See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323958760

Socio Technical Systems: Transforming Theory into Practice

Research · March 2018

CITATION READS
1 2,189

1 author:

Lucas Ngowi
Unique Academy Tanzania
6 PUBLICATIONS 16 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lucas Ngowi on 26 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Socio-technical Systems: Transforming Theory into Practice
Mr. Lucas Ngowi
Department of Computer Science and Engineering
University College of Information and Communication Technology
Dar es Salaam, Tanzania
Email: [email protected]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract - This paper critically examines the evolution of social-technical systems theory, its practices, and challenges in
system design and development (engineering). It brings different concepts put forward by the authors/researchers from its
start to current focusing on the application of the theory in software engineering. There are different methods developed
over time to use social-technical concepts in systems engineering without remarkable success, the dominant drawback being
the large amount of data and inefficient techniques used in the application of the concepts in system engineering for
developing a system that is time-bound and within a limited/controlled budget. This paper critically examines each of the
methods, highlight bottlenecks and suggest the way forward. This study brings together different approaches and compare
them side by side, find the common weak links and strengths, close the w eak links, and build on strength. Since socio-
technical systems theory only explains what to do (elaboration of steps) but not how to do it (has not specified any design
method as means to achieve the system development goal), many engineers are not using the concept, they focused on
already developed and tested frameworks (methods) to save time, costs and reduce risks. Based on this analysis, we propose
a new framework that borrows concepts from soft systems method, agile systems development and object -oriented analysis
and design to bridge the gap between theory and practice. An overall outcome is a practical approach to systems development
using socio-technical systems theory to attract/enable the system engineers/software developers to use social -technical
systems theory in building worthwhile information systems. It has been noted that most systems that do not consider the
social component become sub-optimal, introduce fragilities and hostilities in the work environment - this is mostly caused
by workarounds and an attempt by users to find more attractive ways to work. The framework can be used by system
engineers and developers who plan to apply the social-technical concepts in designing and implementing open systems.

Keywords - Socio-technical Systems, Human Centered Design, Software Engineering, Cognitive Engineering, Soft Systems,
Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer-supported Systems, Systems Engineering
____________________________________________________________________________________________________

I. INTRODUCTION
Socio-technical systems are systems that involve a complex interaction between technology and the social subsystems (Morris,
2009; Sawyer & Jarrahi, 2013). These systems are open-ended and adapt to the ever-changing environment, they are
significantly influenced by social components such as human, culture, organization, the context of use, usefulness, policies,
and regulations. The main goal of socio-technical systems theory is a joint optimization of the technical and social system to
obtain results which are optimal (Mumford, The story of socio -technical design: reflections on its successes, failures, and
potential, 2006).

Socio-technical systems theory aims at designing the systems that can adapt to human needs and complex social environment
requirements instead of humans adapting to the system’s needs. The goal is to build people -oriented computers (systems) as
opposed to computer-oriented people (Hoffman, et al., 2002). Socio-technical perspective believes that humans are the primary
part of any successful system and therefore plays a pivot role in the designing of such system to meet their operational goal
(Morris, 2009; Whitworth, 2009).

According to (Whitworth, 2009; Sadok & Bednar, 2017), a socio-technical system design is a holistic approach which considers
the system as whole and not side by side, when one side takes prominence over the other performance will be affected, may
result into hostilities or fragilities in the work environment. And if the social system sits next to the technical one it is made
secondary, but when the social system takes prominence over the technical one it guides the whole system (Whitworth &
Ahmad, 2013). Brian Whitworth (Whitworth, 2009) used a simple example of a plane and a pilot, a pilot as human component
and a plane as a mechanical component, the mechanical component it cannot react into making complex decisions based on
the context that requires a rational decision and perhaps a novel idea, and therefore at a higher level a mechanical part adds a
human thought allowing the plane and the pilot to strategize and analyze together. Further, the social aspect of trust appears as
different participants interact with the system through different communication channels . To ensure quality and correct data it
needs designing the systems which are trustworthy, reliable, dependable and fosters privacy to allow smooth negotiation and
partnership (Morris, 2009; OECD, 2014; Adman & Warren, 2000).
Socio-technical systems design concepts have long been abandoned by most system designers and engineers in favor of other
design methods like business process engineering and total quality management emphasizing on the use of best practices and
engineering approaches to ensure the quality (Ghaffarian, 2010). However, traditional socio-technical design concept has
continually been revised and adapted to current practices to enable a more professional and practic al outcome (Bednar & Sadok,
2015).

A good example is the social-technical toolbox (STT), STT is a framework, methods , and tools that draw concepts from other
socio-technical disciplines such as SSM, OOAD, Cognitive Engineering, Contextual Design, System Thinking, Cognitive
Work Analysis, Human Centered Design, and many more to help with work redesign and IT development in small and large
organizations using ETHICS as a format. STT has overcome some of the known weaknesses of the traditional social-technical
system methods which were; very long description of requirements takes a long time to analyze, inconsistent terminologies in
defining social and technical systems, multidis ciplinary requires a designer to have knowledge outside his domain, conflicting
value system analysis and ambiguity in defining success criteria (Bednar & Sadok, 2015; Morris, 2009).

According to (Baxter & Sommerville, 2011), there are many disciplines that evolved from socio-technical concept, and each
tries to adapt to an environment, culture, or organization by putting more emphasis on a few aspects of socio-technical design.
Example, user-centered approach puts more emphasis on usability while cognitive work system analysis put more emphasis on
work capabilities and constraints. Apart from STT, in the year 2008 other social-technical methods such as Sociotechnical
Systems Engineering (STSE) was introduced to give usable socio -technical systems design methodologies and tools for
software engineers (Morris, 2009) , however this approach was termed as extremely manual because it makes use of
constructive engagement and sensitization to bridge the gap between engineering and change processes using the technique of
responsibility modelling and ethnography (Morris, 2009).

We argue here that there is a need for a pragmatic approach that will attract system developers and engineers into using social,
technical concepts over other popular engineering methods that are technically focused to improve the use of the systems in a
way that everyone supports. Socio-technical theory democratizes the system design and development process whereby each
user preference is taken into consideration during the design. The level of user participation in social, technical systems
approach is different from other methods, it advocates the design of flexible systems that let the people who work with them
to shape and manage their work.

Our approach combines the capabilities of the three models simplified to allow system engineers to use and overcome the
inherent challenges which earlier methods or frameworks developed did not completely address. We remember that socio-
technical systems put more emphasis on the attractiveness and use of the system by empowering humans (social component).
This method built on the same ground to pull engineers into using the social, technical concepts in software engineering above
other methods.

Below is a summary of methods used to construct our model.

Soft Systems Methodology by Peter Checklands

This is a very powerful tool for understanding the problem situation (i.e. Complex socio-technical problems) by employing the
strategy of divide and conquer (Gasson, 2017). It allows the system analyst to break situational variables (human activities)
down into subsets of change that can be supported by IT systems redefinition. It uses a holistic approach to find areas that need
improvements, the desired changes and how these changes can be supported by IT system (Burge, 2015). This can be done
using interviews, observations, and workshops where organizational actors describe their work and the problems which they
meet. SSM method evaluates the problem situation from different perspectives and therefore make use of a complete view of
a system to understand the internal illogicalities between future structures and future consequences (Gasson, 2017). The SSM
ultimate goal is to find the workable and acceptable actions that should be adopted to improve the system and n ot a system
design, this makes it invaluable approach for collecting and analyzing the system requirements. The synthesized requirements
can be fed into the Agile framework as epics, this will help reduce the number of iterations and help the development t eam to
focus on the most desirable inputs.

Agile Development

Agile method offers useful tools for capturing and working with a subset of data obtained from a social setting or working
environment using a story format that details a problem situation in a way that a designer can easily find solution that is best
fit for the particular context or environment (Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, 2015). Agile development
breaks work into smaller activities called user story, this is to ensure quality and clarity during the system development process,
the process is iterative allowing designers to collect feedback and evaluate effectiveness of the design as the project progr esses,
it allows changes at any stage of development and teamwork through daily stand -up (scrum). Radiators on the other hands are
used to visualize project progress and different project items openly to ensure transparency and encourage democracy in the
development process. Agile development makes use of user groups to transfer system ownership to the end users by allowing
or giving them the power to make suggestions on system design.

Object-oriented Analysis and Design

This method uses powerful representational tools for system engineers and software developers to create useful system models
that show interdependencies that exist between objects, relationships, data flows and underlying structures using charts and
diagrams. E.g. Sequence Diagrams, Activity Diagrams, Use Cases (UML), Flow Charts, State Transition Diagrams, and Many
more (Shelly & Rosenblatt, 2012). OOAD combines the two abstractions of software development, i.e. the OOA and OOD
whereby, the former models the system's functional requirements that are independent of any implementation constraints, most
non-technical users mostly the project sponsors and users of the proposed system have hardships in understanding technical
jargons. Visual modeling diagrams allow users and other stakeholders to give necessary feedback on the proper requirements
and structure of the system in a non-technical manner. OOAD is both iterative and incremental model and therefore merges
well with agile concepts. OOAD create a system design which can be converted into applications using OO languages.

The rationale for using these methods takes us back to the setbacks of the original ETHICS format which separated the study
of technical and social part then merges them in the end, however, it has been discovered that when the study of the social and
components technical are separated and merged along the way will result in emergent problems (University of St Andrews,
2017; Leitch & Warren, 2014). This method, therefore, does not separate the two, but make one lead the other (i.e. The social
component/part as the guide towards system development). According to Susan Gasson, it is recommended to use different
approaches and/or methods of inquiry to study the social and technology components because they are incommensurable
(Gasson, 2003). This confirms our approach because we make use of different approaches, that is, we use SSM for problem
investigations and Agile method and OOAD for solution designing.

To sum up, the soft system method is a very effective method used in analyzing system requirements to find or recommend
action needs to be taken when developing the information system (Burge, 2015). The agile method, on the other hand, allows
for rapid development of information systems with a robust framework for verification and validation of the design to better fit
the user (s) contextual requirements (Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, 2015). Lastly, Object-oriented
analysis and design (OOAD) have a set of very useful tools to visualize and present objects and their interactions in a manner
which system developers, users , and designers can document, learn, and understand the system. In this case, combining the
three will offer the best practical approach to software engineers.

This paper is organized into four major headings starting with the Introduction, in this chapter heading we have discussed the
goals of research, the concept behind the research, motivation, contribution and some examples that will make the reader
understand the aims and significance of the research paper. The second chapter heading is the Literature Review, this chapter
further unfolds the background of socio-technical theory or concepts through different researches done by scholars of social-
technical systems design, the challenges the theory went through time and changes introduced to refine and adapt the theory
into the current practice highlighting different socio-technical methods developed through time. The third heading chapter is
Findings and Analysis, in this chapter we have discussed different socio-technical design methods and their attempt to
overcome notable implementation weakness in the field of computer science from the original concepts, summary of the known
weaknesses in comparison of each method developed in tabular form to help understand and build grounds to introdu ce our
pragmatic approach to socio-technical design, this chapter also outlined in depth the gap found in previous methods and how
to overcome or close the gap using our new framework, this chapter further demonstrate the working of the new approach
stepwise using a tax information system as an example to help the reader grasp clearly the concept in software engineering
environment and probably put it into practice. The last heading chapter is Conclusions, here we have put a detailed summary
of socio-technical concepts from their inception, challenges and the need for developing an approach that will completely
integrate socio-technical concepts into the software engineering life cycle using a combination of methods, tools , and concepts
borrowed from other disciplines. We believe the contribution made as the result of this research will help system developers or
engineers to adapt socio-technical concepts fully into their project.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

A. Overview
Socio-technical concepts were first discovered after world war II by Tavistock Institute of Human Relations (Mumford, 2006;
Leitch & Warren, 2014). The main goal of researchers at the time was to democratize work processes to improve user
satisfaction, enrich work practices, add value, and include humanistic ideas into work processes (Mumford, 2006). Socio-
technical concepts went through different modifications over the years to adapt to an ever-changing work environment. Many
researchers have tried to put up efforts to adapt socio-technical concepts to the current trends in technology, this includes the
invention of Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer-supported Systems (ETHICS) system design method
which outlined principals that can result into the actionable output for system developers. Looking closely into this method,
although did not survive through times as it faced lots of criticism from system designers of the mode rn times (Leitch & Warren,
2014), the ETHIC method built a strong foundation to different disciplines today emphasizing in human involvement
(participatory) design from the start of the project. Other socio-technical disciplines such as a human-centered approach,
cognitive engineering, soft systems method, cognitive workplace analysis, human -computer interaction and context design all
extended and modified socio-technical systems concept to fit into different environments, approaches to work and innovative
ways of systems development with increased complexity (Baxter & Sommerville, 2011; Morris, 2009). During the introduction
of social-technical concepts, the technology (Information Technology) wasn't presented at a time, there were machines and
mechanical processes with little automation part (Baxter & Sommerville, 2011). With advent of personal computers in the
1980’s and later in 1990’s the introduction of the internet and the digital community, the technical part of the system moved
closer to the people (human), complex relationships between human and technology emerged that resulted in shaping work
practices, organizations, and society in unprecedented ways (Hoffman, et al., 2002; Whitworth, 2009). Socio-technical theory
took a turn and become more relevant as there is now the involvement of even larger social dimension in the technical system
than it was before that needs complex analysis and careful planning.

B. Socio-technical systems design

Socio-technical systems theory aims at designing the systems that can adapt to human needs and complex social environment
requirements instead of humans adapting to the system’s needs. The goal is to build people-oriented computers (systems) as
opposed to computer-oriented people (Hoffman, et al., 2002). Socio-technical perspective believes that humans are the primary
part of any successful system and therefore plays a pivot role in the designing of such system to meet their operational goal
(Morris, 2009; Whitworth, 2009). System specification by software engineers inclined mostly to fulfill technical aims
(efficiency and business interests) and very little on human needs and interests. The designers of the system mostly focused
how best the business procedures, rules and tasks can be organized to achieve business excellenc e and make people adapt to
the new system (University of St Andrews, 2017).

Below are different approaches and methods used overtime to help software engineers design systems using socio-technical
theory concepts.

1) Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer Systems (ETHICS)

As a graduate of Liverpool University, the sociologist Prof. Enid Munford got involved in a project going by the theme “the
impact of Electronic Data Processing (EDP) on organizations”, this research led to her interest in finding further the impact of
computers on people, organization, and society (Elbanna & Newman, 2013). Prof. Enid Mumford later moved to Manchester
Business School as a senior lecturer in industrial relations where she continued her research on the relationship between people,
organization, and computers (i.e. Integrated approach to planning for computers) with the goal of achieving worker’s
satisfaction through work redesign using socio-technical systems theory from the Tavistock Institute (Leitch & Warren, 2014).
She believed that Job satisfaction can be achieved through the redesign and that system designers are agents of change. She
also argued that the job satisfaction problems associated with computer systems could be improved by seeking a better fit
between the technical requirements and the social requirements of each job (Mumford, 2006). The concepts obtained from the
study gave rise to ETHICS method. ETHICS method was successfully used in the implementation of several computer projects
including the introduction of computer systems in Rolls -Royce Limited. Most organizations were convinced to use the ETHICS
method because of its humanistic concepts/principals in the workplace (i.e. Workplace democracy) and the need to resolve
industrial tensions on technology adoption and at the same time achieving business efficiency (Mumford, 2006). Looking in-
depth into this, you will find two themes of ETHICS study and that is” An Effective & Efficient Design and Satisfaction” the
former being the technical component and the later the social component based on the psychological and emotional payoff of
an individual. Satisfaction is greatly influenced by design according to ETHICS but not the least Prof. Enid Mumford, and that
is why it focused on redesigning work processes with a goal of achieving satisfaction and h enceforth stimulate the spirit of
work which in turn affects worker’s performance and productivity.

In ETHICS the development of computer-based systems is seen as a change process and therefore it is likely to involve conflicts
of interest between all the participants or actors in that process. The successful implementation of new systems is, therefore, a
process of negotiation between the affected and interested parties. To obtain a satisfactory result in the system implementat ion,
participatory approach is emphasized based on the context, size, and nature of the organization or business setting (Adman &
Warren, 2000). Prof. Enid Mumford used different participation approaches; First is consultative participation for Top-level
strategic planning whereby managers should involve employees or consultative teams in formulating their strategies in system
planning/design to avoid conflicts of interests; Second is the representative participation approach for Tactical / Middle level
to allow participation of individual groups/function/department to define system boundaries and represent user needs within
their groups (Adman & Warren, 2000). Lastly, the consensus participation whereby everyone is fully involved to obtain finer
details on the work process at the bottom/operational level and therefore democratize the system implementation process
(Elbanna & Newman, 2013; Leitch & Warren, 2014).

Fall of ETHICS

- Inefficiencies for large-scale projects: The consensus participation becomes tedious, costly, and the voluminous data
led to new challenges in the design team that forced Prof. Mumford to turn into consultative and representative
participation instead.
- A move from single-function in-house system to multi-function system: Introduction of microcomputers fro m
mainframe computers and the emergence of distributed computing changed the nature of the problems in terms of
scale and dimensions.
- The Complexity of the design requirements: It was hard for a layman or naïve users to understand complex systems
and therefore both the organization and employees could not be able to take part effectively in the design. I.e.
Knowledge barrier.
- Rejection of the XSEL expert system by digital corporation developed using ETHICS as a method.
- Ethics projects took a long time and did not guarantee financial success
- Change in the business landscape – change from internal focus to external focus, the question of employee
satisfaction lowered to the manager's responsibilities.
- Conflicting systems: Conflicts of interests between employees and management halted projects for a long time.
- The change in technology landscape: Emergence of distributed computing, offshoring, virtual teams, and complex
system integration ETHICS initially not designed for.
- The change in business landscape: Less attention is given to employee welfare compared to business short term
goals and profit generating motives. Severe competition in the global scope does not allow companies to give concerns
over social welfares.
- Impractical: ETHICS has been proven to be not suitable for the technical part of the system, it falls on one side only
and that is the human need and job satisfaction emphasizing participatory design to achieve that (Leitch & Warren,
2014). The figure below is adapted from (Elbanna & Newman, 2013) shows clearly the role of ETHICS in informatio n
system development.

Figure 1: The role of ETHICS in information system development

In addition to the above causative, ETHICS method has been expressed by Avison and Fitzgerald (Avison & Fitzgerald, 2006)
as impractical, because the use of consensus design brings in unskilled workers to make technical decisions and therefore cause
tensions between the management and the employees, it also removed the rights of man agers to manage effectively and this
cause dramatic effects on project support and sponsorship. Consensus approach is not a good approach for larger and complex
enterprise-wide systems as it is very slow and costly in staff time and effort.
 2) Quick Ethics
Quick ETHICS (QUality Information from Considered Knowledge) method came into place after the dramatic fall of the
ETHIC method in an effort to build a more attractive system design method that will attract the bus iness managers and address
weaknesses found in ETHICS method (Leitch & Warren, 2014). QUICK ETHICS used a centralized approach whereby the
project starts from the central level and fans out to the top and bottom levels, it deliberately forms a working group of skillfu l
personnel using representative/controlled participation approach to be involved in the system design . ETHICS method was a
Top-Down approach which considered ineffective and caused concerns between the management and the employee. Quick
ETHICS was made to help with requirement analysis for managers through one-on-one interviews, and group discussions. It
is based on practical experience and principals of PROGRESS (Process Redesign, Organizational Group Relationships,
Efficiency and Social Stability) (Mumford, et al., 1983).

Quick ETHICS reduced the number of steps from 15 to 5 making it easier and simpler to follow compared to ETHICS method
and therefore saves time and costs. However, this method does not provide the ability for system developers or software
engineers to work on the technical components (technical analysis) of the system, it needs the use of other methods to
complement its use in software engineering, it also has the major disadvantage of leaving the s ystems analysts with the task of
integrating several different sets of needs.

3) Socio-technical Toolbox
STT is a framework, methods , and tools that draw concepts from other socio-technical disciplines such as SSM, OOAD,
Cognitive Engineering, Contextual Design, System Thinking, Cognitive Work Analysis, Human Centered Design, and many
more to help with work redesign and IT development in small and large organizations using ETHICS as a format . STT has
overcome some of the known weaknesses of the traditional social-technical system methods which mainly were; difficulties in
finding proper levels of abstraction, inconsistent terminologies in defining social and technical systems, multidisciplina ry
requires a designer to have knowledge outside his domain, conflicting value system analysis and ambiguity in defining success
criteria (Bednar & Sadok, 2015; Morris, 2009). The toolbox consists of 27 different analytical tools, eight themes and thirty
(30) templates for organizational analysis and business process redesign. It has been developed and used in practice in many
different types of organizations over a period of seventeen years. The STT was introduced in 1999 and its original intention
was to be used as a complimentary overview of ST methods , since that time it has been changed by different scholars until
recently (2015) to improve and adapt the toolbox to modern times engineering. The purpose of STT toolbox was to give a
pedagogical background discussion and a starting point for exploration into different types of contemporary contextual inquir y.
The intention was also to give a foundation for discussions about Strategic Systemic Thinking , however, as a toolbox does not
give a fixed or a standard way of approaching problems in a step to step fashion, this is because the method or use of tools
contained in the toolbox depends on the nature of the project and other contextual requirements a system analyst needs to
consider. Whosoever wants to use the toolbox must decide on the combination of templates needed for the project, the
methodology and a mix resources to be used. The arrangement or order provided in the approach is to help inexperienced
analysts, students, and another group of people who wish to start using the STT toolbox. The STT approach transforms the
requirements definition from SSM and ETHICS into the design using OOAD tools. Then the software developers can be able
to use different models created using OOAD tools to develop software applications using OO languages. However, this method
is not largely in use, system engineers still prefer other methods of inquiry such as business process engineering using best
practices to save time and ensure quality.

4) Socio-technical Systems Engineering

Sociotechnical Systems engineering (STSE) was introduced to give usable socio -technical systems design methodologies and
tools for software engineers (Morris, 2009). However, most colleagues at Lancaster University who pioneered the development
of social-technical engineering approach by involving ethnographic techniques in the study of work systems to support in
system design and assist system engineers to consider the socio-technical issues in the procurement and design of usable
software in early 1990’s have retired and dispersed into different places. STSE technique was developed because information
systems are situated in a social context where people, culture and environment influence in one way or another their use and
therefore affect either directly or indirectly the system productivity (University of St Andrews, 2017).

STSE make use of ethnographic and responsibility modeling techniques to bridge the gap between system engineering and
change management process. Ethnographic techniques try to study the work process through observation in a naturalistic
manner to collect information through observations, while the responsibility engineering use agent-based modeling by asking
for information from the agents (users) based on their day to day activities (duties), work structure and information needs.
STSE aims at integrating the change process and engineering process to allow humanistic ideas to be considered during system
design. STSE believes that any procurement of information system is associated or is in conjunction with the change process
because new systems deployment aims at changing the existing business process with a goal of improvement to improve its
current practices (Baxter & Sommerville, 2011). STSE argues that the main problem with most traditional approaches is the
separation of change management and system engineering teams in a way that it affect effective communication of requirements
between them and therefore make it hard for the design team to be well informed – the organizational issues that are being
addressed by the design team are not communicated to the technical teams and the technical constraints to the organizational
issues are not effectively communicated back to the change team. This lack of effective communication results into
uncoordinated activities that results into a poor design and emergent problems.

