a neurobiological perspective on socio-technical …ceur-ws.org/vol-1374/paper5.pdfa neurobiological...

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 organiza-

tional work system can be seen as two independent but tightly correlated sys-

tems – a technical one and a social one. Together, these systems determine the

performance of the work system. However, in spite of decades of research ef-

forts, it is far from clear how to define these systems. Without a firm basis, ana-

lytical and constructive initiatives are bound to become either fragmented or ad-

hoc. To this end, the purpose of this paper is to suggest a neurobiological per-

spective 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 co-

ordination, acting in the world is inhibited. Based on many years of coordinat-

ing complex system development tasks in industry, I have proposed the con-

struct of activity modalities – objectivation, contextualization, spatialization,

temporalization, stabilization, and transition – as intrinsic neural predisposi-

tions 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 identifi-

ers 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 · neurobi-

ology ·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:

Socio-Technical Perspective in IS Development

Edited by S. Kowalski, P. Bednar and I. Bider 56

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 au-

thority 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 inter-

pretation—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 sys-

tems (ISs) discipline [14]. ISs lie at the intersection of people, organizations, and

technology [18], and have from the discipline’s outset been regarded as socio-

technical 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]. Soci-

omateriality 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 spec-

ify meaning for the very label that identifies it. This is a vital omission, because with-

out defining what we are talking about, we can hardly know it” [10, p. 338]. Moreo-

ver, “To its detriment, past research in information systems … has taken for granted

many of its own key concepts, including ‘information,’ ‘theory,’ ‘system,’ ‘organiza-

tion,’ 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 ‘socio-

technical’ 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 coordi-

nation and still understand the physical basis of life” [16, p. 167]. Thus, it is highly

Proceedings of STPIS'15

©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 en-

counter 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 ex-

tant research: the conceptualization coordination as a complex functional system [12],

the activity modalities as intrinsic, neural factors contributing to this functional sys-

tem [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 rec-

onciling 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 So-

cio-Technical Systems. Rather than seeing work systems as the result of as two inter-

acting 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 mem-

ber 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?



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 orien-

tation 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 di-

rection 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



cooking activity. This has its own motive, to satisfy hunger, and object, which hap-

pens 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, spatializa-

tion, temporalization, stabilization, and transition between activities – are denoted

activity modalities. These modalities, which were instigated from my work with coor-

dinating 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 modal-

ities 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 aim-

less 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 func-

tional 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):



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 ob-

ject [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 ana-

lyzed for improving the coordination of activities.



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 con-

crete activity in the process of their communication with each other” [12, p. 6]. Exter-

nal, 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 be-

tween 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 pro-

cess, 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 consti-

tutive 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 bor-

der 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-



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 modali-

ties. 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 be-

ings. 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 arti-

facts – 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 chal-

lenges posed by this endeavor were unprecedented in terms of technology, size, de-

velopment methods, and IT-support:

The total technical changes being implemented in this project are enormous. Using tra-

ditional 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 Stock-

holm, 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.



Fig. 3. Integration plan for the MSC node

Each of the white squares signifies a sub-project; a work package that delivers a test-

ed 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 intro-

duction of modern, object-relational databases in the mid-1990s, quite new infor-

mation 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 partic-

ular 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 construc-

tion of a requirement information model and its implementation in Matrix, a useful

C7 fun ctio ns

CAMEL Ph 3 / IN

AXE

MGW

Track

GCP TRACK

Design Base1.5

GPRS+SM S

f) GDB SMSa) CAPC

d) 1/APT

f) GDB

MAP SCCPSegmentat ion

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

Title: AXE Anatomy for 2.0

2/0062-FCPW 101 50 PA51

Edi tor: EED/X /D Stefan Berg

Date: 2002-04-11

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

01-10-22

01-10-08

01-10-08

2E01

2E02

Dependency

2J01

Basic Callwith AXE

01-10-15

01-10-30

APG40 / APZ 11.1

Design base onfunctional level, notnecessarily on product

level

01-11-15

new CSD

H.324fallback

d) 1/APT

2U01

2U02

01-06-18 half raterem oval

d) 1/APT

01-09-20

GT Mod. forConnectionless t raff ic

a) CAPC

01-09-102J04

Announcementchangesa) CAPC

b) CNCP 01-09-10

2DA03

Advanced call

cases with

AXE/Cello

BICC drop 2compl. basic

call

a) CAPC

01-07-16BICC drop 3

SS

a) CAPC

2DA05

new HW

lif t SMAC into 2.0(incl. drop 2)

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

c) CSPP

d) 1/APT

f) GDB

h) SMAC part

2S06

01-10-22

GPRScharging

characterist ics

f) GDB

01-10-08

2E04

RONASSSP

a) CAPC01-10-08

2E05

ATI

g) SCP-T

01-09-10

2E06

Cause of noCLI

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT2F16

01-07-30

U2G HOfor CSDa) CAPC

d) 1/APT

2F13

01-10-08

SS

U2G HO + SRNS Relo.

