Technology and Design

Objectives of class:

To understand the concepts related to:

• Technology and organizational effectiveness
The Design link
• Technical complexity: Woodward’s theory
• Routine and complex tasks: Perrow’s theory
• Task interdependence: Thompson theory
• Sociotechnical Systems

9- 2
• The nature of the organizations technology
must be considered in designing the
organisation for maximum efficiency and
effectiveness
 Technology and Design Link
• Ford vs Avanti
• Ford, more than 3 million cars a year,
assembly line-worldwide..Sixty cars per hour
• Avanti, hand built, 2 cars a day

• Use different technology

• Organisation design same or different?

• Technology is one of the determinants of
design

• Most confusing construct in Organisation

Theory- Technology
Technology —
The combination of skills, knowledge,
abilities, techniques, materials, machines,
computers, tools, and other equipment
that people use to convert raw materials
into valuable goods and services.

Important to note that technology doesn’t

just apply to “high-tech” organizations.

9- 6
Inside an organization, technology exists at
three levels:
•Individual level— the personal skills and
knowledge that individuals possess.

•Functional or department level— the

procedures and techniques that groups
work out to perform their work and
create value.

•Organizational level— the way an organization

converts inputs into outputs
Mass production—use of conveyor belts
and a standardized assembly process
Crafts work—use of skilled workers for
custom-designed products 7
 3 paradigms of how technology
affects structure
1. Woodward’s research- The initial thrust
2. Perrow’s Contribution- Knowledge based
technology
3. Thompson’s contribution- Technological
uncertainty
 1- Organization-Level Technology:
The Technical Core
Joan Woodward’s 1950's study of British manufacturing
companies

Proposition- Technology is a determinant of Design

• 1st major attempt to view organisation
structure from a technological perspective
• Objective: Is there a correlation between
structural form and effectiveness?
• Measured the design variables- levels, span of
control, personnel ratio etc
• Classified companies as above average,
average and below average
Hypothesis
• Optimum structure is related to effectiveness

• Woodward classified firms into 3 types

 3 Types of Technologies

1- Unit or Small Batch

Technological
Complexity

2- Mass or Large Batch

3- Continuous Process or Flow

 Low Technical
T Complexity High

Structural
Technical Characteristics Small-Batch Mass Production Continuous-Process
Technology Technology Technology
Complexity
3 4 6
and Levels in the hierarchy

Organizational Span of control of CEO 4 7 10

Structure Span of control of first- 23 48 15

line supervisor

Ratio of managers to 1 to 23 1 to 16 1 to 8
nonmanagers

Approximate shape of
organization

Relatively flat, with Relatively tall, with Very tall, with very
narrow span of control wide span of control narrow span of contro

Type of structure Organic Mechanistic Organic

Cost of operation High Medium Low

9- 13
 Woodward’s Results

 Contingency relationship between technology

and structure
1) The unit or small batch => organic structure
2) The mass or large batch => a mechanistic/bureaucratic structure
3) The continuous process or flow => an organic structure

 Relationship between structure-technology and success

Many of the organizational characteristics of the successful firms were near
the average of their technology category

Structural characteristics could be interpreted as clustering into organic and

mechanistic management systems.
• Woodwards research spelled the beginning of
the end of the view that there were universal
principles of management and organisation

• Criticized for subjectivity and implying

causation
 Charles Perrow’s Contribution
• To understand why some technologies are
more complex than others

• Woodward’s work could not be generalized

• To understand the relationship between
technology and structure, technology needs to
be operationalized in a more general way
• Technology- the action that an individual
performs upon an object with or without the
aid of tools or mechanical devices, in order to
make some change in that object
According to Perrow, two dimensions
underlie the difference between routine
and non-routine tasks and technologies:

•Task variability

•Task/problem analyzability
Task variability refers to the number of
exceptions (new or unexpected
situations) that a person encounters
while performing a task.

Task/Problem analyzability is the degree to

which search activity is needed to
solve a problem
The type of search procedures followed
Together, task analyzability and task
variability explain why some tasks are
more complex than others.

The greater the number of

exceptions encountered and the greater
the amount of search that is required to find a
solution, the more complex the tasks.
9- 20
 Relationship of Department Technology to
Structural and Management Characteristics
Low Mostly Organic Structure Organic Structure
1. Moderate formalization 1. Low formalization
2. Moderate centralization
CRAFT 2. Low centralization
NONROUTINE
3. Work experience
Performing Arts 3. Training
Strategic
plus experience
planning
4. ModerateDesigners
to wide span 4. Moderate
Top management
to narrow span
Performing Advertising
artists Strategic
Social
Planning
science research

CRAFT NONROUTINE
Mechanistic Structure
Mostly Mechanistic Structure
1. High formalization
1. Moderate formalization
2. High centralization
ROUTINE ENGINEERING
2. Moderate centralization
3. Little training
Clerical
or experience General Accounting
3. Formal training
4. Wide spanMaintenance Engineering
4. Moderate span
McDonalds Burger
Auditing Legal research
Office Building Construction
High ENGINEERING
ROUTINE
Low EXCEPTIONS/VARIETY High
Perrow used the dimension of task variability
and task analyzability to differentiate
among four types of technology:

• Routine manufacturing
• Crafts work
• Engineering production
• Non-routine research

9- 22
The types of technology that Perrow identified
have implications for an organization’s
structure.
Simplify tasks!!

Perrow basically suggests that an organization

should move from a mechanistic structure
to an organic structure as tasks become
more complex and less routine.

9- 23
 Contemporary Developments in
Manufacturing Technology
• Flexible Manufacturing Systems
Use of Robots, computer controlled machines,
wireless technology
The ultimate automated factories are referred to
as flexible manufacturing systems
 Flexible Manufacturing is the result of 3
subcomponents
• Computer-aided design
– (CAD)

• Computer-aided manufacturing
– (CAM)

• Integrated Information Network

25
 Lean Manufacturing
• Flexible manufacturing reaches its ultimate level
to improve quality, customer service, and cost
cutting when all parts are used interdependently
and combined with flexible management
processes in a system referred to as lean
manufacturing
• It uses highly trained employees who
painstakingly look into minute details to cut
waste and improve quality
• Ex. Toyota Motor Corporation
Mass Customization-computer aided
craftsmanship
• Lean manufacturing and flexible
manufacturing systems have paved the way
for mass customization
• Reflect.com backed by P & G
Relationship of Flexible Manufacturing Technology to
Traditional Technologies

Flexible Mass
Small batch
Manufacturing Customization

Customized NEW CHOICES

Mass
PRODUCT FLEXIBILITY

Production

Continuous
Process

Standardized
Small BATCH SIZE Unlimited
Source: Based on Jack Meredith, “The Strategic Advantages of New
Manufacturing Technologies For Small Firms.” Strategic Management
Journal 8 (1987): 249-58; Paul Adler, “Managing Flexible Automation,”
California Management Review (Spring 1988): 34-56; and
Otis Port, “Custom-made Direct from the Plant.” 28
Business Week/21st Century Capitalism, 18 November 1994, 158-59.
Sociotechnical Systems
• Sociotechnical systems (STS) is an approach to
complex organizational work design that
recognizes the interaction between people
and technology in workplaces.

• The term sociotechnical systems was coined in

the 1960s by Eric Trist and Fred Emery, who
were working as consultants at the Tavistock
Institute in London.
• Sociotechnical systems theory is theory about the social
aspects of people and society and technical aspects of
organizational structure and processes.
• Here, technical does not imply technology. "Technical" was a
term used in those times to refer to structure and a broader
sense of technicalities (tools, techniques and methods).
• Sociotechnical refers to the interrelatedness of social and
technical aspects of an organisation. Sociotechnical theory
therefore is about joint optimization, with a shared emphasis
on achievement of both excellence in technical performance
and quality in people's work lives.
 The Genesis
• Case Study of British Coal Mining brought to light the
paradox that despite improved technology, productivity
was falling, and that despite better pay and amenities,
absenteeism was increasing.
• This particular rational organisation had become irrational.
The cause of the problem was hypothesized to be the
adoption of a new form of production technology which
had created the need for a bureaucratic form of
organization (rather like classic command-and-control).
• In this specific example, technology brought with it a
retrograde step in organizational design terms. The analysis
that followed introduced the terms ‘socio’ and ‘technical’
and elaborated on many of the core principles that
sociotechnical theory subsequently became.
Responsible autonomy

• Sociotechnical theory was pioneering for its shift in

emphasis towards considering teams or groups as the
primary unit of analysis and not the individual
• Sociotechnical theory pays particular attention to
internal supervision and leadership at the level of the
‘group’ and refers to it as ‘responsible autonomy’
• The overriding point seems to be that having the
simple ability of individual team members being able
to perform their function is not the only predictor of
effectiveness.
 Sociotechnical Systems Model
The Social System The Technical System
Individual and team Type of production
behaviors technology (small batch,
mass production, FMS, etc.)
Organizational/team
culture
Design for Level of interdependence
(pooled, sequential,
Management practices Joint Optimization reciprocal)

Leadership style Work roles, tasks, Physical work setting

workflow
Degree of communication Complexity of production
and openness Goals and values process (variety and
analyzability)
Individual needs and Skills and abilities
desires Nature of raw materials

Time pressure

Sources: Based on T. Cummings, “Self-Regulating Work Groups: A Socio-Technical

Synthesis,” Academy of Management Review 3 (1978): 625-34; Don Hellriegel, John W.
Slocum, and Richard W. Woodman, Organizational Behavior, 8th ed. (Cincinnati, Ohio:
South-Western College Publishing, 1998), 492; and Gregory B. Northcraft and Margaret
A. Neale, Organizational Behavior: A Management Challenge, 2nd ed. (Fort Worth, Tex.:
34
The Dryden Press, 1994), 551.
• The final characteristics of technology
that influences structure:
Interdependence
• James Thompson defined three types of
interdependence that influence organization
structure
• Interdependence means the extent to which departments
depend on each other for resources or materials to
accomplish their tasks
1. Pooled interdependence using mediating technology-Bank
2. Sequential- interdependence is of serial form using long-
linked technology-assembly line
3. Reciprocal- highest level using intensive technologies-
Hospitals
Thompson’s Classification of Interdependence and
Management Implications

Demands on Priority for

Form of Horizontal Type of Locating Units
Interdependence Communications, Coordination Close Together
Decision Making Required
Pooled (bank) Standardization, rules,
Low procedures
communication Low
Client Divisional Structure
Sequential Plans, schedules,
(assembly line) Medium feedback

Client communication Medium

Task Forces
Reciprocal (hospital) Mutual adjustment, cross-
High departmental meetings,
communication teamwork High

Client Horizontal Structure

36
 Primary Means to Achieve Coordination for Different Levels
of Task Interdependence in a
Manufacturing Firm

INTERDEPENDENCE COORDINATION
High
Reciprocal
(new product development)
Horizontal structure,
cross-functional teams
Mutual
Face-to-face communication, Adjustment
Sequential
Unscheduled meetings,
(product manufacture) Full-time integrators

Scheduled meetings, task forces

Planning
Vertical communication
Pooled
(product delivery) Plans
Rules Standardization

Low
Source: Adapted from Andrew H. Van de Ven, Andre Delbecq, and 37
Richard Koenig, “Determinants of Communication Modes Within
Organizations,” American Sociological Review 41 (1976): 330.