However, some scholars have argued that Socio-technical engineering model as too manual as it uses sensitization techniques
on stakeholders and constructive engagement during implementation to integrate the change process into the system
engineering as proved in the figure below. (Morris, 2009; Baxter & Sommerville, 2011)

Figure 2: Integrating Systems Engineering and Change Process using Socio-technical System Engineering M ethod

III. METHODOLOGY
The general approach of this research was explanatory and qualitative as it involved a collection of data that came fro m
experience, explanations, decisions, cases, opinions , scholarly research, and other situational and qualitative variables.
Qualitative methods are typically more flexible; that is, they allow greater spontaneity and adaptation of the in teraction between
the researcher and the study area. This method was chosen because it was considered the most suitable to conduct th orough
investigations on different methods used, their strengths, weaknesses down the history to the current using multiple sources
and complex data sets which cannot be decided using quantitative methods. Further, a qualitative method was chosen because
of its investigative nature and flexibility; that is, it enables conducting research based on the circumstances, situation, cont ext,
class, and region. For the subject area concerned, the qualitative approach is the most suitable method as it helps to investigate
all the areas that need to be captured but not foreseen or expected during the initial setup of the research process but useful to
the research itself.

A. Sampling
The sampling technique that was used is deliberate or convenience sampling technique. Tha t is chosen based on the
researcher's judgment on their potential to give worthwhile and comprehensive information.

The following methods were selected for the study:

• Effective Technical and Human Implementation of Computer Systems (ETHICS)
• QuickETHICS (QUality Information from Considered Knowledge)
• Socio-technical Toolbox (STT)
• Socio-technical Systems Engineering (STSE)
• Soft Systems Methodology (SSM)
• Agile Systems development
• Object-Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD)
• Socio-technical Systems Design (STSD)

These methods have been chosen because of their relevance, purpose, and contribution to the field of study. Refer to [20], it
was advised of the need to select a sample from which one can learn most.
 B. Data Collection
The data collection was based on literature and document reviews supported by a limited number of formal interviews.

C. Analysis of Data
Because the research is qualitative, then the data collection was done parallel with the analysis of data, because it is likely ,
the information gathered generates more questions, and thus, the researcher moved back until all questions are saturated. In
this case coding and reduction of data from the research area was an important step towards compiling the facts and ensure the
quality of the research.
The analysis of data was cyclical, following the below procedures:
• Interim Study Analysis where the area was repeatedly studied to exhaust all details.
• Recording in the form of short notes.
• Data Entry and Storage Using Computer-Aided Qualitative Data Analysis Software –RQDA
• Coding and Categorizing: Deductive and Inductive Coding was used with Apriori to improve efficiency and
create a better focus on the study.

D. Quality: Validity and Reliability of Research

Validity and reliability of qualitative research centers on whether a different researcher given the same settings and topic
could generate or arrive at the same conclusion or come up with similar relationships from the constructs. Results can be
affected by changes in the social, economic, and political environment over time. Since the nature of qualitative research is to
get information from natural settings, then the situation, scenes, audience, and recordings cannot be repeatable or replicated
that easy. This makes reliability more difficult than the validity of a qualitative research as scenes are not replicable. On the
other hand, validity and reliability are two factors which any qualitative researcher should be concerned about while desig ning
a study, analyzing results and judging the quality of the study [21].

Because qualitative research is done in a naturalistic manner, it should be assessed in a different direction based on its na ture.
To support my argument, [22] asserted that “the quality of a study in each paradigm should be judged by its own paradigm's
terms." Because reliability is as a result of validity of the research, then, validity can be used to demonstrate the quality of the
research. To back up my argument, [21, 23] stated that “reliability is a consequence of the validity of a study."

IV. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

A. Socio-technical System Design

Considering the above, our research focus is using social-technical concepts in system designing to developing system
models that are efficient, usable, useful, and embeds perfectly in the society. Socio-technical systems are evolving with the
change in the environment as they are influenced by those changes. Therefore, it needs to be continued attention to check what
has changed (externally), how the change has affected the system performance, and which is the new system requirements
needs to be adapted and which ones need to be removed (Scacchi, 2004). Socio-technical concept believes that the technical
system alone despite the quality and engineering efforts to adapt to organization/institution requirements, they cannot perfo rm
well. It is through the mutual constitution of the technical and the social subsystem will help to achieve the best results (Morris,
2009). Therefore, information systems should always be redefined, reviewed, and revised in response to how the system adapts
to the present circumstances of usage, and to the external market, government, and enterprise conditions that impinge on system
usage or functionality.

According to (Morris, 2009), the following are the key characteristics of socio-technical systems;

• They have interdependent parts.

• They can adapt to changes in the environment to pursue goals.
• They have an internal environment as well as a real-world environment.
• They have separate, but interdependent, technical, and social subsystems.
• They work in an environment where there is the existence of choice/decision-making.
• The joint optimization of the system depends on perfecting each subsystem.

Challenges or Drawbacks of socio-technical systems design

Perceived anachronism: Socio-technical concepts were first discovered by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations around
1949 by Trist and Emery, the founders of this concept where the psychologist who helped to perform therapy on war returning
soldiers. During that time a revolution in industry and mass production led industries to find ways to increase output, however,
by introducing long shifts including night shifts to extend working hours. This did not bear much fruit, Fredrick Taylor a
researcher in management science in his efforts to help the indus try came up with the theory of division of labor and
specialization to increase efficiency and performance in the workplace. Work was divided into simple routines with small
workforce and bureaucracy, production increased, but at the cost of worker dissatisfaction, absenteeism and boycotts which
resulted in lower production. The same period culminated with a shortage of labor and industry need to keep workers and
recruitable employees. Emery and Trist came up with the concepts of social-technical systems, suggesting that the efficiency
and high production can be brought about by work redesign that will lead to job satisfaction - happy and satisfied employees
will have a spirit of work and hence affect business returns. The democratization of work process be gan by involving employee
concerns, creating self-managing teams, flat organization structures and improvement of job security, including safety issues
and compensation plans for the workers which turned out to be positive and industries regained their strength. However, during
this period 1950’s -1960’s technology was only machines and pulley systems, no sophisticated technology was there in place.
During the period of 1970’s to 1980’s computer science field gained momentum, and there was a need to automat e production
and work process using advanced systems for computing (mainframe computers) and control systems. A Sociologist Enid
Mumford at Liverpool University was involved in a project going by the theme “the impact of Electronic Data Processing
(EDP) on organizations”, this research led to her interest in finding further the impact of computers on people, organization ,
and society (Elbanna & Newman, 2013). At that time, she discovered that computers bring about changes in the organization
that affect work process, people, and the organization itself, she, therefore, concluded that computer systems analysts are agents
of change. She moved to Manchester University as Industry Relations Expert, there she discovered the ETHICS method aimed
at involving socio-technical principals in work redesign to ensure job satisfaction and a sustainable information system. She
believed that any system that does not seek the proper balance between social and technical parts it will lead to fragilities and
hostilities in the work environment and therefore become unworthy. ETHICS was a top-down participatory approach and it
was successful in Scandinavian countries and America digital corporation XSEL system, however, during 1990’s complex
systems emerged, there was a need for integration, middleware, distributed computing, offshoring, virtu alization, competition
and internationalization of industries, this lead ETHICS methodology to become unfit for the situation as end users cannot have
technical ideas to contribute effectively into the system design and diversity lead to difficulties in us ing consensus approach to
system development. During this time due to completion and raise in capitalist economies, business prefers lean production
and business process engineering to cut down costs, increase efficiency, flexibility, and quality within sh ort time frames. An
expensive ETHICS method and human-focused methods such as social-technical systems failed to attract industries that their
definition of efficiency turned out to be different, business becomes profit-oriented, process intensive, complex and the need
to realize short term goals quickly to stay ahead of the competition. Socio-technical systems engineering (STSE) introduced
during 1990’s at Lancaster University by a group of scholars, including Baxter and Somerville ended in 2011 after which the
researchers retired and the other left the Lancaster University making the efforts to improve STSE diminished (University of
St Andrews, 2017). STSE was criticized by other researchers as it was too manual in its effort to integrate the change process
and software engineering, no further efforts were made to overcome the critique (Leitch & Warren, 2014).

Analysis without synthesis: Many versions of socio-technical system methods were developed over time since ETHICS,
However, these methods give only an abstract view of socio-technical requirements that lead to many data sets and complex
relationships that cannot easily inform the design. Socio-technical concepts such as ETHICS can be used as a philosophy than
a software engineering method, it puts much emphasis on work redesign and job satisfaction using humanistic ideas, but it does
not consider how those ideas can be converted into system design. Systems have a definite boundary and constraints which
should not be overlooked and make it impossible to implement without causing conflicts, these technical constraints are not
usually regarded nor have the weight needed in these methods. What we argue here is that not everything can be converted into
system design, example, you cannot increase functionality without sacrificing usability, nor increase flexibility (internal
changes) without sacrificing reliability (Whitworth, 2009). The complex interdependencies that exist between the social and
technical parts of the system need to be perfect, some social goals should be sacrificed to allow or lift the technical implications
that may appear during design. Example, in a traffic control system, the needs of the pedestrian can be against the needs of the
drivers, drivers might want to use less time and that needs more freeways, however, a pedestrian would like the convenience
to cross over the roads whenever they want to change sides which implies more zebra crossing. In the interests of the
pedestrians, the speed limit is to be set to allow pedestrians to cross the roads minimizing chances for accidents, drivers , on the
other hand, will have to use more time to get to the destination and that also implies more fuel consumption. The town may
decide to build bridges for pedestrians to balance the needs of the drivers to those of the pedestrians, however, implementat ion
of bridges is limited to only those areas having eno ugh space and is also very expensive or impractical to have bridges
everywhere. These conflicting requirements need proper synthesis to allow for smooth negotiation and cost-effective
implementation.

Multi disciplinary: The multidisciplinary issue is common in software projects, this is because system engineers are
developing programs for business organizations pursuing business goals, the goal is to improve efficiency and effectiveness o f
the business process. This needs an engineer to have knowledge in the domain of application. Example. Developing a system
for accounts or finance department should be based on the same principals or practices on that domain. The challenge is that
the system analyst should involve domain experts to aid in the definition of requirements and guide the whole process through
regular meetings. Socio-technical techniques add other disciplines such as psychology, sociology and anthropology to systems
engineering, the multitude of disciplines needs a good understanding and able person to follow and understand. In participatory
designs, all users must get involved and contribute positively to the design, however, it has been noticed that normal users
cannot effectively contribute to complex systems needing good technical knowledge. One of the major drawbacks of the
ETHICS method after the emergence of complex systems that need expertise in the field of engineering and technology is that
it was hard for a layman or naïve users to understand complex systems and therefore both the organization and employees
could not be able to take part effectively in the design. I.e. Knowledge barrier.

Inconsistent Terminology: Socio-technical system theory was first discovered by the Tavistock Institute to solve the problems
in the British coal mining industry where there was a lot of absenteeism, in job accidents, long shifts, dissatisfaction, lack of
morale, high level of bureaucracy, simple routine jobs and lower level of performanc e. These concepts appeared in 1949
through two different projects started by the Tavistock Institute of Industrial relations, the first project was to study in -depth
organization, group relationships at all levels (management/labor interface) and the secon d concerned with the cost-effective
diffusion of innovative work practices and organizational arrangements which will increase productivity. The goal was to
improve worker satisfaction through work redesign, process change and empowerment of employees thro ugh workplace
democracy. Socio-technical system theory studied the social and technical requirements of the organization and workplace
environment separately to find out how they can be integrated in a manner that will bring a positive outcome. Socio-technical
theory believes that work redesign and democracy can help improve job satisfaction and support another organization goals.
Later, Enid Mumford at Manchester Business School developed socio-technical concepts into the computer science field
through her project “the influence of computers in the organization, people, and work process”, she placed social context and
human consequences at the center of system design. Enid Munford believed the introduction of computer system brings about
changes into the organization work process, culture, people, and environment in a dramatic way. Enid Munford believed that
systems analysts are agents of change and can influence the design of an information system. In her study, she emphasized on
the joint optimization of the social and technical subsystems to obtain the best results. She developed a participatory approach
(ETHICS) employing socio-technical concepts to enable organizations to effectively involve employees/u sers in the
procurement of new systems and allow humanistic ideas during the process change. Many variants of socio-technical concepts
have arisen since ETHICS, each scholar change or use part of the social-technical concepts to develop frameworks that fit into
their own environment, culture, view, and needs. Modern holistic approaches do not look at socio-technical systems as separate
social and technical systems, but as a whole system, meaning that there are complex interdependencies between the two
subsystems and the only way to make a better system is to find out how they can coexist. However, this is due to the
multidisciplinary nature of the concept, each scholar looks at socio-technical concepts from different views /perspectives
depending on the application domain and/or user knowledge/position. Sociologist, the management scientist, system engineer,
and the normal person will all have different views or perspectives on the same subject and different levels of abstraction.

Ambiguous success criteria: Socio-technical concepts do not sufficiently define measurable goals, Example; Job satisfaction
can be influenced by more than one factor and not only system usability, it should be a complete user experience compared to
an earlier system. Systems have a boundary and may bring positive changes to the organization, however, measuring the
influence or changes brought by the new system it needs to define more explicit and specific goals. Socio-technical systems
integrate multiple requirements of system performance at a higher and higher level where each level overlaps with the earlier.
Reliability, availability, and integrity can easily measure using quantitative techniques by recording mean time to failure
(MTTF), mean time to recover (MTTR), response time, throughput, etc. after the system is operational (Baxter & Sommerville,
2011). The overlapping interests of the stakeholders with each of them having completely different views on performance make
it difficult to evaluate (Whitworth, 2009). The socio-technical system approach should be more specific and filter out
unnecessary inputs or draw a boundary of performance that jointly perfects the social and technical systems.

Conflicting value system: Socio-technical theory emphasize of user participation during design, the level of participation
allows smooth negotiation of interest with all stakeholders, while itself good, consensus participation may raise conflict of
interest between different levels of authority. It is traditional for the management to decide and give a direction to the
organization because that group is well informed can be able to look beyond some ordinary employees would. This well -
informed group (management) therefore checks, control and strategize the overall operations via different feedback
mechanisms and reporting systems not available and often not accessible to lower level workers. Ordinary level workers may
be unaware of the figures (statistics) or the status of the organization as they narrowly look within their boundary of control
and not across. Organization interest may be cutting down costs, increase productivity, efficiency, profitability, standardization,
competence, and expansion (growth), on the other hand, lower level employee’s interests may be job satisfaction, promotion,
flexibility, social status, job security, career development, safety, fewer hours, and personal goals. There is a need to find a
right method to overcome collisions or influences of one group over the other, the system goals should be specific and well
balanced to the needs of the organization while keeping each group concerns attended. User satisfaction and a conducive work
environment raise morale and performance of the workers and therefore is very important for the organization, that the system
developed should be attractive, useful, usable, and able to perform the possible desired functions. ETHICS method faces a big
challenge following a top-down approach and consensus participation, Enid Mumford to help reduce the conflict of interest,
decided to develop a lightweight model QuickETHICS to support management interests using a selective / representative
approach (Leitch & Warren, 2014). Soft Systems Methodology (SSM) by Peter Checkland has addressed this issue using a
CATWOE (Customer, Actor, Transition, Worldview, Owner, Environment) framework.

Difficulties in finding proper levels of abstraction: Software projects need a scope to be defined and timeframe, therefore,
set based on the requirements specifications (University of St Andrews, 2017). The requirement specifications guide the project;
system analysts and developers work around these specifications to build the system, any changes in the requirement
specifications may affect the entire project direction, budget and the timeframe depending on the impact of the
suggested/introduced changes in the project. Socio-technical system come into play during the definition of the requiremen t
specifications, when left out will not be considered, and any changes introduced in between can be costly. The first two stages
of software development are very critical in defining the project success or failure, the project costs and scope are also figured
out at this stage. Socio-technical system theories have put more efforts on requirements definition than any other phases but
have failed to define the right level of details needed to support the organization/system goals. Socio-technical system theory
is built around anthropology, sociology, management science, and psychology, is more of a philosophy than an engineering
method, these disciplines have opposing viewpoints or perspectives when studying the system compared to a system/technology
engineer (Morris, 2009). Software engineer or technology expert look into those things that can be implemented by an
information system without causing undesirable conflicts. If the system engineering team is not well informed of the system
performance expectations, will focus on the technical requirements and sacrifice social goals because it is easy to build a system
around the technical requirements compared to social requirements (Gasson, 2003). Example; Designing for usability, this will
depend on the context of use (Gasson, 2003), right level of security is needed when an interface is shared by a group of
individuals in public space (society) compared to when is used by a group of individuals within an organization (a well-
controlled environment), ATM machines , for example, are installed with an extra cover on a key entry box (i.e. Input area) to
prevent shoulder surfing, however, it is inconvenient for the user of the machine as it reduces space to punch in key properly.
There are complex interdependencies that exist between technical and social systems at higher and higher levels, these cause
difficulties in defining requirement specifications. Multiple dichotomies that exist during requirements definition need to be
pruned or refined around which can be implemented or have higher priority based on the context of use or application domain.
Here below we have prepared a summary of the weaknesses of different socio-technical methods and the extent to which they
have overcome the state weakness based on our review. We have used an (x) to say failure and blank to say success.

Overcoming the Weakness

Drawback/Weakness ETHICS Quick ETHICS Socio-technical Systems Socio-technical Toolbox
Engineering (STSE) (STT)
Perceived anachronism x x x
Analysis without synthesis x x
Multidisciplinary x x
Inconsistent Terminology
Ambiguous success criteria x x x
Conflicting values system x
Difficulties in finding proper x x x
levels of abstraction
Expensive/Lengthy x x x

Comparison of different socio-technical design methods and their contribution to systems engineering phases. A double tick
√√ implies remarkable contribution, while single tick √ implies less contribution.

Software/Systems Engineering Lifecyle

Problem Requirement System Design System Deployment
Methodology Definition Analysis Development
(project (Construction)
initiation)
ETHICS √√ √√ √ √ √
Quick ETHICS √√ √√ √ √ √
Socio-technical √ √ √√ √√ √√
Systems
Engineering
(STSE)
 Socio-technical √√ √√ √√ √ √
Toolbox (STT)

B. The Knowledge Gap

There are different methods developed over time as mentioned previously to use social-technical concepts into systems
design with remarkable success, but most of them are rarely used in the field of engineering because they are unattractive to
software engineers. The dominant drawback is the large amount of data and inefficient techniques used in the application of
the concepts in system engineering for developing a system that is time-bound and within a limited/controlled budget. Socio-
technical methods developed over time such as ETHICS, QuickETHICS, Social Technical Toolbox (STT) gives merely an
analysis of requirements without showing how the results of the analysis can be converted into a design by software engineer
(Gasson, 2003). STT went further to define templates and themes for system analyst and more an approach to convert the
requirement specifications using OOAD tools into requirements specification models. However, the overlapping needs and
complex dichotomies in the hierarchy of requirements leaves the software engineer perplexed. In the efforts to better inform
the design using engineering concepts, Barxter and Somerville of Lancaster University developed a pragmatic approach
following engineering principles to make the socio-technical concepts implementable in the field of engineering and become
attractive to the future system engineers. However, it has merely converted socio-technical requirements as an add-in
(extraneous factor) into system engineering, this because socio-technical concepts are introduced via manual sensitization
(negotiation with the stakeholders during the design) and constructive engagement between system engineers and the change
team during implementation using dirty ethnography (Baxter & Sommerville, 2011; Morris, 2009). There is a need for a more
pragmatic approach that can integrate completely socio-technical concepts into system engineering life-cycle (Morris, 2009).

C. The Way Forward

In this study we are going to develop a pragmatic approach that pervades the entire system engineering lifecycle, to make
that possible we will combine concepts from different social and engineering design methods, this will help solve the
weaknesses experienced with other social-technical design approaches and allow us to introduce a more efficient way to design
and develop systems using socio-technical concepts. (Bednar & Sadok, 2015). This new approach combines concepts, tools,
and methods from agile (scrum), soft systems development method (SSM) – CATWOE (Customers, Actors, Transformation,
Worldview, Owners, and Environment) and Object-Oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD). In this approach, each method acts
as input to the other method, starting with the study of the social part during requirements definition as shown below.

Human Activity (Soft System) Models (Visualization)

Functions/Use Cases
Persona/Epic

Soft System Method Agile OOAD

Functions
(Specifications)

Figure 3: A pragmatic approach to social-technical system design using SSM, Agile and OOAD concepts

According to studies, if the social system sits next to the technical one it is made secondary, but when the social system ta kes
prominence over the technical one it guides the whole system (Whitworth & Ahmad, 2013). Our method, therefore, puts
forward the social-technical inquiry to generate requirements that will be analyzed and fed into the system design and
implementation phases. This is to allow an engineer or a technology expert to prepare the right environment for the project
from the start, predict the requirements and select right resources. Using a social-technical inquiry method during requirements
definition and analysis drops the need for manual sensitization during design as it was proposed by Baxter and Somerville’s
STSE approach (Baxter & Sommerville, 2011). Further, constructive engagement proposed in the STSE approach is also not
needed because our approach makes use of agile method during system design and construction. An agile method is an iterative
and incremental software development approach in which solutions evolve through the collaborative effort of self-
organizing cross-functional teams. Object-oriented Analysis and Design (OOAD) tools are used in this approach to help create
useful system models and visualizations that can be easily converted into a modular information system using Object-Oriented
techniques. According to Susan Gasson, the technical and socio systems are incommensurable (Gasson, 2003), therefore, our
approach makes use Soft System Method (SSM) by Peter Checkland with its root in systems engineering for socio inquiry to
be able to manage a dialectic between socio-technical inquiry and systems engineering effectively.

Our approach integrates socio-technical concepts into the systems engineering life cycle, this is to help system engineers to
effectively use and implement socio-technical ideas into their projects. The system engineering lifecycle has the followin g
major phases where each phase is discussed in line with our approach. Our approach is shown via this normative system
engineering lifecycle.

