A Multi-domain Approach Toward Adaptations of Socio-technical Systems: The Dutch Railway Case-Part 2

Abstract—Socio-technical systems are highly complex in which
a number of domains each of which including numerous interdependent
elements are present. Therefore, for adaptation of sociotechnical
systems, Part 1 of this paper presented a multi-domain
approach based upon Design Structure and Multi-domain matrices
to develop/analyze a multi-domain model of those system.
Moreover, that model is analyzed according to both (1) the change
propagation measures of the non-human domain and (2) the
information processing view of the stakeholder domain of the
socio-technical system. This papers presents application of the
presented method in the Dutch railway system. We have reviewed
the relevant railway literature, and interviewed with a number of
the Dutch railway experts and validated our model. The results
are presented in this paper.

INTRODUCTION
Socio-technical systems conceptualize systems as consisting
of two independent, but linked, systems: a technical system
and a social system [14]. The former is composed of equipment
and processes, while the latter consists of people and
relationships [10]. In order to describe socio-technical systems
(STS), scholars have examined the common attributes of those
systems. In general, common features of STS include (1)
large number of elements [3], (2) nonlinear interactions [8],
[15], [17], [19], adaptive capacity [11], feedback loops [13],
[12], and emergent properties [16]. Another relevant aspect
is that since socio-technical systems are highly complex, a
deliberate and comprehensive and outcome-oriented planning
process may not be possible for such systems [1]. Thus,
evolutionary models that allow for learning and adaptation
can be an alternative for analysing/improving socio-technical
systems.
Part 1 of this paper presents a multi-domain approach
that aims to identify performance-enhancing adaptations in
the domains of socio-technical systems. The core ideas of
our approach relies on the four distinct notions: (1) rather
than planning a socio-technical system, identifying adaptation
possibilities is recommended [1], (2) socio-technical systems
encompass several inter-related domains (e.g., stakeholders,
functional, technical), and thus, a multi-domain approach
could be an appropriate approach toward those systems [4],
(3) change lies at the heart of safety critical systems like
power plants, and railway systems [6], and hence, change
propagation measures can be used to examine the non-human
(e.g., technical) elements of socio-technical systems, finally,
(4) those results obtained from analysing the non-human
domain, and the information processing view of organizational
systems [7] can be used to examine stakeholders coordination/
communication structures.
More specifically, Part 1 uses the Design Structure Matrix
(DSM) and multi-domain matrix (MDM) notions [2], [4] to
analyze socio-technical systems through the following steps:
1) Define scope
2) Select and define critical domains
3) Collect data and build design structure and multidomain
matrices
4) Analyse multi-domain matrices
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. The next
section discusses the application of our method for the Dutch
railway system. Lastly, the discussion and conclusion sections
end our paper.

Fig. 1: Technical DSM of the Dutch railway system. The
technical elements are illustrated using their IDs provided in
Table 1.

III. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Socio-technical systems are highly complex, and adaptive
approach toward managing them are advised [1]. In this paper,
we presented an application of the presented multi-domain
approach in Part 1 of our paper. It illustrates potentials of
that method (see Part 1) in identifying performance-enhancing
adaptations in domains of the Dutch railway system as a sociotechnical
system.
At first, using DSM and MDM matrices, we build a multidomain
perspective of the Dutch railway. In particular, both
of the stakeholders and non-human domain matrices are developed.
In the next step, and for the non-human (technical) domain,
four categories of the elements that require different adaptation
strategies are identified. That is done based upon the change
propagation perspective [6]. For the stakeholders domain, and
according to the information processing view of an organizations,
we argue that in a socio-technical system, those
non-human elements that are classified in different classes
according to change propagation, impose various information
processing requirements on the overall performance system
and its stakeholders.
We have applied our method to a highly complex sociotechnical
system: the Dutch railway system. Our analysis
indicates that some stakeholders like infrastructure maintenance
and rolling stock operations managers should have more
of group meetings for their communications/coordinations,
whereas, the other stakeholders like train driver and train conductors
might incorporate less information capability mechanisms
(e.g., reporting) for their coordinations. In addition to
these, our technical domain analysis implies that changes in
the subsystems like station and power supply are less likely to
propagate, and conversely, the opposite is the case for some
other subsystems (e.g., signaling and track).
The presented practical case in this part (Part 2) of our
paper opens up some directions for studying the other sociotechnical
systems. For instance, different sytems of either the
healthcare or the aviation industry could be analyzed in a
similar approach.

REFERENCES
[1] Bauer, J. M., and P. M. Herder. 2009. Designing socio-technical
systems. In Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences, 601–Elsevier.
[2] Browning, T. R. 2001. Applying the design structure matrix to system
decomposition and integration problems: a review and new directions.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering management 48 (3): 292–306.
[3] Carayon, P. 2006. Human factors of complex sociotechnical systems.
Applied ergonomics 37 (4): 525–535.
[4] Danilovic, M., and T. R. Browning. 2007. Managing complex product
development projects with design structure matrices and domain
mapping matrices. International journal of project management 25 (3):
300–314.
[5] Doi, T., J. M. Sussman, O. L. de Weck et al. 2016. Interaction of
lifecycle properties in high speed rail systems operation. Master’s thesis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[6] Eckert, C. M., R. Keller, C. Earl, and P. J. Clarkson. 2006. Supporting
change processes in design: Complexity, prediction and reliability.
Reliability Engineering & System Safety 91 (12): 1521–1534.
[7] Galbraith, J. R. 1974. Organization design: An information processing
view. Interfaces 4 (3): 28–36.
[8] Geels, F. W. 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to sociotechnical
systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology
and institutional theory. Research policy 33 (6-7): 897–920.
[9] Kawakami, S. 2014. Application of a systems-theoretic approach to
risk analysis of high-speed rail project management in the us. Master’s
thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
[10] Ketchum, and E. Trist. 1992. All teams are not created equal: how
employee empowerment really works. Sage.
[11] Kurtz, C. F., and D. J. Snowden. 2003. The new dynamics of strategy:
Sense-making in a complex and complicated world. IBM systems
journal 42 (3): 462–483.
[12] Li, X., and S. E. Madnick. 2015. Understanding the dynamics of
service-oriented architecture implementation. Journal of Management
Information Systems 32 (2): 104–133.
[13] Luna-Reyes, L. F., J. Zhang, J. Ramon Gil-Garcia, and A. M. Cresswell. Information systems development as emergent socio-technical
change: a practice approach. European Journal of Information Systems
14 (1): 93–105.
[14] Manz, C. C., and G. L. Stewart. 1997. Attaining flexible stability by
integrating total quality management and socio-technical systems theory.
Organization Science 8 (1): 59–70.
[15] Perrow, C. 2011. Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologiesupdated
edition. Princeton university press.
[16] Reiman, T., and P. Oedewald. 2007. Assessment of complex sociotechnical
systems–theoretical issues concerning the use of organizational
culture and organizational core task concepts. Safety Science 45 (7):
745–768.
[17] Snowden, D. J., and M. E. Boone. 2007. A leader’s framework for
decision making. Harvard business review 85 (11): 68.
[18] Spoorwegen, N. 2018, December. NS annual report 2018.
[19] Williams, T. M. 1999. The need for new paradigms for complex projects.
International journal of project management 17 (5): 269–273.
[20] Yassine, A. A., R. H. Chidiac, and I. H. Osman. 2013. Simultaneous
optimisation of products, processes, and people in development projects.
Journal of Engineering Design 24 (4): 272–292.