Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Comparing the Implementation of Two Dust Control Technologies from a Sociotechnical Systems Perspective

  • Published:
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A sociotechnical system (STS) creates a framework that allows an examination of how social and technical factors affect organizational outcomes within a specific environmental context. STS has been rigorously studied with a primary research focus addressing worker-technology interactions. Although these interactions are important, the social processes and interactions that occur whenever any technical or environmental change is introduced into the system have been undervalued. If social processes are better understood, mining organizations could efficiently prepare and stabilize for such changes. With this goal in mind, we sought to extend STS theory through applying principles of meta-design to analyze the results of two case study interventions. Specifically, we studied the impact of an unregulated dust control technology (the Helmet-CAM) and a regulated dust control technology (the Continuous Personal Dust Monitor) on factors within an STS including employees’ knowledge of, communication about, and use of technology to mitigate respirable dust sources. The results are presented in a way that first, addresses the overarching principles of meta-design STS including organizational participation, flexibility, and communication and second, examines how technology implementation processes differ when the organization is complying with a formal, higher-level requirement. Results show that a prominent focus on the social factors within an STS framework could help reduce unpredictability on the technical side and may improve communication within the system to help reduce adoption time, especially if and when accompanying a new, formal work process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Worden C, Lombardo K (2017) Situational awareness: The often-ignored hazard control. Institute for safety and health management. https://ishm.org/situational-awareness-often-ignored-hazard-control/. Accessed August 31, 2018

  2. Trist EL (1981) The sociotechnical perspective: the evolution of sociotechnical systems as a conceptual framework and as an action research program. In: VanDeVen AH, Joyce WF (eds) Perspectives on organization design and behavior. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  3. Trist EL, Bamforth KW (1951) Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of coal-getting: an examination of the psychological situation and defences of a work group in relation to the social structure and technological content of the work system. Hum Relat 4(1):3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cecala AB, O’Brien AD (2014) Here comes the Helmet-CAM. Rock Products, October Issue:26–30

  5. Trist E, Murray H (1993) The socio-technical perspective. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  6. Harrisson D, Legendre C (2003) Technological innovations, organizational change and workplace accident prevention. Saf Sci 41(4):319–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Fischer G, Herrmann T (2011) Socio-technical systems: a meta-design perspective. Int J Sociotechnol Knowl Dev 3(1):1–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Emery FE (1959) Characteristics of sociotechnical systems. Tavistock, London

    Google Scholar 

  9. Walker GH, Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Jenkins DP (2008) A review of sociotechnical systems theory: a classic concept for new command and control paradigms. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 9(6):479–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kleiner BM, Hettinger LJ, DeJoy DM, Huang YH, Love PE (2015) Sociotechnical attributes of safe and unsafe work systems. Ergonomics 58(4):635–649

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Carayon P, Hancock P, Leveson N, Noy I, Sznelwar L, Van Hootegem G (2015) Advancing a sociotechnical systems approach to workplace safety–developing the conceptual framework. Ergonomics 58(4):548–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mumford E (2006) The story of socio-technical design: reflections on its successes, failures and potential. Inf Syst J 16(4):317–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Coglianese C, Nash J, Olmstead T (2004) Performance-based regulation: prospects and limitations in health, safety, and environmental protection. Adm Law Rev 55(4):705–729

    Google Scholar 

  14. Glover AN, Morse DE (2000) Minerals and materials in the 20th century–a review. USGS Minerals Yearbook

  15. Kerr S, Newell RG (2003) Policy-induced technology adoption: evidence from the US lead phasedown. J Ind Econ 51(3):317–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nieto A, Duerksen A (2008) The effects of mine safety legislation on mining technology in the USA. Int J Min Miner Eng 1(1):95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Jaffe AB, Newell RG, Stavins RN (2003) Technological change and the environment. In: KG Maler, Vincent JR(eds) Handbook of environmental economics (Vol 1). Elsevier Science

  18. Appelbaum SH (1997) Socio-technical systems theory: an intervention strategy for organizational development. Manag Decis 35(6):452–463

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaghan WN, Bowker GC (2001) Out of machine age?: complexity, sociotechnical systems and actor network theory. J Eng Technol Manag 18(3–4):253–269

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Kull TJ, Ellis SC, Narasimhan R (2013) Reducing behavioral constraints to supplier integration: a socio-technical systems perspective. J Supply Chain Manag 49(1):64–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Hutchins E (1995) Cognition in the wild. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rasmussen J (1997) Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf Sci 27(2–3):183–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Stanton NA, Salmon PM, Walker GH (2015) Let the reader decide: a paradigm shift for situation awareness in sociotechnical systems. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak 9(1):44–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Habermas J (1981) The theory of communicative action: reason and the rationalization of society. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  25. Luhmann N (1995) Social systems. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  26. Fischer G, Herrmann T (2015) Meta-design: transforming and enriching the design and use of socio-technical systems. In Randall D, Schmidt K, Wulf V (eds) Designing socially embedded technologies: a European challenge. Retrieved from http://l3d.cs.colorado.edu/~gerhard/papers/2014/eusset.pdf

