2.4.

1 Socio-Technical system theory

Socio-technical systems theory is an approach to design that considers human, social and

organizational factors, as well as technical factors in the design of organizational systems.

(Baxter and Sommerville, 2011). Davis et al. (2014) stated that the socio-technical systems

thinking grew out of work conducted at the UK Tavistock Institute into the introduction of

coal mining machinery. This identified the interrelated nature of technological and social

aspects of the workplace (Trist & Bamforth, 1951; Trist et al., 1963). The social factors are

related to the relationships between people who work together within and across

organizations. When organizations adopt a socio-technical approach to system development,

it leads to systems that are more acceptable to end users and deliver better value to

stakeholders (Baxter and Sommerville, 2011). The fundamental philosophy of socio-

technical theory has not changed, it still reflects the changing nature of work, technology and

design practices. Initially, the theory was applicable in heavy duty industry (Rice, 1958; Trist

& Bamforth, 1951), to a gradual broadening of enquiry to advanced manufacturing

technologies (Dankbaar, 1997), through to office-based work and services (Clegg, 2000;

Mumford, 1983; White et al., 2010). This study will apply socio-technical theory to explain

the electricity sector which is a service sector. The theory was adopted because it has

achieved some success in helping inform the design of new technologies and technology-led

change (Baxter & Sommerville, 2011).

The term, socio-technical systems, was originally coined to describe systems that involve a

complex interaction between humans, machines and the environmental aspects of the work

system. Otherwise, the definition is all about how people, machines and how both interact

when designing a system. The socio-technical theory considers both social and technical

factors that influence the functionality and usage of a system. The reason for adopting socio-
technical approaches to systems design is that failure to do so can increase the risks that

systems will not make their expected contribution to the goals of the organization (Baxter and

Sommerville, 2011). In any organization, there are various issues that affect their efficient

and proper functioning among which are socio-technical issues. The socio-technical issues

affect the specification, design and operation of the systems (Baxter and Sommerville, 2011).

The socio-technical systems theory incorporates the idea of design incompletion; the

continuing need to review and revise our designs (Cherns, 1987) and as such provide the

basis for organizations to design a dynamic system that can be open to challenge.

According to Baxter and Sommerville (2011), a system usually meets their technical

‘requirements’ but is a ‘failure’ because they do not deliver the expected support for the real

work in the organization. The source of the problem is that techno-centric approaches to

systems design do not properly consider the complex relationships between the organization,

the people enacting business processes and the system that supports these processes (Goguen,

1999).

However, the characteristics of systems thinking are the twin notions of “a complex whole”

formed from a “set of connected things or parts” (Allen, 1984). The socio-technical systems

theory is concerned about jointly optimizing people, technology, organizations and all

manner of other systemic elements. Walker et al., (2008) in their explanation regarding socio-

technical system theory described socio to relate to the people and society and technical as to

be related to machines and technology. When the two terminologies are combined, ‘socio-

technical’ refers to the interrelatedness of ‘social’ and ‘technical’. According to Walker et al.,

(2008), socio-technical ‘theory’ refers to the interaction of social and technical factors of an

organization to enable the optimization of system performance. The combination of ‘socio’

and ‘technical’ is necessary in this era of complexity. The socio-technical ‘system’

comprising of socio and technical elements engaged in purposeful goal directed behaviour
(Walker et al., 2008). The socio-technical theory is a way of describing, analyzing and

designing systems with joint optimization to design organizations that exhibit open systems

properties and can thus cope better with environmental complexity, dynamism, new

technology, and competition. The theory provides a basis for organizations with an

interactive technological and sociological pattern that allows the organization to prevent,

adapt, recover, and evolve during crisis.

The socio-technical system theory according to Trist and Bamforth (1951) suggested that

forms of work are composed of people interacting with each other and a technical system to

produce products or services. The theory believes that there exists an interdependence of the

use of technology as well as on the behavior of the people who operate it. Socio-technical

systems allow people to work with technology in ways that benefit society and advance

organizational goals. Given the interdependence between human and technical systems, the

theory suggested that productivity and satisfaction could be maximized via joint optimization.

In other words, optimal job functioning would occur only if the social and technical systems

were designed to fit each other (Trist, 1981) even though it has been argued that the concept

of joint optimization may not be realistic and that instead, the socio-technical practice should

be replaced with the notion of ‘intensification of labor’. The socio-technical system allows

for the organization to understand the social environment as well as the technical aspect of

the organization. The social environment refers to the interaction between workers, the

society and everything that have to do with the interaction of people both within and outside

the environment where the organization operates. This social interaction that exists suggests

that even the social environment for performing any activities within an organization largely

determines whether the technological side of the job functioning can go smoothly

(Cummings, 1978).
Kleij and Leukfeldt (2019) adopting a similar theoretical approach used engineering

resilience models and human behaviour to develop a framework that combined the four

resilience functions (i.e., anticipate, monitor, respond and learn) and three characteristics of

behaviour (i.e., capability, opportunity and motivation). Linkov and Kott (2018) also

developed an approach or model to managing system components complexity, using

additional and redundant resources, availability of experts to handle adverse situations,

organizing staff training programs for human resources and defining roles and responsibilities

of employees. Linkov and Kott’s (2018) model unlike the socio-technical model does not

emphasize non-technological elements of an organization but only placed emphasis on

system design and structure. However, the socio-technical theory allows the designing and

managing of organization to operate with adaptable, socially savvy principles and

technology. With socio-technical approach to resilience, organizations will effectively be able

to prevent, evolve and adapt even in the face uncertainty, risk and change. The socio-

technical system theory was depicted by Davis et al. (2014) using the diagram below.
Figure 5: A diagram showing socio-technical system (STS) theory, illustrating the
interrelated nature of an organizational system, embedded within an external environment
(https://business.leeds.ac.uk/research-stc/doc/socio-technical-systems-theory)

The diagram of the socio-technical system theory has the people component as well as the

technology component. An organization is made up of people, software, hardware data,

processes and other systems functioning together as a whole. The socio-technical systems

theory allows for an effective collaboration between technology and people together while

managing risks and improving the human experience of today’s technologies.

Furthermore, the socio-technical systems theory is highly interested in fixing some of the

most significant problems that traditional organization structures encounter. In response to

increasingly complex business environments, many organizations became so complex

themselves that this added complexity started interfering with productivity and effectiveness.

As a result of technology adoption, certain organizations have been faced with the cyber
related attacks which affect their operations.  These challenges require that the human and

technological component of the organization are strengthened to ensure they prevent the

occurrence. The human component must be trained to manage the problems whenever such

arises and use appropriate technology to prevent such incidences from happening. If the

people and technology components of the organizations are well connected and developed to

address the challenge of cyber related attacks, such organizations will be digitally resilient,

and productivity will be enhanced. The human component makes the socio-technical system

theory relevant to the organization in modern times and this aptly applies to electricity sector

organizations in Nigeria. Although some organizations do not often consider the social and

organizational complexity of the environment in which the systems are deployed or where

they operate but this consideration is vital as any interference in the social and technological

setup may consequently result into inefficient and ineffective productive or service delivery.

There are certain principles that are embedded within the socio-technical system theory that

allows organizations to prevent, respond and manage any form of complexity which in the

case of this study includes cyber treats or attacks. The principles according to Trist and

Bamforth (1951) are;

a) Adaptability and system resilience: The socio-technical systems theory prioritize

adaptability. As a result of large variety of unfavourable and changing environmental

and technological unpredictable conditions, the principle of adaptability allows for an

opportunity for maintaining the ‘ground’ in such a state (Trist & Bamforth, 1951).

This rather implies that with the adoption of technology for service delivery, the

organization should ensure that they are able to prepare and adapt to change as they

occur and will have to face. As such, every organizational structure favored by socio-
 technical theory must be highly adaptable to change and flexible even in managing

uncertainty.

b) Responsible autonomy: The socio-technical theory focuses on the group or team

level rather than an individual person within the organization. The theory believes that

individuals working as a team and interacting well can allow for more effective

service delivery. The team members who share responsibility and can collaborate

together and benefit from fewer task and are often able to communicate more

effectively. The principle of responsible autonomy embodied a form of internal

supervision and leadership at the level of the ‘group’ resulting in so-called

‘responsible autonomy’ (Trist & Bamforth, 1951). The interaction of the individuals

in each group or team will ensure a continuous operation in the organization and

maintain individual and mutual awareness (Carvalho, 2006).

c) Whole tasks for entire lifecycles: Socio-technical theory is as concerned for the

experience of humans within systems as it is with the system’s ultimate performance.

This is done through a breakdown of activities or task for each participant in the

production cycle. According to the socio-technical theory, an organizational project is

achieved through a lifecycle that is more flexible about resolving the task or

responsibilities. Every individual will ultimately perform specific roles or functions

and this interactively will ensure the project completion on time.

d) Meaningful tasks: Because teams have ownership of tasks and start-to-finish

responsibilities, these tasks retain their meaning and provide closure for everyone

involved.

The socio-technical system theory is such that it has multiple layers with each of these

layers may themselves be distinct systems, but they function as part of the whole and

influence one another. However, the layers comprise of both the person and technical
components and how interactively they can work together in achieving the organization

tasks. In the socio-technical theory, if there is a problem with a component, causing a

potentially adverse impact on the entire organization, the whole system theory ensures

that the problem is solved because redundancy and resilience are in-built to mitigate the

risk. The benefits of managing technical and social systems through the socio-technical

systems are enormous. The socio-technical system theory adoption ensures easy

management of sophisticated human challenges, self-regulation and error detection,

improved trust and responsibility among other benefits.

Moreover, Badham et al. (2000) describe the five key characteristics of a socio-technical

systems as follows:

a) Systems should have interdependent parts.

b) Systems should adapt to and pursue goals in external environments.

c) Systems have an internal environment comprising separate but interdependent

technical and social subsystems.

d) Systems have equifinality. In other words, systems goals can be achieved by more

than one means. This implies that there are design choices to be made during system

development.

e) System performance relies on the joint optimization of the technical and social

subsystems. Focusing on one of these systems to the exclusion of the other is likely to

lead to degraded system performance and utility.

A framework for effective organizational change with regard to technology can be

established by going back to the sociotechnical theory, ideas, and practices that were

prevalent in the past. This theory has made significant contributions to the redesign of work

for self-regulated work groups, and as a result, it is helpful for organizations that are

attempting to incorporate technological innovation. In order to avoid misusing or only

partially applying this intervention technique, organizations will need to have a

comprehensive understanding of these fundamental change ideas and techniques. By doing an

in-depth analysis of sociotechnical theory using a systems perspective, a business can reduce

the likelihood of the change program being unsuccessful (Hackman &Oldman). The STS

theory is perhaps the most extensive set of conceptual and empirical work that lies behind

contemporary applications of employee involvement and job design. STS theory is nearly

synonymous with work design and employee involvement throughout Europe, particularly in

Scandinavia. In both Canada and the United States of America, the Social Theory of the

Workplace (STS) has emerged as the dominant theoretical framework supporting efforts

including work design. Numerous companies, such as General Electric and Caterpillar, are

just two examples of those that create work employing STS theory. Emery and Trist's or

Chern's early contributions to socio-technical theory included strategies for the design of jobs

and work systems. These early contributions date back more than 30 years. Given the

inevitable penetration of technology into businesses across all sectors, there appears to be an

increase in the frequency of references to STS in more recent times. On the other hand, STS

approaches frequently appear to be piecemeal and only tangentially resemble the theory from

whence they were derived. The interconnectedness of "social" and "technical" is what is

meant by the term "sociotechnical." The so-called "theory" of sociotechnical systems is

predicated on two primary tenets. One is that the circumstances for effective (or failed)

system performance are created when social and technological elements interact with one

another. These interactions are made up in part by linear 'cause and effect' relationships,

which are the relationships that are typically 'designed,' and in part by 'non-linear,' complex,

and even unpredictable relationships, which are the relationships that are typically

unanticipated. Both types of relationships play a role in the interactions. The combination of

"socio" and "technical" results in an unavoidable consequence: the socio does not necessarily
behave like the technical since people are not machines. Paradoxically, with increasing

complexity and interconnection, even the "technical" might begin to exhibit non-linear

behavior. When a sociotechnical system is put into operation, it is inevitable for both types of

interactions to take place. A corollary of this, and the second of the two main principles, is

that optimizing either the socio, or far more commonly the technical, tends to increase not

only the quantity of unpredictable, "un-designed," non-linear relationships, but also the

quantity of relationships that are actually harmful to the performance of the system. This is

the second of the two main principles. Therefore, "theory" in the sociotechnical realm is

entirely focused on "joint optimization." A sociotechnical ‘system,' in addition to being the

descriptive term given to any practical instantiation of socio and technical elements engaged

in purposeful goal directed behavior, is a particular expression of Sociotechnical Theory.

(Walker, 2008). Sociotechnical systems use the concepts and metaphors of general systems

theory, in particular the concept of 'open as a way of describing, analyzing, and designing

systems with joint optimization in mind. This is particularly applicable to systems that

embody some degree of non-linearity both within themselves and the environment in which

they reside. Sociotechnical systems theory, which is the theory applicable to this study

reflects certain specific methods of joint optimization in order to design organizations that

exhibit open systems properties and are therefore able to cope better with environmental

complexity, dynamism, new technology, and competition. Socio-technical system theory is

applicable to this study as the socio aspect deals with cyber resilience in organizations which

are social systems with different aspects of the organizations working together and bringing

about ethe effectiveness and the efficiency of the organization. Systems thinking was

responsible for the development of the conceptual language, which is ultimately where the

ideas of "networks" and "distributed systems" come from. Its application to sociotechnical

theory came about in 1959 with a study written by Emery. This paper expanded the discipline
by drawing on the particular instance of open systems theory (Kelly, 1978, p. 1075). The

open systems theory provided sociotechnical theory with a footing that was more precisely

defined in addition to a conceptual language that brought everything together. The concepts

of "a complex whole" and "a group of interrelated items or pieces" are at the core of systems

thinking, which can be defined by its defining qualities (Allen, 1984). The idea that a

"collection of connected items or parts" can be precisely outlined is one of the selling points

of the way of thought associated with the industrial period. An electrical circuit diagram

could serve as a visual metaphor for such a deterministic system. A circuit diagram is an

artifact consisting of components that have known input/output qualities coupled by electrical

routes that also have similarly known properties and flows. In the language of computer

systems, an artifact like this one is referred to as a closed system, a 'object,' or a rational

system. In the context of organizations, a closed system is one that is focused on the

accomplishment of a certain objective and features a high degree of formalization (Scott,

1992). In other words, a closed system is the prototypical example of a bureaucracy. An open

system is different.