• Problem Definition and Analysis

• System Design
• System Deployment/Implementation
• Post-Deployment Reviews

1) Problem Definition and Analysis

In this phase of system development, the organization has realized some setbacks in the current processes or change in
technological and/or business landscape whichever that has influenced the organization to take initiative to get a new
information system or improve the existing one. This stage is culminated by problem investigation, setting up aims and
feasibility study, which considers the cost-benefit factors or the expected impact of the desired changes. Traditionally, system
analyst (consultant) and mostly management will consider the organization metrics such as profitability, efficiency,
performance, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the existing system. These indicators are measured based on the technical
output such as revenue growth, resources spent, number of mistakes/faults, redundancy, average task execution-time (response
time), and other incidents (University of St Andrews, 2017). At this stage is when the social factors and their contribution to
the system performance need to be considered. Organizations are very focused on short -term profits, rule-based processes
guided by organizational policies, cutting down costs, market trends, and competition, give too little attention to social factors
that influence the effectiveness and performances of such system. Most approaches, including user-centered design, are goal-
directed, tend to see what technology can do and try the best to minimize what would constrain the technology and increase
the support for technology and technical goals the system will carry out. According to Robert R. Hoffman and his colleagues
(Hoffman, et al., 2002), the user-hostile systems have been because of deliberation of user-centered system designers who build
systems that force humans to adapt and cause system fragilities and workarounds. Further, Susan Gasson (Gasson, 2003),
postulated that these methods target closure of technology-centered problems focusing on technology and how human interacts
with technology instead of questioning how this technology can support human activities by investigating which changes can
be made to human activity systems supported by technology and why. These imply the theory of usability overlooks the social
context with which the technology is situated. Socio-technical systems theory aims at designing the systems that can adapt to
human needs and complex social environment requirements instead of humans adapting to the system’s needs (Hoffman, et al.,
2002). This stage is a proposal stage, and therefore alternate proposals are set through a preliminary investigation of the problem
domain which includes interviewing clients, users, employees, consultants, or suppliers. The best approach or method to
conduct an investigation on the problem domain and find proper actions to be taken is the Soft System Methodology (SSM) by
Peter Checkland. The SSM technique was discovered at Lancaster University to help find business or management solutions
using engineering approaches. However, researchers at that time in a Lancaster University project were unable to find business
solutions using hard system approach, this was because during the requirements definition different stakeholder’s views with
conflicting interest influenced problem definition phase and often stumbled the project at the first step of problem definition
(Burge, 2015). Peter Checkland and Brian Wilson, therefore, embarked on an action research project to use a soft system
approach to solve business and management problems, which became successful and they developed a set of tools to be used
during the inquiry (Burge, 2015). This validates our pragmatic approach to implement social-technical concepts using the SSM
approach in problem definition. What we argue here is that, the hard system approach focuses on data management,
organizational structure, and internal process logic, it does not allow for flexibility by including other influencing situational
variables based on the context of use. SSM creates conceptual models based on different user perspectives on the world around
and creates a schematic/logical diagram based on system thinking that will be compared with the real world to find desirable
and workable changes that could be made. SSM starts with formulating a root definition – a statement of purpose that describes
what the system does to transform input into outputs needed.
To prove our approach, we are using the Tax Information System. This is an open system that is influenced and shaped by
external variables and therefore a better candidate for learning purposes. Let us start by defining the root definition.

Root definition: A government-owned system to collect revenues from the taxpayers by the most appropriate cost-effective
means.

Then, using CATWOE framework to test the root definition before applying the transformations needed.

▪ Customers - Who are the beneficiaries of the highest-level business process and how does the issue affect them?

▪ Actors - Who is involved in the situation, who will be involved in implementing solutions and what will impact their
success?

▪ Transformation Process - Worldview, viewpoints and assumptions that make the transformation meaningful.

▪ Weltanschauung - What is the big picture and what are the wider impacts of the issue?

▪ Owner - Who owns the process or situation being investigated and what role will they play in the solution?

▪ Environmental Constraints - What are the constraints and limitations that will impact the solution and its success?

[C] – Taxpayers

[A] – Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA)

[T] – Revenue Collections

[W] - Providing the most appropriate revenue collection strategy to a particular client will promote compliance

[O] – Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA)

[E] - Appropriate means

Then the major Transformation related to the root definition will be something like this.

Uncollected Tax Revenues (Collected Tax Revenues

Another way is to define all transformations needed, then from the results of different transformation, you can build
relationships between different sets of transformations to construct a single statement of the purpose (i.e. Root definition).

Example;

NO INPUT/ROOT DEFINITION TRANSFORMATION PROCESS DESIRED OUTPUT/OUTCOM E

1
Input Output
Low Tax Base Transformation High Tax Base

2
Input Output
High Tax Defaulting Rates Transformation Low level of defaulters

3
Inconvenience in remitting tax Input Output Highly convenient process of
Transformation
payments making tax payments

4
Input Output
Unaffordable taxes Transformation Affordable taxes
 5
Input Output
Unsatisfied taxpayers Transformation Happy and satisfied taxpayers

The Root Definition from the above set of transformations would be something like this;

A system owned by the Tanzania Revenue Authority (TRA), where the tax officer makes tax revenue collection more attractive
to taxpayers because most of the taxpayers are defaulting taxes, which is directly related to inconvenient process of making tax
payments and affordable rates that lead to unsatisfied clients (taxpayers) but limited by the need to find a way to increase the
number of taxpayers (tax base) alone and tax incentives.

SSM approach next step is to build a conceptual model (set of right actions to be taken) that will be compared to the real world.

1. IDENTIFY
TAXPAYER NEEDS

2. REVIEW CURENT 4. IDENTIFY WAYS

PROCESS FOR 3. DEVELOP TO COLLECT TAX
PAYING TAXES STRATEGIES TO FOR EACH
ATTRACT TAXPAYER
TAXPAYERS SEGEMENT

5. DEVELOP NEW
SYSTEMS OR
IMPROVE CURRENT
SYSTEM/
PROCESSES
6. ASSESS THE
EFFICACY OF THE
NEW SYSTEM OR
IMPROVED
PROCESS
7. PERFORM
REVENUE
COLLECTION
STRATEGY

Figure 4: A Conceptual Model Tax Revenue Collection System

The list of activities which I perceive as necessary for this transformation are:

1. Identify taxpayer needs

2. Review the current processes/procedures for collecting tax revenues
3. Develop strategies to attract taxpayers
4. Identify the ways to collect taxes for each taxpayer segment
5. Develop new systems (i.e. Improve the current processes and/or procedures)
6. Assess the efficacy of the new or improved process
7. Perform revenue collection to strategy

Let us imagine that I have done this, and the core stakeholders suggested alternative strategies for achieving transformation.

1. Identify system gaps that allow defaulters (system security)

2. Make tax registration mandatory for all residents.
The list of activities which the (participant) stakeholders perceive as necessary are:

1. Identify taxpayer needs

2. Review the current processes/procedures for collecting tax revenues
3. Develop strategies to attract taxpayers
4. Identify the ways to collect taxes for each taxpayer segment
5. Identify system gaps that allow defaulters (system security)
6. Develop new systems (i.e. Improve the current processes and/or procedures)
7. Make tax registration mandatory for all residents.
8. Assess the efficacy of the new or improved process
9. Report to the public results
10. Monitoring and Evaluation

The above conceptual model shows the list of actions that can be taken to achieve the goals (purpose) of the system, from these
few steps showed above can be done through stakeholders’ engagement to identify the challenges and desired changes need to
be affected, this includes the use of questionnaires, interviews, observations and documentation review (Gasson, 2017). As you
can notice, a system analyst can start with a rough sketch based on preliminary investigations, then engage the stakeholders
having a blueprint/schema that they can use to deduce the favorable actions to be taken. The work is very simplified even for
a novel user who is not aware of technology, but only the challenges and desired changes s/he can suggest. Further, it is not
technology focused, but a goal-oriented method, it does not need computer skills to define the system desirable changes.

Monitoring and evaluation included in the list of activities are to help for continuous improvement, as it has been said by the
socio-technical systems theorist, “the socio-technical systems continue to evolve over time and these changes are because of
changes in the system environment which the system needs to adapt”. According to Albert Chen’s socio-technical system's
principal of incompletion, he said that, given the continuous evolution of information system requirements, then techniques for
continuously engaging system users are needed to figure out which of their existing requirements have changed, what the new
requirements are at hand, and which former requirements are no longer relevant. Design should be iterative (Ghaffarian, 2010).
We need humans to monitor and evaluate the system behavior in order to take appropriate actions on the operational system
(Burge, 2015; Hoffman, et al., 2002).

The next step is to compare the logical model into the real world, these are the set of activities that can perform the required
transformations.

No. Conceptual Model Activities Real World Which Actions to Take?

1 Identify taxpayer needs Now done on an ad-hoc basis, tax officers Develop a systematic approach to
inquire from taxpayers their needs and report increase effectiveness of collecting
to tax authority. Suggestion boxes are also and learning customer needs.
used to collect opinions from taxpayers ,
perception cards, Radio and TV Programs , Or
letters, e-mail, physical visit to TRA offices,
telephone, perception surveys, call center Leave as is, is just fine!
and seminar evaluation forms (Tanzania
Revenue Authority, 2017).
2 Review the current processes In line with the above, TRA use feedback Use formal approaches that allows
or procedures for collecting from taxpayer to review and suggest incremental changes in reaction to
tax revenues improvement on the process (Tanzania user feeling on services.
Revenue Authority, 2017).
3 Develop strategies to attract TRA standing by the motto “We make it easy Create online user editable profiles,
taxpayers to pay taxes and make lives better” by pre-populated by TRA and often
ensuring simplified transparent processes, updated.
convenience and easy access to services
(Tanzania Revenue Authority, 2017). TRA
has developed online gateway portals,
mobile money tax payment services, Border
Point of Sales (BPOS), TANCIS and tax
agents (banks). More they engage taxpayers
through tax education to sensitize and
educate communities on the importance of
paying taxes.
 4 Identify the ways to collect Large Taxpayers use online portal, Medium Enhance methods for collecting
taxes for each taxpayer Tax Payers use EFD, Small Traders use taxes from all segments, especially
segment Presumptive tax system, Individuals use the lower segment (small traders,
mobile phone. All can make physical visits informal sectors, and individuals).
to the TRA office (Tarimo, 2015).
5 Identify system gaps that Currently, TRA perform tax audit and Use socio-technical techniques to
allow defaulters (system rewards of up to 20m for reporting tax identify/close security gaps and
security) evasion (Tanzania Revenue Authority, make tax payment attractive,
2017). The system in place are Enterprise - reasonable, and socially rewarding
wide Risk Management System (ERM S), to tax payers.
Automated Tax Stamp System, Forensic
Lab, and Integrated Enterprise Application
Architecture.

6 Develop new systems (i.e. TRA has a five (5) year corporate plan that Review procurement procedures of
Improve the current processes creates a road map of products and service new information system and/or use
and/or procedures) offered (Tanzania Revenue Authority, socio-technical concepts and / or
2017). Fragmented systems obtained in approaches to develop and / or
piecemeal basis from different vendors improve processes.
introduce complexity and cost of Or
maintenance. Integrate the systems as one unit
from a single or few vendors to
reduce complexity and total costs of
ownership.
7 Make tax registration Not done. Only business and property Register every citizen/resident with
mandatory for all residents. owners are given TIN. TIN number. (Each person
consumes taxable services and
products).
8 Assess the efficacy of the new Key Performance Indicators, Strategic Not Needed
or improved process Measures and Perception Indicators which
are monitored, measured and reported
throughout corporate plan implementation.
9 Report to the public results TRA report to public through websites, Extend an interface to users for easy
publications and news media. access to information. E.g. User
portal dashboards.

Or

Leave as it is, it is just okay.

10 Monitoring and Evaluation TRA monitor and evaluate the performance Not Needed
based on the set service standards on a
quarterly basis.

The above schedule lists which actions need to be taken based on an evaluation of existing practices, however, not all actions
would be desirable to the users, the goal of soft system method is to not only to find the desirable action to take but also
workable solutions. This includes social sustainability, feasibility, timescale, resources needed, cultural fitness, usefulness,
implication on introducing such change, user acceptance, and priority or level of importance given. According to Peter and
Lorrein (Adman & Warren, 2000), socio-technical design process set and specify alternate goals before reaching a consensus
based on their ranking then consideration is given to their resource implications and constraints before deciding which to take
ahead.

Let say, from the desirable changes matrix tool, we have prioritized action number three (3) “Create online user-editable
profiles, pre-populated by TRA and often updated” as both desirable and workable actions. The workable action in a truly
social-technical solution does not look at technology closure or convergence, but how this human purposeful activity can be
changed and supported by technology. The goal is to create a human -focused solution and not a technology-focused solution
(Gasson, 2003). So, let us start by considering the social challenges in adopting such a solution and how we can use technology
to solve the challenge by evaluating user persona models. These personas are based on fictitious characters for the purpose of
understanding and communicating the approach. According to Joseph Giacomin (Giacomin, 2012), The use of personas better
opportunities sign gives a better opportunity for facilitating interaction, learning, and imagination. Personas are used during the
entire design and construction phase to reflect the user contextual requirements. It is common during requirements
determination to start with business requirements, followed by user requirements, then functional and non-functional
requirements in the analysis phase finishing with systems requirements during the design phase (Dennis, et al., 2012).

Mr. Juma

Mr. Juma at 45 years old with a wife and three children is a small-scale farmer in his village, he uses farm products to sustain
his family and meet daily demands including medicine, water, clothes, school, and other basic needs.

Challenges

• He has never been to college, he has no basic knowledge in using computers , more importantly, internet applications.
• He owns a single Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) mobile phone which he uses for basic communications

Responsibilities

• Sell farm products in the market place at every market day.

• Pay market levies to the tax man.

Concerns

• How much the taxpayer has contributed and where the money is going?
• Where are the benefits of such contributions he makes every market day?
• The market is poorly supported, rats, cockroaches, rotten and uncollected refuse, dust, muddy & inaccessible on rainy
days, streams of dirty and trapped waters. Is he contributing too much, just enough or too little?

Ms. Asha

Asha is a middle-aged woman, she owns a shop in a suburban area. She lives with two kids and has attended college; however,
she is a widow and she is fully responsible for her family up-keep.

Challenges

• Monitor day to day her business while keeping an eye on school going children.
• Keeping herself and family in a competitive society.

Responsibilities

• She pays different types of taxes, including presumptive tax, city levies, business license, electricity bill, rent, security,
and shopkeeper wages.
• She travels 10 kilometers each time she must file returns for her business and report to tax authority and 15 kilometers
to renew her business license in the town center.
• Filing tax returns and renewal of business license takes her complete day due to long queues she finds at the tax and
licensing offices.
• She uses her smartphone to communicate with her business partners, friends as well as teachers at h er kid’s school.

Concerns

• When is raining, all drainage systems are blocked, and my business has turned into ruins due to flood striking my shop
causing loss of money, property, and clients.
• Roads are bad, drinking water rare (no tap water) and access to health care for me and my kids are challenging as
those services are far from our home.
• Why am I contributing? Is it too little, just enough, or high?
• How am I supposed to know where my contributions go? Which uses are they put into? How am I receiving help from
these contributions?
Mr. White

Mr. White is a young university graduate employed in a private firm as sales and marketing executive. He works in the city
center and married to her beautiful wife and a house mother having a young baby. He lives 25 kilometers from his place of
work.

Challenges

• Waking up early morning and Travelling 25 kilometers using public transport every workday to work
• Family up-keep
• Career development and job security.

Responsibilities

• Paying income tax through his employer (withholding tax) every month which included skills and development levy,
workers compensation fund, pension, and P.A.Y.E on his gross salary.
• Use his smart phone and laptop/office computer to keep in touch with clien ts
• Pays house rent and utility bills

Concerns

• Roads inaccessible during the rainy season because of floods making it hard to keep time, meet customers and achieve
monthly targets.
• Need to upgrade my skills and get a promotion (a more rewarding job), however, it is hard to access loans for my
education and there are fewer employment opportunities.
• Baby needs a vaccination, however, most hospitals he visits, vaccines are out of stock and health care services are
expensive.
• How much am I contributing? Is it too little, just enough, or high? Which use my contribution is put into? Is it worth
it? Is my employer really contributing?

The above personas (Juma, Asha, and White) stands for population objects from differing situations. Each persona contributes
a form of payment to the government, however, without really seeing the value or effect of their contribution to their daily
lives. Starting with an evaluation of each user situation/environment in relation to our work subject “Create online user-editable
profiles, pre-populated by TRA and often updated”

Juma, a farmer pays taxes through tax officers visiting the marketplace during market days, in this type of trade it is normative
for tax officers from the municipal council to physically survey the marketplace, collect and issue receipts as a sign that the tax
has been paid by the trader. The municipal council has the duty, in return, to support the marketplace, this includes
infrastructures, drainage systems, refuse collection and fumigation. Traders have expect ations that this will happen in good
faith they have with the government. Traders like Juma cannot afford an expensive smartphone that needs long-term savings
to afford. They use normal LCD phones, which are very cheap, long lasting and have good battery life. LCD phones do not
have the ability to connect to web applications because they are not GPRS enabled, and lack support for HTML, however, can
have other applications within their capability such as Unstructured Supplementary Service Data (USSD) and Short Message
Service (SMS) Services. SMS application is in common use with TRA to query information related to payments, the same
application can be used by these traders to check their account balances (i.e. How much they have contributed). One more
thing, the USSD and SMS applications cannot have a user-friendly dashboard, now the question is, how the farmer or market
monger can be able to access rich/complete information that would help him build trust, courage , and will to comply voluntarily.
Meaning making tax contribution attractive and meaningful (useful). According to Morris (Morris, 2009), socio-technical
systems have internal as well as external environments which are interdependent to each other yet separate but pursue a common
goal in an external environment which can be achieved by joint optimization of the two subsystems. The achievement of this
goal can be realized by more than one means, meaning they work in an environment where there is the existence of choice. In
a market environment where the traders do not have a choice of using internet services, then other tools should be put to use
such as a bulletin board on the market walls. This board will have the necessary information presented in a well understandable
manner to the market community, such as monthly contribution, budget plan, and use. According to Tanzania knowledge
network (Tanzania Knowledge Network, 2010), while citizens are obliged to pay tax, the government must be accountable for
it. There must be a social contract between the citizens and the government . It is only when these basic conditions are met, that
tax compliance will increase. The market community will then be empowered to question the use and follow up on the
implementation of the marketplace budget through a democratic process. Socio-technical systems theory advocates for
workplace democracy and empowerment, according to Albert Chen socio-technical design principle of information and support
congruence, information should be in the place in which is principally needed most for action and a social support system
should enjoin the desired social behaviors (Ghaffarian, 2010; Mumford, 2006).

Having found the details, the following tools are needed to support the system;

• Mobile Phone
• SMS Services
• Bulletin Board

We now examine the second environment represented by our second persona “Asha”. Asha is a widow running a shop in the
sub-urban area. This environment is different from a normal market because the seller can afford or there is a presence of
infrastructure such as electricity and communication. However, tax officers’ visits for a survey of the business for auditing only
to figure out the income of the shop and therefore tax amount to be paid. Depending on how big is the shop, it may have use of
the Electronic Fiscal Device (EFD) from TRA and therefore makes tax audit easier. Asha makes file returns to TRA offices,
she also pays municipal taxes such as business licenses, adverts, etc. She is wondering how much she has contributed and to
which uses her contribution is put into.

Because she owns a smartphone, she can access internet services with information rich Global Packet Radio services (GPRS)
applications and can have access to TRA online gateway application portal. This functionality gives her ability to access
information related to her tax contributions and different reports . If these information and reports reflect what the user might
be interested with, meaning personalized information related to her contribution including any incentives , it will encourage
compliance. According to Enid Mumford (Mumford, 2006), the term “associative democracy” is used as one of the approaches
to humanistic values whereby the government and citizens create a participative welfare society, and this is done by giving the
citizen voice and power over public financed social services. In this cases road, drainage systems, clean water (treated tap
water), healthcare services, security, refuse services, etc. User friendly dashboards do not only entail simplicity in accessing,
reading, and understanding data presented, but what the user will value most. According to Joseph Giacomin (Giacomin, 2012),
Humans do not respond to the physical quality of things but what those things mean to them. What we argue here is that there
is a need to create a personalized view of data such as tax use in her home/shop area based on her contributions that will
encourage her to comply by making tax payment meaningful.

Having found the details, the following tools are needed to support the system;

• Mobile Phone (Smart Phone)

• Online User Portal with Personalized Dashboard

Let us examine our third and last persona “Mr. White”. An employed youth working for an organization and contribute tax via
employer in the form of withholding tax on gross salary. P.A.Y.E is a progressive tax in Tanzania, the more you earn, the more
you pay. E.g. A person earning TZS 3.5 million, contributes TZS 350,000 as pension, TZS 830,900 as P.A.Y.E. Amount levied
per annum is more than 10 million. However, this employee has no idea how his contribution is used and overall how much he
has contributed in taxes since the start of his carrier. Mr. White has a smartphone, a personal tablet, Laptop and uses the office
computer to access internet services. Unfortunately, Mr. White does not own a property that will need him to have a TIN
number such as driver’s license, land, or a car. Not having TIN, a user cannot login into the TRA online application portal, the
TIN is very important for any person paying taxes. To make it possible for Mr. White needs a TIN to show him as a taxpayer
and have an account with TRA, then he can use his TIN to login into a user-editable online portal where he can access his
contribution history, confirm his contribution, add any taxable income or property in the future and view information on tax
use or any other tax incentives to encourage compliance. According to Whitworth and Ahmad (Whitworth & Ahmad, 2013),
adding people to computing which means getting the technology to work is only halfway, getting people to use the technology
completes the other half. People who took a week to learn Word Perfect, it took them a day to learn Microsoft Word and
therefore the latter replaced the former because it was the most attractive choice to take. For the government to pull its citizens
(community) to use and take part in the system, it should offer an incentive to do so by being accountable to the social welfare
of that community. According to Whitworth and Ahmad, in socio-technical system design, the new user of the system is the
community, so social needs become part of system design (Whitworth & Ahmad, 2013).

Having found the details, the following tools are needed to support the system;

• Mobile Phone (Smart Phone), Tablet, Laptop, or Computer

• Online User Portal with Personalized Dashboard

• Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN)

After having analyzed our personas that will guide us through design and implementation. We can use Agile Epics that would
allow us to generate the requirement specifications based on our action “Create online user-editable profiles, pre-populated by
TRA and often updated” and we can use Object Oriented Analysis (OOA) tools such as UML use case, sequence, and activity
diagrams to present and visualize our model and user interactions with the system.

Number Themes Epic User Story Acceptance Criteria

1. Registration Application As a user I want to register as a taxpayer • User Identification
Process so that I can be able to access and manage • Business Identification
my contributions online • Employment ID
• Employers TIN
• Income Source and
Estimates
• Telephone Number
• Physical Address
(Home/Office/Business)
• Email ID
• Registration Form
As a user I would like to register using • User Identification
online forms so that I do not have to make • Business Identification
a physical visit to the offices for • Employment ID
registration. • Employers TIN
• Income Source and
Estimates
• Telephone Number
• Physical Address
(Home/Office/Business)
• Email Address
• Email Address Validation
• Email and Password Input
Fields
• Minimum Password Length
• Online registration form

As a farmer, I would like to register my • Own Telephone Number

details using SMS services so that I would • SMS Code
not spend much time on entering my • SMS Format
details. • User Identification
• Source of Income
• Income Source ID
• Physical Address
As a tax officer, I would like to confirm • Tax Officer Identification
the user registration details so that I can • User Details
open an account for the user. • Reference Checks
• User ID Verification
• User Phone Verification
• Email Verification
• Password Generation
• Notification
As an early adopter, I would like to use • Email and Password Input
my email address to sign in to the online Fields
portal app, so I could build and manage • Email Format Validation
my profile and preferences. • Minimum Password Length
Create a As a user I want to create my profile so • Authentication
Profile that I can complete my registration. • User Account
• Notification
 As a user I would like my profile details • Valid User Account
prepopulated with all my basic • Registration Details
information so that I spend less time
entering my details.
As a tax officer, I need to enter user basic • User Registration Details
details so that user can be encouraged to • Tax Officer Identification
update his/her profile with fewer details. • User Account
2. Manage Login As a user I want to access my account so • Username and Password
Online that I can view and manage my details. Input Fields
Account • Minimum password length
• Username and Password
Verification
• User Account
• Log out option
As a user I would like to be able to change • Username and Password
my password so that I can secure my Input Fields
account. • Minimum password length
• Username and Password
Verification
• User Account
As a system admin I want to secure my • Username and Password
clients online accounts so that I can Input Fields
protect their data and confidentiality. • Minimum password length
• Password Expiration
• Password History
• Username and Password
Verification
• Number of Login Trials
Update Profile As a user I want to update my profile so • Authentication
that the revenue authority can have • Editable Fields
correct information about me. • Confirmation
• Notification
As a user I want to pay tax online so that • Authentication
I do not need to stay on long queues for • Tax Code
tax settlement. • Tax Amount Input Field
• Tax Payer Identification
Number
• Payment Mode
• Notification/Receipt
As a tax officer, I need to confirm user • Tax Officer ID
changes so that I can preserve data • Reference Checks
integrity and avoid cheating. • Confirmation
View As a user I want to view information in • User Account
Information my account so that I can see my total • Dashboard
contributions and their use in my area. • Data Filters
• User Profile
As a user I would like to see the updates • News Feeds
from my account, so I can spend my time • Registered Email Address
efficiently. • SMS Service
• Registered Phone Number
As a farmer I would like to know how • Paper Based Bulletin Board
my contribution has been used so that I • Notification Area
can feel encouraged to pay taxes and get
involved.
 As a farmer I would like to query and • SMS Code
confirm my contributions so that I can see • SMS Query Format
my balance and mini statement. • Mobile Mini Statement
In agile projects, the user stories need to be prioritized based on their significance or workability (Office of the Government
Chief Information Officer, 2015). Just like how SSM ranks and select the desired and workable actions, so do agile method on
user stories. The user stories can be prioritized using numbers from a scale 1 to 5 showing their relative importance and
feasibility (Dennis, et al., 2012).

Registration

<<include>>

Request Registers/Confirm
Login

Authenticate
<<include>>

Enter Data Enter User Data

Create Profile
Taxpayer Tax Officer
<<Include>>

Edit Data Edit Data/Confirm

View Information

<<Exend>>

Update Details

Figure 5: User Registration Use Case Diagram

Suppose we want to create a detailed use case for registration process whereby the applicant request registration into the system
so that s/he can start to use the services. Then we can arrange elements of the corresponding use case in a tabular form. Use
Case help to organize the user stories well and help the user to have a clear understanding of the functional requirements for
each use case (Dennis, et al., 2012).

Use Case Name: Request/Apply for Registration ID: UC-1 Priority: High
Actor: Taxpayer
Description: Taxpayer request for registration by sending user details. The system responds by creating an account for the
user and pre-populate with registration details which includes initial profile information.
Trigger:
Type: External √ Temporal
Preconditions:
1. The taxpayer is an adult not under 18 years old.
2. The taxpayer has National ID
 Normal Course: Information for Steps:
a. Applicationy for registration • User Identification
1. Taxpayer sends personal and business details • Business Identification
2. The system verifies the information sent by the Taxpayer • Employment ID
3. The system creates a user account with default details • Employers TIN
4. The system sends the notification of approval • Income Source and Estimates
• Telephone Number
• Physical Address
• Email ID

• User Account
• Initial Profile
• Password and Username
• Notification of approval

b. Alternative Courses:
1. The system sends rejection notification Notification of Rejection
2. Taxpayer corrects and resend the application Request Registration
3. Step a.1 normal course repeats. User Account
Initial Profile
Password and Username
Notification of Approval
Cancellation
Postconditions:
1. The taxpayer account has been created
2. Username and Password generated, and notification sent
3. System request confirmation and password change on first logon

Exceptions:
1. The system sends an error message “User Details are Incomplete”
2. The system asks Taxpayer Resend or Exit
3. The Taxpayer asks to Exit
4. The system ends the use case

Summary Inputs Source Outputs Destination

User Details Taxpayer User Account System
Registration Approval System Notification Taxpayer
Initial Profile System Username and Password Taxpayer
Request for Confirmation Taxpayer Confirmation System

We can see how detailed and understandable the use case is, a use case is developed during Joint Application Development
(JAD) sessions or by conducting interviews with the stakeholders. User participation is very critical in socio-technical systems,
users should be involved at each stage of development to contribute their ideas (University of St Andrews, 2017). Sequence
diagrams, activity diagrams, data flow diagrams, entity relationship diagrams , and flowcharts can be used further to present the
functional requirement model in an unprecedented way. All this method is well known and understandable by most system
designers because they are widely used in system development.

Until here, we have proved how our pragmatic approach to social-technical system development completely integrates the
social-technical concepts into system engineering requirements definition and analysis process. This approach can be used by
software engineers to develop open systems us ing socio-technical concepts. The following stage is the design stage whereby
system requirements will be developed using agile approach es.

2) System Design
In this phase, agile methods and object-oriented design techniques used to inform system construction team. In the system
design phase, normally the logical models created during the requirements analysis using OOA are now transformed using
OOD techniques into physical models , this includes user interface designs, data store structures, physical entity relationship
diagrams, use scenarios, etc. (Dennis, et al., 2012). It consists of the determination of the system architecture which includes a
set of physical processing components, hardware, software, people, and the communication channels that will satisfy the
system’s essential requirements. An important first part of the design phase is the examination of several system procurement
strategies to figure out which will be used to meet the system requirements . Systems can be built from the beginning, bought,
and customized, or outsourced to others, and the project team needs to find the qualification of each alternative beforehand.
The decision to make, to buy, or to outsource influences the design tasks that are performed throughout the rest of the phases.
Since we are using the agile approach to empower users and create a democracy in the design process, our design will be
iterative throughout the implementation circle with complete user involvement at each stage to enable human-centered ideas
to culminate and guide the whole process. According to socio-technical theory (Ghaffarian, 2010; Mumford, 2006; Whitworth,
2009), there are three different levels of participation. The first being consensus participation approach where lower level users
are involved to make design decisions and guide the overall direction of the project through requirement planning and interfa ce
design. The second being selective/representative participation method whereby the product champions are selective
deliberately based on their ability to contribute effectively to the design team and represent other users within their domain, it
is very cost-effective method for large projects which can be divided based on categories of users bearing the same
characteristics or situated in a common environment, e.g. Division can be based on economic development, such as rural, semi-
urban, and urban or major organization functions, finance, marketing, legal services and production or based on wealth etc.
Depending on the nature of the system developed, product champions selected from this group act as a bridge between the
design team and the final/lower end users and the third is the consultative design method whereby the top officials or the
management take drive of the project but select a consultant who will stand for and negotiate end-user requirements during the
process normally a system analyst.

Agile method is selected because it ensures proper coordination an d transparent communication among the members of the
design team using task boards and card mechanisms (Scacchi, 2004). Each sprint or card or time box is elevated on a wall in
an open space for everyone to follow and watch the progress. Bottom line here in agile development, the design process follows
SDLC design techniques of transforming logical models into physical models or systems requirements. Since we are using
social-technical concepts to drive the overall project, our approach uses the personas developed early in the requirements
definition and analysis stage to understand and determine the information system infrastructure that is required to support the
project. Example, in a rural setting it is very hard to find GPRS services even if someone has or owns a smartphone, even if
available normally the bandwidth available is less due to the tendency of telecom firms to invest heavily in places where the re
is a high concentration of customers and services needs to ensure quick or handsome return on the telecom infrastructure
invested. The lack of other support services such as electricity, telecommunication lines, and even skill levels of the users
become a question of concern if the system must extend its services to such environment. Different operating environment,
therefore calls for different methods and tools for the deployment of the services, this tool and methods should be cost-effective
and yet human centered to attract the end users of the system services. Support and maintenance of the system also call for
sustainability investigations as which infrastructural requirements need to support the system will themselves be supported by
the organization and /or community in the long-run. Centralized system architecture may preferable in such situation, though
load should be balanced appropriately across to avoid system lags, other methods are to use semi-automated tools such as
intelligent/optical character recognition tools to integrate paper-based instruments for data capture instead or make use of web -
based applications with offline and online capabilities. In either case, the choice of the infrastructure (both hardware and
software) or system architecture will influence the design and so the system implementation.

The most important document in agile system development is the release plan derived from user stories, agile development
believes layman users understand stories than technical jargons such as functional requirements. The following figure adapted
from the office of chief information officer, agile practice guide (Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, 2015)
shows the parallel comparison of traditional system engineering life cycle (SDLC) and Agile practice. The conv ergence can be
seen in the early phases, but the method differs in the later phases of system development, i.e. Implementation.
 Figure 6: A comparison between traditional SDLC, and Agile Development Life Cycle

Developing a release plan is a very important element in an agile programming/project, the release plan breaks stories into
tasks and determines timebox for each task. This helps the system developers to distribute right resources for each activity and
plan for each release based on the implementation of a user story. Change management is the center of agile development
project, the project is both iterative and incremental, user involvement in creating tasks and timebox for each user story is
paramount to the success of the project, this will help the user to give details and make decisions on the functions, quality,
scope, requirements, acceptance test, comments on software release and changes that will or may happen during the project
run, user groups are normally created to help this (Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, 2015). However, high-
level decision for high impact, complex or sensitive functional requirement specification change is usually handled by project
sponsors and high-level project steering committees as it might involve significant cost, time, and resource changes. Regular
milestone for each timebox is necessary to make sure that before each release, the users have been satisfied with the outcome.
Participatory design has been of high importance to any socio -technical systems project, the user is required to be involved at
each stage of production, this is to allow democracy, transparency, flexibility, user satisfaction and ensures that all user needs
are well negotiated throughout the project (Mumford, et al., 1983; Mumford, 2006; Adman & Warren, 2000; Leitch & Warren,
2014).

3) System Deployment/Implementation
In this phase, the system development work starts following the system architecture which is mostly has been influenced by
non-functional requirements defined earlier in the analysis phase and refined in the design stage to inform the system
implementation team. Most work is coding and coordinating implementation activities such as walk-through meetings, agile
task boards, managing story cards and time boxes (milestones). System testing and reviews are the major task that is performed
at this stage to ensure quality and conformity to user needs (both functional and non-functional requirements). Our approach
using agile concepts effectively involves user during the implementation process, this includes retrospective meetings, daily
stand-ups, user demonstrations (JAD sessions) which includes acceptance testing. The development at this stage is both iterative
and incremental, it might need the system analyst/scrum master leading the demonstration sessions going back to the field /users
and test cases or build use scenarios that can be tested by the end -users. The bottom line here is the complete user involvement
and empowerment to contribute and negotiate changes before the release of the software in a democratic manner.

