=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1854/Paper11
|storemode=property
|title=Challenges in Assessing Parameters of a Socio-Technical System
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1854/Paper11.pdf
|volume=Vol-1854
|authors=Ilia Bider,Erik Perjons
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/caise/BiderP17
}}
==Challenges in Assessing Parameters of a Socio-Technical System==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1854/Paper11.pdf
Proceedings of STPIS'17
Challenges in Assessing Parameters of a Socio-Technical
System
Ilia Bider and Erik Perjons
DSV - Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
[ilia|perjons]@dsv.su.se
Abstract. The paper is an investigation of challenges in assessing parameters of
a socio-technical system. The investigation is carried out using an augmented
socio-technical matrix the quadrants of which represent culture, type of structure,
methods/technique and type of technology. Investigation concerns a specific kind
of matrixes developed for the purpose of achieving the right level of flexibility
for a business process. The paper lists the challenges that need to be addressed
when assessing parameters of a socio-technical system and suggests ways of
dealing with them. Conclusion includes some generalization and plans for the
future.
Keywords: socio-technical system, metric, assessment, organizational culture
1 Introduction
1.1 The goal of the paper
In this paper, we assume that a work system can be viewed as consisting of two parts -
social and technical - each of which is split into two parts on its own: the social part
consists of people and (social) structure, and the technical part consists of tasks and
technology. As the result, the system can be represented as a 2x2 matrix as suggested
in [1]. Moreover, we assume that a work system can be analyzed based on an augmented
matrix [2] (in the same proceedings as this paper) where the level of abstraction in each
quadrant is increased: specific people are substituted by the concept of organizational
culture, mindset of a team, etc.; specific tasks are substituted by techniques, methods,
etc. used in the tasks; specific structure is substituted by the type of structure; specific
technology is substituted by the type of technology.
On a general level, the goal of this paper is to investigate the challenges of assessing
a particular work system based on abstract concepts in the augmented matrix, for ex-
ample, assessing organizational culture. The meaning of abstract concepts in the aug-
mented matrix depends on the type of work systems, and the purpose of analysis. There-
fore, assessment methods may differ from system to system, and from purpose to pur-
pose. Still, there might be commonality that, in the end, can be generalized. This paper
is not aimed at producing generalization; it discusses the challenges based on a concrete
example of a specific type of work system.
©Copyright held by the author(s) 98
Proceedings of STPIS'17
1.2 An example to be considered
The work system example is taken from [3], but see also [2], that proposes a framework
for achieving right level of flexibility/standardization of a business process in relation
to the environment in which the process operates. For example, starting a new company,
developing and launching a new product, or launching an existing product in a new
market requires flexible (less standardized) processes, while operating in an established
market with hard competition requires less flexible (more standardized) processes to
beat the competitors.
The framework from [3] includes two types of rules. The first type establishes the
level of flexibility of the process based on its environment (e.g., see the examples
above). The second type of rules defines the internal rules of alignment between the
socio-technical system's components to ensure that the needed level of process flexibil-
ity is maintained. For example, a flexible process requires a different type of business
process support systems than the rigid one. In this paper we will be concerned only with
the second type of rules using an augmented matrix presented in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1. An augmented STS-matrix from [3].
Fig. 1 represents a high level model of a work system related to a Business Process
(BP) understood as a sub-system (of an organization) responsible for starting and fin-
ishing process instances (cases) of the given type, which are created as a response on
certain kind of internal or external situations, e.g., a request for quote from a potential
customer. Such work system, denoted as BPWS (Business Process Work System), is
regarded as a socio-technical system that includes all people participating in the process
instances of the given process type, rules regulating their behavior, tasks completed in
the frame of process instances, IT systems that support running process instances, etc.
The framework in [3] is aimed at detecting misalignment between the environment
of the BPWS and the inside of BPWS. The misalignment concerns only one aspect of
business processes managed by BPWS - flexibility. The word flexibility in relation to
BP has different meanings; in this paper, flexibility refers to BP instance flexibility,
i.e., flexibility of people driving a particular process instance (case) to make decisions
on "what", "how" and "who" based on the state of the instance and their intuition,
knowledge and experience, rather than follow fixed and rigid rules. As has been men-
tioned above, for some situations/contexts (e.g. a startup), the flexibility is much
Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 99
Proceedings of STPIS'17
needed, in others (e.g. a stable market with hard competition), it should be greatly lim-
ited to achieve the high level of efficiency.
For each quadrant, [3] introduces metrics for assessment of a BPWS from the point
of view of the concept defined for the quadrant. Thereafter, rules of alignment are in-
troduced based on measurements made for the quadrants in Fig.1. The rules of align-
ment are defined for each two quadrants at a time, and they are expressed via the metrics
for assessment for these two quadrants. To give a clue on how rules of alignment work,
here is an example: a Business Process Support (BPS) system that uses shared spaces
(technology) is considered to be aligned with the collaborative internal environment
(culture). Introducing such a system in the culture with internal competition will fail
(people will not use the system properly), unless the culture is also changed.
Metrics themselves are introduced for the sake of having the rules related to flexi-
bility and may not be universal, i.e., not suitable for other tasks than detecting misa-
lignment regarding flexibility. Other tasks may require different, or extended metrics.
In addition, the metrics and rules are preliminary, and have not been tested in practice.
Each metric is defined as a vector that includes several components. A component
could be either a value of a parameter (a variable that can take values from a predefined
range) or show the relative frequency of a certain type (category) of events or internal
business rules. Parameters are used in quadrant 2 and 4, while relative frequencies are
used for quadrant 1 and 3.
The metrics and the rules of alignment were developed at the same time based,
partly, on literature, and, partly, on own practical experience. Due to the lack of space,
we cannot elaborate on the rules of alignment and metrics more, but refer the reader to
[3]. For the framework to be applied in practice, there is a need to have methods of
assessment of work systems according to the abstract concepts and metrics introduced
for them. Such methods have not been developed yet, and the goal of this paper is to
investigate challenges and suggest some ideas on how the assessment could be done.
In Section 2, we give an overview of the metrics introduced in [3], and in Section 3, we
discuss challenges and suggestions on meeting them.
2 Metrics for assessment
Quadrant 1. Process Category serves as a connection between the external environ-
ment and internals of the BPWS. Four process categories are identified for this concept:
Loose, Guiding, Restrictive and Stringent, which represent different levels of process
flexibility. A metric we introduced to identify to which category a certain process be-
longs is based on classification of internal business rules according to which instances
of the given business process type are run. Such rules define which action to take, who
should complete them, etc. Four types of rules are defined based on their modality:
1. Obligations – what must be done, independent of the will or judgment of the process
participants (e.g. prescribed by law).
©Copyright held by the author(s) 100
Proceedings of STPIS'17
2. Recommendations – what is normally recommended, but could be overridden by
process participants in a particular process instance.
3. Negative recommendations – what is not recommended, but could be employed by
process participants in a particular process instance.
4. Prohibitions - what must never be done, independent of the will or judgment of the
process participants (e.g. prescribed by law).
Using the rules types/modalities, a metric for assessing flexibility of the processes can
be defined as a four component vector, each component representing the relative num-
ber of internal business rules of the corresponding type (see the list above) on the scale:
None, Some, Many. The correspondence between flexibility categories and the metric
can be roughly defines as Loose = , Guiding = , Restrictive = and Stringent =
.
Quadrant 2. Organizational Culture is a predominant (shared by the majority) mental
model that affects the behavior of process participants. In our case, it is defined as a
vector of values for the following three parameters (each parameter is regarded as a
variable with the fix number of values that can be assigned to it):
1. World view – is the degree in which process participants consider internal environ-
ment as competitive vs. cooperative.
2. Resourcefulness – is the degree to which the process participants are able and willing
to find and complete tasks by themselves rather than waiting for instructions on what
to do and how to do it: low/medium/high.
3. Scope – is the breadth of context that process participants are interested in and
willing to take into consideration when completing tasks in the frame of process
instances: narrow/medium/wide. Narrow corresponds to the immediate surroundings
like inputs provided for a particular task. Medium corresponds to the process instance
in the frame of which the current activity is taking place, e.g., the goal to be reached
in this process instance. Wide corresponds to all process instances under execution,
e.g. considering importance of a particular customer even when the customer order
is of lesser magnitude.
Quadrant 3. Combination of techniques in use is defined with the help of classifying
all tasks completed in the process in three categories defined as follows:
1. Follow instructions – a task is completed according to predefined instructions.
2. Tactical decision making – task completion is guided by information on the devel-
opment of a particular process instance, including the instance goal, and history.
3. Strategic decision making – task completion is guided by a situation in the whole
work-system, e.g., prioritizing some process instances against others.
A metric for Combination of techniques is defined as a vector that identifies the relative
frequencies of usage of each category of tasks on scale Low/High. For example, corresponds to the situation when most tasks completed in the process in-
stances are predefined, which means little room for creativity and innovation.
Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 101
Proceedings of STPIS'17
Quadrant 4. Type of Business Process Support (BPS) characterizes systems/tools that
assist process participants in running process instances with the help of a vector that
includes values of the following three parameters:
1. Structuredness defines the degree of structuredness of data (information) introduced
by BPS: Low/High. A low level of structuredness means that the exchange is done
informally in a natural language. A high level of structuredness means that the ex-
change is done through formalized documents, e.g., a form that include numbers,
check lists, or selections from a fixed number of alternatives.
2. Orderliness characterizes to what extent the order of the tasks completion in process
instances is imposed by BPS for the given process type: Low/High. In a process with
high degree of Orderliness, the order of tasks execution is usually depicted as a
flowchart interpreted by a BPS system at runtime. In a process with a low degree of
Orderliness, the order is established on the fly by participants.
3. Information Logistics defines the way information is delivered to process partici-
pants: Messaging/Shared space. Messaging means that information is sent to a per-
son who needs it, while Shared space means that the relevant information is placed
in a shared space accessible to other participants.
As an example, using word processor plus email for communication can be character-
ized by a vector . A traditional workflow-based system with
form support has the following characteristics: .
3 Challenges to overcome
3.1 Process category
As has been mentioned in the Section 2, the categories of flexibility are defined based
on classification of internal business rules that guide the process instances according to
their modality: obligations, recommendations, negative recommendations and prohibi-
tions. To assess the relative size of each class of rules, there is a need to have a list of
rules in which each rule is tagged with its modality. However, an idea that an organi-
zation has a full list of rules related to the given process type cannot be taken for
granted. Some organizations can have a fully defined process description, others may
have very little or none documentation, the process description being hold on a tacit
level, i.e. in the heads of process participants. Another challenge is that even if the
business rules are described, e.g. in a work manual, they are not properly tagged with
their modalities. It may lead to that obligations and recommendations is impossible to
differentiate; the same goes to negative recommendations and prohibitions.
From the deliberation above follows that to assess the flexibility level some kind of
a process mapping project may be required to obtain a set of tagged rules. Such a project
will consume organizational resources, e.g. hiring a facilitator and engaging the process
participants in the project. On the positive side, a process description produced could
©Copyright held by the author(s) 102
Proceedings of STPIS'17
be useful for other purposes than just assessment of flexibility, e.g. designing a BPS
system, or process improvement.
Even when a list tagged business rules exist, they need to be checked against the
actual behavior. For example, if a recommendation is never broken – it should be up-
graded to an obligation. In the same spirit, if a rule that is formally considered as an
obligation
often broken, it should be degraded to a recommendation. This can be done by inter-
viewing process participants, or setting a questionnaire with a list of suspicious rules
and asking the participants to mark whether they sometimes break them or not.
There could be a better opportunity to check the modality of various rules if the
process is supported by an elaborated BPS system that creates traces of process in-
stances. In this case, the factual modality of various rules could be figured out by pro-
cess mining. Note, however, that the success of mining depends on process participants
actually using the system when handling process instances, and not going around it.
3.2 Organizational culture
Organizational culture is assessed based on three parameters: World view, Resourceful-
ness and Scope. Assessing World view consists of establishing whether the internal en-
vironment is collaborative or competitive. This can be done by establishing the level of
collaborativeness in the given work system. Here, the frequency of the following events
could be taken into consideration: (a) sharing information with colleagues; (b) knowing
what tasks their colleagues are currently working on; (c) asking for help; (d) providing
help. The frequency of this kind of events can be establish by interviewing process
participants in line with suggestions from [4]. Another possibility could be investigat-
ing a BPS system logs, provided that the events listed above are logged and the process
participants actually use the system for the purpose of collaboration.
The investigation like the described above could reveal the degree of collaboration
that actually happen. However, low degree of actual collaboration does not automati-
cally lead to the conclusion, that World view is competitive. It can very well be that the
participants want to collaborate, but there are no means provided for this end, especially
if the team is virtual. An additional investigation should be launched to assess the atti-
tude of participants to collaboration, e.g. whether they will be willing/unwilling to col-
laborate if some means facilitating collaboration are provided.
Assessing Resourcefulness requires investigating the ratio of self-assignments of
tasks to tasks assignments from a manager plus automatically assigned tasks based on
the work description and some fixed algorithm, e.g. scheduling. Some ways of meas-
uring this type of parameters are suggested in [4]. If a BPS system supports assignments
and self-assignments and is actually used by process participants, Resourcefulness can
be established by investigating logs, otherwise interviews or a questionnaire could be
used. In the same way as with World view, lack of self-assignment does not automati-
cally lead to Resourcefulness being low. The distribution of responsibilities and a rigid
BPS system could prevent resourcefulness of process participants to reveal itself. An
investigation whether the participants would be resourceful in another environment
needs to be conducted via interviews or a questionnaire.
Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 103
Proceedings of STPIS'17
Assessing Scope requires investigation of the breadth of context the participant take
into consideration when completing their tasks, i.e. whether they are satisfied with the
minimum information needed to complete a task or look at a wider picture. The latter
could be the context of the given process instance or all process instances currently
running. As with the previous parameters, this can be done via interviews, or analyzing
a BPS system's logs if the latter traces the information a user access while completing
a task. Again, beside actual breads of context used, it might be needed to investigate
the attitude, in case the wider context is not easily available to the process participants.
3.3 Combination of techniques in use
Parameter Combination of techniques in use correlates with parameter Scope intro-
duced for Organizational culture. To assess this parameter, we need to investigate the
number of tasks that are completed taking into consideration the wider context, more
exactly we need to know how many task are completed (a) without considering a wider
context (b) considering the context of the given process instance, and (c) considering
the context of all currently running process instances. Relating these number to the total
number of tasks completed in a process instance and taking an average will give us data
for establishing the combination of techniques. Note that in difference from Scope, we
do not need to investigate the participants' attitudes here, just actual state of affairs.
3.4 Type of BPS
Assessing type of BPS consists of two parts:
1. Assessing IT systems/tools employed in BPS
2. Assessing how they are configured.
The first part is needed to understand the capability of a system/tool as such, for exam-
ple, whether the tool provides shared spaces, allows to defined structured forms, has a
capability to strictly define the order of tasks, has means to limit access to certain in-
formation, or to certain tasks, etc. Here, a framework drafted in [5] could be useful. The
second part concerns how a system/tool is actually put in use. For example, assume that
formally shared spaces exist, but access to them is limited in a way so that each partic-
ipant has access only to his/her own shared space. Then, we cannot consider that infor-
mation is transferred through shared spaces. Both 1 and 2 above requires some investi-
gation, but this investigation is more of technical nature and could be easier to complete
than investigation of parameters introduced for other quadrants.
©Copyright held by the author(s) 104
Proceedings of STPIS'17
4 Concluding remarks and plans for the future
The goal of this paper is to understand the challenges when assessing the four compo-
nents of a socio-technical system. Though the discussion is strongly connected to a
specific case, we believe that some generalization can be made based on this case, e.g.:
─ Quadrant 1: A structure may not be documented, and even if documented may not
reflect the reality. There may be a need to uncover the structure in order to assess it.
─ Quadrant 2: It is not enough to investigate what actually happens, as the actual be-
havior might be enforced by other components, e.g., structure or technology. The
attitude of people manning a given work system needs to be investigated as well.
─ Quadrant 3: Here, it is enough to understand what is actually happening.
─ Quadrant 4: It is not enough to look only on technology in use, its configuration
needs to be investigated.
Our investigation in the problem of assessing parameters of a socio-technical system
presented here is a preliminary one. The next step is developing and testing a detailed
assessment methodology for the particular case presented in this paper.
Acknowledgements. The authors are grateful to anonymous reviewers whose com-
ments helped to improve the text of this paper.
References
1. Bostrom, R., Heinen, J.: MIS problems and failures: A socio-technical perspective. MIS
Quarterly 1(3), 17-32 (1977)
2. Bider, I.: Is People-Structure-Tasks-Technology Matrix Outdated? In : STPIS 2017, CEUR
Workshop Proccedings (2017)
3. Bider, I., Kowalski, S.: A framework for synchronizing human behavior, processes and
support systems using a socio-technical approach. In : BPMDS 2014 and EMMSAD 2014,
Thesalonniki, Greece, pp.143-157 (2014)
4. Bider, I., Perjons, E.: Effects from introduction of business process support systems and how
they can be measured. In Pernici, B., Gulla, J. A., eds. : CAiSE'07 workshop proceedings,
Trondheim, Norway, pp.369-377 (2007)
5. Bider, I., Perjons, E.: Design science in action: developing a modeling technique for eliciting
requirements on business process management (BPM) tools. Software & Systems Modeling
14(3), 1159-1188 (2015)
Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 105