Socio-technical systems theory contributions to work environments and contemporary relevance

Sociotechnical System Theory

Contributions of Socio-Technical Systems Theory to the Work Environment of the 21st Century

The role of Socio-Technical Systems Theory (STS) continues to be a galvanizing factor in the planning, development, implementation and continual fine-tuning of enterprise systems worldwide. Pursuing cost reductions through the use of manufacturing economies of scale and advanced lean process management techniques within organizations is paradoxically leading them into even greater conflicts internally how to attain balance of their STS-based initiatives (Kim, Kaplan, 2006). STS-based initiatives based on transformational leadership within the best-performing companies have shown potential to overcome the over-reliance on technical subsystems that by using technologies to make social systems more accurate, accelerated and trust-based (Amrit, Van Hillegersberg, 2010). The intent of this analysis is to evaluate how enterprise software platforms including Enterprise Resource Planning Systems (ERP) over time dictate the culture of an organization based on the information flows supported or not (Das, Jayaram, 2007). This is why many manufacturing companies fail to stay in step with the needs of their customers, as they continually are struggling to make their own internal systems reflect external reality. For the manufacturers who can manage this transition, they are able to survive in turbulent industries. STS-based frameworks are invaluable in defining why certain companies in general and manufacturers specifically are able to regain agility and stay focused on market dynamics while others wither and eventually exist markets and eventually go out of business. The premise of companies who are able to manage uncertainty and turbulence is that they have used STS-based concepts to balance their social and technical subsystems without overcompensating on either. An ancillary finding from completing this analysis is that the cultural integrity and resiliency of any organization can over time be predicted by the balance of social and technical subsystem balance or equilibrium (Manz, Stewart, 1997). A proposed Socio-Technical Equilibrium Model for Enterprise Systems has been created based on insights from this analysis and is shown in Figure 1. One of the most significant findings is that while data and system integration is often consider essential for enabling greater transaction accuracy, efficiency and process performance it also has a strong cultural effect on social subsystems throughout organizations (Carlsson, Henningsson, Hrastinski, Keller, 2011). The proposed Socio-Technical Equilibrium Model for Enterprise Systems seeks to illustrate graphically how organizations can be more agile and responsive to market requirements by aligning their social and technical subsystems for greater information and knowledge transfer across broad functional and strategic boundaries. The consensus of the research completed for this analysis illustrates how divided and conflicting social and technical subsystems are throughout organizations however (Carlsson, Henningsson, Hrastinski, Keller, 2011). The literature review also highlighted that across all enterprise systems, the ERP platforms had the most divisive effect on corporate cultures, fragmenting them across functional and strategy areas, creating information siloes in the process (Carlsson, Henningsson, Hrastinski, Keller, 2011). Ironically ERP systems have a balkanization effect on companies instead of a unifying one. Using a more equilibrium-based approach to balancing technical and social subsystems throughout an organization by using role-based ERP systems that have systems of record defined by strategy and not by functional areas shows significant potential to avert organizational and cultural clashes that occur when a siloed approach to defining how a given technical subsystem supports socially-based processes. The capability of any organization to overcome the limitations of its it structure and still attain a congruency across technical and social subsystems is critical for STS-based frameworks to deliver value throughout an enterprise (Appelbaum, 1997).

Perspectives on Data and Process Integration and Its Effect on Technical and Social Subsystem Equilibrium

A cornerstone of STS-based frameworks is open architecture and the ability to be agile and responsive to turbulent market forces that have the potential to render an entire organization obsolete (Sharma, Conrath, Dilts, 1991). The extent of openness an organization has however is more the result of cyclical improvement than a single, all-out effort to improve along the dimensions of social and technical subsystem synchronization. Instead the focus in companies that can reach a level of agility and responsiveness are capable of sustaining STS refinement and redefinition given their unique strategic location in a market and industry. This is admittedly difficult to attain across a broad range of it systems and strategies, and is often blocked by fear of change and its implications on the future of individual status and role in an organization (Maton, 1988). Organizations that are able to make the synchronization of technical and social systems part of their DNA or core strengths have learned that enterprise software systems and platforms have a very strong, permanent impact on their cultures and ability to assimilate in best practices of STS frameworks (Manz, Stewart, 1997).

How organizations achieve a measure of synchronization across their many technical and social subsystems is as varied and myriad as the approaches to defining business models and executing them. Just as with ERP systems and the legacy systems they rely on for data to operate, one size does not fit all. Instead, there needs to be a clear enterprise-wide STS framework in place to unify not only the social and technical subsystems, but to put enterprise systems and it architectures into the context of supporting this unification of subsystems into a cohesive strategic platform for growth (Appelbaum, 1997). The ERP systems in use today, under ideal deployments, are the catalysts that unify social and technical subsystems across broad geographic and functional boundaries. The mission of the enterprise becomes the focal point, away from the system and its many political ramifications on information being used as a currency internally (Olsen, Lund, Ellingsen, Hartvigsen, 2012). STS frameworks are meant to break the value or "currency" of knowledge and intelligence out of ERP systems and liberate it across the organization to gain greater agility and responsiveness. The following are the pros and cons of using an ERP platform for unifying social and technical subsystems, their artifacts and sub-processes, and the resultant use of information as an accelerator, not inhibitor, of corporate growth.

The pros or benefits of relying on a centralized ERP system as the platform for setting the foundation for an STS synchronization throughout an enterprise include the following. First, there is a greater chance of creating a cohesive system of record and supports the document theory of the design of socio-technical subsystems (Maton, 1988). The latest generation of ERP systems also have the ability to modify not only the graphical user interface of applications but also the workflows and process definitions (Bloomfield, Vurdubakis, 1994). This translates into the flexibility of unifying the technical and social subsystems including the tools, technologies and strategies into a common basis for strategic development of new initiatives and programs. The unification of the subsystems inherent in STS frameworks through integration at the ERP level also will change the culture of any organization over time, the agility and flexibility or lack of it will lead to advanced levels of STS maturity throughout any organization (Kim, Kaplan, 2006).

Another benefit or pro-of considering ERP systems as the catalyst of unifying balkanized, fragmented STS frameworks throughout an enterprise is the potential that exists for gaining greater knowledge and intelligence on key areas not measurable before. The ability to create a more effective analytics foundation for measuring the extent of contributions by technical/social subsystem coordination and the synergies inherent in each is possible when there is a single system of record (Das, Jayaram, 2007). This is the greatest potential factor in considering how system architecture and workflow-based designs influence the stability and viability of STS frameworks throughout an enterprise (Maton, 1988). The added advantage of tracking overall performance and accumulated effects of social and technical subsystem performance deliver insights into how greater equilibrium can be achieved as well. This finding was one of several contributing factors in the creation of the proposed Socio-Technical Equilibrium Model for Enterprise Systems shown in Figure 1. The extent enterprise-wide systems promote and ensure a high level of agility and information transparency is how effectively they have the potential to make social-technical systems perform at their optimal level. ERP systems will also define the interpersonal, interprocess, data, system integration and ultimately the level of trust attained in a company based on how accurate and credible data is across the many areas of an enterprise.

Skepticism abounds regarding the value of it systems in general and ERP platforms specifically in terms of serving as the unifying factor in socio-technical system design and implementation (Kim, Kaplan, 2006). The foundation of this argument is that ERP systems perpetuate the divisions between social and technical subsystems, often forcing a siloed approach to data and information use. ERP systems can be configured to capture and use knowledge as currency and political value over being the fuel that drives businesses to their goals. ERP systems tend to also promote a strong focus on just one area of a company to the exclusions of all others, further propagating the reputation these systems have for causing more divisiveness than unification in companies (Bloomfield, Vurdubakis, 1994). From that vantage point it is clear that ERP systems may not be able to provide the depth and breath of unification that is possible with more advanced approaches to using it systems.

Another drawback or con of using ERP systems has the catalyst of creating a more unified socio-technical system is the fact that they are often implemented and measured on a department or functional basis first. Interpolating their performance to strategic initiatives has never been particularly easy; using them to unify a sociotechnical system could be daunting. Underscoring these aspects is the need for creating a more effective approach to change management so that equilibrium is attained in each subsystem of a socio-technical system (Manz, Stewart, 1997). Finally, ERP systems are often extremely difficult to customize and upgrade over time, which has made many obsolete, delivering just 60% of the total value of information they are capable of. This is a serious limitation to using them as a means to create greater synchronization and balance between all aspects of a sociotechnical system. Being able to create a more effective strategy for keeping ERP systems relevant is one of the greatest challenges enterprise software companies have today. Increasingly however ERP systems are taking into account the need for business process management (BPM) workflows and designing in technical flexibility to allow for greater change management success levels than had been the case in the past (Taylor, 1998).