Advertisement

Complex Engineering Programs as Sociotechnical Systems

Chapter

Abstract

By framing complex engineering as sociotechnical systems, the concurrent engineering (CE) community can gain new insights, practices, and tools to cope with program difficulties. Todays distributed product development teams need to manage both human (organization) and technical (product and process) elements of their work. These sociotechnical elements combine in a real-world engineering program as an integrated architecture with dynamic interactions. Based on traditional representation and analysis of engineering activity, the prediction of performance can become challenging. Practices for engineering planning and ongoing management often rest upon deeply held beliefs of stability, detailed decomposability, and feasible control of related products, processes, and organization. However, while these assumptions drove collocated manufacturing during the industrial revolution, today’s engineering programs—and how the CE community considers them—have evolved. This chapter provides historical context on the evolution of systems thinking as applied to engineering and project management. Concepts are summarized as forces which reinforce and those which restrain the treatment of engineering programs as sociotechnical systems. Complexities of real world engineering programs can be considered in order to anticipate emergent outcomes driven by dynamic interaction of technical and social characteristics. This perspective is leading to a new generation of methods and practices for high performance engineering programs.

Keywords

Sociotechnical systems Project design Collaborative engineering Simulation-based planning Scheduling Complexity Teamwork Learning 

References

  1. 1.
    Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ackoff R, Rovin S (2003) Redesigning society. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Senge P (2006) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organization. Random House Digital, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nonaka I, Takeuchi H (1995) The knowledge-creating company: how Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Edmondson A (2008) The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Bus Rev 86(7/8):60–69Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kendall HP (1912) Unsystematized, systematized, and scientific management. In: Addresses and discussions at the conference on scientific management held at Dartmouth CollegeGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clark W (1922) The Gantt chart: a working tool of management. The Ronald Press Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gharajedaghi J (2011) Systems thinking: managing chaos and complexity, 3rd edn. Elsevier, BurlingtonGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Morgan G (1997) Images of organization. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gantt H (1913) Work, wages, and profits. Engineering Magazine Co., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fayol H (1949) Industrial and general management. Pitman, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McMillan E (2008) Complexity, management and the dynamics of change: challenges for practice. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Weber M (1964) The theory of social and economic organization. Collier-Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burns T, Stalker G (1961) The management of innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in EntrepreneurshipGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Simon H (1996) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burton RM, Obel B (1998) Strategic organizational diagnosis and design: developing theory for application. Kluwer Acadeic Publishers, NorwellCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rhodes R (1986) The making of the atomic bomb. Simon & Schuster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kennedy MN, Ward A (2003) Product development for the lean enterprise. Oaklea Press, RichmondGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liker J (2004) The Toyota way. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morgan G (1997) Learning and self organization: organizations as brains. In: Images of organization–executive edition, SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mcafee A (2006) Enterprise 2.0: the dawn of emergent collaboration. Manage Technol Innov 47(3):21−28Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Duhigg C, Bradsher K (2012) Apple, America and a squeezed middle class. The New York Times, New York, 21 Jan 2012Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ziemke M, Spann M (1993) Concurrent engineering’s roots in the World War II era. In: Concurrent engineering. Springer, Berlin, pp 24–41Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Reddy R, Wood R, Cleetus K (1991) Concurrent engineering: the DARPA initiative: encouraging new industrial practices. IEEE Spectr 28(7):26–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lucas M, Qudsi U, Brence P, Garber W, Michaels R, Shapiro D, Peck A, Croom P, Garner H (1992) DARPA initiative in concurrent engineering (DICE) phase 4. In: Electronics pilot project final technical report, DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Immonen A, Saaksvuori A (2005) Product lifecycle management, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Argyris C (1977) Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Bus Rev 55(5):115–125Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Forrester J (1961) Industrial dynamics, vol 2. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bunkley N (2007) J. Edward Lundy, ‘Whiz Kid’ at Ford Motor, Dies at 92. New York Times, New York, 06 Oct 2007Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ackoff R (1979) The future of operational research is past. J Oper Res Soc 30(2):93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schein E (2009) The corporate culture survival guide. Wiley, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Hubbard DW (2009) The failure of risk management: why it’s broken and how to fix it. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    NN (2001) Project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® GUIDE). Project Management InstituteGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Smith P, Merritt G (2002) Proactive risk management. Productivity Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    De Meyer A, Loch C, Pich M (2002) From variation to chaos. MIT Sloan Manage Rev 43:60–67Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Savage S (2012) The flaw of averages: why we underestimate risk in the face of uncertainty. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ward A (2007) Lean product and process development. Lean Enterprise Institute, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ackoff R, Magidson J, Addison H (2006) Idealized design: how to dissolve tomorrow’s crisis… today. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Senge P, Scharmer CO, Jaworski J, Flowers BS (2004) Presence: human purpose and the field of the future. Society for Organizational Learning, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Scharmer CO (2009) Theory U: learning from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Engineering Systems DivisionMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Global Project DesignBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations