Advertisement

Revisiting the Sociotechnical Principles for System Design (Clegg, 2000)

  • Patrick Waterson
  • Ken Eason
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

In this paper we reflect upon and re-examine the impact of one of the most influential papers in recent years in the field of sociotechnical systems design (Clegg, 2000). In particular, we look at the influence the paper has had upon a diverse range of researchers (e.g., citation patterns, the extent to which the ideas in the paper have been taken up by disciplines outside of human factors/ergonomics); carry out an evaluation of the extent to which the STS principles have stood the test of time and areas where they may need to be modified in the light of new developments within systems ergonomics (e.g., complexity theory, cybernetics), technology (e.g., the internet of things, automation and robotics) and wider society (e.g., globalization, climate change). The paper concludes with a section covering the future of STS and potential ways in which the principles could be taken forward and modified in order to cope with new developments in human factors/ergonomics and elsewhere.

Keywords

Sociotechnical systems Complexity System design 

References

  1. 1.
    Clegg CW (2000) Sociotechnical principles for system design. Appl Ergon 31:463–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wilson JR (2000) Fundamentals of ergonomics in theory and practice. Appl Ergon 31:557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carayon P (2006) Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems. Appl Ergon 37:525–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eason KD (2007) Local sociotechnical systems development in the NHS national programme for information technology. J Inf Technol 22:257–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Trist EL, Bamforth KW (1951) Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal getting. Hum Relat 4:3–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cherns A (1976) The principles of sociotechnical design. Hum Relat 9:783–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cherns A (1976) The principles of sociotechnical design revisited. Hum Relat 9(3):153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Waterson PE, Clegg CW, Robinson M (2014) Trade-offs between reliability, validity and utility in the development of human factors methods. In: Broberg O, Fallentin N, Hasle P, Jensen PL, Kabel A, Larsen ME, Weller T (eds) Human factors in organizational design and management XI. IEA Press, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thatcher A, Waterson PE, Todd A (2017) State of science: ergonomics and global issues. Ergonomics 61(2):197–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wall TD, Clegg CW (1981) A longitudinal field study of group work redesign. J Occup Behav 2:31–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Clegg CW (1983) Psychology of employee lateness, absence and turnover: a methodological critique and an empirical study. J Appl Psychol 68(1):88–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Waterson PE, Clegg CW, Axtell CM (1997) The dynamics of work organization, knowledge and technology during software development. Int J Hum Comput Stud 46:79–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Clegg CW (1984) The derivation of job designs. J Occup Behav 5:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Emery F (1993) The nine step model. In: Trist E, Murray H (eds) The social engagement of social sciences, vol II. The socio-technical perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, pp 569–579Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mumford E (2000) A socio-technical approach to systems design. Requir Eng 5:125–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Avison DE, Wood-Harper AT (1990) Multiview - an exploration in information system development. Alfred Waller, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Waterson PE (2014) Health information technology and sociotechnical systems: a progress report on recent developments within the UK National Health Service (NHS). Appl Ergon Part A 2:150–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    King A, Crewe E (2013) The blunders of our governments. One World Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Digital by design (2103) The Bolton alcohol relapse prevention project. The health foundation, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hoare A (2016) Factors affecting the move to an eSystems approach to remote care delivery. In: IEEE proceedings of DESE 2016 (developments in e-Systems engineering), Liverpool, September 2016Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human Factors and Complex Systems GroupLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations