MTO Contingency Model for the Transferability of Socio-Technical Methods - The Swiss Kompass Method Applied to the Design and Implementation of Advanced Manufacturing Systems in Australia
Restricted accessReview articleFirst published online July, 2000
MTO Contingency Model for the Transferability of Socio-Technical Methods - The Swiss Kompass Method Applied to the Design and Implementation of Advanced Manufacturing Systems in Australia
Over the last decade the call for new socio-technical tools has resulted in the development of a number of new design methodologies and techniques. Their diffusion has generated increasing interest in their effectiveness and use in different organisational, industrial and cultural contexts. What theoretical and cultural assumptions are built into the methods? How easily can a method be transferred across organisations, industries, cultures ? This paper uses the experience of applying the Swiss KOMPASS method in an Australian company for technological design projects as a basis for discussing the transferability of socio-technical methods.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BadhamR.CouchmanP.McLoughlinI., (1997). Implementing Vulnerable Socio-Technical Change Projects, In McLoughlinJ.HarrisM. (eds), Innovation, Organisational Change and Technology (pp. 146–170). Thomson: London.
2.
BadhamRGarretyKKirschCWaeflerTGroteG (in print). Social science in action: socio-technical tools and the art of collaborative design.
3.
CummingsT. G.BlumbergM. (1987). Advanced manufacturing technology and work design. In WallT.CleggC.KempN. (Eds.), The Human Side of Advanced Manufacturing Technology (pp. 37–60). Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
4.
EdenC.JonesS.SimsD. (1983). messing about in Problems. Pergamon: Oxford.
5.
EdenC. (1993). Strategy developmentt and implementation: Cognitive mapping for group support. In HendryJ.JohnsonG.newtonJ. (eds), Strategic Thinking: Leadership and the Management of Change. Chichester: Wiley.
6.
EdenC.HuxmanC. (1996). Action Research for the Study of Organisations. In CleggS. R.HardyC.NordW.R. (eds), Handbook of Organization Studies (pp 526–542). London: Sage.
7.
EldenM.ChrisholmR.F. (1993). Action Research Special Issue, Human Relations, 46.
8.
GroteG. (1994). A participatory approach to the complementary design of highly automated work systems. In BradleyG.HendrickH.W. (eds.), Human Factors in Organizational Design and Management - IV, (pp 115–120) Amsterdam: Elsevier.
9.
GroteG.WeikS.WäflerT., (1996). KOMPASS: Complementary allocation of pro-duction tasks in socio-technical systems. In RobertsonS.A. (Ed.), Contemporary Ergonomics (pp. 306–311). London: Taylor & Francis. Raeithel, A. (1991). Zur Ethnographie der kooperativen Arbeit. In H. Oberquelle (Hrsg.), Kooperative Arbeit und Computerunterstützung. Stand und Perspektiven (S. 99–111). Göttingen: Verlag für Angewandte Psychologie.
10.
RaeithelA. (1992). Ein kulturhistorischer Blick auf rechnergestützte Arbeit. In CoyW. (Hrsg.), Sichtweisen der Informatik. (S. 125–139). Braunschweig: Vieweg.
11.
SanfordN. (1981). A model for action research., In ReasonP.RowanJ. (eds), Human Inquiry: a Sourcebook of New Paradigm Research (pp. 173–182) Chichester: Wiley. Ulich, E. (1994a), Arbeitspsychologie. 3. Auflage. Zürich: Verlag der Fachvereine vdf; Stuttgart: Schäffer -Poeschel. Wäfler, T., Johansson, A., Grote, G. & Stahre, J. (1997). Complementary interaction of humans and machines in highly automated production systems - KOMPASS and TEAM. In SeppalaP.LuopajarviT.NygardC.MattilaM. (Eds.), From experience to innovation - Proceedings of the 13 th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association, July 1997, Tampere, Finland. Vol. 1 (pp. 277–279). Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health.
