A Neurobiological Perspective on Socio-Technical Systems

(1)

A Neurobiological Perspective on Socio-Technical Systems

Lars Taxén

Department of Computer and Information Science, The Institute of Technology, Linköping University, Sweden

E-mail: lars.taxen@gmail.com

Abstract. The Socio-Technical Systems approach assumes that an organiza- tional work system can be seen as two independent but tightly correlated systems – a technical one and a social one. Together, these systems determine the performance of the work system. However, in spite of decades of research efforts, it is far from clear how to define these systems. Without a firm basis, analytical and constructive initiatives are bound to become either fragmented or ad- hoc. To this end, the purpose of this paper is to suggest a neurobiological perspective on Socio-Technical Systems. The reason for this seemingly odd point of departure is quite simple: any conceptualization of Socio-Technical Systems must ultimately take stock of the sine qua non of our existence as biological creatures. A fundamental prerequisite for survival is coordination – without coordination, acting in the world is inhibited. Based on many years of coordinating complex system development tasks in industry, I have proposed the construct of activity modalities – objectivation, contextualization, spatialization, temporalization, stabilization, and transition – as intrinsic neural 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 identifiers to achieve a common goal. Actions are manifested internally as changed brain structures in individuals, and externally as various artifacts reflecting the modalities. In conclusion, I claim that this approach indicates a paradigm shift, which may provide a solid ground for further inquiries into the analysis and construction of Socio-Technical Systems.

Keywords: Socio-Technical Systems ·work systems · coordination · 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:

(2)

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 interpretation—sometimes focusing on the social system, sometimes on the technical, but rarely on both together [1, p. 8].

STS approaches have long been prominent lines of research in the Information systems (ISs) discipline [14]. ISs lie at the intersection of people, organizations, and technology [18], and have from the discipline’s outset been regarded as 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 without 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,’ ‘organization,’ and ‘relevance.’” [ibid, p. 336].

There is something very disturbing about this state of play. In spite of continued research efforts, there seems to be little progress in articulating a firm basis from which analytical and constructive initiatives can proceed. Without such a basis, any initiative faces the danger of becoming either fragmented or ad-hoc. To this end, the purpose of this paper is to suggest an alternative conceptualization of Socio-Technical Systems from an individual perspective. In focusing on the ‘social’ and ‘technical’, the individual has been relegated into the background. However, in the final analysis it is necessary to bring the individual back to the fore since the concept of ‘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 coordination and still understand the physical basis of life” [16, p. 167]. Thus, it is highly

(3)

plausible that the phylogenetic evolution of humankind has brought about some kind of neurobiological predispositions for coordinating actions in the situations we encounter during our lifetime. Consequently,

…the mental is inextricably interwoven with body, world and action: the mind consists of structures that operate on the world via their role in determining action [11, p. 527]

In the following, I will elaborate on this position, using certain elements from extant research: the conceptualization coordination as a complex functional system [12], the activity modalities as intrinsic, neural factors contributing to this functional system [20], the notions of functional organs [13] and equipment [9] for relating neural structures and artifacts, and the terms joint action and common identifiers [2] for 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 interacting systems, the ‘social’ and ‘technical’ become aspects of a more basic construct, the activity domain, which is ultimately grounded the sine qua non for our existence as biological creatures.

2 A Neurobiological Perspective

Imagine that you can travel some 30,000 years back in time, and that you are a member of an ‘organization’ specialized in exploiting mammoths for the benefit of your tribe. The activity of one ‘business unit’ in this organization is illustrated in Fig. 1 – hunting the mammoth. What neurobiological faculties enable you to participate in this activity?

(4)

Fig. 1. Illustration of a mammoth hunt. Source: Original wood engraving by E Bayard; in [6].

2.1 The activity modalities

First, you need to contextualize the situation. You have to grasp that which is relevant for the hunt, and disregard the rest. For example, hunters, bows, arrows, actions, shouts, gestures, and other hunters are certainly relevant, while the beetles and other insects in the trees in the background can safely be ignored.

Second, you must focus on the object for the activity, the mammoth. Object orientation is fundamental for carrying out any kind of action: “Human beings live in a world or environment of objects, and their activities are formed around objects” [2, p.

68].

Third, you need to orient yourself spatially in the context. You must recognize how relevant things, such as how the mammoth, river, trees, and hunters are positioned in relation to your own position.

Fourth, you must acquire a sense for how actions should be carried out in a certain order, which is a temporalization capability. For example, shooting an arrow involves the steps of grasping the arrow, placing it on the bow, stretching the bow, aiming at the target, and releasing the arrow.

Fifth, you cannot shoot your arrows in any way you like. Shooting in a wrong 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

(5)

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 modalities are at play today when we try to use of extant technology and manage modern organizations. We still need to contextualize situations, focus on the target, orient ourselves spatially, plan for actions, learn to distinguish purposeful actions from 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 functional brain system that underlies the activity of a higher mental function [7, p. 561].

Each brain area provides a specific factor in the realization of the functional system:

But it is especially significant that each of these zones contributes its own factor to the making of a functional system [12, p. 12, italics in original].

This means that coordination may be seen as a functional system in which the activity modalities are contributing factors. I have proposed [21] that such a functional system may be modeled as dependencies between factors as illustrated in Fig. 2 (the activity modalities are emphasized):

(6)

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 analyzed for improving the coordination of activities.

(7)

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 between individual parts of the brain are gradually established, which means that “areas of the brain, which previously were independent, become the components of a single functional system” [13, p. 31]. This can be seen as an equipment constructing 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-

(8)

derstood, a society must be seen ... in terms of the joint action into which the separate lines of action fit and merge” [ibid, p. 71].

2.5 The activity domain

If we put together the notions of complex functional systems, activity modalities, functional organs, equipments, and joint action, the contours of a neurobiological conceptualization of activity begin to materialize. As individuals, we are endowed with certain neural faculties for coordinating actions, which we call activity modalities. We employ the very same faculties in every situation we encounter; it could not possibly be otherwise. When acting, we may use various artifacts such as tools or other means. These we learn to use in an equipment forming process, which “tie new knots” in our brains – functional organs.

At the same time as we are all unique individuals, we are also inherently social beings. From the moment we are born, we enter into a specific cultural and historical situation. In pursuit of fulfilling common social needs, we coordinate our own actions with others in joint action, which requires recognizable and meaningful external artifacts – the common identifiers.

In order to conveniently theorize about work systems thus conceptualized, Taxén has proposed the term activity domain [20]. Thus, the activity domain comprises both tangible elements – manifestations of the activity modalities – and intangible ones – the functional organs “manifested” in the brains of each participating individual.

3 Practical Illustration

In order to illustrate the approach in a contemporary context, I will use an example from Ericsson, a major provider of telecommunication systems worldwide. In the late 1990s, Ericsson was developing the 3^rd generation of mobile systems [19]. The chal- lenges posed by this endeavor were unprecedented in terms of technology, size, development methods, and IT-support:

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

(9)

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 introduction of modern, object-relational databases in the mid-1990s, quite new information management capabilities became available. In one sub-project, coordinated from the S-site, a decision was taken in 1997 to try this new technology out. A particular IT platform called Matrix was acquired for this purpose. Matrix was multi-tier, web-technology based, generic purpose information management system on which organizational specific IT applications could be developed. A particularly important feature of Matrix was the so called Modeling studio, which enabled applications to be easily modified.

One particular challenge in the 3G project was traceability from requirement to system parts implementing these requirements. A small team consisting of the project manager, a requirement manager, a consultant from the vendor of Matrix, and this author, was set up to work with this task. By ceaselessly iterating between construction of a requirement information model and its implementation in Matrix, a useful

C7 fun ctio ns

CAME L Ph 3 / IN A

X E M G W T r a c k

GCP TRACK Design Base

1.5

GPRS+SM S

f) GDB SMS

a) CA PC d) 1/AP T f) GDB

MAP S CCP Segmentation a) CA PC d) 1/AP T Title: AXE Anat omy fo r 2.0 2/0062-FCP W 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 2E 01 2E 02

Dependency 2J

01

Basic Call with AXE

01-10-15

01-10-30

APG40 / APZ 11.1 Design base on

functi onal level, not necessarily on product level

01-11-15

new CSD H.324 fallback d) 1/AP T 2U 01 2U 02 01-06-18halfrate

rem oval d) 1/AP T

01-09-20

GT Mod. for Connection less traffic a) CA PC

01-09-10 2J 04

Announcement changes a) CA PC b) CNCP 01-09-10 2DA 03

Advanced call cases with AXE/ Cell o BICC drop 2 compl. basic call a) CA PC

01-07-16 BICC drop 3

SS a) CA PC 2DA 05

new HW lift S MAC into 2.0

(incl. drop 2) a) CA PC b) CNCP c) CSP P d) 1/AP T f) GDB h) SMA C part

2S 06 01-10-22

GPRS charging characteristics f) GDB 01-10-08

2E 04

RONAS SSP a) CA PC 01-10-08

2E 05

ATI g) SCP-T 01-09-10

2E 06 Cause of no

CLI a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2F 16 01-07-30

U2G HO for CSD a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2F 13 01-10-08

SS U2G HO + SRNS Rel o.

R-TDM CSD

IN BICC ++

- MGW validation - AX E-Cello interwork a) CA PC b) CNCP

Server Recovery &

MGW node recovery b) CNCP a) CA PC d) 1/AP T

Multiple MGW support - NRM impacts for

multiple MGWs

b) CNCP

enhanced traffic cases: depending on GCP

UMTS CSD calls vi a GCP b) CNCP a) CA PC d) 1/AP T

enhanced traffic cases: depending on BICC

CSD calls via GCP ++

a) CA PC

CH, CW b) CNCP a) CA PC d) 1/A PT 01-08-13

01-08-13

01-10-08 01-11-05

01-09-10 01-11-05

01-11-05 2CA

05 OMS - call path tracing a) CA PC b) CNCP

01-07-16

2C

01 Reception of bearer

release i ndications (call release) a) CA PC b) CNCP 2C 03

2O 01

2O 02

Inter-System, intra-MS C Handover (via GCP ) b) CNCP a) CA PC

Inter-System, inter- MSC Handover (via GCP) + charging a) CA PC

02-02-18 2P 02

2P 03 2P 01

MPT Y, IN conference, O&M moni toring, LI conference b) CNCP a) CA PC

01-11-05 02-03-15 2R 02

2R 01

Recovery on termination, termination group and MGW level a) CA PC b) CNCP

01-10-22 01-11-19 Basic Call wi th Cel lo

Basic Call wi th Cel lo:

2 or more servers, using BICC, using 1 MGW UMTS-to-UMTS mobile speech call

periodic audit a) CA PC b) CNCP

01-10-08 01-11-05 2C 04 01-07-26

01-10-30 01-09-20

periodic audit

& test calls a) CA PC b) CNCP

01-11-12

01-10-22 01-11-19 Sp eech via GCP load control

a) CA PC b) CNCP d) 1/AP T

01-10-08 01-11-05 2C 05

01-08-13 MGW selection

PRA calls

a) CA PC 2F

10

01-10-22 02-02-18 01-10-08

LI 2L 01

LI for new architecture (via

GCP ) d) 1/AP T b) CNCP a) CA PC 01-10-22 02-02-18 Test call s (via GCP ) b) CNCP a) CA PC 01-10-08 01-11-05 MGW + MGC cold

