An Introduction to Socio-technical System Design

Part I: The Evolution of Computing

Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad1

Institute of Information and Mathematical Sciences (IIMS),

Massey University, Albany, Auckland, New Zealand

b.whitworth@massey.ac.nz, a.ahmad@massey.ac.nz

Part 1. The evolution of computing ...................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 A short history.................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Computing levels ............................................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 The reductionist dream .................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 Science as a world view ................................................................................................................................... 6

1.5 From hardware to software ............................................................................................................................. 8

1.6 From software to HCI ...................................................................................................................................... 8

1.7 From HCI to STS ............................................................................................................................................. 9

1.8 The computing requirements hierarchy ........................................................................................................... 9

1.9 Design combinations ..................................................................................................................................... 10

1.10 The flower of computing ........................................................................................................................... 13

1.11 Discussion questions ................................................................................................................................. 14

References ............................................................................................................................................................... 16

1 To work with us on STS papers, please make contact. This and other links are: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5.

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

2

PART 1. THE EVOLUTION OF COMPUTING

A socio-technical system (STS) is a social system operating on a technical base, e.g. email, chat,

bulletin boards, blogs, Wikipedia, E-Bay, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Hundreds of millions

of people use them every day, but how do they work? More importantly, can they be designed? If

socio-technical systems are social and technical, how can computing be both at once?

1.1 A short history

The first computer was conceived of as a machine of cogs and gears (Figure 1.1). It became

operational in the 1950s and -60s with the invention of semi-conductors. In the 1970s, a

hardware company called IBM3 was a computing leader. In the 1980s software became more

important, so by the 1990s a software company called

Microsoft4 took the computing lead, giving ordinary

people tools like word-processing. During the 1990s,

computing became more personal, as the World-Wide-

Web turned Internet URLs into web site names that

people could read5. Then a company called Google

6

offered the ultimate personal service, free access to the

vast public library we call the Internet, and everyone's

gateway to the web became the new computing leader.

The 2000s computing evolved yet again, to become a

social medium as well as a personal tool. So now

Facebook challenges Google, as Google challenged

Microsoft, as Microsoft challenged IBM.

Computing has re-invented itself every decade or so (Figure 1.2). What began as just hardware

became about software, then people, and now communities. A physical machine exchanging

electricity became software exchanging information, people exchanging meaning and now

communities exchanging memes7. The World Wide Web was initially an information web (Web

1.0), then an active web (Web 2.0), now a semantic web (Web 3.0) and is becoming a social web

(Web 4.0). Each evolutionary step built on the previous, as social computing needs personal

computing, personal computing needs software and software needs hardware. The corresponding

evolution of computing design culminates in socio-technical design.

When the software era arrived, hardware continued to evolve but hardware leaders like IBM no

longer dominated computing as before. The evolution of computing changed business fortunes by

changing what computing is. Selling software makes more money than selling hardware because

it changes more often. Web queries are even more volatile, but Google gave a service away for

2 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_engine

3 IBM stands for International Business Machines.

4 Microsoft stands for microcomputer software.

5 IP addresses like 208.80.154.225 became Uniform Resource Locator (URL) names like http://en.wikipedia.org/

6 Google stands for a 1 followed by 100 zeros, i.e. a very large number.

7 A meme is an idea, behavior or style communicated within a culture.

Figure 1.1 Babbage's difference engine2

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

3

free and then sold advertising around it – it sold its services to those who sold theirs. The

business model changed, because selling knowledge is not like selling software. Facebook's

business model is still evolving. It now challenges Google because we relate to family and

friends more than we query knowledge - social exchanges have more trade potential than

knowledge exchange.

Yet friends are just social dyads. It is naive to think that social computing will stop at a unit of

two. Beyond friends are tribes, cities, city-states, nations and meta-nations like the European

Union. A community isn't like a friend, as one has a friend but belongs to a community. With a

world population at seven billion and growing, Facebook's 800 million active accounts are just

the beginning. The future is computer support for acting groups, families, tribes, nations and

eventually a global community, e.g. a group browser for people to tour the Internet together,

commenting to each other as they go. Each could take turns to pick the next site or follow an

expert host. If socio-technology is just beginning, we need to understand how it works.

1.2 Computing levels

The basis of socio-technical design is general systems theory (Bertalanffy, 1968). It describes

what the disciplines of science have in common: sociologists see social systems, psychologists

cognitive systems, computer scientists information systems and engineers hardware systems. All

refer to systems. In general systems theory, no discipline has a monopoly on science and all are

valid. Discipline isomorphies8 arise from common system properties, e.g. a social agreement

measure that matched a biological diversity measure (Whitworth, 2006). Mechanical, logical,

psychological and social systems are studied by engineers, computer scientists, psychologists and

8 A discipline isomorphy is when different fields with different forms present the same equation or law.

Figure 1.2 The computing evolution

First computer Hardware era Software era Personal computing era Social computing era

ENIAC

(Electronic Numerical

Integrator And Computer)

IBM Main-frame Word perfect,

Visicalc, DOS

Microsoft Office.

World-Wide-Web,

Google

Social Media

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

4

STS

HCI

IT

Technology

Community + HCI(s)

Person + IT(s)

Software + Device(s)

Any Device

sociologists respectively. These perspectives in computing give levels (Table 1.1). Computing

then began at the mechanical level, evolved an information level, then acquired human and

community levels.

Levels also help clarify terminology. In Figure 1.3, a technology is any tool people build to use,

e.g. a spear is a technology9. So a hardware device alone is a technology, but information

technology (IT) is both hardware and software. Likewise, computer science10

(CS) is a hybrid of

mathematics and engineering, not either alone. So information technology is not a sub-set of

technology, nor is computer science a sub-set of engineering.

Human computer interaction (HCI) is then a person plus an IT system, with physical,

informational and psychological levels. Just as IT isn't hardware, so HCI isn't IT, but the child of

IT and psychology. HCI links CS to psychology as CS linked engineering to mathematics. HCI

introduces human requirements to computing and HCI systems turn information into meaning.

Finally, people can form an online community with hardware, software, personal and community

levels. If the first two levels are technical and the last two social, the result is a socio-technical

system (STS). If technology design is computing built to hardware and software requirements,

then socio-technical design is computing

built to personal and community

requirements as well. In socio-technical

systems, the new "user" of computing is

the community (Whitworth, 2009b).

Currently, many terms refer to human

factors in computing: Engineers extend

the term IT to refer to applications built

to user requirements; Business calls

people and organizations using

computing information systems (IS);

Education prefers information

communication technology (ICT) to

9 Anything we use physically is technology, e.g. a table is technology.

10 The study of information processing

Table 1.1 Computing levels as discipline perspectives

Level Examples Discipline

Community Norms, culture, laws, zeitgeist, sanctions, roles Sociology

Personal Semantics, attitudes, beliefs, feelings, ideas Psychology

Informational Programs, data, bandwidth, memory Computer science

Mechanical Hardware, motherboard, telephone, FAX Engineering

Figure 1.3 Computer system levels

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

5

describe computer communication; Health chose the term informatics. Whether your preferred

term is IT, IS, ICT or informatics doesn't change the basic idea, that people are now part of

computing. This chapter uses the term HCI for consistency11

.

In this pan-discipline view, all of Figure 1.3 is computing, whose complexity arises from its

discipline promiscuity. Socio-technology then designs a computer product as a social and

technical system. Limiting computing to hardware (engineering) or software (computer science)

denies its obvious evolution.

Levels in computing are ways to view it, not ways to partition it, e.g. a pilot in a plane is one

system with different levels, not a mechanical part (the plane) plus a human part (the pilot). The

physical level includes not just the plane body but also the pilot's body, as both have weight,

volume etc. The information level isn't just the onboard computer, but also the neuronal

processing in the pilot’s brain that generates the qualia12

of human experience.

The human level is just a pilot who sees the plane as an extension of his or her body, like extra

hands or feet, and computer data like extra eyes or ears. On this level, the pilot is the actor and the

plane is just a tool. The information level covers all processing, not just of onboard computers

but also of the brain. The physical level is not just the body of the plane but also of the pilot. In an

aerial conflict, the tactics of a piloted plane will be different from a computer drone. Finally, a

plane in a squadron may do things it would not do alone, e.g. expose itself as a decoy so others

can attack the enemy.

1.3 The reductionist dream

The reductionist dream, based on logical positivism13

, is that only the physical level is "real", so

everything else must reduce to it. Yet when Shannon and Weaver defined information as a choice

between physical options, the options were physical but the choosing wasn't (Shannon and

Weaver, 1949). A message physically fixed in one way has by this definition zero information,

because the other ways it could have been don't exist physically14

. It is strange but logically true

that hieroglyphics one can't read have in themselves no information at all. It is reader choices that

generate information, which until deciphered is unknown. If this were not so, data compression

couldn't put the same data in a physically smaller signal, which it can. Information is defined by

the encoding, not the physical message. If the encoding is unknown, the information is undefined,

e.g. an electronic pulse sent down a wire could be a bit, or a byte (an ASCII “1”), or as the first

word of a dictionary, say Aardvark, is many bytes. The information a message conveys depends

on the decoding process, e.g. every 10th letter of a text gives a new message. Information doesn't

exist physically, as it can't be touched or seen. Physicality is necessary for it, but not sufficient.

11 An alternative term is CHI, or computer-human interaction.

12 A qualia is a basic subjective experience, e.g. the pain of a headache.

13 Logical positivism is a nineteenth century meta-physical position stating that all science involves only physical

observables. In psychology, it led to Behaviorism (Skinner, 1948) which is now largely discredited (Chomsky, 2006). Science is not a way to prove facts, but a way to use world feedback to make best guesses. See researchroadmap.org for more details.

14 An on/off line voltage choice is one bit, but a physical "on" signal alone is no information.

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

6

That mathematical laws are real even though they aren't concrete is mathematical realism

(Penrose, 2005). Mathematics is a science because its constructs are logical, not because they are

physical. They are real because we conceive them, not because they physically exist. That they are

later physically useful is another matter. Cognitive realism is the case that cognitions are also real

because we experience them. Mathematical or cognitive constructs defined in physical terms

become empirical15

, and so the feedback loop of science still works, e.g. fear measured by heart

rate is a cognitive construct measured in physical terms. Yet fear isn't just heart-rate, as it can also

be measured by pupil dilation, blood pressure, etc. Even terms like "red" aren't physical facts as

the light spectrum is continuous, with no red frequency section.

The physical level alone is what it is. It has no choices so has no information, i.e. reductionism

denies informational science. In physics, it gave a clockwork universe, where each state perfectly

defined the next. Quantum theory flatly denied this, as quantum events are by definition random,

i.e. explained by no physical history. Either quantum theory is wrong, which it has never been, or

reductionism, that only the physical is real, is a naive nineteenth century assumption that has had

its day. If all science were physical, all science would be physics, which it is not.

Physics today has a quantum level, i.e. a primordial non-physical16

reality below physical reality

(Whitworth, 2011). Yet long ago, the great 18th Century German philosopher Kant argued that

reality is just a view, that we don't see things as they are in themselves17

(Kant, 1781, p392).

Levels return the observer to science, as quantum theory's measurement paradoxes demand. In

philosophy, psychology, mathematics, computing and quantum physics, levels apply18

.

1.4 Science as a world view

A level is a world view, a way of seeing complete and consistent in itself. In the mechanical view,

a computer is all hardware, but in the informational view it is all data. One can't point to a

program on a motherboard nor a device in a

data structure. A mobile phone doesn't have

hardware and software parts, but is hardware

or software in toto. Hardware and software are

ways to look at it, not ways to divide it up.

Hardware becomes software when we view

computing in a different way. The switch is as

one swaps glasses to see the same object

close-up. The disciplines of science are just

world views, like walking around an object to

see it from different perspectives.

Levels are a fact of science, e.g. to describe

15 Empirical means derived from the physical world. Mental constructs with no physical referent, like love, are

outside it. 16

For example, quantum collapse ignores the speed of light limit and quantum waves travel many paths at once. 17

He called a "thing in itself" the noumenon, as opposed to the phenomenon, or the view we see. A bat or a bee

would see the world differently from us. It is egocentrism to assume the world is only as we see it. 18

With a non-physical quantum reality below the physical.

Hardware 1. Mechanical …....

2. Informational ...

3. Psychological ....

4. Social ………….

Software

Community

Person

Abst

ract

ion

Figure 1.4 Computing levels as abstract views

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

7

World War II as a "history" of atomic events would be ridiculous. A political summary is more

useful. Yet levels emerge from each other, as higher abstractions form from lower ones (Figure

1.4). Information needs hardware choices, cognitions need information flows, and communities

need common cognitions. Conversely, without physical choices there is no information, without

information there are no cognitions and without cognitions there is no community19

.

A world view has properties, like being:

1. Essential. One cannot view a world without first having a point of view.

2. Empirical. Based on world interaction, e.g. information is empirical.

3. Complete. A world view consistently describes a whole world.

4. Subjective. One chooses a view before viewing, explicitly or implicitly.

5. Exclusive. One can't view two ways at once, as one can't sit in two places at once20

.

6. Emergent. One world view can emerge from another.

Levels as views must be chosen before viewing, i. e. pick a level then view.

Yet how we see the world affects how we act, e.g. if we saw ultra-violet light, as bees do,

previously dull flowers would become bright. Every flower shop would have to change its stock.

Levels as higher ways to view a system are also new ways to operate and design it, e.g. new

software protocols like Ethernet can improve network performance as much as new cables.

New ways to view computing affect how we build it, and how social levels affect technology

design is socio-technical design. Level requirements cumulate, so socio-technical design includes

hardware, software and HCI requirements (Figure 1.5). What appears as just hardware now has

requirements outside itself, e.g. smart-phone buttons mustn't be too small for people's fingers.

Levels are why computer design has evolved from hardware engineering to socio-technology.

19 A community is a set of people who see themselves as a social unit.

20 Or as one can't lever from two fulcrums at once. One can, of course, view from one perspective then another.

Technology1. Mechanical level

2. Informational level …………..

3. Personal level ………….…………………….

4. Community level ..…………………………………………..

Information

technology

HCI

Socio-

TechnologyEv

olu

tio

n

Figure 1.5 Computing applications and levels

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

8

For a village beside a factory, community needs come second to factory productivity, with ethics

an after-thought, but for socio-technology, the community and the technology are one. If social

needs are not met there is no community, and if there is no community the technology fails to

perform as expected. Socio-technical design is the application of community requirements to

people, software and hardware. The following sections derive each computing level from the

previous.

1.5 From hardware to software

Hardware is any physical computer part, e.g. mouse, screen or case. It doesn't "cause" software

nor is software a hardware output, as physical systems have physical outputs. We create software

by seeing choice in physicality. Software needs hardware but it isn't hardware, as the same code

can run on a PC, Mac or mobile phone. An entity relationship diagram can work for any physical

storage, whether disk, CD or USB, as data entities aren't disk sectors. Software assumes some

hardware but no specific one.

If any part of a device acquires software, the whole system gets an information level, e.g. a

computer is information technology even though its case is just hardware. We describe a system

by its highest level, so if the operating system "hangs21

we say "the computer" crashed, even

though the computer hardware is working fine. Rebooting fixes the software problem with no

hardware change, so a software system can fail while the hardware still works perfectly.

Conversely, a computer can fail as hardware but not software, if a chip overheats. Replace the

hardware part and the computer works with no software change needed. Software can fail without

hardware failing and hardware can fail without software failing. New hardware needn't change

software and new software needn't change hardware. Each level has its own performance

requirements: if software fails we call a programmer, but if hardware fails we call an engineer.

Software requirements can be met by hardware operations, e.g. reading a logical file takes longer

if the file is fragmented, as the drive head must jump between physically distant disk sectors.

Defragmenting a disk improves software access by putting files in adjacent physical sectors. File

access improves, but the physical drive read rate hasn't changed, i.e. hardware actions can meet

software goals, e.g. database and network requirements gave new hardware chip commands. The

software goal, of better information throughput, also becomes the hardware goal, e.g. physical

chip design today is as much about caching and co-processing as it is about cycle rate.

1.6 From software to HCI

HCI began with the personal computing era. Adding people to the computing equation meant that

getting technology to work was only half the problem - the other half was getting people to use it.

Web users who didn't like a site just clicked on. Web sites that got more hits succeeded because

given equal functionality, users chose the more usable product (Davis,1989), e.g. Word replaced

Word Perfect because it was more usable - users who took a week to learn Word Perfect picked

up Word in a day. As computing gained a software level, it now got a human level.

21 If the software gets in an infinite loop, we say it "hangs".

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

9

Human computer interaction (HCI) is a person using IT, as IT is software using hardware. As

computer science merges mathematics and engineering, but is neither, so HCI merges psychology

and computer science, but is neither. Psychology is the study of people, and computer science the

study of software, but the study of people using software, or HCI, is new. It is another computing

discipline that cuts across other disciplines. HCI applies psychology to computing design, e.g.

Miller's paper on cognitive span (Miller, 1956) suggests limiting computer menu choices to

seven. A psychology requirement gives a computer design heuristic, as our many senses imply

multi-media computing.

1.7 From HCI to STS

Social structures, roles and rights add a fourth level to computing. Socio-technical design uses the

social sciences in computing design as HCI uses psychology. STS is not part of HCI, nor is

sociology part of psychology, because a society is more than the people in it, e.g. East and West

Germany, with similar people, performed differently as communities, as is true for North and

South Korea today. To say "the Jews" survived but "the Romans" didn't is to say that the society

didn't continue, not its people, as no Roman era people are alive today. A society is not just the

people in it. People who gather to view a spectacle or customers coming to shop for bargains, are

not a community. A community is here an agreed form of social interaction that persists

(Whitworth and deMoor, 2003).

Social interactions can have a physical or a technical base, e.g. a socio-physical system is people

connecting by physical means. Face-to-face friendships cross seamlessly to Facebook because the

social level persists across physical and electronic architecture bases. Whether electronically or

physically mediated, a social system is always people interacting with people. Electronic

communication may be “virtual”, but the people involved are real.

A community works through people using technology as people work through software using

hardware, so social requirements are now part of computing design (Sanders and McCormick,

1993). While sociology studies the social level alone, socio-technical design studies how personal

and social requirements can be met by IT system design. Certainly this raises the cost of

development, but then systems like social

networks have far more performance

potential.

1.8 The computing requirements

hierarchy

Computing evolution implies a computing

requirements hierarchy (Figure 1.6). If the

hardware works, software becomes the

priority, if the software works user needs

arise, and when user needs are met social

requirements occur. As the issues of one

level are met, those of the next appear, as

climbing one hill reveals another. As

hardware over-heating problems are solved,

software data locking problems arise. As

Figure 1.6 The computing requirements hierarchy

Mechanical

Informational

Psychological

Social

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

10

software response times improve, user response times become the issue. Companies like Google

and E-bay still seek customer satisfaction, but customers in crowds have social needs like

fairness, synergy and freedom.

As computers evolve, higher levels come to drive success. In general, the highest system level

defines success, e.g. social networks need a community to succeed. If no community forms, it

doesn't matter how easy to use, fast or reliable the software is.

Conversely, any level can cause failure, e.g. it doesn’t matter how high community morale is if

the hardware fails, the software crashes or the interface is unusable. An STS fails if its hardware

fails, if its program crashes or if users can’t figure it out. Hardware, software, personal and

community failures are all computing errors (Table 1.2). The one thing they have in common is

that the system doesn't perform at that level, and in evolution, what doesn't perform doesn't

survive. Lower levels are more essential, but higher levels are more influential.

When computing was just technology, it failed for technical reasons, but now it has grown into

socio-technology, it can also fail for social reasons. Technology is hard, but society is soft. That

the soft should direct the hard seems counter-intuitive, but trees grow at their soft tips not their

hard base. As a tree trunk doesn't direct its expanding canopy, so today's social computing was

undreamt of by its technical base.

1.9 Design combinations

Design fields differ in their combination of requirements and design levels, as in Table 1.3:

1) Ergonomics is the design of safe and comfortable machines for people. To design technology

to human body needs like posture and eye-strain merges biology and engineering.

2) Object design, as defined by Norman, applies psychological needs to mechanical design

(Norman, 1990), e.g. a door's design affects whether it is pushed or pulled. An affordance is a

physical design that cues users to use an object correctly, e.g. a raised button cues to be

pressed. Physical systems designed to human requirements work better. In World War II,

planes crashed until engineers designed cockpit controls to the cognitive needs of pilots as

follows (with computing examples):

Table 1.2 Errors by level

Level Requirements Errors

Community Reduce community overload, clashes,

increase productivity, synergy, fairness,

freedom, privacy, transparency.

Unfairness, slavery, selfishness,

apathy, corruption, lack of privacy.

Personal Reduce cognitive overload, clashes,

increase meaning transfer efficiency. User misunderstands, gives up, is

distracted, enters wrong data.

Informational Reduce information overload, clashes,

increase data processing, storage, transfer Processing hangs, data storage full,

network overload, data conflicts.

Mechanical Reduce physical heat or force overload.

Increase heat or force efficiency. Overheating, mechanical fractures

or breaks, heat leakage, jams.

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

11

1. Put the control by the thing controlled, e.g. a handle on a door (context menus).

2. Let the control “cue” the required action, e.g. a joystick (a 3D screen button).

3. Make the action/result link intuitive, e.g. press a joystick forward to go down, (press a

button down to turn on).

4. Provide continuous feedback, e.g. an altimeter, (a web site breadcrumbs line).

5. Reduce mode channels, e.g. altimeter readings, (avoid edit and zoom mode confusions).

6. Use alternate sensory channels, e.g. warning sounds, (error beeps).

7. Let pilots "play", e.g. flight simulators, (a system sandbox).

3) Human computer interaction applies psychological requirements to software design. Usable

interfaces respect cognitive principles, e.g. by the nature of human attention, users don’t

usually read the entire screen.

HCI turns psychological needs

into IT designs as architecture

turns buyer needs into house

designs. Compare Steve Jobs'

IPod to a television remote

(Figure 1.7). Both do the same

job22

but one is a cool tool and

the other a mass of buttons.

One was designed to

engineering requirements and

the other to human needs.

Which then performs better?

4) Fashion is the social need to

look good applied to object

design. In computing, a mobile

phone can be a fashion

accessory, just like a hat or handbag. Its role is to impress, not just to function. Aesthetic

22 In fact the IPod does more.

Figure 1.7 TV Remote vs. Ipod

Table 1.3 Design fields by target and requirement levels

Field Target Requirements Example

STS IT Community ... Wikipedia, YouTube, E-bay

Fashion Accessory Community ... Mobile phone as an accessory

HCI IT Personal ... Framing, border contrast, richness

Design Technology Personal ... Keyboard, mouse

Ergonomics Technology Biological ... Adjustable height screen

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

12

criteria apply when people buy mobile phones to be trendy or fashionable, so color is as

important as battery life in mobile phone selection.

5) Socio-technology, the social design of information technology, applies social requirements to

software design. Anyone online can see the power of socio-technology but most see it as an

aspect of their specialty. Sociologists study society as if it were apart from physicality, which

it is not. Technologists study technology as it were apart from community, which it is not.

Only socio-technology studies how the social links to the technical, as a new discipline.

In Figure 1.8, higher

level requirements

filter down to affect

lower level operation

and design. This

higher affects lower

principle is that higher

levels directing lower

ones improves system

performance. Any level

requirement can

translate down, e.g.

communities require

agreement to act,

which at the citizen

level gives norms, at

the informational level

laws and at the

physical level cultural events. The same applies online, e.g. online communities make demands of

STS

Requirements

Group

Socio-

Technical

Requirements

HCI

Mechanical

Requirements

Software

Hardware

Informational

Requirements

Personal

Requirements

Community

Requirements

Society

Dependence

Emergence

. . . .Better

Performance

Higher

Contexts

Organization

Community

Figure 1.8 Computing requirements cumulate

Figure 1.9 The four stages of computing

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

13

netizens23

as well as hardware. STS design then is about having it all: reliable devices, efficient

code, intuitive interfaces and sustainable communities.

In physical society, over thousands of years, families formed tribes, tribes formed city states, city-

states formed nations states, and nations formed nations of nations, each with more complex

social structures (Diamond, 1998). The social level in Figure 1.8 isn't just one step, as social units

can form bigger social units24

to get new requirements (Whitworth and Whitworth, 2010).

1.10 The flower of computing

The evolution of computing involves four main specialties (Figure 1.9), but pure engineers see

only mechanics, pure computer scientists only information, pure psychologists only cognitions

and pure sociologists only social structures. So computing as a whole isn't pure, yet this hybrid is

the future because

performance isn't about

purity, as practitioners

understand (Raymond,

1999).

The kingdom of computing

has many fields. As

academics must specialize

to get publications, grants

and promotions (Whitworth

& Friedman, 2009d),

computing is a realm

divided. Each specialty

guards its knowledge in

journal castles with jargon

walls, like a medieval

fiefdom. The hostage is

computing knowledge, that

by its nature should be free.

As every day more people

use more computers to do

more things in more ways,

so schools of engineering,

computer science, health25

,

business, psychology,

mathematics and education

23 For example, online "netiquette", see: http://www.kent.edu/dl/technology/etiquette.cfm

24 A social unit of analysis can be a person, a dyadic friendship, a group, a tribe, etc.

25 Health even created its own computing field of informatics, with separate journals, conferences and courses, to

meet its non-engineering and non-business computing needs.

Human

Computer

Interaction

Web Analytics

Software

Engineering

Informatics

Web

ScienceE-Commerce

Computer

Science

Psychology

Art and

Design

Biology and

Health

Business

Engineering

and Physics

Mathematics

and Philosophy

Sociology,

Political

Science,

Economics

System

Design

The cross-discipline of computing

Design

science

Computing

ICT

AI

Simulations

Bio-

technology

Socio-

technical

systems

MIS

Bots

IS

Virtual

Reality

IT

Figure 1.10 The flower of computing

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

14

claim the computing crown26

. Computing faculty are scattered over the academic landscape like

the tribes of Israel, some in engineering, some in computer science, some in health, etc. Yet we

are one. The flower of computing is borne of many disciplines but belongs to none, as it is a thing

new in itself (Figure 1.10). For it to bear research fruit, academic specialties must collaborate to

trade knowledge not dominate it. Using different terms, models and theories for the same thing

invites confusion. Universities that split computing research into small groups, isolated by

disciplines, give themselves no place in its future. Until a multi-disciplinary ethic prevails,

computing theory will remain as it is now - decades behind computing practice.

1.11 Discussion questions

Research selected questions in pairs and report back to the class, with reasons and examples.

1.1. How has computing evolved since it began? Is it just faster machines and better software? Do

hardware companies like IBM and Intel still have a role in modern computing?

1.2. How has the computing business model changed as it evolved? Why does selling software make more

money than selling hardware? Can selling knowledge make even more money? What about selling

friendships? Can one sell communities?

1.3. Is a kitchen table a technology? Is a law a technology? Is an equation a technology? Is a computer

program a technology? Is an information technology (IT) system a technology? Is a person an

information technology? Is an HCI system (person plus computer) an information technology? What,

exactly, isn't a technology?

1.4. Is any set of people a community? How do people form a community? Is a socio-technical system (an

online community) any set of HCI systems? How do HCI systems form an online community?

1.5. Is computer science part of engineering or of mathematics? Is human computer interaction (HCI) part

of engineering, computer science or psychology? Is socio-technology part of engineering, computer

science, psychology or one of the social sciences27

?

1.6. In an aircraft, is the pilot a person, a processor, or a physical object? Can one consistently divide the

aircraft into human, computer and mechanical parts? How can one see it?

1.7. What is the reductionist dream? How did it work out in physics? Does it recognize computer science?

How did it challenge psychology? Has it worked out in any discipline?

1.8. How much information does a physical book, that is fixed in one way, by definition, have? If we say a

book "contains" information, what is assumed? How is a book's information generated? Can the same

physical book "contain" different information for different people? Give an example.

1.9. If information is physical, how can data compression put the same information in a physically smaller

signal? If information is not physical, how does data compression work? Can one encode more than

one semantic stream into one physical message? Give an example.

1.10. Is a bit physical "thing"? Can you see or touch a bit? If a signal wire sends a physical "on" value,

is that always a bit? If a bit isn't physical, how can it exist without physicality? How can a bit require

physicality but not itself be physical? What creates information, if it is not the mechanical signal?

26 Computing is the Afghanistan of academia, often invaded but never conquered. It should be the Singapore, a

knowledge trade centre.

27 Like, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, ancient history, etc.

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

15

1.11. Is information concrete? If we can't see information physically, is the study of information a

science? Explain. Are cognitions concrete? If we can't see cognitions physically, is the study of

cognitions (psychology) a science? Explain. What separates science from imagination if it isn't

physicality?

1.12. Give three examples of other animal species who sense the world differently from us. If we saw

the world as they do, would it change what we do? Explain how seeing a system differently can

change how it is designed. Give examples from computing.

1.13. If a $1 CD with a $1,000 software application on it is insured, what do you get if it is destroyed?

Can you insure something that is not physical? Give current examples.

1.14. Is a "mouse error" a hardware, software or HCI problem? Can a mouse's hardware affect its

software performance? Can it affect its HCI performance? Can mouse software affect HCI

performance? Give examples in each case. If a wireless mouse costs more and is less reliable, how is

it better?

1.15. Give three examples of a human requirement giving an IT design heuristic. This is HCI. Give

three examples of a community requirement giving an IT design heuristic. This is STS.

1.16. Explain the difference between a hardware error, a software error, a user error and a community

error, with examples. What is the common factor here?

1.17. What is an application sandbox? What human requirement does it satisfy? Show an online

example.

1.18. Distinguish between a personal requirement and community requirement in computing. Relate to

how STS and HCI differ and how socio-technology and sociology differ. Why can't sociologists or

HCI experts design socio-technical systems?

1.19. Specify a person's options if their needs aren't met? What do online users do if their needs aren't

met? What if a physical communities needs aren't met? Or an online community? Give examples.

1.20. According to Norman, what is ergonomics? What is the difference between ergonomics and HCI?

What is the difference between HCI and STS?

1.21. Give examples of: Hardware meeting engineering requirements. Hardware meeting CS28

requirements. Software meeting CS requirements. Hardware meeting psychology requirements.

Software meeting psychology requirements. People meeting psychology requirements. Hardware

meeting community requirements. Software meeting community requirements. People meeting

community requirements. Communities meeting their requirements. Which are computing design?

1.22. Why is an IPod so different from TV or video controls? Which is better and why? Why has TV

remote design changed so little in decades? If TV and the Internet compete for the hearts and minds

of viewers, who will win?

1.23. How does an online friend differ from a physical friend? Can friendships transcend physical and

electronic interaction architectures? Give examples. How is this possible?

1.24. Why do universities spread computing researchers across many disciplines? What is a cross-

discipline? What past cross-disciplines became disciplines. Why is computing a cross-discipline?

28 Computer science

An Introduction to STS design Part 1, Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

16

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the first author’s wife for helpful advice to the students of 158729 (STS Design) for

trying out the questions, and to Yijing Qian for Figures 1.2 and 1.9.

References

Bertalanffy, L. V., General System Theory. New York: George Braziller Inc, 1968.

Davis, F. D., “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology,”

Management Information Systems Quarterly, vol. Sep, 1989.

Diamond, J., Guns, Germs and Steel. London: Vintage, 1998.

Kant, I., “Critique of Pure Reason,” 1781, in The European Philosophers from Descartes to Nietzsche, M. C.

Beardsley, Ed. New York: The Modern Library, 2002.

Miller, G. A., “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limitations on our capacity for processing

information,” Psychology Review, vol. 63, pp. 81–97, 1956.

Norman, D. A., The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Bantam Doubleday, 1990.

Penrose, R., The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe. Jonathan Cape, 2005.

Raymond, E. S., “The Cathedral and the Bazaar.” 1999.

Sanders, M. S., and E. J. McCormick, Human Factors in Engineering and Design. NY: McGraw-Hill, 1993.

Shannon, C. E., and W. Weaver, The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,

1949.

Whitworth, B., and A. deMoor, “Legitimate by design: Towards trusted virtual community environments,” Behaviour

& Information Technology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 31–51, 2003.

Whitworth, B., “Measuring disagreement” Chapter XIX, in Handbook of Research on Electronic Surveys and

Measurements, Edited by: Rodney A. Reynolds; Robert Woods; Jason D. Baker, Idea Group Reference (an imprint of

Idea Group Inc.) ISBN: 1-59140-792-3 Publisher: Information Science Reference, 2006

Whitworth, B., “The social requirements of technical systems,” Chapter 1 in Handbook of Research on Socio-

Technical Design and Social Networking Systems, B. Whitworth and A. De Moor, Eds. Hershey, PA: IGI, 2009b.

Whitworth, B., and R. Friedman, “Reinventing academic publishing online Part I: Rigor, Relevance and Practice,”

First Monday, vol. 14, no. 8, Aug. 2009d.

Whitworth, B. and A. Whitworth, “The Social Environment Model: Small Heroes and the Evolution of Human

Society,” First Monday, Volume 15, Number 11 - 1, November 2010.

Whitworth, B., “The Virtual Reality Conjecture,” Prespacetime Journal, vol. 2, no. 9, pp. 1404–1433, 2011.