The relationship between evolution and systems can be thought of as an endless cycle, with both factors continuously influencing each other. A General Theory of the Evolution of Artifacts discusses how evolution decides the properties of a system - the structure and function. In return, the system’s existence is then a factor in ruling the course of evolution. Generally, the change in size of a system requires a change in the components of the system’s structure or form. A system cannot adequately support its size without a change in its shape. A change in form can be brought upon by a change in scale of artifacts. Changing the artifacts, thus the form, then necessitates a change in the material being used in its structure. A change in material characteristics is needed especially for larger machines which require higher strength to weight ratios in comparison to smaller machines. A change in the size, artifacts, or materials of a system results in a complication of the overall structure, resulting in higher complexity. All of these processes will eventually lead to functional inconsistencies, thus creating limits to growth. Although these processes are what make evolution possible, they also cause the destruction of future evolution. In relation to technology, as the scale is constantly being changed, a point is reached where the rising costs of manufacturing and operating limit further advancements in capability. Development is eventually limited because the production costs begin to outweigh concerns about product characteristics. A General Theory of the Evolution of Artifacts also discusses how sociohistorical systems play a role in the long-term evolution process. Society’s customs initiate the design process. It can be proposed that long-term evolution is governed by the whole, comprehensive, integrative system. Short-term evolution is governed simply by the context of the object.

Deeping the theory of evolution, the reading, Technology as an Occasion for Structuring: Evidence from Observations of CT Scanners and the Social Order of Radiology Departments goes on to explain how by treating technology as a social object and organizational structure as a process can cause technology to create different structures based on institutionalized roles and patterned interactions. The overarching theme is that technology has the capability to evolve organizational structures. Technology can also alter society. In the reading, Barley studied the social order of two radiology units located in Boston. He was able to witness the evolution of work relationships between the technicians and the radiologists through observations and interviews. The relationships were built from challenges brought upon by the equipment. His work captured the essence between action and structure. Structure can be thought of as a continuous flow of action and as a grouping of traditions that represent and constrain that action. Since technology exists as an object in the area of action, it is not possible to understand the implications of technology without first investigating how it can be incorporated into the daily life of the organization’s members.

My opinion of Barley’s study is that it is hard to generalize the conclusions being made due to it solely focusing on the radiology department. However, his analysis does demonstrate that treating technology as an opportunity for structuring can create contradictory results. Identical technologies can use similar dynamics and yet still lead to different structural outcomes. I would conclude that technology has the capability to affect organizational structures in varying ways. It can also be altered by the overall knowledge and competency levels of the technicians and radiologists. Technology can have powerful effects, but also of importance, adopters can influence how the evolution of technology is used to increase its positive effect on in the workplace.