Why do humans create systems? Essentially they do so to impose order and to create a desired result. Much of modern innovation has been concerned with producing systems that allow humans to transcend their frailties, make their lives easier, or produce faster.

When the way in which a system functions requires humans to change how they act then they can be said to be sub-ordinate to that system. Taken to the extreme humans can become slaves of the very systems that they have developed.

• Typing as a method of input to a computer
• Driving
• Exit doors from an office
• Electric grid

First let us consider the example of typing. This method of input to a machine is obviously just a hangover from mechanical typing machines, and requires the human to learn new skills in order to interact with the machine. The machine may well be capable of alternate methods of input, but it is the human who must adapt to the machine.

However it can be argued in the case of typing that the input method provides greater fine control to the human operator and removes the confusion caused in voice-operated systems. The human can specify exactly what is required without the machine attempting to do any guesswork. Similarly with the case of driving, although the human needs to learn new skills they remain in complete control of the machine.

In both cases for machine we can read system and so argue that the system is very much the slave of the human, despite the requirement for the human to become a skilled operator of the system.

Let us then consider the next example, exit doors from the office. This example occurred in my office recently. The situation was that in order to reach where your car was parked one had to take a circuitous route to use the normal main exit. However just some five yards from the cars was a fire escape. Thus, when this car park came into use, people naturally took the path of least resistance and used the fire escape.

Subsequent to this trend becoming apparent, employees have been asked not to use the fire escapes because if not closed behind you they may pose a security risk.

The issue identified here is that the fire escapes do not provide sufficient security if used as exits on an every-day basis. The solution offered is to therefore not use the fire escapes (assumption inherent here is that people are the malfunctioning part of the system).

Another solution might be to adjust the relevant exits such that the security risk is no longer posed (e.g. by spring-loading them so they shut behind absent-minded people). The assumption inherent in the second solution is that the system was malfunctioning, as it did not serve the customer of that system.

Lastly, let us look at a system such as utilities that provide electricity to the home. The system (at least superficially) allows the person to have complete control, use the service whenever they wish, only pay for what they use, use automated agents to use the resource on their behalf, and adjust and modify the service should they need to do so (e.g. use a transformer).

This takes the concept a step further, not only is the human not the slave of the system, but they have control over it, enabling them to adjust and personalise the service to their own needs using simple and inexpensive devices.

We can thus see that there are different levels of sub-ordination to systems. The author has identified seven levels of system subordination and they are summarised below in order of decreasing customer involvement:

This table does not attempt to make a moral judgement of whether these systems are good or bad. In certain cases a certain level of subordination is necessary (e.g. it is good to be slave to a working parachute system!)

However a certain level of subordination can equally be inappropriate for a given situation. If we look at the implications of these levels when placed in a work environment we can (broadly speaking) equate reduction in human involvement in the system to increasing productivity of the individual. The system, not the individual, is the rate-limiting step. This can be seen in the increased value addition (and thus productivity) of a knowledge-based economy as opposed to a production-based economy.

Too often work systems enslave people. Why is this? If this produces such obviously unproductive systems why would the system be created in this way?

Increased production is not the motivation for creating the system
The motivation in creating a system should be to improve the quality of life for everyone and thus improve the company as a result. However if the motivating factors are more narrow than this (i.e. benefit for self or immediate group only) or are not positive (i.e. aim to cause damage or discriminate against other people) then the system created can enslave.

A classic example of this is the investment of a large proportion of western resources in the slave trade rather than in developing automated systems in an effort to boost production per unit cost.

There is a lack of direction, vision or strategy
Without a clear vision for the system to be created it can easily become random, scattered and not have clean flow from one part to another. This will lead to the need for increasingly greater involvement on the part of the people using the system.

Often the human element will be subsumed into the system in order to keep the system going, but because there is no strategy or direction this will not be noted or corrected and the system will begin to evolve.

The system 'evolves'
A system that evolves has no clear direction or strategy; it is taking on a life of its own. The lack of direction creates a power vacuum, because direction is still required on a day-to-day basis. Thus, the elements of the system devolve this power and take decisions at a lower level. This approach leads to further fragmentation and ever-increasing demands on people to prop-up the system.

Working in a resource-starved environment
Just because there are insufficient resources to respond to changing demands on a system does not mean that the system does not have to change. The change will happen anyway and as necessity is the mother of invention the system will begin to evolve unless clear leadership of the whole system is provided.

Absence of systems thinking and costing of whole system
Many systems are only partly considered systems, or are even not considered systems at all. For example if the human is not considered to be part of the system in an enslaving system how will the company know that they system is needlessly enslaving the individual?

How is it possible to reach this state of affairs? Basically it boils down to a lack of systems thinking, but two classic errors are:

Internal resources have no cost
Failure to assess the total cost of the system shows a lack of systems thinking. Some companies do not take into account any costs that they will not be invoiced for

Capex bad, maintenance fine (short-termism)
This is the mentality that capital expenditure (or employing people) is a bad thing to do, even at the expense of incurring higher maintenance costs. Examples include outsourcing.

Lack of respect for people
If people are not respected then the system will very rarely be developed to serve them. If people are seen as a means to an end rather than ends in their own right then how can you construct a logical argument for a system to improve quality of life?

A classic example of this might be the factories of the industrial revolution, but in a smaller degree this same lack of respect can be seen in the failure to cost internal people's time.

To Conclude: that insufficient consideration is given to people in systems creation is of little surprise, but it must be recognised as part of a wider malaise. It is not laziness on the part of the system creators, it is attitudinal and cultural prejudices within a society or a company that are the symptoms of this malaise.

If people are treated as a means to an end you enslave them. The use of the term slavery is deliberate, it is a part of the same evil as people owning people, it is just systems owning people.



Got a suggestion?, email Dave

Can't find what you want? - use the search!

WWW www.arrod.co.uk