Socio-Technical Perspective in IS Development
A Neurobiological Perspective on Socio-Technical
Systems
Lars Taxén
Department of Computer and Information Science,
The Institute of Technology, Linköping University, Sweden
E-mail: lars.taxen@gmail.com
Abstract. The Socio-Technical Systems approach assumes that an organiza-
tional work system can be seen as two independent but tightly correlated sys-
tems – a technical one and a social one. Together, these systems determine the
performance of the work system. However, in spite of decades of research ef-
forts, it is far from clear how to define these systems. Without a firm basis, ana-
lytical and constructive initiatives are bound to become either fragmented or ad-
hoc. To this end, the purpose of this paper is to suggest a neurobiological per-
spective on Socio-Technical Systems. The reason for this seemingly odd point
of departure is quite simple: any conceptualization of Socio-Technical Systems
must ultimately take stock of the sine qua non of our existence as biological
creatures. A fundamental prerequisite for survival is coordination – without co-
ordination, acting in the world is inhibited. Based on many years of coordinat-
ing complex system development tasks in industry, I have proposed the con-
struct of activity modalities – objectivation, contextualization, spatialization,
temporalization, stabilization, and transition – as intrinsic neural predisposi-
tions enabling coordination. This position is elaborated into a particular kind of
work system, called the activity domain. In the activity domain, individual lines
of actions are fit together using means such as IT artifacts and common identifi-
ers to achieve a common goal. Actions are manifested internally as changed
brain structures in individuals, and externally as various artifacts reflecting the
modalities. In conclusion, I claim that this approach indicates a paradigm shift,
which may provide a solid ground for further inquiries into the analysis and
construction of Socio-Technical Systems.
Keywords: Socio-Technical Systems ·work systems · coordination · neurobi-
ology ·activity modalities ·functional organs· equipment · joint action ·common
identifiers · activity domain
1 Introduction
The core of the Socio-Technical Systems (STS) approach is to regard organizational
work as composed of two independent but tightly correlated systems – a technical one
and a social one:
Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 56
Proceedings of STPIS'15
The technical system is concerned with the processes, tasks, and technology needed to
transform inputs to outputs. The social system is concerned with the attributes of people
{e.g., attitudes, skills, values), the relationships among people, reward systems, and au-
thority structures. It is assumed that the outputs of the work system are the result of
joint interactions between these two systems. Thus, any design or redesign of a work
system must deal with both systems in an integrated form [3, pp. 17-18].
However, in spite of decades of research efforts, it is far from clear how to define
these two systems. For example, Baxter & Sommerville state that
There is considerable variation in what people mean by the term socio-technical system
… Nowadays, many different fields have adopted the term, often using their own inter-
pretation—sometimes focusing on the social system, sometimes on the technical, but
rarely on both together [1, p. 8].
STS approaches have long been prominent lines of research in the Information sys-
tems (ISs) discipline [14]. ISs lie at the intersection of people, organizations, and
technology [18], and have from the discipline’s outset been regarded as socio-
technical systems. For example, Goldkuhl and Lyytinen suggest that ISs should be
analyzed as “social systems, only technically implemented” [8, p. 14]. A more recent
research stream is centered on the concept of “sociomateriality”, which is a reaction
against the conspicuous absence of technology in organizational research [15]. Soci-
omateriality posits “the inherent inseparability between the technical and the social”
[ibid, p. 454]. Humans and technologies have no inherent properties, “but acquire
form, attributes, and capabilities through their interpenetration” [ibid, p. 455-456].
As with the STS approach, the IS discipline has problems to define its core. For
example, Lee claims that: “Virtually all the extant IS literature fails to explicitly spec-
ify meaning for the very label that identifies it. This is a vital omission, because with-
out defining what we are talking about, we can hardly know it” [10, p. 338]. Moreo-
ver, “To its detriment, past research in information systems … has taken for granted
many of its own key concepts, including ‘information,’ ‘theory,’ ‘system,’ ‘organiza-
tion,’ and ‘relevance.’” [ibid, p. 336].
There is something very disturbing about this state of play. In spite of continued
research efforts, there seems to be little progress in articulating a firm basis from
which analytical and constructive initiatives can proceed. Without such a basis, any
initiative faces the danger of becoming either fragmented or ad-hoc. To this end, the
purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative conceptualization of Socio-Technical
Systems from an individual perspective. In focusing on the ‘social’ and ‘technical’,
the individual has been relegated into the background. However, in the final analysis
it is necessary to bring the individual back to the fore since the concept of ‘socio-
technical’ becomes void of meaning without the individual.
Organizations and work systems exist for a reason. People act together in order to
achieve something. Acting in turn requires coordination; be that swinging an axe to
cut down a tree, or participating in a coordinated assault on an enemy. If, for some
reason, an individual is unable to coordinate her actions alone or together with others,
she cannot ultimately survive: “I do not see any way to avoid the problem of coordi-
nation and still understand the physical basis of life” [16, p. 167]. Thus, it is highly
©Copyright held by the author(s) 57
Socio-Technical Perspective in IS Development
plausible that the phylogenetic evolution of humankind has brought about some kind
of neurobiological predispositions for coordinating actions in the situations we en-
counter during our lifetime. Consequently,
…the mental is inextricably interwoven with body, world and action: the mind consists
of structures that operate on the world via their role in determining action [11, p. 527]
In the following, I will elaborate on this position, using certain elements from ex-
tant research: the conceptualization coordination as a complex functional system [12],
the activity modalities as intrinsic, neural factors contributing to this functional sys-
tem [20], the notions of functional organs [13] and equipment [9] for relating neural
structures and artifacts, and the terms joint action and common identifiers [2] for rec-
onciling the individual and social aspects of coordination.
These elements are brought together in a particular kind of work system, called the
activity domain [20], in which the ‘social’, ‘technical’, and ‘individual’ are integrated
into a coherent whole. This enables a paradigm shift in the conceptualization of So-
cio-Technical Systems. Rather than seeing work systems as the result of as two inter-
acting systems, the ‘social’ and ‘technical’ become aspects of a more basic construct,
the activity domain, which is ultimately grounded the sine qua non for our existence
as biological creatures.
2 A Neurobiological Perspective
Imagine that you can travel some 30,000 years back in time, and that you are a mem-
ber of an ‘organization’ specialized in exploiting mammoths for the benefit of your
tribe. The activity of one ‘business unit’ in this organization is illustrated in Fig. 1 –
hunting the mammoth. What neurobiological faculties enable you to participate in this
activity?
Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 58
Proceedings of STPIS'15
Fig. 1. Illustration of a mammoth hunt. Source: Original wood engraving by E Bayard; in [6].
2.1 The activity modalities
First, you need to contextualize the situation. You have to grasp that which is relevant
for the hunt, and disregard the rest. For example, hunters, bows, arrows, actions,
shouts, gestures, and other hunters are certainly relevant, while the beetles and other
insects in the trees in the background can safely be ignored.
Second, you must focus on the object for the activity, the mammoth. Object orien-
tation is fundamental for carrying out any kind of action: “Human beings live in a
world or environment of objects, and their activities are formed around objects” [2, p.
68].
Third, you need to orient yourself spatially in the context. You must recognize how
relevant things, such as how the mammoth, river, trees, and hunters are positioned in
relation to your own position.
Fourth, you must acquire a sense for how actions should be carried out in a certain
order, which is a temporalization capability. For example, shooting an arrow involves
the steps of grasping the arrow, placing it on the bow, stretching the bow, aiming at
the target, and releasing the arrow.
Fifth, you cannot shoot your arrows in any way you like. Shooting in a wrong di-
rection may result in other hunters being hit rather than the mammoth. You must learn
how to perform appropriate mammoth hunting; something that will be accrued after
participating in many successful, and, presumably, some less successful mammoth
hunts. Eventually, this habituation lends a sense of stability to your actions, which
need not be questioned as long as it works.
Sixth, an activity is typically related to other activities. For example, the prey will
most likely be cut into pieces and prepared to eat in another ‘business unit’ – the
©Copyright held by the author(s) 59
Socio-Technical Perspective in IS Development
cooking activity. This has its own motive, to satisfy hunger, and object, which hap-
pens to be the same as for the hunting activity, the mammoth. However, here other
aspects of the mammoth are contextualized as relevant, such as which parts of the
mammoth are edible. In order to conceive of other activities, you must be capable of
refocusing your attention and transit from one activity to another.
The six dimensions outlined above – contextualization, objectivation, spatializa-
tion, temporalization, stabilization, and transition between activities – are denoted
activity modalities. These modalities, which were instigated from my work with coor-
dinating complex development projects in the telecom industry, are predicated to
underlie the inception of every human activity [20]. It follows that the brain is capable
of perceiving, processing, and integrating multimodal sensory impressions into an
action capability in the form of the activity modalities and their interdependencies.
This capability is the same regardless of whether actions are carried out in solitude or
together with other individuals, as in the mammoth hunt example.
Since the human neurobiological constitution has not changed significantly since
the emergence of early hominids some 3.5 million years ago, the same activity modal-
ities are at play today when we try to use of extant technology and manage modern
organizations. We still need to contextualize situations, focus on the target, orient
ourselves spatially, plan for actions, learn to distinguish purposeful actions from aim-
less ones, and refocus our attention between situations. It is this very foundation that
ultimately determines how we use technology and organize social work.
2.2 Coordination as a mental functional system
The brain structures underlying higher mental functions such as coordination have
been conceptualized as functional systems:
Each functional system consists of a group of circumscribed brain areas, and each brain
area has its specific elementary function. It is the integrated activity of an entire func-
tional brain system that underlies the activity of a higher mental function [7, p. 561].
Each brain area provides a specific factor in the realization of the functional system:
But it is especially significant that each of these zones contributes its own factor to the
making of a functional system [12, p. 12, italics in original].
This means that coordination may be seen as a functional system in which the activity
modalities are contributing factors. I have proposed [21] that such a functional system
may be modeled as dependencies between factors as illustrated in Fig. 2 (the activity
modalities are emphasized):
Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 60
Proceedings of STPIS'15
Fig. 2. Factors contributing to a functional system for coordination
The illustration should be read from the bottom up. The working zones realizing a
certain factor “may be located in completely different and often far distant areas of
the brain” [13, p. 31]. A lesion in a particular zone in the brain may destroy any of the
factors. For example, the entorhinal cortex has a crucial role in spatial representation
and navigation [22]. If this area is affected, the spatialization modality is demolished,
and consequently the ability to act since spatial orientation is inhibited.
The significance of a model like the one in Fig. 2 is its character of a boundary ob-
ject [4] between the social and neural realms. Towards the neural realm, the factors
provide a way to ground the activity modalities in extant neuroscience results, and
towards the social realm, manifestations of these modalities can be studied and ana-
lyzed for improving the coordination of activities.
©Copyright held by the author(s) 61
Socio-Technical Perspective in IS Development
2.3 Functional organs and equipments
Before you can participate in the hunt, you need to master various means such as
bows, arrows, hunt-specific language, gestures, etc. This can be seen as an encounter
between phylogenetically evolved morphological features of the brain and body, and
the ontogenetic development of the individual in a particular cultural and historical
situation. How to understand this encounter was in focus for such eminent scholars as
Lev Vygotsky, Aleksei Leontiev, and Alexander Luria. A common tenet in their
thinking is that the socio-historical environment plays a decisive role in the formation
of higher mental functions. The brain is formed “under the influence of people’s con-
crete activity in the process of their communication with each other” [12, p. 6]. Exter-
nal, historically formed artefacts such as tools, symbols, or objects, among others “tie
new knots in the activity of man’s brain, and it is the presence of these functional
knots, or, as some people call them ‘new functional organs’ (…) that is one of the
most important features distinguishing the functional organization of the human brain
from an animal’s brain” [ibid.].
From the moment you start engaging with an artefact, functional connections be-
tween individual parts of the brain are gradually established, which means that “areas
of the brain, which previously were independent, become the components of a single
functional system” [13, p. 31]. This can be seen as an equipment constructing pro-
cess, where the artefact passes from a state of being present-at-hand to ready-at-hand
[9, 17]. Equipment is encountered in terms of its use in practices rather than in terms
of its properties: “our concern subordinates itself to the ‘in-order-to’ which is consti-
tutive for the equipment we are employing at the time” [9, p. 98]. In this process, the
artefact itself may or may not be modified, but for the actor, the tool recedes, as it
were, from “thingness” into equipment, when the in-order-to aspect – what the tool
can be used for – takes precedence. A nice example of this process originates from the
cellist Mstislav Rostropovich:
“There no longer exist relations between us. Some time ago I lost my sense of the bor-
der between us…. I experience no difficulty in playing sounds…. The cello is my tool
no more” [23, p. 295].
2.4 Joint action
When several individuals coordinate their actions in order to achieve a common goal,
they are engaged in “joint action” according to Blumer [2]. This term refers to the
“larger collective form of action that is constituted by the fitting together of the lines
of behavior of the separate participants” [ibid, p. 70]. Since each actor occupies a
different position in space and “acts from that position in a separate and distinctive
act” [ibid, p. 70], joint action cannot be interpreted as participants forming identical
functional organs and equipments. Rather, individual equipments need to be fitted
together by external artefacts, which provide guidance in directing individual acts so
as “to fit into the acts of the others” [ibid, p. 71]. Such artefacts are called “common
identifiers” by Blumer. Joint action is a fundamental aspect of a society: “To be un-
Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 62
Proceedings of STPIS'15
derstood, a society must be seen ... in terms of the joint action into which the separate
lines of action fit and merge” [ibid, p. 71].
2.5 The activity domain
If we put together the notions of complex functional systems, activity modalities,
functional organs, equipments, and joint action, the contours of a neurobiological
conceptualization of activity begin to materialize. As individuals, we are endowed
with certain neural faculties for coordinating actions, which we call activity modali-
ties. We employ the very same faculties in every situation we encounter; it could not
possibly be otherwise. When acting, we may use various artifacts such as tools or
other means. These we learn to use in an equipment forming process, which “tie new
knots” in our brains – functional organs.
At the same time as we are all unique individuals, we are also inherently social be-
ings. From the moment we are born, we enter into a specific cultural and historical
situation. In pursuit of fulfilling common social needs, we coordinate our own actions
with others in joint action, which requires recognizable and meaningful external arti-
facts – the common identifiers.
In order to conveniently theorize about work systems thus conceptualized, Taxén
has proposed the term activity domain [20]. Thus, the activity domain comprises both
tangible elements – manifestations of the activity modalities – and intangible ones –
the functional organs “manifested” in the brains of each participating individual.
3 Practical Illustration
In order to illustrate the approach in a contemporary context, I will use an example
from Ericsson, a major provider of telecommunication systems worldwide. In the late
1990s, Ericsson was developing the 3rd generation of mobile systems [19]. The chal-
lenges posed by this endeavor were unprecedented in terms of technology, size, de-
velopment methods, and IT-support:
The total technical changes being implemented in this project are enormous. Using tra-
ditional methods then the scope of change implemented in single steps will be too large
and cannot be managed (Total project manager 3G, Dec 1999)
As its peak, around 140 projects and subprojects worked on different parts of the
system. One particular part was the so called Main Switching Center (MSC) node,
which involved about 1000 persons, distributed on 22 subprojects and 18 design units
world-wide. These units were coordinated from two places called the S-site (in Stock-
holm, Sweden), and the A-site (in Aachen, Germany). In order to convey a sense for
the size of this project, a so called integration plan for the MSC node is shown in Fig.
3.
©Copyright held by the author(s) 63
Socio-Technical Perspective in IS Development
AX E par. & Basic Call wi th AX E MGW:
2F Des ign bas e on
Title: AXE Anatomy fo r 2.0 U2G HO 20 DSA 2 or more servers ,
2F functi onal level, not using BI CC, using only A XE MGWs, 2DA Announceme 2E
Handov er 13 for CSD UMTS-to-UMTS mobile s peech c all, 01
nec ess arily on produc t Announcement 11 nt changes II
Cause of no a) CA PC 01-10-22 a) CA PC UMTS-to-GSM mobile s peec h call, 01-09-20 01-10-08
2/0062-FCP W 101 50 PA51 improv e. level 2DA changes
2F CLI 01-10-08 GSM-t o-UM TS mobile s peec h call,
a) CA PC 01-07-30 Des ign Base GSM-t o-GSM mobil e speec h call 03 a) CA PC b) CNCP 2E
Edi tor: EED/X /D Stefan Berg 01-11-05 45 a) CA PC d) 1/AP T d) 1/AP T LPT Tes t calls 1.5
2F 01-10-08 02
d) 1/AP T 01-09-10 GPRS+SM S
2F d) 1/AP T SE QS 21 a) CA PC b) CNCP
Date: 2002-04-11 2F
16 2D
14 BI CC drop 4 2DA f) GDB
a) CA PC 01 SMS
PRA-Date: 2001-11-15(RFA 28.02. ) 01-09-10 AP M & Comp. 10
DES mark 01-10-22 01-07-26 MTP 3B long a) CA PC
2F 2F UMTS pos itioni ng 2F Handling
2A mess ages 01-08-13
47 26 09
01 Outgoing (+incoming) support 01-10-08 d) 1/AP T
d) 1/AP T a) CA PC a) CA PC 01-10-08
MTP 3B long AA L2 connect ions ,
Satelit e page load mess ages STC
HO Charging 01-05-21 I. trunk (ALI FW) Basic Call a) CA PC f) GDB
01-11-05 a) CA PC 2F balancing 01-11-05 d) 1/AP T 01-07-02 CB int erfac e MGW S elec tion (Simple): 01-07-10 Res et proc edures
12 with AXE
Kc over MA P a) CA PC 2B - only for AXE MGW a) CA PC b) CNCP
2F A
f) GDB 01 a) CA PC - internal OIP BI CC drop 3 2DA
46 X
01-08-13 CALEA + GS d) 1/AP T - only basic c all E b) CNCP 2DA special servic es 08 2E
d) 1/AP T d) 1/AP T 2F 01-07-16 01-10-15
2F Satelit e bac kward 08 support 07 04
2F a) CA PC M
01-11-05 17 compatibilit y G 01-09-24 GPRS
02 a) CA PC 01-07-02 W 2DA a) CA PC
BI CC drop 2 charging
Verific at ion of d) 1/AP T 04 01-10-08
a) CA PC 01-10-22 compl. bas ic charac terist ics
UMTS AMR 01-08-13 New Servi ces P latform T
01-12-03 d) 1/AP T r call
modes AMR f or GSM 01-07-16 2E
01-09-10 d) 1/AP T 2B a BI CC drop 3 f) GDB
c 05
04 01-07-10
k a) CA PC
c) CSP P d) 1/AP T 2F 2F 2DA
Satelit e CI P tone MTP 3B long SS
07 31 BI CC CS1 -- 05 RONAS SSP
2F + CSD - basic c all mess ages MTP
01-07-30 01-10-08
2F 2F TRAMif ication of 38 TRAMif ication of a) CA PC CB interface a) CA PC
27 18 2B a) CA PC
Sec urity TSS (2.0 s cope) TSS (2.0 s cope) 01-09-10 a) CA PC MGW S elec tion
2F Contex t d) 1/AP T 03 a) CA PC 01-07-02 2E
Part I Part II : Russ an, 2DA at re-routing
36 06
1.5 s pillov er 2F Shared Netw. 09
SMS Waiting 2F
d) 1/AP T 01-10-08 a) CA PC a) CA PC 30 32 01-07-02 a) CA PC
01-10-22 01-07-30
01-10-08 d) 1/AP T New Archi tecture Pl atform ATI
f) GDB 01-11-05 d) 1/AP T Iur 01-10-22
01-10-22 01-09-10
2F d) 1/AP T Advanced call
2F TRAMif ication of Basic Call wi th Cel lo: g) SCP-T
RAB Mod. 23 02-02-04 2F 2 or more servers , cases with
2F 22 TSS (2.0 s cope)
CN-I a) CA PC 33 GCP TRACK using BI CC, using 1 MGW
37 Part II I: I srael AXE/ Cell o
UMTS-to-UMTS mobile s peech c all
d) 1/AP T & French
OP / SQN 01-10-22 New OI P P ac k.
01-10-22 ANSI 41 NP a) CA PC CAME L Ph 3 / IN
01-10-22 2F
a) CA PC 2F 01-10-08
f) GDB 34 d) 1/AP T
40 2CA
2F 2CA
01-08-13
f) GDB 01-09-20 01
29 MAP v3 M T- 04
Loc al 01-07-26 MNP f unc tions
2F 2F SMS 01-10-22
subsc ript ion MGW + MGC cold Sim ple Call 01-07-16 2CA
39 28 MONCO 02-02-15 a) CA PC OMS 01-07-16
TLV merge CN-I st art - c ontex t/ term . handling 06 a) CA PC
- c all pat h Server Rec ov ery & 01-08-13
d) 1/AP T f) GDB - O&M for MGW st art
01-08-20
a) CA PC for c al ls tracing MGW node Multiple MGW
01-10-22
- Cont ex t/ term . - basic prot oc ol handling rec overy d) 1/AP T
a) CA PC support
b) CNCP 2F Int ra-MSC 01-07-02 handling for MGW a) CA PC a) CA PC b) CNCP 2K
35 - NRM impac ts f or 01
2F 01-09-10 G2U HO st art
24 d) 1/AP T multiple MGWs
01-07-02 a) CA PC a) CA PC b) CNCP b) CNCP a) CA PC 01-08-13 Number portabil ity
Can. Meter Puls 01-07-10
UMTS auth. 01-11-05 b) CNCP d) 1/AP T 2CA
d) 1/AP T d) 1/AP T
redundancy a) CA PC 2G 05
01-10-08 03
enha. RMP b) CNCP
Servic e 01-08-27 2CA 2C
2H Basic Call wi th Cel lo 04 periodic audit
f) GDB 2H Int erfac e Int er-MSC 02
01 b) CNCP G2U HO 2C BI CC ++ GOH 01-11-15
02 d) 1/AP T 2M
a) CA PC 01 Rec ept ion of bearer 01-10-08 a) CA PC 01-10-08
01-09-20 01-09-30 01-11-05 03
2F 01-09-10 - MGW v alidat ion release i ndicat ions 01-11-05 2C 2C
41 d) 1/AP T - AX E-Cello (call releas e) 06 b) CNCP load control 05 AP 2M
Servic e Us er 01-10-22
01-09-10 interwork a) CA PC Comm unic . 11
Servic e 01-10-08 b) CNCP
Subsequent HO 01-08-13 a) CA PC 01-11-05
TRAMif ication a) CA PC User, A NS I 2G a) CA PC periodic 01-10-22
01-11-05 Servic e Us er 01-09-10 01 cas es & c harging 01-10-22 b) CNCP
of PBX TSS audit
b) CNCP b) CNCP 02-02-04 b) CNCP
01-10-22 cl ean-up STS
d) 1/AP T a) CA PC 2C d) 1/AP T 2M
a) CA PC a) CA PC 2G b) CNCP Sp eech via GCP
Servic e 03 05
02 a) CA PC
d) 1/AP T AP IO
01-09-10 User, I N Traffic
2H 01-12-17
calls Based 2H 2M
2F 04 enhanced traff ic cases : dependingGCP
on enhanced traff ic cases : depending on
BICC
Pri ci ng 06 G2U HO 01-10-22 12
42
b) CNCP
2H a) CA PC
EA c leanup 05 FORLOP P
01-11-05 Test c all s (v ia
MGW s elec tion improv em . FORLOP P
2S GCP ) 01-10-22 2M
PRA calls 21230/33 improv em .
a) CA PC 09 01-10-08 MGW s elec tion EC proc edures 09 2M
b) CNCP 21220/25 SP oE 2M
for I N calls b) CNCP 18
FNR file I /O a) CA PC 01-10-08 2F 01-08-13 b) CNCP 02
d) 1/AP T 2F 01-11-05
01-11-05 b) CNCP 11 01-09-10 a) CA PC
01-09-10 C-HSSL 01-08-13 10 a) CA PC c) CSPP
2Q 01-12-17
f) GDB 2F
2F a) CA PC 03 06
44 a) CA PC 2Q a) CA PC 2M b) CNCP
TTC C7 Res tart
2W 01 2Q 07
01 2L 04 reas on
PRA b) CNCP 01-09-10 digit s ending (via
2W 01 digit receiv ing (v ia 01-10-22 RPS FC
monitoring 2O 2P LI for new GCP ), t ones configurat ion,
01-12-17 02 d) 1/AP T GCP ) b) CNCP 2M
CN-I 01-09-15 01 02 d) 1/AP T 01-11-05
arc hitect ure (v ia bloc king/ 01-10-22 b) CNCP 06
UMTS CSD c alls Int er-Sys tem, GCP ) 2T deblock ing
a) CA PC lif t S MAC into 2. 0 01-10-08
vi a GCP intra-MS C d) 1/AP T b) CNCP 01
(inc l. drop 2) Jap an Specific 02-02-18 b) CNCP Sec urity
01-09-20
01-10-22 01-10-22 2M AP G40
2F a) CA PC 2S Handov er (v ia 01-09-10
b) CNCP 02-02-18 02-02-18 b) CNCP a) CA PC a) CA PC 13 charg.
48 06 GCP ) a) CA PC a) CA PC
01-07-02 early Shock ley b) CNCP 01-09-10 b) CNCP 01-10-22 2M
MONT f ix CSPP : 01-11-05 a) CA PC a) CA PC b) CNCP g) SCP-T
b) CNCP 01-10-08 10
01-07-16 a) CA PC 01-10-22 2P a) CA PC
c) CSP P 01 a) CA PC
a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 01-10-30 Timer 2Q
2P 05 Traf fic handling
b) CNCP d) 1/AP T improv em ent s
01-10-22 SRNC 03 MTA P
d) 1/AP T 2S 02-02-18 b) CNCP 2T 2M
2F 05 2O reallocat ion (v ia 01-11-05 02 improv ment s 14
c) CSP P f) GDB
49 2U 02 GCP ; same Int er-Sys tem, inter- periodic audit a) CA PC 01-10-08
02 d) 1/AP T 01-10-22
MGW) MSC Handov er & test c alls 01-11-05
CAI & CARI 2S h) SMA C part CSD calls v ia b) CNCP a) CA PC
01-12-17 ALI- 01-09-10 (via GCP) 2T b) CNCP b) CNCP
08 half rat e UMTS&GS M GCP ++ 04 SW record 2M
2F Beaom on 01-06-18 01-11-05 + c harging
a) CA PC 2S rem ov al term. FTM 2U 02-02-18 Int eract ive 01-10-22 b) CNCP 15
43 interw. ECP101 01-11-19 01-10-30
10 04 mess ageing
01-10-22 b) CNCP a) CA PC Rec ov ery on 01-10-22
Iran CAS d) 1/AP T f) GDB a) CA PC 2P (des ign base) Single Cl.
01-12-17 c) CSP P 01-10-22 terminat ion, 2M
02-01-22 H.324 06 b) CNCP Group
01-10-22 02-02-18 terminat ion group 16
fallback a) CA PC 01-10-22
a) CA PC 2U
01 CSD 2Q and MGW level 01-11-19 01-10-22 a) CA PC
UMTS&GS M 02-01-28 G2U HO, LI 2T
01-07-30 d) 1/AP T 01-11-12 02 b) CNCP a) CA PC FTP v irt ual
term. FTM arc hitect ure s pl it 03 2M
2U root b) CNCP
new HW a) CA PC tes t cases (test 17
01-09-10 03 b) CNCP
only !) IN
02-04-30 CALEA for CMS40 FTM clean up 01-10-22 a) CA PC
CN-I 01-09-20 d) 1/AP T R-TDM
a) CA PC a) CA PC d) 1/AP T
2U b) CNCP
b) CNCP 05/
d) 1/AP T 06
2F HO for CSD c alls v ia
d) 1/AP T 01-11-05
50 f) GDB GCP APG40 / APZ 11.1
01-x x-xx FT ready;
b) CNCP
2P MPT Y,
05 IN c onf erence, 01-11-05 1. date: d el ivery of
a) CA PC 02-03-15 Del ivered to LSV , FT d one
O&M moni toring, LI CH, CW 2R all products except
new CSD 01
conferenc e b) CNCP GACON; al l FT that
GT Mod. for 01-09-10 01-11-05 d) 1/AP T Del ivered to LSV , FT n ot co mpl .eted
MAP S CCP Long RANAP 02-03-15 2R can be do ne without
2J Connec tion Long RANAP
Segment at ion mess ages 01-10-08 02 b) CNCP a) CA PC 01-x x-xx GACON is ready!
04 less t raff ic mess ages, CO 01-11-05 01-y y-yy Under desi gn or FT, not del ivered to LS V,
U2G HO + SRNS Rel o. requires maj or management attention
a) CA PC a) CA PC a) CA PC d) 1/A PT 01-11-05 2. date : FT ready,
01-10-22 a) CA PC 2J a) CA PC
2J SS in cl udin g GACON
05 Under desi gn or F, not d el ivered to L SV, some
d) 1/AP T d) 1/AP T 06 test cases. INDUS
d) 1/AP T issues req uire attention
2J can start to use i t.
01
01-10-30 Under desi gn or F, not d el ivered to L SV, no
Dependency
C7 fun ctio ns probl em .
Fig. 3. Integration plan for the MSC node
Each of the white squares signifies a sub-project; a work package that delivers a test-
ed functionality to integration and verification of the whole system. The lines indicate
dependencies; from basic functionalities at the top and progressing step by step to the
full functionality at the bottom of the figure. Ellipses mark major functional groups
such as locating the mobile, handover between mobile cells, mobile owner data, etc.
The small dots in each work package show, in a traffic-light manner, the status of the
package such as ‘under design for function test’, ‘requires major revision’, ‘delivered
to system test’, and the like.
It was soon realized that keeping track of all these work packages being delivered
from all over the world to integration required extensive IS support. With the intro-
duction of modern, object-relational databases in the mid-1990s, quite new infor-
mation management capabilities became available. In one sub-project, coordinated
from the S-site, a decision was taken in 1997 to try this new technology out. A partic-
ular IT platform called Matrix was acquired for this purpose. Matrix was multi-tier,
web-technology based, generic purpose information management system on which
organizational specific IT applications could be developed. A particularly important
feature of Matrix was the so called Modeling studio, which enabled applications to be
easily modified.
One particular challenge in the 3G project was traceability from requirement to
system parts implementing these requirements. A small team consisting of the project
manager, a requirement manager, a consultant from the vendor of Matrix, and this
author, was set up to work with this task. By ceaselessly iterating between construc-
tion of a requirement information model and its implementation in Matrix, a useful
Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 64
Proceedings of STPIS'15
way of managing requirements was gradually worked out. An example of the infor-
mation model is shown in Fig. 4.
Requirement Issuer
{Simple general} LEGEND Relations/revisions
n/R n/ = cardinality Many
ReqIssuer_ /N = No relation on new revision
REQUIREMENT Baseline_ /F = Relation moved to new revision
DESIGNITEM n/R Baseline
(Required State)
/R = Relation on both old and new revision
Parent_Child
n/R n/F
n/R
REQUIREMENT_ITEM
{Requirement general} !
n/F (Req Area)
(Req Class)
(Req Slogan) Directed_To
(Req Priority) n/F n/F ANATOMY_ITEM
Statement of SOC_Requirement (Req Priority)
Compliance n/F (SOC Comment) n/R
174 02 (SOC State)
REQUIREMENT_
Requirement
n/F ReqSource n/F
Source
(Req Number)
RS_ITEM RequirementSpec_ DESIGNITEM_
n/F n/F n/F n/R Change Request
1056 REQUIREMENT Change Request
High-level RS
MRS
Input Req
!
CRS Detailed Req
!
ARS
RS
!
Fig. 4. An information model for requirement management
As can be seen from Fig. 4, the construction comprised quite many details that had to
be settled. A snapshot from Matrix is illustrated in Fig. 5 where individual require-
ments can be traced all the way from the organization issuing the requirement (“PN”)
down to system modules contributing to the realization of the requirement (“CNT”,
“CAA”) and the software code (“Source Program Information”):
Fig. 5. Project data loaded in Matrix
©Copyright held by the author(s) 65
Socio-Technical Perspective in IS Development
3.1 Interpretation
The process of working out a way to manage requirements can be seen as the con-
struction of an activity domain focused on the object “requirement”. In this process,
each individual team member gradually “tied new knots” in their brains related to the
objectivation activity modality. So, for example, if one member had been hit by a
stroke affecting the perirhinal cortex, she would have been unable to continue her
work since this part of the cortex is involved in object recognition [5].
In the same manner, functional organs related to spatialization developed in inter-
action with the information model and its implementation in Matrix. The model in
Fig. 4 has a distinct spatial character (things related to each other and characterized by
relevant attributes, relations, cardinalities, and so on.). Moreover, traces of the other
modalities can be noted in Fig. 5. Stabilization is signified by the endemic way of
naming elements (for example “CAA 231 1054 R2” for signifying a particular revi-
sion of a software module). Temporalization can be noticed as different states of ele-
ments (“AGREED”, “PREL”, etc.).
When establishing the requirement management context, the model and its imple-
mentation in Matrix function as common identifiers, fitting individual lines of action
together. The convergence of this process was indeed long and arduous. The form and
content of the model were constantly discussed and implemented in Matrix over and
over again; resulting in two kinds of manifestations. The first one is the external, tan-
gible artifacts in Fig. 4 (the information model) and the IT application visualized as in
Fig. 5. The second one is the internal, intangible functional organs evolved in each
participant’s brain. Both these kinds are intrinsically related; one could not evolve
without the other. However, this does not mean that they become “inherently insepa-
rable” as in the previously mentioned sociomaterial view on socio-technical systems.
There is no problem in distinguishing a team member from the information model or
the IT application.
4 Concluding Remarks
In this contribution, I have suggested an alternative conceptualization of Socio-
Technical Systems. Taking neurobiology as a point of departure opens up quite new
lines of research into these systems. However, such a bold enterprise needs to be cor-
roborated by future research on many points. For example, the notion of activity mo-
dalities requires a thorough investigation of possible neural correlates realizing these
factors. Moreover, coordination is but one aspect, albeit perhaps the most important
one. If we believe that the individual has a definite role to play in conceptualizing
Socio-Technical Systems, the issues of coordination and action cannot be avoided.
In conclusion, the concept of the activity domain integrates the ‘social’, ‘technical’,
and ‘individual’ into a coherent whole. This enables a paradigm shift in the conceptu-
alization of Socio-Technical Systems. Rather than seeing work systems as the result
of as two interacting systems, the ‘social’ and ‘technical’ become aspects of a more
basic level, the neurobiological one, which is undeniably the sine qua non for our
existence.
Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 66
Proceedings of STPIS'15
References
1. Baxter, G., and Sommerville, I. (2011). Socio-technical systems: from design methods to
systems engineering. Interacting with Computers 23(1), 4-17.
2. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J: Prentice-Hall.
3. Bostrom, R.P., and J. Stephen Heinen, J.S. (1977). MIS Problems and Failures: A Socio-
Technical Perspective. Part I: The Causes. MIS Quarterly, 1(3), 17-32.
4. Bowker, G.C., & Star, S.L. (1999). Sorting things out: classification and its consequences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5. Bright, P., Moss, H.E., Stamatakis, E.A., and Tyler, L.K. (2005). The anatomy of object
processing: The role of anteromedial temporal cortex. The Quarterly Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology, 58B (3/4), 361–377.
6. Bryant, W. C., & Gay, S. H. (1983). A Popular History of the United States. Vol. I. New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
7. Eilam, G. (2003). The Philosophical Foundations of Aleksandr R. Luria's Neuropsycholo-
gy. Science in Context, 16, 551-577.
8. Goldkuhl, G., and Lyytinen, K. (1982). A language action view of information systems. In
Ginzberg & Ross (Eds, 1982) Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on infor-
mations systems. Ann Arbor
9. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time. New York: Harper.
10. Lee, A.S. (2010). Retrospect and prospect: information systems research in the last and
next 25 years. Journal of Information Technology, 25(4), 336–348. doi:10.1057/jit.2010.24
11. Love, N. (2004). Cognition and the language myth. Language Sciences, 26(6), 525-544.
12. Luria, A. R. (1964). Neuropsychology in the local diagnosis of brain damage. Cortex, 1(I),
3-18.
13. Luria, A. R. (1973). The Working Brain. London: Penguin Books.
14. Mumford, M. (2006). The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes,
failures and potential. Information Systems Journal, 16(4), 317–342.
15. Orlikowski, W.J., and Scott, S.V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the Separation of
Technology, Work and Organization. The Academy of Management Annals, 2(1), 433-474.
16. Pattee, H.H. (1976). Physical theories of biological coordination. In M. Grene & E. Men-
delsohn (Eds.) Topics in the Philosophy of Biology, 27 (pp. 153-173). Boston: Reidel.
17. Riemer, K., and Johnston, R.B. (2014). Rethinking the place of the artefact in IS using
Heidegger's analysis of equipment. European Journal of Information Systems, 23, 273-
288.
18. Silver, M. S., Markus, M. L., and Beath, C. M. (1995). The Information Technology Inter-
action Model: A Foundation for the MBA Core Course. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 361-390.
19. Taxén, L. (2003). A Framework for the Coordination of Complex Systems’ Development.
Dissertation No. 800. Linköping University, Dep. of Computer & Information Science,
2003.
20. Taxén, L. (2009). Using Activity Domain Theory for Managing Complex Systems. Infor-
mation Science Reference. Hershey PA: Information Science Reference (IGI Global).
ISBN: 978-1-60566-192-6.
21. Taxén, L. (2015). The Activity Modalities: A Priori Categories of Coordination. In H.
Liljenström (ed.), Advances in Cognitive Neurodynamics (IV) (pp: 21-29), Dordrecht:
Springer Science+Business. DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-9548-7_4
22. Witter, M.P., and Moser, E.I. (2006). Spatial representation and the architecture of the en-
torhinal cortex. Trends in Neurosciences, 29(12), 671-678.
©Copyright held by the author(s) 67
Socio-Technical Perspective in IS Development
23. Zinchenko, V. (1996). Developing Activity Theory: The Zone of Proximal Development
and Beyond. In B. Nardi (Ed.) Context and Consciousness, Activity Theory and Human-
Computer Interaction (pp. 283-324). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 68