E-File Debacle: Mismanaged Social Systems and its Discontents

Introduction

Sociotechnical design systems are frequently invoked as the “humanized” integration of new technical systems, given their mutual constitution of people and technologies. (Jarrahi & Sawyer, 2013). Sociotechnical processes foster direct participation of end-users in the information system design processes, and therefore, the underpinning premise of the customized console assumes more effective technological solutions (Scacchi, 2003; Jarrahi & Sawyer, 2013). Yet questions remain as to whether this attempt to “humanize” or “socialize” the design process through user participation is ethical, and more broadly, actually renders benefits (Cavaye, 1995; Adman & Warren, 2000; Coiera, 2006). Bert Painter’s overview of the British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Board’s (WCB) integration of the Electronic Claim File (“E-File”) offers a case examine the sociotechnical designs at work and their implications.

Despite the best intentions and a necessity to transition to e-technology platforms, Painter’s depiction of the e-file transition as a process demonstrates utter mismanagement, unimaginative implementation of the social design system, and the dehumanization of workers as a result of the overemphasis on the social system. To contextualize these claims, this author first provides crucial background – on the company, sociotechnical systems design, and the respective technical and social systems active in the case study. This paper then discusses the author’s core claims: Painter’s depiction portrays utter mismanagement, unimaginative implementation of the social dimension, and reduces workers to little more than lab rats. The paper concludes with a brief recapitulation of the key findings, then discusses their implications.

Background

As stated, Painter’s case study details the British Columbia Workers’ Compensation Board’s (WCB) custom integration of the e-file system through what he designates “sociotechnical” design. Painter, the “external facilitator” in this process, explains the key drivers for this change arose from WCB’s Service Delivery Strategy (SDS) objectives to: improve customer service, 2) reduce costs, and 3) foster a better work environment. An agreement between the WCB and the Compensation Employees’ Union (CEU), which represented 1,200 hourly employee E-file users, paved the way for the organizational shift. Crucially, this agreement included a provision for “employment and wage (not job) protection of staff affected”, and thus was cast by Painter agreeable to all parties.

Sociotechnical Systems Theory amplifies the relationship between the social and technical dimensions of an organization or system to render a more holistic grasp of the interplay between the two systems and the implications (Beekun, 1989; Scacchi, 2003; Jarrahi & Sawyer, 2013). Despite an array of interpretations of sociotechnical systems, the underpinning logic remains to achieve a responsive and intuitive – and what some refer to as the “humanized” – technological systems (Jarrahi & Sawyer, 2013).

Social and Technical Systems at Work

Painter’s case study is one dominated by social systems. Central to the implementation of E-file is the agreement between the CEU and the management of WCB. This agreement paves the way for the implementation of E-file, the technical system envisioned as a “catalyst” for increased efficiency and productivity at WCB. The first social system appears in the biweekly “tech change” forums meant for employees to engage with the designers, and presumably the management. Painter cites these forums as crucial meetings to heighten communication, but the efficacy of such communication remains unclear.

Further social systems appear throughout the various integration phases. In the proof of concept (POC) phase, the project team was “mainly” composed of external consultants at the expense of staff due to “time and resource constraints”, however, users were able to complete purple sheets to denote issues. Similarly, the “pilot” phase entailed the isolation of a specific group of users, who were subjected to “once a week JAD sessions” for the users to communicate the desires, needs, and accessibility standards of the system. These JAD process became even more time consuming for employees with the additional RAD processes, in which employees were taken from their desks to evaluate screen layouts.

The transitions between these various systems offer salient entry points to the prioritization of the social system. The most apparent turning point appears in the form of the board decision to implement a new strategy. Painter notes this decision raised employee fears, but then claims those are merely related to the introduction of unfamiliar technologies. Second, the union agreement with WCB was a crucial turning point toward a process with a more inclusive participation. Other important turning points appeared in the system failure or inadequacies. Such issues prompted responses from the employees in the form of purple sheets, logs of the Business User Group (BUGs), or the various feedback loops (JAD, RAD, “job design proposals”, or “tech change” meetings).

E-file on Trial

Despite Painter’s relatively critique-free outline, his depiction provides a case study in utter mismanagement of the implementation of social systems. While the project was roughly on budget and met with 80% staff “satisfaction”, the implementation is marred by information overload. The persistent feedback loops – “tech change” meetings, purple papers, JAD, RAD, and job-design proposals – altered the very nature of workflows and restructured employee attentiveness to systems at the expense of their primary duties, namely case management. Such an approach assumes employees care enough about the organization and technologies to participate in the change, possess the nuance to identify fundamental issues, and have the skills to adapt to the new technologies. These assumptions transform the nature of work at WCB.

The project suffers from unimaginative social systems. Certainly, the “tech change.” forums served an important role in the process, but questions remain as to who attended, from which departments they hailed, and the degree of their engagement. These meetings prompt a series of questions not limited to the specifics of the meetings. Were the times of meetings conducive to all employees? What were the incentives for employees to attend? Were certain department’s over- or underrepresented? Furthermore, the various feedback loops place the onus of change on the employees rather than designers. Indeed, design should reflect employee wishes, but the role of designers should be to translate those needs into a system, rather than to continually solicit information from workers. No doubt employees played an active role in the design process, however, the impact on their day-to-day responsibilities should not be underestimated.

Of course, workers serve a fundamental role to the sociotechnical systems design, however, the prioritization – as in the case of the social systems in the case study – of the social over the technical prompts ethical questions. Painter and his colleagues assumed frequent interviews, longevity of the “pilot” program, “tech forums”, and JAD and RAD processes “humanize” the integration of new technologies and empower users in the formulation process. Yet this logic rests upon the premise that end-users actually want to participate in such processes rather than feel compelled to do so. Those subjected to the various participatory processes experience a drastic transformation in their job requirements, and this could bear upon the management of their typical day-to-day tasks. The integration of such policies transforms the work place into a laboratory and employees into the guinea pigs, and this prompts ethical questions for management. Moreover, were employees willing participants or compelled to participate in the feedback loops and transition phases. One only hopes from the description that WCB management reduced the expectations for the employees, and further, participants received total compensation for their time.

Conclusion

This paper outlined Painter’s case study, identified the manifestation of social or technical systems, isolated the shifts between the two, and then identified three fundamental issues in implementation of the e-file system. As stated, mismanagement, unimaginative implementation, and dire effects on staff demonstrate the need for a balance between the social and technical systems. Whereas most cases tend toward the technical in a top-down approach, Painter’s depiction of the E-file offers a separate, but highly problematic approach.

These issues beg larger questions as to the viability of the sociotechnical model proffered by Painter. Painter’s depiction demonstrates the naivety in the notion that a focus on a participatory social system will “humanize” the technical system. The reduction of employees to mere lab rats in the transition process demonstrates the fundamental contradictions in a heavy social systems approach to technical change. This transformation of the job description of employees should prompt concern for the allocation of resources and efforts to such processes. Clearly, pulling employees away from their desk to “evaluate” the e-file system would be the most efficient use of their time, but to demand they do so is akin to citizens living without protections under an autocratic ruler. Put simply, work is work. Employees should be willing to contribute to the improvement of systems, but not at the expense of their own performance.

References

Adman, P. & Warrant, L. (2000) Participatory sociotechnical design of organizations and information systems – an adaptation of ETHICS methodology. Journal of Information Technology. 15, 39-51.

Beekun, R. I. (1989) Assessing the effectiveness of sociotechnical interventions: antidote or fad? Human Relations, 42 (10), 877-897.

Cavaye, A.L.M. (1995) User participation in system development revisited. Information and Management, 28, 311-323.

Coiera, E. (2006). Putting the technical back into socio-technical systems research. International Journal of Medical Informatics, xxx, 1-6.

Jarrahi, M.H. and Sawyer, S. (2013) Sociotechnical approaches to the study of information systems. In Tucker, A. and Topi, H. (ed). CRC Handbook of Computing, Chapman and Hall.

Scacchi, W. (2004) Socio-technical design. In Bainbridge, W.S. (ed.) (2004) The Encylcopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Berkshire Publishing Group.