Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach
Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach
Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach
Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach
Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach
Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach
Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach
Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach
Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach
Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach
Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Towards Better Innovation Structures Using the Dutch STS-Design Approach

361

Published on

Current work in progress paper presented by L.J. Lekkerkerk (Hans) and B. Dankbaar (Ben) at the 2012 STS Roundtable Conference in Canterbury, UK.

Current work in progress paper presented by L.J. Lekkerkerk (Hans) and B. Dankbaar (Ben) at the 2012 STS Roundtable Conference in Canterbury, UK.

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
361
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 1(work in progress)TitleTowards better innovation structures using the Dutch STS-Design approach.For: SocioTechnical Systems Round Table2012 Working Conference, September 12-15, Canterbury, UK.Presented in Stream ‘Intra-Organisational change’ by L.J. LekkerkerkAuthor(s): L.J. Lekkerkerk (Hans) (and B. Dankbaar (Ben))E-mail: h.lekkerkerk@fm.ru.nlAbstractIt appeared that the Dutch version of the SocioTechnicalSystems Design Methodology, developed in the 1980’s and‘90’s by De Sitter (1998) and others, has two gaps limiting itsusability. First, it lacks clear design rules for the ‘innovationstructure’ embedded in the organizational structure of anyorganization that aims to remain viable. Second, it misses anormative function model containing necessary and sufficientfunctions for viability. Such a model would help to diagnoseactual or redesigned organizational structures. It also enablesthe making of systematic descriptions of organisationalstructures needed to do comparative case studies by which thedesign guidelines for the innovation structure should be found.This paper presents the model that is developed and tested. Itfocuses on the innovation structure and was tested for itsdiagnostic and research potential in five Dutch industrial firms.The test showed that the five organizational structures could besystematically described, and be compared and diagnosed.Hence this model fills the second gap in Dutch STSD, andproved to be a promising tool for designers and for researchers.This paper is based on the PhD-thesis research of Lekkerkerk (2012). The idea tostudy the organization of innovation has its origin in the early 1990’s when he wasworking at Fokker Aircraft Composite Structures Division. He noticed that doinginnovation projects was very rewarding, when a project was implemented withsuccess and really solved a problem or filled a long-felt need. On the other hand itcould be quite frustrating, because of the many small mistakes and some outrightfailures, especially the ones that might have been easily prevented.Innovation success is 30% or less on average, which is rather poor compared tomanufacturing processes that may reach a six-sigma level of perfection. Improvingthe performance of the primary process at Fokker’s Composite Structures Divisionwas realized by combining a restructuring along the design guidelines of DutchSocioTechnical Systems Design (from now on D-STSD), in combination with buildinga largely new plant with a flow layout, and adding a Just-In-Time philosophy to installcontinuous improvement as a normal habit in each process. So, it appeared that D-
  • 2. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 2STSD did have ready to use and effective design rules for designing the productionstructure and the operational control layer of the control structure. However, it lackedthese rules for what Achterbergh et al. named the ‘innovation structure’ (Achterberghet al. 1999, also see ‘Stap 10’, the last chapter in De Sitter 1998). See Appendix 1 fora brief introduction in D-STSD.Apart from these missing rules, labelled the first gap here, D-STSD appeared to havea second gap. It lacked a detailed normative model describing the necessary andsufficient functions for viability. A system exists of operational transformations andregulatory transformations (Achterbergh & Vriens 2009 Ch.7). Following Ashby(1956) the regulatory transformations are threefold: control or strategic regulation,regulation by design and operational regulation. All innovation related activity in anorganisation is part of ‘regulation by design’. A designer having a more detailedmodel could use it both as a diagnostic tool and as a design guideline. On at leasttwo points in a redesign process such a tool is needed. In a preliminary phase ithelps to answer the question whether the problems (or challenges) the organisationis facing, are caused (or can not be met) by the existing organizational structure. Ifso, merely rearranging the existing activities may not solve the problems or meet thechallenges, because certain functions from the set of ‘necessary and sufficient’functions may be missing in the existing formal or informal organisational structure.During the redesign the alternative structures should be judged using the normativeset of functions, and of course against criteria derived from the organisational goals.Next to this practical application, such a model would serve researchers too, as amapping tool to describe existing organisational structures and the embeddedinnovation structures in a systematic way, enabling them to compare and contraststructures and eventually derive the design rules for the innovation structure nowlacking in D-STSD.To fill both gaps more research needed to be done than could be carried out in onePhD-thesis project. Therefore, the ambitions had to be lowered to a more realisticlevel, and the scope of the project was narrowed down to answering the question:How can organizational structures be described systematically andunambiguously to facilitate both diagnosis and efficient comparative researchabout what organizational structures, and embedded innovation structures, aremost effective and efficient?Neither frequently used dimensions of structure (e.g. formalization, centralization andspecialization (complexity), nor configurations (e.g. Mintzberg 1989, 1993) enable themaking of unambiguous descriptions of a structure. De Sitter used systems theory tobuild a theoretical basis for the design rules of the D-STSD. Models fromorganizational cybernetics (e.g. Ashby (1956), Beer (1994, 2000), In ‘t Veld (1994 orin Veeke et al. 2008), and De Sitter (1998)) are used by practitioners for diagnosisand design, but were not really suitable for the purpose of answering this researchquestion. As mentioned, De Sitter has only ‘regulation by design’ as a function forinnovation. Beer presents a Viable System Model (VSM) with five functions and threeare necessary to innovate. A model by In ‘t Veld gives five functions for innovation,but there is no convincing logic behind it to claim that all its functions together arenecessary and sufficient. Beer claims this for the VSM, and according to Achterberghand Riesewijk (1999) nobody argued convincingly against it. However, the three
  • 3. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 3innovation related functions in the VSM do not give sufficient details of an innovationstructure to be described. Apart from that, it is very abstract, which makes it difficultfor practitioners to understand it, and it stresses exchange of information betweenfunctions rather than transformation of inputs into outputs using technical resources.So a new function-model had to be developed, to fill the second gap in D-STSD.Design specifications for the model are:1. enable a systematic & integral description of any organizational structure,2. have a detailed innovation structure,3. contain necessary & sufficient functions for viability,4. incorporate levels of recursion,5. focus on both social and technical part of the system in focus,6. understandable by practitioners.Based on the mentioned models a new open system model was developed (fordetails see: Lekkerkerk 2012) containing twelve functions, which are related to eachother and/or to the relevant environment of the organization. According to D-STSD-rules the innovation structure in the model is linked to the production structure. Figure1 presents the model. The functions are numbered bottom-up and the characters I,C, and V are shorthand for innovation, central, and supply (in Dutch voortbrengen)functions.Figure 1 The ‘Model Innovation and Organization Structure or ‘the MIOS’(some relations, e.g. those of Remember-C1 with all the other functions,are omitted for clarity of drawing). (Lekkerkerk 2012 p.296)
  • 4. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 4The contributions of each of the twelve functions are summarized in the Table 1below. The relations between them are described in detail in Lekkerkerk (2012), butare left out here due to space constraints. Because the model is based on the logic ofBeer’s VSM, its 12 functions are ‘necessary and sufficient’ too. So, if an organizationimplements all these functions and their relations in its structure, (and of course, ifthey are executed well by competent employees and managers), the organization issupposed to be able to remain viable. Viable meaning ‘able to maintain its separateexistence’ (Beer 1994:113). For most stakeholders in any organisation viability isimportant, because it means job security for employees and managers, continuousbusiness for suppliers, return on investment for the owners and it assures serviceand supply for customers. Staying viable without innovation is impossible.Before the empirical test the model was presented to four organization consultants,experienced in using the Dutch STSD approach for designing organizationalstructures. They were positive about the potential usability of the model in theirprojects on diagnosing and (re-)designing structures.The model meets the six design specifications in the following way:1. enable a systematic & integral description of any organizational structure; usingthe 12 functions as headings a systematic description can be made, and it isintegral because the system boundaries are chosen around a whole organisation;2. have a detailed innovation structure; eight functions together form the innovationstructure (or the regulation by design-layer of De Sitters Control Structure);3. contain necessary & sufficient functions for viability; the five functions from theVSM are in the model with some of Beer’s black boxes opened;4. incorporate levels of recursion; this can be seen in Supply-V1 were the miniversions of the model indicate that a system may consist of several subsystemsthat again are viable on their own (like divisions or business units in largerorganisations may or should be),5. focus on both social and technical part of the system in focus; this is not directlyvisible, but when detailing the processes within the functions both the employeesand the hardware involved are described;6. understandable by practitioners; verbs should be used to label functions, and atleast the ones chosen for the Dutch version were understood by respondents.The next step in the research was an empirical test of the model. It was agreed thattrying it in five companies of different size, product and Master Production Schedulecharacteristics (engineer to order, assemble to order and make to order) should givesufficient insight in the potential of the model for both its intended future applications.
  • 5. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 5Table 1 Brief description of the functions in the MIOS (Lekkerkerk, 2012 p.297)Five Dutch companies (100 - 580 employees, see Table 2) agreed to participate inthe empirical part of this research, carried out in the first half of 2010, and aimed attesting the model. Five questions had to be answered in the test:1) How can systematic descriptions of structures be made using the model?2) How can structures be diagnosed using the descriptions?3) How can comparisons be made using the descriptions?4) Is it an efficient tool for data collection? and5) What competencies does the user need to work with it?
  • 6. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 6Table 2 The five anonymous test companies(Lekkerkerk 2012 Table 6.1.1, translated)# Name MPS, Main product sites employees1 Eline EtO, Electrotechnical 3 1202 Amelie EtO, Marine electrotechnical 9 5803 Ezra MtO, Seed improvement 11 3004 Leon AtO, Trailers, OEM-modules 1 1305 Rik AtO, Mobile Cranes 1 140The 29 practitioners that were interviewed, on average six per company, recognisedthe functions in the model and were able to relate some or all of them to their jobs.One of the respondents declared: ‘Yes, we covered everything we do around here.’This may be regarded as an indication that no essential function was missing in themodel.All answers to the first four questions were positive. The systematic descriptionsresulting from analysing the interviews and some additional documents, providedsufficient detail about each structure to compare and contrast the structures and todiagnose each structure (q. 1, 2 & 3). An average of six interviews per company,following an introduction meeting with the owner or a member of the top managementteam, proved to be sufficient. It took the researcher about two to three weeks toprocess the data into a rich and usable case description. So it is efficient for both thecompany and the researcher (q.4).That the author had the competencies to use his own model is self-evident. But thefifth question relates to other potential users, consultants or researchers, who wouldwant to use the MIOS. They should have at least basic knowledge about theunderlying systems theory, organization design (D-STSD), and preferably aboutinnovation and operations management too, to fruitfully use the model. A number ofMSc-students used it in their graduation projects supervised by the author duringacademic years 2010/’11 and 2011/’12. They lack experience in organisations, butthe basics of the areas mentioned are in their curriculum, and they successfullygraduated.Following the successful test of the model the author decided to name it ‘the MIOS’,an acronym for: Model Innovation and Organization Structure.Further research to fill the first gap in D-STSD (design rules for the innovationstructures) will be done by the author and by MSc-students under his supervision.
  • 7. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 7The MIOS may also be used by:1. consultants or managers; to diagnose existing organizational structures and theredesigned alternatives,2. researchers; to make systematic and unambiguous descriptions of organizationalstructures, and compare and contrast them. By additionally linking (innovation)performance data of the organisations to the structures, it should be possible tofind characteristics of more effective and efficient (innovation) structures. Thismultiple comparative case study should lead to more specific design rules for theinnovation structure now lacking, to complement those for the production andoperational control structure already available in the D-STSD-approach,pioneered by De Sitter.The review of innovation management literature by Crossan and Apaydin (2010)sparked the idea to try whether the MIOS is usable as a framework to integrate thevarious strands of research focussing on the internal structure of innovationdepartments or subsystems (e.g. R&D, NPD, portfolio management) and maybe finda way to link it to the operations organization.References• Achterbergh, J., B. Dankbaar, H. Lekkerkerk, W. Martens (1999) Bestendiging door vernieuwing,over functies en structuren voor innovatie, Management & Organisatie, themanummer Innovatie,53e jrg, nr. 4, juli/augustus 1999, pag. 147-162.• Achterbergh, J.M.I.M., B. Riesewijk (1999) Polished by use; four windows on organization,Eburon, Delft, proefschrift KUN.• Achterbergh, Jan, Dirk Vriens (2009) Organizations; Social systems conducting experiments,Springer-Verlag, Berlin.• Ashby, W.R. (1956) An Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall, London; Internet 1999:http://pcp.vub.ac.be/books/IntroCyb.pdf .• Beer, S. (1994) The Heart of Enterprise, ‘The Stafford Beer Classic Library’, Wiley, Chichester(first edition 1979).• Beer, S. (2000) Diagnosing the system for organizations, ‘The Stafford Beer Classic Library’,Wiley, Chichester (first edition 1985).• Berniker, E. (1992) Some principles of sociotechnical systems analysis and design, working paperSchool of Business Administration, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, Washington 98466,• Burton, R.M., G. DeSanctis, B. Obel (2006/2011) Organizational design; a step by step approach,(2011 is 2eed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.• Burton, R.M., B.H. Eriksen, D.D. Hakonsson, T. Knudsen, C.C. Snow (2008) Designingorganizations; 21stcentury approaches, Springer, New York.• Burton, R.M., B. Obel (1995) Strategic organizational diagnosis and design, developing theory forapplication, Kluwer academic publishers group, Dordrecht (3rd printing ‘97).• Crossan, M.M., M. Apaydin (2010) A multi-dimensional framework of organizational innovation: asystematic review of the literature, Journal of management studies, Vol. 47, Issue 6, September2010, pp.1154-91.• Hammer, M., Champy, J. (1994) Reengineering the corporation, a manifesto for businessrevolution, paperback ed., Harper Business, New York (eerst druk 1993).• Hammer M. (1996) Beyond reengineering, How the process centered organization is changing ourwork and our lives, Harper Business, New York• Kuipers, H., P.J. van Amelsvoort, E.H. Kramer (2010) Het nieuwe organiseren; alternatieven voorde bureaucratie, Acco uitgeverij, Leuven.• Lekkerkerk, L.J. (2012) Innovatie- en Organisatiestructuur. Ontwikkeling en test van eenfunctiemodel voor structuuronderzoek en diagnose, PhD-thesis Radboud Universiteit, InnovaticaNijmegen. Pdf available: http://repository.ubn.ru.nl/handle/2066/93601• Mintzberg, H. (1989) Mintzberg on management; inside our strange world of organizations, Thefree press, New York.
  • 8. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 8• Mintzberg, H. (1993) Structure in Fives; designing effective organizations, Prentice Hall, UpperSaddle River (1ein 1983).• Mumford, Enid (2006) The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failuresand potential, In: Info Systems Journal, Vol. 16, Pages 317-342.• Sitter, L.U. de (1998/1994) Synergetisch produceren; Human Resource Mobilisation in deproduktie: een inleiding in de structuurbouw, 2eherziene druk, Van Gorcum, Assen (1sted. 1994).• Sitter, L.U. de, J.F. den Hertog, B. Dankbaar (1997) From Complex Organizations with SimpleJobs to Simple Organizations with Complex Jobs. Human Relations, Volume 50, Number 5 / May,pp.497-534.• Veeke, Hans P. M., Ottjes, Jaap A., Lodewijks, Gabriël (2008) The Delft Systems Approach;Analysis and Design of Industrial Systems, Springer Verlag, London. (vertaling en bewerking vanIn ‘t Veld 1994).• Veld, J. in ‘t (1994) Analyse van organisatieproblemen; Een toepassing van denken in systemenen processen, 6eherziene druk Stenfert Kroese/EPN, Houten (eerste druk: Elsevier, Amsterdam,1975).• Waterson, P.E., M.T Older Gray, C.W. Clegg (2002) A sociotechnical method for designing worksystems, In: Human factors: The journal of the human factors and ergonomics society, Vol. 44, p.376-391, DOI 10.1518/0018720024497628• Womack, J.P., D.T. Jones, D. Roos (1991) The machine that changed the world; the story of leanproduction. How Japan’s secret weapon in the global auto wars will revolutionize western industry,paperback ed. Harper Perennial, New York (1st ed. hardcover, MacMillan).• Womack, J.P., D.T. Jones (2003) Lean thinking; banish waste and create wealth in yourcorporation, Fully revised and updated ed., Free Press, London (1sted. 1996).Resume of the author(s)L.J. Lekkerkerk (Hans) was born in 1959 and graduated from the Delft University as a mechanicalengineer (MSc) with a specialisation in systems thinking and organisational design in 1985. He joinedthe Composite Structures Division of the late Fokker Aircraft Company as an industrial engineer andlater served as a quality engineer and project leader, until it went bankrupt in March 1996. After a briefperiod as a consultant (1996-’97) he joined the Nijmegen School of Management with the idea ofdoing research on the organization of innovation. He is teaching subjects like OperationsManagement, Organisation Design and Innovation Management and supervised 80 MSc-thesisprojects and BSc-thesis projects.Ben Dankbaar (1948) holds the chair of Innovation Management at the Nijmegen School ofManagement and supervised the PhD-project by Lekkerkerk.
  • 9. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 9Appendix 1 A brief explanation of Dutch SocioTechnicalSystemsDesign (D-STSD)The Dutch STSD-approach has a number of distinct features that sets it apart from other approachesto organisational structure design, like the configurational (Mintzberg), the contingency approach(Burton & Obel 1995, Burton et al. 2008, 2006/2011), and process based approaches like BPR(Hammer (& Champy)) or Lean thinking (Womack & Jones (& Roos) 2003, 1991).It is also different from Sociotechnical systems design as described by e.g. Berniker (1992), Watersonet al. (2002) and Mumford (2006). In these papers the STS-focus seems to be to design individual jobswith a high ‘Quality of Work’ and aiming at good Quality of Working Relations. In D-STSD the Qualityof Organisation is added as a set of requirements that the overall structure should help to fulfil.D-STSD sees any structure as being composed of a Production Structure and a Control Structure. TheProduction Structure contains the activities transforming the inputs into outputs, which are triggered bycustomer orders (or orders based on demand forecasts). Usually before work on an order can bestarted some preparatory tasks need to be done, and these are part of the production structure too.Finally Supporting activities, like maintenance, internal transport, staffing, are also defined as beingpart of the production structure.The Control Structure has three layers inspired by Ashby’s Control, Design, and OperationalRegulation of a system: the operational control of the order flow, the layer ’regulation by design’ andthe strategic regulation layer.The complexity of a structure can be greatly reduced by reducing the number of interfaces betweenthe departments or groups. The more in-/outputs, the greater the variety a group has to deal with. Soinstead of having a functional department for every type of task, leading to everybody dealing witheverybody, and each customer order passing a lot of departments, D-STSD advocates a designconsisting of self contained units, or plant within plants, that are responsible for and have all theresources to deliver a set of customer orders. These orders may be for a particular type of product orservice, products for a geographical area or a market segment.D-STDS has a specific six phase design sequence and strongly advocates redesign the wholeorganisation instead of a department or some other sub-system (e.g. Division, Business Unit). Thesephases (and the figure) are from the recent Dutch handbook by Kuipers, Van Amelsvoort1& Kramer(2010).After defining the boundaries of the system, i.e. the organisation to be redesigned, it explicitly statesthe mission and goals of the organization in the second phase.The third phase leads to the Design Specifications for the structure. These are detailed further in threegroups: Quality of Organization, and the traditional STS twin Quality of Work (avoiding stress,alienation, and enhancing opportunities to learn and grow), and Quality of Working Relations. Qualityof Work is inspired by Karasek’s job demand-job control theory. Working Relations refer to interactionsbetween management and employees that should be co-operative and seeking solutions that serve allstakeholders instead of just shareholders. So apart from being holistic, it D-STSD may be seen as amultiple stakeholder approach, although this may be developed further. The specifications derivedfrom external and internal demands are quite detailed. A short lead time may be desirable in general,but too vague as a criterion to judge both the present structure (e.g. enabling 10 working days as aminimum) and the alternatives to be designed (must enable 3 working days to regain competitiveedge).1Pierre van Amelsvoort is among the STS-RT 2012-conference participants.
  • 10. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 10The fourth phase in the integral designsequence, starts with a top-down design of theProduction Structure, followed by a bottom-updesign of the Control Structure. Activities aredivided in groups, with the aim of minimizinginterfaces between them. Depending on thenumber of employees, and a natural group sizeof about 8-12 employees, the designer has to‘cut’ once or more. Because functional divisionof labour leads to a lot of interfaces betweenmany departments that all have to deliver somecontribution to most customer orders, DutchSTSD prefers a flow-based structure (somesimilarity with BPR and lean are apparent). Insuch a design each unit focuses on a sub-set ofcustomer order types, and has its own supportand prepare tasks, avoiding the shared servicecentres. Suppose an organization having 300employees involved in PS activities and threedistinct order groups of similar size. Then thedesigner will form three groups each having 100people, obviously too big for just one manager.So another ‘cut’ is needed in each of the 3groups, preferably again independent parallelflows are formed, e.g. eight sub-flows with 12-13employees responsible for a particular type oforders. This is only possible if each of the threemain order groups has 8 subgroups of productswith a roughly equal demand. After two ‘cuts’ thedesigner has three units each consisting of 8subgroups, so in total 24 groups. Each grouphas 12-13 employees, which may seem in thefirst iteration to be a workable span-of-control.These 24 groups are also doing all preparationand support for their product, so no ‘sharedservice centres’ or functional groups (facilities,maintenance, internal transport, etc.) areformed.In the next step within the fourth phase, thedesigner starts allocating operational regulationtasks to the group. This may lead to somegrowth in the number of employees, sometimesto above the desired span-of-control. Should thishappen, then the PS-design has to bereconsidered. After taking care of the operationalregulation, including the remaining inter-groupregulation, this layer is finished. Decentralization of regulatory activities to the group level is the mainrule, so problems can be solved on the spot where they occur, and by the employees directly involved.This greatly enhances the Quality of Work. De Sitter leaves the design of the division of labour withineach group to the group itself, which is a form of decentralizing responsibility too. Kuipers et al. (2010)seem a little more pragmatic; if wanted by the group the designer may help, but in the end the groupdecides. Only after implementation of a team-based structure these groups will eventually, through alot of training and after gaining experience, develop into a truly self-directing work group, with thegroup leader position rotating over its senior members. In a sheltered workshop for mentally disabledworkers this will be a less probable growth path. In groups with highly skilled employees rotatingleadership it may be an attainable and desirable goal.
  • 11. Based on Englsih Summary from Proefschrift120327 – Reworked for STS-RT-Conference Canterbury UK Sept 12-15 – 2012 11The design of the structure then continues with the next control layer ‘regulation by design’. This layercomprises the activities aimed at innovation that ‘redesign’ the operations. Because of the specialistnature of these activities separate groups may be needed, but the operational groups will be involvedin innovation in a D-STS-design.And finally the strategic control layer is designed. At the latter two design levels concrete design rulesare lacking, so here the first gap in D-STSD mentioned in the main text becomes visible.The fifth design phase is dealing with the hardware, the technical parts of the sociotechnical system,like manufacturing equipment, ICT, housing. De Sitter advocates making a greenfield or idealorganization design first, without much consideration for the constraints the existing hardware(equipment, building, legacy-ICT-system) may cause for the design team. Of course the recently buildglass tower will not be sold just because the organization designer says that its one department perfloor design severely limits communication and cooperation between the groups. And from a costperspective it seems better to have two independent product lines use the same paint spray boot.However, this introduces an interface, which are notorious causes for trouble.The sixth phase is not really a design phase, but rather the implementation stage in which the softersystems and culture are further developed to come in line with the vision behind the newly structuredorganization, e.g. leadership style and employee behaviour.This may appear a straightforward linear design approach, but like any designer knows, iterations areinevitable and symbolised by the two arrows between the boxes. Design proposals may be judgedusing the Quality of Organization, work and Work relations-criteria. Another question is, whether in anexisting situation and in the proposed alternatives all necessary and sufficient functions for survival areallotted in the (design for) the structure. Here the MIOS helps to find an answer.

×