1. A review and synthesis of sociotechnical system design principles for innovative work organisations
Amangul IMANGHALIY
1st year PhD Student
Heriot-Watt University (EDINBURGH, UK)
September, IWOT 19 Conference

2. Aim of study
Extending the earlier formulations provided by STS contributors: Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987); Berniker (1992, 1996), Clegg (2002).
(3)
synthesize the principles to gain an updated set of sociotechnical principles
(1)
compare the principles
(2)
identify the relationships between them

3. SOCIOTECHNICAL SYSTEM (STS)
Sociotechnical system (STS) is the system that contain both social (human-related) and technical (non-human) aspects as: human actors, organisational units, communication processes, documented information, work procedures and processes, technical units, human-computer interactions, and competencies that interact to pursue a common goal” (Trist, 1981; Fox, 1995; Hermann, 2009; Walker et.al.2008).
Sociotechnical system diagram (Consultants-Engineers-Strategists, 2008).

4. Every organisation is a sociotechnical system
Every organisation could be viewed as the sociotechnical system that made up of people (the social system) using tools, techniques and knowledge (the technical system) to produce goods or services values by customers (who are part of the organization’s external environment).
Construction of the Business Center (Kazakhstan, Atyrau)
Work environment in investment banking (USA, California)
Factory workers prepare smartphones at the Flextronix factory plant (USA, Texas)
Boeing manufacturing facility (Renton, WA)
The Schlumberger geological prospecting company’s workers
Construction of the old ship (Italy)

5. Organisation design How organisations are designed impacts both:
their performance
How well the social and technical systems are designed with respect to one another and with respect to the demands of the external environment determines to a large extent how effective the organization will be. Not every organization is designed using the principles and techniques that have come to be a part of the sociotechnical system approach.
the satisfaction of their members

6. STS THEORY–Historical background
STS theory was established by Eric Trist, Fred Emery and a group of the researchers of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London as a new form of work restructuring model to solve the extensive fieldwork in a number of British coal fields.

7. Sociotechnical System (STS) Theory
STS THEORY- reflects certain specific methods of joint optimisation in order to design organisations that can cope better with environmental complexity, dynamism, new technology and competition
ONE of the methods is the STS PRINCIPLES
METHODS
SOCIAL SYSTEM
TECHNICAL SYSTEM
SOCIOTECHNICAL SYSTEM

8. STS PRINCIPLES
STS THEORY has been tested and elaborated to attain its 2 core ideas
Establishing the democratically approach at work
Humanising of a work system through redesign of the job
This process led to the emergence of the STS Principles as a novel method of restructuring of the work system

9. SUMMARY OF THE STS PRINCIPLES
TRIST & BAMFORTH’S (1951)
3 core principles
RESPONSIBLE AUTONOMY
ADAPTABILIT
MEANINGFULNESS OF TASKS
(II)
CHERNS’ (1976, 1987)
10 principles
1.Compatibility
2.Minimal critical Specification
3. Variance Control
4. Boundary Location
5. Information Flow
6. Power and Authority
7. The Multifunctional principle
8. Support Congruence
9. Transitional Organization
10. Incompletion or the Forth Bridge
Principle
(iii)
BERNIKER’S (1992)
24 principles
Philosophical Premises and Values
1. Value Clarification – The Design Philosophy
2. Uncertainty
3. Technological and Organizational Choice
4. Work as Problem-Solving Action
and Motivated Behaviour
5. Participation
6. Open Sociotechnical Systems
7. Human Values
Design process
8. Compatibility
9. Minimum Critical Specification
10. Constraint – Free Design
Work Group Structuring
11. Self-Regulating Work Groups
12. Work Group Responsible Autonomy
13. Inducements to Work
14. Boundary Location
15. Boundary Management
16. Joint Optimization
17. Organizational Uniqueness
18. Support Congruence – Reinforcement
Work Design
19. Variance Control
20. Multi-Functionalism and Requisite Response Variety
21. Information Flow
22. Learning
Continuity
23. Experimentation
24. Self-Design
(IV)
CLEGG’S (2000)
19 principles
Meta-principles
1. Design is systemic.
2. Values and mindsets are central to design.
3. Design involves making choices.
4. Design should reflect the needs of the business, its users and their managers.
5. Design is an extended social process.
6. Design is socially shaped.
7. Design is contingent.
Content principles
8. Core processes should be integrated.
9. Design entails multiple task allocations between and amongst humans and machines.
10. System components should be congruent.
11. Systems should be simple in design and make problems visible.
12. Problems should be controlled at source.
13. The means of undertaking tasks should be flexibly specified.
Process principles
14. Design practice is itself a sociotechnical system.
15. Systems and their design should be owned by their managers and users.
16. Evaluation is an essential aspect of design.
17. Design involves multidisciplinary education.
18. Resources and support are required for design.
19. System design involves political processes.
Trist Bamforth _ During the classical sociotechnical theory period, there were three core principles derived from the Trist and Bamforth (1951) case study that later extended in a large scale (Walker, 2005). As it has been discussed earlier this study was created to organize a fresh work system in coal mining industry using large scale machinery and the mass production principles (Walker, 2005).
Cherns- An associate of the Tavistock Institute, Albert Cherns, in his turn summarized previous STS practioners’ (Davis, Herbst, etc.) fundamental principles aimed to provide a detailed prescription about how organizations should be signed in order to be effective.
Cherns’ set of principles becomes the classic formulation of the body of experience and knowledge about work group design (Hackman, 1980; Majchrzak, 1997; Berniker, 1996).
“These principles have become the standard for defining and developing the organizations through the sociotechnical systems method” (Johnson, 2009).
Cherns provided 9 principles in 1976, which were general basis for the sociotechnical design of business or organizational systems. Later, in 1987 in his re-visitation theory, Cherns modified some of these principles and added a tenth principle.
SUMMARY CHERNS- The core idea of the principles is ‘how to jointly optimise people and technology within a clear ethical principle’ (Bostrom and Heinen, 1977a; Siau et.al. 2011) in order to create the effectively functioning organisations and as well as “a principles democratic process for involving workers in the design of sociotechnical systems”(Majchrzak,1997).
Chern’s work did not include a specific framework for examining or classifying sociotechnical systems; they are more general principles (Siau et.al.2011).
“The principles take the form of a set of guidelines that can be used to help to design a safe and healthy work system and made up of jobs that are rewarding and satisfying for employees” (Wilson & Sharples, 2015).
BERNIKER- Cherns’ principles developed further and one of the attempts made by STS Roundtable in North America, that see sociotechnical thinking approach as a general approach to the analysis structures, promoting principles of participation, an open systems conceptual framework embodying the joint optimization of the organisation’s social and technical subsystems(STSroundtable, 2010).
The member of the community, Eli Berniker presented 24 principles instead of Chern’s (1987) 10 principles.
All 24 principles are classified into five sets that approximates their relevance to the design proces and its outcomes: (1) philosophical premises and values, (2) design process, (3) structuring work groups, (4) work design and (5) continuity.
This set of principles are guidelines for design practice analogous to Cherns’ principles, that provides direction to the process, suggest innovative premises. It aims to further elaborate STS design principles by developing additional concepts and “…examining the experience and writings of many contributors to STS practice” (Berniker, 1992).
CLEGG’s Cherns’ principles updated by Clegg, who also offered set of sociotechnical principles that are mostly intended to apply in new information technology systems and in various management practices of working systems.
The principles are integrated into 3 broad types such as (1) meta-principles that intend to capture a worldview of design, (2) content principles that focus on the specific aspects of the content and (3) process principles which are concerned on process of design. There are 19 principles in overall (Clegg, 2000).

10. Principle 16. Joint Optimization
Integrating principles (Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987), Berniker (1992) and Clegg’s (2000) Principles with comments)
CHERNS
Principle 1.
Compatibility
‘Joint optimisation’ was mentioned briefly in the current principle
It is joint design in which each decision is reached for both technical and social reasons.
BERNIKER
Principle 16. Joint Optimization
This principle extends Cherns’s view on ‘Joint optimization’.
The functioning of the technical system and the social system should be considered conjointly when evaluating design choices.
CLEGG
Design is systemic
This perspective is implicit in Cherns and Berniker’s principles.
All components of work system design are interconnected and interdependent; none should take logical precedence over the other, they should design jointly.
Emphasis on one aspect could lead to sub-optimality of one.
(1)
JOINT DESIGN
(Sociotechnical perspective is about joint design)
Cherns-1
Berniker -16
Clegg-1
Social (human) system could not be understood without also understanding the technical system (Trist, 1981).
Changing the design of the technical system would affect the social system and vice-versa.
BERNIKER- The goal of design is an adaptive organisation capable of sustained environment and viability in the face of environmental challenges.

11. 6.Design and Human Values
Integrating principles (Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987), Berniker (1992) and Clegg’s (2000) Principles with comments)
CHERNS
6.Design and Human Values
“…an objective of organisational design should be to provide a high quality of work”; provide the responsibility, variety, involvement and growth in their work for those who want them.
BERNIKER
1.Value Clarification –The Design Philosophy
7.Human Values
Guide and test design decisions against explicit values and assumptions
Technique: intercommunication of participants in order to reach the shared values and assumptions that reflect the process
CLEGG
2.Values and mindsets are central to design
Values and mindsets are critical.
Humans are assets and technologies are tools supporting humans in meeting their goals.
(2)
Design values
(Values are central to design)
Cherns -6 
Berniker -1,7
 Clegg-2

12. Compatible and participative organisational design
Integrating principles (Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987), Berniker (1992) and Clegg’s (2000) Principles with comments)
CHERNS
1.Compatibility
This is implicit in Trist&Bamforth’s principles
The process of design must be compatible with its objectives
Design has to satisfy an array of objectives which may conflict and therefore decisions must be reached by consensus
BERNIKER
8.Compatibility
This is involves a change from Cherns emphasis on user participitation to user ownership
5. Participation
5.Participation s
The process of design should be compatible with its objectives. If adaptive competence is a design objective, then a process self-design is appropriate.
CLEGG
15.Systems and their design should be owned by their managers and users
ownership of the new system and its design should be appropriated by the people who will be responsible for its management, use and support…, rather being fragmented
(3)
Compatible and participative organisational design
Cherns -1
Berniker -5,8
Clegg-15
Berniker - The people who own the problem should own the solutions. Ownership of problems and opportunities links design decisions with responsibility for successful implementation.

13. 2.Minimal Critical Specification
Integrating principles (Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987), Berniker (1992) and Clegg’s (2000) Principles with comments)
CHERNS
2.Minimal Critical Specification
“…no more should be specified than is absolutely essential; … we identify what is essential”.
BERNIKER
9.Minimum Critical Specification
This is similar to the views presented by Cherns.
CLEGG
2.Values and mindsets are central to design
Systems should not be over-specified. This is true when end-users should be able to solve their own problems and develop their own methods of working, thereby incorporating scope for learning and innovation .
(4)
Flexible specification of the tasks
Trist&Bamforth -3
Cherns -2
Berniker -9
Clegg-13
Berniker - There are some reasons for limiting the over specification of the design; as shortage of sufficient knowledge or control to completely specify a work group design; leading to the cripple of the adaptive capabilities of the work group, emerging of constrains learning and experimentation that essential if emergent problems are to be solved1992).
Clegg - systems should not be over-specified” (p.472). This is true when end-users should be able to “…solve their own problems and develop their own methods of working, thereby incorporating scope for learning and innovation”. However, purely adhere the ‘minimal critical specification’ may be difficult in bureaucratic organizations due to strict standardized working system and for technology which operation is usually tightly specified and prescribed at least in the intent of system designers. However, “In practice there is likely to be more variability” (Clegg, 2000, p.472).

14. 12.Problems should be controlled at source
Integrating principles (Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987), Berniker (1992) and Clegg’s (2000) Principles with comments)
CHERNS
3.Variance Control
“…variances, if they cannot be eliminated, must be controlled as near to their point of origin as possible”
BERNIKER
19.Variance Control
All problems and uncertainties of the system cannot be eliminated.
CLEGG
12.Problems should be controlled at source
Design should enable system problems to be controlled directly on the ground by end-users, as local experts
Resolving problems at source cannot be effective every time, especially when systems under condition of relative certainty.
(5)
Variances should be controlled at source
Cherns -3
Berniker -19,2
Clegg-12
BERNIKER_Design for effective variance control requires (1) that variances occur or are observed within the group’s boundary; (2) that the work group has the resources to measure and control the variance; (3) that the work group has the requisite response variety and information to control the variance; and (4) that the group has the authority and responsibility to take the required actions for control” (p.16).
CLEGG-Clegg’s (2000, pp ) (principle 12) view is equivalent to Cherns’, but he has been looked specifically at its benefits such as : “…motivational (people like to have control over the problems they face); cognitive (people learn to perform better through exerting control and by anticipating and solving problems); logistical (it is quicker to solve a problem locally than to wait for an expert' to visit); and, resource-based (the company can use the 'experts' elsewhere)”. Resolving problems at source cannot be effective every time, especially when systems under condition of relative certainty. This principle could be applicable in work processes of operators (Ainger, 1990) and in allocation of function choices, where is the level of uncertainty (unpredictability) are considerable (Clegg, 2000

15. 8.Core processes should be integrated
Integrating principles (Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987), Berniker (1992) and Clegg’s (2000) Principles with comments)
CHERNS
4.Boundary Location
Boundaries should facilitate the sharing of knowledge and experience
Boundaries should not interfere with the sharing of knowledge, information and learning.
BERNIKER
14.Boundary Location
15.Boundary Management
Boundaries should enable members of a department to develop face-to-face relationships necessary for effective group functioning
The success of a work place innovation depends on the management of its interface with the rest of the organization
CLEGG
8.Core processes should be integrated
Reducing interferences that could be occurred with the sharing of information, knowledge, and learning by integrating core processes rather than fragment them; so several core processes, all could be done within one whole task.
(6)
Boundary Location
Cherns -4
Berniker -14, 15
Clegg-8
Berniker (1992) (principle 14) asserted that “boundaries should be drawn to permit a self-regulatory decision making within the work group”. The boundary of the work group is essential in terms of being influential for self-regulation and control of technical system disturbances. In order to create the self-regulated system, it is required cooperation or interdependencies within the group, task differentiation of the grouping of functions, boundary control, and an easy access to the sources of disturbances or variances that require human intervention (Berniker, 1992, p.13).
As self-regulation starts to develop, the notion ‘Boundary management’ (principle 15) starts to rise. This principle implies that the successful performance of the work system directly depends on regulation of the interface between work group and their organizational environment. “The goal of management is to assure access to the resources needed by work teams to achieve organizational goals” (Berniker, 1996, p.14).
Boundary management and its regulation between department and other department, between department and the organization, and between the organization and outside environment play the crucial role. As Coakes (2002, p.8) proposed “The organisation structure should be such that knowledge can flow freely and easily as required, to where required”. Any interference with the sharing of knowledge, information between departments could be reduced by involving work teams or work groups of a department. As Berniker (1996) pointed out boundaries should enable group members to develop face-to-face relationships necessary for effective group functioning, and the team members should adjust boundaries.
However, the leading managers, supervisor of a department should take on more of a coordinator role, so ensuring that the department is coordinating with other departments smoothly (Johnson, 2003).
Clegg _Processes were not explicitly included in Cherns’ principles, but this principle subsumes his ideas on boundary location, information flow, power and authority. Organisations could be seen as the whole system that comprises from various core processes. And it is a crucial indeed to design an integrated processes in order “…to avoid splitting core process across artificial organizational boundaries; people should manage complete processes” (Challenger and Clegg, 2011, p.346). In other words, one approach of reducing interferences that could be occurred with the sharing of information, knowledge, and learning is adjusted by integrating core processes rather than fragment them; so several core processes, all could be done within one whole task (Clegg, 2000, p.468). As Clegg (2000) described “…by splitting production, packing, assembly, testing, design and manufacture” processes of a certain product.

16. 8.Core processes should be integrated
Integrating principles (Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987), Berniker (1992) and Clegg’s (2000) Principles with comments)
CHERNS
5.Information flow
Information flow deals with the dispersion of information in the system
Information should be provided to those who require it when they require it
BERNIKER
21.Information flow
Information should flow to managers who are expected to make decisions, instruct employees, and provide feedback to employees
CLEGG
8.Core processes should be integrated
It is important to design integrated processes, i.e., to avoid splitting a core process across artificial organizational boundaries
(7)
Information flow
Cherns -5
Berniker -21
Clegg-8
Berniker _ An extended Berniker’s (1992) view (principle 21) implies that “Better to design information flows so that employees have immediate access to information needed for effective action”. Information should flow “to managers who are expected to make decisions, instruct employees, and provide feedback to employees”. “Information used to control performance cannot be used for self-regulation”, as “…self-steering focuses on errors and deviations highlighting problems and challenges”, whereas information used to measure our performance is to “…highlight success and conceal problems”(Berniker, 1992, p.17).
Clegg Organizations can be viewed as comprising a number of core processes that typically cut laterally across different functions. It is important to design integrated processes, i.e., to avoid splitting a core process across artificial organizational boundaries.

17. 12.Work Group Responsible Autonomy
Integrating principles (Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987), Berniker (1992) and Clegg’s (2000) Principles with comments)
Trist&
Bamforth
1. Responsible Autonomy
‘Responsible Autonomy’-when for the work groups given autonomous responsibility for carrying out tasks, authority to manage their own performance processes
CHERNS
6.Power and Authority
People should be responsible for the resources on which they perform their tasks. Exercising power and authority will help to people to accept responsibility for their performance
BERNIKER
12.Work Group Responsible Autonomy
The work group takes responsibility for its productive outcomes. Work group autonomy is constrained by the requirement that it be used to improve organisational performance and effectiveness.
(8)
Responsibility
Trist&
Bamforth -1
Cherns -6
Berniker -12
Clegg-8
Trist&Bamforth - though his equipment was simple, his tasks were multiple” specifically in large area of underground where “the small groups… tended to become isolated from each other even when working in the same series of stalls; the isolation of the group, as of the individual, being intensified by the darkness” thus, “under these conditions there is no possibility of continuous supervision, in the factory sense, from any individual external to the primary work group” (Trist & Bamforth, 1951).
Cherns -6.Power and Authority
This principle covers ‘Responsibility issues’, but Trist&
Bamforth’s ‘Work group Responsible Autonomy’ is implicit.
BERNIKER- The work group takes responsibility for its productive outcomes. Work group autonomy is constrained by the requirement that it be used to improve organisational performance and effectiveness.
The unit of performance control is the work group rather than the individual and this also means that it must be possible for each individual worker to be held responsible by an external supervisor for his individual performance (Emery, 1979 p.88.) but there is work group rather than individual measures of performance” (Berniker, 1992, p.12).

18. The Multifunctional Principle
Integrating principles (Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987), Berniker (1992) and Clegg’s (2000) Principles with comments)
Trist&
Bamforth
2.Adaptability
“even under good conditions, groups of this kind were free to set their own targets, so that aspirations levels with respect to production could be adjusted to the age and stamina of the individuals concerned”. (Trist&Bamforth, 1951).
CHERNS
7.The Multifunctional Principle
Individuals and teams need variety skills and multiple roles to be more flexible and able to respond the unexpected changes
BERNIKER
20.Multi-Functionalism and Requisite Response Variety
The problems, uncertainties and complexities of modern technical systems require flexible deployment of diverse competencies.
(9)
The Multifunctional Principle
Trist&
Bamforth -2
Cherns -7
Berniker -20, 22
TRIST&Bamforth _
In the hand-got system of a coal–getting method as (Bamforth, 1951) state “even under good conditions, groups of this kind were free to set their own targets, so that aspirations levels with respect to production could be adjusted to the age and stamina of the individuals concerned”. Thus, this kind of group, that is able to adapt in correspondence to the changing conditions would more likely to be ideally adapted to the task (Bamforth, 1951).
CHERNS- Individuals and teams need variety skills and multiple roles (Mumford, 2006; Siau, 2011) to be more flexible (Klein, 1994) and able to respond the unexpected changes (Appelbaum, 1997). The one part should adapt to other parts of the system (Johnson, 2009); so every member of the organisation or system should be skilled in more than one function (Appelbaum, 1997). Thus, organisations could be adapted to their environments through two ways: by adding roles and modifying old roles (Cherns, 1987; Johnson, 2009).

19. Integrating principles (Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987), Berniker (1992) and Clegg’s (2000) Principles with comments)
CHERNS
8.Support Congruence
Supporting systems and subsystems (e.g. planning, payment systems, career systems training, conflict resolution, work measurement, performance assessment, timekeeping, leave allocation, promotion, and separation, etc.) need to be congruent with the basic work design and work group structures.
BERNIKER
18.Support Congruence-Reinforcement
Each organisational practice should be reviewed to see whether it reinforces or contradicts the intended functioning of work teams
CLEGG
10.System components should be congruent
All system parts should be consistent with one another and fit with existing organisational systems
and practices including, for example, systems for payment, selection, work measurement, performance assessment, and so on
(10)
Support Congruence
Cherns -8
Berniker -11, 18
Clegg-10
8.Support Congruence
Supporting systems and subsystems (e.g. planning, payment systems, career systems training, conflict resolution, work measurement, performance assessment, timekeeping, leave allocation, promotion, and separation, etc.) need to be congruent with the basic work design and work group structures. There should be similarity between reward systems and its management (p.158).
18.Support Congruence-Reinforcement
This is similar to Cherns’ view.
11.Self-Regulating Work Groups
This perspective is implicit in Cherns’ principles.
“Pay for knowledge reward systems are an example of congruence and organisational practice. Each organisational practice should be reviewed to see whether it reinforces or contradicts the intended functioning of work teams” (p.15).
“The self-regulating work group is the building block of the organisation. Design work groups rather than individual jobs. The primary implication of the self-regulating work group is to achieve organizational objectives under a variety of conditions and adapting to changing demands” (p.11).
10.System components should be congruent.
This is equivalent to Cherns’ ideas on support congruence.
“All system parts should be consistent with one another and fit with existing organisational systems
and practices including, for example, systems for payment, selection, work measurement, performance assessment, and so on” (pp ).

20. Integrating principles (Trist and Bamforth (1951), Cherns (1976, 1987), Berniker (1992) and Clegg’s (2000) Principles with comments)
CHERNS
10.Incompletion or the Forth Bridge Principle
System never static; design of the system is never stops. It is a continuous process that requires continual rethinking and evaluation of structures and objectives of the work environment.
BERNIKER
24.Self-Design
Design is an ongoing participative activity of the work group as it responds to changing environmental demands and stakeholder objectives. As the environment of a work system evolves and presents new challenges, so must the work group adapt.
CLEGG
14. Design practice is itself a sociotechnical system.
Design processes are complex systems; they are all sociotechnical systems involving an interdependent mix of social and technical sub-systems.
(13)
Incompletion
Cherns -10
Berniker - 24
Clegg-14
10.Incompletion or the Forth Bridge Principle
This issue was not covered in Trist&Bamforth’s principles.
System never static; design of the system is never stops (Cherns, 1987, p.159). It is a continuous process that requires continual rethinking and evaluation of structures and objectives of the work environment (Mumford, 2006).
24.Self-Design
This is equivalent to Cherns’ ‘Incompleteness’.
“Design is an ongoing participative activity of the work group as it responds to changing environmental demands and stakeholder objectives. As the environment of a work system evolves and presents new challenges, so must the work group adapt” (p.19).

21. Organisational Uniqueness
UPDATED 24 PRINCIPLES
Generic Design principles
(1) JOINT DESIGN
(2)
Design Values
(4)
Design choices (design involves making choices)
(6)
Design is socially shaped
summarises earlier formulated principles and provides comments on the main points of similarities and differences between sociotechnical system practitioners’ principles. The result is twenty four principles presented in a framework of four aspects of design practice such as generic design principles, design strategy principles, design process principles and design continuity principles which can be used at any stage of the design process. 6 principles labelled under the ‘Generic design principles’ are targeted to capture worldview of design and include 6 principles. 11 principles are focused on strategic aspects of the design, labelled ‘Design strategy principles’, whilst 3 principles are concerned with the process of the design. Bearing in mind, that design process is never stops, it is an ongoing process, other 3 principles are relate to the continuing processes of the design.
(5)
Inducements to work
(3)
Organisational Uniqueness

22. Variances should be controlled at Design is socially shaped
Design Strategy principles
(7) Flexible specification of the tasks
(8)
Variances should be controlled at
(11)
Responsibility
(6)
Design is socially shaped
(17)
System design involves political processes
(16)
Design should reflects their stakeholders requirements
(15)
Support Congruence
(14)
Resources and support are required for design
(10)
Information flow
(12)
The Multifunctional Principle
(13)
Design involves multidisciplinary education
(18) Systems should be simple and visible
(12)
The Multifunctional Principles

23. Design process principles
(19)
Design process is a sociotechnical system
(20)
Compatible and participative organisational design
(21)
Constraint-Fee Design

24. Design continuity principles
(22)
Incompletion
(23)
Evaluation is an essential aspects of design
(24)
Design is an extended social process.

25. SUMMARY These principles :
provide criteria for designing organisational structure, group work, work processes, design processes, technology and individual tasks.
The principles are for use by anyone involved in the design process of the organisation.
It is the guidelines rather than prescriptive rules or a ‘recipe

26. FURTHER RESEARCH These principles :
may only be effective in improving the work system if supported by appropriate methodologies or techniques.
The principles are for use by anyone involved in the design process of the organisation.
It may only be effective in improving the work system if supported by appropriate methodologies or techniques.
My further intention will be focused on testing these principles by examining case studies using different methodologies.

27. References
Appelbaum, Steven H. (1997). Socio-technical systems theory: an intervention strategy for organizational development. Management Decision 35/6,
Badham, R, Clegg, C.W, & Wall, Tl. (2000). Socio-technical theory. Handbook of Ergonomics, New York.
Berniker, E. (1996). Some principles of sociotechnical systems analysis and design. Referencing: plu. edu/~ bernike/SocioTech/PRincples% 20of% 20STS% 20design. doc (accessed ).
Challenger, R., & Clegg, C. W. (2011). Crowd disasters: a socio-technical systems perspective. Contemporary Social Science, 6(3),
Cherns, A. (1976). The Principles of Sociotechnical Design. Human relations,29(8),
Cherns, A. (1987). Principles of sociotechnical design revisted. Human relations, 40(3),
Child, J. (1984). Organization: A guide to problems and practice. SAGE. 
Clegg, Chris W. (2000). Sociotechnical principles for system design. Applied Ergonomics 31, 31(5),
Coakes, E. (2002). Knowledge management: a sociotechnical perspective. InKnowledge management in the sociotechnical world (pp. 4-14). Springer London.
Coakes, E. (2011). Knowledge Development and Social Change through Technology: Emerging Studies. Information Science Reference (pp.15-28).
Cummings, T.G., & Worley, C.G. (2001). Organization development and change (7th
edition). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Eric Molleman, Manda Broekhuis. (2001). Sociotechnical systems: towards an organizational learning approach. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management Jet-M,
Fox, W. M. (1995). Sociotechnical system principles and guidelines: past and present. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 31(1),

28. Griffith, T. L. , & Dougherty, D. J. (2001)
Griffith, T. L., & Dougherty, D. J. (2001). Beyond socio-technical systems: introduction to the special issue. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 18(3),  
Hackman, J.Richard. (1980). Work Redesign and Motivation. Professional Psychology, Vol.11, No.3.
Herbst, P.G. (1974) Designing with minimal critical specifications. In: Socio-technical Design: Strategies in Multidisciplinary Research, Chapter 2, Herbst, P.G. (ed.). Tavistock Publications, London, UK.
Herrmann, T. (2009). The socio-technical walkthrough (STWT): A means of research-oriented intervention into organizations. Proceedings> Proceedings of ALPIS.
Jonhson, Adam. (2003). A Guide to Sociotechnical Systems [report].-USA: Psy 791,
Karwowski, W. (2004) International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors (Vol.2) London: Taylor&Francis. Jarvinen, P.
Karwowski, Waldemar. (2006). 2nd Edition International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, Volume 2; . NW, Suite: CRC Press Taylor and Francis Group.
Klein, L. (1994). Sociotechnical/organizational design Organization and Management of Advanced Manufacturing (pp ). New York: Wiley.
 Majchrzak, A. (1997). What to do when you can't have it all: Toward a theory of sociotechnical dependencies. Human Relations, 50(5),
Mumford, Enid. (1983). Designing Human Systems for New Technology-The ETHICS Method:
Mumford, E. (2003). Redesigning Human Systems. IGI Global, Hershey, PA, USA.
Mumford, E. (2006). The story of socio‐technical design: Reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Information Systems Journal, 16(4),
Pateman, C. (1975). A Contribution to the Political Theory of Organizational Democracy. Administration and society, 7(1), 5-26.

29. Ramage, M. , & Shipp, K. (2009). Systems thinkers
Ramage, M., & Shipp, K. (2009). Systems thinkers. Springer Science & Business Media (Chapter 29, pp )
Siau, John Erickson and Keng. (2011). Social and technical aspects of systems analysis and design Systems Analysis and Design: People, Processes and Projects: Advances in Management information systems, Vladimir Zwass.
Trist, Eric. (1981). The evolution of socio-technical systems. Occasional paper, 2, 1981.
Trist, E. L., & Bamforth, K. W. (1951). Human Relations:Some social and Psychological Consequences of the Longwall Method of Coal-Getting : An Examination of the Psychological Situation and Defences of a Work Group in Relation to the Social Structure and Technological Content of the Work System. Human Relations,4, 4(3),  
Trist, E. L. (1981). The Evolution of Socio-technical Systems: A Conceptual Framework and an Action Research Program: Ontario Ministry of Labour, Ontario Quality of Working Life Centre.
van Eijnatten, Frans. (1994). The Paradigm That Changed the Work Place. . Acta Sociologica Vol.37, No. 3,
Walker, G. H., Stanton, N. A., Salmon, P. M., & Jenkins, D. P. (2008). A review of sociotechnical systems theory: a classic concept for new command and control paradigms. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 9(6),  
Wall, T., Badham, R.J. & Clegg, C.W. (2006) Chapter 462. Sociotechnical Theory. International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, Second Edition -3 Volume Set Edited by Waldemar Karwowski. CRC Press.  
Yogesh K. Dwivedi, Helle Zinner Henriksen, David Wastell, Rahul De'. (June 2013). Grand Successes and Failures in IT: Public and Private Sectors. Paper presented at the IFIP AICT 402 WG 8.6 International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT, TDIT 2013, Bangalore, India.

30. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION