 53-66. Shani, A.B., & Krishnan, R. (1992). Re-examination of S TS : an empirical investigation. Paper presented at the IWAM Conference, Leuven, Belgium, June. Shani, A.B., Grant, R.M., Krishnan, R., & Thompson, E. (1992). Advanced manufacturing systems and organizational choice: a sociotechnical system approach. California Management Review, 34. Shaw, R., & Turvey, M.T. (1981). Coalitions as models for ecosys­ tems: a realist perspective on perceptual organization. In: M. Kub o vy, & J.R. Pomerantz (Eds.), Perceptual o rga n ization.

238

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Shepherd, V.W. (1951). Continuous longwall mining: experiments at Bolsover collie�){. Colliery Guardian, 182. Sievers, B . ( 1 9 7 1 ) . System, Organi s a ti o n , G e sellschaft. N . Luhmann's Theorie Sozialer Systeme (System, organization, society. N. Luhmann's theory of social systems). Jahrbuch fur Sozialwissenschaft, 22 (1), (German language). Simonse, L. (1992). De informatie-voorziening van Holec Algemene

Toelevering ( Th e info r m a t i o n s upply of Holec Algemene Toelevering). Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit, Faculteit

Techniek en Maatschappij (Dutch language). Singer, E.A., Jr. (1959) . Experience and reflection. Philadelphia: Uni­ versity of Pennsylvania Press. Sitter, L.U. de (1973 ) . A system-theoretical paradigm of social interaction: towards a new approach to qualitative system dynamics. Annals of System Research, 3, 109-140. Sitter, L.U. de (1 974a ) . Sociotechniek (Sociotechnique). M e n s & Onderneming, 28 (2), 65-83, (Dutch language). Sitter, L.U. de ( 1 9 74b) . Sociotechniek 2: a antekeningen bij een sociotechnisch model van een produktie-systeem (Sociotechnique 2: notes about a sociotechnical model of a production system). Mens & Onderneming, 28 (3), 163-176, (Dutch language). Sitter, L.U. de (1978). Kenmerken en functies van de kwaliteit van de

arbeid (Characteristics and functions of the quality of work) .

Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit, afdeling Bedrijfskunde (Dutch language). Sitter, L.U. de (1980). Produktie-organisatie en arbeidsorganisatie in

s o c ia a l-ec o n o m isch perspektief: ka n ttekeningen random het vraagstuk van de kwaliteit van de arbeid en organisatie (Production organization and organization of work from a social-eonomic point of view: notes about the problem of the quality of work and of organization). Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit, afdeling Be­

drijfskunde, vakgroep Organisatie-sociologie (Dutch language). Sitter, L.U. de (1981a). Op weg naar nieuwe fabrieken en kantoren:

produktie-organ isatie en arbeidsorgan isatie op de tweespro ng (Towards new factories and offices: production organization and work organization on a cross-road). Deventer: Kluwer (Dutch

language). Sitter, L.U. de (1981b). The functional significance of participation. Eindhoven: University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Science, internal report. Sitter, L.U. de (1989a) . Integrale produktievernieuwing: sociale en

economische achtergronden van het TAD-programma (Integral

References

239

production renewal: social and economic background of the TAO programme). Maastricht: MERIT (Dutch language) .

Sitter, L . U . de ( 1 9 8 9 b ) . Mo d erne Sociotechniek (Mod ern Sociotechnology). Gedrag & Organisatie, 2 (4/5), 222-252, (Dutch language). Sitter, L.U. de ( 19 8 9c ) . Kwaliteit van de arbeid: uitgangspu nten,

gevolgen, meten, beoordelen (Quality of work: points of departure, effects, measuring, judging). Den Bosch: Adviesgroep Koers, intern

rapport, (Dutch language). Sitter, L.U. de, & Heij, P. (1975) . Sociotechniek 6: een sociotech­ nische analyse van arbeidstaken (Sociotechnique 6: a sociotech­ nical analysis of jobs) . Mens & Onderneming, 29 (3), 133-155, (Dutch language). Sitter, L.U. de, Hertog, J.F. den, & Eijnatten, F.M. van (1990).

Simple o rganizations, complex jobs: the D utch socio-technical approach. Paper presented at the annual conference of the

American Academy of Management, San Francisco, 12-15 August. Sitter, L.U. de, Vermeulen, A.A.M., Amelsvo ort, P.J.L.M. van, Geffen, L. van, Troost, P., & Verschuur, F.O. (1986). Het flexibele

bedrijf: integrale aanpak van flexibiliteit, beheersbaarheid, kwaliteit van de arbeid en produktie-automatisering (The flexible business: an integrated approach offlexibility, controllability, quality of work and production automation). Deventer: Kluwer (Dutch language). Sluijs, E. van, & Terwisga, H.B. van (1991). Training and develop­ ment in an innovative context. Paper presented at the fifth Euro­

pean Congress on the Psychology of Work and Organization, Rouen, March 24-27. Sluij s , E . van, As s en, A . van, & Hertog, J . F . den ( 1 9 9 0 ) .

Personeelsbeleid e n i n nova tie - TA O position paper (Personnel management and innovation - TA O position paper). Maastricht:

MERIT research memorandum 90-024 (Dutch language). Sluijs, E. van, Assen, A. van, & Hertog, J.F. den (1991). Personnel mana gement and organizational change: a so ciotechnical perspective. European Work and Organizational Psychologist, 1 (1), 27-51. Smets, P., & Zwaan, A.H. van der (1 975). Sociotechniek 5: twee systemen van produktiebesturing: een toepassing van de traceer­ methode (Sociotechnique 5: two systems of production control: an application of the tracing-out method). Mens & Onderneming, 29 (1), 27-50, (Dutch language). Smith, F. (1952). Switch board reorganization. London: General Post Office, unpublished monograph. Sol, E.J. (1990). Holonic production systems: systeemkeuze, opbouw en

240

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

eigenschappen (Holonic production systems: system choice, con­ struction and characteristics). Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit,

Faculteit Technis�he Bedrijfskunde (Dutch language). Sommerhoff, G. (1950). Analytical biology. London: Oxford University Press. Sommerhoff, G. (1969). The abstract characteristics of living sys­ tems. In: F.E. Emery (Ed.), Systems thinking: selected readings (pp. 147-202). Harmondsworth: Penguin Books. Spencer-Brown, L. (1969). Laws of form. London: Alien and Unwin. Spiegelman, S. (1 945). Physiological competition as a regulatory mechanism in morphogenesis. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 20, 121-146. Srivastva, S., Salipante, P., Cummings, T., Notz, W., Bigelow, J., & Waters, J. ( 1 9 75). Job satisfaction and productivity. Cleveland: Case Western Reserve University. Strauss, A., & C orbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage. Strien, P.J. van (1 975). Naar een methodologie van het praktijk­ denken in de sociale wetenschappen (Towards a methodology of consultative thinking in the social sciences). Ned e r l a n d s Tijdschrift voor de Psychologie, 30, 601-619, (Dutch language). Strien, P.J. van (1978). Paradigms in organizational research and practice. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 51 (4), 291-301. Strien, P.J. van (1986). Praktijk als wetenschap: methodologie van het

s o ciaal-wetens chappelijk handelen (Practice as s cience: the methodology of social-scientific interventions. Assen: Van Gorcum

(Dutch language). /- - ,, Sudbury 2001 (1979). A framework for action. Sudbury: Ontario. Susman, G.I. (1975). Technological prerequisites for delegation of decision making to work group. In: L.E. Davis, & A.B. Cherns (Eds.), The quality of working life, Vol. I. New York: The Free Press. Susman, G.I. (1976). Autonomy at work: a socio-technical analysis of participative management. New York: Praeger. Susman, G.I. (1 983). Action research: a socio-technical systems perspective. In: G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method: strategies for social research. Beverly Hills, California: Sage. Taylor, F.W. ( 1 9 1 1 ) . Scientific management. New York: Harper & Row. Taylor, J.C. (1 975). The human side of work: the socio-technical approach to work system design. Personnel Review, 4 (3), 17-22. Taylor, J.C. (1977a). Experiments in work system design: economic and human results. Part I. Personnel Review, 6 (3), 21-34.

References

241

Taylor, J.C. (1977b). Experiments in work system design: economic and human results. Part II. Personnel Review, 6 (4), 21-42. Taylor, J.C. (1977c). Job design in an insurance firm. Journal of Contemporary Business, 6 (2), 37-48. Taylor, J.C. (1978). Participative socio-technical work system analysis and design: three cases of service technology work groups. Los Angeles, California: Center for Quality of Working Life, UCLA. Taylor, J.C. (1989). An action basis of social theory. Looking at the

product of o u r work: a new paradigm fo r des igning effective organizations. Paper presented at the Conference 'A Search for a

Paradigm of Efficient Social Action', Charleton University, Ottowa. Taylor, J.C. (1990). Two decades of socio-technical systems in North A merica. Los Angeles, California: University of S outhern California, Institute of Safety and Systems Management, Paper presented at the 1 9 9 0 National Ac ademy of Management Meeting, San Francisco, August 15. Taylor, J.C., & Asadorian, R.A. ( 1 985). The implementation of excellence: socio-technical management. Industrial Management, 27 (4), 5-15. Taylor, J.C., & Felten, D.F. ( 1 993). Performance by design: socio­ technical systems in North America. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Taylor, J.C., Gustavson, P.W., & Carter, W.S. (1986). Integrating the social and technical systems of organizations. In: D.D. Davis (Ed.), Managing technological innovations. San Francisco, Jossey­ Bass. Terra, N. (1988). Ruimte voor nieuwe inhoud: reorganiseren met menselijke maat (New job content: job redesign and humanization of work). Gedrag en Organisatie, BB (4), 72-90, (Dutch language). Teubner, G. (1990). Die vielkopfige Hydra: Netzwerke als kollektive

Akteure hoherer Ordnung (The many-headed Hydra: networks as collec tive a c to rs of a higher o rder) . Florence: The European

University, work note (German language). Thompson, J.D. (1967). Organizations in action. New York: McGraw­ Hill. Thorsrud, E. (1966). Industrial democracy: involvement, commitment, action: some observations during field research. London: Tavistock Document T 886. Thorsrud, E. (1968). Socio-technical approach to job design and organizational development. Management International Review, B (4/5), 120-136. Thorsrud, E. (1970). A strategy for research and social change in

242

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

industry: a report on the industrial democracy project in Norway. Social Science ·Information, 9 (5), 65-90. Thorsrud, E. (1972-a.) . Democratization of work organizations: some

c o nc rete ways of res t r u c t u ring the w o rk place (at N o b!J­ Hommelvik). Oslo: Work Research Institute, working paper.

Thorsrud, E. (1972b). Policy making as a learning process. In: A.B. Cherns, R. Sinclair, & W.I. Jenkins (Eds.), S ocial science and government: policies and problems. London: Tavistock. Thorsrud, E. (1977a). Democracy at work: Norwegian experiences with non-bureaucratic forms of organization. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13 (3), 410-421. Thorsrud, E. (1977b). The Lysebu conference on oil activities in the North Sea. Oslo: Work Research Institutes, AI-doc. 25/1977. Thorsrud, E. (1978). Reflections on the Lysebu conference on oil activi­ ties. Preparing for a "search conference ", on what - for whom ? Oslo: Work Research Institutes, AI-doc. 1/ 1978. Tolman, E.C., & Brunswick, E. (1935). The organism and the causal texture of the environment. Psychological Review, 42, 43-77. Tomkins, S.S. (1953). Affect, imagery and consciousness, Vol. 1 . Springer. Trebesh, K. (1990). Soziotechnische Systeme: Eine Einftihrung (Socio­ technical systems: an introduction). Organisationsentwicklung, 8 (4), 6-9, (German language). Trist, E.L. (1953). Some observations of the machine face as a socio­

technical system. A report to the area general manager, N o . I Area, East Midlands Divis i o n . L ondon: Tavistock Document 341

(restricted). Trist, E.L. ( 1 9 5 6 ) . Comparative study of some aspects of mining systems in a Northern coal field, progress report. London: Tavistock Document 434. Trist, E.L. (1957). Composite cutting longwalls I: their emergence and general characteristics. London: Tavistock Document 462. Trist, E.L. (1975). Planning the first steps towards quality of work­ ing life in a developing country. In: L.E. Davis, & A.B. Cherns (Eds.), Quality of working life: problems, prospects and the state of the art, Vol I (pp. 78-85). New York: Free Press. Trist, E.L. (1976). A concept of organizational ecology. B ulletin of the National Labour Institute, 12, 483-496. Trist, E.L. (1977). Private communication to Fred Emery. In: F.E. Emery (Ed.) (1978), The emergence of a new paradigm of work (pp. 5-10). Canberra: Australian National University, Centre for Con­ tinuing Education. Trist, E . L . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The evolution of s o c io-technical sys tems. A

References

243

conceptual framework and an action research program. Toronto, Ontario: Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre, occasional paper. Trist, E.L. (1983) . Referent organizations and the development of inter-organizational domains. Human Relations, 36 (3), 269-284. Trist, E .L. (1985). After-dinner remarks. Conference on Explorations in Human Futures, Orillia, Ontario, 17 October. Trist, E.L., & Bamforth, K.W. (1951). Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting. Hu m a n Relations, 4 (1), 3-38. Trist, E.L., & Bradshaw, P. (1981). Feasibility of QWL. Projects in the Sudbury region. Toronto, Ontario: QWL Centre, occasional paper. Trist, E .L., & Clarke, L. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Sudbury 2 0 0 1 : an evolu tionary analysis. Toronto, Ontario: QWL Centre, occasional paper. Trist, E.L., & Murray, H. (1958). Work organization at the coal face: a comparative study of mining systems. London: Tavistock Document 506. Trist, E .L., Eldred, J., & Keidel, R.W. (1978). A new approach to economic development. Human Futures, 1 (1), 1-12. Trist, E .L., Susman, G.L, & Brown, G.W. (1977). An experiment in autonomous groups working in an American underground coal mine. Human Relations, 30 (3), 201-236. Trist, E .L., Higgin, G . W., Murray, H., & Pollock, A . B . (19 63) .

Organizational choice: capabilities of groups at the coal face under changing technologies; the loss, re-discovery and transformation of a work tradition. London: Tavistock Publications, reissued 1987. New York: Garland. Tuijl, H.F.J.M. van (1992) . Improving the productivity of individuals and groups. In: I. Borg et al. (Ed.), Leistungs- und Produktiviti:its­ management. Frankfurt am Main: IIR. Veld, J. in 't (1978) . Analyse van organisatieproblemen: een toepassing

van denken in systemen en processen (Analysis of organizational p roblems: an application of thinking in systems and processes). Amsterdam: Elsevier (Dutch language). Veld, J. in 't (1984) . Organisatie en arbeidsplaats (Organization and work place). Amsterdam: Elsevier (Dutch language). Verschuur, F.O. (1985). Groepentechnologie bij IHC-Smit (Group technology at IHC-Smit). Kinderdijk: IHC-Smit, intern rapport (Dutch language) . Verschuur, F.O., Groen, K., & Broek, J. van den (1989). Een toepas­ singsgerichte ontwerpstudie voor de vorming van hele taakgroep­ en bij DAF in Westerloo, Belgie (An applied design study to create whole task groups at DAF in Westerloo, Belgium) . D o e l -

244

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

matige Bedrijfsvoering, 1 1, 24-30, (Dutch language). Vossen, H.P., & Zelst, J.B. van (1982). Kwaliteit van het werk in de horizontale TL-g.roepen: sociotechnische taakanalyse van het werk van de bedien ingsvakm an en de BM- o n derhoudsmedewerker (Quality of work in horizontal TL production: sociotechnical task analysis of the jobs of machine tending specialis ts and EM­ main tenance operators). Eindhoven: Philip s ' Glo eilamp en­

fabrieken, Centrale Groep Organisatie-Vernieuwing (Dutch lan­ guage). Walfish, B. (1977). QWL project at GM plant cited as key to labor­ management accord. World of Work Report, 2 (12). Wall, T . D . , Kemp, N.J., Jackson, P . R . , & Clegg, C.W. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Outcomes o f autonomous workgroups: a long-term field experi­ ment. Academy of Management Journal, 29 (2), 280-304. Walton, R.E. ( 1 9 72 ) . How to co unter alienation in the plant? Harvard Business Review, 50 (6), 70-81. Walton, R.E. (1 977) . Work innovations at Topeka: after six years. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 13 (3), 422-434. Walton, R . E . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Work inno vations in the United States. Harvard Business Review, 57 (4), 88-98. Warnecke, H.J.E., & Lederer, K.G. (1979). Neue Arbeitsformen in der

Production (New forms of work organization in production).

Diisseldorf: VDI-Verlag T52 (German language). Warner, R. (1988). Rhythm in social interaction. In: J. McGrath (Ed.), The social psychology of time. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Oxford University Press. Weick, K.E. (1969). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley. Weiner, N. ( 1 9 50) . The human use of human beings. New York: Houghton-Mifflin. Weir, M. (1979 ) . Participation in organization redesign: a five­ company Scottish workshop and later review meeting. In: A. Alioth, J. Blake, M. Butteriss, M. Elden, 0. Ortsman, & R. van der Vlist (Eds.), Working on the quality of working life: devel­ opments in Europe (pp. 339-353). Boston: Nijhoff. Weir, M . (1980). The analysis of changes in work organization, United Kingdom. In: The analysis of changes in work organization. Dublin: Loughlinstown House, Shankill. Weisbord, M.R. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Produ ctive workplaces: o rganiz ing and m a n aging fo r dign ity, m e a n ing a n d c o m m u n ity. Ardmore, Pennsylvania: Block-Petrella-Weisbord, unpublished manuscript.

References

245

Weisb ord, M.R. ( 1 99 1 ) . Productive w o rkplaces: organ izing and managing for dignity, meaning and community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Weisbord, M.R. et al. (1990). McNeil Consumer Fort Washington Manufactuing: work redesign case study, January 1 988 - June 1 990. Ardmore, Pennsylvania: Block-Petrella-Weisbord. Wellins, R.S., Byham, W.C., & Wilson, J.M. (199 1 ) . Empowered

teams: creating self-directed work groups that improve quality, productivity and participation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wellins, R.S., Wilson, J.M., Katz, A.J., Laughin, P., Day, C.R., & Price, D. (1990). Self-directed teams: a study of current practice. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Development Dimensions Inter­ national/ Association for Quality and Participation/Industry Week, survey report. Westelaken, J.J.M. van de (1983). Ontwikkeling en evaluatie van de

A WWB: een STTA-variant voor de proces-industrie (Development and evaluation of the A WWB: a STTA variant to be used in the processing industry). Nijmegen/Geleen: Katholieke Universiteit/

DSM Limburg b.v. (Dutch language). Westerlund, G. ( 1 9 5 2 ) . Group l eadership. A field experiment. Stockholm: Nordisk Rotogravyre. Wiener, N. (1948). Cybernetics. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 50, 1 87. Williams, K., Haslam, C., Williams, J., Cutler, T., Adcroft, A., & Johal, S. ( 1 992). Against lean production. Economy and Society, 21 (3), 321 -354. Williams, T.A. ( 1 979) . The search conference in active adaptive planning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 15 (4), 470-483. Williams, T . A . ( 1 9 8 2 ) . L earn ing to ma nage o u r fu tu res . The participative design of societies in turbulent transition. New York: Wiley. Wilson, A.T .M ., & Trist, E . L . ( 1 9 5 1 ) . The B o l s o ver system of

continuous mining, a report to the chairman, East Midlands Division, National Coal Board. London: Tavistock Document 290

(restricted). Wilson, A.T.M., Trist, E.L., & Curle, A. (1952). Transitional commun­ ities and social reconnection. In: G.E. Swanson, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 561-579). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Wisman, P.J.G. (1992). Beter voldoen aan flexibiliteit, beheersbaarheid

en kwaliteit van de arbeid: een analyse van functie-eisen bij een metaalverwerkend bedrijf (Better satisfying flexibility, controllability and quality of work: an analysis of functional requirements in a

246

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place

metal-working enterprise. Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit, Faculteit Technische Bedrijfskunde, vakgroep Technologie en Arbeid (Dutch la,rguage). Wisman, P.J.G., & Etjnatten, F.M. van (1992). Meten van flexibiliteit, beheersbaarheid en kwaliteit van de arbeid: een verkennende studie (The measurement of flexibility, controllability and quality of work: an exploratory study) . Eindhoven: Technische Universiteit,

Faculteit Technische Bedrijfskunde, vakgroep Technologie en Arbeid, BDK/T&A 012 (Dutch language). Witte, J. de (1980) . The use of similarity coefficients in production flow analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 18 (4), 503-514. Wobbe, W. (1991). Anthropocentric production system. A strategic issue for Europe. CEC/FAST/APS Research Series, 1. Womack, J.P., Jones, D.T., & Roos, D. (1990). The machine that changed the world. New York: Rawson Associates. Woodward, J. (1965). Industrial o rganization: theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press. Wright, S., & Morley, D. (Eds.) (1989), Learning works: searching for organizational futures. A tribute to Eric Trist. Toronto, Ontario: York University, Faculty of Environmental Studies, ABL Group. Zub off, S . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . In the age of the s m a r t machine. London: Heinemann. Zwaan, A.H. van der (1970) . Sociotechnisch systeemonderzoek (Sociotechnical systems research). Sociologische Gids, 1 7, 41-47, (Dutch language). Zwaan, A.H. van der (1971). Het axioma-stelsel in een sociotech­ nisch systeemonderzoek (The axiom system in sociotechnical systems research) . Sociologische Gids, 1 8, 381-390, (Dutch lan­ guage). Zwaan, A.H. van der (1973a). Leveren en laten leveren: een sociotech­

nische systeem-analyse in de productiebesturing (To supply and let supply: a sociotechnical systems analysis in production control).

Rotterdam: Universitaire Pers, proefschrift (Dutch language). Zwaan, A.H. van der (1973b). Een kritische evaluatie van het socio­ technisch systeemonderzoek (A critical evaluation of sociotech­ nical systems research). In: P.J.D. Drenth, P.J. Willems, & Ch.J. de Wolf£ (Eds.), Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie. Deventer: Kluwer (Dutch language). Zwaan, A.H. van der (1975). The socio-technical systems approach: a critical evaluation. International Jo urnal of Produc tio n Research, 13, 149-163. Zwaan, A.H. van der, & Vermeulen, A.A.M. (1974). Sociotechniek 3:

References

247

een sociotechnische systeembeschrijving van de produktiebeheer­ sing op afdelingsnivo (Sociotechnique 3: a sociotechnical systems description of the production control function at departmental level). Mens & Onderneming, 28 (5), 261-285, (Dutch language). Zwaan, A.H. van der, Vermeulen, A.A.M., Smets, P., & Elzinga, E. (1974). Sociotechniek 4: onderzoeksmethoden inzake de produk­ tiebesturing (Sociotechnique 4: research methods for production control). Mens & Onderneming, 28 (6), 342-369, (Dutch language).

248

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

Subject Index Abduction, 85 , Absenteeism, 24, 59, 94,'145, 148 Accounting, management, 151 Accounting, information, 152 system, 151 Accounting system, decentralized, 151 participative management, 151 STSD based, 151, 152 Action, directed, 38, 41 Action, group, 146 learning, 152 learning process, 74 Action research, 3, 4, 5, 13, 15, 16, 25 , 26, 96, 130, 131 Action research, common practice of, 4 epistemological and methodol­ ogical treatment of, 130 participatory, 73 Tavistock's variant of, 25-26 Action research, approach, 5 context, 121 field experiment, 25 methodology, 5 movement, 3, 25 programmes in British army, 25 project in clothing industry, 26 rules of thumb, 117 studies with children, 26 studies with housewifes, 26 Adaptation, 15, 28, 32, 88, 89, 124, 136 Adaptation, active 32, 88, 89 concept of, 28, 89

opportunities for, 177 Adaptation, strategy, 124 Adaptation strategy, in vortical environments, 124 Adaptive, behaviour, 87 control, 142 implementation 153 purposeful system, 83 whole, 13 Administration, simple, 151 Admirable Crichton principle, 42 Agenda theme, 153 Agent of change, 171, 176 sociotechnical, 176 Agricultural renewal program, 47 Aggregation, 15 Aggregation level, 41 Alienation, 10, 11, 59, 92, 172, 174, 195 All-in method, 23 Ambivalence, fundamental, 162 Analysis, bibliometrical, 17 deliberation, 76, 77 dynamic, 86 grounded, 151 meta, 78, 148, 149 Pareto, 106 partial, 12, 60 partial level of, 161 social, 99 SSM-inspired, 14 static, 86 strategic, 103, 104, 109 Stream, 106 technical, 99, 106 technical system, 39, 97 technical variance, 76 TIED, 106

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

traditional variance, 77 unit of, 139 variance, 19, 97, 118 Analytical model A, 6 step method, 98 9 step method, 98 Analytical model B, 7 step method, 98 Analytical thinking, 15 Anthropocentric Production System (APS), 154, 155 comparison with Nordic STSD, 155 Finnish variant, 154 Anti-expert, approach, 51 character, 53, 125 Approach, applied sociotechnical, 162 best-match, 31, 142 broad front, 53 communicative, 190 contextualist, 138 contingency, 168 democratic, 109, 161 D ev e l o p ment Organization (DO), 73, 120, 122 do-it-yourself, 46 educational, 51 empty cartridge, 130 engbrreering, 5, 59, 60 expert, 36, 46, 111, 114, 125 future-oriented, 157 Grounded Theory, 151 holistic, 2, 77 holonic, 13 integral, 11, 59, 175 machine, 15 Macro (societal) systems, 77 multi-level, 19, 76, 109 open systems, 85 Organizing for Learning, 90 partial, 11, 12

249

participative, 111 personnel, 59, 60 piece-meal, 12 small group, 161 socio-ecological, 76 Sociotask, 98 sociotechnical, 159 systems, 15 team, 80 top-down holistic, 77 union-management, 59, 60 universal, 113, 157 vertical slice, 46 Approach, to Flexible Productive Systems (AFPS), 109 Architecture of structure, 61 Ashby's law, 31, 62, 93, 137 Ashby's law, applied on social systems, 171 Aspect, information, 150 Aspects interconnections, 109 Aspect-system, 65, 92, 134, 135, 142, 143, 161, 163, 179 Aspect-system, logistic, 177 maintenance, 177 personnel, 177 quality, 177 social, 135, 142 technical, 135, 142 Aspect-system, definition, 134 science, 177 Assembly, dock, 35 line, 156 straight-line, 35 Asymmetrical dependence, 30 Attitude, eo-influencing, 16 distant, 16

250

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

researcher's, 16 P>ttitudes, 145, 146 . P>uthority, 42, 80, 156 '' P>utocracy, 10, 11, 16 P>utocratic control, 156 P>utomotive industry, 155 P>utonomous environment functions, 49 P>utonomy, 60, 170 P>utonomy, communicative, 189 responsible, 30, 143 task, 186, 187 Axiom, 83 Balance, 182 Balance, multifunctional, 174 Balance model, 60, 61, 62, 64, 90, 92, 93 graphical representation, 62, 63 essentials, 62 Balanced, control 174 coordination, 142 design, 176 Basic function, make, 183 manufacture, 183 prepare, 183 support, 183 Beauty, 123 Behaviour, adaptive, 87 escape, 148 goal-directed, 28 goal-oriented, 159, 168 goal-seeking, 28 instrumental, 159 social-oriented, 159, 168 technical-oriented, 1 68, 170 type of, 159 value-oriented, 159, 168, 170 Best fit, 164, 1 65

Best match approach, 31, 142 Bibliography, 7, 8 Bibliography, English-language, 7 Bibliography, distinction, 7 on micro floppydisk, 7 limits, 8 successive releases, 8 Bibliometrical analysis, 17 Bibliometric possibilities, 8 Blue-collar, 140, 149 Blue-collar, work setting, 149 Bolsover experiment, 24, 26, 87 Book reference list, 7 Bottle-neck, identification of, 103, 104 Boundary, 30, 42, 60, 99, 139, 169, 175 Boundary, concept of, 169 demarcation of, 103, 104 existential, 170 Boundary, condition, 139 control, 60, 139 definition, 139 location, 42 specification, 99 Brainstorming, 106 Branch, network, 75 projects, 74 British mine studies, 17, 19 Broad front approach, 53 Bureaucracy, 9, 10, 1 6, 23, 51, 126, 128, 155, 189 Bureaucracy, essence of, 193 learning-oriented, 155 Tayloristic, 10 Business unit, 143 Capacity,

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

61, 94, 120, 121, 143, 168, 178, 179, 181

Chapters' outline,

innovative, 144

Claims,

control,

Charter,

251

6-8

99

100, 101 100, 101 naturalist, 190 (re)design, 100, 101

Capacity,

functional,

178 Capacity for joy, 47 to control,

market,

Career, development,

152

Class,

84

development system,

inclusion,

training III-C,

membership,

152 120, 122

83

83, 84 17, 19, 22, 19-44, 90, 93, 95, 97, 99, 101, 111, 115, 118, 125, 127, 128, 132

Classes of functional systems,

Cases, sociotechnical,

159

Classical STSD,

123

Classical STSD,

Causal, deduction,

145

determination, texture,

39

19, 38-42 125 classification of, 127, 128 concept development, 29-32, 90 design concepts, 38, 95 field experiments, 32-34 'handbook for the sixties', 29 impression of projects, 43 basic concepts,

characteristics,

Causality, positivist principle of,

84

Center-out model of change, Centralized control,

77

175

Change,

171, 176 10, 11 organizational, 174 paradigmatic, 193 rate of, 193 resistance to, 174 social, 165, 167 structural, 62, 162 technical, 165

agent of,

continuous,

Industrial Democracy Program,

32-34 introduction in US,

115

Joint Committee, Norway,

methodological foundation of,

31 methodological objections,

Change, degrees of freedom,

32,

33, 36

109

98 98

methodology,

132

32

process model,

35, 59 93 new theoretical foundation, 90

recipies,

objections conc erning content,

model,

'New Factories' project,

new process model for,

method,

111 131 skills, 131 9 step method, 98

Change process in innovative work settings,

98, 111

32 re-interpretation of analysis of

94 32

design concepts,

Channels of, commurUcation, 40 promotion,

132 Purfleet Power Station project,

40

science theory,

Shell Philosophy program,

35

252

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

SSM-inspired analysis, 118 survey 120 experiments, 44 Swedish '500 firmg.'_project, 35 tentative classification, 127, 128 test of design principles, 32-34 theory of concepts, 90 URAF programme, 35 Classical STSD method, master procedure, 101 schematic representation, 99 Classification, Classical STSD, 127 Democratic Dialogue, 127, 128 Integral Organizational Renew­ al, 127, 128 North-American Consultancy, 127, 128 Participative Design, 127, 128 Client, dependency, 193 independency, 193 Closed system, 28, 83, 136, 152 concept, 28, 83 model, 136 Cluster, of organizations, 76, 125 Coalition, discretionary, 143 Coalition formation, 109 Cc-Determination Act, Sweden, 69 Coenetic variable, 28 Collar, blue, 140, 149 white, 140, 149 Collective representation structure, 60 Combination, 85 Commitment, 10, 11, 123, 174, 176 Commitment, enforced, 156 institutional, 125 Committee, action, 36

bipartite production, 189 Common sense, 159 Communication, 5, 40, 68, 71, 122, 142, 189, 191 Communication, channels of, 40 community of, 190 concept of, 71 conditions for, 71 free spiritual, 170 open, 68 open spiritual, 170 personal, 5 selective, 170 theory of, 71 Communication, component, 71 Community development project, 78, 80 Company Development agreement, Sweden, 69 Comp any D e v elopment (CD) contract, Norway, 69 Company index, 7 Company-wide conference, 73 learning process, 78 Compatiblity, 40, 42, 142, 164 Competitive type Ill environment, 48 Complementarity, 169 functional, 174 Complexity, 10, 153, 175, 185 Complexity, environmental, 170 external, 170 internal, 171 reduction of, 120, 121, 143 task, 60 Composite work group, 22, 30, 116, 117 Computer-controlled machines, 35 Concentration,

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

functional,

64, 175

Concept, basic, 143 conunurlication, 71, 122 convergence, 4 Democratic Dialogue, 71

recruit, 78 regional promotion, 75 whole-company, 75 Consensus, 173, 174, 176 theory, 161 Consideration, 159

development, 4

Constraints, 99

directive correlation, 28, 29, 39,

Content of enquiry, 14, 1 17, 121

40, 83, 87, 118

Contextualism,

empty cartridge, 92

framework for, 32, 89

open-systems, 31, 113

root metaphor of, 82, 87

socio-technical, 115

Contextual environment, 153

systems, 13

Contextualist approach, 138

technology, 138

Contingency, 170 178

total systems, 163

Contingency,

twin, l35 Concept,

infiniteness of, 169 Contingency,

of controllability, 177

approach, 168

of integral design, 177

hypothesis, 148

of structure, 163 Conceptual ambiguity, 140 Conceptual leap, L11 (L12, L21) L22, 87, 139 Conceptual urlit, primary, 83 Concreteness, misplaced, 115 Conference,

thinking, 72 Continuous, improvement, 154 Control, 193, 194 Control, adaptive, 142 autocratic, 156 balanced, 174 boundary, 60

Search, 17, 19, 48, 50, 51, 52, 57,

capacity to, 178

109, 119, 127, 143

centralized, 175

Conflict, regulation, 60 resolution, 50 Confusion, central points of, 115 Congruence, support, 42 Conference,

253

corporate, 195 decentralized, 151 demands for, 120 departmental, 195 disturbance, 30, 37, 41 domains of, 182 effective, 182 efficient, 182

company-wide, 73

environmental demands for, 62

demonstration, 75

external, 10, 11

network development, 75

innovative, 142

planning, 69, 74

internal, 10, 11

project development, 70, 73, 74

levels of, 182

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

254

local, 151 operational, 62,. 178 opportunities for, J.79 organizational viabW.ties for, 62 pollution, 144, 150, 166

concept of, 177 systems', 178 Controllability, balance, 121 Controllable organization, 106

process, 164

Controlling variances, 77, 95

process range of, 182

Control need, 94

production, 161, 162, 172, 175,

definition, 93

176

Control possibilities, 93

self, 156

Control structure (C), 65, 66, 1 03,

Span of, 182

105, 106, 109, 121, 142, 143, 156,

Tayloristic, 155

175, 176, 179, 184

transformational, 178

Control structure,

quality, 154

macro design, 103, 105

variance, 19, 37, 38, 42, 77, 96,

meso design, 103, 105

144

micro design, 103, 105

Control, differentiation, 64

practical model, 106 Control structure,

information, 152

design of, 180

loop, 41

formation of, 65

separation, 64

Conveyor-belt, 156

specialization, 64

Cooperation, 59, 60

Control capacity, 6 1 , 94, 120, 1 2 1 ,

Cooperation,

143, 168, 178, 179, 181

local management-labour, 78

definition, 93

multidisciplinary, 163

instruments for, 94 Control cycle,

Coordination, 193, 194 Coordination,

allocation of, 182

balanced, 142

coupling of, 182

external, 10, 1 1

functional completeness of, 182

internal, 10, 1 1

selection of, 182 Control function, grouping and coupling of, 161 Control functions, division of, 64 redistribution of, 162 Control group, 147

opportunities for, 177, 179 eo-producer, 28 eo-production, 152 Correspondence, personal, 5 Cos�, 24, 26, 145, 148 Cost,

unmatched, 147

accounting, 162, 166, 175, 184

non-equivalent, 147

standards, 151

Controllability, 59, 60, 6 1 , 62, 1 04, 143, 168 Controllability, balanced, 180, 181

Course, 175

in applied integral design, 181 Craftmanship, 159 Creativity, 181, 195

255

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

Deconcentration,

Criteria,

178

time-dependent,

64 16, 85 causal, 145 Deep slice, 51 functional,

Deduction,

Criteria, for good production systems,

35

for inclusion, 4

109 76, 77, 98 5 step method, 98 Delivery time, 133, 144 Demands for control, 62 Democracy, 3, 10, 11, 16, 26, 51, 55 definition of, 171 discourse aspect of, 71 industrial, 160, 162 Degree of freedom,

Critical,

114 mass, 4, 47 ll.heory, 120, 122, 167

Deliberation analysis,

analysis,

Criticism, directive correlation,

133

of initial c oncept ualiz ations,

113, 137 methodological,

147

semi-autonomous work group,

micro-structural foundation of

145

a,

151 Cross-cultural differences, 149 Cross-functional management, Cultural revolution,

156

167

188

Cycle, empirical model,

16

Democratic,

62

interaction,

Cycle time, attainable,

17, 18, 19, 68-76, 98, 120, 122, 124, 125, 127, 155, 156, 157, 189

Debate,

Democratic Dialogue,

173

Habermas-Luhmann,

61, 90

accounting system,

151

151

group,

125 127, 128

concept,

71 7

future of,

Decision making, democratic,

characteristics,

classification of,

Decentralized, control,

design process,

Democratic Dialogue (DD),

156

170

free,

171, 176 176 system of value, 46 theory, 70 values, 2, 3 work structure, 106

decision making,

15 regulatory model, 15, 16, 25, 96, 102, 106, 131, 143 Cycle time, 153 predictive model,

Debate,

2, 126, 128, 129 3, 1 1 8, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 126, 128, 129 participative variant, 3 representative form, 3 structural prerequisites of, 176 theory of, 176

Participative,

Customer, relationship,

172

parochial,

Cross-case comparison,

171, 176

13

160, 171 undemocratic, 171 participative,

ideal cluster, method,

76

98

methodology,

69

network strategy,

69

phases in develop ment cycle,

256

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

environmental entry,

74 process,

SSM-inspired ana.l¥sis of, tentative classification, trajectory,

13

122 127

commandments,

71,

72

means,

Democratization of work,

12, 123 75

101 101

174, 179 model cycle, 15, 16 objective, 103, 105, 143 of information systems,

55

principles,

Dependence, symmetrical,

101

entry, 101

methodology,

53

Demonstration conference,

·

intervention,

methodological entry,

Democratic Structure,

Demos project,

175 interface, 101 knowledgal

73

nondominant,

101

group,

68, 74

30, 123 85, 86, 94

principles

98

99 IOR, 65

Dependent variable,

principles Classical STSD,

Design,

principles for knowledge work,

balanced,

176

77

control structure, integral,

176 60, 61, 120, 121, 150,

180 joint optimization, machine,

99

147

minimal critical specification,

10, 11 modular product, object of,

35

160

organizational, partial,

process technology, product,

quasi-experimental,

147

tasks,

105

socio-ecological,

150 structural, 61, 180 total specification, 10, 11 Design,

criteria,

105

160

160

Design group, self-managing,

46, 51

Design orientation dual,

2

basic methodological scheme,

100

146 cycle, 16 ends, 101

103, 105

Design-oriented research,

138

content versus process,

105

66

production structure, small task group,

145

application order,

105

information structure,

176 product, 103, 104 provisional, 99

claims,

100 101 rules, 100, 120, 121 scope, 143 sequence, 175 sequence rules, 66, 142 strategy, 100, 120, 121, 180, 181 techniques, 174 theory, 159, 176 process,

control structure,

principles of,

self,

procedures,

Design of,

174

142

research,

99

130, 131

130, 131 Design process, democratic,

176

Design sequence,

257

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

law of,

performance,

180

sequence of,

Diffusion,

175

Desirable future scenarios,

49, 53,

active and adaptive develop­ ment of,

46, 58

Determining

process,

86 relationship, 86

schedules,

management,

47 theory, 33, 47

Dimension,

organization,

188 16, 19 Development cycle, 74, 120, 122 phases in, 74, 120, 122 trajectories,

cognitive,

(DHR) workshop, 52,

135 135

evaluative, social,

Development of Human Resources

142

technical,

135, 142 166

technological,

119

Dimension,

Development Organization (DO)

of time,

73, 120, 122

167

Direct participation,

Development Organization,

11

Directed action,

189

concept of,

189

38, 40, 41

motivation theory of,

Dialogue, Democratic,

1 7, 18, 19, 68-76, 98, 120, 122, 124, 125, 127, 155, 156, 157, 189 workplace, 189

38, 41 28, 32, 38-39, 48, 83, 87, 89, 90, 92, 118

Directive correlation, Directive correlation, concept of, criticism,

Dialogue, concept, process,

68

34

study,

162

Development,

at society level,

49, 125

47, 48, 50

Scandinavian solution,

Development,

approach,

47, 53 of results, 36 open-systems model for,

48

Determined relationship,

28, 29 133

extended social field of,

71 73, 74

long-term,

Conference (DC) method,

74,

120, 122 Dichotomy,

Australian solution, model,

199

deficit,

64 36, 47, 48, 53, 111

Diffusion,

Design steps,

48

48

methodology of,

32, 38-39, 87,

89, 90, 118 system-theoretical alternative,

82

Dichotomy,

92

external-internal,

Directive supervision,

82

objective-subjective,

Disaggregation,

82

phenomena-constructs, social and technical,

82 166

Discourse, free,

170 60

Discretion,

Differentiation, functional,

175 15, 152

Discretionary coalitions,

166

Dispersiveness,

Differentation, in separate product flows,

171

87 Dissatisfaction, 94

143

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

258

Dissipative structure, 30

software, 165

Distribution of rewards, 60

technical, 165

Disturbance, operational, 132

Elsecar success story, 23-26

,_

'

Disturbance, control, 30, 37, 41 sensitivity, 94, 175 Division of labour, 5, 6, 27, 62, 123, 162, 173, 182 Division of labour,

Emancipation, 173 material, 167 spiritual, 167 Empirical, model cycle, 16 statement, 168 Employee turnover, 59, 145

architecture of, 160, 180

Employment, 174

redesign of, 172, 180

Empowered team, 80

reduction of, 13

Empowerment, 80

sociotechnical redesign of, 172

Emptiness, 169

structure of, 158, 1 60, 161, 163

Empty cartridge,

Division of work, 91 Dock,

approach, 92 concept, 92

assembly, 35

Encapsulation, 110

structure, 156

Engineering,

Documents availability, 140 Dogmatism, 124, 152 Dominant world view, 15, 116 Do-it-yourself, approach, 46 method, 150 Double loop learning, 42, 49 Double opposition between the ory and practice, 164

industrial, 163 social, 3, 116, 126, 128, 129, 171 Engineering, approach, 5, 59, 60 Enquiry, content of, 117, 121 process of, 117, 121 Enterprise, as reference, 139

Doubt, 10, 12

Enthropic space, 170

Dual design orientation, 2

Entrepreneurial work teams, 80

Dualistic relationship, 87

Entropy, 28

Dynamic synchronization, 77, 95

Entropy,

definition, 95 Eclecticism, 187 Ecological process, 73

negative, 28 Environment, concept, 169

Economic aspect, 131

contextual, 153

Editorial considerations, 4-6

internal, 31

Educational approach, 51

joint, 28, 39

Effectiveness, 59, 60

turbulent, 152

Efficiency, 59

vortical, 152

Eight-step method, 98 Element, social, 165

Environment, complexity, 48 demands, 62, 99, 104

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

functions (122), 49

259

Facilitator, 51, 125

Environment typology, 32, 39, 118 disturbed-reactive variant, 39, 48

Feedback, 64, 86, 93, 99, 110, 136, 146 Feedback, performance, 146

placid, clustered variant, 39 placid, randomized variant, 39

Feedback, loop, 64, 93

turbulent field variant, 39, 48

Field experiment, 25, 147

vortical variant, 39, 124

Field experiment, Ahmedabad, 26

scheme, 39

natural occurring, 24, 27, 138

Environmental,

Norwegian, 194

uncertainty, 38

semi-autonomous work group,

Epistemologies,

24, 25

differences in, 137 incompatible, 140

sociotechnical-tinged, 25

Equifinality, 28, 31, 40, 130, 137

Field experiment, action research, 25

Equivocality, 167, 177

Classical STSD, 33, 34

reduction of, 168 Ergonomics, 4

Field theory, 27

Escape behaviour, 148

Figure-ground reversal, 50

E-shaped layout, 35

Financial remuneration, 147 Financing, 162, 195

ETHICS method, 98

Five-step method, 98

7 step method, 98 Everyday rationalization, 110

Flexibility, 59, 64, 104, 120, 143, 144

Evolutionary learning process, 51

Fliessgleichgewicht, 28

Experimental,

Flocking, 48

control, 85

Flocking session, 48

garden, 34

Flow,

group, 147

self-supporting, 175, 184

Evaluation study, 145-149

Flow,

Everyday language, 71, 120, 122

group, 35

Expansion, 15

-oriented production concept,

Experience, 163

59

Experiential learning, 66

segment, 184 Fordism,

Experiment, grand, 195

high, 157 Formism, 82

Expert, analysis and design methodol­

Forth Bridge principle, 42

ogy II, 118

Fourth-milestone,

approach, 36, 46, 111, 1 14 Explanatory diagram, 82,

84

schematic representation, 86 Extended groups, 33

classification, 1 7 contest, 151

strategy, 110

Fragmentation, 10, 11 Fragr.nented job, 26 Free,

260

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

debate, 173 discourse 170 Function, .. ' control, 176 corporative, 151 design, 61, 177 explanatory, 61, 177 external, 142 feedback, 110 individual, 160 input, 48, 49, 110 input-output, 135 make, 183 managerial, 151 manufacture, 183 operational, 151 output, 48, 49, 110 performing, 176 pragmatic, 135 prepare, 183 regulative, 60 semantic, 135 social, 135, 160 sub-system, 49 syntactical, 135 technical, 135 Function, demand, 150 Functional, claim, 100, 101 concentration, 175, 183 differentiation, 166 equivalent, 28, 125 production concept, 59 requirement, 125, 133, 144 Functional concentration, principle of, 175 Functional requirements, 183 integral set of, 183 traditional, 183 Functionally equivalent, 133 Gang system, 24 Garage-owners project, 74

Generalization, limited, 131 General psychological requirements,

19, 46, 51, 56, 57, 82, 92, 119 General STSD,

aim, 9, 13 axiom, 83 basic definitions, 6 basic objective, 5 bibliometric analysis, 17 central points of confusion, 115 characterization, 9 characteristics of content, 9, 10 compilation of characteristics,

125 conceptual clarity, 137 conceptual coherence, 137 conceptual diversity, 2 constructive criticism, 113-116 content aspects, 9, 13 contrasts, 124, 125 democratic values, 2 de-mythologize, 115 development, 18, 19, 113 development trajectories, 1 6,

19, 113 differences in terms of content,

143 dual design orientation, 2 epistemological foundation, 6 explanatory diagram, 86 French developments, 4 future-oriented commentaries,

7 German developments, 4-5 German research, 5 goals, 9, 12, 126 guiding philosophy, 12 holistic approach, 2 images, 16 initial statements, 2-3 joint optimization, 11, 30, 31, 40,

77, 95, 118, 136, 140, 141, 146

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

261

knowledge gaps, 1 13, 114

tion, 7, 82

longitudonal study, 145

self-managing social system, 1 0

main focus, 4

self-regulation, 1 1 , 1 3

metaphor, 9, 12

'siamees twins' characteristic, 3

method, 98

socio-technical system, 13

methodological considerations,

socio-technical systems design,

15, 83

9

methodological diversity, 2

SSM-inspired analysis, 14

methodological foundation, 6

SSM-inspired framework, 14, 18

methodological renewal, 129-

systems methodology, 7

132

tentative classification of ap­

methodology, 9, 86

proaches, 127-129

method overview, 98

theorem, 83

milestones, 1 6, 19

theoretical commodity, 12

minimum critical specification,

twofold holonic approach, 13

10, 11, 42, 143, 146

typification, 10-12

minute descriptions, 6

unit of analysis, 139

misconceptions, 115, 1 1 6 mission, 9, 1 2

variants Modem STSD, 18, 19 General Systems Theory (GST), 136,

multiple broad skills, 1 0

138, 167

normal research period, 145

Formist version of, 138

normative world view, 15

Mechanistic version, 138

open-systems model, 13

Mechanist version of, 138

optimum task grouping, 10 organization metaphor, 12

specific branch in, 1 69 Gestalt, 26, 27, 28

p aradigm-based c omp arison,

Glacier project, 26

10-12

Global best practice, 187

paradigm shift, 2, 3, 9, 99

Goal-directed behaviour, 28

personal paradigm change, 10-

Goal-seeking behaviour, 28

12

Greenfield,

personal reconstruction, 1, 2

projects, 76

phases, 17-19

sites,

pre-judgements, 113

situation, 146

44

Grounded,

prospects, 7 purp o s eful conceptual holon,

analysis, 151

14, 15, 117

Theory, 151

purp o s eful

human

activity

holon, 14, 15, 1 17

Group, design, 175

redundancy of functions, 10

discussion, 188

reference, 139

extended, 33

rough comparison, 121, 125

flow, 35

scientific paradigm, 5

highly differentiated technical,

scientific-philosophical founda-

95

262

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

leaderless, 27, 156 multi-disciplinary, 66, 95 multi-phased, 19-... 96 � netNork, 47 operational, 120, 121, 151 project, 188 selection of peers, 146 self-managing design,46, 51 self-managing production, 106 self-managing staff, 106 self-managing work, 19, 22, 119 small military formations, 29 steering, 175 Technology, 106 vertical project, 74, 75 whole task, 120, 121 work, 33 Group, model, 185 theory, 27 Group decision-making, 27 Group dynamics, 27 methodology, 25 Gruppenfabrikation, 29 Guide, for linear work, 77 for non-linear work, 77 Gungahlin, 53 Habermas-Luhmann debate, 61, 9 0 HABUT programme, Norway, 69 Health, personal, 166 Health, care sector, 70, 79, 97 risk, 94 Historic account, external validity, 5 Holistic, approach, 12 system, 27, 28 thinking, 13, 66 Holon, 13, 116, 153 Holonic,

approach, 13 participative redesign, 100, 102 production system, 153 thinking, 13 Homeostasis, 28 Homonomy, 123 Human activity system, 15 commodity, 10, 11 Inte grated Manufacturing (HIM), 153 interaction, 167 needs, 61 resource, 10, 11, 181 Humanity, 123 Human Relations school, 9, 82 Human Resource, deployment of, 181 Human Resources, field, 193 Management, 181 Human Resource Mobilization, 125, 181 Human values, 42, 143 Hyper-turbulence, 20, 124, 152 Hyper-turbulent vortex variant, 39 Ideal, 53, 123 organization, 99 rejection of, 123 STSD, 128 Idealism, 82 Illusion, of self-assurance, 12 Implementation, 99, 1 03, 1 05, 1 73, 181 Implementation, adaptive, 153 effective, 174 method of, 181 strategy for, 98 Implicit, practical insight, 159 Improvement,

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

continuous, 154 definition, 59 Improvement, work, 187 IMVP, 153 papers, 153 Incompletion, 42, 143 Independent variable, 85, 86 Index, author, 7 company, 7 institute, 7 subject, 7 Indian textile studies, 19 Individual, function, 160 structure, 177 Indoctrination, 161 Induction, 16, 85 Industrial Democracy, 32, 33, 39, 46, 59, 133, 160, 162 Act, Sweden, 55 project, 17, 96 programme, Norway, 32-34, 35, 39 methodical approach, 36-38 Indus trial D e mocracy (ID) pro­ gramme, demonstration project, 34 diffusion of, 34 first project, 33 fourth project, 34 methodological approach, 36 Norway, 32, 33, 35 rewarding system, 34 second projct, 33 third project, 34 training programme, 34 Industrial, Engineering, 163 pollution, 183 relations, 144, 158 Industry,

263

off-shore, 55 shipping, 55 Inferential process, deductive, 85 inductive, 85 Inferential process, of retrod uction, 85 Influence, 60 Informal European network group, 52 Informatics, 162 Information, accounting, 151 control, 151 nonfinancial, 152 Information, aspect, 65, 150 flow, 42 sharing, 146 system, 133, 183, 184 Information structure (I), 65, 1 09, 121, 143, 179, 184 Information structure, design, 103, 105 Informed self-design, 121, 143 Inhibition, paradoxical, 34 Initiating, structure, 159 Innovation, opportunities for, 177 technological, 195 Innovation, 109 by learning, 174 process, 152 product, 152 Innovative, control, 142 capacity, 144 Input, central, 62, 178 contingent, 178 peripheral, 178

264

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

Input, function (L12), 49 Input function (L12), 48 ' Input-output, transaction, 142 transformation, 142 Insight, 173 implicit practical, 159 Institute index, 7 Instrumental, behaviour, 159 Instrumentation, technical, 90, 91 Integral, approach, 11, 59, 175 design, 60, 61, 120, 121, 150, 180 thinking, 164 Integral design, concept of, 177 functions for, 183 Integral organizational design, theoretical foundation of, 168 Integral Organizational Renewal (IOR), 17, 18, 19, 58-68, 90, 91, 98, 100-105, 120, 121, 122, 127, 128, 129, 134, 151, 156 Integral Organizational Renewal, analytical model, 100 basic aspect systems, 65 candidate for fourth-milestone contest, 151 characteristics, 125 classification, 127, 128 defirUtion, 59, 90, 91 design principles, 65 design sequence rules, 66 differences with traditional STSD, 143 future of, 7 graphic representation, 91 method, 98, 100, 101, 103 multi-level model, 101 participative process, 66

projects, 66, 67, 109 rejection of values, 123 review studies, 66 SSM-inspired analysis, 121 structural parameters for, 64 system-theoretical aspects, 129, 134 tentative classification, 127, 128 visibility in literature, 129 1 7 step method, 98, 1 02, 1 03, 104, 105 Integral sociotechnical design, 184 Integral system, science, 177 Integratedness, 87 Integrative, design methodology, 159 Integration, 60 Integration, horizontal, 171 normative, 161 policy, based, 59 vertical, 171 Integration, thinking, 150 Interactionism, 88 Interaction, 170, 177 Interaction, human, 167 selective, 169, 170 social, 61 structure of, 160 Interaction, conditions, 92 cycle, 168, 170, 178 network, 170, 178 partners, 135 strategy, 93 thinking, 150 Interaction cycle, 62 network of, 62 Interactive, context, 170

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

selection, 169 Interactive systems, 169 dynamic model of, 166

Involvement, 10, 11, 71, 92 Ishikawa's fishbone, 106 Jame stown community develop-

Interdependence, 91, 1 15, 169 Interdependence, asymmetrical, 1 72

ment project, 78

JIT, 154 Job, fragmented, 26

dynamic functional, 165 mutual, 134, 139, 1 72 symmetrical, 60, 1 72 Interdependence, definition, 93

265

Job, control, 94 fragmentation, 11 redesign principles, 38, 39

phenomenon, 93

Job Characteristics Model GCM), 39

probabilities, 62

Job rotation, 40

reduction, 62, 94, 178 Interdependency, new forms of, 139 Interest group, inside, 125 outside, 125

discretionary, 156 management, 156 Job Satisfaction Research Program,

UK, 56 Joint environment, 28, 39 Joint improvement, 188 Joint optimization, 11, 30, 31, 40, 77,

Interface,

Inter-organizational network, 19, 78

95, 1 1 8, 136, 140, 141, 146, 164, 165, 171 approach, 118 best-fit, 141 best-match, 141, 142, 143, criticism, 1 42 design, 99 Dutch criticism, 133, 136, 142 goodness of fit, 141 graphical representation, 141 ideal of, 31, 143 optimal alignment, 141 structural propositions for, 39 variety of definitions, 140 JOY project, Finland, 76 J-shaped layout, 35 Just-in-Time, 154 Kaizen, 154

Intervention,

Kalmar,

customers, 146 Interference, 61, 62, 120, 121, 143,

163, 1 65, 178 Interference, probabilities of, 163, 181 Interference, contingency model, 180 reduction capacity, 181 risk, 168 sensitivity, 1 79 Interference probability, 1 67, 1 77,

178, 1 79, 180, 183 reduction of, 168, 178, 180 Interlocking task, 40 Internal environment, 31 International Motor Vehicle, Program

(Il\.1VP), 153

duration of, 149

closure of, 185

sociotechnical, 149

Kanban, 154

total system, 153

Kantianism, 82, 88

Invariant relationship, 87

Key variable, 159

266

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

Key variance, 37 control table, -37 Knowledge, 173 ', Knowledge, tacit, 73 Knowledge, cycle, 130 faults, 131 gaps, 113, 114 of results, 40 work, 77 work setting, 95 Knowledge transfer, self-design by, 176 Knowledge work, Classical STSD approach to, 77 development phases in, 95 Labour, division of, 10, 13, 27, 62, 123, 162 intensified, 146 redivision of, 161 semi-skilled, 196 Labour, conflicts, 22, 59 relations, 152, 172 Labour-management committee (LMC), 78-79 Laissez-faire type of organization, 16 Language, everyday, 120, 122 industrial, 189 Japanese, 189 ordinary, 122 restructuring of, 71, 120, 122 Language, barriers, 142 Latitude, 94 instruments for, 94 premise, 93 Law, Ashby's, 31, 62, 93, 137, 171 Netherlands ARBO, 181

rate-dependent, 136, 165 Second of thermodynamics, 139 time-dependent, 136 Law, of design sequence, 180 of interactive systems, 168 of Requisite Variety, 62, 93 Layout, E-shaped, 35 J-shaped, 35 U-shaped, 35 Z-shaped, 35 Leaderless group, 27, 156 Leadership, facilitative, 146 Leadership, experiments, 16 style, 159 training, 158 Leading part, 49 Lean Production (LP), 6, 7, 153-156, 188, 193 Lean Production, basic characteristics, 154 basic claims, 153 comparison with APS, 154, 155 comparison with IOR, 155, 156 comparison with Nordic STSD, 154, 155 Lean Production principle of, c o mmunicative (semi) auton­ omy, 188 continuous improvement work, 188 fluid r elationship b etween management and workers, 188 of full specification, 186 of universal best solutions, 187 Learning, 36, 48, 49, 50, 51, 66, 68, 70, 77, 95, 96, 105, 110, 125, 136, 137, 163 Learning, active disposition to, 11

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

community-wide, 78

cross-checking, 8

continuous, 10, 151

English-language, 8

continuous process, 49

267

traceable, 4

double loop, 49

'Little golden book', 47, 51, 53, 127

educational approach towards,

Living Conditions Survey, 94

51

Local,

experiential, 66

control, 151

interactive, 125

enterprise bargaining, 197

inter-organizational, 68, 70

m an ag e ment-l abour c o o p er­

intra-organizational, 68, 70

ation, 78

iterative, 125

network, 69

linear, 125

process, 73

opportunities for, 1 72 organizational, 105, 172, 182 passive disposition to, 1 1 removing barriers for, 77, 95, 96 self-generative, 50, 125 structural conditions for, 182 Learning, concept, 28 concept DD, 71

solutions, 186 Local theory (N=1), 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 85, 130 of practice, 131 Logic, grand, 85 interactive, 125 linear, 125 local, 85

evolutionary process, 51

Logic of relations, 84

function, 48

Logical test, 85

in random networks, 137

Logistics, 162, 183

organization, 182

LOM programme, Sweden, 69, 70,

strategy, 1 1 0

76, 150, 189, 190

time, 153

main features, 70

to learn, 50

regional networks, 70

Learning Bureaucracy, 1 93

Longwall-method, 22, 23, 26

Learning process,

L 1 1, 49, 87, 88, 89

continuous, 49

Ll2, 49, 87, 88, 89, 139

evolutionary, 51

L21, 49, 87, 88, 89, 139

Levels of aggregation, 176, 180

L22, 49, 87, 88, 89, 139

Levels of aggregation,

Machine approach, 15

macro, 130 meso, 130 micro, 130 Life world, 190 Linear work, guide for, 77 Literature references

Macro (societal) systems approach, 77

Maintenance, 1 64 Maintenance, of structures, 166 Maladaptive response, 124 Management,

cited, 4

accounting, 151

convergence, 4

by objectives (MBO), 151

268

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

development, 162 science, 192 . Market claims, 100, 1,9 1 ' Marketing, 162 Materialism, 82 Matrix, variance, 99 Maximum task breakdown, 10, 11 Meaning, 92, 170, 178 Meaning, ascription of, 170 attachment of, 170 bearers of, 166 conversion of, 170 creation of, 165 future of, 178 impose, 170 infiniteness of, 169 instrumental, 165 inverse of, 169 nominal, 168 perception of, 170 social, 165 technical, 165 time-dependent expression of, 169 Meaning, by selection, 169 Meaningful, pattern of tasks, 40 work, 11 Measures, variety decreasing, 109 Meta, analysis, 78, 149 objective, 53 Metaphor, 121 adaptive whole, 13 organism, 121 Meter, 84 Method, all-in, 23 analysis, 142, 143

Classical STSD, 101 Democratic Dialogue, 98 development of STSD, 98 dialogue conference, 120, 122 do-it-yourself, 150 eight-step, 98 ETHICS, 98 Five-step, 98 general STSD, 98 Integral Organizational Renew­ al, 98, 100, 101, 103 nine-step, 37, 97, 102, 118, 129 Participative Design, 98 Participative redesign and search, 97 PD workshop, 98 search conference, 98 seven-step, 98 seventeen-step, 98, 102, 103 six-step, 98 technical variance analysis, 37 ten-step, 97 work, 24 Methodological criticism, 145-147 Methodological orientation, dialogue oriented, 125 diffusion oriented, 125 experimentally oriented, 125 professionally oriented, 125 Methodology, action research, 5 design, 1 74 integrative design, 159 multi-cycled, 130 sociotechnical design, 169 Methodology, of integral structural design, 182 Middle-range theory, 85 of practice, 130 Milestones STSD, 16-17, 19 British mine studies, 1 7, 19 Democratic Dialoque, 17, 18, 19 Integral Organizational Renew-

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

al, 17, 18, 19 leadership experiments Lewin, 16, 19 Norwegian Industrial Demo­ cracy project, 17, 19 Participative Design methodol­ ogy, 17 Minimum critical specification, 1 0, 11, 42, 143, 146, 186 MIT study, 153 Mixed content/process model, 77, 111 graphic representation, 1 10· Model, Balance, 61, 64, 90, 92, 93 causal, 170 cybernetic, 136 group, 185 integral metrical, 136 open-system, 48, 133 partial, 132 PCI, 121 static, 132 Model cycle, empirical, 1 6 predictive, 15, 16 regulatory, 15, 1 6, 25, 96, 106, 130 Modern STSD, 17, 18, 45-80 characteristics of, 50 Democratic Dialogue (DD), 18, 68 Evaluation studies, 148 Integral Organizational Renew­ al (IOR), 18, 58-68 North-American Consultancy, 18, 76-80 Participative Design (PD), 18, 46-58 SSM-inspired analysis, 117-122 tracks, 17-18, 143 Modern Sociotechnology, future of, 181

269

Modular product design, 35 Monopoly, universities', 192 Moral, pay-based, 156 Morphogenesis, 28 Motivation, work, 60 Motivation, theory of directed action, 38, 41 Multi-cycled methodology, 130 Multi-disciplinary group, 66, 95 Multifunctional, balance, 1 74 consequences, 164 design principle, 40, 42 Multifunctionality, 174 Multi-level approach, 19, 76 Multi-level change strategy, 69 Multi-level strategy, 70 Multi-phased group, 19, 96 Multi-phasing, 95, 96 Multi-skilled personnel, 33 Multi-skilling, 36, 95, 96, 123 Multi-skilling, operators, 36 table, 51, 53, 54, 56, 119 Multi-stable system, 28 Multiple broad skills, 10, 1 1 Name index, 7 Narrow skills, 10, 11 Need, (generic) human, 160, 177 human, 61 individual, 171 (Neo-)Kantianism, 82, 88 (Neo-)Positivism, 82 Network, 182 Network, balanced, 178 formation of, 68 interaction, 159, 170 inter-organizational, 19, 68, 78,

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

270

150 local, 69

organizational, 1 \3 ' regional, 70

semantic, 135 technical, 135 Normative design theory, I, 1 1 7

role, 99

II , 1 1 8

sector-based, 69, 75

IliA, 1 19

society-level, 189 structured, 170 Network,

IIIB, 121 Normative world view, 26 North-American Consultancy, 18, 19,

cluster, 125

122

concept, 47

characteristics, 125

definition, 68

projects, 79

development conference, 75 group, 47, 52 meeting, 73

SSM-inspired analysis, 118 Norwegian Industrial Democracy

(ID) programme, 19, 32-38

of firms, 48

Nuclear power station, 176

of interaction cycles, 178

Nurturance, 123

of interactive relations, 162

Object relations, 41

strategy, 69

OD techniques, 106

structure, 177

Office setting, 56

'New factories' project, 35, 59

Off-shore industry, 55

Network group,

Off-site/ do-it-yourself workshop, 53

informal European, 52 Nine-step method, 37, 97, 102, 1 18, 129, 143 Nominal,

Ontology, 89 Open-systems, 15, 143, 150 approach, 85 characteristic, 133, 139

meanings, 168

conception, 28, 88, 137

system, 166

conceptual leap, 88

thinking, 166

descriptive model I, 1 1 7

values, 167

descriptive model II , 118

Nominalism, 82

descriptive model Ili-A, 119

Non-autonomous work group, 149

descriptive model III-B, 121

Nonfinancial information, 152

model, 48, 133

Nonlinear process, 97

notion, 27

Non.linear work, 76 guide for, 77

scan, 99 Open systems,

Nonroutine work, 94-95

dynamic model of, 94

Nordic sociotechnical model, 155

pseudo-model of, 136

Norm, 159 static notion, 159 Norm, cognitive, 135 pragmatic, 135

Open-systems approach, 30 degree of elaboration, 132-137 methodological foundation, 3 1 Open-systems concept, 31, 83

V on Bertalanffy's, 32, 86

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

Open-systems model, 13 descriptive variant, 118 Open-systems thinking, 10, 12, 27 Operational, design procedure, 142 group, 120, 121, 143, 151 Operations research, 192 Operators perform maintenance, 146 Optimizing,

Review

and

271

Design ( O R D )

framework, 77 Organizational, learning, 105, 115, 132, 172, 182 Organizing for Learning approach, 90 Orientation, psycho-cultural, 195 Outcomes,

48

Optimum task grouping, 10 Organicism, 88 Organization,

emphasis on, 12 Output, contingent, 178 Output,

bureaucratic, 159

function (L21), 48, 49

classification model, 124, 126

indicator, 145

controllable, 106 development, 188 ideal, 99

Paper, availability, 140 Paradigm,

open system character of, 168

new, lO

referent, 20

old, 10

representative referent, 78

structural, 100

simple, 151

structural system, 102

theory of, 125

participative process, 102

total, 143 transitional, 42 transparant, 152 work, l87, 188 Organization,

practical, 12 Paradigm, change, 10 shift, 2, 3, 99, 157, 168 two and two comparisons, 10-11

Development, 190

Paradoxical inhibition, 34

of the book, 6-8

Parallel,

Organizational, change, 98, 115, 174 choice, 23, 30, 31, 145

loops, 35 working, 35 Parallelization, 109, 120, 121, 143, 153

culture, 182

of order flows, 65

design, 174

technique for, 106, 107, 108

dynamics, 167 effectiveness, 149

Parameters, structural, 179, 180

genotype, 51, 119

Pareto analysis, 106

mapping technique, 73

Parochial democracy, 3, 126, 128

network, 173

Partial,

paradigm new, 123, 126

practice, 164

paradigm old, 123, 126

theory, 163, 164

performance, 60

thinking, 164

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

272

Partial approach, 12 Participant design, 40, 42, 143 deep slice method.,. 47 Participation, 2, 1 1 , 3:3', 60, 71, 75, 106, 120, 122, 124, 125, 132, 160, 173, 175

Participation, all-level, 71 criteria for, 75, 120, 122 degree of, 1 72 direct, 1 1 effective, 173 indicators of, 60 personal, 33 operational definition, 60 user, 1 06 Participation, in decision-making, 156 of employees, 33 in process, 125 right, 188 Participative analysis and self-design methodology ill-A, 1 1 9 approach, 1 1 1 decision making, 160, 171 Democracy, 3, 12, 15, 20, 1 1 8, 1 1 9, 120, 121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 129, 134

development methodology III­ C, 120, 122

integral organizational renova­ tion methodology III-B, 121 management acc ounting sys­ tem, 151 planning method, 57 process, 1 14 structure, 172 Participative Design (PD), 17, 18, 19, 46-58, 98, 1 19, 122, 125, 127, 128, 194

Participative Design, Australian projects, 47, 58

British projects, 56 classification, 127, 128 characteristics, 125 Danish projects, 55 definition, 51 future of, 7 Participative Design, DHR workshop, 52, 119 Indian projects, 55 'little golden book', 47, 51, 53 method, 57, 98 methodology, 17, 119 network of firms, 48 Norwegian projects, 53, 55 open-systems model, 49, 119 paradigm, 48 process, 50 search conference, 1 7, 1 9 , 48, 50, 51, 52, 57, 109, 119, 127, 143

SSM-inspired analysis, 1 1 9 strategy, 1 9 0 Swedish projects, 55 tentative classification, 124, 126 workshop, 17, 48, 55, 56, 119 Participative Design workshop, 17, 19, 49, 51, 55, 119, 127

definition, 51 method, 98, 101 projects, 53, 55 variations of, 78 Participative process, 51, 66, 103 paradigm, 102 Participative redesign and search method, confusion, 56 distinction, 56, 57 mis-interpretation, 157 project classification, 56 Participatory action research, 73 Participatory research, 77 Pay, change in, 149 Pay,

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

for knowledge, 146 PCI-model, 121 Peer review, 146 People, 84 Perceived problem situation, 14, 116 Perceived problem situation, type 1, 18 type 2, 18 type 3, 20 type 4, 20, 116, 124 Performance, 146 differentiation, 64 feedback, 146 separation, 64 specialization, 64 Performance function, grouping and coupling of, 161 redistribution of, 162 Permutation, 85, 95 Personal, accountability, 1 0 attitude change, 10-12 communication, 5, 157 correspondence, 5 health, 166 paradigm change, 10 participation, 33 reconstruction, 1-2 Personnel, 184, 195 Personnel, availability of, 156 multi-skilled, 1 1, 33 Personnel, approach, 59, 60 management, 152 policy, 152 selection, 158 Phases STSD, 17, 19 Classical STSD, 6, 17, 19 comparisons, 6, 19 discontinuities, 6 Modem STSD, 6, 17, 19 Pioneering Work, 6, 17, 19

273

Physical proximity, 40 Piece-meal approach, 12 Pioneering work STSD, 17-19, 21, 90 Ahmedabad field experiments, 26 Bolsover case, 24, 26 criticism of initial conceptualiz­ ations, 137 Elsecar case, 23-26 Haighmoor 'discovery', 22, 23 SSM-inspired analysis, 117 Planning, 48, 49, 50, 53, 119, 125 Planning, active adaptive, 49, 119, 125 democratic, 50 pro-active, 53 Planning, conference, 69, 74 Platonism, 82 Pluralism, 140 Polarization, 124, 152 Political sub-system, 77 Pollution control, 144, 150, 166 Positivism, 82 Positivist principle of causality, 84 Postulate, need, 132 value, 132 Postulate of, Duality, 87 Reciprocal Contexts, 87 Power, 42, 167, 170, 195 Power, servant of, 172 Power, relationship, 167, 170 theory, 93 Practical paradigm, 12 Practice, partial, 164 Predictive model cycle, 15, 16 Pre-judgement, 1 13 Primary distinction, 82

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

274

Product,

Primary task, 30, 88 Primary work system, 30 Principle,

..

of minimal labotJ' division, 93 of general interests, 161 Principles for task redesign, 46 Pro-active, planning, 53 search, 1 1 0 Problem,

design, 103, 104 development, 188 innovation, 152, 183 quality, 144, 174, 178 shop, 35 Product development, 183 Sociotechnology of, 183 Production, batch, 194

social, 165

car, 186

syntactical, 165

continuous, 194

technical, 165

discrete, 194

socio-ecological, 195

internal social dimension of,

Problem definition, 133 integral, 125, 133

160 nonroutine, 194

partial, 133, 134

operational functional require­

structured, 125

ments of, 160

Problem solving, 48, 162, 1 72

routine, 194

Procedures,

tran sformational

emphasis on, 12 Process, dialogue, 73

functional

requirements of, 160 Production, control, 161, 162, 1 72, 175

ecological, 73

organization, 160

innovation, 152

structure, 1 75, 176, 179, 184

local, 73

Production control,

nonlinear, 97

balanced, 174

participative, 51

just-in-time, 154

purposeful, 179 Process, consultancy, 131 consultation, 106 control, 164 disturbance, 178 of eo-evolution, 88 of enquiry, 1 1 7, 121

theory of, 176 Production control, structure, 60 Production flow, segmentation of, 65, 106 Production Flow Analysis (PFA), 65, 106 Production structure (P), 65, 66, 103,

of inquiry, 14, 1 1 7-122

109, 120, 121, 142, 143

layout, 147

architecture, 144

theory of change, 92

macro design, 103, 105

Producer-product relation, 89

meso design, 103, 105

Product,

micro design, 103, 105

competitive, 174 nonpolluting, 1 74

Production system, open character of a, 1 77

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

structure of, 163

Project group,

Productivity, 6, 123, 145, 148, 195, 197

central bipartite, 74

Productivity,

vertical, 46

M e a surement a n d Enhance­

vertical slice, 74, 75

ment System (ProMES), 151

Project organization, 183

peak, 185

Promotion, channels of, 40

Products,

Provisional design, 99

family of, 1 75

Proximity,

Profitability, 1 74

physical, 40

Program automata,

Psychological contract,

84 multi, 84 single,

pay-based, 156

Programme,

Psychological requirements, 19, 46,

agricultural renewal, 47

51, 56, 57, 82, 92, 1 1 9

HABUT, 69 Industrial Democracy

275

Public ownership,

(ID), 32,

of enterprises, 195

33

Purpose definition, 99

Internati o n a l M o t o r Vehicle

Purposeful,

(IMVP), 153

conceptual holon, 13, 14, 1 1 6,

Job Satisfaction Research, 56

117

LOM, 69, 70, 76, 150

human activity holon, 1 3 , 1 4,

SBA, 69 Shell Philosophy, 35 URAF, 35 500

firms, 35

Project,

1 1 6, 1 1 7 Purposefulness, 89 Purposeful system, 41, 83 Puzzling, 48, 49 Qualitative system dynamics, 58

branch, 74

Quality, 123, 145, 148, 164, 166, 188

Demos, 55

Quality,

devel opment c onference, 70,

circles, 187, 188

73, 74

circle technique, 106

expert-led, 58

control, 154

garage-owners, 74

insurance, 183

greenfield, 76

of Employment Survey, 94

JOY, Finland, 76

of internal industrial relations,

'New factories', 35, 59

59

Sudbury, 80

of labour relations, 60, 156

Volvo, 35

of organization, 59, 60, 156

QWL North America, 78

of thinking life, 95, 96

Project,

of work, 5, 59, 60, 64, 93, 94, 104,

group, 188

1 1 8, 120, 132, 143, 144, 156, 175,

management, 66

179

phasing, 66

of work conditions, 5

review, 146

of workplace, 5

276

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

of working life, 59, 95, 96, 133, 140 self-inspection, 146 '

Quality of work,

social function of, 173 definition of, 179

theory, 93 Regulatory model cycle, 15, 25, 96, 102, 106, 144 of diagnostic and consultative thinking, 130 Relation(ship),

QWL, 78, 164, 174, 1 75, 177, 178, 183

asymmetrical, 1 73

QWL,

cause-effect, 15, 84

criteria, 99

customer, 188

optimalization of, 164

determined, 86

Rationality, content-oriented principles of,

determining, 86 deterministic, 84

190

dualistic, 87

social, 164

familiarity, 84

technical, 164, 167

functional, 135, 159

type of, 159, 164, 190 Rationalization of conflict, 50

interactive, 144 invariant, 87

Reactive response, 1 10

11 1-122, 88, 89

Realism, 82

master-servant, 196

Reality,

nominal, 134, 135

testing, 193 Reconstruction, personal, 1-2

object, 41

part-part within a whole, 84 power, 122, 167

Recruit conference, 78

producer-product, 84, 89

Redivision of labour, 161

proximity

Reduction, 15

84

(in time and space),

Reductionism, 138

reciprocal, 82

Reductionist thinking, 10

siblings, 84

Redundancy, of functions, 10, 42, 51, 52, 57,

similarity, 84 social, 135

95, 96, 115, 1 1 9, 143

symbiotic, 32

of parts, 10, 51, 57

tautological, 86

of rhythms, 95, 96

technical, 135

of skills, 1 19, 125

U-1, 84

Referent organization, 20, 78

U-2, 84

Regional promotion conference, 75

U-3, 84

Regulation, definition, 93 external, 60 internal, 60 levels of, 60 Regulative, functions, 60

U-4, 84 Relations, industrial, 158 labour, 172 Removing barriers for learning, 77 Remuneration, 147 fixed, 156

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

variable, 156 Renewal, definition, 59 trajectory, 66 Representation, 60 Representative referent organiz­ ation, 78 Requisite variety, 27, 28, 143, 171 Ashby's law, 171 cybernetic law, 31, 62, 93, 137 Research, strategy, 182 Research focus, client-oriented, 25 problem-oriented, 25 Researcher's role, 16 anti-expert, 53, 125 change agent, 25 communicative, 125 consultant, 125 expert, 73 process facilitator, 125 trainer, 125 Resistance to change, 1 10, 174 Resolution of conflict, 50 Response, maladaptive, 124 Responsibility, 80 accepting, 12 disclaiming, 12 Responsible autonomy, 30, 143 Result-responsible unit, 143 Results, focus on, 12 Retroduction, 85 inferential processes of, 85 Rewarding system, 24, 27, 33, 34, 146 Rewards, distribution of, 60 Rhythmical organizing of temporally dynamic structures, 95-96 Right of self-management, 197 Robots, 35

277

industrial, 84 Role, reciprocal, 161 researcher's, 16 work, 60, 194 Role, network, 99 Rose-set, institutionalized, 160 Rotation, job, 40 R&D team, 183 Safety, 145 Satisfaction, intrinsic, 146 work, l58 SBA programme, Norway, 69 Scheme of interaction strategy, 93 Scholarship, half-time, 69 holder, 75 Scientific Management, 9, 23, 97 Scientific Management, Frederick Taylor's concept of, 196 Scientific-philosophical foundation, 7, 82, 83 Search, future, 125 pro-active, 110 Search conference, 17, 19, 48, 50, 51, 52, 57, 109, 119, 127, 143 definition, 52 Gungahlin, 53 method, 98, 101 type of, 78 Searching, ends instead of means, 50 Segmentation, 65, 106, 109, 120, 121, 143 Selection, interactive, 169 personnel, 158

278

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

Self-managing work group, 19, 22,

Selection, faults, 131

119

of peers, 146

management of, 195 managing of, 151

Selective, interaction, 169, 170 communication, 170

collective, 13 Semi-autonomous work group, 17,

Selective interaction, s tructurally

Self-work design,

differentiated

opportunities for, 170 Selective labour process, 92 qualitative aspect, 92 quantitative aspect, 92 Selectivity, 168, 178 social, 170 Self-, control, 156 determination, 55 directed team (STD), 80

19, 21, 24, 25, 27, 30, 33, 34, 46, 47, 53, 80, 95, 96, 118, 121, 143, 145, 146 criticism, 146 descriptive case studies, 24 field experiments, 24, 33, 138 fore runner of, 29 natural o ccuring field experi­ ments, 24, 138 theoretical explanations, 1 14 Semi-Parallel Streams (SPS) design

expression, 47

technique, 106

inspection of quality, 146

graphical representation, 1 0 7,

Self-, regulation, 1 1 , 13, 27, 28, 143,

150, 151 regulating female teams, 25 supply, 146 supporting flow, 175

108 Sense, causal, 169 existential, 169 Sensitivity, disturbance, 175

Self-actualization, 47

Servo-controlled mechanism, 92

Self-design, 105, 152

Sequence,

educational programme, 66

of design steps, 175

flexible, 163

Servant of power, 172

informed, 120, 143

Service sector, 97

training for, 66 Self-design, by knowledge transfer, 171, 176 Self-managing, design group, 46, 51 production group, 106

Seven-step method, 98 Seventeen-step method, 98, 102, 103 Shared vision, 110 Shell Philosophy programme, 35 Shift, paradigr.n, 2, 9, 168

social system, 10

Shipping industry, 55

staff group, 106

Shop,

team, 151, 156, 194, 195 work group, 195

product, 35 Simple,

work place teams, 153

administration, 151

work team, 195

organization, 151

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

Simplicity, false, 10 Six-step method, 98 Skills, 148, 173 Skills, multiple broad, 10, 11 narrow, 10, 11 Skills, analysis techniques, 54 development, 193 faults, 131 grouping, 54 traiDing, 78 prograrrune, 34, 119 Skills and process traiDing ill-A, 119 Small military group formations, 29 Social, analysis, 99 binding, 59 behaviour, 159 change, 165, 1 67 context, 196 ecological approach, 76 engineering, 3, 1 1 6, 126, 128, 129, 171 function, 160 rationality, 164 selectivity, 170 structure, 177 system, 1 18, 143, 152, 159, 1 64, 165, 168, 171, 172, 179 Technology, 166 Social change, value oriented, 161 Social interaction, 61, 123 Social interaction, selectivity of, 167 system theoretical paradigm of, 58, 129 time-invariant character of, 167 Social system, real-life, 166 self-managing, 10

279

stalemated, 124 Social system, grid, 99 values, 61 Social systems, theory, 177, 182 Social island conditions, 75 Social sub-system, 31, 1 18, 134, 142, 143, 146 Societal multi-level strategy method, 98 Society, balanced, 174 pluralistic structure of, 176 self-regulating, 195 Socio-ecological, approach, 76 design, 150 Socio-economic perspective, 59 Socio-psychological theory, 125 Sociotask approach,98 17 propositions, 98 Sociotechnical, approach, 159 cases, 159 criterion, 42 design expertise, 175 intervention, 163 pioneering work, 17, 19, 21 Socio-technical analysis, 37, 1 15 diversity of methods, 98, 143, 144 Sociotechnical approach, core of, 161 Socio-technical concept, 1 15 as 'straw man', 115 Socio-technical criteria, 42 Sociotechnical design, methodology, 169 Socio-technical design principles, 40-42 Classical STSD, 38, 40 Sociotechnical intervention,

280

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

primary object of, 163 Socio-technical interventions, 145149 blue-collar, 149 duration of, 140 evaluation study of, 148 meta-analysis, 148, 149 white-collar, 149 Sociotechnical principle, of fluid division of functions, 186 of local solutions, 186 of minimum critical specifica­ tions, 186 of task autonomy, 186 Socio-Technical Process Analysis (STPA), 102 Socio-technical system, 13, 30, 31, 38 Classical STSD definition, 41 definition, 30 fragmented, 10 tautology, 115 So cio-technical systems design (STSD), 9, 12, 16, 23, 24, 38, 98, 115, 126, 143, 144, 171 as tautology, 115 diversity of methods, 98, 143, 144 goal, 9, 112, 126 history of, 16 meaning of 'misplaced con­ cretness', 115 starting point, 23-24 Socio-Technical Task Analysis (STTA), 102, 106 Socio-technical theory, 61 explanatory function, 61 design function, 61 status of, 162 Sociotechnology, 125, 1 62, 163, 1 64, 173, 174 Sociotechnology, applied, 160

Modern, 176 theoretical foundations of, 170 Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), 6, 106 analytical framework, 6, 13 dominant world view, 13, 14, 116 perceived problem situation, 14, 116 purposeful conceptual holon, 13, 14, 116, 121 p urpusefu l human activity holon, 13, 14, 116, 121 Solution, Japanese, 185 over simplified, 12 partial, 196 real, 12 Swedish, 185 Space, enthropic, 170 Span of control, 182 Specialism, design-oriented, 163 Specialization, performance, 64 Specification, full, 186 minimum critical, 10, 11, 42, 186 total, 10, 1 1 SSM-inspired analysis, 117-122 of Classical STSD, 118 of Democratic Dialogue, 120, 122 of Integral Organizational Renewal, 120, 121 of North-American consultancy, 118, 120 of Participative Design, 1 19 of Pioneering Phase of STSD, 117 SSM-inspired framework, 18, 117-122 Stability, 12 belief in, 1 0

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

Stalemate, 124, 152

Structural paradigm, 100

Standardization, 156

Structural system paradigm, 102

State,

Structural,

innovation supportive, 189 State, socialism, 195 Statement, empirical, 168 Status, 146 equalization, 146 Steady state, 28, 41, 130, 137, 139 dynamic, 28

281

design, 61 orientation, 162 parameters, 64, 179, 180 prerequisites, 176 Structure, definition, 159 Structure, alternative architectures of, 163,

177

Stepwise supervision, 11

architecture of, 61, 144

Stock, 164

concept of, 159, 163

Straight-line assembly, 35

Control, 121, 175, 176, 179, 184

Strategic analysis, 103, 104

definition of, 59, 163

detailed, 103, 104

dissipative, 30

global, 103, 104

dock, 156

Strategic exploration, 66

external, 142

Strategic business unit, 104

given architecture of, 165

Strategic correlative sub-system, 77

idealized, 159

Strategy, 162

implementation, 103, 105

multi-level, 70, 76

individual, 177

network, 69

Information, 121, 179

Strategy for implementation, 98

8 step method, 98 Strategy for industrial change, 98

1 0 step method, 98 Strategy forum, 73, 75 definition, 73-74 Stream Analysis, 106 Stress, 59, 92, 174, 183 Structural conditions, 92 Structural parameters (IOR), 64 control differentiation, 64 control specialization, 64

initiating, 159 internal, 142 life time career, 196 maintenance of, 1 66 network, 177 Production, 120, 121, 175, 1 76,

1 79, 184 production control, 60 renewed, 144 social, 177 task, 60 Structure,

division of control functions in

of collective representation, 60

feedback loop, 64

of division of labour, 158, 161

functional (de)concentration, 64 performance differentiation, 64

of interaction, 160 STSD,

performance specialization, 64

basic philosophy, 2

separation of p erformance and

consultancy, 193

control functions, 64

future of, 150

282

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

history, 157 initial statements, 2 political accomoda_tion, 193 scholasticizing, 192,'193 STSD approaches, compilation of characteristics, 125 rough comparison of, 1 1 7-122, 123 STSD interventions, effectiveness of, 149 STSD paradigm definition, 13 . STSD practice, critique, 145-149 STSD projects, in development countries, 80 Classical STSD, 43, 44 Meta-analysis of, 78 Modem STSD, 53, 55, 56, 67, 70, 76, 79 Pioneering phase, 23, 24, 25 STSD theory formation, further examination of, 137-143 STSD tracks, further analysis, 116 STSD variants, further analysis, 116 Style, leadership, 159 Style, justification, 4-6 Subject index, 7 Subjective life space, 82 Sub-optintization, 31 Substitutability, 60 Sub-system, 134, 163 Sub-system, manufacturing, 177 planning, 177 political, 77 product-design, 177 product development, 183

sales, 177 social, 31, 118, 134, 142, 143, 146 strategic correlative, 77 technical, 31, 118, 134, 142, 143, 144, 146 Sub-system, definition, 134 function, (L11), 49 Sudbury project, 80 Supervision, directive, 175 stepwise, 11 Support congruence, 42 Survey 120 work system design, experiments, 44 Symbiotic relationship, 32 Symmetrical dependence, 30, 123 Symmetrical interdependence, 30, 60 Symmetry, LllsL22, 87 Synchronization, dynamic, 77 Synthetic thinking, 15 System, accounting, 151 active functional, 84 active multi-functional, 84 active mul ti-functional and evironmentally independent, 84 adaptive, purposeful, 83 aspect, 161, 163 career development, 152 classes of functional, 83, 84 closed, 152 educational, 196 goal-seeking, 84 high-performance, 187 holistic, 27, 28 innovative, 183 multi-goal-seeking, 84 multi-stable, 28 nominal, 166

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

nonroutine, 95, 96

passive functional, 84

passive multi-functional, 84

purposehll, 41, 83, 84

reactive functional, 84

reactive multi-functional, 84 real-life, 166

reward, 146

rewarding, 33, 34

approach, 15, 27

boundaries, 83

concept (technical term), 13

Systems aspects, control, 130

information, 130

production, 130

Systems concepts, 28

definition of, 130

reflex-bound, 140

development of, 83, 90

1 71, 1 72, 179

redefined, 90

social, 1 1 8, 159, 1 64, 1 65, 1 68,

functional, 83

sub, 163

Systems dynamics,

1 71, 179

Systems elements,

technical, 1 1 8, 159, 164, 165, 168,

System,

concept, 169

element, 134, 136

performance, 26 structure, 134

System function, 48, 87

industrial pollution, 182

input, 47, 49, 87

internal, 91, 92, 142

external, 91, 92, 142

environment, 49, 8 7

Ll1, 49, 87

Ll2, 49, 87, 139

L21, 49, 87, 139

L22, 49, 87, 139

output, 47, 49, 87

product development, 182

social dimension, 142

technical dimension, 142

types of, 165

System structure,l34 definition, 134

System values, 61

System's analysis, 103 d etailed, 103, 104

global, 103, 104

Systems,

Analysis (SA}, 102, 103, 104

283

modem, 134

social, 136

technical, 136

Systems theory,

communicative turn in, 190

industrial engineering, 136

linguistic turn in, 190 naturalist, 190 type of, 190

Systems thinking, 10, 13, 21, 90 Systems thinking,

basic solutions, 114 immaturity of, 114

sociotechnical, 190

Systems world, 190

Tacit knowledge, 73 Table,

multi-skilling, 51, 53, 54, 56, 119

variance control, 99

Tardiness, 148 Task,

boundary, 40

design of, 160

interlocking, 40

maximum breakdown, 10, 1 1

mental, 194

optimal grouping, 10, 11 overall, 40

physical, 194

284

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

primary, 30, 88 whole, 11, 109 Task, '- , analysis instrumentation, 106 autonomy, 186, 187 complexity, 60 continuity, 30 integration, 131, 132 redesign principles, 40, 118 structure, 60 Task and sentient system, 30 Task group, design of, 160 Tautology, 115 Tavistock, psycho-analytic orientation, 27 Tavistock splitting, 29, 30, 114 Taylorism, 185, 186, 188 essence of, 193 full-scale alternative to, 152 leopard of, 193 modem, 155 principles, 185, 186 quasi-scientific form of, 187 regression to, 187 revival of, 6 significant break with, 188 Tayloristic, bureaucracy, 10 control, 155 Tayloristic principle, of full specification of taks performance, 186 of maximum vertical division of functions, 186 of no task autonomy, 186 of universalism, 186 Team, empowered, 80 management, 194 non-rating, 146 research and development, 194 self-directed, 80

self-managing, 151, 153, 194 total design, 51 Team, approach, 80 survey research study, 80 Team leader, hierarchical, 156 Technical analysis, 99, 106 rationality, 1 64, 167 selection of action, 170 skill development, 146 sub-system, 3 1 , 1 18, 134, 142, 143, 144, 146 system, 1 1 8, 143, 159, 164, 165, 168, 171, 179 Technical instrumentation, 31, 90, 92 definition, 91 Technical system analysis, 39, 97, 98 methodology, 97 Technical system design principles, 41 Technical variance analysis, 76 Technical variance analysis method, 37 Techniques, design, 174 OD, 106 SPS, 106, 107, 108 Technological, change, 146 determinism, 31, 194 dimension, 166 imperative, 10 innovation, 147, 195 Technological imperative, 10 Technology, social, 166 Teleological thinking, 15 Ten-step method, 97, 98 Territory (boundary), 30 Texture, causal, 39

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

Theorem, 83 Theory, axiomatic need, 171 axiomatic value, 171 catastrophe, 95 consensus, 1 61 Critical, 120, 122, 167 democratic, 70 design, 159, 176 diffusion, 33 ethical, 1 67 Field, 27 General Systems (GST), 167, 169 grand, 169 Grounded, 151 Group, 27 industrial engineering systems, 136 local, 68, 70, 71, 72, 73, 85, 120, 122 middle range, 85 mono-functional, 164 neo-marxistic, 167 normative design I, 117 normative design II, 118 normative design ill-A, 1 19 normative design ill-B, 121 order through chaos, 95 partial, 133, 163, 164 power, 93 psychological need, 159 regulative, 93 socio-psychological, 125 sociotechnical, 61, 160 sociotechnical systems, 196 structural, 162 traditional need, 162 value, 93, 159, 163 Theory, of communication, 71, 190 of concepts, 143 of content aspects, 13 of control structure design, 182

285

of cultural transformation, 190 of democracy, 176 of directed action, 41 of feedback mechanisms, 2 of integtral structural design, 182 of interactive structures, 160 of organization, 41, 160 of participative democracy, 125 of practice, 16, 116, 117, 130, 131 of process issues, 13 of production control, 176 of qualitative system dynamics, 93 of social or ' communicative' behaviour, 167 of social systems, 166, 169 of sociotechnical design, 165 of total system functioning, 163 Theory of concepts,143 Classical STSD, 90 Pioneering Phase, 90 Theory of practice, middle-range, 130 Theory of science, linguistic-pragmatic type, 71 Thermodynamics, second law of, 139 Thinking, abstract, 192 analytical, 15 holistic, 66 holonic, 13 integral, 164 integration, 150 logical, 192 nominal, 166 open-systems, 10, 12, 27 partial, 164 reductionist, 10 synthetic, 15 systems, 13, 90 teleological, 15

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

286

Thxoughput tiine, 6, 144, 164, 175

Trans-actionalism, 88

TIED analysis, 106

Transformation,

·

Time, 166 dimension of, 167 Time-and-motion studies, 155

input-output, 142 Transitional organization, 42 Transparant organization, 152

Time span, 145, 151

Transport, 164

Time series data, 148

Transport equations, 139

Title, 5

Trias politica, 176

syntactic parody, 6 T-group training, 50 Top-down holistic approach, 77 Total design team, 51 Total specification, 10, 11

· Total system intervention, 153 TQC, 154 Tracks, Babilroglu, 18, 20, 123 Modem STSD, 143 Trade union movement, 197 Traditional STSD, 144

Trichotomy, 83 internal-boundary-external, 83 Turbulence, 18, 19, 93 hyper, 20, 152 Turbulent type IV environment, 48, 152 maladaptive response to, 152 Turnover, 148 employee, 59, 145 Twin concept, 179 social and technical systems, 135

conceptual clarity, 137

Twofold holonic approach, 13

conceptual coherence, 137

Type,

differences with IOR, 143

of behaviour, 159

scope, 138

of rationality, 159

technology concept, 138

I environment, 39, 140

Traditional variance analysis, 37, 77,

II environment, 39

97, 98

Ill environment, 39, 48

technique, 37, 97

IV environment, 39, 48

10 step method, 97, 98 Training, 161 Training,

V environment, 39, 124, 152 Uddevalla, closure of, 185

career III-C, 122

Uncertainty, 167, 177

cooperative skill, 78

Uncertainty,

foremen, 36 leadership, 158 multi-skilling, 57 on-the-job, 66 team, 193 T-group, 50 Training, courses III-B, 121 for self-design, 66, 102, 132 programrne, 34, 56, 105, 121

coping with, 168 reduction of, 168 Undemocratic, decision making, 171 Uni-causal caus e / e ffect relation­ ships, 15 Union-management approach, 59, 60 Unit, Business, 143

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

result-responsible, 143 Unit operations, 38, 39 Universals, abstract, 192 Unobtrusive measures, 147

287

concept of, 41 matrix, 37, 99, 144, 171 table, 37, 99 Variance matrix, 36, 37, 99 Variants Modern STSD, 6

Unpredictability, 153

comparison, 6

URAF programme, 35

Democratic Dialogue, 6

User participation, 106

Integral Organizational Renew­

U-shaped layout, 35

al, 6

Validity,

North-American consultancy, 6

external, 147, 148 internal, 147, 148 Value, 159 Value, ascription of, 170 democratic, 2

Participative Design, 6 Variety, requisite, 27, 28, 143 Variety, of tasks, 40 Vertical project group, 46

human, 42, 143

Vertical slice, 70, 74, 109, 125

democratic system of, 46

Vertical slice approach, 46

individual, 171

Vertical slice group, 46, 75

nominal, 1 67

Volvo projects, 35

perception of, 170

Vortical,

rejection of, 123 social system, 61

conditions, 124 environment, 39, 124, 152

static notion, 159

Waste emitter, 84

super personal, 160

White-collar, 77, 140, 149

system, 61, 177

White-collar,

work, 119 Value, theory, 93, 159 Variable, dependent, 85, 86, 94

work setting, 149 Whole, adaptive, 13 Whole-company conference, 75 Whole task, 11, 109, 156

independent, 85, 86

domain, 156

in relationship terms, 86

group, 120, 121, 143, 175, 183

key, 159 Variance, 37, 85

Willful bifurcation, 95 Work,

controlling, 77, 95

democratization of, 12, 123

key, 37

healthy, 174

Variance analysis, 19, 97, 1 1 8

meaningful, 1 1

technical, 76

inspiring, 174

technique, 37

save, 175

traditional, 37, 77, 97, 98 Variance control, 19, 38, 42, 77, 96, 144

Work, cycle, 187, 188 division, 91, 92

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Subject Index

288

definition, 91 in process, 164 organization, 187, 1�

Workplace change, communication generated, 191 Work pressure, 94

role, 195

Work place team, 153

satisfaction, 158

Work reform,

team, 156, 193 Work conditions, quality of, 5 Work cycle, optimum length of, 40 Work design, sociotechnical principles of, 160 . Work group, 143

movement, 185 Work role, 60 Work system design, content, 71 process, 71 Work team, entrepreneurial, 80 multi-skilled, 194, 196

autonomous, 23, 24

participative model for, 194

composite, 22, 30, 1 1 6, 1 1 7

self-management, 196

non-autonomous, 149 relatively autonomous, 22 self-managing, 22, 195

sell-managing, 195, 196 Work tradition, rediscovery of, 22

semi-autonomous, 17, 19, 21, 24,

Workers' council, 176

25, 27, 30, 33, 34, 46, 47, 53, 80,

Working conditions, 60

95, 96, 118, 121, 143, 145, 146

Workshop,

Work force, career oriented, 197

off-site/ do-it-yourseli, 53 Participative Design, 17, 19, 49,

de-skilled, 195

51, 55, 1 19, 127

multi-skilled, 194, 196

DHR, 52, 53

participation of, 195 traditional, 194 Work load, 146 Work method, 30 Work motivation, 60 intrinsic, 146 Work organization, autrocratic, 3 democratic, 3

Work structure, democratic, 106 Work system, primary, 30 Work value, 119 World, life, 190 Post-Modem, 124 systems, 190

form of, 143

World War 11, 189, 192

pioneering new forms of, 35

Z-shaped layout, 35

social, 31 Work organization, deficit, 189 Work pace, 146 Work place, dialogue, 189 meeting, 188

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Company/Institute Index

289

Company/Institute Index A.D. Little Inc., USA, 39 Aegon insurance company, life insurances, Den Haag, The Netherlands, 67 Ailsa Trucks Ltd., Scotland, UK 56 Alcan Aluminium, Arvida, Kingston, Ontario, Canada, 43 Alexander, Scott & Associates, USA, 77 American Productivity Center, USA, 77 American Psychological Association (APA), USA, 7 Arco Chemicals, PO/TBA plant, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 67 Associated Biscuits, Bermondsey, UK, 56 AVEBE, farine production plant, Veendam, The Netherlands, 67 Avon Rubber, UK, 35 Bang & Olufsen, audio/video factory, Stuer, Denmark, 43 Bharat Heavy .Electricals Ltd. (BHEL), Tiruchirapalli, India, 55 Block-Petrella-Weisbord, Ardmore, Pennsylvania, USA, 77, 78 Bolsover Colliery, North-West Durham, East Midlands, UK, 24, 26 British Oxygen, welding/heating factory, Bletchley, UK 43 British Army, UK 25 British Retail Trade, UK, 24 Calico weaving-mill, textile industry, Ahmedabad, India, 24, 26 Centraal Beheer, insurance company, Apeldoom, The Netherlands, 43 Christiania Spigerverk, wire draw plant, Oslo, Norway, 33, 43 Clothing factory, Norway, 25 Coras Lompair Eireann, bus service, Dublin, Ireland, 43 Coming Glass Works, R&D department, Medfield, Massachusetts, USA, 43 Cotter & Associates, USA, 77 CSP Foods, edible oil production, Harrowby, Man., Canada, 79 Cummins Engines, Jamestown, New York, USA, 78 DAF Trucks, truck cabines production, Westerloo, Belgium, 67 DAF Trucks, truck final assembly, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 67 DAF Trucks, truck shafts production, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 67 Danfoss, Denmark, 55 DEC/SME, USA, 77 DSM Chemicals, Sulfa/ZAV I ACN plants, Geleen, The Netherlands, 67 D u tch Foundation for the Promotion o f the Quality o f Work and Organization (NKWO), Den Bosch, The Netherlands, 66 Dutch Government, Ministry of Internal Affairs, Den Haag, The Nether­ lands, 67 Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 90 Elsecar Colliery, Haighmoor seam, NE division, South Yorkshire, UK, 22, 23, ,

,

,

27

ESAB, welding equipment factory, Laxa, Sweden, 43

290

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Company/Institue Index

European Network group, 44 FHikt AB, ventilation ·equipment factory, Ljungarum, Sweden, 43 Fokker Aircraft, aircraft {actory, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 43 Frans Swarttouw, transhipment, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 67 Gaines General Foods, pet food factory, Topeka, Kansas, USA, 43, 77 General Electric, aircraft engines, Bromont, Quebeck, Canada, 79 General Motors, assembly division, Tarrytown, New York, USA, 43 General Motors, automobile concern, Detroit, Michigan, USA, 43 Giro Service, Den Haag, The Netherlands, 25, 43 GM-Fisher, automobile body plant, Grand Rapids, Michigan, USA, 43 Grasso Products, compressor production, Den Bosch, The Netherlands, 67 Halmstad Network, Sweden, 70 Harbour, London, UK, 24 Harwood, manufacturing company, 26 Haustrup, Denmark, 55 H�jbjerg, machine factory, Aarhus, Denmark, 55 Holec-HAT, parts manufacturing, Hengelo, The Netherlands, 67 Hunsfos, paper-mill, Vennesla, Kristiansand, Norway, 33, 37, 39, 43, 46, 97 IHC-Smith b.v., shipyard/parts manufacturer, Kinderdijk, The Netherlands, 67

Imperial Chemical Industries (ICI), Australia, 47 Institute for Industrial Social Research (IFIM), Trondheim, Norway, 32 International Revenue Service, USA, 77 Jamestown Area Labour-Management Committee, Jamestown, USA, 78 Jamtland regional network of state institutions, Sweden, 70 Jubilee weaving-mill, textile industry, Ahmedabad, India, 24, 26 Karlstad public sector network, Sweden, 70 KNTU-Bamshoeve, spinning-mill, textile industry, Twente, The Nether­ lands, 43 Ladybird Ltd., Glascow, Scotland, UK, 56 Management & B ehavioral Science Center (MBSC), Warton School, USA, 78

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, 153 McCormack & Dodge, software house, Natick, Massachusetts, USA, 79 McGill Human Resource Association Inc., Montreal, Ottawa, Canada, 79 McNeil Consumer, consumer products, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania, USA, 79 MONA, desserts/sweets production, Zoetermeer, The Netherlands, 67 MS 'Balao', merchant ship/trading vessel, Norway, 55 National Bank, India, 55, 56 National Capital Development Commission (NCDC), Canberra, Australia, 53

National Center for Productivity and QWL, USA, 77

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Company/Institute Index

291

National Coal Board, UK, 24, 26 National Labour Institute (NLI), New Delhi, India, 55 Van Nelle DE, tobacco factory, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 67 N. Foss' Electric, Hilleroed, Denmark, 55 NOB0, electrical panel heaters factory, Hommelvik, Trondheim, Norway, 34, 43 Non-Linear Systems Inc., California, USA, 25 Nordic Cable, Glostrup, Denmark, 55 Norsk Hydro, chemical industry, Heroya, Porsgrun, Norway, 34, 43 North-Sweden hotels/restaurants network, Sweden, 70 Northern Electric, Montreal, Ottawa, Canada, 43 Northern Telecom, PBX assembly, Santa Clara, California, USA, 79 Norwegian Work Life Centre, Oslo, Norway, 69 NUMMI, General Motors assembly plant, Fremont, California, USA, 186, 187 Off-shore industry, Norway, 55 Olivetti, components factory, lvrea, Italy, 43 Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 77 Organon International (AKZO) , pharmaceutics production, Oss, The Netherlands, 67 Orrefos Glass Works, polishing department, Sweden, 43 Pasmore & Sherwood, USA, 77 PCGD, postal giro service, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, 43 PCGD, postal giro service, Den Haag, The Netherlands, 25, 43 PCGD, postal giro service, Tilburg, The Netherlands, 43 PG+E, electrical power & utility, San Luis Obispo, California, USA, 79 Philips, audio/video factory, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 43 Philips Components, coal resistors factory, Roermond, The Netherlands, 67 Philips Components, cristals production, Doetinchem, The Netherlands, 67 Philips Components, C-SMD condensators production, Roermond, The Netherlands, 67 Philips Components, semi-conductors production, Stadskanaal, The Netherlands, 67 Philips Domestic Applications, shaver parts production, Drachten, The Netherlands, 67 Philips Domestic Applications, thermoplasts department, Drachten, The Netherlands, 67 Philips Lighting, armatures production, Winterswijk, The Netherlands, 67 Philips Lighting, half-fabricates production, Maarheeze, The Netherlands, 67 Philips Lighting, TL tubes factory, Roosendaal, The Netherlands, 67 Philips Ltd., Hamilton, Scotland, UK, 56 Philips, machine factory, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 43

292

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Company/Institue Index

Philips Radio, Copenhagen, Denmark, 55

Philips, television factory, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, 43

...

Postal services, India, 55 ,

Pratt & Whitney, aircraft engines production, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada,

79

Purfleet Power station, Purfleet, UK, 32

Railway locomotives maintenance depot, Sennar, Sudan, 80

Rolls Royce, engineering works, Derby, UK 43 ,

Royal Australian Airforce, Australia, 47

RTZ, UK, 35

Ruston, coal mine, Rushton, Pennsylvania, USA, 43

Saab-Scania, carrossery factory, Trollhattan, Sweden, 35, 43

Saab-Scania, gasoline-engine factory, Sodertalje, Sweden, 35, 43

Scandinavian Airlines System (SAS), Copenhagen, Denmark, 55

Scottish & New Castle Breweries, Ltd., Edinburgh, Scotland, UK 56 ,

SEB-Pyrenees, computer department, Lourdes, France, 43 Secours lARD, insurance company, Paris, France, 43

SEMA, pension fund, Paris, France, 43

Shell, laboratory, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 97

Shell, oil refinery, Stanlow, Cheshire, UK 35, 37, 43, 97 ,

Shell, oil refinery, Teesport, UK 43 ,

Shell, poly-propylene plant, Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, 43

Sherwin-Williams, paint factory, Richmont, Kentucky, USA, 43 Shipping industry, Norway, 55

Siemens, pneumatic control equipment factory, Karlsruhe, Germany, 43 Signetics, semi-conductor plant, Sunnyvale, California, USA, 79

Soabar (Avery Label), tag/ label printing manufacturer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 79

Sociotechnical Design Consultants, Inc., USA, 77

Sourth Australian Meat Corporation (SAMCOR), Yearling Hall, Australia, 47 Standard Motor Company, Coventry, UK 24 ,

Stockholm health services network, Stockholm, Sweden, 70

Stork PMT, poultry processing systems, Boxmeer, The Netherlands, 67 St. Antonius, Vesselheads factory, Maasbracht, The Netherlands, 151 STS International, USA, 77

Sudbury 2001, 80

Sulzer, turbine paddles factory, Winterthur, Switzerland, 43 Swedish Work Environment Fund, Stockholm, Sweden, 69

Tannoy, audio factory, accounting department, Coatbridge, Scotland, UK 43 ,

Tannoy Products, Ltd., Scotland, UK 56 ,

Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (TIHR), London, UK, 21, 22, 25, 26,

27, 28, 29, 32, 39, 53, 56, 92, 97, 113, 114, 115, 116, 133, 137, 146, 150, 158 Human Resources Centre (HRC group), 29, 39, 114

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Company/Institute Index

293

Centre for Applied Social Research (CASR group), 29, 114 Telephone exchange, Glascow, Scotland, UK, 24 Telephone switchboard, Stockholm, Sweden, 25 Thomas Drijver & Verblifa, colour j ars production, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, 67 Thomas Engineering b.v., car components production, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 67 Thread Manufacturers NKT, Glostrup, Denmark, 55 Toyota motor corporation, Tokyo, Japan, 153 Trebor Sharps, loudspeaker factory, Woodford, UK, 43 UCLA Center for Quality of Working Life (CQWL), Los Angeles, California, USA, 77 Unichema International (Unile� er), oleochemicals production, Gouda, The Netherlands, 67 United Hospital, Grand Forks, North Dakota, USA, 79 United States Army, USA, 77 University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Los Angeles, California, USA,

38 US State Government, public sector center for data, Bismark, North Dakota, USA, 79 US State QWL centers, USA, 78 Van Nelle, Tobacco Industries, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 151 Volvo, car assembly plant, Kalmar, Sweden, 35, 43, 147, 185, 186 Volvo, car assembly plant, Uddevalla, Sweden, 153, 185, 186 Volvo, Torslanda car factories, Gothenburg, Sweden, 185 Westinghouse, electronic/control devices production, Airdrie, Alberta, Canada, 79

Work in America Institute, USA, 77 Work Research Institute(s)

(WRI), Oslo, Norway, 32, 55, 69

Work Research Unit (WRU), Ministry of Employment, London, UK, 56 X-TRBIE, software development, San Luis Obispo, California, USA, 79 Zilog Inc. (Exxon), microprocessor chip plant, Nampa, Idaho, USA, 79 Zilverstad, Silversmithing Industries, Schoonhoven, The Netherlands, 151

294

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Name Index

Name Index " Abraham, R., 95 , Ackoff, RL., 15, 83, 84, 129 Adler, P.S., 155, 186, 193 Agersnap, F., 55 Aguren, s., 35, 43, 106, 185 Alders, B., 154 Alink, J.B., 43 Allegro, J.T., 43, 97 Amelsvoort, P.J.L.M. van, 24, 65, 67, 106, 151, 153, 154, 155, 156 A.ngyal, A., 27, 28, 48 Archer, J., 43 Argyris, C., 42, 49, 160 Arnopoulos, S., 79 Asadorian, RA., 76, 79, 97, 140, 141 Asch, S.E., 53 Ashby, W.R, 27, 28, 31, 39, 62, 89, 93, 136, 137, 171 Auer, P., 35 Babiiroglu, O.N., 18, 19, 39, 123, 124, 152 Bamforth, K.W., 17, 22, 23, 26, 27, 30 Barker, R, 26 Barko, W., 97 Barten, A.W.H.M., 67 Bavelas, A., 26 Beek, H.G. van, 43 Beekun, RA., 78, 148, 149 Beer, M., 43 Beinum, H.J.J. van, 3, 10, 17, 18, 25, 43, 52, 69, 70, 76, 90, 97, 98, 101, 1 15, 1 1 6, 124, 126, 127, 128, 147, 150 Bennis, W.G., 1 6 1 Berggren, C . , 185 Berrien, K., 1 62 Bertalanffy, L. von, 27, 28, 31, 32, 86, 87, 88, 136, 137, 139 Betcherman, G., 79 Beurle, R.L., 42, 137 Bion, W.R, 27, 30, 53

Birchall, D.W., 43 Blau, P.M., 159 Blutot, E., 43 Boekholdt, M.G., 97 Bolwijn, P.T., 64 Boons, A.N.A.M., 67, 151 Boonstra, J.J., 67 Borrie, H.F., 67 Bostrom, R.P., 35, 97 Bostrup, L., 35 Bradshaw, P., 80 Bregard, A., 34, 43 Briggs, J., 95 Brouwers, A.A.F , 66 Brown, D.R, 106 Brown, L., 145 Brunswick, E., 38 Buchanan, D.A., 24 Buckley, W., 162 B uitelaar, W.L., 67, 152 Burbidge, J.L., 35, 43, 65, 106 Burden, D.W.F., 43 Burns, T., 162 Butera, F., 43 Butteriss, M., 56 Buyse, J.J., 67 Campbell, D.T., 147 Canon, W.B., 28 Canter, RR, 129 Chadwick, M., 79 Checkland, P.B., 13, 106 Chein, I., 38, 41 Cherns, A.B., 38, 40, 42, 48, 138, 140 Chevalier, G.G., 43 Chisholm, R.F., 25, 97, 141 Clark, F., 79 Clarke, L., 80 Cobbenhagen, J.W.C.M., 67, 152 Cole, R, 190 Cook, T.D., 147 Corbin, J., 151 Crombie, A.D., 39, 51, 52 Crozier, M., 162 .

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Name Index

Cummings, T.G., 24, 38, 39, 41, 97, 98, 140, 147, 148 Cunningham, J.B., 78 Curle, A., 25 Dankbaar, B., 66, 152 Davis, L.E., 31, 34, 38, 39, 43, 48, 76, 114, 129, 140 Dawe, A., 170 De Greene, K.B., 77, 95 Descartes, R., 136 Desmares, J.G.W., 67 Devany, R.L., 95 Dewar, D.L., 106 Dijck, J.J.J. van, 31, 138 Does de Willebois, J.L.J.M. van der, 43 Dohse, K., 155 Easton, D., 162 Eberhardt, B.J., 79 Edgren, J., 35, 43, 106 Egmond, C., 94 Eijnatten, F.M. van, 17, 64, 65, 67, 91, 94, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 113, 1 14, 128, 130, 131, 132, 150, 152, 158, 172, 176, 182, 190, 192 Elden, J.M., 25, 33, 50, 51, 53, 55, 72, 73, 77 Eldred, J. 78 Elias, N., 90 El Jack, A., 80 Ellegard, K., 185 Elliott, 0., 77, 79, 140, 141 Emery, F.E., 3, 7, 17, 18, 23, 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 77, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 89, 92, 97, 98, 101, 102, 114, 115, 123, 124, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 136, 137, 138, 140, 141, 144, 150, 151, 152, 157, 165, 167, 192-197 Emery, M., 3, 16, 17, 34, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 77, 98, 101, 109, 127, 194

295

Engelstad, P.H., 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 41, 43, 53, 55, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 89, 97, 98, 144, 188 Feibleman, J.K., 28, 30, 139 Felten, D.F., 77, 80 Finlay, M.L, 71 Fisher, R.A., 89 Flood, R.L., 153 Forslin, J., 185 Foster, M., 26, 37, 97, 98, 102 Fricke, W., 5 Friedlander, F., 145 Friend, J.W., 28, 30 Friss, L., 97 Fruytier, B.G.M., 66 Fry, D.E., 86 Gabarro, J., 43 Gagnon, J.J., 43 Getz, I., 55 Glas, G.A., 43 Glor, B., 97 Golomb, N., 141 Grebogi, C., 95 Grenier, V., 43 Groder, M., 94 Groot, A.D. de, 16 Gulowsen, J., 34, 43 Gunzburg, D., 55 Gustavsen, B., 7, 17, 34, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 98, 101, 125, 127, 128, 137, 157, 185-191 Gustavson, P.W., 79 Habermas, J., 61, 71, 90, 1 67, 1 70, 173, 190 Hackman, J.R., 16, 39, 137, 145 Haes, A.A. de, 67 Halpern, N., 43 Hammarstrom, N.K., 55 Hanna, D., 141 Hanssen-Bauer, J., 69 Harvey, D.F., 106 Hedberg, B., 97 Heij, P., 58, 90, 94

296

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Name Index

Heinen, J.S., 97 Helling, J., 187, 188, 189 Hellpach, W., 29 ' Hendriks, H.J., 67 Henri, L., 79 Henshall, D., 43, 97 Herbst, P.G., 24, 29, 30, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 47, 48, 50, 55, 73, 82, 83, 114, 137, 169, 170, 178 Hertog, J.F. den, 5, 43, 66, 130, 151, 152 Heuvel, R.E.F. van den, 67 Higgin, G.W., 24 Hill, A.V., 28 Hill, C.P., 24, 37, 38, 41, 43, 97, 98, 144 Hoevenaars, A.M., 62, 63, 65, 67, 106, 107, 108, 131 Homans, J., 160 Horowitz, J.L., 161, 162 Hulten, W.J.M. van, 67 Hunnius, G., 34, 73 Huse, E.F., 43 Jackson, M.C., 153 Jamestown Committee, 78 Jantsch, E., 95 Jaques, E., 26 Jenkins, G.M., 35 Johansen, R., 55 Johnson, C., 189 Johnson, H.T., 184 Jones, A., 97 Joosse, D.J.B., 66 Jordan, N . , 3 1 Juran, J.M., 106 Jurkovich, R., 39 Kahn, R.L., 24, 30, 1 15 Kalkman, W ., 67 Kanawaty, G., 80 Kaplan, R.S., 184 Karasek, R., 94 Karlsen, J.I., 124, 125 Karlsson, U., 35, 43

Kasvio, A., 76 Katz, D., 24, 30, 1 15 Kauppinen, T., 76 Keidel, R.W., 78, 80 Kelly, J.E., 1 14, 145, 146, 147 Kerkhof, W.H.C., 43 Ketchum, L.D.,10, 43, 77, 80 Kidwell, J., 80 Kiggundu, M.N., 80 King, S.D.M., 24 Kirby, P., 79 Kiviniity, J., 154, 155 Klein, L., 24 Klein, M., 27, 41 Kleingeld, P.A.M., 151 Klisurich, D., 26 Koehler, W., 27, 28 Koen, M.M., 67 Koestler, A., 13 Kohler, W., 27, 28 Kolodny, H.F., 77, 98, 101, 1 10, 1 1 1 Kommers, J.C.M.J., 66 Kotler, P., 104 Krishnan, R., 79 Kuipers, H., 24, 138 Kumpe, T., 64 Kunst, P.E .J., 67, 151 Kuriloff, A.H., 25 Kusterer, K.C., 73 Landen, D.L., 43 Landre, C.J.W., 65, 67 Lang, R., 29 Lansbury, R., 76 Laplace, P.S. de, 136 Larsen, H.H., 43 Laszlo, E., 94 Lautmann, J., 162 Lawler Ill, E.E., 39 Lawrence, P.R., 168 Lederer, K.G., 43 Lefebvre, C., 43 Legros, M., 43 Lehner, F., 154

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Name Index

Lewin, K., 16, 25, 26, 27, 71, 82 Lichtenberg, A., 67 Lilienfeld, R., 137 Lindholm, R., 35 Lippitt, R., 16, 26 Litterer, J.A., 137 Liu, M., 5 Loeffen, J.M.J., 65, 67, 105, 150 Logue, G., 43 Lorenz, E.N., 95 Lorsch, J.W., 43, 168 Luhmann, N., 58, 61, 71, 90, 169, 170, 171, 177, 190 Lytle, W.O., 77 Maassen, H., 67 MacKenzie, A., 56 Macy, B.A., 97 Maier, N.R.F., 26 Marek, J., 32, 33 Markus, M.L., 43 Masaaki, I., 188 Maslow, A., 160 May, J., 94 May, R.M., 95 Mayo, E., 9 McCann, J.E., 39, 152 McCarthy, T., 190 McGregor, D., 160 McGuinty, P., 78 Meek, C., 78 Melcher, A.J., 85, 86 Melman, S., 24 Menzies, I.E.P., 29 Merton, R.K., 85 Miller, E.C., 43 Miller, E.J., 24, 29, 30, 94, 115, 160 Mills, T., 55 Montuori, A., 95 Morgan, G., 120, 121 Morley, D., 18, 153 Mulder, M., 52 Mumford, E., 43, 56, 97, 98 Murray, H., 24, 30

297

Nagel, E., 28 Naschold, F., 148, 173, 187, 190 NCDC, 53 Newton, 1., 136 Nicolis, G., 94 Nieuwenhuizen, H.J., 67 Nilakant, V., 47, 55 Nilsson, K., 68 Nilsson, P., 68 Norstedt, J.P., 35, 43 0degaard, L.A., 53 Oldham, G.R., 39 Otten, J.H.M., 67 Parker, M., 187 Parsons, T., 159, 160, 161, 166 Pasmore, W.A., 41, 77, 90, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 140, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148 Pateman, C., 173 Pattee, H.H., 136 Pava, C., 76, 77, 96, 97, 98, 129, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 195 Peat, F., 95 Peirce, C.S., 84, 85, 87 Pepper, S.C., 82, 87, 138 Philips, G., 67 Pionet, F., 43 Pleij, F.J., 67, 151 Pollock, A.B., 24 Porras, J.l., 106 Pot, F.D., 94, 106 Poza, E.J., 43 Prigogine, I., 28, 89, 94, 95, 136 Pritchard, R.D., 151 Purser, R.E., 77, 90, 94, 95, 96 Qvale, T.U., 47, 48, 55, 69, 73 Radke, M., 26 Rao, V.R., 47, 55 Rapoport, R.N., 25 Rashevsky, N., 136 Reeken, T. van, 152 Rice, A.K., 24, 26, 29, 30, 31, 76, 94, 1 14, 115, 160 Riegler, C., 35

298

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Name Index

Roberts, H.J.E., 67, 151 Robison, D., 43 Roggema, J., 33, 43, 55 ', Rogne, K., 55 Rolloy, G., 43 Roos, J.P., 50 Roux, W., 27, 28 Rundell, C.R., 43 Rutte, C.G ., 138 Ryste, Q., 73 Sandberg, A., 55 Schallock, B., 5 Scholes, J., 13 S ch5n, D.A., 42, 49 Schlitzberger, H.H., 43 SchrOder, P., 5 SchrOdinger, E., 28 Schumacher, E.F., 106 Schumacher, P.C., 35 Schumpeter, J., 171 Schtitzenberger, M.P., 28 Selsky, W.J., 39, 152 Selznick, P., 53 Sena, J.A . , 79 Shani, A.B., 77, 79, 140, 141 Shaw, R., 87 Shepherd, V.W., 24 Sherwood, J.J., 140 Shils, E.A., 159 Sievers, B., 58, 1 77 Simonse, L., 67, 152 Singer Jr, E.A., 28 Sinten, L. van, 67 Sitter, L.U. de, 7, 1 7, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 64, 65, 66, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 98, 1 01 , 105, 109, 125, 127, 128, 129, 132, 134, 135, 136, 137, 142, 143, 144, 145, 150, 157, 158-184 Skinner, B.F., 136 Slaughter, J., 187 Sluijs, E. van, 152 Smith, F., 24 Smets, P., 58

Soderberg, G., 35 Sol, E.J., 153 Sommerhoff, G., 27, 28, 32, 38, 83, 87, 89, 136 Spencer-Brown, L., 82 Spiegelman, S., 28 Srivastva, S., 24, 39, 41, 97, 98, 140, 145 Stalker, G.M., 162 Stanley, J., 147 Stengers, I., 95 Stjemberg, T., 77, 98, 101, 1 10, 1 1 1 Strauss, A., 151 Strien, P.J. van, 12, 16, 96, 102, 130 Sullivan, C.S., 43 Susman, G.I., 38, 40, 41, 42, 140, 141 Taylor, J.C., 31, 44, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 96, 97, 99, 101, 140, 141, 145 Taylor, F.W., 9, 23 Terra, N., 67 Terwisga, H.B. van, 152 Teubner, G., 190 Thissen, P ., 94 Thompson, J.D ., 167, 177 Thorsrud, E., 17, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 46, 49, 55, 56, 97, 98, 101, 114, 141, 144 Tolman, E.C., 38 Tomkins, S.S., 28 Trebesh, K., 5 Trist, E.L ., 10, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 48, 53, 76, 77, 78, 80, 97, 98, 102, 114, 128, 134, 137, 140, 152 Tuijl, H.F.J.M. van, 151 Turvey, M.T., 87 Veld, J. in 't, 43, 102, 130 Vermeulen, A.A.M., 59, 90 Verschuur, F., 67 Vogelzangs, H., 67 Vossen, H.P, 67 Vries, E. de, 43, 97 Walfish, B., 43

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Name Index

Wall, T.D., 145 Walton, R.E., 43, 145 Warnecke, H.J.E., 43 Warner, R., 96 Weber, M., 9, 159 Weick, K.E., 167, 177 Weiner, N., 27, 28 Weir, M., 43, 56, 98 Weisbord, M.R., 78, 79 Wellins, R S., 80 Westelaken, J.J.M. van de, 67 Wester, Ph., 43 Westerlund, G., 25 White, R.K., 16, 26 White, T., 78 Wiener, N., 28 Williams, K., 153, 155 Williams, T.A., 51, 52 Wilpert, B., 29 Wilson. A.T.M., 24, 25, 29, 30 Wisman, P.J.G., 64, 106 Witte, J. de, 106 Wobbe, W., 154 Womack, J.P., 6, 153, 154, 185, 187, 193 Woodward, }., 168 Wright, S., 18, 153 Zelst, J.B. van, 67 Ziegenfuss, J.T., 97 Zuboff, S., 194 Zwaan, A.H. van der, 58, 59, 90, 132, 137, 138, 144 .

299

300

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - List of Abbreviations

List of Abbreviations AFPS

Approach to Flexible Productive Systems (IOR approach)

AuT

Labour and Work Programme, Germany

APS

Anthropocentric Production System

C

Control structure (IOR approach)

DC

Dialogue Conference method (DD approach)

CD

DD

DHR

DO

Doe

Company Development contract, Norway

Democratic Dialogue approach

Development of Human Resources workshop (PD approach)

Development Organization approach (DD approach) Document

ETHICS Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer GST

Systems

General Systems Theory

HABUT The Basic Agreement's Company Development Measures

Hd.A

Humanization of Work programme, Germany

HRM

Human Resource Mobilization

ID

Industrial Democracy

IOR

Integral Organizational Renewal

HIM

I

IMVP

Human Integrated Manufacturing

Information structure (IOR approach) International Motor Vehicle Programme

JIT

Just-in-Time

LMC

Labour-Management Committee

JOY

Finnish program on Leadership, Organization and Cooperation

LOM

Leadership, Organization and eo-determination

MBA

Master of Business Administration

LP

Lean Production

NKWO Dutch Foundation for the Promotion of the Quality of Work and NL

OD

ORD P

PD

Organization, Den Bosch, The Netherlands

The Netherlands

Organization Development

Strategic Organizational Review and Design framework (North-

American Consultancy)

Production structure (IOR approach) Participative Design

ProMES Productivity Measurement and Enhancement System QWL

Quality of Working Life

R&D

Research and Development

SBA

Norwegian Work Life Centre, Oslo, Norway

SA

SCSTS

Systems Analysis (IOR approach)

Some Characteristics of Socio-Technical Systems

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - List of Abbreviations

SDT So-Tech SSM STPA STSD STIA SPS · SSTN TAO Tavvy TIED TQC UHD UK us

USA

301

Self-Directed Team Human-oriented technological design p rogramme, Germany Soft Systems Methodology Socio-Technical Process Analysis (IOR approach) Socio-Technical Systems Design Socio-Technical Task Analysis (IOR Approach) Semi-Parallel Streams technique (IOR approach) Dutch Foundation for Socio-Technical Systems Design Research stimulation programme Technology, Work and Organiz­ ation, Rotterdam/Maastricht, The Netherlands Tavistock Institute of Human Relations, London, UK Technical/Information/Error /Direction activity-linkage technique (IOR approach) Total Quality Control Associate Professor (NL) United Kingdom United States United States of America

Appendix A Full Bibliography Qf English-Language Literature Concerning the Socio-Technical Systems Design (STSD) Paradigm Release FBEL 04T, by Frans M. van Eijnatten, April 1993 Micro Floppy Disk User Manual Corien T.A. de Goffau

1.

Introduction

This user manual facilitates the use of the micro floppy disk (release FBEL 04T), that contains a full STSD bibliography (N=2685) and an application programme by Stephan J.C. Egger­ mont.

2.

What do you need when using this programme?

To use this programme you need a MS-DOS Personal Com­ puter with a 3 1/2 inch, 720 Kb floppy disk drive and 640 Kb of RAM. The programme uses a mouse and colour if available. If there is not enough RAM available, the programme still will run, but will not be able to load the full bibliography. Only the first references are loaded in that case.

3.

G etti ng

started

Make a copy of the floppy disk and use that to work with. Put the original in a safe place, preferably not close to your computer, and write-protect it. You can run the programme from your hard disk as well as from a floppy disk. To run the programme from your hard disk you need 720 Kb of free space on your hard disk. The following shows

Micro Floppy Disk User Manual

303

you how to run the programme m these two ways: The text between the square brackets [] should be typed literally, and should be followed by pressing the <ENTER> or key.

Hard disk

- Insert the floppy disk m your floppy drive - Create a directory on the hard disk for your programme - Copy the files from the floppy disk to this directory - Go to this directory - Start the programme

Command [md stsd] [copy a:*.* stsd] [cd stsd] [stsd]

Floppy disk

- Put the floppy disk m your floppy drive - Start the programme

4.

[a: stsd]

The first part of the programme: Information

The start-up screen is shown. It gives you a choice between looking at some general information, looking at the help infor­ mation, or starting to use the bibliography. this shows some screens containing infor­ mation about the bibliography and the correspondence address of the author. Help this shows some screens explaining how to use the pro­ gramme. Start Bibliography this starts the second part of the pro­ gramme.

- General information

-

-

-

-

Typing the first letter of the item will start the corre­ sponding part of the programme. With both General Information and Help, the first page is shown. To move to the next pages, press a key or click a button of the mouse. At the last page, this action will show you the start-up screen agam.

304

5.

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Appendix

The second part of the programme: The Electronic Biblio­ graphy

5.1

General aspects

While you are reading the first p art of the programme, the programme loads the references from file STSDFulL At the moment you see the bibliography on the screen the program may not have finished loading. You must wait until all references are loaded before you can use the menus. All references are loaded when the last number of the line at the top of the screen reads 2685. Functions work satisfactorily once all the references have been loaded. At the top of the screen there is a line.

First, we will explain the right side of the line; Explanation of the left side (menu bar) can be found in the following paragraph. At the right of the line there stands 'All' or ' S el'. It shows that you are working with a selection of references or with all the references. The numb ers to the left of 'All' or 'Sel' are divided in two pairs. The left pair shows numbers belonging to the selection. The right pair refers to all references. The first number of a pair indicates the current reference. The second number indicates the total amount of references in this group. Example:

7/ 1 0/ 20!2685 All.

You are now looking at the group containing all references. The right pair of numbers tells you that this contains 2685 references. The one that is currently shown on screen is the 20th one.

Micro Floppy Disk User Manual

305

At the same time the left pair of numbers indicates, that you can select from 10 references. If you switch from the 'All' to 'Sel' view, you will see reference number 7. 5.2

The Menu bar

On the left of the line located at the top of the screen, you see the menu bar. You can choose which menu you want to see by positioning the cursor over the menus titles in the menu bar and clicking the button of the mouse. When not using the mouse, you have to press together with the red highlighted letter of the command you are searching for. Within a menu, you can select a menu item by pressing the letter that is highlighted.

Menu

Please note, the b old-style letter in the text is the red highlighted letter in the programme. Also, you can 'walk' through the menu with the help of the arrow-keys. 5.2.1

The '='-menu =

About Help About - provides you with information concerning the amount of memory that is still available.

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Appendix

306

Help 5.2.2

provides information concerning how to use the system.

The 'File'-men�

lets you choose which literature reference file to open. A file selection dialog box is opened. In this dialog box you see a list of files, drives and directories in a window, next to it a scroll bar, and above it, the current path. Open -

File I Open Export Quit

A: \ B:\ C:\ STSD MSDOS TEXT : STSDFULL.BIB STSDLIST.BIB COMMAND.COM

DRIVE DRIVE DRIVE DIR DIR DIR

·

A file can be selected both by using the mouse or the keyboard: if the file name is visible in the 'window' position the

Mouse

-

Micro Floppy Disk User Manual

307

cursor and click the mouse button. If the file is in the current directory (the path name is shown just above the window, in this example 'C: \ ') you can scroll the list of filenames by clicking the mouse button while the cursor is p ositioned in the scroll bar. Triangles scroll one line at a time, between the white rectangle and the triangles scrolls a window-full.

with the arrow-up and -down keys a file in the current window can be selected. If the currently selected one is near the top /bottom of the window, the list of file names scrolls a line up I down. With the Page-up I down keys the list scrolls a window­ full up or down. The selected file can be opened by pressing <ENTER> or clicking on 'Ok'. If you don't want to open a file, press <ESC> or click on 'Cancel'. If the selected 'file' has 'DRIVE' at the end of the line, opening it changes the current drive to the selected one, and a new list of files appears. If the selected 'file ' has ' DIR' at the end of the line, opening it changes the current path to thal; directory, and a new list of files appears. ' . ' is the current directory, ' . . ' is one level back. In the ex ample, the file 'STSDFUL L . B I B ' is currently selected. Keyboard -

Export

-

allows you to create a file for use in Wordperfect, Micro-

308

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Appendix

soft Word (rtf) or a database. The three words on the left indicate the type of file you wish to make: rtf

- is the interchange format from Microsoft, used in Word;

dbase - is a format in which the field-delimiter is a tab and the record-delimiter is a carriage return; wp - is the format of Wordperfect version 5.0.

Export Settings

rtf

all

dbase

selection

wp

o ne

· I Cancel ! � In 'rtf' and 'wp', the references will appear in an APA-standard layout. The three words on the left indicate which references are to be exported:

all - means the whole list of references; selection - means the selection; one - means the current reference. You can change these settings by: - clicking the mouse on the word; - clicking the first letter of the word; - moving the cursor with the arrow keys to the word and pressing the space bar.

Micro Floppy Disk User Manual

309

When you have made the required changes, press <ENTER> or click with the mouse on 'OK' . If you don't want to make the changes to how and where to search, press <ESC> or click with the mouse on ' C a ncel'. In the example, 'rtf' is selected and the 'selection' of references. You are then requested to enter the name of the file to export to. You can cancel by pressing <ESC> or press <ENTER> to continue. Once the file has been created, you can start the pro­ gramme you exported to, and load the file. Quit - stops the programme. 5.2.3

The 'View'-menu

- will show the current reference of the selection on the screen, if you have made a selection of references (the second number indicated at the right hand of line, on the screen, should b e larger than zero) . All - indicates the current reference of all references. Selection

5.2.4

The ' S election'-menu

urrent to Delete Current from Clear All adds the current reference to the selec­ tion, if it isn't already in it. It is inserted at the end. D e l e te C u rrent from - removes the current reference from the selection. Clear All - empties the selection. Add Current to

-

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Appendix

310

5.2.5

The 'Find One'-menu

From Start ;,. ,requests a string of characters to look for. The search is started at the first reference of all or the selection, depending on the view. From Current - does the same thing but starts the search at the current reference.

Find One I From Start From Current Next Change Settings behaves similar to 'From Current' but doesn't ask for a string if it has already been given one. Change S ettings - allows you to decide where and how to search. The standard setting is to search in all fields, ignoring the case of whole words, in the whole field. You can restrict the search to certain fields of the references by (de)selecting them. A field is (de) selected by: Next -

- positioning the cursor over the field and clicking a button of the mouse; - moving the cursor towards the field with the arrow-keys and pressing the space bar. There are three fields that decide how to search: indicates that the string to be searched for must be at the beginning of a field (e.g. when 'the' is the string to be searched for, a book with title 'the beginning' is selected, but a book with the title 'What is the worst thing to do?' not). Ignore case makes no distinction between capitals and lowercase letters (e.g. 'the' as search string also finds 'tHE' and 'ThE'). Whole words only - means the string to find may not be followed or preceded by a letter. (e.g. when searching for 'the' 'then' is From start of field

-

-

Micro Floppy Disk User Manual

311

ignored).

When y o u have m a d e y our desired changes, p ress <ENTER> or click with the mouse on 'OK'. If you don't want to make the changes to how and where to search, press <ESC> or click with the mouse on 'Cancel' . I n the picture the whole fields ' author' and 'editor' are searched for whole words only. A distinction is made between capitals and lowercase letters. 5.2.6

The 'Find All'-menu

Add to Selection searches all references for a string. Those references that c ontain the string are added to the selection. -

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Appendix

312

- searches the selection of references for a string and removes· those that do not contain the string. Restrict S e l e c t i o n to

Find Ali i Add to Selection Restrict Selection to Delete from Selection Change Settings D elete from S election - searches the selection of references for a string and removes the ones that contain the string. Change S ettings is used in the same way as the item 'Change Settings' of the 'Find One' menu. The settings from 'Find One' and 'Find All' are independent. -

5.2.7

The ' Sort'-menu

Sort I Selection All

Change Settings - sorts the selection of references. All sorts all references. Change S ettings - allows you to influence the sorting criteria. The standard setting is similar to that used by the APA. You can combine fields to 3 strings that are used to compare references. Comparisons between references are made initially with string 1. If they are equal, with string 2, and eventually, with string 3. A string is made by selecting (a) field(s) in a specific order. (De)selection can be completed by: S election -

- Pointing the mouse at the field and pressing a button. - Moving the cursor towards the field by using the arrow-keys and

Micro Floppy Disk User Manual

313

pressing the space bar.

The numbers situated in front of the field indicates the order in which the fields are concatenated. Also, there are four additional fields for each string that influ­ ences sorting: Ascending - indicates that you want the references to be ascending (e.g. 'Alpha' comes before 'Beta'). If it is not selected, sorting,

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Appendix

314

descends.

Smart numbers - provides the posibility to conduct numeric sorting of numbers. lf\t is selected, '199' comes before '1900'. Otherwise a character for character comparison is concluded, so that the third character '9' follows after '0' thus '199' follows after '1900'. Smart names - places references with one author or editor, before those with two, and before the ones with three,·· ·,six. Empty first - places the references from the string that is empty, before those with a non-empty one.

The standard setting is: string 1: author 1, editor 2; string 2: year 1; string 3: article 1, book 2; For all three: ascending, smart numbers, and smart names, empty first. When y o u have made your desired changes, press <ENTER> or click with the mouse on 'OK'. If you don't want to make the changes to how and where to search, press <ESC> or click with the mouse on 'Cancel'. 5.3

Elaborated examples

Goal - creates a list of all articles with 'socio-technical' in the title, published in 1991 and uses them in Wordperfect. Steps after all references are loaded: -

-

'Change Settings' in the 'Find All' menu; deselect all reference fields except 'article'; press <ENTER>; 'Add to Selection' in the 'Find All' menu; 'socio-technical' <ENTER>; 'Change Settings' in the 'Find All' menu; deselect 'article', select 'year'; press <ENTER>; 'Restrict Selection to' in the 'Find All' menu; '1991 '<ENTER>;

Micro Floppy Disk User Manual

-

315

'Export' in the 'File' menu; press W for Wordperfect; press S for selection; enter a file name e.g. [stsd-art9l .wp ]; 'Quit' in the 'File' menu; start Wordperfect; op en the file.

Now you can use the file as a normal Wordperfect document. Goal - creates a historical overview of the STSD publi­ cations for use with Microsoft Word. Steps - after all references are loaded: - 'Change Settings' in the 'Sort' menu; - d eselect ' author' and 'editor' in the 'first string' p art of the field list by moving down with the arrow-down key and pressing the space bar; - select 'year' in the 'first string' part in the same way.

To keep all other references in the same order as they were, a second and third string have to be defined: - deselect 'year' in the 'second string' part, and select 'author' and 'year'; - the 'third string' already contains ' article' and 'book', therefore requires no changes; - 'Export' in the 'File' menu; - press R for the rtf format for Word; - press A for all references; - enter a file name e.g. [stsd-art9l .rtf]; - 'Quit' in the 'File' menu; - start Word; - open the file. 5.4

Error mess ages. When an error occurs, the programme may show a number of

316

The Paradigm that Changed the Work Place - Appendix

messages. They are displayed on the bottom line of the screen. File not found - appears when the programme is unable to find the file containing th�references. Choose 'Open' in the 'File' menu to locate the file. Path not found - means there is an error in the path. Too many op en files - means you should increase the number of files allowed to be open at the same time in your config.sys file. File access denied - means the programme cannot open the file because the attributes say it is protected. Invalid file handle - should never happen. There might be a con­ flict with other programmes running in the background or a hard. ware problem. Invalid file access code - should also never happen. Invalid drive number - means you have entered a drive name that does not exist. Disk read error - and Disk write error - can be caused by: - removing the floppy from the disk drive while the programme is reading/writing from it; - a damaged floppy disk; - a damaged floppy disk drive; - a damaged floppy controller. File not assigned, File not open, File not open for input File not open for output

and

should never happen.

Other errors are indicated by Error typ e: and a number. This number is the 'error value' from MS-DOS interrupt 2lh.

If you still have difficulties with operating the programme, please consult a colleague or an in-house computer expert. They can solve the problem for you!