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 -.::!

�

;:! :::.

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 .. �

...

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

�·

�

� ...

§' ..

;·

V>

;:t

C) !:>..

"' � "'! (") C) ;:,: .... "' �

'"..

;:;:. "'

�

* '\::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 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!