start - O&M for MGW start

- Context/term . handling for MGW start a) CA PC b) CNCP 01-07-02

2CA 01

Sim ple Call - context/term . handling

for cal ls - basic protocol handling

a) CA PC b) CNCP d) 1/AP T 2CA 02 01-09-20

01-07-16

01-07-10

01-10-22 02-02-18 2Q 01

2Q 02 digit sending (via

GCP ), tones d) 1/AP T b) CNCP a) CA PC

01-10-30 01-10-08 02-02-18

MGW selection for IN calls

a) CA PC 2Q

03

Interactive messageing (design base) a) CA PC b) CNCP

EC procedures b) CNCP c) CSPP a) CA PC

01-09-10 2F 06 2CA 06 2CA

04

01-09-10 01-11-05

2T 03 2T 04 G2U HO

Inter-MSC G2U HO a) CA PC d) 1/AP T

Subsequent HO cases & charging a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2G 01

2G 02

01-09-30

01-10-22 01-09-10

Intra-MSC G2U HO a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2G 03 01-07-02

2F 11 Satelite page load

balancing

d) 1/AP T 01-08-13

2F 12

Traffic Based Pri ci ng RMP Service Interface b) CNCP Service User

a) CA PC Service User

d) 1/AP T 01-09-10 01-08-27

01-09-10 2H 2H 01 02

2H 04 01-09-20

01-07-30

Traffic handling a) CA PC b) CNCP

01-10-08 01-11-05 2T 02

configuration, blocking/

deblocking

a) CA PC b) CNCP

01-09-10 2T 01 MGW S election at re-routing a) CA PC

01-07-30 2DA 09

Jap an Specific TTC C7 d) 1/AP T 2W 01

2W 02 FNR file I/O f) GDB 01-08-13

01-09-15 01-09-10 CALEA + GS

support a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 01-10-22 2F 08

AX E par. &

DSA a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2F 20 01-10-22

LPT Test calls a) CA PC 2F 21 01-09-10

01-xx-xx FT ready;

FORLOP P improvem . 21230/33 b) CNCP 2M 09

RPS FC

b) CNCP 2M

06 01-10-22 Restart reason b) CNCP 2M 07 01-10-22

SP oE a) CA PC b) CNCP 01-12-17

2M 02 STS

a) CA PC 01-12-17

2M 05 Satelite backward

compatibility a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 01-08-13 2F 07

early Shockley a) CA PC b) CNCP c) CSP P 2S 05 01-07-02 CSPP : 01-07-16 SMS Waiting

f) GDB 01-10-08 2F 27

ANSI 41 NP a) CA PC f) GDB 01-10-22 2F 22

UMTS auth.

redundancy enha.

f) GDB 01-10-08 2F 24

Outgoing (+incoming) AA L2 connections, I.trunk (ALI FW) Reset procedures a) CA PC b) CNCP 2D 01

01-07-16 01-07-26

New Archi tecture Pl atform 01-07-10 New Servi ces P latform

01-07-10 MGW S election (Simple):

- only for AXE MGW - internal OIP - only basic call a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2A 01

01-07-02 MTP 3B long

messages STC CB interface a) CA PC

01-05-21 2B 01

BICC CS1 -- - basic call a) CA PC 2B 03 01-07-02

MTP 3B long messages MTP CB interface a) CA PC 01-07-02 2B 04

MTP 3B long messages support a) CA PC b) CNCP

01-08-13

2DA 07

BICC drop 3 special services

a) CA PC 01-09-24 2DA 08

01-07-30 01-09-20

Basic Call wi th AX E MGW:

2 or more servers, using BICC, using only A XE 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) CA PC b) CNCP 2S 09 01-09-10

AP G40 charg.

g) SCP-T a) CA PC 2M 10 01-10-08 2DA

04

TLV merge a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 01-09-10

2F 28

Number portabil ity MNP functions

a) CA PC d) 1/AP T

01-08-13 01-08-20

2K 01

AP IO b) CNCP 2M 12 01-10-22

AP Comm unic.

b) CNCP 01-10-22

2M 11

MTA P improvments

b) CNCP 01-10-22

2M 14

SW record

b) CNCP 01-10-22

2M 15 Iur

d) 1/AP T a) CA PC

01-10-22 2F

30 Shared Netw.

d) 1/AP T 2F 32 01-10-22

Long RANAP messages a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2J 05

01-10-08

BICC drop 4 AP M & Comp.

Handling a) CA PC 01-10-08

2DA 10

Security a) CA PC b) CNCP 01-10-22

2M 13 GOH

b) CNCP 2M 03 01-10-22 MAP v3 M T-

SMS f) GDB

01-10-22 2F 34 AMR for GSM

d) 1/AP T 01-09-10 2F 02

Single Cl.

Group a) CA PC b) CNCP 01-10-22

2M 16 FTP virtual

root a) CA PC b) CNCP 01-10-22

2M 17 SE QS

a) CA PC 2F 14 01-10-22

Can. Meter Puls a) CA PC

d) 1/AP T 2F 35

Satelite CIP tone + CSD a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 01-09-10

2F 31 Security

Context d) 1/AP T 2F 36 01-10-22

RAB Mod.

d) 1/AP T 2F 37 01-10-22

2Q 04

digit receiving (via GCP ) b) CNCP a) CA PC

01-11-05 OP / SQN

f) GDB 01-10-22 2F

23 2F

33 New OIP P ack.

d) 1/AP T

a) CA PC 01-10-08 TRAMification of

TSS (2.0 scope) Part I a) CA PC 2F 18

01-10-08

MONCO a) CA PC b) CNCP 2F 29

Long RANAP messages, CO a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2J06

01-11-05 UMTS&GS M term. FTM f) GDB 2U 04 01-10-22 UMTS&GS M term. FTM a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2U 01-09-10 03 ALI-

Beaom on interw.

b) CNCP 2S 08 01-10-22

Announceme nt changes II b) CNCP

01-10-08 2DA 11

TRAMification of TSS (2.0 scope) Part II: Russan, 1.5 spillover a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 01-11-05 2F 38

HO for CSD calls via GCP b) CNCP a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2P 05 01-11-05 02-03-15 G2U HO, architecture spl it test cases (test only!) d) 1/AP T

2P 06 02-01-28

SRNC reallocation (via

GCP ; same MGW) b) CNCP 01-10-22 02-02-18 Local

subscription d) 1/AP T 2F 39 01-10-22

UMTS positioni ng a) CA PC d) 1/AP T f) GDB 01-11-05

2F 26

FTM clean up a) CA PC d) 1/AP T f) GDB 2U 05/

06 01-11-05

FORLOP P improvem . 21220/25 b) CNCP 2M 18 HO Charging

a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 01-07-02

2F 09

01-11-05

Service User, IN calls a) CA PC 01-09-10

2H 05

Service User, A NS I TSS a) CA PC 01-10-22

2H 06

TRAMification of TSS (2.0 scope) Part III: Israel

& French a) CA PC 02-02-04

CN-I 2F 40

TRAMification of PBX a) CA PC

01-11-05 2F 41

01-xx-xx 01-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 cl udin g GACON test cases. INDUS can start to use i t.

ECP101 c) CSP P 02-01-22

2S 10 EA cleanup

a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 01-11-05 2F 42

PRA monitoring

CN-I a) CA PC

01-12-17 2F 44

Del ivered to LSV , FT d one Del ivered to LSV , FT n ot co mpl .eted Under desi gn or FT, not del ivered to LS V, requires maj or management attention Under desi gn or F, not d el ivered to L SV, some issues req uire attention Under desi gn or F, not d el ivered to L SV, no probl em . Handover

improve.

a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2F 45 01-11-05

Timer improvem ents

b) CNCP d) 1/AP T 01-11-05

2Q 05 Kc over MA P

d) 1/AP T 2F 46

01-11-05 Verification of UMTS AMR modes c) CSP P

01-12-03 2F 17 DES mark d) 1/AP T a) CA PC 2F 47 01-11-05

01-10-22

MONT fix a) CA PC d) 1/AP T 2F 48

01-12-17 CAI & CARI a) CA PC 2F 49

01-12-17 Iran CAS a) CA PC 2F 43

01-11-05 periodic

audit cl ean-up b) CNCP

02-02-04 2C 06 02-02-15

CN-I

CALEA for CMS40 a) CA PC b) CNCP d) 1/AP T 02-04-30

CN-I

2F 50

(10)

way of managing requirements was gradually worked out. An example of the information 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 requirements can be traced all the way from the organization issuing the requirement (“PN”) down to system modules contributing to the realization of the requirement (“CNT”,

“CAA”) and the software code (“Source Program Information”):

Fig. 5. Project data loaded in Matrix

Change Request ANATOMY_ITEM REQUIREMENT_ITEM

{Requirement general}

(Req Area) (Req Class) (Req Slogan) (Req Priority) Requirement Issuer

{Simple general}

n/R

Requirement Source Baseline ReqIssuer_

REQUIREMENT

n/R n/F SOC_Requirement

(SOC Comment) (SOC State)

RequirementSpec_

REQUIREMENT

n/F n/F

Parent_Child

n/F

n/R n/F DESIGNITEM_

Change Request n/F n/F REQUIREMENT_

ReqSource (Req Number) n/F Directed_To

(Req Priority) n/F Statement of

Compliance 174 02

Baseline_

DESIGNITEM (Required State)

n/R n/R n/F

RS_ITEM 1056

High-level RS

RS MRS CRS ARS

Input Req

Detailed Req

!

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

(11)

3.1 Interpretation

The process of working out a way to manage requirements can be seen as the construction of an activity domain focused on the object “requirement”. In this process, each individual team member gradually “tied new knots” in their brains related to the objectivation activity modality. So, for example, if one member had been hit by a stroke affecting the perirhinal cortex, she would have been unable to continue her work since this part of the cortex is involved in object recognition [5].

In the same manner, functional organs related to spatialization developed in interaction with the information model and its implementation in Matrix. The model in Fig. 4 has a distinct spatial character (things related to each other and characterized by relevant attributes, relations, cardinalities, and so on.). Moreover, traces of the other modalities can be noted in Fig. 5. Stabilization is signified by the endemic way of naming elements (for example “CAA 231 1054 R2” for signifying a particular revision of a software module). Temporalization can be noticed as different states of elements (“AGREED”, “PREL”, etc.).

When establishing the requirement management context, the model and its implementation in Matrix function as common identifiers, fitting individual lines of action together. The convergence of this process was indeed long and arduous. The form and content of the model were constantly discussed and implemented in Matrix over and over again; resulting in two kinds of manifestations. The first one is the external, tangible artifacts in Fig. 4 (the information model) and the IT application visualized as in Fig. 5. The second one is the internal, intangible functional organs evolved in each participant’s brain. Both these kinds are intrinsically related; one could not evolve without the other. However, this does not mean that they become “inherently 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 modalities requires a thorough investigation of possible neural correlates realizing these factors. Moreover, coordination is but one aspect, albeit perhaps the most important one. If we believe that the individual has a definite role to play in conceptualizing Socio-Technical Systems, the issues of coordination and action cannot be avoided.

In conclusion, the concept of the activity domain integrates the ‘social’, ‘technical’, and ‘individual’ into a coherent whole. This enables a paradigm shift in the conceptualization of Socio-Technical Systems. Rather than seeing work systems as the result of as two interacting systems, the ‘social’ and ‘technical’ become aspects of a more basic level, the neurobiological one, which is undeniably the sine qua non for our

(12)

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

(13)

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.