1 / 16

Lecture 9: Sociotechnical approach vs. Business process reenginering (Hammer; Berg)

Lecture 9: Sociotechnical approach vs. Business process reenginering (Hammer; Berg). Nina Boulus-Rødje, Assistant Professor. Plan for today. Todays class : PPG 8: Berg (2001): sociotechnical approach; myths + challenges

ting
Download Presentation

Lecture 9: Sociotechnical approach vs. Business process reenginering (Hammer; Berg)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lecture 9: Sociotechnical approach vs. Business processreenginering (Hammer; Berg) Nina Boulus-Rødje, Assistant Professor

  2. Plan for today Todaysclass: PPG 8: Berg (2001): sociotechnicalapproach; myths+ challenges PPG 9: Hammer (1990): Business Process Reengineering (BPR) Guest lecture about knowledge management (recall Lyytinenet al.) & organizational change (link to Orlikowski, Berg & Hammer)Erik KorsvikØstergaard, Principle Business Consultant, from ProActive A/S. E (prepare questions!) Updates from blog: Lecture 9: A recent articleabout BPR (critiqueneglectingsituated WP) Link to a lectureabout BPR using IBM Added link to ProActive A/S: seehowtheysolvedifferent problems of theirdifferentorganizations Supervision: PPG10 (15:00-15:30) myoffice (3C09) Pleaseremember the ITU courseevaluation (deadline Nov 14: 23:59) Nina Boulus, Assistant Professor

  3. Theoretical landscape Lectures2,4, 5 Bødker et al. Blomberg Lectures5,7,8 Bødker et al. Suchman Randall et al. Dreyfus Lyytinen & Robey Orlikowski & Gash Lectures3, 9 Bødkeret al. Berg Hammer

  4. Theoretical landscape Lectures2,4, 5 MUST principles: coherent vision, user participation, firsthandexperience, etc. Ethnography principles: Members point of view, Holism, Natural setting, Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Say/do Tacitknowledge Insiders/outsiders Tools/methods: interviews, observations, scenarios, SWOT, etc. Lectures5,7,8 Organisations (gatekeeper, insider/outsider) Plans/situated actions Plans/script Awareness Artefacts Flow of work Normal naturaltrouble Knowledge acquisition Technological frames Organizationallearning Lectures3, 9 MUST: 4 phases Mythin ISD Sociotechnicalapproaches Business ProcessReengineering (BPR)

  5. Berg (2001) • Myths & challenges in IS • Sociotechnicalapproaches • PPG8: • Berg, M. (2001) Implementing Information Systems in Health Care Organization: Myths and challenges.

  6. Berg (2001) • Sociotechnicalapproaches??

  7. Berg (2001) • Sociotechnicalapproaches

  8. Berg (2001)- BUZZ • List all the problems (mentioned in the article) with the notion of success? • Whyis thisimportant and whatare the implications of the notion of success? Shouldwe do away with success factors? • What is ’user-involvement’? Why is it important? What is the problem with user-led design and howcanwesolve it? • For each of the 3 myths: • Give e.g. to explain the myth • Explainwhatis the problem with the myth? • Whatcanwe do to address the problem? • How willyouensure to follow a sociotechnical approach in yourproject?

  9. Example of applying Berg’s arguments to a case CASE X: A small cinema: Problem: low employee satisfaction with existing booking system. When faced w/a problem, they call super user who then call developer. Investigation reviled: the problem was a myth- no problem with the technology itself, but w/manual written by super user. Proposed solution: 1. retraining+ revising manual Berg- sociotechnical approach take into account technology+ users

  10. Hammer (1990) • Business Process Reengineering (BPR) • PPG9: • Hammer, M. (1990). “Reengineering work: Don’t automate, obliterate.” Harward Business Review: 104-112.

  11. Hammer (1990): BPR Whatcanyoudraw out of the principles of BPR to yourownproject? Advantages & disadvantages (critiques and risks) of BPR How does BPR differ from otherapproachesyouarefamiliar with?Compare/contrast: BPR vs. Sociotechnical approaches (e.g., Berg, MUST, Ethnography for design, etc.). Nina Boulus-Rødje,, Assistant Professor

  12. Critiques & risks: BPR Radical change: assumes the need to start from “clean state” (disregarding existing infrastructure) Focus on efficiency & technology disregarding people in the organization that are subjected to the reengineering initiative "I wasn't smart enough about that. I was reflecting my engineering background and was insufficient appreciative of the human dimension. I've learned that's critical” (Hammer) Exaggerated expectations re-potential benefits of BPR Underestimates resistant for change Technological deterministic: Over trust in technology Nina Boulus-Rødje,, Assistant Professor

  13. Berg (2001): myths & challenges Sociotechnical approach: the social & technical aspects are interconnected/interrelated mutual transformation ‘Success:’ Multi-dimensional; Dynamic (not static);Hard to quantify quality; Evolves over time; Identifying success factors: impossible to list definite set/a recipe Implications re-implementation strategy: no ‘one size fits all.’ Context/case dependent; Unpredictable; finding out what works best can often only be discovered during the process itself. 3 myths that hamper IT implementation Implementing technology- not simply technical realization; fundamentally affect organizations & vice versa; affects not only processes but also deeper changes (eg. Relationships between professional prg) Implementation includes IT dep. AND future users representative & top-management.; user involvement: careful/restricted, robust/open-ended Implementation can’t be fully planned: uncertainties & unpredictability= inherent characteristics to be accepted & even nurtured (Unexpected uses can lead to new uses (Orlikowski: new technology-in-use practices)

  14. Hammer (1990): BPR Business Process Reengineering (BPR): ’Don’t automate – oblierate’ Radical redesign/reengineer existing business processes to achieve dramatic improvements in performance measures Instead of looking at what people do (Suchman: situated actions), look at what the goal (product/outcomes) is and reduce the process Question & disregard all existing rules & assumptions (tacit knowledge) in a very different way than ethnography (e.g. Blomberg et al). Hammer’s assumption: possible to reduce complexity of work to rigorous processes- unlike Suchman who says: look at exception handling (when things don’t work), understand the process & built a system to support it Selected principles for optimization of processes: link parallel activities during the process, not after it’s completed; self-controlling/managing hierarchy; capture information once at the source;

  15. NextWednesday Pleaseremember the ITU courseevaluation (deadline Nov 14: 23:59) Lecture: IT innovation & standardizations (ERPs) LAST LECTURE PPG10 Pollock et al. (2003). Fitting Standard Software Packages to Non-standard organizations: The ‘Biography’ of an Enterprise-wide Systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management. Vol 15, No. 3. Bødker, K., Kensing, F. and Simonsen, J. (2006). Participatory IT Design. Designing for Business and Workplace Realities. Cambridge, Massachusetts, The MIT Press. Cp 7, pp. 165-193 (28) Summary of semester? Readings before the lecture: Pollock et al. (2003) Supervision TODAY (between 13:30-14:00)- my office 3C09 PPG10 Pollock et al (2003) Nina Boulus-Rødje, Assistant Professor

More Related