The document outlines the concept of Participative Design Workshops (PDW), a structured process initiated to empower employees in redesigning their organizational structures, enhancing productivity and democracy at work. It compares traditional bureaucratic models with democratic, self-managed teams emphasizing skill development and collaborative processes. Applications of PDW in companies like American Express and Motorola illustrate its effectiveness in achieving faster, cost-effective redesigns while fostering commitment and adaptability among employees.

1. Participative Design Workshop
(PDW)
Ashlesha Deshpande
HRD 5301
Fall 2008

2. Defining PDW..
• A PDW is a highly structured and participative process in
which people redesign their own organizational
structure.
• Comprehensive process in which people design a set of
measurable goals, training requirements, and inter-
group cooperation.
• Involves systematically relocating responsibility for
coordination and control from management, to people
who perform the work.
• Fast, cost effective, democratic and enduring

3. History
• 1951:Natural field experiment on self managed work groups
produced 25% more output at 40% less cost.
• Socio-Technical Systems (STS) introduced in 1969 recognized
interaction of people & technology. STS evolved as a
method to prove sustainable alternatives to autocratic
structures in workplaces.
• But, representation is not the same as participation. PDW
was introduced in 1971 by Fred Emery to replace STS and
address its pitfalls. Democratic process were evolved to
create democratic structures.

4. Theoretical foundations
 Self directed Learning (Hiemstra, 1994)
o Process of learning in which people take primary initiative and
responsibility for planning, carrying out and evaluating their
own learning experiences.
 Social Leaning (Bandura, 1977)
o Posits that people learn from one another, via observation, imitation,
and modeling.
 Socio Technical Systems (Trist & Bamforth,1960)
o Socio-technical theory focuses on joint optimization, of both
excellence in technical performance and quality in people's work
lives.

5. PDW Model(Design Principle 1)
• People are replaceable parts,
which creates alienation and
reduced commitment.
• Responsibility for coordination
and control is within levels of
management and supervision.
• Produces bureaucratic hierarchy
where management , not work
team, shoulders responsibility.
• Limited intergroup co-ordination
leads to repetition & inefficiency.

6. PDW Model(Design Principle 2)
• Each individual learns a multiple
sets of skills and functions.
• Responsibility for coordination
and control is located within the
self managed work team.
• All vertical and horizontal
relationships are democratic task
negotiation between peers.
• Flat hierarchy of functions rather
than individuals, regulated by
measurable goals as agreed and
contracted by each group.

7. Job Satisfaction Criteria Checklist
(six core requirements for productive work)
1. Empowered decision making (Optimal)
2. Opportunity to learn (Optimal)
3. Variety in work (Optimal)
4. Mutual Support and Respect
5. Meaningfulness
6. Desirable future

8. Application Stages of PDW
1. Assessment of the current state of Six Core Requirements
2. Mapping of current Work Flow Processes
3. Introduction to DP-1, Bureaucratic Hierarchy
4. Mapping of current DP-1 Structure
5. Introduction to DP-2, Democratic structure
6. Redesign of DP-1 Structure to DP-2 (Democratic) Structure
7. Aligning Work Flow Processes with new DP-2 Structure
8. Analyzing Skills Development required in DP-2 Structure
9. Analyzing DP-2 Structure for shifts in 6 Core Requirements

9. Outcomes
• Higher productivity and quality
• Increased responsibility, commitment and autonomy
• Improved and increased coordination and cooperation
• Increased multi-skilling as a result of shared work goals
Purpose
• Superior performance
• Fast and Cost Effective redesign
• Produce motivation to sustain change
• Adapt to future environment changes

10. Limitations
• Needs complete overhaul of bureaucratic organization
structure (DP1) to democratic structure (DP2).
• Requires complete commitment and faith of all
participants, which is unrealistic.
• Short Transition does not provide an opportunity to
adapt to structural change.
• Restructuring of responsibility, authority and power
would leave many uncomfortable with change.

11. Application
• American Express:
– Needed an Accelerated change process
– New design eliminated functional compartments
– Increased interdependence--multi-skilled teams
• Syncrude Canada:
– A series of PDWs held to create new designs for divisions
– Employees bid and apply for new team positions
– Self-managing teams designed and negotiated goals, roles, and
procedures and cross-team processes
• Motorola:
– Use of PDW to eliminate function segmentation
– Change in structure of work to optimize use of collective
resources and talents
– Change in job descriptions led to multi-skilled employees

12. References