Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping
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

Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping

4,804

Published on

Human Activity System (HAS) Maps visually illustrate and capture the “flow” of causes and outcomes in a problem situation. …

Human Activity System (HAS) Maps visually illustrate and capture the “flow” of causes and outcomes in a problem situation.

In HAS Mapping a problem situation is viewed as occurring within a “system”, a Human Activity System (HAS), where the “system” allows a problem situation’s causes and effects to be identified and shaped into a causal relationship flow map, so underlying issues and their interrelationships can be better recognised and addressed.

The flow of causes to outcomes within a problem situation can be developed, for example, based on using, for example, “but-for” analysis (i.e. “but for an act or omission of X, Y would not have occurred”), and “Why- Because” analysis.

HAS Maps are versatile and can be applied to investigating, assessing, and addressing a wide range of problem situations.

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

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
4,804
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
107
Comments
0
Likes
5
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. Proventive Solutions Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Mapping the flow of cause to outcome in problem situations David Alman Version 3 November 2013
  • 2. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Contents Abstract ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1. What are HAS Maps? ......................................................................................................................... 4 2 Characteristics of HAS Maps ............................................................................................................... 4 2.1 HAS Maps are “system” maps ...................................................................................................... 4 2.2 HAS Factors in HAS Maps .............................................................................................................. 5 2.3 Perspective levels in HAS Maps .................................................................................................... 6 2.4 Integrating HAS Factors and Perspective Levels to form HAS Maps. ........................................... 7 3. Capturing the problem situation in HAS Maps ................................................................................ 10 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 11 Notations............................................................................................................................................... 12 References ............................................................................................................................................ 15 Attachment 1 HAS Maps showing how the template adapts to differing problem situations ............ 16 Performance Issue: Causes of client service dissatisfaction ............................................................ 17 Performance Issue: Customer Contact Centre Issues ...................................................................... 18 Health & Safety Issue: Workplace injury.......................................................................................... 19 Employee Grievance – Employment entitlement ............................................................................. 20 Employee Grievance: Workplace Harassment complaint................... Error! Bookmark not defined. Performance Issue: IT Division Performance issues ........................................................................ 22 Proventive Solutions Page 2
  • 3. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Abstract Human Activity System (HAS) Maps visually illustrate and capture the “flow” of causes and outcomes in a problem situation. In HAS Mapping a problem situation is viewed as occurring within a “system”, a Human Activity System (HAS), where the “system” allows a problem situation’s causes and effects to be identified and shaped into a causal relationship flow map, so underlying issues and their interrelationships can be better recognised and addressed. The flow of causes to outcomes within a problem situation can be developed, for example, based on using, for example, “but-for” analysis (i.e. “but for an act or omission of X, Y would not have occurred”), and “Why- Because” analysis. HAS Maps are versatile and can be applied to investigating, assessing, and addressing a wide range of problem situations. Proventive Solutions Page 3
  • 4. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping 1. What are HAS Maps? Human Activity System (HAS) Maps [1] capture causes of organisational problem situations, and their outcomes, in “flow” maps. HAS Maps are:  Visual and an easy to grasp way to explain what is involved in a problem situation.  Flexible and can be applied to a range of problem situations.  Able to identify and focus on core issues and key points for improvement.  Able to express a problem situation in a way that lends insight and understanding to causes involved, and how they interrelate. A wide variety of problem situations can be explored using HAS Maps, and in this paper examples of workplace performance; employee complaints; workplace Health & Safety; and work unit performance are provided to illustrate their versatility. 2 Characteristics of HAS Maps 2.1 HAS Maps are “system” maps HAS Maps are “system” maps in that they capture problem situations through “system” characteristics [2]. This in turn means that HAS Maps view and treat problem situations as problemed “systems”. In this respect HAS Maps use system characteristics when assessing problem situations, such as:  Identifying the Purpose that describes the aim or goal of HAS Maps, which is the basis for;  Identifying the interacting causes and outcome factors within problem situations; using  Different lenses or perspective levels [3] to identify causes and outcome factors within problem situations;  Recognising the context within which problem situations and the factors involved; and  That HAS Maps form a boundary around problem situations in terms of what is included and excluded; and  “Symptoms”, also described as “System conditions” or “events”, are shown as the outcomes of both problem situations and HAS Maps. Proventive Solutions Page 4
  • 5. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping In Diagram 1 this “system” is put together to show how they “nest”, interrelate, and interact as a whole to form a “flow” model in HAS Maps. Problem situations as HAS Map “flows” Characteristics The problem situation provides the Purpose or aim for HAS Maps The Cause factors are identified using different Perspectives in HAS Maps The Context is relevant to both problem situation and HAS Map content What is covered in problem situations form the Boundary for HAS Maps Problem situations have symptoms that are HAS Map Outcomes Diagram 1 Problem Situations as HAS Map flows. 2.2 HAS Factors in HAS Maps In organisation settings Human Activity System (HAS) factors are a useful guide in terms of what to look for, and can provide the breadth-range – of cause factors could be considered around a problem situation [4]. HAS factors can include:  A Purpose that describes the aim or goal of a Human Activity System. In HAS Maps the purpose describes the aim or goal to describe problem situations as HAS Maps. For example “To identify...”; To investigate...”. Proventive Solutions Page 5
  • 6. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping  The Meaning contained within problem situations such as values, beliefs, norms, attitudes, assumptions, rights etc;  Social relations including conflicts, leadership styles, use of power, social networks;  Material factors such as: o Human Design (e.g. technology, policies, rules, roles, competencies, processes, reporting standards, accountability structures); and o Environment, both built and natural. The HAS Model factors in Diagram 2 shows examples of interacting causes in problem situations. Purpose – to describe the aim of the HAS Map situation Social Relations Leadership styles, behaviours, relationships, conflicts, disputes, collaborations, power, influence, social networks. Meaning Values, Beliefs, Attitudes, Assumptions, Norms, Culture, “Rights” Outcomes of the problem situation Material Environment (Natural & Built) Including fuel, water, temperature, lighting, work space, building conditions Human Design (Means) Management systems, practices, processes, standards, procedures, reporting structures, policies, rules, roles, competencies Diagram 2. HAS Model factors with example causes 2.3 Perspective levels in HAS Maps HAS Maps include different perspectives, lenses, or “ways of seeing” a problem situation [5]. This allows a problem situation to be explored from different angles, and for cause factors involved to be better recognised and understood. Perspective Levels provide a “depth” to the range of causes recognised as involved in problem situations. These Perspective Levels are listed in Table 1. Proventive Solutions Page 6
  • 7. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Perspective Level Explanation Purpose Aim or Goal Referential Values, priorities, intentions that provide meaning and a basis for assessment, judgement, measurement. Governance How resources are organised, directed, coordinated, structured, such as management systems, organisational structures. Transactional   Interactions covering, for example: Designed work processes, practices, activities, behaviours, and social relations. Transactions can also include human interaction with; Physical conditions such as built and natural environments such as building configurations and conditions, and eco-systems. Table 1 HAS Map Perspective Level Framework HAS Maps “flow” through each of these Perspective Levels. Where Perspective Levels allow for consideration of different ways of seeing and understanding the causes involved in problem situation. Causes are traced in a consequential “flow” form through these Perspective Levels in a linked and interrelated way to outcomes [6]. 2.4 Integrating HAS Factors and Perspective Levels to form HAS Maps. There is an alignment between HAS Factors, as exampled in Diagram 2, and Perspective Levels, as exampled in Table 1. This alignment is illustrated in Diagram 3 in the following way:  Purpose: Both the HAS model and Perspective Level Framework include a Purpose.  Referential: Referential Perspective Level and Meaning are equivalent terms providing underlying sources of self reference that influence how we see and do things.  Governance: Refers to how things are organised or arranged providing rules and constraints and control on how things are or expected to be done. This can include issues relating to Human Designed factors such as reporting arrangements, production and service delivery system design, role design.  Transactional: covers two aspects: o Human Designed processes, procedures, practices within, for example, production and service control systems. As well as interactions between people (Social relations) such as behaviours and practices. Such transactions include interactions between the Human Proventive Solutions Page 7
  • 8. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Designed and people, for example how people and the computer systems and equipment they use to do their work. Transactions can include the interaction of people with: o Physical surroundings such as the built and natural environments. This can include building conditions; and other physical aspects of a human designed environment such as chemicals, and machinery, as well as the natural environment like eco-systems, and biohazards. In HAS mapping we are looking across different Perspective Levels for the causes of a problem situation, referencing HAS factors as prompts, and tracing them in cause “flows” to work out what causes are involved; how they interact; and how they affect outcomes. Human Activity System (HAS) Map Purpose: Flow direction Referential Level Meaning Such as the values, assumptions, and beliefs that cause appreciation of particular priorities and intentions and not others Governance Level Means How things are organised, directed, structured such as plans, organisation structures, accountability reporting Transactional Level Outcomes Social relations and Material How people and processes and the physical environment interact Outcomes Consequential outcomes Diagram 3. HAS Map showing flow direction of cause factors across Perspective Levels HAS Maps therefore have the potential to identify both immediate issues for improvement, and underlying key issues relevant for significant sustainable change. Proventive Solutions Page 8
  • 9. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping The theoretical HAS Map model in Diagram 3 is exampled in Diagram 4. Diagram 4 examples a performance issue: Delays in processing payments. Human Activity System Map Purpose: Identify causes of delays in processing payments Referential Level Belief in a low cost / high volume marketing strategy Senior management attitudes influence a culture of conflict Senior management focus on an efficiency organisation, not “capability” Governance Level Poor selection & performance management Lack of role accountability Basis of Product  Selection  Reliability  Testing Inefficient processing system  Manual practices  Computer system Poor “on boarding”, role induction, training programs Transactional Level Supervisor behaviour Customer complaints Increased return of defective goods Group behaviour Loss of staff Work overload Lack of training Staff incompetence Inefficient work practices Outcomes Delays in processing payments Diagram 4. HAS Map Example Proventive Solutions Page 9
  • 10. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Additional HAS Mapping examples are provided in Attachment 1 and cover:  Performance Issue: Client service dissatisfaction  Performance Issue: Customer Contact Centre Issues  Health & Safety Issue: Workplace injury  Employee Grievance: Employment entitlement  Employee Grievance: Workplace Harassment complaint  Performance Issue: IT Division Performance issues These HAS Map examples diagrammatically show problem situation causes and their relationships, flowing through different Perspective Levels, to understand problem situation causes to their outcomes. In practice more detail could be, and may be, required to satisfactorily complete a HAS Map. For this reason the HAS Map examples in Attachment 1 should be viewed as illustrative of how a problem situation can be captured. 3. Capturing the problem situation in HAS Maps A Narrative approach can be used to gather information and contributions from those involved in the problem situation through discussions, stories, conversations, examples, and explanations of issues, along with supporting qualitative and quantitative material. Narratives can take place, for example, through interviews, facilitated workshops, and Open Surveys. Maintaining participant and stakeholder confidence and trust in what is shared is important and therefore HAS Mapping occurs in an environment where confidentiality and privacy are conscious matters for consideration and are respected. Addressing confidentiality and privacy issues are important in also encouraging openness and the sharing of information and viewpoints on causes involved in problem situations. Through the consolidation, or “convergence”, of material from narratives and other sources, material is integrated and “streamed” into a flow of interacting and interdependent causes using a HAS Map “model” template. The cause and outcome flows in a HAS Map should be unforced and “fit & work”, that is demonstrate both construct and face validity [7] Proventive Solutions Page 10
  • 11. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping A “but-for” test can be used in the development of HAS Maps. The “but-for” test, for example, can be based on a “balance of probability” to develop a cause and outcome flow. That is, “but-for an act or omission of X, Y would not have occurred”. Alternatively other forms of analysis can be applied such as using a “Why-because” analysis [8]. Conclusion HAS Mapping offers versatile and visual means of identifying and understanding the causes of problem situations, and also shows how these causes and their outcomes are interconnected within problem situations. These problem situation causes involve Human Activity System (HAS) factors, and described as a Human Activity System (HAS). Problem situation causes are identified by using HAS factors as prompts, or checks, and by progressively taking different Perspective Levels through which to identify the causes involved. There are options available in how to analyse causal relationships and develop HAS Map flows, such as applying “but-for” and “Why-Because” sequences. A HAS Map Model template provides guidance in how to structure and sequence causes to outcomes that may include linear and non linear interactions that also result in flow lines that form HAS Map flow diagrams. Once such HAS Maps are developed, because they intend to illustrate a whole problem situation’s causes and outcomes, it is believed to assist better understanding and ways to address problem issues. A range of HAS Maps are exampled in the Attachment to example how a HAS template can be developed; how HAS Mapping is versatile; and how to investigate and assess a wide range of problem situations. Proventive Solutions Page 11
  • 12. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Notations [1] HAS Maps are based on integrating several Systems Thinking (ST) concepts and models. This theoretical foundation includes:  A Human Activity System (HAS) that contains “system” characteristics. This is explained further in Notation [2].  An analysis of a HAS, as a system, that involves considering points of view at different Perspective Levels. Refer to Notation [3].  HAS factors relevant to organisations as a system. This is explained further in Notation [4].  Perspective Levels, as Levels of Abstraction, that contain causes that interact and influence each other, varying from purposeful at the Referential Level to physical at the Transactional Level. This is explained in Notation [5].  HAS Maps that summarise and visually construct a flow model of a problem situation. Refer to Notation [6].  Developing HAS maps that involve qualitative analysis with similar needs of validation, and checking. Refer to Notation [7]  HAS Maps as causal flows of cause to outcomes, and can be developed and checked using techniques such as “But-why” and “Why-because”. See Notation [8]. [2] Rosalind Armson in “Growing wings on the way” (p136,137) describes fundamental features of systems: 1. A boundary defines the system as separate; 2. An environment is not part of the system, but influences the system and what the system influences; 3. Subsystems are part of the system; 4. Subsystems and system are part of a connected hierarchical structure; 5. Subsystems have specific relationships with other subsystems, and changes to these affect the behaviour of the system as a whole; 6. It has a purpose; 7. A system shows emergence- it is an entity in its own right, not a collection of parts. In this article these system features are addressed as follows: 1. The HAS Map defines its boundary 2. The environment is that which is excluded from the HAS Map, but within which the HAS Map occurs and therefore provides context; 3, 4 & 5. The subsystem characteristics and their relationships are expressed through: a. Factors in a Human Activity System (HAS) Model, see Notation [4]. These HAS factors provide a checklist of subject issues that could be involved, and are linked to three Perspective Levels. b. Perspective Levels are “Levels of abstraction”. That is they are multi-level structures that describe issues or activities at different levels. See Notation [5]. 6. The HAS Map, as a bounded system, has a purpose upon which it is based. 7. The HAS Map may be viewed as an “entity” in its own right. [3] Federica Russo in “Are causal analysis and system analysis compatible approaches?” (p7) cites Bunge that in carrying out a systems analysis, a HAS Mapping is a system causal analysis, that such an analysis “studies many-sides and multi-level systems and for doing so must adopt various points of view on different levels”. [4] Factors in a Human Activity System (HAS) are drawn from two sources:  “Cultural-historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and Developmental Work Research (DWR)”; and Proventive Solutions Page 12
  • 13. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping  Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), specifically David Patching in “Practical Soft Systems Analysis” (p8,9), where a Human Activity system is described as “systems where human beings are undertaking activities that achieve some purpose. These systems would normally include [characteristics of] other types, such as social, man-made, and natural systems”. [5] Rasmussen, Pejtersen, and Schmidt in “Taxonomy for Cognitive Work Analysis”, describe in Figure 10 (p43) Levels of Abstraction. This Levels of Abstraction is moderated using that found in Naikar, Hopcroft, & Moylan in “Work Domain Analysis” in Table 2 (p9). Levels of Abstraction are equated in the following Table to Perspective Levels as referenced in this paper, and result in HAS Map outcomes. Levels of Abstraction Purposes Priorities General work activities & functions Specific work processes Physical objects Purpose Referential Perspective Levels e.g. aim or goal of the HAS Map e.g. values, priorities Governance e.g. how resources are organised Transactional e.g. activities and physical causes [6] HAS Maps, as flow models, draw from both the Risk Management Framework (RMF), sometimes referred to as ActorMaps, and AcciMap methodologies of Rasmussen. These are outlined in Waterson & Jenkins in “Methodological considerations in using AcciMaps and the Risk Management Framework to analyse large-scale systemic failure”. From the RMF are drawn its two main components:  A structural hierarchy to describe actors actions at different Perspective Levels; and  Description of the contextual factors influencing the activities of actors. From AcciMaps, the flow mapping vertically integrates causal relationships across Perspective Levels. These Perspective Levels, as explained in Notation 5, as Levels of abstraction. [7] David Alman in “Open surveys and their analysis” provides an explanation of a process of capturing confidential narrative and the “convergence” involved in qualitative analysis from data to (system) model. That such an analysis also involves checking validity. The blog provides an introduction to “Fit & Work”, otherwise explained in the Notation in terms of Construct and Face Validity. [8] Anthony Hopkins in An AcciMap of the Esso Australia Gas Plant Explosion uses a strict “but for” logic to construct an AcciMap where breaking any one link in a causation flow could avert unwanted outcomes. Working through causation flows can offer a wide variety of ways in which unwanted outcomes could be addressed. This “but for” logic can also be applied in the development of HAS Maps. Such causal flow maps show the complexity involved in a problem situation, a complexity that also show how unwanted outcomes are preventable. The “but for” logic can be used for constructing a HAS Map The But-for definition is explained by Duhaime in terms of the law of Tort where, on the “balance of probability” (in civil law cases), a chain of causation is followed where in effect “but for the act or omission of X, Y outcome would not have occurred”. Peter Ladkin in “Why-Because Analysis of the Glenbrook, NSW Rail Accident and Comparison with Hopkins’s AcciMap”, examples the application of “Why-Because Analysis” on a “But-for” AcciMap, Proventive Solutions Page 13
  • 14. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping and provides two methodologies to cross check the accuracy and adequacy of HAS Maps. In effect this means that on a HAS Map one could:  Apply a Why-Because Analysis approach to Governance and Transactional Perspective Levels;  Apply, subsequently, a Cultural – Causal Analysis to the Referential Perspective Level. Proventive Solutions Page 14
  • 15. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping References Alman, D. Open surveys and their analysis Website: http://proventivesolutions.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/open-surveys-and-their-analysis/ Armson, R. (2011). Growing wings on the way: Systems Thinking for messy situations. Axminster, UK: Triarchy Press. But-for definition from Duhaime.org. Website: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/B/ButFor.aspx Helsinki University. Centre for Research Activity Development and Learning (CRADLE). Culturalhistorical Activity Theory (CHAT) and Developmental Work Research (DWR). Website: http://www.helsinki.fi/cradle/chat.htm Hopkins, A. An AcciMap of the Esso Australia Gas Plant Explosion Website: http://www.qrc.org.au/conference/_dbase_upl/03_spk003_Hopkins.pdf Ladkin, P. Why-Because Analysis of the Glenbrook, NSW Rail Accident and comparison with Hopkin’s Accimap Website: http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Papers/Ladkin-Glenbrook.pdf Neelam, Hopcroft, & Moylan Work Domain Analysis: Theoretical Concepts and Methodology Website: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA449707 Patching, D. (1995). Practical Soft Systems Analysis. London: Pitman Publishing. Rassmusen, Pejtersen, & Schmidt Taxonomy for Cognitive Work Analysis Website: http://www.risoe.dtu.dk/rispubl/reports/ris-m-2871.pdf Russo, F. Are causal analysis and system analysis compatible approaches? Website http://blogs.kent.ac.uk/federica/files/2009/11/Russo_CausalAnalysis-SystemAnalysis.pdf Waterson, P.E. & Jenkins, D.P. Methodological considerations in using AcciMaps and the Risk Management Framework to analyse large-scale systemic failures. Website: http://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/7944 Proventive Solutions Page 15
  • 16. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Attachment 1 HAS Maps showing how the template adapts to differing problem situations HAS Map of a Performance Issue: Causes of client service dissatisfaction HAS Map of a Performance Issue: Customer Contact Centre Issues HAS Map of an Health & Safety Issue: Workplace injury HAS Map of an Employee Grievance : Employment entitlement HAS Map of an Employee Grievance: Workplace Harassment complaint HAS Map of a Performance Issue: IT Division Performance issues Proventive Solutions Page 16
  • 17. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Performance Issue: Causes of client service dissatisfaction Human Activity System Map Purpose: Identify causes of client service dissatisfaction Referential Level Executive emphasis on maintaining existing processes & practices over continuous improvement Changes based on seeking efficiencies from IT software improvement Governance Level No operational improvement plan Customer complaints not investigated: No “root cause” investigations No management system for balancing workloads or staff rotation. Insufficient training in role standards Transactional Level Management decide to terminate staff based on anticipated IT Software efficiencies from IT sofware Increased workloads Implementation problems and delays before management action redundancies Outcomes Employees sense lack of management support Staff stress claims increase Proventive Solutions Increased staff absences Drop in productivity Loss of clients & client dissatisfaction Page 17
  • 18. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Performance Issue: Customer Contact Centre Issues Human Activity System Map Purpose: Identify Customer Contact Centre Issues Referential Level Update of Customer Contact Centre information by “back end” a low priority Run Customer Contact Centre at minimal cost Governance Level Customer Contact Centre standards and practices not up to date Lack of Interpersonal customer skills training & refresher training Customer feedback system in place but not effectively applied “Back end” policy and information not up to date Transactional Level Negative feedback not recognised in comments, nor fedback in Customer Contact Centre Initial customer contact Enquiry Process Specific responses to customer queries Enquiry completion Outcomes Negative customer feedback Positive customer feedback Proventive Solutions Page 18
  • 19. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Health & Safety Issue: Workplace injury Human Activity System (HAS) Map Purpose: Accident investigation Referential Level H&S risk management practices not reinforced Priority on efficiency & cost cutting Management priority on production outcomes Governance Level Machine maintenance schedules affected by cost cutting decisions H&S checks not carried out Delays in routine machine maintenance schedules Transactional Level Machine guard sensor not operating Machine guard not functioning Slip on oil leak on machine platform Employee rushing to complete job Outcomes Press operator injured by machine Proventive Solutions Time off on Workers Compensation Injury subject to external investigation and penalty Page 19
  • 20. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Employee Grievance – Employment entitlement Human Activity System Map Purpose: Conflict analysis of a grievance – Application of time-off provisions. Employee Management Referential Level HR policy based on Enterprise Agreement (Union priority, supported by management) Importance of supporting young child with no family support available Executive concern over loss of customers – service delivery issues in competitive market Governance Level Employee shift work conflicts with school policy on pick up and drop off times HR Work and Family Balance policy Management Time Off policy provisions subject to employer discretion Transactional Level Line manager under pressure to improve service delivery performance Employee requests application of time off arrangements 1 2 Line manager refuses time off request of employee based on excessive workload demands do not permit 3 Outcomes Employee raises formal grievance Proventive Solutions Page 20
  • 21. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Human Activity System Map Purpose: Identify causes of workplace harassment complaint Work Group Employee Management Referential Level Long term employees in an established team, providing consistent service New employee to team with history of providing new ideas that improve services Inexperienced manager with attention on senior management relationships Governance Level No regular meetings or planning meetings with work group to address work issues Transactional Level Work group rejects suggestion Employee raises a suggested improvement to group work practices New idea implemented into work group by manager Work group criticises employee and makes repeated fun of a disfigurement Employee informally raises harassment concerns Employee improvement suggestion raised with manager in front of an executive, who supports the idea. Manager dismisses and ignores employee concerns Outcomes Employee raises formal harassment complaint Proventive Solutions Page 21
  • 22. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping Performance Issue: IT Division Performance issues Human Activity System Map Steps: 1. Draw a “Macro Level” map of the process level, showing only the main steps or roles involved; 2. Develop HAS Maps around each step or role to identify causes and their outcomes that affect performance. This should include both ‘lateral” transaction causes, and “vertical” structural causes. 3.Develop “what should be” HAS Maps to identify the system changes that could improve performance. Purpose: Identify IT Division performance issues in meeting customer commitments Operations Key Outcome issues: Misalignment of IT to Customer priorities Help Desk Key Outcome issues: Repeated complaints unaddressed Referential Governance Referential Transactional Governance Outcomes Transactional Outcomes Projects Key Outcome issues: Project backlogs Referential Client Services Key Outcome issues: Inability to support customer Referential Governance Customer Key Outcome issues: Delivery delays Referential Governance Governance Transactional Transactional Outcomes Transactional Outcomes Outcomes Proventive Solutions Page 22
  • 23. Human Activity System (HAS) Mapping About the author David Alman lives in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, and is the business owner of Proventive Solutions, which offers services in Organisational Health. Organisational Health is a broad overview term that refers to assessing and improving performance and well being of both an organisation and its employees, recognising there is a nexus between the two. Further explanation through various articles, blogs, slides, on different subjects can be found on Proventive Solutions at WordPress, along with contact details. Please refer to: http://proventivesolutions.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/about-proventive-solutions/ This article is part of a body of work on Systems Thinking with a common base around the idea of looking at, and addressing, situations through different “Perspective Levels”. Other articles in this body of work include: Health & Safety System Approaches at http://www.slideshare.net/davidalman/health-safety-systemapproaches and http://en.calameo.com/read/001450934d63ceedb3266 Multilevel System Analysis : An introduction to Systems Thinking http://www.slideshare.net/davidalman/multilevel-system-analysis and http://en.calameo.com/read/001450934d8a5a5d9b090 Proventive Solutions Page 23

×