Four key aspects are relevant to the sociotechnical performance of a fictitious organization, called ABC, as follows:
Aspect A 1: Organizational Performance Measures
ABC’s performance can be measured through ABC’s effectiveness and efficiency.
To understand organizational performance, an organization should utilize useful indicators. From this practical perspective, key indicators of organizational performance include effectiveness (Bartuševičienė & Šakalytė, 2013; Frey & Widmer, 2011) and efficiency (Charnes et al., 1978; Laker et al., 2018; Nellutlaet al., 2018). While being effectively efficient, available systematic evidence is not perfect in many organizational processes (Frey & Widmer, 2011). Socio-technical work system elements also play a major role in organizational performance, along with other environmental factors that are not of high interest to this research, such as agility (Ayoub & Abdallah, 2019; Barhmi, 2019; Bi et al., 2013; Tallon & Pinsonneault, 2011). All these factors are intertwined with effectiveness and efficiency in the real world, especially from the standpoint of how they are perceived by public stakeholders (Andrews & Walle, 2012). The measuring of an organization’s performance using effectiveness and efficiency indicators is essential to attaining the organization’s goals. An organization can rationally manage its efforts and resources when the organization can measure the progress towards goals (Bryson et al., 2018; Daft, 2019; Ridgway, 1956; World Bank – The Independent Evaluation Group, 2013).
Aspect A 2: Work System
ABC’s work system is its cohesive whole
Work System is the unit of analysis of organizational performance, a sociotechnical system by default (Alter, 2013, 2014, 2019; Truex et al., 2011). Research by Kast and Rosenzweig (1972); Klir (1972); Luhmann & Barrett (2012); Miller & Rice (1968); and Schein (1996, 2015) revealed that (a) a system is a hierarchical whole; a system comprises at least interrelated elements or subsystems, (b) a system can only be explained through its totality, (c) a system can be relatively open or relatively closed; depending on the degree to which systems experience logical and/or physical exchange with the environment, (d) a system is dynamically transformative; systems receive inputs, process the inputs, and export outputs, (e) a system is relatively constrained with certain environmental boundaries; making systems relatively open or closed (Goldratt & Cox, 2004) (f) a system is influenced by entropy; on the one hand, closed systems are sort of rigid and static through an increased level of disorder and poor transformative performance. On the other hand, open systems arrest entropy and transform resources better through complete organization and order, which makes open systems in a steady state of dynamic equilibrium, (g) a system maintains its goals and a steady state through feedback. Open systems welcome informational feedback about the system outputs that, later, become inputs, which regenerates the system dynamism, and (h) a system operates based on the equifinality feature; open systems achieve desired results with varying conditions using different conversion ways, processes, and activities.
Aspect A 3: Socio-technical Perspective
The sociotechnical perspective is the extent to which a work system is socially oriented and/or technically oriented (Alter, 2019).
The social orientation implies the relatively higher intervention and control by people than by non-human resources in an organization’s decision-making and processes and activities.
The technical orientation indicates the relatively higher intervention and control by non-human resources than by people in the organization’s decision-making and processes and activities.
Aspect A 4: Work Domain
Work domain infers the nature of how a socio-technical, organizational setting functions (Alter, 2019), including stakeholders, cause-and-effect relationships, and decision-making processes and activities (Snowden, 2005; Snowden & Boone, 2007). For example, ABC’s processes and activities involve all ABC’s interrelated sub-systems needed for using inputs to produce the desired products and services for ABC’s stakeholders.
References
Andrews, R., & Walle, S. v. (2012). New public management and citizens’ perceptions of local service efficiency, responsiveness, equity, and effectiveness. Public Management Review, 15(5), 762-783. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.725757.
Bartuševičienė, I., & Šakalytė, E. (2013). Organizational assessment: effectiveness vs. Efficiency. Social Transformations in Contemporary Society, 2013(1), 45-53. http://stics.mruni.eu/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/45-53.pdf.
Frey, K., & Widmer, T. (2011). Revising Swiss policies: The influence of efficiency analyses. American Journal of Evaluation, 32(4), 494-517. https://www.doi.org/10.1177/1098214011401902.