Sommerville - extended abstract 2 - CEUR Workshop Proceedings

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: [email protected]

Abstract. The Socio-Technical Systems approach assumes that an organizational work system can be seen as two independent but tightly correlated systems – a technical one and a social one. Together, these systems determine the performance of the work system. However, in spite of decades of research efforts, it is far from clear how to define these systems. Without a firm basis, analytical and constructive initiatives are bound to become either fragmented or adhoc. To this end, the purpose of this paper is to suggest a neurobiological perspective 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 coordination, acting in the world is inhibited. Based on many years of coordinating complex system development tasks in industry, I have proposed the construct of activity modalities – objectivation, contextualization, spatialization, temporalization, stabilization, and transition – as intrinsic neural predispositions 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 identifiers 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 · neurobiology ·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 authority 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 interpretation—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 systems (ISs) discipline [14]. ISs lie at the intersection of people, organizations, and technology [18], and have from the discipline’s outset been regarded as sociotechnical 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]. Sociomateriality 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 specify meaning for the very label that identifies it. This is a vital omission, because without defining what we are talking about, we can hardly know it” [10, p. 338]. Moreover, “To its detriment, past research in information systems … has taken for granted many of its own key concepts, including ‘information,’ ‘theory,’ ‘system,’ ‘organization,’ 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 ‘sociotechnical’ 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 coordination and still understand the physical basis of life” [16, p. 167]. Thus, it is highly ©Copyright held by the author(s)

57


plausible that the phylogenetic evolution of humankind has brought about some kind of neurobiological predispositions for coordinating actions in the situations we encounter 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 extant research: the conceptualization coordination as a complex functional system [12], the activity modalities as intrinsic, neural factors contributing to this functional system [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 reconciling 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 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 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 member 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?


58


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 orientation 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 direction 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


cooking activity. This has its own motive, to satisfy hunger, and object, which happens 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, spatialization, temporalization, stabilization, and transition between activities – are denoted activity modalities. These modalities, which were instigated from my work with coordinating 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 modalities 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 aimless 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 functional 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):


60


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 object [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 analyzed for improving the coordination of activities.

©Copyright held by the author(s)

61


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 concrete activity in the process of their communication with each other” [12, p. 6]. External, 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 between 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 process, 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 constitutive 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 border 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-


62


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 modalities. 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 beings. 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 artifacts – 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 challenges posed by this endeavor were unprecedented in terms of technology, size, development methods, and IT-support: The total technical changes being implemented in this project are enormous. Using traditional 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 Stockholm, 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.


63


Title: AXE Anatomy fo r 2.0 Handov er improv e. a) CA PC

PA51 01-11-05

2F 45

2F 16

U2G HO for CSD a) CA PC

2F 13

Cause of no CLI a) CA PC

01-07-30

d) 1/AP T

Date: 2002-04-11

01-10-08

DES mark

2F 26

d) 1/AP T a) CA PC

01-11-05

01-08-13

d) 1/AP T

2F 17 Verific at ion of UMTS AMR modes

2F 27

d) 1/AP T

2F 18

TRAMif ication of TSS (2.0 s cope) Part II : Russ an, 1.5 s pillov er a) CA PC

a) CA PC 01-11-05 2F 23 OP / SQN

01-10-22

01-10-22 2F 40

f) GDB 2F 29 2F 28

TLV merge

01-09-10

a) CA PC 01-09-10

01-09-10

TRAMif ication of PBX

Servic e Us er

01-10-22

a) CA PC

Servic e User, I N calls

01-09-10 2F 42 EA c leanup

01-11-05

2H 05

01-10-22

a) CA PC

01-10-08 01-11-05

a) CA PC

early Shock ley

Number portabil ity

GOH

01-10-08 01-11-05

2C 05

load control a) CA PC

b) CNCP

01-10-22

01-10-08 01-11-05

b) CNCP 02-02-04

d) 1/AP T

f) GDB

ECP101

a) CA PC

c) CSP P

H.324 fallback

02-01-22 01-07-30

half rat e rem ov al

UMTS&GS M term. FTM

d) 1/AP T

f) GDB

01-09-10 01-09-20

2U 04

01-09-10 01-11-05

CSD calls v ia GCP ++

Sp eech via GCP

UMTS&GS M term. FTM a) CA PC

CSD 2U 03 FTM clean up a) CA PC

d) 1/AP T

d) 1/AP T 01-11-05

d) 1/AP T

LI for new arc hitect ure (v ia GCP ) d) 1/AP T

a) CA PC

d) 1/AP T

01-10-30

01-09-10

2J 05

Long RANAP mess ages a) CA PC d) 1/AP T

Long RANAP mess ages, CO

01-10-08

2J 06

01-10-08 02-02-18

2F 06

digit receiv ing (v ia GCP )

b) CNCP

Timer improv em ent s b) CNCP

01-11-05 2T 01

01-11-05

01-10-22

configurat ion, bloc king/ deblock ing

2Q 02

LI

a) CA PC

2T 04 01-10-22 01-11-19

01-11-05 02-03-15

2M 02

SP oE a) CA PC b) CNCP

01-10-22

a) CA PC

2M 06

b) CNCP

2M 13

AP G40 charg. 2M 10

g) SCP-T

01-10-08

b) CNCP

a) CA PC Traf fic handling

periodic audit & test c alls a) CA PC

MTA P improv ment s

2T 02 a) CA PC

01-10-08 01-11-05 SW record 01-10-30

01-10-22 02-02-18 2T 03

b) CNCP

Rec ov ery on terminat ion, terminat ion group and MGW level a) CA PC

2M 14

01-10-22

b) CNCP

b) CNCP

2M 15

01-10-22

FTP v irt ual root

01-10-22

b) CNCP

Single Cl. Group

b) CNCP 01-10-22 01-11-19

b) CNCP

IN

01-10-22 2M 17

2M 16

a) CA PC b) CNCP

a) CA PC b) CNCP

HO for CSD c alls v ia GCP b) CNCP

01-x x-xx

a) CA PC d) 1/AP T

01-11-05 U2G HO + SRNS Rel o.

a) CA PC

2M 18

RPS FC

Sec urity 01-10-22

2M 12

b) CNCP

FORLOP P improv em . 21220/25 b) CNCP

2M 07

b) CNCP

01-09-10

d) 1/AP T

f) GDB

AP IO

01-12-17

a) CA PC

2Q 05

d) 1/AP T

Int eract ive mess ageing (des ign base)

02-02-18

2M 09

Res tart reas on

a) CA PC

01-11-05

01-11-12

FORLOP P improv em . 21230/33 b) CNCP

a) CA PC

b) CNCP

a) CA PC

2M 11

b) CNCP 2M 05

a) CA PC

01-09-10

c) CSPP

b) CNCP

a) CA PC

01-10-30

G2U HO, arc hitect ure s pl it tes t cases (test only !)

2Q 03

R-TDM 2U 05/ 06

2P 05 GT Mod. for Connec tion less t raff ic

digit s ending (via GCP ), t ones d) 1/AP T

b) CNCP

new CSD 2J 04

2Q 04

01-10-22

EC proc edures b) CNCP

a) CA PC

a) CA PC

Int er-Sys tem, interMSC Handov er (via GCP) + c harging

2P 06 02-01-28

01-10-22 02-02-18

MGW s elec tion for I N calls

2P 03

SRNC reallocat ion (v ia GCP ; same MGW) b) CNCP

a) CA PC

AP Comm unic . 01-10-22

01-10-22

01-08-13

2Q 01

a) CA PC

01-10-22

2U 01

d) 1/AP T

new HW

01-10-22 02-02-18

2O 02

2U 02

a) CA PC

2P 01

d) 1/AP T

01-06-18

2S 10

2L 01

Int er-Sys tem, intra-MS C Handov er (v ia GCP ) b) CNCP

01-10-22 02-02-18

b) CNCP 01-09-10 01-11-05

h) SMA C part

ALIBeaom on interw. b) CNCP

2F 11

b) CNCP

2P 02 UMTS CSD c alls vi a GCP

01-09-20

01-11-15

2M 03

b) CNCP

STS

d) 1/AP T

Test c all s (v ia GCP ) 01-10-08 01-11-05

2F 10

2O 01

d) 1/AP T

c) CSP P

01-10-22 01-12-17

01-09-10

b) CNCP

a) CA PC

2K 01 01-08-13

b) CNCP

a) CA PC

2W 02

01-08-20

enhanced traff ic cases : depending BICC on

MGW s elec tion PRA calls a) CA PC

Jap an Specific

2S 06

CALEA for CMS40 a) CA PC

2J 01

a) CA PC d) 1/AP T

01-12-17

01-10-22

c) CSP P

b) CNCP

2S 08

2F 43

01-10-22

MNP f unc tions 01-08-13

d) 1/AP T

a) CA PC

2C 06

enhanced traff ic cases : dependingGCP on

b) CNCP

a) CA PC

2S 05

01-12-17

MAP S CCP Segment at ion

2E 06 ATI

g) SCP-T

periodic audit

periodic audit cl ean-up b) CNCP

2C 03

Multiple MGW support - NRM impac ts f or multiple MGWs

a) CA PC 2CA 05

2C 04

TTC C7

01-09-15 lif t S MAC into 2. 0 (inc l. drop 2) a) CA PC 01-07-02 CSPP : 01-07-16

Iran CAS

a) CA PC

01-07-30

Advanced call cases with AXE/ Cell o

2CA 06

Server Rec ov ery & MGW node rec overy b) CNCP

b) CNCP

b) CNCP

f) GDB

2W 01

01-12-17

2F 49

01-07-16

a) CA PC

Rec ept ion of bearer release i ndicat ions (call releas e)

d) 1/AP T

01-10-08 01-08-13

C-HSSL

a) CA PC

a) CA PC

OMS - c all pat h tracing

b) CNCP

b) CNCP

G2U HO

b) CNCP

2F 48

2F 50

01-08-13

Subsequent HO cas es & c harging

01-07-16

d) 1/AP T

- MGW v alidat ion - AX E-Cello interwork a) CA PC

FNR file I /O

a) CA PC

02-04-30 CN-I

01-09-30

2G 02

a) CA PC

MONT f ix

2CA 04 Sim ple Call - c ontex t/ term . handling for c al ls - basic prot oc ol handling a) CA PC

2CA Basic Call wi th Cel lo 02

BI CC ++

d) 1/AP T

2G 01

f) GDB

RONAS SSP

01-10-08

01-07-30

a) CA PC

2CA 01 MGW + MGC cold st art - O&M for MGW st art - Cont ex t/ term . handling for MGW st art a) CA PC b) CNCP

2C 01

2S 09

01-09-10

2F 44 PRA monitoring CN-I

SS

a) CA PC

d) 1/AP T

CAI & CARI

01-07-10

d) 1/AP T

2H 04

2H 06

a) CA PC

d) 1/AP T

01-07-02

Int ra-MSC G2U HO a) CA PC

d) 1/AP T

a) CA PC

Traffic Based Pri ci ng

2E 05

BI CC drop 3

2DA 05

MGW S elec tion at re-routing

2DA 09

Basic Call wi th Cel lo: 2 or more servers , using BI CC, using 1 MGW UMTS-to-UMTS mobile s peech c all

01-07-26

Int er-MSC G2U HO a) CA PC

01-09-10

01-09-24

CAME L Ph 3 / IN 01-10-08

a) CA PC

01-09-10

Servic e Us er

01-07-16

01-10-15

GPRS charging charac terist ics

01-10-08

a) CA PC

GCP TRACK

d) 1/AP T

2G 03

d) 1/AP T

2E 04

New OI P P ac k.

01-07-02

SMS a) CA PC

01-10-08

01-09-10

01-10-22

d) 1/AP T

Servic e User, A NS I TSS

a) CA PC

01-11-05

01-10-08

2DA 08

a) CA PC

BI CC drop 2 compl. bas ic call

a) CA PC

01-08-27

01-09-20

2DA 04

01-07-02

a) CA PC

f) GDB

f) GDB

BI CC drop 3 special servic es

New Archi tecture Pl atform

2F 33

2F 34

01-11-05

01-07-10

2E 02

GPRS+SM S

2DA 10

a) CA PC

2DA 07

01-07-16

T r a c k

01-10-08

BI CC drop 4 AP M & Comp. Handling

01-08-13

b) CNCP

01-07-02

d) 1/AP T

01-10-22

f) GDB

a) CA PC

a) CA PC

b) CNCP

M G W

2E 01

01-10-08

b) CNCP 01-09-10

a) CA PC

Basic Call with AXE

Shared Netw.

2F 32

01-10-22

a) CA PC

MAP v3 M TSMS

Can. Meter Puls

2F 41

2B 03

d) 1/AP T

Iur

2F 35

b) CNCP

RMP Servic e Int erfac e b) CNCP

2H 01

2H 02

A X E

2B 04 MTP 3B long mess ages MTP CB interface

BI CC CS1 -- basic c all

Outgoing (+incoming) AA L2 connect ions , I. trunk (ALI FW) Res et proc edures a) CA PC

01-07-10

01-07-02 d) 1/AP T New Servi ces P latform

2F 30

02-02-15 CN-I

d) 1/AP T

01-10-08

f) GDB

MGW S elec tion (Simple): - only for AXE MGW - internal OIP - only basic c all a) CA PC

d) 1/AP T

a) CA PC

2F 24

01-05-21

a) CA PC

d) 1/AP T

01-09-20

MONCO

d) 1/AP T

UMTS auth. redundancy enha.

2B 01

Satelit e CI P tone + CSD a) CA PC

d) 1/AP T TRAMif ication of TSS (2.0 s cope) Part II I: I srael & French a) CA PC

02-02-04 CN-I

f) GDB Loc al subsc ript ion

2F 39

2F 31

2F 38

TRAMif ication of TSS (2.0 s cope) Part I

01-10-08

ANSI 41 NP a) CA PC

01-10-22

2A 01

MTP 3B long mess ages support

01-07-26

Announceme nt changes II

2DA 11

Announcement changes a) CA PC

2DA 03

b) CNCP

d) 1/AP T

d) 1/AP T 2F 07

01-10-08

01-10-22

01-09-20

2D 01

MTP 3B long mess ages STC CB int erfac e

a) CA PC CALEA + GS support

Basic Call wi th AX E MGW: 2 or more servers , using BI CC, using only A XE MGWs, UMTS-to-UMTS mobile s peech c all, UMTS-to-GSM mobile s peec h call, GSM-t o-UM TS mobile s peec h call, GSM-t o-GSM mobil e speec h call

a) CA PC

01-09-10

HO Charging

01-07-02

2F 08

a) CA PC

01-09-10

2F 22

RAB Mod.

01-10-22

d) 1/AP T

Satelit e bac kward compatibilit y

d) 1/AP T

f) GDB

2F 37

a) CA PC

01-10-22

2F 09

2F 21

Des ign bas e on functi onal level, not nec ess arily on produc t level

Des ign Base 1.5

LPT Tes t calls

d) 1/AP T

a) CA PC

AMR f or GSM

SMS Waiting

d) 1/AP T

d) 1/AP T

01-08-13

01-12-03

Sec urity Contex t

2F 36

01-11-05

2F 02

c) CSP P

01-10-22

UMTS pos itioni ng

f) GDB

01-11-05

a) CA PC

a) CA PC

Satelit e page load balancing

2F 12

Kc over MA P

2F 46

AX E par. & DSA

SE QS

2F 14

PRA-Date: 2001-11-15(RFA 28.02. ) 2F 47

2F 20 01-10-22

d) 1/AP T

d) 1/AP T

01-08-13

2/0062-FCP W 101 50

Edi tor: EED/X /D Stefan Berg

2R 02

MPT Y, IN c onf erence, O&M moni toring, LI conferenc e

01-11-05 02-03-15

b) CNCP

CH, CW b) CNCP

2R 01 01-x x-xx 01-y y-yy

a) CA PC

a) CA PC

d) 1/A PT

01-11-05

SS

d) 1/AP T

FT ready; 1. date: d el ivery of all products except GACON; al l FT that can be do ne without GACON is ready! 2. date : FT ready, in cl udin g GACON test cases. INDUS can start to use i t. Dependency

C7 fun ctio ns

APG40 / APZ 11.1

Del ivered to LSV , FT d one Del ivered to LSV , FT n ot co mpl .eted Under desi gn or FT, not del ivered to LS V, requires maj or management attention Under desi gn or F, not d el ivered to L SV, some issues req uire attention Under desi gn or F, not d el ivered to L SV, no 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 tested 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 introduction of modern, object-relational databases in the mid-1990s, quite new information 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 particular 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 construction of a requirement information model and its implementation in Matrix, a useful


64


way of managing requirements was gradually worked out. An example of the information model is shown in Fig. 4. Requirement Issuer {Simple general}

LEGEND Relations/revisions n/ = cardinality Many /N = No relation on new revision

n/R

Parent_Child

ReqIssuer_ REQUIREMENT Baseline_ DESIGNITEM n/R (Required State) n/R

n/R

Statement of Compliance 174 02

SOC_Requirement (SOC Comment) n/R (SOC State)

n/F

RS_ITEM 1056

n/F

RequirementSpec_ n/F REQUIREMENT

/F = Relation moved to new revision /R = Relation on both old and new revision

n/F

REQUIREMENT_ITEM {Requirement general} n/F

Baseline

(Req Area) (Req Class) (Req Slogan) (Req Priority)

! n/F

Directed_To (Req Priority)

n/F

ANATOMY_ITEM

n/F

REQUIREMENT_ ReqSource n/F (Req Number)

Requirement Source

n/F

DESIGNITEM_ n/R Change Request

Change Request

High-level RS Input Req MRS Detailed Req

CRS 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 requirements 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


65


3.1

Interpretation

The process of working out a way to manage requirements can be seen as the construction 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 interaction 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 revision of a software module). Temporalization can be noticed as different states of elements (“AGREED”, “PREL”, etc.). When establishing the requirement management context, the model and its implementation 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, tangible 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 inseparable” 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 SocioTechnical 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 corroborated by future research on many points. For example, the notion of activity modalities 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 conceptualization 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


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 SocioTechnical 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 Experimental 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 Neuropsychology. 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 informations 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. Mendelsohn (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, 273288. 18. Silver, M. S., Markus, M. L., and Beath, C. M. (1995). The Information Technology Interaction 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. Information 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 entorhinal cortex. Trends in Neurosciences, 29(12), 671-678. ©Copyright held by the author(s)

67


23. Zinchenko, V. (1996). Developing Activity Theory: The Zone of Proximal Development and Beyond. In B. Nardi (Ed.) Context and Consciousness, Activity Theory and HumanComputer Interaction (pp. 283-324). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.


68