R-TDM

CSD

IN

BICC ++

- MGW validat ion- AXE-Cello

interworka) CAPC

b) CNCP

Server Recovery &MGW node

recoveryb) CNCP

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

Multiple MGWsupport

- NRM impacts formultiple MGWs

b) CNCP

enhanced traff ic cases: depending on GCP

UMTS CSD callsvi a GCP

b) CNCP

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

enhanced traff ic cases: depending on BICC

CSD calls v iaGCP ++

a) CAPC

CH, CWb) CNCP

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

01-08-13

01-08-13

01-0

8-13

01-10-0801-11-05

01-09-1001-11-05

01-11-05

2CA05

OMS- call path

tracing

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-07-16

2C01 Recept ion of bearer

release i ndicat ions(call release)

a) CAPC

b) CNCP2C03

2O01

2O02

Inter-System,intra-MSC

Handover (v iaGCP)

b) CNCP

a) CAPC

Inter-System, inter-MSC Handover

(via GCP)+ charging

a) CAPC

02-02-18

2P02

2P03

2P01

MPT Y,IN conference,

O&M moni toring, LIconference

b) CNCP

a) CAPC

01-11-0502-03-15

2R02

2R01

Recovery onterminat ion,

terminat ion groupand MGW level

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-10-2201-11-19

Basic Call wi th Cel lo

Basic Call wi th Cel lo:2 or more servers,using BICC, using 1 MGWUMTS-to-UMTS mobile speech call

periodic audit

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-10-0801-11-05

2C04

01-07-26

01-10-30

01-09-20

periodic audit& test calls

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-11-12

01-10-2201-11-19

Speech via GCP

load controla) CAPC

b) CNCP

d) 1/APT

01-10-0801-11-05

2C05

01-08-13

MGW selectionPRA calls

a) CAPC 2F10

01-10-2202-02-18

01-10-08

LI

2L01

LI for newarchitecture (v ia

GCP)d) 1/APT

b) CNCP

a) CAPC

01-10-2202-02-18

Test call s (v iaGCP)

b) CNCP

a) CAPC

01-10-0801-11-05

MGW + MGC coldstart

- O&M for MGW start- Context/ term .

handling for MGWstart

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-07-02

2CA01

Sim ple Call- context/ term . handling

for cal ls- basic protocol handling

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

d) 1/APT

2CA02

01-09-20

01-07-16

01-07-10

01-10-2202-02-18

2Q01

2Q02

digit sending (viaGCP), tones

d) 1/APT

b) CNCP

a) CAPC

01-10-30

01-10-0802-02-18

MGW selectionfor IN calls

a) CAPC 2Q03

Interact ivemessageing

(design base)

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

EC proceduresb) CNCP

c) CSPP

a) CAPC

01-09-10

2F06

2CA06

2CA04

01-09-1001-11-05

2T03

2T04

G2U HO

Inter-MSCG2U HOa) CAPC

d) 1/APT

Subsequent HOcases & charging

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

2G01

2G02

01-09-30

01-10-22

01-09-10

Int ra-MSCG2U HOa) CAPC

d) 1/APT2G03

01-07-02

2F11

Satelite page loadbalancing

d) 1/APT01-08-13

2F12

Traffic

Based

Pricing

RMPService

Interfaceb) CNCP

Service User

a) CAPC Service User

d) 1/APT

01-09-10

01-08-27

01-09-10

2H012H

02

2H04

01-09-20

01-07-30

Traf fic handling

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-10-0801-11-05

2T02

configurat ion,blocking/

deblocking

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-09-10

2T01

MGW Selectionat re-routing

a) CAPC01-07-30

2DA09

Jap an Specific

TTC C7

d) 1/APT

2W01

2W02

FNR file I /O

f) GDB01-08-13

01-09-15

01-09-10

CALEA + GSsupport

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT01-10-22

2F08

AXE par. &DSA

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

2F20

01-10-22

LPT Test calls

a) CAPC2F21

01-09-10

01-xx-xx FT ready;

FORLOPPimprovem .21230/33b) CNCP

2M09

RPS FC

b) CNCP2M0601-10-22

Restartreason

b) CNCP

2M07

01-10-22

SPoE

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-12-17

2M02

STS

a) CAPC01-12-17

2M05

Satelite backwardcompatibilit y

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

01-08-13

2F07

early Shockley

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

c) CSPP2S05

01-07-02CSPP:

01-07-16

SMS Waiting

f) GDB

01-10-08

2F27

ANSI 41 NPa) CAPC

f) GDB

01-10-22

2F22

UMTS auth.redundancy

enha.

f) GDB

01-10-08

2F24

Outgoing (+incoming)AAL2 connect ions,

I. trunk (ALI FW)Reset procedures

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

2D01

01-07-16

01-07-26

New Archi tecture Platform

01-07-10

New Services P latform

01-07-10MGW Selection (Simple):- only for AXE MGW

- internal OIP- only basic call

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

2A01

01-07-02

MTP3B longmessages STC

CB interface

a) CAPC

01-05-21

2B01

BICC CS1 --- basic call

a) CAPC2B03

01-07-02

MTP3B longmessages MTP

CB interface

a) CAPC 01-07-02

2B04

MTP3B longmessages

support

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-08-13

2DA07

BICC drop 3special services

a) CAPC 01-09-24

2DA08

01-07-30

01-09-20

Basic Call wi th AXE MGW:2 or more servers,using BICC, using only AXE MGWs,UMTS-to-UMTS mobile speech call,UMTS-to-GSM mobile speech call,GSM-to-UM TS mobile speech call,GSM-to-GSM mobil e speech call

C-HSSL

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

2S09

01-09-10

APG40charg.

g) SCP-T

a) CAPC

2M1001-10-08

2DA04

TLV merge

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT01-09-10

2F28

Number portabil ity

MNP functions

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

01-08-13 01-08-20

2K01

APIO

b) CNCP

2M1201-10-22

APComm unic .

b) CNCP

01-10-22

2M11

MTAPimprovments

b) CNCP

01-10-22

2M14

SW record

b) CNCP

01-10-22

2M15

Iur

d) 1/APT

a) CAPC

01-10-22

2F30

Shared Netw.

d) 1/APT

2F32

01-10-22

Long RANAPmessages

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

2J05

01-10-08

BICC drop 4APM & Comp.

Handling

a) CAPC 01-10-08

2DA10

Security

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-10-22

2M13

GOH

b) CNCP

2M03

01-10-22

MAPv3 M T-SMS

f) GDB

01-10-22

2F34

AMR for GSM

d) 1/APT

01-09-10

2F02

Single Cl.Group

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-10-22

2M16

FTP virtualroot

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

01-10-22

2M17

SEQS

a) CAPC

2F14

01-10-22

Can. Meter Puls

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

2F35

Satelite CIP tone+ CSD

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT01-09-10

2F31

SecurityContext

d) 1/APT

2F36

01-10-22

RAB Mod.

d) 1/APT

2F37

01-10-22

2Q04

digit receiv ing (v iaGCP)

b) CNCP

a) CAPC

01-11-05

OP / SQN

f) GDB

01-10-22

2F23 2F

33

New OIP Pack.

d) 1/APT

a) CAPC

01-10-08

TRAMif ication ofTSS (2.0 scope)

Part I

a) CAPC

2F18

01-10-08

MONCO

a) CAPC

b) CNCP

2F29

Long RANAPmessages, CO

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT2J06

01-11-05

UMTS&GSMterm. FTM

f) GDB

2U04

01-10-22

UMTS&GSMterm. FTMa) CAPC

d) 1/APT

2U0301-09-10

ALI-Beaom on

interw.b) CNCP

2S08

01-10-22

Announcement changes II

b) CNCP

01-10-08

2DA11

TRAMif ication ofTSS (2.0 scope)Part II : Russan,

1.5 spillovera) CAPC

d) 1/APT01-11-05

2F38

HO for CSD calls v iaGCP

b) CNCP

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

2P05

01-11-0502-03-15

G2U HO,architecture spl ittest cases (test

only!)

d) 1/APT

2P06

02-01-28

SRNCreallocat ion (v ia

GCP; sameMGW)

b) CNCP

01-10-2202-02-18

Localsubscript ion

d) 1/APT

2F39

01-10-22

UMTS positioni ng

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

f) GDB

01-11-05

2F26

FTM clean upa) CAPC

d) 1/APT

f) GDB

2U05/06

01-11-05

FORLOPPimprovem .21220/25b) CNCP

2M18

HO Charging

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

01-07-02

2F09

01-11-05

ServiceUser, IN

calls

a) CAPC

01-09-10

2H05

ServiceUser, ANSI

TSS

a) CAPC01-10-22

2H06

TRAMif ication ofTSS (2.0 scope)

Part II I: I srael& Frencha) CAPC

02-02-04CN-I

2F40

TRAMif icationof PBX

a) CAPC

01-11-05

2F41

01-xx-xx01-yy-yy

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 cludin g GACON

test cases. INDUS

can start to use i t.

ECP101

c) CSPP 02-01-22

2S10

EA cleanup

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

01-11-05

2F42

PRAmonitoring

CN-I

a) CAPC

01-12-17

2F44

Del ivered to LSV, FT d one

Del ivered to LSV, FT n ot co mpl .eted

Under design or FT, not del ivered to LSV,

requires major management attention

Under design or F, not d el ivered to L SV, some

issues req uire attention

Under design or F, not d el ivered to L SV, no

problem.

Handoverimprove.a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

2F4501-11-05

Timerimprovem ents

b) CNCP

d) 1/APT

01-11-05

2Q05

Kc over MAP

d) 1/APT

2F46

01-11-05

Verificat ion ofUMTS AMR

modes

c) CSPP

01-12-03

2F17

DES mark

d) 1/APT

a) CAPC

2F47

01-11-05

01-10-22

MONT f ix

a) CAPC

d) 1/APT

2F48

01-12-17CAI & CARI

a) CAPC

2F49

01-12-17Iran CAS

a) CAPC

2F43

01-11-05

periodicaudit

cl ean-upb) CNCP

02-02-04

2C06

02-02-15CN-I

CALEA for CMS40a) CAPC

b) CNCP

d) 1/APT

02-04-30CN-I

2F50



way of managing requirements was gradually worked out. An example of the infor-

mation model is shown in Fig. 4.

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 require-

ments 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

Change Request

ANATOMY_ITEM

REQUIREMENT_ITEM

{Requirement general}

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

Requirement Issuer

{Simple general}

n/R

n/R

Requirement

Source

Baseline

ReqIssuer_

REQUIREMENT

n/Rn/FSOC_Requirement

(SOC Comment)

(SOC State)

RequirementSpec_

REQUIREMENTn/F n/F

Parent_Child

n/F

n/Rn/F DESIGNITEM_

Change Request

n/Fn/FREQUIREMENT_

ReqSource

(Req Number)

n/F Directed_To

(Req Priority)n/F

Statement of

Compliance

174 02

Baseline_

DESIGNITEM

(Required State)n/R

n/Fn/R

RS_ITEM

1056

High-level RS

RS

MRS

CRS

ARS

Input Req

Detailed Req

!

!

!

!

LEGEND Relations/revisionsn/ = cardinality Many/N = No relation on new revision/F = Relation moved to new revision/R = Relation on both old and new revision



3.1 Interpretation

The process of working out a way to manage requirements can be seen as the con-

struction 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 inter-

action 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 revi-

sion of a software module). Temporalization can be noticed as different states of ele-

ments (“AGREED”, “PREL”, etc.).

When establishing the requirement management context, the model and its imple-

mentation 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, tan-

gible 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 insepa-

rable” 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 Socio-

Technical 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 cor-

roborated by future research on many points. For example, the notion of activity mo-

dalities 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 conceptu-

alization 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.



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 Socio-

Technical 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 Experi-

mental 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 Neuropsycholo-

gy. 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 infor-

mations 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. Men-

delsohn (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, 273-

288.

18. Silver, M. S., Markus, M. L., and Beath, C. M. (1995). The Information Technology Inter-

action 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. Infor-

mation 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 en-

torhinal cortex. Trends in Neurosciences, 29(12), 671-678.



23. Zinchenko, V. (1996). Developing Activity Theory: The Zone of Proximal Development

and Beyond. In B. Nardi (Ed.) Context and Consciousness, Activity Theory and Human-

Computer Interaction (pp. 283-324). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.



a neurobiological perspective on socio-technical …ceur-ws.org/vol-1374/paper5.pdfa neurobiological...

Documents