Representing socio-technical systems options in the development of new forms of work organization

Eason, Ken; Harker, Susan; Olphert, Wendy

doi:10.1080/13594329608414867

Cited by 36 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For instance, software engineering and task models may be criticized for not representing the relationships between agents, activity, and organizational structures, although these concepts are described in sociotechnical system design frameworks such as ORDIT (Eason, Harker, & Olphert, 1996). Meanwhile, a more comprehensive modeling language can be found in the i* requirements engineering method that analyzes the dependencies between agents, tasks, goals, and resources (Mylopoulos, Chung, & Yu, 1999;Yu, 1993).…”

Section: Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Juxtaposing Design Representations for Creativity

Sutcliffe¹

2010

Human Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper argues that the influence of design rationale on creativity is best achieved by concurrent use of scenarios, prototypes and models. A framework of cognitive affordances is introduced to discuss the merits and limitations of each representation. The paper concludes by discussing how different representations might complement each other in creative scenario-based design.Keywords: scenarios, prototypes, cognitive affordances, design representations. INTRODUCTIONIt is often argued that creative design is best supported by examples of good design, thought probes, and stimulating artifacts (Cross, 2000;Gaver, Beaver, & Benford, 2003). In contrast, the methodical engineering approach to design emphasizes a systematic process, models, and the reuse of design knowledge, criticizing less systematic approaches as "craft" (Dowell & Long, 1998). Design rationale may provide a middle ground between the two approaches as an easy-to-use notation that can stimulate creativity while preserving some of the generality and rigor of models. I will investigate the contributions that different design representations can make to the creative design process from the viewpoint of cognitive reasoning processes. The relative merits of design rationale, scenarios, models, and prototypes are investigated in terms of their roles in the design process and cognitive affordances.The integrated use of different representations will be illustrated by the scenario-based requirements analysis method (SCRAM; Sutcliffe & Ryan, 1997). SCRAM advocates a combination of design rationale, scenarios, and early prototypes as a means of effective requirements analysis and design exploration. More recently we have used a merge of SCRAM and scenario-based design (Carroll, 2002) with a similar combination of design representations in eScience health informatics domains (Sutcliffe et al., 2007). The following section of this paper describes the properties of different design representations. Next, I discuss how the representations can support creative reasoning, with the following section elaborating the theme by investigating cognitive affordances. Then I review how representations can be integrated into the design requirements discovery process. Integration is illustrated with the SCRAM method, followed by a brief review of other approaches to creative design support. The paper DESIGN REPRESENTATIONSThis section reviews the role of the more common design representations in creative design from a human-computer interaction (HCI) perspective and from the more analytic view of software engineering.

show abstract

Section: Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Juxtaposing Design Representations for Creativity

Sutcliffe¹

2010

Human Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This discussion refers to the inner logic of technological development in each element involved in the working environment, and to their implications for the way humans work as and use such agents in their work environment [28,30,56]. This requires explicit definition of different decision-making processes with regard to different models of working environments and work quality in such CWEs, following Eason [78], Groom [79], and Moniz and Krings [10]. Generally, this type of analysis continues to ask: What is an autonomous system in the production sphere?…”

Section: Task Complexitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Robots Working with Humans or Humans Working with Robots? Searching for Social Dimensions in New Human-Robot Interaction in Industry

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The focus of the following article is on the use of new robotic systems in the manufacturing industry with respect to the social dimension. Since "intuitive" human-machine interaction (HMI) in robotic systems becomes a significant objective of technical progress, new models of work organization are needed. This hypothesis will be investigated through the following two aims: The first aim is to identify relevant research questions related to the potential use of robotic systems in different systems of work organization at the manufacturing shop-floor level. The second aim is to discuss the conceptualization of (old) organizational problems of human-robot interaction (HRI). In this context, the article reflects on the limits of cognitive and perceptual workload for robot operators in complex working systems. This will be particularly relevant whenever more robots with different "roles" are to be increasingly used in the manufacturing industry. The integration of such complex socio-technical systems needs further empirical and conceptual research with regard to "social" aspects of the technical dimension. Future research should, therefore, also integrate economic and societal issues to understand the full dimensions of new human-robot interaction in industry today.

show abstract

“…Better cooperative planning between the project network and the service network from the start could have helped the project to ground the development of IT to the actual needs of the service network. Using effective methods for collaboration in analyzing user needs and selecting solutions could have helped the project to codesign the new eService model and IT to support it (Eason et al, 1996;Gregory, 2000;Hasu, 2001;Lyons & Kearns, 1997).…”

Section: Case I Conclusion: Codevelopment Of Service and Technology mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to Eason, Harker, & Olphert (1996), it is widely accepted that effectively implementing new technology in organizations requires the integration of both technical and social developments within the system, as well as the participation of key stakeholders in this change. The high failure rate of ICT applications in organizations is mostly due to a lack of attention to organizational issues.…”

Section: Theoretical Tools For Structuring the Changementioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are not the technology providers' core tasks. Service providers are not experts in the opportunities that technologies can offer (see also Eason et al, 1996;Schoech, 2002). Better cooperative planning between the project network and the service network from the start could have helped the project to ground the development of IT to the actual needs of the service network.…”

Section: Case I Conclusion: Codevelopment Of Service and Technology mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation