Socially oriented approaches to work systems design are increasingly important as new and disruptive technologies become more prevalent. Existing approaches used by organisations to integrate such technologies are often techno-centric and do not adequately consider human issues. Sociotechnical systems (STS) tools are intended to ensure that the technical and organisational aspects of a system are considered together, and given equal attention. However, they are predominately applied late in the design process, limiting their impact. In this article, we outline an STS approach to the early-phase development of a complex work system. The case study illuminates how an STS approach can facilitate the inclusion of socially oriented factors into the design process. We close with recommendations to guide the early-phase application of STS principles in other industries and contexts.
AbrasCMaloney-KrichmarDPreeceJ (2004) User-centered design. In: BainbridgeW (ed.) Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 445–456.
2.
AguinisHNeslerMSHosodaM, et al. (1994) The use of influence tactics in persuasion. Journal of Social Psychology134: 429–438.
3.
BaxterGSommervilleI (2011) Interacting with computers socio-technical systems: From design methods to systems engineering. Interacting with Computers23: 4–17.
4.
BinderJ (2016) Global Project Management: Communication, Collaboration and Management Across Borders. Abingdon: Routledge.
5.
BloebaumCLMcGowanAMR (2012) The design of large-scale complex engineered systems: Present challenges and future promise. In: 12th AIAA aviation technology, integration and operations (ATIO) Conference and 14th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Indianapolis, IN, 17–19 September, pp. 1–19. Red Hook, NY: Curran Associates, Inc.
6.
BrydeDJRobinsonL (2005) Client versus contractor perspectives on project success criteria. International Journal of Project Management23: 622–629.
7.
BurkeLABaldwinTT (1999) Workforce training transfer: A study of the effect of relapse prevention training and transfer climate. Human Resource Management38: 227–242.
8.
CascioWFMontealegreR (2016) How technology is changing work and organizations. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior3: 349–375.
9.
ChinyioEAAkintoyeA (2008) Practical approaches for engaging stakeholders: Findings from the UK. Construction Management and Economics26: 591–599.
10.
CleggCW (2000) Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics31: 463–477.
11.
CleggCColemanPHornbyP, et al. (1996) Tools to incorporate some psychological and organizational issues during the development of computer-based systems. Ergonomics39: 482–511.
12.
DavisMCChallengerRJayewardeneDNW, et al. (2014) Advancing socio-technical systems thinking : A call for bravery. Applied Ergonomics45: 171–180.
13.
DohertyNF (2014) The role of socio-technical principles in leveraging meaningful benefits from IT investments. Applied Ergonomics45: 181–187.
14.
GassonS (2003) Human-centered vs. user-centered approaches to information system design. Journal of Information Technology Theory and Application5: 29–46.
15.
GoldschmidtGSmolkovM (2006) Variances in the impact of visual stimuli on design problem solving performance. Design Studies27: 549–569.
16.
GriffithsG (2002) Technology and Applications of Autonomous Underwater Vehicles. London: CRC Press.
17.
GroteGRyserCWaflerT, et al. (2000) KOMPASS : A method for complementary function allocation in automated work systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies52: 267–287.
18.
HerzigSJIQamarAReichweinA, et al. (2011) A conceptual framework for consistency management in model-based systems engineering. In: ASME 2011 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference, Washington, DC, 29–31August, pp. 1329–1339. New York: American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection.
19.
HirshornS (2016) NASA System Engineering Handbook SP-2016-6105, Rev2: 297.
20.
HughesHPNCleggCWBoltonLE, et al. (2017) Systems scenarios: A tool for facilitating the socio-technical design of work systems. Ergonomics60: 1319–1335.
21.
JohnsonCW (2006) What are emergent properties and how do they affect the engineering of complex systems?Reliability Engineering and System Safety91: 1475–1481.
22.
KillgoreWDS (2010) Effects of sleep deprivation on cognition. Progress in Brain Research185: 105–129.
23.
LawrenceAT (2002) The drivers of stakeholder engagement: Reflections on the case of Royal Dutch/Shell. Journal of Corporate Citizenship6: 71–85.
24.
LeeDRSweeneyPJ (2001) An assessment of influence tactics used by project managers. EMJ – Engineering Management Journal13: 16–24.
25.
LewisCRiemanJ (1994) Evaluating the design without users. Task-Centered User Interface Design: A Practical Introduction. Available at: http://hcibib.org/tcuid/tcuid.pdf
26.
LightseyB (2001) Systems Engineering Fundamentals. Fort Belvoir, VA: Defense Acquisition University Press, pp. 1–223.
27.
LiuDMacchiarellaNDVincenziDA (2009) Simulation fidelity. In: VincenziDAWiseJAMoulouaM, et al. (eds) Human Factors in Simulation and Training. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, pp. 61–73.
28.
McGowanAMRDalySBakerW, et al. (2013) A socio-technical perspective on interdisciplinary interactions during the development of complex engineered systems. Procedia Computer Science16: 1142–1151.
29.
MajchrzakAFinleyL (1995) A practical theory and tool for specifying sociotechnical requirements to achieve organizational effectiveness. In: BendersJde HaanJBennettD (eds) The Symbiosis of Work and Technology. London: Taylor and Francis, pp. 95–115.
MumfordE (2006) The story of socio-technical design: Reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Information System Journal16: 317–342.
32.
NadinSJWatersonPEParkerSK (2001) Participation in job redesign: An evaluation of the use of a sociotechnical tool and its impact. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing11: 53–69.
33.
NarulaR (2014) Globalization and Technology: Interdependence, Innovation Systems and Industrial Policy. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
34.
ObergJ (1999) Why the Mars probe went off course [accident investigation]. IEEE Spectrum36: 34–39.
35.
ParkerSKGroteG (in press) Automation, algorithms, and beyond: Why work design matters more than ever in a digital world. Applied Psychology: An International Review. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/apps.12241
36.
ParkerSKAndreiDMVan den BroeckA (2019) Poor work design begets poor work design: Capacity and willingness antecedents of individual work design behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology104: 907–928.
ReadGJMSalmonPMLennéMG, et al. (2015) Designing sociotechnical systems with cognitive work analysis: Putting theory back into practice. Ergonomics 58: 822–851.
39.
RebitzerGEkvallTFrischknechtR, et al. (2004) Life cycle assessment: Part 1: Framework, goal and scope definition, inventory analysis, and applications. Environment International30: 701–720.
40.
RoedlerGRhodesDHSchimmollerH, et al. (2007) Systems Engineering Leading Indicators Guide. Seattle, WA. INCOSE. INCOSE-TP-2005-001-03. Version 1.
41.
RogersWPArmstrongNAAchesonDC (1986) Report to the President by the Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger accident. Washington, DC: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Report No. AD-A171402.
42.
ShamiehC (2011) Systems Engineering for Dummies. Indianapolis, IN: John Wiley & Sons.
43.
SharpHFinkelsteinAGalalG (1999) Stakeholder identification in the requirements engineering process. In: Proceedings of the 10th international workshop on database and expert systems applications. DEXA 99, Florence, 30 August–3 September, pp. 387–391. New York: IEEE.
44.
SpencerR (2000) The streamlined cognitive walkthrough method, working around social constraints encountered in a software development company. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, The Hauge, ZH, 1–6 April, pp. 353–359. New York: ACM.
45.
SweetDNManikondaVAronsonJS, et al. (2002) Fast-time simulation system for analysis of advanced air transportation concepts. In: Proceedings of the AIAA modeling and simulation technologies conference, Monterey, CA, 5–8 August, pp. 1–10. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2002-4593
46.
TaysomECrillyN (2017) Resilience in sociotechnical systems: The perspectives of multiple stakeholders. The Journal of Design, Economics and Innovation3: 165–182.
47.
ThamhainHJGemmillGR (1974) Influence styles of project managers: Some project performance Correlates. The Academy of Management Journal17: 216–224.
48.
VincentiWG (1990) What Engineers Know and How They Know It. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
49.
VogelsmeierAAHalbeslebenJRBScott-CawiezellJR (2008) Technology implementation and workarounds in the nursing home. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association15: 114–119.
50.
WatersonPRobertsonMMCookeNJ, et al. (2015) Defining the methodological challenges and opportunities for an effective science of sociotechnical systems and safety. Ergonomics58: 565–599.
51.
YbemaSYanowDWelsH, et al. (2009) Studying everyday organizational life. In: YbemaSYanowDWelsH, et al. (eds) Organizational Ethnography: Studying the Complexities of Everyday Life. London: SAGE, pp. 1–20.
52.
YoungMSStantonNA (2002) Malleable attentional resources theory: A new explanation for the effects of mental underload on performance. Human Factors44: 365–375.