  27. Fischer G, Giaccardi E (2006) Meta-design: a framework for the future of end-user development. In: End user development. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 427–457

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  28. Suchman LA (1987) Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge University, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cherns A (1987) Principles of sociotechnical design revisited. Hum Relat 40(3):153–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Fischer G (2010) Extending boundaries with meta-design and cultures of participation. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, pp 168–177. ACM

  31. Kensing F, Blomberg J (1998) Participatory design: issues and concerns. Comput Support Coop Work (CSCW) 7(3–4):167–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nardi BA (1993) A small matter of programming. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Fischer G, Piccinno A, Ye Y (2008) The ecology of participants in co-evolving socio-technical environments. In: Forbrig P, Paternò F (eds) Engineering Interactive Systems (Proceedings of 2nd Conference on Human-Centered Software Engineering),Volume LNCS 5247, Springer, Heidelberg, pp 279–286

  34. Preece J, Shneiderman B (2009) The reader-to-leader framework: motivating technology-mediated social participation. AIS Trans Hum Comput Interact 1(1):13–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fischer G (2007) Meta-design: expanding boundaries and redistributing control in design. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Springer, Berlin, pp 193–206

  36. Schön DA (1983) The reflective practitioner how professionals think in action. Routledge Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  37. Brand S (1995) How buildings learn: what happens after they're built. Penguin Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  38. Fischer G (2002) Beyond “couch potatoes”: From consumers to designers and active contributors. First Monday. Retrieved from http://firstmonday.org/article/view/1010/931. Accessed on September 14, 2018

  39. Herrmann T, Hoffmann M, Kunau G, Loser K (2004) A modeling method for the development of groupware applications as socio-technical systems. Behav Inform Technol 23(2):119–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Salmon PM, Stanton NA, Walker GH, Jenkins D, Ladva D, Rafferty L, Young M (2009) Measuring situation awareness in complex systems: comparison of measures study. Int J Ind Ergon 39(3):490–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Herrmann T, Hoffmann M (2005) The metamorphoses of workflow projects in their early stages. Comput Supported Coop Work 14(5):399–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Hess J, Randall D, Pipek V, Wulf V (2013) Involving users in the wild–participatory product development in and with online communities. Int J Hum Comput Stud 71(5):570–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. NIOSH (2012) Dust control handbook for industrial minerals mining and processing. By Cecala AB, O’Brien AD, Schall J, Colinet JF, Fox WR, Franta RJ, Joy GJ, Reed WR, Reeser PW, Rounds JR, and Schultz MJ. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2012–112. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works.pdfs/ri9689.pdf

  44. NIOSH (2010) Best practices for dust control in coal mining. By Colinet JF, Rider JP, Listak JM, Organiscak JA, and Wolfe AL. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Information Circuluar 9517. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/userfiles/works/pdfs/2010-110.pdf

  45. Hoyos CG, Zimolong B (1988) Occupational safety and accident prevention: behavioral strategies and methods. Elsevier Science Publishers, New York

    Google Scholar 

  46. Yin RK (2011) Applications of case study research. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  47. DOL (2016) Occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 81 Fed. Reg. 16285 (March 25, 2016). (to be codified at 29 CFR Parts 1910, 1915, and 1926)

  48. Cecala AB, Reed WR, Joy GJ, Westmoreland SC, O’Brien AB (2013) Helmet-Cam: tool for assessing miners’ respirable dust exposure. Min Eng 65(9):78–84

    Google Scholar 

  49. NIOSH (2014) Guidelines for performing a Helmet-CAM respirable dust survey and conducting subsequent analysis with the enhanced video analysis of dust exposures (EVADE) software. By Reed WR, Kwitowski AJ, Helfrich W, Cecala AB, Joy GJ. Pittsburgh, PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2014–133

  50. Joy G (2013) VEM goes mobile: “Helmet-cam” allows video exposure monitoring for mobile workers. Synergist 24(3):24–27

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  51. Cecala AB, Azman A, Bailey K (2015) Assessing noise and dust exposure. Aggr Manager 20(9):32–37

    Google Scholar 

  52. Haas EJ, Willmer DR, Cecala AB (2016) Formative research to reduce mine worker respirable silica dust exposure: a feasibility study to integrate technology into behavioral interventions. Pilot Feasibility Studies 2(6):11

    Google Scholar 

  53. Grant AM, Parker S, Collins C (2009) Getting credit for proactive behavior: supervisor reactions depend on what you value and how you feel. Pers Psychol 62(1):31–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Thompson JA (2005) Proactive personality and job performance: a social capital perspective. J Appl Psychol 90(5):1011–1017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Crant JM (2000) Proactive behavior in organizations. J Manag 26(3):435–462

    Google Scholar 

  56. Crant JM (1995) The proactive personality scale and objective job performance among real estate agents. J Appl Psychol 80(4):532–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16(3):297–334

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  58. Janz NK, Becker MH (1984) The health belief model: a decade later. Health Educ Q 11(1):1–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Krueger R, Casey M (2009) Focus groups: a practical guide to applied science. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bowen DE, Ostroff C (2004) Understanding HRM–firm performance linkages: the role of the “strength” of the HRM system. Acad Manag Rev 29(2):203–221

    Google Scholar 

  61. Code of Federal Regulations (30 CFR Parts 70, 71, 72, 75, and 90). Lowering mineworkers’ exposure to respirable coal mine dust, including continuous personal dust monitors. Mine Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor. RIN 1219-AB64

  62. Patashnick H, Rupprecht G (1983) Personal dust exposure monitor based on the tapered element oscillating microbalance. Bureau of Mines, US Department of the Interior

  63. NIOSH (2004) Volkwein JC, Vinson RP, McWilliams LJ, Tuchman DP, Mischler SE. Performance of a new personal respirable dust monitor for mine use. Report of Investigations 9663. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2004–151

  64. NIOSH (2006) Volkwein JC, Vinson RP, Page SJ, McWilliams LJ, Joy GJ, Mischler SE, Tuchman DP. Laboratory and field performance of a continuously measuring personal respirable dust monitor. Report of Investigations 9669. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2006–145

  65. Peters RH, Vaught C, Hall EE, Volkwein JC (2007) Miners’ views about personal dust monitors. J Int Soc Respir Prot 24(3/4):74

    Google Scholar 

  66. Williams GC, Deci EL (1996) Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: a test of self-determination theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 70(4):767–779

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Black AE, Deci EL (2000) The effects of instructors' autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: a self-determination theory perspective. Sci Educ 84(6):740–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Strauss J, Ryan RM (1987) Autonomy disturbances in subtypes of anorexia nervosa. J Abnorm Psychol 96:254–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Ryan RM, Patrick H, Deci EL, Williams GC (2008) Facilitating health behaviour change and its maintenance: interventions based on self-determination theory. Eur Health Psychol 10:2–5

    Google Scholar 

  70. Boyatzis RE (1998) Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Sage Publication, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  71. Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  72. Patton MQ (2002) Designing qualitative studies. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods 3:230–246

    Google Scholar 

  73. Haas EJ, Mattson M (2015) Metatheory and interviewing: harm reduction and motorcycle safety in practice. Lexington Press, Lanham

    Google Scholar 

  74. Haas EJ, Cecala AB (2017) Quick fixes to improve worker’s health: results using engineering assessment technology. Min Eng 69(7):105–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Haas EJ, Cecala AB (2015) Beyond assessment: Helmet-CAM technology influencing dust exposure awareness and response. Rock Products, November Issue, 28–29

  76. Haas EJ, Colinet J (2018) Miners implement corrective actions in response to CPDM dust data. Coal Age, March Issue, 36–38

  77. Haas EJ, Helton J (2017) How miners in low coal respond to the CPDM. Mining People Magazine, April/May:42–44

  78. Haas EJ, Willmer DR, Meadows J (2016) Using CPDM dust data. Coal Age 121(2):40–41

    Google Scholar 

  79. Personal communication (2018) EVADE 1.0 versus EVADE 2.0 downloads from 2015 – present. Email communication with NIOSH computer engineers on September 12, 2018

  80. Hall BH, Khan B (2003) Adoption of new technology. No. w9730. National bureau of economic research

  81. Harris LC, Ogbonna E, Goode MMH (2008) Intra-functional conflict: an investigation of antecedent factors in marketing functions. Eur J Mark 42(3–4):453–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Pasmore WA (1995) Social science transformed: the socio-technical perspective. Hum Relat 48(1):1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Coiera E (2007) Putting the technical back into socio-technical systems research. Int J Med Inform 76:S98–S103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Haas EJ, Rost KA (2015) Integrating technology: learning from mine worker perceptions of proximity detection systems. Print Proceedings of the 144th Annual Society for Mining, Metallurgy, & Exploration Conference held in Boulder, CO, 15–18 February 2015

  85. Haas EJ, DuCarme AB (2015) A different perspective: NIOSH researchers learn from CM operator responses to proximity detection systems. Coal Age, October Issue, 34–35

  86. Reynolds LE, Blackley DJ, Colinet JF, Potts D, Storey E, Short C, Carson R, Clark KA, Laney AS, Halldin CN (2018) Work practices and respiratory health status of Appalachian coal miners with progressive massive fibrosis. J Occup Environ Med 60:e575–e581. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000001443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Perino G, Requate T (2012) Does more stringent environmental regulation induce or reduce technology adoption? When the rate of technology adoption is inverted U-shaped. J Environ Econ Manag 64:456–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Trist EL, Higgin GW, Murray H, Polloch AB (1963) Organizational choice. Tavistock, London

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pittsburgh Mining Research Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 626 Cochrans Mill Rd., Pittsburgh, PA, 15236, USA

    Emily J. Haas, Andrew B. Cecala & Jay F. Colinet

Authors
  1. Emily J. Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andrew B. Cecala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jay F. Colinet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily J. Haas.

Ethics declarations

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haas, E.J., Cecala, A.B. & Colinet, J.F. Comparing the Implementation of Two Dust Control Technologies from a Sociotechnical Systems Perspective. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 36, 709–727 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-019-0063-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-019-0063-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation