Those charged with implementing technological and organisational change are frequently moved by the loftiest of motives.Thus in 1642, when Pascal invented the first truly mechanical calculating machine, he declared ''I submit to the public a small machine of my own invention by means of which you may, without any effort, perform all the operations of arithmetic relieved of the work which so often fatigued your spirit when you were working with the counter and the pen''.However, technology is a double-edged matter.It is rooted in Taylorism whose inventor once said ''In my system, the workman is told precisely what he is to do and how he is to do it, and any improvement he makes upon the instructions given to him is fatal to success.''Taylor called his system 'Scientific Management'.The motivations here are often quite obvious and quoted in adverts from the late 1970s ''People are trouble, but machines obey'' and ''Robots don't strike.''The range of applications of such technology is an overriding motivation.What is sad about this approach is that it squanders one of society's most precious assets which is the skill, ingenuity and creativity of its people.In this context the (late) design engineer and professor of Control Engineering at UMIST Howard Rosenbrock, wrote that computer control displays a loss of nerve and a misunderstanding as to how design and development proceeds.He pointed out that

We only regard a system or a process as being “scientific” if it displays the three predominant characteristics of the natural sciences: predictability, repeatability and quantifiability. This by definition precludes intuition, subjective judgement, tacit knowledge, heuristics, dreams, etc. in other words, those attributes which are peculiarly human. Furthermore, this is resulting in a shift from judgment to calculation giving rise, in some cases, to an abject dependency on the machine and an inability to disagree with the outcome or even question it. To tolerate such a situation could be seen as an abdication of professional responsibility. In complex technological and scientific environments, it is sometimes said that those who make best use of computers already know what the answer is (in ball park terms) before the calculation.

Human centredness asserts firstly, that we must always put people before machines, however complex or elegant that machine might be, and, secondly, it marvels and delights at the ability and ingenuity of human beings. The Human Centred Systems movement looks sensitively at these forms of science and technology which meet our cultural, historical and societal requirements, and seeks to develop more appropriate forms of technology to meet out long-term aspirations. In the Human Centred System, there exists a symbiotic relation between the human and the machine in which the human being would handle the qualitative subjective judgements and the machine the quantitative elements. It involves a radical redesign of the interface technologies and at a philosophical level the objective is to provide tools (in the Heidegger sense) which would support human skill and ingenuity rather than machines which would objectivise that knowledge.

Scientists and engineers lack the equivalent of an ethics committee to which their colleagues in the medical profession may turn when ethical dilemmas arise. In the US workers in aerospace industry have campaigned for a Technology Bill of Rights. In the UK there has been a vigorous movement around the concept of socially useful and environmentally desirable technology. The organisation “Scientists for Social Responsibility” has set up a panel of scientists who can advise younger colleagues on issues of ethical responsibility.

Systems, machines and organisation of forms developed in the Engineering and Manufacturing sectors frequently lay the basis for systems design philosophy at a general level. An analysis of technological change in these sectors reveals that the resultant deskilling is not limited to the shop floor and is now spreading to intellectual work. The impact of ‘machine based systems’ on designers is explored in some detail and suggests the need for alternatives which are based on ‘human centred systems’. Some attempts to design sub-systems are described.

The computer is increasingly being used as a Trojan Horse for Taylorism. We are now beginning to repeat in the intellectual work environment many of the mistakes already made at such cost in the field of manual work. The division of labour is sweeping through the entire spectrum of white-collar work from routine clerical tasks to some of the highest levels of creative activity such as design. Examples are provided of alternative systems which are human centred and enhancing. Whether such systems are implemented is a question of profound ideological and political significance.