Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Andy Crabtree
iii
Acknowledgements
In many and varied ways this book would not have come about were it not for the
encouragement, support and assistance of the following people: John Hughes,
Preben Mogensen, Stella Newton, Tom Rodden, Peter Tolmie, Jon O’Brien, Mark
Rouncefield, Wes Sharrock, Lou Armour, John Mariani, Jonathan Trevor and last,
but by no means least, Suzie Maynard: many, many thanks to you all.
Table of Contents
1. The Requirements Problem 1
The Motivation for Ethnography in Design 1
Analysing the Design Space: The Waterfall Model 2
A Paradigm Change in Design 4
A Primary Analytic Point of View for Design: Enter HCI 8
The User and the Interface in HCI 9
Mapping Mental Models of the Referent System 12
The Referent System in HCI 15
Some Technical Troubles with HCI 15
From Human Factors to Human Actors: Exit HCI 18
Reconceptualising the User 21
Reconceptualising the Interface 24
The Turn to the Social 28
Cooperative Work? 28
Self-organizing Practices of Work 33
Summary 139
References 142
3
The ambition of theory-based design in HCI has
been frustrated to a great extent. Through the
1980s, many efforts presumed a simple one-way
relationship between science and technology
(the traditional notion of ‘technology transfer’).
They focused on applying rather thin examples
of information-processing psychology, reducing
the user’s performance and experience to counts
of low-level tokens, ignoring the user’s prior
knowledge, task context, and goals. They also
incorporate rather thin views of technology.
They did not take seriously the fact that design
is a process with a well-established practice that
can only be impacted if it is understood in
intimate detail.
Carroll, Kellogg, and Rosson
1. The Requirements Problem
Efforts to incorporate ethnography into the design process were initially motivated
by the requirements problem. Simply put, the requirements problem is a practical
problem preoccupied by the question: what is to be built? Ethnography was
construed of as method that may help systems developers analyse the work of the
design space and produce an answer to the question by formulating specific design
solutions.1 This chapter explicates the requirements problem, traditional approaches
to its solution, and changes in design practice brought about through the advent of
low-cost computing. These changes saw the emergence of Human-Computer
Interaction (HCI) as a primary point of view for describing, analysing and
representing the design space. The adequacy of HCI approaches to the study of
work is assessed, and found wanting as a result of a cognitive bias which lacks
ecological validity or adequate reference to work as it is carried out by people in the
real world. In concentrating on the cognitive properties of individuals, and through
scientific methods, the real world, real time work of users is ignored in analysis to
the detriment of design. The notion of cooperative work, to which ethnography is
tied in a design context, is articulated as an alternative primary point of view for
analysis.
___________
1
By ‘design space’ is meant the Organization of Work – the institution, company,
factory, department, office, etc., or family of collaborative activities which a system
is being designed for.
1
The Requirements Problem
parties to the work of the domain. It is in this respect that the requirements problem
may be characterised as a ‘wicked’ problem (DeGrace and Stahl 1990). That is, a
problem whose complexity means that it may only be fully appreciated after it has
been solved. There are, then, no a priori solutions to the requirements problem as
each occasion of design is subject to the diverse and wildly contingent needs of a
range of stakeholders. As O’Brien (2000) puts it, the requirements problem is a
wild and wicked problem as
It arises in the social realm and is concerned with trying to improve some
characteristics of how people work together using computer-based support …
[it is not, as such] a neatly formulated, precise [problem], that emerges from a
narrowly-conceived technical agenda. It is instead rooted in the contingencies
of ‘the lived reality of the organizational context -of-use’, and just what that is,
and, furthermore, how we might go about ascertaining that, are not settled
matters.
Only through a course of investigation and analysis does the requirements problem
get settled for practical purposes. The question, of course, is how? In what ways
may the wild and wicked contingencies that characterise the requirements problem
be handled routinely, time after time? Through what methods or working practices
may the analysis of the design space be conducted and design solutions be
formulated and agreed upon by the parties to design time and again, in setting after
setting? Naturally the answer is: in many ways. It is arguably the case, however,
that those ‘many ways’ will be answerable to the established practices that organize
design work at any point in time. Tradition is not easily ignored even in such a
rapidly moving practice as systems design and ways of working have emerged over
time that both shape and drive the collective assessment and adoption of new
approaches and techniques. The following section considers established practice in
design and evolutions in that practice brought about through changing
circumstances of design; changes that have shaped ethnographic involvement in the
design process in contemporary times.
2
The Requirements Problem
___________
2
‘Observation’ is placed in quotes to indicate that a multiplicity of competing
methods may be used to inspect and analyse work – time and motion studies, task
analysis, business process analysis, various ethnographic approaches, etc.
3
The Requirements Problem
system should deliver and, as such, furnishes an answer to the question: what is to
be built?
4
The Requirements Problem
5
The Requirements Problem
6
The Requirements Problem
not dispense with that view for as Floyd reminds us it is necessary at some point in
design to take reductionist steps,
in order to specify a microworld suitable for modelling. The chances are,
however, that when focusing on the meaningful use of the software system as
a tool in its usage environment, we may make different choices in selecting
objects, attributes and actions to be included in this microworld, and we may
allow for the combination of individual functions of the software system in a
more flexible manner. Rather than making a given software system more user-
friendly, we will arrive at a software system with different scope, functionality
and possibilities for human intervention.
In subordinating the product-oriented view to the process-oriented view, the abiding
question to be answered was, and is, one concerned with how design might realize
these new possibilities? What systematic - i.e., widely usable and reproducible -
methods of analysing the referent system and cooperating with users may be
developed to support the design of socio -technical systems of work?
Table 1. Product and process views of the referent system (Floyd 1987).
7
The Requirements Problem
8
The Requirements Problem
manipulation of those properties (Norman 1992). The basic idea here is that the
technical workings of the computer should disappear from view – much as the
mechanics of steering are invisible to the driver of a car, for example.
The separation of the interface from the underlying technicalities of the
computer was based on the assumption that users conduct their work through the
use of conceptual models of the referent system, which articulate the goals that they
wish to achieve and the actions they have to undertake in order to achieve them
(Norman 1986). Making the affordances of the underlying computer visible and
available to users thus requires that the interface be designed in such a way that it
bridges the gulf between the user’s conceptual model of the referent system on the
one hand and the designer’s model (i.e., the system model) of the referent system
on the other. Just how to effect a bridge between the user’s model and the
designer’s model was the primary research challenge for HCI. A challenge that
traded on foundational presuppositions regarding both the user and the interface,
each of which shapes analysis of the design space and user needs.
takes them to the central sorting office. The letters are then sorted according to
area and sent via rail, road, air or ship to their destination. On reaching their
destination, the letters are further sorted into particular areas and then into
street locations and so on. A major aspect of an information-processing
analysis, likewise, is tracing the mental operations and their outcomes for a
particular cognitive task.
Generic cognitive formats occupy a prime position in HCI analysis. Over the
course of research they have, quite naturally, developed and new analytic formats
have evolved. Underlying shifts in the philosophy of mind, which first identified the
mind with the brain (Place 1994) and then eliminated the mind (Churchland and
Sejnowski 1994), have filtered through to applied cognitive theory and resulted in
the emergence of parallel distributed processing (Rumelhart and McClelland 1986).
Parallel distributed processing adopts a brain metaphor where cognition is
represented at the level of neural networks and interconnected nodes. Information
processes are thus construed of as the product of activations of the nodes in the
network and the connections established between the networks, in contrast to being
linear and sequentially organized arrangements (Preece et al. 1999).
Abstract as the above schema is, the reader may be able to appreciate that with such
a model it becomes possible for a multiplicity of information processes to be
running in parallel as a host of different connections are established and different
networks are engaged. On this model, information processing has a very dynamic
structure and the task for HCI became one identifying the mental models that
compose that structure (Preece et al. 1999).
In employing the notion of mental models, HCI assumes that users carry
conceptual models of the referent system, and with it their work, around in their
heads. As Norman puts it, people carry around with them mental models of
“themselves, others, the environment, and the things with which they interact.
10
The Requirements Problem
People form mental models through experience, training and instruction” (Norman
1988). Mental models are construed of as cognitive structures consisting of
analogical and propositional representations of the things that comprise the person’s
workaday life – structures which comprise the nodes and networks that make up the
neural net. The world of things human and physical is mapped onto the neural net
through the production of mental models formed through experience then. In being
structured by the workaday world, mental models serve a pragmatic function, being
drawn upon by the person in order to make sense of the situations and practical
activities they are engaged in and to determine appropriate responses. In their
pragmatic capacity, mental models have ‘task-action functions’ mapped onto them
that represent the task to be done here and now and the actions to be taken in order
to accomplish that task. Take the task of driving a car, for example. In utilising a
mental model of driving, the person draws upon the action functions mapped onto
that particular model – such as turning the ignition key and starting car, pressing the
clutch and putting the car in gear, releasing the hand brake, checking the mirrors
and accelerating, etc. (Preece et al. 1999).
Analytic format in hand, the scene is set for the HCI practitioner to engage in
design. His or her task is to map the mental model of the referent system employed
by the user onto the designer’s model of the referent system through the design of a
unifying conceptual model embodied in the interface. As Norman (1988) puts it,
The problem is to design the system so that, first, it follows a consistent,
coherent conceptualisation – a design model – and, second, so that the user
can develop a mental model of that system – a user model – consistent with
the design model.
The unifying conceptual model maps the user’s model onto the design model
through the design of the interface, purportedly making the computer more
accessible to the user. The interface for HCI is, then, the computer’s interface to the
user and not the user’s interface to the computer (see Figure 3).3 Rhetoric aside, the
user’s mental model of the referent system is subservient to the designer’s model
(i.e., the system model) of the referent system and not vice versa. In this respect,
HCI treats the interface as a technical artefact which mediates between two
different kinds of information process: those in users heads that reference their
work and those designed into the machine - and in that, the appeal of HCI to the
engineering mentality is not at all difficult to appreciate. Seen and treated from a
technical perspective, the interface may be identified as a separate module of
software code within an overall system design architecture. A module dedicated to
managing the ‘software-control dialogue’ between the system and the user. In order
to specify the software-control dialogue and configure the relationship between the
user and the computer, the HCI practitioner has first to map the mental model of the
referent system employed by the user. The question, of course, is how? Or rather,
how are the design space and commensurate user needs to be described and
analysed?
___________
3
The distinction is not merely a semantic one and its importance will be addressed
shortly.
11
The Requirements Problem
A Computer
A
User
goals and sub-tasks as defined by the individual activities comprising the task
structure – e.g. start the application, open a new message, write the message, and
forward to the recipient. Each sub-goal and sub-task is also decomposed into a set
of distinct operations and methods, or actions performed on objects in order to
accomplish the sub-task and realize the sub-goal.
When starting the email application, for example, the user must move the
cursor by moving the mouse over to the start menu icon, click on the icon, move the
cursor up to the programmes menu icon, click on the icon, browse the menu, move
the mouse to the email programme shortcut, and click on the shortcut; when the
application appears on the desktop, the user must then enter his or password in the
active window (see Figure 4). In this way, task analysis maps the workaday
activities comprising the referent system by decomposing that system and its
activities into a hierarchy of mental models organized in terms of the analytic
format employed. Each mental model is therefore seen to be composed of distinct
information processes each of which may be decomposed into its constituent
elements and each of which combines with other processes to create a coherent
whole, such as sending an email and receiving, replying, or forwarding an email,
for example (Preece et al. 1999).4
In order to configure the relationship between the referent system and a new
computer system, the HCI practitioner must map the hierarchy of information
processes elaborated by the user’s mental model in a way that affords the
identification of system requirements. Once again, there are many ways in which
representation may be accomplished, however, many HCI methods share the
common feature of being graphical. A primary graphical method of representing
goal-task structures and associated information process hierarchies in HCI is
provided by dataflow mapping, a technique like many others which derives from
structured design methodology (e.g. DeMarco 1979). Dataflow mapping represents
the production and changing state of information processes as such things are
understood by cognitive science. Thus, dataflow models map inputs, processes, data
stores, and outputs. Take, for example, an order processing system. A customer
sends in an order for some product (input). The customer service agent checks the
order system to see if the product is available (process). In checking the system the
agent manipulates a certain set of product data (data store). If the product is
available, the agent issues a delivery note (output). Each part of the overall order
process may be decomposed into fine-grained dataflow maps. So, for example, the
task of sending in an order may be decomposed into a set of inputs, processes, data
stores, and outputs such as address and credit details (input), checking said details
(process) against company records (data store), and credit clearance (output). Thus,
in producing dataflow maps, the HCI practitioner specifies functional requirements
for the system as a whole and the sub-systems composing it. Requirements, for
example, that the order system enable the customer service agent to check the
customer, check the product, and issue the delivery note (Preece et al. 1999).
Customer Order
Check Check
Stock Dept.
order product
Issue
Supervisor Deliveries
delivery
note
14
The Requirements Problem
16
The Requirements Problem
CAMPARI & ICE. This particular memory device was intended to guide lending
decisions by highlighting a number of important factors to be considered in the
decision-making process: Character, Ability, Means, Purpose, Amount,
Repayment, Insurance; and Interest, Commission, Extras. With the exception of a
single page of the PIF, which contained current bank interest rates, these and other
organizational memory devices were rarely used as intended, however. Use of the
mnemonic CAMPARI & ICE serves to elucidate the matter and implications for the
study of the referent system more generally.
In practice the lending mnemonic CAMPARI & ICE was not utilised and
followed in a step-wise fashion as a procedure for making a lending decision. Thus,
CAMPARI & ICE did not characterise a decision-making process. This is not to say
that the mnemonic was not used, but insofar as it was then it was more often than
not used retrospectively after the event in order to assemble an institutionally
defensible case supporting a lending decision. The post hoc use of the mnemonic as
a formal accounting device is not to say that the mnemonic was disregarded in the
making of lending decisions:
(Fieldnote extract) I’ve been to see some doctors who have a business account
with the bank. They asked for an additional £6000 for a computer. Chris was
asked to sanction the purchase but it’s outside her discretionary power. The
business is entirely satisfactory – GPs with a turnover of £300k, profit £150k.
It’s not reasonable to tell them to wait for such a paltry sum.
In practice, the general spirit and not the letter of CAMPARI & ICE is attended to -
the spirit of the matter being one of not accruing bad debts. As the extract makes
clear, the mnemonic is not treated as laying out a process to be accomplished in
order to avoid accruing bad debts, but as a general rule to be complied with.
Compliance with the spirit of the rule is key. Compliance should not be thought of
as a matter of mindlessly applying the mnemonic to particular cases but, as the
extract indicates, of applying the general spirit of the rule the mnemonic embodies
through the exercise of skill and judgement. Notably, the exercise of skill and
judgement relies on the decision-maker’s knowledge of the client, of the client’s
financial circumstances, of their prospects, and a host of other local and contextual
factors – none of which are covered by the mnemonic and all of which are
constituted in the decision-maker’s daily work, which systems are directed towards
supporting.
The embodied use of the mnemonic CAMPARI & ICE radically respecifies
the concept of organizational memory as a practical accomplishment. In practice,
organizational memory devices are applied - and applied in unexpected ways.
Rather than laying out processes to be accomplished, organizational memory
devices are instead used in the course of accomplishing a host of contingent
workaday activities not specified by the device: as a means of formally accounting
for decisions made and as general rules to be complied with in making decisions,
for example. Notably, and this is the nub of the matter, in their use organizational
memory devices are not organized in terms of the device (as a how-to-do-it process
of work to be accomplished, for example) but in terms of local factors which are
nowhere specified by the device. So what? Could these local factors not be
described in terms of socially distributed information processes?
17
The Requirements Problem
formats and the use of scientific methods will provide a solid foundation for
systems design. Curiously, and as Sutcliffe (1992) points out, such advances have
not been forthcoming to date, nor should anyone other than the cognitive scientist
expect them to be.
Following Wittgenstein, the late Norman Malcolm (1995) goes so far as to
point out why cognitive science has failed to deliver on its promise in reminding us
that cognitive phenomenon are not primarily located ‘in-the-head’ (whether
construed of as the mind or the brain) but are, primarily, constituent features of the
settings, situations and events they make visible. For example:
Suppose that in conversation with a group of people I make a certain remark.
Later, one of those present says to me: “Were you thinking when you made
that remark?” I ask: “What do you mean?” He says: “Well, what you said was
rather disparaging of Italians. Had you forgotten that Mr. A., who was present
in the group, is Italian?” I exclaim: “Oh, I had forgotten! I wasn’t thinking
when I said that. I certainly did not want to offend Mr. A.”
As the example demonstrates, ‘thinking’ (or ‘not thinking’), like any other
cognitive phenomenon, is, quite observably, a constituent feature of the social
settings, situations, and events it makes visible. Consequently, and on this reading,
notions of the mind or brain as the locus of cognitive phenomena are understood as
abstract analytic constructions in lay and professional reasoning alike; constructs
derived from and based on a ‘one-sided diet of examples’ that portray cognitive
phenomena as ‘inner’ phenomena in contrast to observable and reportable features
of the myriad things that the members of society ordinarily say and do together
(Wittgenstein 1992). In the context of ordinary sayings and doings, ‘thinking’,
‘remembering’, ‘imagining’, etc., are circumstantially relevant expressions and, as
such, part and parcel of the locally and naturally organized courses of practical
action and practical reasoning they elaborate (Coulter 1999). Cognitive phenomena
are not, then, primary features of some introspectively observable inner realm or
course of events. On the contrary, and as Coulter (1991) puts it, cognitive
phenomena are ‘praxiological’ phenomena made available through situated action
and social praxis. Malcolm (1995) makes the point concisely.
Consider the analogy of calculating (adding, multiplying, dividing). One can
multiply aloud, on paper, or in one’s head. If you multiply aloud that is not
called multiplying “in your head”. Suppose it were said: “Whenever people
multiply they multiply in their heads”. A strange contention! The words,
“multiplying in one’s head”, could not have their ordinary meaning here. For
that implies that the multiplying was not aloud or in writing. Furthermore, the
ability to multiply in one’s head logically presupposes the ability to multiply
aloud or in writing. And that is necessarily so. For a person who was not able
to execute any processes of multiplication, aloud, in writing, or in other
outward signs, could not be said to be multiplying in his head, even if he was
able to produce the right answer to multiplication problems! The ability to
multiply in one’s head is necessarily secondary to, derivative of, the ability to
display multiplying in physically perceptible signs and actions.
19
The Requirements Problem
Isn’t there a similarity here between calculating and thinking? A child who
had never manifested in words, gestures, or play the working out of simple
problems could not be said to work them out “in his mind”, anymore than he
could be said to know “in his mind” the names of colours, if he was unable to
say their names, or point to or fetch the right colours when their names were
called out. Thinking in one’s mind (silent thinking, pausing to think) is not the
most fundamental form of thinking, but instead presupposes thinking in play,
work, or words.
On this reading, the analytic primacy of a publicly unobservable inner world of
mental phenomena is displaced and our attention is drawn instead to the observable
and reportable activities that comprise the workaday life of people. As Garfinkel
puts it (in Coulter 1990), “there is no reason to look under the skull since nothing of
interest is to be found there but brains” - and brains, of course, do not think, persons
do (or don’t), observably and reportably so in the course of accomplishing their
workaday affairs.6 Thinking (etc.) is not something separate from those activities
but, as with organizational memory, identical to workaday activities and organized
in terms of their local accomplishment. A fortiori, until cognitive science comes to
terms with the praxiological foundations of cognitive phenomenon its teachings
might well be expected to continue to languish in academic closets.
It might be said that HCI’s problems have emerged in failing to see users as
persons who regulate and coordinate their own activities. As such, HCI fails to see
users as competent practitioners working in concert with other competent
practitioners. Theoretical formats and methods developed in laboratory settings can
do no other than neglect the embedded character of the practitioner’s concerted
competence in the real world; especially the skills and working relations necessary
to the performance and coordination of discrete activities of work. No doubt a great
many more criticisms could be levelled at HCI, but of more importance here is the
rationale behind such criticisms. Specifically, the implications for systems design in
general that follow in the wake of the recognition that HCI suffers from a lack of
‘ecological validity’ (Thomas and Kellogg 1989). That is, a lack of adequate
reference to real world contexts of use and to the skilful ways in which practitioners
perform and coordinate their workaday activities in the actual flow of doing them.
Recognition of HCI’s lack of reference to the workaday world has prompted
reconceptualisation of the user and the interface and seen design turn away from the
cognitive to the social.
___________
6
This is not to deny that one needs a brain in order to think (etc.). It is to point out
the error of equating the brain with thought (etc.); of saying that thinking is a
property of the brain rather than a property of the human being, who possesses a
brain. Across recorded human history we have yet to encounter a brain that thinks,
and we would find it very strange, indeed utterly alien and incomprehensible, if we
actually did. Nonetheless, we see people thinking (etc.) all around us, all of the
time. Mental phenomena are located in our practical actions, observably and
reportably so.
20
The Requirements Problem
21
The Requirements Problem
22
The Requirements Problem
the object world. Commonsense categories of social types may be employed in this
way as such categories are tied to particular activities or courses of action which
define the social type invoked (Sacks 1992a). Thus, and for example, ‘policemen’
arrest and prosecute wrongdoers, ‘waiters’ take orders for food and serve at your
table, ‘secretaries’ answer phones, arrange meetings, and record minutes, etc. It
may be noted that when considering the courses of action which define a social
type, we are no longer considering an isolated individual but the actions of a
generic other: policemen not a policeman, waiters not a waiter, secretaries not a
secretary. The method of typification allows developers to identify generic needs of
a particular class of users then, under the commonly known auspices that ‘these’
actions are tied to ‘this’ type of user. Thus, analysis of the design space and user
needs is rooted in commonsense knowledge of the typical courses of action that
particular social types perform: in commonsense knowledge of patterns of action to
be precise.
In using the commonsense method of typification and invoking commonsense
categories of social types, developers employ common knowledge of patterns of
action to construct a reasonable, mutually intelligible and defensible sense of user
needs and so come to formulate potential design solutions. As Sharrock and
Anderson put it,
The user is introduced into design through the use of typificatory structures.
Our aim has been to show first that these structures conform to patterns and
second that these patterns can be analysed using the concepts of personal and
course of action types … By invoking such typificatory structures, designers
are able to construct the rationale for their design decisions within the flow of
the designing. Seen from within the activity of design, in the midst of
exploring the design space, these structures enable designers to construct their
design worlds.
The appeal to and knowledge of patterns of action is an integral part of design
practice – a naturally organized lingua franca underpinning cooperative analysis of
the design space by members of the design team. This naturally organized practice
of analysis provides for the reconceptualisation of the user, not on some theoretical
basis but on the basis of consulting a perspicuous setting. Consulting, that is, the
work of a workgroup who, as their day’s work, and because they know it as their
day’s work, are able to teach us what we could be talking about when we invoke the
notion of ‘the user’ (Garfinkel and Wieder 1992).
Accordingly, the use of the commonsense method of typification instructs us
that the user is not understood by design practitioners as a cognitive object but as an
essentially social object. More specifically, in details of structure we are taught that
the sociality of the object – of the user – consists of 1) personal types associated
with constellations of roles and relationships and 2) course of action types. Thus, as
a social object, the user is 1) an Organizational object – i.e., in object embedded in
an Organizational setting of one kind or another in terms of distinct roles and
relationships. And 2) as an Organizational object, the user’s relation to the
Organization of Work and other Organizational objects – i.e., other users - is itself
organized in terms of discrete courses or patterns of action. It might otherwise be
said that the user is a socially situated object (a person occupying a distinct role or
23
The Requirements Problem
A Computer
I/O devices
System Documentation
administrator
Training
Field
support A User
Management
Colleagues
Consider the two faces to the user-computer interface. Is the user’s interface to
a computer the mirror image of the computer’s interface to the user? It may
seem that it should be, but on reflection it is not, unless one defines ‘interface’
extremely narrowly. The user’s interface to the computer may centre on the
software-controlled dialogue, but it also includes any documentation and
training that are part of using the computer. It includes colleagues, consultants,
24
The Requirements Problem
HCI’s focus on the relationship between the computer and the user obscures
the wider workaday environment in which computer use is embedded. In seeking to
operationalise and develop the abstract analytic formats of cognitive theory, HCI
treats users as units consisting of generic components and information processes
that may be factored into design through the use of scientific methods. This myopic
and misguided focus obscures the continuity of the outward movement of the
computer’s interface to it’s external environment through two dramatic shifts in the
user population: the shift from engineers and programmers to non-specialized users
as primary users, and the shift from supporting individuals to supporting groups
(Grudin 1990b). As a result of the ‘historical continuity of the interface’, Grudin
argues that it no longer makes sense to think of an individual operator making use
of a single workstation, let alone a large mainframe machine, but rather, given the
user’s role in Organizational life, the computer interface needs instead to be thought
of in terms of the work of the group of users that constitute some (part of an)
Organization of Work. Grudin’s argument is that the notion of the isolated,
individual, computer user is one that is simply untenable when the lived reality of
being a user in an Organizational setting is attended to. Situated in an
Organizational context, people work in teams, groups and collectives of all kinds, in
short people work collaboratively together. As a consequence,
we are beginning to see the focus of user interface design extend out into the
social and work environment, reaching even further from its origin at the heart
of the computer. (Grudin 1990b)
Consideration of the Organizational context of use, which sees computers being
used by teams of people in the course of doing ordinary jobs of work, brings with it
a radical reconceptualisation of the interface. One that provokes a necessary move
beyond narrow conceptions of what it is that constitutes an interface to a computer,
and how that might best be designed, to the lived reality of devising technical
support for users located in an Organizational setting.
Organizational context shapes the expectations, prior experiences, priorities,
preferences and specific tasks of users … Developers who do not understand
the organizational context of use increasingly risk failure. (Grudin cited by
O’Brien 2000)
In addressing the lived reality of computer use in an Organizational setting,
Bowers and Rodden (1993) take the reconceptualisation of interface even further,
‘exploding’ a unitary conceptual entity into many fragmentary sites where users
construct interfaces to computers over the course of getting their work done.
Bowers and Rodden observe that the concept of the interface is not a given thing –
not a naturally intelligible concept like that of a stone, for example - but an a priori
25
The Requirements Problem
Rodden reported that users identified three significant interfaces: the personal-
public interface, the departmental interface, and the Organizational interface. In
practice, the unitary image of the interface explodes and leaves in its place a
‘radically heterogeneous’ set of varied and conflicting workaday concerns ranging
from the technical, to the personal, to the Organizational, and more, all of which
impact directly on human-computer interaction. Attempts to make workstations
more responsive to personal or individual tasks by FTB staff, for example, often
had public consequences in halting the server application. Working on non-standard
protocols, the network caused interference problems with the wider corporate
network, bringing departmental activities into account. And the network itself
contravened Organizational policies on computer use. These, and a great many
more issues and practical concerns, elaborate the multiplicity of different ways in
which users interface to the computer. That multiplicity dispenses with the fiction
that there is but one boundary between users and the computer, namely the
interface. Instead, a variety of interfaces to the computer are constructed by users in
their working practices as sites where workaday trajectories collide and problems
get articulated. Sites, that is, where human-computer requirements are pronounced.7
It should be said that Bowers and Rodden’s examination of the FTB network is
not aimed at simply extending the concept of the interface to encompass more of
the elements and entities which Grudin pointed to. Their work is not one of
redrawing the boundaries of the interface while retaining it as a unitary concept
applied to group-network interaction. Instead, they are concerned with
understanding and discovering the different relationships between users and
computer systems in order to develop support for work-in-context. Bowers and
Rodden demonstrate that the unitary concept of the interface is inadequate for such
purposes as a direct result of that concept’s context -free a priori construction.
Bowers and Rodden radically reconceptualise the interface as a heterogeneous body
of Organizationally constructed worksites. Analysis of the human-computer
interface is therefore placed on identifying
what the problems [of interfacing in an organization] are, what the solutions
and methods for producing them may be and so on which members suggest
and work with rather than what the ‘expert analyst’ armed with HCI theory
determines on the basis of a priori conceptual decisions. (Pycock 1999)
In other words, just what comes to constitute a human-computer interface cannot be
specified in advance but will be the outcome of consulting practice and the variety
of situationally relevant interfaces users construct together in the course of getting
their workaday activities done (see, for example, Crabtree et al. 2002c). The
question, of course, is one of how design might go about consulting practice and
identifying the organizational needs of users emerging from their work together?
___________
7
In this respect interface design may become a vehicle for cooperative analysis of
the design space, enabling a heterogeneous set of concerns to be brought to bear on
the design of potential computer support (Mogensen 1992). See Chapter 4 herein
also.
27
The Requirements Problem
Cooperative Work?
In August 1984 Irene Greif and Paul Cashman organized an invited workshop to
address issues involved in the development of computer-based systems supporting
the work of discrete assemblies of people. Greif and Cashman coined the term
computer supported cooperative work to describe their concerns and to elaborate
“an identifiable research field focused on the role of the computer in group work”
(Greif 1988). CSCW was thus defined as an enterprise concerned with
understanding and developing technological support for the activities and
___________
8
It is fair to say that in recent times HCI practitioners have recognised the pressing
need to move beyond the narrow cognitive frameworks and methods that underpin
the discipline. Contemporary research has seen HCI turn to the social through
anthropology, cultural studies, and a variety of participatory approaches. Cognitive
formats still stand at the centre of a great deal of research in HCI however, directing
analysis whether in terms of brain metaphors, physiological processes or distributed
cognition. Nonetheless, a significant shift in perspective may be detected in HCI, as
marked by the increasing contributions of HCI researchers to CSCW and the cross-
fertilization of new ideas.
28
The Requirements Problem
means that A relies positively on the quality and timeliness of B’s work and vice
versa.
The essentially distributed and interdependent nature of work requires that
workaday activities must be kept in check such that individual jobs of work are
interrelated in an effective and timely fashion. Alternately it might be said that
distributed activities of work must be ‘articulated’. Drawing on the writings of
Anselm Strauss, Schmidt and Bannon suggest that articulation work is an essential
form of work in any division of labour (or ‘total arc’).
Articulation work amounts to the following: First, the meshing of the often
numerous tasks, clusters of tasks, and segments of the total arc. Second, the
meshing of the efforts of various unit-workers (individuals, departments, etc.).
Third, the meshing of actors with their various types of work and implicated
tasks. (Strauss 1985 cited by Schmidt and Bannon 1992)
It might otherwise be said that workaday activities must be coordinated. The notion
of articulation work refers to the ways in which coordination gets done. Normative
accounts of Organizational work (be they the accounts of Social Science, Business
Management, Economics, or the Organization itself), construe coordination to be a
product of formal Organizational devices that govern interaction and collaboration;
devices such as Organizational plans and procedures, which are understood to
specify precisely the steps whereby coordination is to be achieved. Such
conceptions have proved, however, to be highly idealised and grossly inadequate in
accounting for the real world, real time coordination of activities. Gerson and Star
(1986) go so far as to point why.
Every real world system [of work] is an open system: It is impossible, both in
practice and in theory, to anticipate and provide for every contingency which
might arise in carrying out a series of tasks. No formal description of a system
(or plan for its work) can thus be complete. Moreover, there is no way of
guaranteeing that some contingency arising in the world will not be
inconsistent with a formal description or plan for the system … Every real
world system thus requires articulation to deal with the unanticipated
contingencies that arise. Articulation resolves these inconsistencies by
packaging a compromise that ‘gets the job done’, that is closes the system
locally and temporarily so that work can go on.
In other words, as a direct result of real world contingencies, formal Organizational
devices do not so much provide for the coordination of activities as require the
coordination of activities if the outcomes they prescribe are to be realized.
Lucy Suchman’s work on the practical use of Organizational procedures
elaborates the fundamental characteristics of coordination here. Work and
Organization have often been construed by system development and the social
sciences alike as being essentially rule-based in character. Work thus consists of
following a prescribed sequence of formal procedures through the accomplishment
of which workaday activities get conducted and coordinated. On this normative
reading, formal procedures organize work and provide for the coordination of
individual activities. The design of, for example, office information systems and the
30
The Requirements Problem
31
The Requirements Problem
Normative accounts have gone so far as to concede that the orderly work and
expertise of which Suchman speaks consists of informal structures of practical
action, contrasting them with the formal structures of work prescribed by
Organizational procedures (etc.). Despite such insistence, real world Organizational
structures – in sharp contrast to the analytic structures that characterise normative
accounts – are, quite visibly, the concerted product of a community of co-workers
(Blau 1964). Thus, Organizational structures of activity are, in reality, self-
organizing structures, produced in the interactions and collaborations of an
Organization’s staff. The skills and expertise upon which the Organization of Work
crucially depends are not to be found in normative accounts of work then, but the in
the self-organizing structures of practical action produced by an Organization’s
staff in the course of carrying out and concerting their daily routines.
To say that work is routine is not say that it is trivial and mindless, nor that it
may be easily automated. On the contrary, the most routine of work activities
demonstrably rely on the skill and judgement of incumbents (Blomberg et al. 1994).
More often than not the skill and judgement involved in accomplishing routine
work is invisible to people located higher up the Organizational food chain.
Nonetheless, routine activities and the exercise of judgement co-exist at all levels of
the Organizational hierarchy. On the shopfloor, skill and judgement consists of
effecting a practically adequate relationship between formal procedures and the
contingent circumstances of the actual cases to which those procedures must be
applied, for example. Any such relationship is effected in the practical actions of
shop-floor workers and in those actions - which rely on the skill and judgement or
competence of incumbents – and in the face of daily contingencies, the routine is
made routine.
The making of Organizational routines implies that there is something essential
about practical action. That some actions have, of necessity, to be taken if the
routine is to transpire yet again. As the late Herbert Blumer (1969) described
matters here,
In dealing with collectivities and with joint action [cooperative work] one can
easily be trapped in an erroneous position by failing to recognise that the joint
action of the collectivity is an interlinkage of the separate acts of the
participants. This failure leads one to overlook the fact that a joint action
always has to undergo a process of formation; even though it may be a well-
established and repetitive [routine] form of social action, each instance of it
has to be formed anew.
Each activity, no matter how routine, must be formed anew on each and every
occasion of its performance. As a reoccurring consequence of workaday
contingencies, just what actions have to be taken if the routine is to transpire yet
again is not, and cannot be, specified by formal Organizational devices. This need
not cause undue concern however, as it is a grossly observable fact of working life
that a great many workaday contingencies are reoccurring. Insofar as the same
activity is undertaken again and again, day after day, then the same practical
troubles occur again and again, day after day. Managing such troubles is a part and
parcel of getting the job done and in that respect staff improvise and devise
particular courses of practical action or work practices to handle particular
32
The Requirements Problem
contingencies, thereby making their activities routine yet again (Zimmerman 1973).
Thus, although
there is a ‘necessary’ character to formal rules .. it is not a prescriptive
necessity (let alone a causal one) but one of conducting Organizational affairs
in a manner whereby the rules can be said to have been adequately applied in
the face of the unavoidable contingencies of the particular ‘case’ to hand.
Insofar as contingencies are recurrent, and the manner whereby they are dealt
with suffice, then the improvised ways of adequately applying the rules
become routine and standard practice for persons who do the work. Curiously,
the Organizational adequacy of improvised practices might be said to consist
in their not being noticed, remarked upon, etc., by management in that, and
precisely because, they suffice to ‘get the job done’ without undue problem or
recourse for concern. (Crabtree 2000a)
The point of this, and it is a significant one, is that the distinct assemblages of
Organizational work practices which tie users together and define the sociality of
work are not practices specified by the Organization of Work but practices devised,
performed, and altered by an Organization’s staff in response to the formal
requirements of the Organization of Work. In taking a turn to the social, CSCW
instructs us that workaday activities are structured or organized through working
practices devised by an Organization’s staff. Analysis of the design space might
proceed, then, not only by attending to the formal requirements of the Organization
of Work but also, by attending to work on the ground, as it is actually and
observably organized in the practical actions and interactions of an Organization’s
staff. This focus on the cooperative work of an Organization’s staff and the working
practices they devise to coordinate and organize their work is not to deny the
importance of the Organization of Work. Nor is it to ignore the interests of parties
concerned with the upkeep and maintenance of the Organization. It is to draw
attention to the socially organized arrangements of work which Organizational
programmes, plans, policies, procedures, requirements, etc., rely on for their
realization; real world, real time arrangements that are often ignored by work
analysts of all kinds.
33
The Requirements Problem
applicants. Screening was accomplished by the receptionists and clients were then
passed on to the interviewers in the other three sections who determined
qualifications, experience, skill, etc., and referred clients to suitable jobs. Blau
describes the workplace as follows.
All morning and most of the afternoon, long rows of men and women seeking
employment waited … to be screened by receptionists. Other clients were
seated in chairs waiting to be interviewed. Every few minutes, an interviewer
called a name, and a client arose and walked to his desk for an interview.
Telephone calls from employers frequently interrupted the interviews. One or
another official was always leaving his desk, either to search the files or to
consult a colleague.
According to formal accounts, organizing this constant movement of people
are the general procedures of work designed to meet the Department of
Employment’s objectives. These procedures comprise and regulate a centralized
programme of work. Summarily described, that programme consists of the
following general procedures.
q Requests for workers received from employers over the telephone must be
recorded on a form: the job order. All twenty-five categories of information on
this form must be completed. The most important category is a summary of
the qualifications required for the job. This includes a description of the tasks
the worker must perform, how he or she must perform them, the purpose of
these tasks, and the skills and responsibilities involved. Job orders are filed on
the basis of occupational code numbers obtained from a four-volume
codebook.
q When taking applications for jobs from clients, information relevant to the
categories of information on the job order is to be elicited and recorded on the
application form. The interviewer must then match the information on the job
order with that furnished by the applicant in order to select the client best
suited for a given vacancy. This matching procedure assures the selection of
the most qualified applicant among all those available for a job.
q Selected applicants are recalled to the office for a referral interview where the
requirements of the job are explained at greater length and the client is asked
to accept or reject it. Following acceptance, the employer is called to
determine whether the position is still open, and if so, a referral card is written.
q The last step in the placement process is confirmation that the referred client
has been hired, which must be obtained from the employer within two days of
the referral.
q Refusal to accept a suitable job without good cause, or failure to attend an
employer’s interview following referral, must be recorded and the client
disqualified from claiming income support.
Straightforward enough. As Blau describes it, however, the procedures used in
practice were “quite different”.
The local conditions in which work placement occurred, notably the needs of
the areas main employer - the clothing industry - gave rise to adjustments of
procedures in the interest of operating efficiency:
34
The Requirements Problem
the ground (Button and Harper 1996); of designing perfect solutions to the wrong
problems of work as it were (Crabtree et al. 2001a). That said the problem for the
analyst now becomes one of making the social organization of work – staffs’
cooperative work and organizing practices - visible and available to design
reasoning?
36
Even though design may be concerned with
developing a completely new system, under-
standing the context, the people, the skills they
possess, what kind of work redesign may be
involved, and more, are all important matters for
designers to reflect upon.
organizational theory assumes that the validity of its findings are guaranteed in the
use of scientific methods. Accordingly, organizational theory emphasizes the need
for rationally validated methods (generic analytic formats and mapping procedures)
– i.e., methods where the ‘validity’ of the matter is established prior to their
application to particular cases. Rationally validated methods determine how work is
to be described and analysed in design. As Hughes (1993) puts it,
They impose, by fiat, a version of reality insensitive to the ways in which the
social world is a meaningful one and one constructed by those who live within
it. In other words, [such] methods produce or construct the social reality they
intend to investigate as a discovering science through the methods themselves;
methods which do not so much discover facts about social life as construct a
version of that life by its methods.
As a consequence, and as Greenbaum points out, the rationalist mentality embedded
in methods of description so prevalent in the human sciences “keeps us from
looking at the essential issues in the workplace”; which is to say that rationalist
methodologies gloss and obscure the real world, real time character of work.
Recognition of this fact soon emerged in the case of organizational theory’s
candidacy. Accordingly, it was recognised that what collaborative systems design
required were not scientific credentials as it were, but approaches capable of
securing adequate reference to the real world, real time character of Work and
Organization (Knudsen et al. 1993).
In light of that need, designers have turned to the ‘interpretative’ traditions in
anthropology and sociology – traditions that eschew natural science modes of
inquiry.10 The requirement here was and is to devise methods
that provide access to the world experienced by social actors themselves and
methods appropriate to the phenomena being investigated. The catchword
might be, ‘fidelity to the phenomenon’, namely, the experiences and
knowledge social actors exhibit in the course of their daily lives … the prior
requirement of this is the development of a descriptive apparatus rather than
an explanatory one. (Hughes 1993)
The validity of any such apparatus depends not on a priori rationalizations but on
the adequacy of the results it produces in its deployment. Within the context of
design, and analysis of the design space in particular, any such apparatus will be
required to handle a variety of work domains and pay careful attention to the
subtleties of work in particular workplaces; subtleties that are too often obscured by
the generic formats employed to explain the social character of Work and
Organization and which predominate in the human sciences. Bound up with these
issues - which are concerned with describing work-in-context - are requirements to
identify cooperative work activities and their interdependencies. The implication
here is that the cooperative work of intended users is not readily packaged (as it has
___________
10
More precisely, such approaches eschew scientism, which sees the wanton
misuse of scientific methods in pursuit of the misguided idea that all things may be
adequately accounted for through the accomplishment of scientific practices.
38
Making Cooperative Work Visible
not as yet been described anywhere) but needs to be brought out in the analysis of
informal (i.e., non-technological) work descriptions. Placing an emphasis on
description in the effort to understand social life from the perspective of those
studied before stepping back to make a more detached assessment, ethnography
presented itself as a potential candidate providing a social point of view on the
referent system.
classic study, “I had periods of despondency, when I buried myself in the reading of
novels, as a man might take to drink in a fit of tropical depression and boredom.”
Figuring out where to start the study is more often than not experienced as
something of a daunting prospect, until the researcher realizes that where to start is
really not the issue as cooperation abounds and one can begin anywhere within the
boundaries of the design space. Starting somewhere is what counts. The researcher
who is concerned with ethnomethodological analysis should also bear in mind that
he or she cannot hope to have a clear enough sense of the work of the site to guide
the study and determine particular areas of relevance at the outset. This should not
be considered at all problematic since the ethnographer’s task is to uncover matters
of relevance, unfettered by preconceptions of what might be important. Why
unfettered by preconceptions? As the late Herbert Blumer (1969) pointed out, most
social science research, even much that is passed off as ethnographic, is not
designed to develop a close and intimate familiarity with the area of life under
study.11 Immersion in the field is often prefigured and directed towards abstract
problems rather than what thoroughgoing exploration and inspection of the daily
work of the site might have to say about such problems. Here the analyst might ask
whether or not prefigured problems exist as practical problems at the site? If so, in
what ways are they problematic for the site’s staff? What problems do the site’s
staff encounter in their work? How do staff manage and conduct their work
together? And so on?
In place of the flexible exploration and inspection of the site’s work –
exploration and inspection driven by that work – ethnographic inquiry is all too
often started with generic analytic formats which are employed to formulate a
research agenda and protocols for its investigation. In other words, generic analytic
formats are used to pose a research problem which may be explored through the
application of a particular set of research methods (such as task analysis, for
example). As Blumer pointed out, none of this provides for firsthand knowledge of
the work of the site however:
See how far one gets in submitting proposals for exploratory studies to fund-
granting agencies with their professional boards of consultants, or as doctoral
dissertations in our advanced graduate departments of sociology and
psychology! Witness the barrage of questions that arise: Where is your
research design? What is your model? What is your guiding hypothesis? How
are you operationalising the hypothesis? What are your independent and
dependent variables? What is your sample? What is your control group? And
so on. Such questions presume in advance that the student has the firsthand
___________
11
Herbert Blumer is, in a great many respects, the unsung hero of ethnographic
research, being a leading member of the influential Chicago School of Sociology
that instantiated the use of ethnography in urban environments in the late 1920’s
following the pioneering work of Malinowski and others in more exotic settings.
Blumer, in other words, was very much responsible for putting ethnography to work
in the study of our own workaday activities and his insights are as pertinent today
as they were when originally formulated.
40
Making Cooperative Work Visible
knowledge that the exploratory study seeks to secure. Since he doesn’t have it
the protocolised research procedure becomes the substitute for getting it!
Consequently, just what is seen through research protocol, is not a reflection of
cooperative work, but a function of the methods applied and the theorising done by
the researcher in applying them. As Blumer put it,
The questions that are asked, the problems that are set, the leads that are
followed, the kinds of data that are sought, the relations that are envisioned,
and the kinds of interpretations that are striven toward – all these stem from
the scheme of the research inquiry instead of from familiarity with the
empirical area under study.
If cooperative work and the practices whereby it is organized are to be made visible
and available to design reasoning, the researcher must set aside his or her
preconceptions and instead be faithful to the phenomenon, exploring and inspecting
Work and Organization as it is observably ‘put together’, constructed and
assembled by the Organization’s staff in their real time collaborations. How is the
researcher to be faithful to the real world, real time nature of cooperative work?
What does ‘doing being faithful’ to that phenomenon consists of in accomplishing
exploration and inspection of a site’s work?
Exploration
There are no fixed set of procedures for accomplishing exploratory work, as how
one comes to develop a familiarity with cooperative work will very much depend
on the nature of the work under study. Consequently, just about any ethically
acceptable array of techniques may be employed to explore the work of the site
insofar as they are appropriate to the study of that work. Like any member of the
ordinary society trying to discover the organization of work in a novel setting, the
researcher might engage in direct observation of the work, being a co-located party
to its accomplishment. He or she might be rather more remote, observing
interactions on video or listen to talk on audiotapes. She might engage in informal
talk or interviews with the site’s staff, or listen to their conversations in situ.
Personal biographies may be elicited. Group discussions conducted. Letters, diaries,
and records be consulted and discussed with parties to their production. To reiterate,
just how the researcher comes to develop an intimate familiarity with the work of
the site, will depend on the nature of the site’s work. The daily work of some sites
may practically exclude conducting informal interviews as the work unfolds, such
as in the doing of interrogations in courtrooms or police stations. Other sites may
exclude observation of participants’ work via video, such as in psychiatric centres
where ‘being watched’ may alarm inmates and trigger disturbing psychological
episodes. Further still, what of counselling sessions or doctor-patient interaction?
Just how the researcher goes about developing an intimate familiarity with the site’s
work is an open question to some extent, the limits of the extent being that he or she
develops a thoroughgoing familiarity with what goes on without upsetting,
offending, or jeopardizing the careers of parties to the work. Nonetheless, all that
matters at this stage is that by some means acceptable to the parties to the work, the
researcher develops ways of getting to know the work of the site.
41
Making Cooperative Work Visible
Exploration work is highly flexible then, and driven by the real world, real
time character of worksite activities in contrast to the requirements of
(pseudo)scientific protocol. While the misguided who harbour scientific pretensions
may be scornful of such a general procedure, treating firsthand observation as
peripheral, as soft science, or journalism even, there is nothing soft about
exploratory work. As Blumer put it,
The flexibility of exploratory procedure does not mean that there is no
direction to the inquiry; it means that the focus is originally broad but
becomes progressively sharpened as the inquiry proceeds.
What should be borne in mind, then, is that the initial phase of an ethnographic
study – exploration - is one of familiarising oneself with the work of the site. So, at
the outset, start anywhere, with any person that looks approachable and least likely
to be bothered by the presence of a researcher, and collect as much material as
possible of whatever sort is appropriate. In doing that, the researcher will find that
at some point relatively soon, a concrete understanding of the work of the site and
its organization will begin to emerge. He or she will then be able to decide where to
focus their efforts to cover the elements of the worksite most relevant to the broader
issues framing the research. It is important not to worry about issues of relevance at
this stage - they will be resolved with time and closer inspection.
Inspection
The purpose of exploration is to gain firsthand knowledge of the work of the site
and, thereby, to develop a concrete focus to the research; a focus that is emergent
from and shaped by real world, real time cooperative work. Over the course of
exploration, certain aspects of the work become more interesting than others.
Certain activities and work practices start to capture the researcher’s attention and
become more pronounced. Certain analytic themes begin to emerge, such as the real
world character of ‘interviewing’ in Blau’s study, for example. These emergent
categories of analysis start to direct the researcher’s inquiries. He or she starts to
inspect them in fine detail.
The procedure of inspection is to subject such analytic elements [as
‘interviewing’] to meticulous examination by careful flexible scrutiny of the
empirical instances covered by the analytical element.
In doing inspection, the researcher strives to understand emergent categories of
analysis as they are put together by members at the worksite in the course of the
activity’s occurrence. So the researcher starts to gather materials from the activity
in order to assemble instances of the activity actually being done and, thereby, to
subject the activity to close examination and scrutiny.
Assembling instances of the particular activities that comprise the daily work
of the site lies at the core of the inspection stage of ethnographic research. The
assembly of instances of particular worksite activities being done requires of the
ethnographer that he or she visit and re-visit the work of the site to fill in emergent
gaps in his or her knowledge of the work (video is an excellent tool to support
inspection). Just what is happening there? Just how? These are ever-present
questions in doing inspection and, indeed, those questions drive that work. The
42
Making Cooperative Work Visible
requirement to visit and re-visit the work of the site, to consult work as it is done in
order to fill in the gaps in one’s knowledge of it, stands in sharp contrast to a
standard academic practice of filling in gaps through the use of generic analytic
formats to interpret events that occur in the workplace (as will be elaborated in the
following sections). It might be said that if the researcher finds herself in a situation
of using generic analytic formats to interpret just what’s happening and how – that
is, of guessing, no matter how erudite the form – then she is going off track. That
occasions of interpretation emerge is not a bad thing in itself, however, as it might
also be said that the topic of one’s guesswork provides direction to the inspection
work. Insofar as guesswork is occasioned by this (interviewing in placing people in
jobs, say) then this (interviewing work) is what the researcher needs to go back to
and inspect in detail.
Ultimately, inspection work provides for the careful scrutiny of the work of the
site. Thus, instances of particular worksite activities actually being done constitute
the primary unit of analysis (although, as we shall see this is not always the case in
ethnographic research more generally). As Blumer described matters,
Inspection is the opposite of giving a ‘nature’ to the analytic element by
operationalising the element (for example, defining intelligence in terms of the
intelligence quotient). It seeks, instead, to identify the nature of the analytic
element by an intense scrutiny of its instances in the empirical world.
Before one can inspect anything, however, one must have materials with which to
assemble instances of work for inspection.
43
Making Cooperative Work Visible
hidden. Rather, gathering worksite materials consists of looking out for and
recording what is already in plain view. As Rouncefield et al. (1997) point out,
in ‘plain view’ … [means] that there is nothing to see which requires a special
method, a particular instrument, or a special capacity to find. The objective of
the fieldworker is to collect a record of what ordinarily in the ordinary course
of their activities, the persons involved in the setting do.
What kind of materials should be collected in order to make the work of the site
visible then? Well it could be said that whatever can be grabbed from the course of
staffs’ material work that makes the making of their ordinary activities observable
(remember, even the most routine of activities must be constructed anew each and
every time). Thus, in collecting worksite materials the ethnographer’s job is to
listen to the talk, watch what happens, see what people do, when, and where, to
write it down, tape it, copy what documents can be copied, and so on. The
following is an illustrative list of the sorts of useful worksite materials that can be
recorded and collected together.
q Activity or job descriptions.
q Rules and procedures (etc.) said to govern particular activities.
q Descriptions of activities actually being done.
q Recordings of the talk taking place between parties to the actual doing of
activities.
q Informal interviews with participants elaborating particular activities and the
skills, competences, troubles, and practical solutions involved in getting them
done.
q Diagrams of the material arrangement of the space and place within which
staff are located and related, and the arrangement of artefacts therein.
q Photographs of artefacts (documents, diagrams, forms, computers, etc.) used in
the course of activities actually being done.
q Videos of artefacts in actual use (in contrast to prescribe use).
q Descriptions of artefacts in actual use (how artefacts are actually used in
getting the work done).
q Workflow diagrams delineating the sequential order of tasks involved in the
actual doing of particular activities.
q Process maps delineating sequential connections between activities.
All these materials included, one of the most important piece of equipment in
the ethnographer’s toolkit is, without doubt, the notebook (or diary) in which
everything the ethnographer thinks is worth recording is initially put down.
Naturally, the important question is what should be recorded in the notebook and
otherwise attended to when exploring and inspecting worksite activities?
It is necessary, not only to note down those occurrences and details which are
prescribed by tradition and custom to be the essential course of the act, but
also the ethnographer ought to record carefully and precisely, one after the
other, the actions of the actors … With his attention constantly to this aspect
of tribal life, with the constant endeavour to fix it, to express it in terms of
44
Making Cooperative Work Visible
actual fact, a good deal of reliable and expressive material finds its way into
his notes. (Malinowski 1922)
While audio and video recordings are particularly useful pieces of equipment,
indeed essential, the humble notebook cannot be dispensed with. The notebook is of
such value because it is here that the ethnographer first records matters of potential
relevance in attending to and describing the actions of actors in the actual doing of
particular worksite activities, thus locating materials in the lived work of the site.
No matter how good support technologies become, they cannot attend to nor
describe the actions of actors anymore than they can identify matters of potential
relevance to design in doing so. Those actions are dependent on the judgement and
expertise of the ethnographer, on his or her sensitivity to the haecceities or lived
details of interaction and collaboration. While audio and video recordings are an
excellent way of preserving action for analysis and may be used to instruct others in
the organization of cooperative work, the humble notebook is of importance as it is
employed to develop a concrete sense of the cooperative work of a site and the
practiced ways in which that work is organized by parties to its accomplishment.
Typically, in the initial stages of fieldwork the notes will appear as little more
than random jottings about possibly interesting situations the ethnographer has
witnessed, snippets of conversation, sketches of what person X and Y did together,
situational vignettes, and so on. As the research progresses, and the researcher gains
a more informed sense of what is going on at the site, such notes may become
longer, more detailed, more structured and coherent. Cooperative topics or themes
(such as ‘interviewing’ in Blau’s study) begin to emerge as the researcher becomes
more and more familiar with the setting, and the research becomes more directed in
the sense that the ethnographer begins to get a better idea of what is important to the
research, what more there is to find out about particular activities and events, and
what more needs to be explored and inspected. Nonetheless, there is no intrinsic
value to the worksite materials gathered. Those materials become valuable insofar
as they can subsequently be made relevant to design through analysis and in terms
of what they show of, and thus allow the researcher to say about, the work of a
setting and its social organization.
interpreted on the basis of ‘what is known’ about the underlying pattern. Each
is used to elaborate the other.
Findings from the codification exercise are made publicly available through
the further use of the analytic format to represent the social organization of work.
Disengaged, impartial, matter of fact, generic analytic formats work through a
particular method of instruction or pedagogy that uses the analytic categories the
format’s narrative is made up of to describe workaday activities as orderly
enterprises (as activities organized in terms of ‘task groups’, ‘tasks’, ‘primitive
methods’, and the rest). Generic analytic formats are employed then, both in the act
of codification and in representing findings to others, to describe the real world
order of work and so configure the social organization of workaday activities in
terms of underlying, analytically available, structures of action (such as ‘task
structures’) which the format’s narrative articulates. Thus, generic analytic formats
are employed to make the social organization of work observable through
associating the components that make up the analytic structure of action (e.g. ‘task
groups’, ‘tasks’, ‘primitive methods’, etc.) with real world referents (ethnographic
descriptions of interviewing in the employment agency, say).
Once this way of analysing and talking about the social order is entertained, it
can be used to grab onto little bits of the observable society, reinterpreted as
illustrations of the master narrative. (Livingston unpub. manu.)
This is the pedagogy of ‘normative’ modes of ethnographic analysis (i.e.,
ethnographic approaches that employ generic analytic formats to describe, analyse
and represent the organization of work). Through the use of the method, texts are
constructed which instruct the reader how to see the social organization of
workaday activities. Such texts make the organization of work ‘instructably
observable’ by grabbing onto little bits of the observable society and using those
bits to elaborate a theoretically constructed account of their organization. These
accounts are over-arching, furnishing generic descriptions of workaday activities as
activities-organized-by-an-underlying-structure-of-action. They may be referred to
as constructive analytic accounts.
47
Making Cooperative Work Visible
The et cetera problem recognises that any generic form of account may be
indefinitely extended, although for practical purposes it must be brought to a close.
‘Et cetera’ does just that for practical purposes of writing (or talking) up an
explanation of action and its organization. It is just that point of closure that comes
into dispute, however, in assessing the adequacy of the description offered. More
may be added may it not? Or the adequacy of account itself may be challenged.
Consequently, a refined analytic format accounting for the social organization of
workaday activities is offered, or an alternate one is formulated, each of which is
brought to a close in just the same ways and in the same ways comes into dispute.
Such is the perennial nature of normative social science. Nothing ever gets settled
once and for all as talk proceeds at an abstract and general level under the
unremitting auspices of the et cetera problem. Rather than settling matters, new
intellectual fashions emerge under the et cetera clause that frames normative
discourse in the social sciences, all of which get conducted in the same fundamental
way (Button 1991). That is, through the construction of generic analytic formats in
the attempt to formulate adequate solutions to the et cetera problem; a never-ending
task brought about through the use of generic analytic formats in the first place.
Consequently, given the endless invocation of the et cetera clause brought about
through abstract accounting practices, it is by no means clear that the social
organization of a particular ensemble of workaday activities has been accounted for
when generic analytic formats are employed as instructions for locating and
observing that organization.
The notion of instruction is key: generic analytic formats employed to account
for the organization of activity X do not furnish adequate instructions for the
visibility of X’s organization as they do not describe the particular organizational
features implicated in X’s real world, real time accomplishment. Instead, X is used
as a real world referent to render the constructive analytic account of the
organization of X real worldly (Baccus 1989). Thus, one makes particular concrete
objects – e.g. X in the real world – versions of a generic object – e.g. a ‘task group’
- and in doing so secures a real world referent for a particular analytic structure of
action (e.g. a ‘task structure’). As Blumer (1969) put it,
this conventional protocol of scientific analysis is not suitable or satisfactory
for the kind of analysis that is needed in direct examination of the empirical
social world. Even though using the more realistic data yielded by exploration,
the conventional protocol of scientific analysis still forces such data into an
artificial framework that seriously limits and impairs genuine empirical
analysis.
The understanding or knowledge of workaday activities and their organization
generated by normative accounting practices is the product of the ethnographer’s
situated accomplishment of the work practices of constructive analysis. What we
see, then, is not how workaday activities are socially organized by parties to their
accomplishment but how they are said to be organized from the point of view of the
constructive analyst in furnishing accounts generated through the use of generic
analytic formats.
The source of these probative troubles lies in the treatment of composite
fieldwork descriptions or instances. As Garfinkel (1967) points out, coded results
48
Making Cooperative Work Visible
49
Making Cooperative Work Visible
swoop down on the bar. The problem was, every time they did this, they never
found any drugs, prostitution, fights, stabbings, or shootings. As Ed Rose put
it, society was out-to-lunch. Every time the police went to look, the action was
not there .. In classical sociology [and constructive analysis more generally],
society is similarly out-to-lunch.
This is not to ridicule or ironicise constructive analysis but to point out the
limitations of its work practices in the context of ethnographic study broadly
construed. As Armour (1997) puts it, practitioners of constructive analysis
have targeted innumerable phenomena for analysis and that the achievements
of [constructive analysis] are beyond dispute is attested to by its
bibliographies. It has targeted areas for analysis by ‘describing’, ‘specifying’,
‘testifying’, ‘showing’, ‘demonstrating’, and generally supplying adequate
grounds for inference. By its practices a phenomena of order is made
instructably observable.
Making the social organization of workaday activities instructably observable by
providing adequate grounds for inference from a text is the primary achievement of
constructive analysis. Being predicated on inference, the observability of
cooperative arrangements of work is thus provided for through reasonable courses
of instruction: the reasonableness of the matter consisting in the setting up and
association of indexical relations between underlying analytic structures and real
world referents.
Nevertheless, it is fair to say that we may entertain a well-grounded and
warranted problem with constructive analysis. We may do so in that, and precisely
because, the social organization of workaday activities has not yet been described in
the accomplishment of constructive analytic work practices. The classical practices
of constructive analysis systematically gloss, pass-by or obscure the social
organization of workaday activities under the auspices of ‘doing good scientific
work’. Consequently, instead of explicating the social organization of workaday
activities as that organization is observably produced in the day-to-day
collaborations of participants, and by participants, constructive analysis instead
configures the social organization of work as underlying structures (patterns,
processes, networks, and the rest) that are said to shape and thus organize workaday
activities. Constructive analytic structures take precedence and the setting under
study becomes yet another incidental area in which to observe such structures at
work. The ordinary society is, as such, invariably out-to-lunch.
Ultimately, the source of the probative troubles that beset ethnographic
analysis may be located in the substitution of the members’ perspective for the
professional analysts’. With that substitution goes the recognisable (observable and
reportable) social organization of workaday activities and in its place goes the
social organization of workaday activities as seen and understood through the
constructive analyst’s work practices; work practices which describe, analyse and
represent the social organization of workaday activities in terms of generic analytic
formats. In effecting this substitution - real world organization of work for
constructive analytic account of the real world organization of work - constructive
analysis makes the sociality of workaday activities the analyst’s problem. An
50
Making Cooperative Work Visible
alternate way of treating the issue is to see the ‘problem of order’, of social
organization or cooperation, as a members’ problem (Zimmerman and Wieder
1973). That is, as the problem of parties to interaction and the accomplishment of
workaday activities. The following section examines two distinct approaches to
ethnographic analysis that have come to prominence within CSCW by treating the
problem of order as a members’ problem.
51
Making Cooperative Work Visible
and Sacks, then, that there was a significant gap in the social science literature and
it is this that their pioneering work set out to address.
The gap in the literature provided a common focus for the study of naturally
organized (rather than theoretically organized) activities, providing the opportunity
to develop a rigorous empirical approach to the study of cooperative work and its
organization, particularly through exploring the notion of ‘member’.
The notion of ‘member’ is at the heart of the matter. We do not use the term
‘member’ to refer to a person. It refers instead to mastery of natural language,
which we understand in the following way.
We offer the observation that persons, in that they are heard to speaking a
natural language, somehow are heard to be engaged in the objective
production and objective display of commonsense knowledge of everyday
activities as observable and reportable phenomena. We ask what it is about
natural language that permits speakers or auditors, and in other ways to
witness, the objective production and objective display of commonsense
knowledge, and of practical circumstances, practical action, and practical
sociological reasoning as well? What is it about natural language that makes
these phenomena observable-reportable, i.e., account-able phenomena? …
The interests of [our] research are directed to provide, through detailed
analyses, that account-able phenomena are through and through practical
accomplishments. We shall speak of ‘the work’ of that accomplishment in
order to gain the emphasis for it of an ongoing course of action. ‘The work’ is
done as assemblages of practices … (Garfinkel and Sacks 1970)
With the notion of member, the missing interactional what of organizational studies
is specified as assemblages of work practices. Which is to say that naturally
organized workaday activities come to assume their distinctive character as
organized activities through discrete ensembles of work practices. Work practices
are made available as accountable phenomena – i.e., as observable empirical
phenomena that may be reported or described - through the naturally occurring talk
of parties to the work. Thus, the organization of cooperative work may be
accounted for empirically, and in the first instance, by attending to the talk of
parties to the work, and in the second instance, by explicating the work practices
made visible through that talk.
Conversation Analysis
Sacks approached the study of cooperative work and its organization through the
development of Conversation Analysis (CA). Without going into undue detail, it is
worth considering CA’s treatment of natural language and analysis of work practice
in order to appreciate the alternative approach developed by Garfinkel.12 At the
heart of CA stands the notion of the ‘turn-taking machine’ (Sacks et al. 1974;
Ruhleder and Jordan 1999).
___________
12
For a thorough review of Conversation Analysis see Lynch (1993).
52
Making Cooperative Work Visible
Turn-taking is used for the ordering of moves in games, for allocating political
office, for regulating traffic at intersections, for serving customers at business
establishments, and for talking in interviews, meetings, debates, ceremonies,
conversations, etc. … It is obviously a prominent type of social organization,
one whose instances are implicated in a wide range of other activities. (Sacks
et al. 1974)
Sacks and his colleagues observed that turn-taking was a significant feature of
naturally occurring conversation, which offered the prospect of accounting for the
organization of ordinary activities.
CA construes of natural language as a ‘speech exchange system’ which parties
to conversation employ to assemble and coordinate (i.e., to organize) interaction
through the allocation, management, and control of turns at talk. Sacks and his
colleagues wanted to find out how the speech exchange system enabled
conversationalists to do this. Examining audio-recordings of naturally occurring
talk, it was observed that in conducting conversations, speakers design their talk for
recipients by constructing turns. For example,
Jeanette: Oh you know, Mittie- Gordon, eh- Gordon, Mittie’s husband died
(0.3)
Estelle: Oh whe::n
Jeanette: Well it was in the paper this morning.
Estelle: It wa::s,
? Jeanette: Yeah
Such utterances are said to be made up of turn-constructional components, of which
there are a plethora of unit-types (see Sacks et al. 1974). Turn-constructional
components provide for turn-transition between speakers by providing a transition
relevance place (e.g. It wa::s?) in the unfolding flow of talk. In examining transition
relevance places a discrete group of turn constructional units called turn-allocation
components were identified. For example,
Sara: Ben you want some ( )?
Ben: Well all right I’ll have a,
((pause))
Sara: Bill you want some?
Bill: No.
Turn-allocation components are distributed into two groups: 1) those in which a
next turn is allocated by the current speaker selecting the next speaker (as above),
and 2) those in which a next turn is allocated by self-selection. Questions, greetings,
summonses, invitations, and more, are a special class of turn-allocation components
all of which select a particular recipient who may then speak next. Such utterances
are classed as adjacency pairs. Adjacency pairs consist, as the name suggests, of a
first-pair part (e.g. a question) which is connected to an adjacent second-pair part
(e.g. an answer). Not only do such devices select next speaker but they establish the
sense of the relevant type of action to be produced in response. This is not say that
the selected speaker will respond in the prompted way, only that turn transitions
53
Making Cooperative Work Visible
may, and often are, assembled and coordinated through the use of adjacency pairs.
Insofar as the selected speaker may not respond accordingly, adjacency pairs are
said to be ‘conditionally relevant’. That is, they organize turns at talk on condition
that the selected speaker also finds the prompted action relevant as well.
Alternately, persons engaged in conversation may self-select at the projected end of
the current speaker’s story, joke, answer, or any other type of utterance that does
not select a particular recipient.
The use of both groups of turn -constructional units is governed by some basic
rules for their application. Sacks et al. (1974) described these rules as follows:
For any turn, at the initial transition relevance place of an initial turn-
constructional unit:
If the turn-so-far is so constructed as to involve the use of a ‘current
speaker selects next’ technique, then the party so selected has the right
and is obliged to take next turn to speak; no others have such rights or
obligations, and transfer occurs at that place.
If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a ‘current
speaker selects next’ technique, then self-selection for next speakership
may, but need not, be instituted; first starter acquires rights to a turn, and
transfer occurs at that place.
If the turn-so-far is so constructed as not to involve the use of a ‘current
speaker selects next’ technique, then current speaker may, but need not
continue, unless another self-selects.
If, at the initial transition relevance place of an initial turn-constructional unit,
neither 1a nor 1b has operated, and, following the provision of 1c, current
speaker has continued, then the rule-set a-c reapplies at the next transition
relevance place, until transfer is effected.
These rules constrain each of the turn-taking options they provide and are
constrained by one another, defining in their use participants rights and obligations
to speak and listen. Thus the rule-set ensures that the normative conversational
order ‘one speaker at a time’ is produced and accomplished in conversational
settings of all kinds.
Naturally, there are periods in any conversation when more than one speaker
speaks, when interruptions are made, and when turns at talk are violated in various
ways. Nonetheless, the operation of the rule-set ‘repairs’ violations and restores
normative order. If, for example, a current speaker selects a next speaker (Rule 1a)
and he or she fails to respond, then the current speaker, or some other participant,
may employ components in compliance with the options provided by Rule 1c. The
rule-set not only supports the production and accomplishment of a normative
conversational order, then, but also provides for the maintenance of that order in its
in vivo production. Consequently, Sacks et al. described the basic device organizing
talk as an “interactionally managed, party-administered, local management system”.
It is a local management system in that the turn construction and allocation
components and rules comprising the device allow turn-size and turn-order to vary
according to the local circumstances of conversations’ production, across variations
of participation, and in the face of violations. It is interactionally managed in that
54
Making Cooperative Work Visible
What the talk makes available in observable and reportable details of real
world work practice is that applying transcription symbols is not simply a matter of
mapping the empirical features of talk but a matter of skill and judgement. Just
what does a particular symbol mean? Just when should it be applied and just how?
By way of an answer instructions for the application of transcript symbols are
furnished in CA’s shoptalk (and its texts). In other words the application of
transcription symbols relies on the use of coding instructions which ‘tell’ the user
just how to apply them. Once signs – such as latching symbols - have been attached
to natural language utterances and workaday activities alike through coding it
becomes possible to identify the organization of work (e.g. the turn-taking
machinery in use). The organized character of workaday activities is not so much
made visible through CA then, as rendered apparent through the treatment of
natural language utterances as signs which function to index a presumed underlying
organization of work. CA conducts its daily business not through the explication of
the work practices organizing workaday activities then, but rather, through the
production and interpretation of signs (Garfinkel and Wieder 1992). In other
words, and as Lynch (1993) notes, when pressed, CA is only logically empirical. Its
technologies of production, particularly transcript notation and (of late) Interaction
Analysis (Jordan and Henderson 1995), lend an illusion of rigorous empirical work
which hides a very conventional art (Crabtree 2001a).
Ethnomethodological Analysis
Instead of asking what the turn-taking machinery is doing when members take turns
at talk, pace Conversation Analysis, an alternate approach to the analysis of
cooperative work through natural language use might be to ask what members are
doing when they do taking turns at talk? Lynch (1993) suggests that this analytic
orientation refocuses attention on talk to the work done through talking. As Michael
Moerman (1992) puts it,
talk is not an object of study in its own right. Talk is, rather, the locus,
accomplice, and accomplisher of social organization.
Talk, in other words, is a tool that people use to get their activities done together.
As Wittgenstein (1992) reminds us, in their capacity as tools “words are also
deeds”. Thus, the concern with talk becomes one of what is being done in and
through talking; a matter that goes to the heart of collaborative systems design as it
is the work not the talk of computer users that computers will be embedded in, just
as their talk is embedded in and reflexively elaborates that work. Rather than ask
what it is about talk that engenders coordination then, refocusing the issue directs
our attention to the work people do together in and through talking, thereby
coordinating their actions. Of course the question is: just how might work practice
be analysed through talk then?
Rather than employ some generic analytic format (such as a transcription
format or a classification scheme) the analyst might instead attend to the
conversational formulations produced by members in their talk together (Garfinkel
and Sacks 1970). As Garfinkel and Sacks point out,
56
Making Cooperative Work Visible
by users in collaboration with help desk staff), and particularly the canonical work
of Robert Taylor (1968), suggest that information requirements are identified in
such situations through sophisticated methods of interrogation.
These methods are difficult to describe, indeed some believe they are
indescribable … [Because] We are dealing here, of course, with a very subtle
problem – how one person tries to find out what another person wants to
know, when the latter cannot describe the need precisely … The negotiation of
reference questions is one of the most complex acts of human communication.
In this act, one person tries to describe for another person not something he
knows, but rather something he doesn’t know. (Taylor 1968)
Taylor described the work of interrogation as ‘filtering work’, which consists
of translating expressions of the information requirement provided by users into
descriptions that fit the library catalogue’s organization. The work of translation is
said to be organized by passing expressions of the information requirement through
five filters, which articulate 1) the general character of the search, 2) the user’s
interest and 3) motivation, 4) the relationship of the inquiry to the catalogue’s
organization (e.g. to literature, science, art, etc.), and 5) what might constitute an
acceptable answer to the query (e.g. information on a particular topic, such as
quantum physics). In providing a constructive analytic account, however, we are
not told how expressions are passed through these five filters and so in the context
of the design case the need arose to inspect the accomplishment of filtering work
directly. The following sequence of naturally occurring talk at the help desk
involves two users and one member of staff. While occurring in a specific setting
and for specific purposes, the organization of that talk provides methodological
insights for the analysis of cooperative work more generally.
Two users approach the help desk.
1. Sarah: Could you tell us where market - what was it - market intelligence?
2. Lisa: Yeah.
3. Sarah: Market intelligence?
4. Sylvia: Marketing is C floor. (Staff points to the OPAC system located at
help the desk) Do you know how to use the screens?
5. Lisa: Yeah but,
6. Sylvia: You need to find the classmark for the book. (Sylvia leaves the help
desk, leads Lisa and Sarah over to a nearby OPAC terminal, and initiates a
title search).
7. Lisa: It’s not a book.
8. Sarah: It’s like information, information about these particular products and
services. It’s called market intelligence and leisure intelligence et cetera et
cetera.
9. Sylvia: And is that the name of,
10. Sarah: That’s the name – market intelligence and leisure intelligence. It’s
not a book as such. It’s usually in the reference library.
11. Sylvia: Is, is it a serial?
12. Lisa: Yeah.
13. Sylvia: It’s a serial. (Sylvia initiates a serial search on OPAC)
58
Making Cooperative Work Visible
59
Making Cooperative Work Visible
60
Making Cooperative Work Visible
___________
13
Photographic and video material is particularly useful when addressing
accomplishment level two and may be interwoven with members’ formulations to
elaborate the material resources and artefacts implicated in the work (Crabtree
2001b).
62
Making Cooperative Work Visible
The third accomplishment level requires that the analyst describe the work
practices made visible by members’ formulations and relevant non-vocal actions.
The analyst may achieve this by attending to two general features of work. In the
first instance, the analyst may note that work is sequentially organized, having a
beginning, a middle, and end at its most basic level. In the second instance, and
insofar as work has a beginning, middle and end, then work might be said to be
composed of component events. The organization of cooperative work might be
explicated then, by attending to the sequential structure of work and describing the
component events that structure is made up of.
Technically, social phenomenon are not simply sequential organizations
consisting of component events. They are, in addition, 1) situated; 2) available
to inspection by and to be done by members; 3) contingent practical
achievements; 4) unavoidably collaborative; 5) practiced productions – those
practices being ‘unique’ or essentially tied to the phenomenon’s production; 6)
those unique practices visibly provide in the course of the phenomenon’s
occurrence for its analysability; 7) they contingently occasion practical
troubles which are repaired in ‘characteristic detail’ as a feature of their stable
achievement. (Garfinkel unpub. manu. 2)
As Garfinkel points out, description of the component events that make up the
sequential structure of work serves to elaborate the unique work practices through
the accomplishment of which workaday activities come to assume their distinctive
organized character. It is, for example, through the concerted formulation of
specifically vague descriptions, preliminary and more specific information
requirement categories, and the appeal to the user’s search history in times of
trouble, that filtering work in the library comes to assume its distinctive character as
an organized job of cooperative work. Furthermore, it is through the
accomp lishment of these work practices that filtering work is made into a stable
achievement – an activity that may be undertaken time and again, day after day, and
which others may be trained in and for other reasons instructed in if needs be. This
is not to say that work practice is immutable, after all, the historical development of
the library instructs us that work practice changes over time. It is to say that given
the current Organization of Work in some setting, the work of the site is stably
organized through a particular assemblage of work practices that the analyst may
identify through direct observation of the work and description of accomplishment
levels one through to three.14
The notion of thick description is not to be taken as a claim to have furnished a
complete and exhaustive description of all the factors involved in work’s
organization. As Ryle reminds us, “there is no top step on the stairway of
accomplishment levels” and so any description may be infinitely extended. For
purposes of studying and analysing cooperative work, however, the assembly and
___________
14
In keeping with the edicts of Ryle’s original exposition, the unique focus on the
‘description of accomplishment levels’, rather than on the ‘inscription of structures
of signification’, sets this reading of the notion of thick description apart from
Clifford Geertz’s popular misreading of Ryle’s work.
63
Making Cooperative Work Visible
___________
15
Naturally, when dealing with a discrete ensemble of workaday activities,
instances must be assembled to analyse the individual workaday activities that
make up that ensemble or working division of labour (Crabtree 2000a). Instances
‘latch together’ to elaborate the working division of labour and in doing so,
elaborate the flow of work through the division of labour. Thus instances may be
employed to illuminate both discrete work processes and information processes in
the workplace while preserving the naturally organized ways in which those
processes are produced (Crabtree et al. 2001). In this way instances support the
production of design abstractions which are grounded in the actual organization of
work. In all cases, the social organization of work may be analysed through the
assembly of instances meeting the requirements of accomplishment levels one
through to three, whether the setting is small or large in scale (Christensen et al.
1998).
16
It might be argued that the method of analysis outlined above constitutes a
generic analytic format. This is not the case however, for while it provides a general
64
Making Cooperative Work Visible
___________
format for analysing and identifying the organization of cooperative work in a wide
range of settings, it is content free. It provides no analytic categories with which to
describe work but instead instructs the analyst to attend to certain features of work
in order to conduct description and analysis. Just what the organization of work will
look like is not preconfigured, then, but left to the analyst to explicate by following
the instructions. The problem of constructive analysis is thus avoided.
17
It may seem strange to think of the objects of natural science (and mathematics)
as having a genetic origin in human praxis. A momentary pause for reflection
reminds us however, that is only in and through their collaborative work that
scientists (and mathematicians) make their discoveries of independent Galilean
objects (Garfinkel et al. 1981). It is in this respect, then, that it makes sense to speak
of independent Galilean objects being produced in, and recognised through, human
praxis. The natural sciences are as much fields of practical action as any thing else
and subject to work study as such (ibid.).
65
Making Cooperative Work Visible
independent Galilean objects only exist as a result of human praxis. That human
praxis casts and recasts the real world of things concrete. Rather it is draw attention
to what we already know but too often forget, namely that the real world of things
concrete only exists for human beings as a result of human praxis, and as praxis
changes so does our understanding of the real world of things concrete. Thus,
independent Galilean objects are cultural objects through and through; objects
which are accountably constituted in and through human praxis. Independent
Galilean objects and human work practices are intertwined creatures then, and it is
recognition of this irremediable relationship that underpins the strong notion of
Lebenswelt Pairs (Garfinkel et al. 1981).
Specifically, for any independent Galilean object, the first segment of a
Lebenswelt Pair of segments – the instance - is a description of the lived work
involved in the object’s observable and reportable production and recognition
(Garfinkel unpub. manu. 3). Thus, the strong notion of Lebenswelt Pairs situates
description in discrete assemblages of materially embodied work practices, in
contrast to abstract rules of method, bodies of ideas, formulae, formal structures,
generic analytic formats, and other theoretical and metatheoretical formulations
regarding the social organization of workaday activities (Lynch 1993). As such,
instances may be viewed as
Corrigible claims written as sketch accounts [which are to be] read
praxiologically as first segments of lebenswelt pairs (Garfinkel and Wieder
1992).
Garfinkel (1996) elsewhere describes the significance of this statement as follows.
In endlessly many disciplines, as local occasion demands, practitioners are
required to read descriptive accounts alternately as instructions …
The [Ethnomethodological] EM catalogue examines … various ways in
which an account … can be read alternatively so that the reading provides for
a phenomenon in two constituent segments of a pair: 1) the-first-segment-of-a-
pair, which consists of a collection of instructions; and 2) the work, just in any
actual case of following which somehow turns the first segment into a
description of the pair.
Call 2) the-second-segment-of-a-pair. Call the pair an instructed action,
and call the work of reading a descriptive account, as related constituents of an
instructed action, “praxiologizing” descriptive accounts.
For both technologies of social analysis [Constructive Analysis and EM]
… somehow is key. Both CA and EM are preoccupied with … empirically
specifying praxiologizing’s work. Both seek to replace somehow with an
instructably observable just how. Each does so with distinctive policies and
methods …
Characteristically, CA does the specifying job by designing and
administering generically theorised formats … EM does the specifying job
differently … [in describing the] haecceities that constitute … the phenomenal
fields of ordinary human ‘jobs’ … as work-site specific practices of shopwork
and shoptalk.
66
Making Cooperative Work Visible
With praxiologizing’s work we reach the nub of what the probative description of
cooperative work amounts to and turns upon. As noted earlier, constructive analysis
attempts to make the social organization of work instructably observable and thus
publicly available through inference from generic analytic formats. In sharp
contrast, in assembling instances as first segments of Lebenswelt Pairs,
ethnomethodology attempts to make independent Galilean objects instructably
observable through description of sequential orders of lived work and the unique
work practices involved in that object’s (e.g. filtering work’s) actual production and
recognition. Treated in the reading as instructed actions, the sequential orders of
cooperative work practices described by the instance display the object and make it
recognisable: the reader may go out and look and see 1) if the object exists and 2) if
the description of its organization is correct. The recognisability of the object
provides for the corrigibility of the account, which in turn provides for its
validation.
Thus, the validity of organizational accounts is provided for by practitioners
rather than by abstract a priori criteria specified by analysts who have neither
encountered nor considered the particular job of work in question. Practitioners
possess the practical know-how to produce and recognise the object described and
may, therefore, concur with or refute its description. Probativeness turns on the
description of the practical competence and expertise whereby membership is
produced and recognised, then, in the craftful accomplishment of workaday
activities, and not in abstract principles of method. The ethnomethodologically-
informed ethnographer’s job is to represent that craft in coherent details of the
unique work practices made visible in members’ shopwork and shoptalk. It might
otherwise be said that when investigating cooperative work in some setting and
accounting for its organization, the ethnographer must satisfy the unique adequacy
requirement.
The insistence that the work analyst eschew normative methods (i.e., constructive
analytic practices) and develop ‘vulgar competence’ in the cooperative work under
study is an insistence that the analyst be able to recognise work practice as members
recognise it in the first instance. In other words, it is an insistence that the analyst
develop an intimate familiarity with the cooperative work under study such that he
or she can see the endogenous sense of just what is being said and done, and in the
ways that it is being said and done. This requirement sits uncomfortably with
normative social science, which prefers to gloss over work practice and predicate
organizational change on what ought to be given the ideological agenda of the day.
The simple fact remains, however, that appropriate organizational change cannot be
implemented if the object of change is not explicitly and adequately understood in
the first instance (Sharrock 1980). With an eye towards implementing appropriate
organizational change through technology design, the development of a vulgar
competence in the work practice under study enables the analyst to deliver an
account of the social organization of work in coherent detail – i.e., an account that
is intelligible to competent members or practitioners and which may corroborated
by them.18
An example may help the reader appreciate the fundamental importance of
developing vulgar competence in work practice in order to satisfy the unique
adequacy requirement. Paul ten Have tells us of the following study:
A few years ago, in a data session in Amsterdam, we were discussing some
materials on a medical consultation’s diagnostic phase. The patient voiced a
number of complaints and we felt that the physician was not taking some of
these up. One of us, however, Charon Pierson, of the School of Nursing of the
University of Hawaii and a student and collaborator of Britt Robillard, used
her professional expertise to point out that some of his subsequent questions
were motivated by some of the complaints we thought he did not attend to. In
other words, from a professional perspective, he was working on those
complaints, but this was not noticeable for us, non-medical overhearers, and
indeed for the patient. So from a Conversation Analytic perspective, we could
understand some of the patient’s repetitions of her complaints as dealing with
‘notable absences’ on the doctor’s part, while we were not getting the fine
details of his ‘diagnostic work’ qua professional practice. (Email
communication cited in Crabtree 2000b)
Charon Pierson was, and is, vulgarly competent in the work practice under study,
that’s why she could hear and otherwise recognise what was going on and why the
other analysts could not (or rather, could only recognise that aspect of the work that
fell under their competence as ordinary memb ers of society; competence they
___________
18
Corroboration may be conducted by presenting studies to members/users or,
alternately, by conducting end-user experiments on prototypes based on work
studies and designed to support members’ work-practices. This latter method may
be more useful to design as it engages the real experts in work’s accomplishment in
direct analysis of the design space. See Chapter 4 for further details.
68
Making Cooperative Work Visible
69
Making Cooperative Work Visible
70
Making Cooperative Work Visible
71
The problem is a methodological one – one of
developing policies and practices of discovering
the social practices in and through which an
organization’s daily business is conducted, and
of relating that discovery in some intelligible
and useful way to designers.
Jon O’Brien
3. Work Studies and Design
Ethnomethodological studies of work are often simply referred to as ethnographic
studies in a design context. In a social science context the term ethnography
delineates little more than a distinction between quantitative and qualitative
methods of social research. As Shapiro (1994), commenting on the limits of
ethnography in CSCW describes matters,
While ‘ethnography’ as a term strikes a useful contrast to traditional methods
of requirements capture, within sociology and anthropology themselves it
denotes rather little. It marks a distinction between quantitative and qualitative
approaches to social science and carries with it a commitment to a period and
degree of immersion in the social setting being studied that is sufficient to
reach a qualitative understanding of what happens there. These are important
matters, but beyond this, ethnography can be put to the service of virtually any
theoretical school: there are, for example, functionalist, structuralist,
interactionist, Weberian and Marxist ethnographies.
This is not the place to explore the differences between such schools of thought. It
is the place, however, to note that the term ethnography denotes neither a unified
method nor a coherent school of thought. Rather, and as Shapiro makes clear, the
term ethnography is a gloss on various and different analytic formats.19 In turning
to ethnography, systems designers are not turning to some distinct coherent entity
then, but to a varied and competing array of analytic formats, not all of them
theoretical in character. One such framework is the ethnomethodological one which
has, to use a phrase of Shapiro’s, ‘dominated CSCW’ in light of Lucy Suchman’s
pioneering work in the field of human-computer communication (Suchman 1987).
As Shapiro puts it in accounting for the format’s purchase in design,
ethnomethodology sets for itself a strict agenda which separates it in certain
ways from most mainstream social science. It insists on a rigorously
descriptive rather than theoretical program, or an explanatory one (in the sense
that most social sciences would understand it). This lends it its strength in
producing rich descriptions of work-in-context
___________
19
One such format of some prominence in HCI and CSCW alike is provided by
Activity Theory (Kuutti 1996). Activity theorists often employ ethnography as a
means of studying their unit of analysis – i.e., activity – in the first instance. In the
second instance they seek to analyse the ethnographic data they gather in terms of
the constructs from which the theory is composed. Constructs such as ‘actions’,
‘operations’, ‘motives’, ‘goals’, and ‘tasks’, etc. In other words, activity theorists
use the generic analytic format furnished by Activity Theory to code and classify the
ethnographic data and thereby grab onto little bits of the real world in order to
render the theory real worldly. The accounts of work practice produced through the
use of Activity Theory – and any other generic analytic format employed to analyse
ethnographic data – are thus subject to the problem of constructive analysis outlined
in Chapter 2.
72
Work Studies and Design
73
Work Studies and Design
tailored to suit the satisficing character of design. Recognition of this need has seen
the development of a number of discrete yet complimentary strategies, tailoring
ethnography to meet the demands of the design process. These include quick and
dirty ethnography, concurrent ethnography, evaluative ethnography, and re-
examination of studies (Hughes et al. 1994).
Short
Short
Short
focus
Shortfocus
focus
focus DEBRIEFING MEETINGS
studies
studies
studies
studies
Scoping document
Quick and dirty studies are designed to help designers develop a ‘picture’ of the
workplace in a relatively short time frame and, in so doing, support their strategic
decision making in selecting aspects of work that are important to design. Quick
and dirty studies do not set out to furnish an exhaustive view on the work of the site
but instead seek to map and make visible through the assembly of instances the
working division of labour, the work activities it is composed of, and the major
interdependencies between activities of work. Quick and dirty studies provide a
broad understanding of the work domain in a relatively short period of time (the
relativity of the matter depending on the size of the Organization being studied and
designed for). They provide an informed sense of what the work is like and what it
consists of and may be built upon in an iterative design life cycle to provide a more
focused investigation of the work of the site by undertaking concurrent
ethnographic studies.
74
Work Studies and Design
Concurrent Ethnography
Concurrent ethnography is a parallel process in which investigation of work and
systems design proceed at the same time. Concurrent ethnography was originally
configured to precede design. There is no good reason to exclude design from
pursuing its own inquiries as to systems use in the first instance and the process
may be adapted accordingly.
Ethnographic Systems
study DEBRIEFING MEETINGS
development
System
prototype
Evaluative Ethnography
Evaluative ethnography is a more focussed version of quick and dirty ethnography;
which is to say that it does not require a prolonged period of fieldwork. The purpose
of evaluative ethnography is provide a ‘sanity check’ of design proposals or of an
existing prototype, where analytic emphasis is placed on establishing the ‘work-
ability’ of the proposed design solution – i.e., to assess the proposed solution’s
efficacy in relation to the actual performance of work. Evaluation studies are not
intended to be exhaustive but rather, to assess the prima facie viability of technical
75
Work Studies and Design
solutions as seen and understood from the point of view of work’s accomplishment
and to identify problematic issues that may subsequently emerge. Evaluation
studies may also be extended to support more rigorous assessments of a developed
prototype (an issue that will be addressed in due course).