4) Post-Deployment Reviews
In this phase, we conduct system evaluation and monitoring to understand how it performs based on the expected outputs, the
system performance of what is intended can be measured using technical metrics such as mean time to failure (MTTF), mean
time to recover (MTTR), integrity checks, security checks, and other technical measures, but the question is how attractiveness
and user satisfaction can be measured. This can be done through the provision of feedback forms, suggestion boxes and regular
checks with the customers while interacting with the system such as asking the customer a simple yet meaningful question
“How did you find our services? Is there anything you feel should be improved ? Have you ever experienced
problems/difficulties using our system? How is the new system compared to the earlier?” Such open -ended questions will give
client ability to produce useful feedback on the system performance. These questions can then be categorized and coded in a
manner which the organization can understand and act.

V. CONCLUSIONS
The paper presents a pragmatic approach in the design and development of open systems using socio-technical concepts,
social, technical concepts have long been in the market since their inception by the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations by
a group of psychologists after world war II around 1949 by Tristan and Emery (Mumford, 2006). This concept was introduced
during the Tayloristic era (i.e. During the introduction of the division of labor and specialization by a management scientist of
the time Henry Taylor) when there was a large scarcity of human resources and work dissatisfaction. The socio-technical
concept original idea was to streamline the work design and introduction of new systems to elevate job satisfaction and
productivity. The main philosophy of social-technical system is that the joint optimization of the technical and social
subsystems will result in worthwhile and effective systems that will benefit both the employees through job satisfaction and
organization through increased performance of workers hence high productivity and profitability (Ghaffarian, 2010). These
ideas were very successful in Scandinavian countries which emphasized democratic process in their political, organizational
and work environments. However, socio-technical systems could not give enough details for effective implementation of
computer systems as they lacked synthesis of the collected data that can inform system design.

Many scholars who were interested in socio-technical concepts, including the well-known and renowned industrial relations
professor at Manchester busi1ness school, Enid Mumford, who introduced Effective Technical and Human Implementation of
Computer Systems (ETHICS) method to help system designers utilize humanistic ideas (socio-technical approaches) to the
procurement of information systems (Elbanna & Newman, 2013). Prof. Mumford believed that information systems and system
analysts are change agents, and therefore they need to be sensitized and informed on the importance of using social-technical
concepts in system design (Whitworth, 2009). Since procurement of new systems into the organization it affects directly work
process, people and organization, there is a need to use participatory design to affect these changes (Elbanna & Newman, 2013).
Each stakeholder interest should be effectively involved in the procurement of a new system to balance their needs and enable
mutual benefits through joint optimization of the technical and social components. That is, the organization will benefit fro m
high performance, less absenteeism, self-managed teams and profitability whilst the employees through job satisfaction and
social security (i.e. Personal development). ETHICS was successful in implementing several small projects at the time, however
with increasing complexity and technology advancements such as integration, offshoring, distributed computing, lean
production, business process re-engineering, competition and other advanced systems caused ETHICS to become very
expensive and unfit in such environment. Prof. Munford tried to correct the fallout of ETHICS by introducing a lightweight,
agile approach QuickETHICS for requirement analysis using representative/selective participatory approach, starting from the
center as opposed to the top-down approach used by the original ETHICS method (Mumford, 2006). This new method could
not survive through times as it did not provide methods on how the data obtained from analysis can be translated into the system
design (i.e. Analysis without synthesis) (Baxter & Sommerville, 2011).

To overcome the challenge some scholars interested in the field of social-technical systems developed a pragmatic approach
to systems engineering trying to overcome some of the known weaknesses of the ETHICS methodology. This method was
known as socio-technical toolbox, the toolbox combines and borrow concepts from contemporary social-technical systems
design methods and other holistic approaches such as soft system development methodology (SSM), object-oriented analysis
and design (OOAD), contextual design, ethnomethodology, cognitive engineering and computer supported cooperative work
(Bednar & Sadok, 2015). This approach aimed at combining SSM, ETHICS, and OOAD with the goal of giving the means to
translate requirements analysis form ETHICS and SSM into system design using OOAD for software engineers. However, this
method does not offer any standardized way or steps for systems analysts to follow as it has argued that, system analysis
methods are influenced by the context within which the project is undertaken and therefore there is not one proper way of doing
it, it leaves this to the project managers or system analyst to decide the best approach and it only provide s a toolbox comprising
of 30 templates and eight (8) themes for the systems analyst to choose from depending on the project. The goal of STT to help
the organization change and work redesign through use of effective tools and methods of inquiries that can be used by system
analyst to help the organization and stakeholders understand their work practices and process thoroughly and help in the
procurement of new systems.

Socio-technical Systems Engineering (STSE) approach emerged in 1990’S at Lancaster University by Baxter and Somerville
to attract software engineers to use social-technical concepts in software projects (Baxter & Sommerville, 2011). The main
goal of STSE is to integrate the social-technical concepts into the engineering process to gain acceptance by the software
community. All other earlier methods end up in analysis phase, do not take further the concepts into designing and construction
of the working system. Software engineers are interested in how these concepts obtained from the social inquiry can be
effectively used in the design and development of software systems. STSE helps to answer this by introducing sensitization
and constructive engagement techniques to integrate software engineering with the change process using socio-technical
concepts (University of St Andrews, 2017). Further, STSE makes use of ethnomethodology and responsibility modeling
techniques to obtain requirement specifications. Therefore, socio-technical concepts are only integrated into the design through
manual sensitization and constructive engagement through proper communication and coordination of the change management
and software engineering teams.

All the methods are rarely used in the industry today in a highly comp etitive environment, software engineers are
increasingly using well known and tested standards that can easily be measured and accommodated within shorter time frames.
STSE has shown remarkable competence in this, however, it leaves the organization with a decision as to whether to use or not
to use social-technical concepts during the procurement of the system (Hoffman, et al., 2002). As it has been suggested by
scholars that, we need an approach that will pervade the entire system engineering lifecycle, and this cannot be possible through
manual sensitization, but through a well-integrated approach that we see the social-technical design as part of the system
engineering process and not merely an add-on feature/function/loose-routine. We believe to accomplish this we need to use
methods of inquiry from the very beginning of the project that will guide the design and development of the whole system, and
this is holistic approaches that can easily inform the design team while agile approaches can be used to coordinate and improve
communication between the social and technical part throughout the system development project (Whitworth & Ahmad, 2013).

REFER EN C ES

Adman, P. & Warren, L., 2000. Participatory sociotechnical design of organizations and information systems – an
adaptation of ETHICS methodology. Journal of Information Technology, Volume 15, p. 39–51.

Avison, D. & Fitzgerald, G., 2006. Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tool. UK:
McGraw-Hill Education.

Baxter, G. & Sommerville, I., 2011. Socio-technical Systems: From Design Methods to Systems Engineering.
Interacting with Computers, 23(1), pp. 4-17.

Bednar, P. & Sadok, M., 2015. A Socio-Technical Toolbox for Business System Analysis and Design. Portsmouth,
Peter Bednar.

Burge, S., 2015. https://www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk. [Online]

Available at: https://www.burgehugheswalsh.co.uk/Uploaded/1/Documents/Soft-Systems-Methodology.pdf
[Accessed 04 08 2017].

Dennis, A., Wixom, B. H. & Roth, R. M., 2012. Systems Analysis and Design. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc..

Elbanna, A. & Newman, M., 2013. The rise and decline of the ETHICS methodology of systems
implementation:lessons for IS research. Journal of Information Technology, Volume 28, pp. 124-136.

Gasson, S., 2003. Human-Centered vs. User-Centered Approaches to Information System Design. Journal of
Iinformation Technology Theory and Application, 5(2), pp. 29- 46.

Gasson, S., 2017. Improvising Design. [Online]

Available at: http://www.improvisingdesign.com/soft-systems-methodology-2/
[Accessed 14 08 2017].

Ghaffarian, v., 2010. The New System of Soci Technical Approach and Main Stream of Information Research.
Tehran, Iran, Elsevier Limited.
Giacomin, J., 2012. What is Human Centred Design?, Uxbridge, Middlesex: Human Centred Design Institute,
Brunel University.

Hoffman, R. R., Klein, G. & Laughery, K. R., 2002. The State of Cognitive Systems Engineering. IEEE Intelligent
Systems, 17(1), pp. 73-75.

Leitch, S. & Warren, . M. . J., 2014. ETHICS: The Past, Present and Future of Socio-Technical System Design,
Victoria, Australia: School of Information Systems,Faculty of Business and Law,Deakin University.

McCarthy, S., O'Raghallaigh, P., Fitzgerald, C. & Adam, F., 2017. A Typology of Organizational ICT Practice. Cork,
Researchgate.

Morris, A., 2009. Socio-Technical Systsems in ICT: A Comprehensive Survey, Trento,Italy: University of Trento.

Mumford, E., 2006. The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential.
Information Systems Journal, Volume 16, p. 317–342.

Mumford, E., Hickey, S. & Mathies, H., 1983. Designing Human Systems: An Agile Update to ETHICS. Manchester:
Manchester Business School.

OECD, 2014. Tax Compliance by Design: Achieving Improved SME Tax Compliance by Adopting a System
Perspective, s.l.: OECD.

Office of the Government Chief Information Officer, 2015. PRACTICE GUIDE FOR AGILE SOFTWARE
DEVELOPMENT. Version: 1.0 ed. Hongkong: The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

Sadok, M. & Bednar, P. M., 2017. Teaching Business Systems Analysis to Cyber-Security Managers: A Socio
Technical Perspective. Portsmouth, Researchgate.

Sawyer, S. & Jarrahi, M. H., 2013. Sociotechnical approaches to the study of Information Systems, Syracuse:
Chapman and Hall.

Scacchi, W., 2004. Socio-Technical Design. In: W. S. Bainbridge, ed. The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer
Interaction. California: Berkshire Publishing Group.

Seelmann, J., Lerche, D. D., Kiefer, A. & Lucante, P., 2011. Benefits of a computerized Integrated System for
Taxation: iTax Case Study, Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für.

Tanzania Knowledge Network, 2010. Informal Sector Taxation in Tanzania, Dar es Salaam: The Economic and
Social Research Foundation.

Tanzania Revenue Authority, 2017. Fifth Corporate Plan. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Revenue Authority.

Tanzania Revenue Authority, 2017. Taxpayer's Service Charter. Dar es Salaam: Tanzania Revenue Authority.

Tarimo, D., 2015. Paying Taxes 2015: The Global Picture. The Changing face of tax compliance in 189 economies
worldwide, pp. 113-114.

University of St Andrews, 2017. University of St. Andrews: LSCITS Handbook of Socio-technical Systems
Engineering. [Online]
 Available at: http://archive.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/STSE-Handbook/
[Accessed 02 11 2017].

Wagenknetch, T., Filpe, R. & Weinhardt, C., 2017. Towards a Design Theory of Computer-Supported
Organizational Participation. Berlin, Researchgate.

Whitworth, B., 2009. A Brief Introduction to Sociotechnical Systems. In: K. Klinger, et al. eds. Encyclopeda of
Information Science and Technology. Hershey,New York: Information Science Reference (IGI Global), pp. 394-
400.

Whitworth, B. & Ahmad, A., 2013. Socio-Technical System Design. In: M. Soegaard & R. F. Dam, eds. The
Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Hershey: Interaction Design Foundation, p. Chapter 24.

View publication stats