The apidor way of thinking

Our position

Digital information systems (which we will often refer to hereafter as “applications” or “software”) must not be the sole preserve of IT specialists or management; they concern everyone in the organization. Democratic dialogue around these systems is essential in order to address the challenges they pose for employees’ working lives, for the organization’s performance, and for its very future.
However, digital technology has its own characteristics that must be taken into account. Democratic dialogue around digital technology must therefore be supported by specific methodological tools. To be effective, these tools must not treat digital systems as black boxes, but must instead provide a detailed understanding of how they impact the lives of employees, groups, and the organization as a whole.

Summary

APIDOR’s intentions
Well-being and citizenship at work in labor law
APIDOR themes of well-being and citizenship at work
Democratic dialogue around IT projects: a process to be established over time
Distinction between information systems and digital information systems
APIDOR’s targets
Scope of APIDOR

APIDOR’s intentions

APIDOR is a method for supporting IT projects through and for democratic dialogue. Its aim is to prevent risks, particularly (but not exclusively) to health and well-being in the workplace, by supporting democratic dialogue during digital projects.

The vision of well-being and citizenship at work that APIDOR has adopted is intended to be deeper and broader than the usual meanings (see below), and is based on labour law (see below), the work of the INRS¹ and the contributions of the ISIDOR method.
With this in mind, APIDOR believes that, in addition to social dialogue, democratic dialogue should be an integral part of the management of a digital project.

This means that the players involved in this democratic dialogue must be considered as full players in the digital project and be able to cooperate with the other parties (financial decision-makers, digital specialists, decision-makers and players in the business area concerned, etc.).

This also implies that those involved in the democratic dialogue have the means for this cooperation and invest them in concrete terms: time allocated by the organisation, minimum training in the management of a digital project, particularly in understanding modelling documents (data models, process models, etc.).

APIDOR has positioned itself as a tool to help mediate between the “traditional” players in the digital project and the players in the democratic dialogue, with the aim of ensuring that the system to be developed (software, application, etc.) guarantees the well-being at work of those who use it and, more broadly, contributes to the organisation’s performance.

With this in mind, the method offers a set of aids for understanding how a digital project works (vocabulary, types of players, phases, constraints, etc.), so that needs relating to well-being and citizenship at work can be expressed throughout the project and integrated into the future application.
For each phase of the project, APIDOR suggests ways of conducting democratic dialogue during the phase.

APIDOR draws heavily on the ISIDOR method, used as a conceptual toolbox.
Numerous references to elements of the ISIDOR method are made throughout this document.

Well-being and citizenship at work in French labor law

Citizenship in the organisation: a recognised right since the Auroux laws

The “right to direct and collective expression on the content, conditions and organisation of their work”² , which was granted to employees by the Auroux laws of 1982 in order to establish their citizenship within the company and which is likely to form the basis of a democratic dialogue, has remained a silent letter but has never been removed from the Labour Code and is now back in the limelight, somewhat revisited.

This right was clarified by the Order of September 2017 on the new organisation of social and economic dialogue within the company. This order provides that the procedures for exercising this right are defined within the framework of negotiations on professional equality between women and men and the quality of life at work³ . This negotiation was initially governed by the national interprofessional agreement of 19 June 2013 on a policy to improve the quality of life at work and professional equality⁴ and is now governed by the national interprofessional agreement of 9 December 2020 for enhanced prevention and a renewed offer in terms of health at work and working conditions⁵.

This is the new relationship envisaged between direct democracy (or the right of direct expression or professional dialogue) and representative democracy (or the right of indirect expression or social dialogue) in the company, with the latter organising the former.

Quality of life at work: a broad definition including citizenship

The nature of the link established between the right of direct expression and the quality of life at work was set out in Article 12 of the 2013 agreement, which sees the right of direct expression as “one of the elements promoting [employees’] perception of the quality of life at work and the meaning given to work”. Although it has ceased to have legal effect, this founding agreement of 2013 remains the reference for the very terms of the national interprofessional agreement of 9 December 2020 on health at work.

Quality of life at work is defined in Article 1 of the 2013 ANI as “a feeling of well-being at work perceived collectively and individually that encompasses the atmosphere, the company culture, the interest of the work, the working conditions, the feeling of involvement, the degree of autonomy and empowerment, a right to make mistakes granted to everyone, recognition and appreciation of the work done”. Quality of life at work is itself presented in the preamble to the agreement as a means of enhancing the company’s collective performance and competitiveness.

The transition from the notion of quality of life at work to the broader concept of well-being at work suggests that well-being at work and citizenship should be linked. The effective and recognised involvement of employees in the life of the organisation, synonymous with their status as ‘citizens’ of that organisation, establishes the link between well-being at work on the one hand, and performance and competitiveness on the other.

A limited right of direct expression

This definition of quality of life at work as well-being at work is bound to win support, as it seems to underpin the values of a democratic organisation. But a full reading of article 12 of the 2013 agreement reveals that employees’ right to direct and collective expression, far from serving a genuine democratic dispute – i.e. democratic dialogue – within the organisation, was reduced to the simple right to pass on to management and staff representative bodies the proposals arising from discussions held in working groups.

A new basis for developing genuine dialogue within the organisation

“Economic democracy in the company, as in the city, must first and foremost be nourished by experience”⁶ and by the expression by workers of their experiences of real work. These words, spoken more than 40 years ago, are all the more relevant at a time when work is undergoing profound changes, generated in particular by technological developments. In particular, by stating that “the prevention of occupational risks requires the mobilisation of all those involved in the company, including employees and their representatives”, that “employees have precise knowledge of the way in which work is carried out and of any problems encountered, from the point of view of prevention”, that it is therefore “important to gather and take into account these points of view in order to build a prevention policy… “and that “in VSEs and SMEs, particularly where there is no staff representation, the QWCW can also be addressed through direct, active and constructive dialogue between employees, their line managers and the employer”, the ANI of 9 December 2020 certainly revives the philosophy of the Auroux Acts and gives new life to the right to direct and collective expression alongside the right to negotiation.

APIDOR themes of well-being and citizenship at work

For well-being and citizenship at work, we will use the definition proposed in Article 1e of the 2013 agreement cited above for quality of life at work.
However, the term “well-being and citizenship at work” will be preferred here to “quality of life at work”, as “citizenship” refers to the essential place and role of employees in an organisation.

Prerequisites

In what follows, we briefly present the main themes that APIDOR proposes to take into account in the design of an application, which is the subject of the project, so that this application, when completed and put into service, will have a positive (or at least neutral) impact on these aspects.

The list of topics proposed is not intended to be exhaustive; on the contrary, it should be completed and amended by the users of the APIDOR method in the light of the situation in the organisation in question. For example, the issues of the right to disconnect, limiting the amount of time spent on screens, adapting workstations, etc. are not directly addressed here.

The points set out below can be translated into functional and non-functional requirements (see our suggestions).
It should be noted that the points specifically concerning democratic dialogue during the course of the IT project are not addressed here, or are addressed only very marginally.
For these questions, we refer you to the part Democratic dialogue: advice common to the entire IT project, which is entirely devoted to them.

Civic life at work, expression of users and people affected

To ensure that the civic life of users and those affected can develop under the right conditions, digital resources must be available and designed with this in mind.

This may involve, for example :

• consultation, from the application, of the procedures for managing its evolution (see Maintenance & Change Management Part)
• the integration into the application of resources enabling users and those affected to express their needs for changes to the application once it is up and running, and to monitor their requests
  • modification request function, access to the history of changes, the list of requests and their processing (with details of prioritisation criteria)…

As a reminder: the question of the participation of users and people affected by the IT project is dealt with in Democratic dialogue: advice common to the entire IT project, in particular Stakeholders and Some important points for conducting a democratic dialogue.

Information system and alternative visions

There are two key points in this theme.

Explicit nature

The application must be able to provide access to explicit definitions of all the terms present, and in particular those designating the business objects and their characteristics, the indicators, the values promoted by the organisation, etc.

Many of these definitions (excluding those relating to values) are contained in the data dictionary, which must be easily accessible.

These definitions must be open to discussion and/or collective construction.
The application must allow requests for amendments to these definitions, or even alternative definitions, to be entered and the history of requests to be consulted.

Alternative visions to the dominant ones

Alternative definitions must be memorised (e.g. definition of the organisation’s missions, objectives, values such as quality, performance, etc.), and access to these definitions must be guaranteed. These alternative definitions can be a source of innovation for the organisation.

Steering system and decision-making

Explicit nature

The dashboards (reporting) included in the application must explicitly present the elements of the steering system concerned (definitions of aims, objectives, indicators, etc.).
The application must allow requests for amendments to these definitions to be entered (see above xxA.3.3 Information system and alternative visionsxx)

Transparency of the conventions behind the indicators and their presentation

The requirement for transparency and plurality must apply to all data used to assess the activity of employees and the health of the organisation.

The quantification conventions behind the indicators (source data, calculations, tolerated value ranges, etc.), as well as the contextual conventions (e.g. choice of data to be compared with each other) and semiotic conventions (e.g. choice of colours), must be known or accessible from the application (dashboard and reporting sections), and must be able to be discussed and/or constructed collectively.

Variety of objectives and indicators

Objectives that are too predominantly financial, or even purely quantitative, cannot take into account the reality of working life, or the potential for improvement (which leads to better organisational performance).

The dashboards accessible in the application must therefore include a diversity of types of objectives and indicators: quantitative and qualitative, financial and non-financial, a posteriori (past performance) and a priori (determinants of future performance), etc.

Possible impact of dashboards on decision-making processes

The impact of the new dashboards included in the application on decision-making processes should be analysed before they are rolled out. If this impact is expected to be significant, the content of the dashboards should be discussed with the people concerned (and in particular those whose work will be evaluated in these dashboards).

Dashboard and objectives/indicators alternatives

Dashboards should be able to contain alternative objectives/indicators. These must also be explicit, as must the conventions that produce the indicators.

Second evaluation loop

The possibility of questioning the relevance of the objectives themselves (second monitoring loop) must be available in the application.

Preserving human decisions

During the design of the application (i.e. during the management of the IT project), particular attention must be paid to situations where a decision hitherto taken by a human would be transformed into a calculated choice. This transformation must be accepted by the employees who previously made the decision themselves.

Autonomy

The autonomy considered here is that of individuals, work groups and the organisation as a whole. For individuals and groups, autonomy may concern different levels: task, work organisation, objectives, organisational goals.

Limited guidance of the work procedure

Unless requested by the user, the application must not guide the work procedure in a restrictive way (apart from regulatory or safety aspects, of course).

Desired autonomy, imposed autonomy

Individual and collective autonomy can generate situations of great constraint (and suffering) when employees do not have the necessary resources (particularly time) to assume the autonomy that has been granted/imposed on them. Autonomy must be chosen, not imposed, if it is to contribute to the development of the individual.
In the same vein, we should also note that sometimes the existence of certain tasks with little or no autonomy can be seen as positive, even necessary. Such tasks can lighten the mental load.

Limiting disturbance during the task

Spontaneous pop-ups (not caused by the user) must be configurable (for example by limiting their arrival to certain times that the user determines).

Preserving users’ decision-making latitude

The new application must not restrict users’ decision-making latitude.

Targets included, counts

Targets (in terms of response time to a request, number of files processed in a day, etc.) that could be included in the software (for example, by means of pop-up windows reminding users of the target) must be discussed by users.
If it is intended that the application, as a work tool, should also be a control tool (timing, clocking in and out, content, time spent, interruptions, errors, etc.), the points controlled must be known to the users (their list accessible from the application itself) and must have been discussed with the users.

Taking account of workgroups, supporting cooperative ventures

The application must preserve existing coordination and cooperation and enable new ones.

Learning how to use the application

Training in the use of the application should be considered sufficient by users.
The application must include the possibility of learning while it is being used, in particular through explicit error messages accompanied by advice on how to resolve the error…

User categories and rights

The description of the user categories, the associated rights and the way in which these rights are determined must be accessible from the application.
A user must be able to request a change of category and the response must be detailed.

The impact of the application on the autonomy of the organisation as a whole

The decision to launch an IT project must be the subject of communication and debate if this decision is due to pressure from the environment, if the application is likely to limit the organisation’s autonomy, if external players are going to have access to the organisation’s IT system for the first time…

Time, Organisational learning

Respect for non-directly productive time

Having time that is not immediately or directly productive is a prerequisite for the satisfactory functioning of the organisation, its sustainability and the well-being of its employees. Such time is not an inefficient waste but an investment in the long-term future of the organisation.

The application must not be the cause of the deletion of such times.

Application lifecycle information

The expected lifespan of the application, if known, must be communicated to the users and people affected.

Group learning

The application must include a facility for users to share their experience (problems encountered, tips and tricks, etc.).

Time must be set aside for collective learning around the application.

Perception of time, time pressure

Time as represented (in particular units) in the application must be consistent with the perception of time of the users and people affected.
The application must not be a vector for increased time pressure on the members of the organisation.

Democratic dialogue on IT projects: a process that needs to be built in over time

Democratic dialogue around digital issues in general, and during IT projects in particular, is not widely practised in organisations and is therefore not sufficiently part of their experience or culture.

Democratic dialogue around IT projects is a long-term process, which requires genuine organisational learning.

To consolidate, it needs to be equipped and managed.

APIDOR can provide support for this organisational learning process, both for those involved in democratic dialogue and for the decision-makers and players usually involved in digital technology.

Distinction between information systems and digital information systems

APIDOR, building on the achievements of ISIDOR, makes a clear distinction between an organisation’s information system (IS) and the various digital information systems (DIS) used within it.

We present these two concepts very briefly here. For more details, see the Information system DImension in ISIDOR method.

The information system exists outside its digital version. It is the language of the organisation. Like any language, the IS does not encode in a neutral way an exogenous reality. On the contrary, an IS conveys visions of the world, doxas and beliefs, and as such helps to construct the reality in which the organisation and its stakeholders will operate. It is through these visions of the world that the IS will express the way in which the organisation sees itself, its environment and the relationships it maintains with it, formalising and making effective the values it promotes.

The IS will thus be expressed through lexicons, categories (nomenclature of tasks, medical acts, categories of players in a project, etc.), definitions of values (what is right, good, efficient, quality, etc.), and indicators expressing values, functions, organisation chart, process structures, etc.

An essential characteristic of the information system is that it is performative, in the sense that it defines and names what exists for the organisation and, conversely, creates a system of invisibility for everything else.

A digital information system is a digitised part of the IS. This sub-part of the information system has characteristics that are specific to digital technology.

A major characteristic of a digital information system is its ability to reinforce, sometimes drastically, the normativity and performativity specific to IS. It thus reduces complexity, rigidifies processes and semantics, and often intensifies the framing of activities.
APIDOR believes that democratic dialogue on digital issues should consider IS and INS together.
Reminder: as the term usually used is application (and not digital information system), we will refer to what the IT project must produce by this first term, and sometimes, as a synonym for application, by the term “software”.

APIDOR targets

APIDOR is targeting the project management part of the IT project, as well as all the players likely to be responsible for meeting the needs in terms of well-being and citizenship at work.
Below are a few examples of players who may use APIDOR.

IT project players

PMO (project management office), PO (Product Owner).
Digital services company providing support to the project owner: project owner assistance, PO assistance.
Digital services company which is complete subcontractor for the project.

Actors in the democratic dialogue , the bearers of the need for well-being and citizenship at work

Note: they do not appear in IT project management methods.
These players may be elected employee representatives (members of the IRP), but they may also be users recognised by their peers for their ability to promote the needs of well-being and citizenship at work.

Actors involved in the improvement of working conditions

Specialists in improving working conditions may also be interested in APIDOR: ergonomists, National Agencies for the Improvement of Working Conditions (such as the French ANACT).

Scope of APIDOR

Types of IT projects considered

This first version of APIDOR essentially considers business software development projects (or off-the-shelf purchases), and does little or nothing to address the particularities of specific projects (decision support system or BI projects, consumer Web services, ERP, AI, etc.). In our view, however, many of the suggestions made here could be useful for these specific projects.

Internal” organisation of democratic dialogue: not covered by the first version of APIDOR

What APIDOR does not deal with:

• the method of appointing the person or persons who will convey the needs in terms of well-being and citizenship at work and who will be the “democratic dialogue” interlocutors for the traditional players involved in an IT project.
• organising a survey of the needs of employees affected by the future application in terms of well-being and citizenship at work.
• organising feedback to employees affected by the future application on the progress of the project in terms of the issues raised by the DS.

A focus on “business” players (and not on digital players)

The well-being at work addressed by APIDOR is mainly that of the ‘business’ players, i.e. the future users of the application that is the subject of the project or the people affected by it.

The well-being at work of people working in the digital sector (developers, system or network engineers, architects, etc.) is not (or not yet) considered in APIDOR.

This in no way means that this subject does not deserve a great deal of attention, and should not be the subject of democratic dialogue within organisations. The development professions in particular have for some time been undergoing a worrying form of Taylorisation