MANAGER sociotechnical systems

The sociotechnical systems perspective is essentially top-down, in that it addresses the question of how the implications of management policies at all levels in the organization will affect the likelihood of errors with significant consequences. The sociotechnical systems perspective is therefore concerned with the implications of management and policy on system safety, quality, and productivity. 

Another factor that made these large-scale sociotechnical systems possible was a social innovation in business the emergence of the multi-unit, professionally managed, vertically integrated, hierarchically organized modern business firm. See Chandler (1977). 

Monitor indicators reflect the potential and capacity of the organisation to perform safely. The indicators monitor the functioning of the system. These indicators seek to measure the internal dynamics of the sociotechnical system and provide information on the activities of the system. Information should be provided not only about safety management initiatives but also about the persoimel, work processes, stractures and technology in the system. Cultural issues such as norms, values and shared practices should also be incorporated into monitor indicators. Figure 9.2 illustrates the ways in which safety indicators can be used to provide information to support safety management. 

In conclusion, proactive safety indicators either irtfluence safety management priorities and the chosen actions for safety improvement or provide information about the dynamics of the sociotechnical system (not merely about the functioning of safety barriers and absence of harm). These proactive indicators are respectively labelled drive indicators and monitor indicators in this chapter. Safety indicators should be capable of measirring (morritor indicators) or facilitating (drive indicators) the presence of organisational attribrrtes necessary for ensuring adequate patient safety. 

A large majority of the problems in any operation are systemic. They derive from the decisions made by management that establish the sociotechnical system—the workplace, the work methods, and the governing social atmosphere/environment. 

Dekker used the term sociotechnical system. It refers to the interrelatedness of the social and technical aspects of an organization. The term is commonly used in sociology, psychology, and human factors engineering. It implies taking a holistic approach to operations risk management, which emphasizes the importance of the whole and the interdependence of its parts. 

Error management approaches are used to combat the problem of human error in most complex, sociotechnical systems. A review of the error management approaches used previously in such systems was conducted. The literature indicated... 

Emery, RE. and Tiist, E.L. 1960. Sociotechnical systems. In C.W. Churchman and M. Verhultst (Eds.) Management Science (Volume 2). Oxford Pergamon. 

Thus, now there are all prerequisites for standardization and sustainable development of complex sociotechnical systems with use methods and means of risk management for safety. 

Public policy decisions are necessarily made in a dynamic, even turbulent, social landscape that is continually changing. In the face of these perturbations, complex sociotechnical systems must be robust. Rasmussen (1997) developed an innovative framework for risk management to achieve this goal (Figure 3). 

The first element of the framework is a structural hierarchy describing the individuals and organizations in the sociotechnical system. The number of levels and their labels can vary from industry to industry. Take, for example, a structural hierarchy for a nuclear power plant. The lowest level usually describes the behavior associated with the particular (potentially hazardous) process being controlled (e.g., the nuclear power plant). The next level describes the activities of the individual staff members who interact directly with the process being controlled (e.g., conpol room operators). The third level from the bottom describes the activities of management that supervises the staff. The next level up describes the activities of the company as a whole. The fifth level describes the activities of the regulators or associations responsible for setting limits to the activities of companies in that sector. The top level describes the... 

FIGURE 3 Levels of a complex sociotechnical system involved in risk management. Source Adapted from Rasmussen, 1997. 

There is a plea in this chapter for recognition of the impact an organization s culture has on causal factor development and for a balanced, systemic, sociotechnical approach that appropriately addresses the design and engineering, management and operational, and task performance causal factors. 

---