Short ethnographic
study
DEBRIEFING MEETINGS
Amended design
or specification
Re-examination of Studies
This is an entirely different order of ethnographic usage, emergent from wider
research endeavours. The purpose here is to assemble a corpus of studies that may
be drawn upon to identify common issues across a variety of domains. Such
findings may be used to sensitise designers to common arrangements of cooperation
in various workplaces and to issues that may therefore be of relevance in particular
kinds of design undertaking. Experience in the field also suggests that it may be
useful to re-examine studies as and when particular problems in a design project
emerge. Being a satisficing activity, oversights are made, aspects of work are
disregarded, certain issues are put on hold or ruled out of scope for the time being,
and so on, and re-examining previous studies conducted in the course of a project
can, on occasion, be a productive way of addressing obstinate design problems.
These four strategies should not be understood as laying out mutually
exclusive or rigidly demarcated approaches to the study and analysis of cooperative
work in design. On the contrary, the four modes of investigation are intended to
complement and shade into one another as design work demands. In contrast to
ethnography’s employment in a social science context, none of the above
approaches require prolonged periods of immersion in the field. While this may be
disconcerting to social science purists, it should be understood and taken seriously
76
Work Studies and Design
that the point of work study in design is not to conduct social science research for
its own sake. Rather, the point is to develop social science ‘methods’ (i.e. analytic
perspectives) in order that designers may develop an awareness of the real world
character of work and do so in a manner that fits in with and enhances their day-to-
day working practices. As Hughes et al. (1994) remind us here,
much can be learned from relatively short periods of fieldwork. Indeed, within
the context of design, and we emphasise this, diminishing returns to fieldwork
set in relatively quickly. In other words, fieldwork of prolonged duration is not
always necessary in that it would be more effective to direct that effort in
accordance with design objectives.
The turn to the social, and ethnomethodologically-informed ethnography in
particular, is not in itself a turn to prolonged courses of social research in design,
but to adapted social science ‘methods’ to provide perspicuous representations of
the sociality of work within the constraints of, and for the for purposes of, design.
Ethnography, as Sharrock (2000) points out, has no strategic role to play in design
then. It offers no radical transformations of design practice (as some have
promised), but acts as the designer’s eyes and ears on the ground. The practical
strategies outlined above represent primary configurations of an empirical approach
to describing, analysing and representing the sociality of work within the flow of
design work . Although these configurations have proved to be effective ways of
weaving ethnographic insights into the design process, they have not passed without
complaint from some quarters, however.
Bardram (1996) suggests, for example, that the ethnographic strategies
outlined above create a problem of
one-way communication between users and designers, meaning that
information is floating from the work practices to the designer, but no
information about the future technology, the use of computers etc., is floating
back to the future users in the workplace.
This is not entirely true as ethnographers often act as communicative agents
between users and designers in the course of conducting fieldwork. Telling users
why they are being studied, for what reasons, and towards what ends, is an essential
part of getting access to the worksite and getting permission to study the work.
Neither is the problem of one-way communication a problem for design per se but
for Participatory Design (Schuler and Namioka 1993). Participatory Design is
dedicated to involving users directly and actively in the process of design. While
ethnography has no objection to direct user involvement in the design process, the
economic realities of design often mitigate against this, as leading advocates of the
Participatory Design movement are well aware (Grønbæk et al. 1997).20
Nonetheless, the problem of one-way communication, and thus the separation of
users and designers, is a significant problem to be reckoned with and it is in this
respect that ethnography has been charged (quite rightly) with misrepresenting itself
as a ‘proxy user’ (Kyng 1995). Such criticisms come in light of comments to the
___________
20
Information about the use practice is not, after all, a free a product in design.
77
Work Studies and Design
effect that ethnographers may act as ‘users champions’ in the early stages of design
(Bentley et al. 1992). More considered reflections on the ethnographer’s role in the
design process recognise that the ethnographer can never know the work domain as
users know it (Hughes et al. 1993). However, it is not (or should not be) the
ethnographer’s responsibility to speak on behalf of or represent users in the political
sense of the word (and Participatory Designers are deeply concerned with the
politics of representation as will be addressed in due course). The ethnographer’s
responsibility is, instead and quite legitimately, one of representing the sociality of
the job in the descriptive and ethical sense of the word (ethical in sense of being
faithful to phenomena and thus describing it a practically adequate fashion, and in
the sense of not putting the persons observed at risk of sanction, etc.). Representing
the sociality of work requires the ethnographer to explicate the work practices
whereby the coordination of workaday activities gets done, day in and day out and
by different production cohorts or members of staff. Thus, the ethnographer is
concerned with portraying those features of work that tie individuals together,
which maintain regardless of particular individuals, and which individuals may,
therefore, find it very difficult to articulate (Crabtree 1998). Knowledge of the
cooperative work practices through which work is organized by parties to the work,
whether those parties be co-located or distributed across space and time, is what the
ethnographer brings to design. The ethnographic methods and strategies outlined
above provide tried and tested methods for accomplishing this goal.
The effort to bring an awareness of the cooperative aspects of work to bear on
design has prompted further complaints from design practitioners regarding the link
between studies of work and design. As one computer scientist describes matters
here,
Look, I don’t care about all this ethno babble, just tell me what to build! All
you ever do is tell me stories. Why is this useful? What can I do with it?
(Cited in Crabtree et al. 1997)
Ethnographers in the field originally responded to the challenge in one of two ways,
attempting to address the requirements problem on the one hand and contesting
ownership of the problem on the other, arguing that it was and is no part of
ethnography’s remit to come up with design solutions. Ethnography’s role is to
‘impart knowledge’ as to the cooperative work of intended users, not to ‘give form’
to potential design-solutions supporting that work (Plowman et al. 1995).
It might be said that those who contested ownership of the problem were right
to do so only in the sense that ethnographers rarely possess the n ecessary technical
competence to formulate design solutions on their own. After all, what constitutes a
solution very much depends on the technology being developed, on the purpose of
design, on the often divergent needs of users, and on a host of other contingent
Organizational factors. The ethnographer cannot sit down, then, and analyse a work
study with an eye towards formulating design solutions as just what constitutes a
solution will be the outcome of considering a host of contingent factors (social,
technical, economic, political, and the rest). This, however, does not rule out a
constructive role for ethnography in the formulation of design solutions. Adopting
any such role will require that ethnographers move beyond ‘imparting knowledge’
to directly inform the construction of design-solutions in collaboration with the
78
Work Studies and Design
other parties to systems development. Indeed, it could be argued with good reason
that satisfying that requirement is essential to the approach’s long-term inclusion in
design. As Shapiro (1993) puts it,
Any role at all for sociologists [anthropologists or ethnographic work analysts
in general] in this field rests on their claim to being in a better position to
identify particular aspects of “what is really going on” in a given field of work
and “what is really the problem” that people encounter in doing it. If this claim
is not sustainable then sociologists [etc.] have no contribution to make to
systems design.
If ethnography cannot actively and constructively support system developers in the
reorganization of work through technology design rather than run for cover then it
has no business in the field. While rightly leaving the actual production of design
solutions to designers, ethnographers are nevertheless obliged to assume a
constructive role in design if their craft is to be of any lasting utility. This means
that the ethnographer will have to rid him or herself of disciplinary baggage and
become a bricoleur in design practice.
79
Work Studies and Design
driven approach. Use-cases define the work a system should support by describing
the different users or more specifically ‘actor nodes’ of a system, whose work is
defined through a number of ‘use-case nodes’ which combine to form a use-case
model. Actors exist outside the system, whereas use-cases exist inside the system.
Actor nodes are connected to use-case nodes through ‘communication arcs’, which
allow stimuli to be sent between ‘instances’ of the actor classes and use-cases
classes the model is composed of. Instances of actor classes are sequences of
actions engaged in by users in the course of performing particular activities,
withdrawing money from a cash dispenser for example. Instances of use-case
classes are sequences of actions pro duced by the machine in response to user
actions, instructing users to input PIN code, specify the amount of money to be
withdrawn, and checking the user’s balance before issuing money, for example.
Thus, use-cases are sequenced design solutions to sequences of user actions and
interactions. Use-cases are envisioned courses of machine response to concrete user
actions performed on and through a system. They are produced through
observations of work, which are used to sketch out potential design-solution. As
Jacobson describes matters,
Use-case modelling is an important tool to develop an outside view of a
system. Combined with other techniques for human-computer interaction, it
will help us build systems with high usability. Furthermore, it is a powerful
means of communication between different kinds of people participating in
the development work, such as orderers, users, requirements analysts,
designers, and testers.
Formulated use-case models are subsequently employed to construct a formal
analysis model, a design model, an implementation model, and a testing model
(Jacobson et al. 1992). The Coherence Method takes the notion of use-case
modelling, combines it with the viewpoints approach and applies it to the
ethnographic record. Modelling proceeds from the plans and procedures viewpoint
(i.e., from the Organizational viewpoint) but describes observable-reportable
workflows, collaborations, and the artefacts used in terms of sequence diagrams,
thus reconciling formal Organizational requirements with the actual circumstances
of work. The production of sequence diagrams enables designers to identify
sequential orders of action that are the focus of support in design (see Figure 11, for
example). Having identified sequential orders of work, designers may then set
about formulating use-cases to support those sequences of practical action.
Despite its appeal to the engineering mentality, the Coherence Method is not
without its problems. As Sommerville and Viller put it,
Whilst it could be claimed that Coherence has removed the communication
problem between sociologists and software engineers, the effect has been to
shift the problem from one of understanding people in conversation, to
understanding people via the method’s documentation.
While there is much of value to viewpoints and the use-case driven approach, the
Coherence Method does not so much solve the problem of communication as side-
step it. The ethnographer’s job finishes with the structuring of the ethnographic
record in terms of viewpoints, and requirements are identified by designers through
81
Work Studies and Design
Ethnographic Record
Controller Pilot Flight strip
Controller: Speedbird 799L there
is a delay at Lambourn, slow
down if you wish and on reaching
Lambourn I will require you at
110 or less. Take the hold at
Lambourn
Pilot: Speedbird 799L, roger hold
at Lambourn.
Controller: Speedbird 799L delays
running at 13-15minutes at the
moment. I’ll try to keep you
advised.
Pilot: Speedbird 799L thank you.
Take the design situation of computer support for Air Traffic Control (ATC)
represented in Figure 11, for example. While design would be right to focus on the
cooperative work of the controller and the pilot, attending in particular to the
sequences of action that take place between the two, it would be a mistake to think
that those sequences identify targets and requirements for computer support. One
might, for example, target the resources used (e.g. the flight strips) and take
requirements to be articulated by the sequences of actions implicated in the use of
those resources (e.g. in the cooperative work of the controller and the pilot). If we
consider the use of the flight strip, a piece of paper about one inch wide and eight
82
Work Studies and Design
inches long, a rather different picture emerges from an ethnographic point of view,
however.
The flight strip is an essential resource in the work of controllers, work that
might be described as “manoeuvring aircraft in an ordered way through the skies”
(Hughes et al. 1988). Seen from a controller’s point of view, manoeuvring aircraft
in an ordered way through the skies first requires that a picture of the skies is
available to work with. ‘Getting the picture’ is of paramount concern to air traffic
controllers and it might be thought that this is a relatively straightforward matter of
consulting the radar. In practice, however, radar is not sufficient for getting a
picture of the skies.
(Fieldnote extract) It would be an impossible job to sit and look at the radar
and look at all the different blips and try to avoid [conflictions] by putting the
aircraft into blank spaces on the radar, so you’ve got to have [some] other
information to tell you what traffic is coming into and going out of your
sector. (Air Traffic Controller)
That other information is furnished by the flight strip, which provides information
concerning the flight path of each individual aircraft.
(Fieldnote extract) From your strips you can find out whether or not there is a
possible confliction and what you can do about it. You then go to your radar
and look for that particular aircraft and see where it is in reference to the
outbound from Heathrow, for example … Then you decide what you’re going
to do with it, whether you are going to go up underneath it, whether you are
going to wait until its gone past, whether, if its on your frequency, whether
you can put them on parallel headings and then you can climb it up to the
other aircraft levels. Same as with the inbounds, it’s the same sort of thing.
Information on the flight strip includes the aircraft name or call sign (e.g. Speedbird
799L), its departure and destination point, its preferred route and height, the type of
aircraft and its speed. The aircraft’s estimated time of arrival at particular
navigation points is printed on the left-hand side of the strip besides the
abbreviation for each navigation point. Each flight sector has three or four key
navigation points and strips are printed and placed in racks or bays next to the
controller’s radar screen some ten minutes or so before each aircraft’s arrival into
each control sector. The flight strip represents an aircraft at each stage of its journey
through a flight sector and, as such, enables the controller to get a picture of the
skies and to work that picture, thereby manoeuvring aircraft in an orderly way
through the skies.
As Hughes et al. (1992) point out, the above is not to say that the strips
determine the sequence of actions undertaken by controllers in working the picture
in the sense that what comes along a production line determines what a line worker
has to do next.
Rather, the controller has to organize the strips so that they can become an
instrument that helps organize, and so make possible, controlling work. Strips
are ‘manipulated’, ‘glanced at’, ‘taken heed of’, ‘ignored’, ‘revised’, and so
on. And not just when they are first placed on the racks, but continuously all
83
Work Studies and Design
the time they are in use. The end result of these activities is that, at any
moment in time, what the strips indicate and create [in their use] is the
sequence of controller actions that results in the achievement of order in the
skies. Thus, management of the strips constitutes a large part of the work that
underscores controlling competence.
Managing or working the strips is the cooperative achievement not only of the
controller and the pilot but also, of the ATC team. When a strip is first printed
(information is initially generated from flight plans submitted by the pilot and
augmented with weather details), the controller’s assistant places it in the
appropriate rack. Placing the flight strip is not a mechanical task but requires that
the assistant check the strip for its accuracy. Errors are not infrequent – the
designated flight path may be inconsistent with the flight number, for example –
and it is the assistant’s responsibility to rectify any visible errors on the strip, which
may well require collaboration with others outside the control room as
contingencies dictate. Having tracked and changed any errors, the assistant may
place the annotated strip or a newly generated strip in the flight rack.
Insofar as the strip is annotated by the assistant then annotations are indicated
by the use of a distinctly coloured pen. Each member of the control team may
annotate the flight strip at any time and each has a different coloured pen so that the
person who made the annotations is immediately identifiable and may be quickly
consulted if needs be. In placing the strip on the rack the assistant does not just put
it anywhere. The rack is organized in terms of two distinct sections: pending and
live. Furthermore, as there is a temporal flow of aircraft into each sector, so in
placing strips into the pending rack the assistant organizes them in terms of time
sequence. More still, in organizing the temporal placement of strips problems may
become apparent – it may be seen that two aircraft are projected to reach the same
navigation point simultaneously and at the same height, for example. On
recognising a potential confliction through the action of placing the strips, the
assistant or any other member of the team indicates the problem by cocking the
problematic strips out of the rack. This makes it immediately obvious to the
controller that when the time comes to deal with those flights that a problem will
have to be considered and, as Hughes et al. (1992) note, to the practiced eye it will
be obvious at-a-glance what the problem is.
Cooperative work on the strips continues once they become live. A strip
usually becomes live on receipt of a radio message from the aircraft crew as it
enters the sector. On receiving this message, the controller removes the strip from
the pending rack and places it in the live section. Once again, placement of the strip
is a highly organized affair. In placing the strip in the live section the controller
places it in that part of the rack designated by the navigation point being used.
Furthermore, just as the assistant orders strips according to time sequence, then so
too does the controller. Thus, as strips become live a temporal flow emerges, with
new strips at the top and old strips at the bottom (or vice versa as the controller
prefers) and from navigation point to navigation point. More still, as and when
strips become live they are colour marked by the controller to indicate that he or she
has moved them. In the course of being live, strips may be replaced by the sector
chief or the assistant with more up-to-date or revised ones. Such replacements lack
84
Work Studies and Design
the controller’s mark and the controller can, then, see at a glance that the strip
requires attention and that its implications be taken on board. The controller also
marks any commands issued to the aircraft on the live strip (as recognised in Figure
11). This provides a publicly available record of just what the controller has done to
date. Finally, as and when the aircraft crosses each navigation point, the controller
crosses through it on the flight strip. This indicates the last point through which the
aircraft passed in the sector. When the aircraft crosses the last navigation point in
the sector the controller directs the aircraft to contact the next sector controller and
then crosses through the strip. This indicates that the controller’s work has been
completed.
Seen from a design perspective, the sequences of action implicated in
organizing the flight strips might identify requirements for a computer-based
artefact replacing the paper strips. That artefact might display automatically
generated flight strip information, annotate changes automatically, automatically
order flight information in pending and live status, display controller’s marks and
the other actions that comprise the discrete sequences implicated in the working of
the strips. However, automation of the flight strips overlooks the fact that the
sequences of action that the working of the strips is composed of are themselves
embedded in and produced through the cooperative work of the ATC team. This is
not a trivial point. As Hughes et al. (1992) inform us, ATC in the UK has the best
record in the world – not a single civil collision has ever been attributed to air
traffic control.
If one looks to see what constitutes this reliability, it cannot be found in any
single element of the system. It is certainly not to be found in the equipment
[radar etc.] … Nor is it to be found in the rules and procedures, which are a
resource for safe operation but which can never cover every circumstance and
condition. Nor is it to be found in the personnel who, though very highly
skilled, motivated and dedicated, are as prone as people everywhere to human
error. Rather, we believe it is to found in the cooperative activities of
controllers across the ‘totality’ of the system, and in particular in the way it
enforces the active engagement of controllers, chiefs and assistants with the
material which they are using and with each other. This constitutes a
continuing check on their own work and a cross-check of that of others.
It might otherwise be said that the reliability of work in the air traffic control suite
is to be found in the cooperative work practices of its staff. Those work practices
are designed by staff to construct a protective cocoon around the controller and in
so doing to provide all the resources required so that the controller can concentrate
exclusively on the work of ordering the skies. That cocoon is not an accidental
construct nor is it a product of a simple division of labour and allocation of tasks.
On the contrary, it is an active construct created moment by moment through the
sequences of action embedded in and produced through the cooperative work of the
ATC team organizing the flight strips. Ordering the skies in a safe manner is the
cooperative accomplishment of the ATC team’s collective working of the flight
strips then. Thus, when considering the social organization of sequences of action it
is important to consider one sequences relation to another (such as the relation of
pilot-controller interaction to controller-assistant interaction). As Viller and
85
Work Studies and Design
Sommerville point out, there is no guarantee that the Coherence Method will be
sensitive to the social relationships and constellations of cooperation and assistance
that shape the work of the setting. This means that although designers may be able
to identify much of relevance to design through the Coherence Method’s
documentation, the work analyst cannot be dispensed with in the ‘creative process
of design’ (Twidale et al. 1993); a situation which again raises the problem of
communication.
86
Work Studies and Design
physical layout of the kitchen, etc. (Alexander et al. 1977). Placing analytic
emphasis on patterns of relationships, Alexander draws our attention to the
reoccurring ways in which people interact with their architectural environment and,
particularly, with the material arrangements that it is made up of. These patterns of
relationships are the primary object of pattern analysis in Alexander’s framework.
They elaborate the socially organized ways in which people use the material
arrangements of place and the problems they encounter in the course of use.
Knowledge of patterns and problems is made publicly available, along with
proposed architectural solutions, through the use of a distinct presentation format,
which Alexander describes in the following way.
First, there is a [pattern number, a title and a] picture, which shows an
archetypal example of [a] pattern. Second, after the picture, each pattern has
an introductory paragraph, which sets the context for the pattern, by
explaining how it helps to complete certain larger patterns. Then there are
three diamonds to mark the beginning of the problem. After the diamonds
there is a headline, in bold type. This headline gives the essence of the
problem in one or two sentences. After the headline comes the body of the
problem. This is the longest section. It describes the empirical background of
the pattern, the evidence for its validity, the range of different ways the pattern
can be manifested in a building, and so on. Then, again in bold type, like the
headline, is the solution – the heart of the pattern – which describes the field
of physical and social relationships which are required to solve the stated
problem, in the stated context. This solution is always stated in the form of an
instruction – so that you know exactly what you need to do, to build the
pattern. Then, after the solution, there is a diagram, which shows the solution
in the form of a diagram, with labels to indicate its main components. After
the diagram, another three diamonds, to show that the main body of the pattern
is finished. And finally, after the diamonds there is a paragraph which ties the
pattern to all those smaller patterns in the language which are need to
complete this pattern, to embellish it, to fill it out. (Alexander et al. 1977)
In talking of larger patterns Alexander may be understood to be talking about the
primary patterns that define place – e.g. making breakfast, lunch or dinner in the
kitchen – and in talking of smaller patterns he may be understood to be talking
about the component patterns that make up a primary pattern – e.g. getting
foodstuffs from the refrigerator, implements from drawers, using the cooker or
microwave, cleaning the table, etc. It is in this respect that an adapted patterns
framework and presentation format might be of utility to design. Illuminating
primary and component patterns of events and technological (rather architectural)
relationships identified in ethnographic studies, an adapted framework might
support the commonsense method of typification that underpins analysis of the
design space.
88
Work Studies and Design
generic (or typical) patterns of relationships that obtain between people and
computers in particular places (such as the library help desk) from out of the
minutia of ethnographic studies; patterns that may be employed to support the
formulation of design solutions. Generalization might be supported by adapting
Alexander’s pattern format to a web-based presentation vehicle. A web-based
format means that much richer resources may be provided to designers than can be
contained in a text and so the ‘archetypal picture’ may be replaced with actual video
footage that displays the pattern in question. The video may be viewed via a
hyperlink embedded in the pattern’s title. The title consists of a commonsense
description (e.g. searching at the help desk). Given the analytic emphasis placed on
relationship of action to technology, a sub-heading key technologies may be added
to the format, listing keywords that describe the technologies used in the video
sequence (e.g. Online Public Access Catalogue, reading list, notes, etc.).
89
Work Studies and Design
The ‘body of the problem’ is renamed the work of the pattern and describes the
routine activities that make up the pattern. The work is summed up in a synopsis ,
which is followed by a transcript of the talk and description of the relevant non-
verbal practical actions of the parties to the interaction (see Figure 14).
90
Work Studies and Design
???
The Work of the Pattern
Synopsis: Two users approach the help desk and ask staff where a certain
section of the library is. Staff directs them to OPAC and asks them if they
know how to use it. Staff takes them over to OPAC and the users explain that
what it is they are looking for. Their explanation is in the form preliminary
information categories, which staff uses to initiate a search on OPAC. The
three of them employ the OPAC retrieval list to work up more precise
information categories. This enables the users and the librarian to focus down
on a manageable and sufficiently small collection of information in the
catalogue and from that point, to identify and extract information of personal
relevance to the user. Staff takes the users to a section of the library and locates
materials the users are looking for.
Transcript:
1. Sarah: Could you tell us where market - what was it - market intelligence?
2. Lisa: Yeah.
3. Sarah: Market intelligence
4. Sylvia: Marketing is C floor. (Points to OPAC located at help desk) Do you
know how to use the screens?
5. Lisa: Yeah but
6. Sylvia: You need to find the classmark for the book.
Sylvia leaves the help desk, leads the two users (Lisa and Sarah) to a free
OPAC terminal nearby and initiates a title search.
7. Lisa: It’s not a book.
8. Sarah: It’s like information, information about these particular products and
services. It’s called market intelligence and leisure intelligence et cetera et
cetera.
9. Sylvia: And is that the name of
10. Sarah: That’s the name – market intelligence and leisure intelligence. It’s
not a book as such. It’s usually in the reference library.
11. Sylvia: Is, is it a serial?
12. Lisa: Yeah.
13. Sylvia: It’s a serial.
Sylvia initiates a serial search on OPAC
14. Lisa: It’s a journal.
15. Sarah: It’s not so much a journal but it does come out every few months.
Sylvia browses the serial search retrieval list
16. Sylvia: Is it marketing intelligence and planning? Is that the one?
Sylvia points to an item on the retrieval list
17. Sylvia: T6 – it’s a journal.
18. Sarah: No. It’s not a journal.
19. Sylvia: Do you want to check at that and find the journal itself?
Sylvia points to the item’s classmark on the OPAC screen
20. Sarah: Been there.
91
Work Studies and Design
The ‘solution’ is renamed the practices ordering the work of the pattern and
articulates the recognisable social practices implicated in the work’s routine
accomplishment. This section describes the familiar, recurring ways in which
routine workaday activities get done. Description of these reoccurring practices
provides for the identification of the pattern.
The ‘diagram’ is replaced with a more appropriate category to the task at hand,
namely the pattern of technology usage. This section of the format describes the
technologies used in the sequence of action as elaborated by the work of the
sequence and the practiced ways in which that work is routinely organized.
The pattern section is moved up and placed after the organizational context of the
pattern. This is done for reasons of relevance, as it is assumed that systems
designers will primarily be interested in the pattern of technology usage. The other
sections may subsequently be read and analysed for their relevance to the pattern.
The ‘tying paragraph’ is renamed connected patterns and uses hyperlinks to
93
Work Studies and Design
connect the pattern to a patterns index, which provides access to any other patterns
in the setting that use the same key technologies and elaborates a bricolage of
patterns of action that coalesce around particular technologies thereby articulating
important sites for design.
OPAC Use
[hyperlink to corpus of patterns of OPAC use listed in patterns index]
94
Work Studies and Design
95
Work Studies and Design
done this search. Rather than getting two hundred and thirty objects back in
various relations (on an OPAC list), what you are getting back is maybe five
or six categories, and one of those categories is going to be history. That’s
what I want – history. I don’t want philosophy, you know what I mean? What
you are not having to do is wade through all possible things there (points to
diagram on the whiteboard), and all those possible things consisting of
irrelevant topics I’m just not interested in. This allows me at a glance to say,
history, and go straight into that world.
Jonathan: Some of what you are saying is the common shortcomings of Q-
pits. Of just - literally, you have a query and then you have a whole
information space consisting of the results of that query, and then they are laid
out x, y, z according to some criteria. The big problem with that is if you have
got a billion objects it’s meaningless. It’s very difficult to get through it and
hence, that’s to do with what John and I have been talking about, about clouds
- so you don’t ever see, you don’t get back a million objects, you get back
several - four or five objects. They are labelled clouds based upon some
commonality.
As the talk makes available, ‘analysis’ is a gloss on a lively context of work in
which work analysts and designers formulate, discuss, argue over, contest, criticise,
recognise problems with, reformulate, refine and otherwise negotiate the practical
character of potential design solutions. Patterns of cooperative work are not simply
relayed and responded to then, but invoked and made relevant to design
conceptions in the unfolding flow of talk. That work is quite observably done
through story-telling. Story-telling may sound like a trivial way to talk about
something as sophisticated as analysis in design. Nonetheless, design talk of all
sorts, including the articulation of typificatory structures, is witnessably embodied
in story-telling. Story-telling should not be treated lightly then. Indeed, and as
Erickson (1996) points out, the telling of stories is central to analysis of the design
space:
Stories work well as a way for promoting collaborative work and
understanding within the design team. Stories are a sort of equaliser. It doesn’t
require much expertise or training to listen to and tell stories. Team members
from any background can be made part of the process of telling and collecting
stories. And once stories have been gathered, team members can discuss
stories, argue about their interpretation, and [so on]. This process sensitises
everyone to the usage domain, helps people identify questions and issues to
probe … and best of all provides concrete examples which can prove
invaluable when team discussions threaten to veer into debates about vaguely
defined abstractions.
Story-telling is central to the analysis of the design space and the formulation of
design solutions because the telling of stories is an ordinary method of analysis
(Sacks 1992b), which design work trades upon whether working with
ethnographers or not. As an ordinary method of analysis, story-telling allows people
with very different competences, expertise, knowledge, and professional languages
– such as ethnographers and designers – to analyse situations together such that
96
Work Studies and Design
mutually intelligible understandings of the design space and user needs may be
arrived at. The method permits cooperative analysis of the design space and
diagnosis of problem-situations. In and through telling stories, the ethnographer and
the designer (and others of course) are able to analyse and construct a mutual
understanding of the design space and user needs and diagnose problem-situations
which technical solutions might be designed to support. Story-telling thus permits
patterns of cooperative work to enter design reasoning in a readily digestible way. It
does so, as the late Harvey Sacks (1992b) put it, because
on analysing a situation they’re in, [people] discover that they know about it
with some story, which can be made, then, [into] something they .. have at
hand, and may tell as a proposed analysis of [the] current situation.
So, for example, the situation that is articulated by the designer’s story regarding
how searching might be supported (through a system that allows keywords to be
issued, that returns atomic objects, labels them according to various criteria, lays
them out in 3D space, and places the most commonly used ones up front) is known
about and analysed through the ethnographer’s story that contests the proposed
solution in telling of patterns of cooperative work and inherent problems
encountered in searching (that users don’t always know what they want, that OPAC
lists are randomly organized, that users have to wade through or browse lots of
irrelevant items to find what they want). The ethnographer’s story also tells of a
potential solution in light of those patterns and problems of work (that the 3D space
might be organized in terms of an intermediary layer of topical categories that
group atomic objects together). This story in turn becomes the focus of analysis and
a potential solution is offered in the terms of Q-pit technologies that group objects
together in clouds according to some criteria of commonality.
As the example indicates, the work of doing analysis through story-telling does
not just consist in the telling and analysing of discrete stories but over the course of
telling and analysing a series of stories, in the working up, elaboration and
refinement of potential design-solutions. Thus, it is through cooperative analysis
and diagnosis of patterns of cooperative work that work studies may come to give
form to design in the first instance.21 Story-telling is anything but trivial then,
indeed, as Orr (1996) points out, it is a much neglected area of research in
___________
21
The working up of potential design-solutions through story telling is, more often
than not, accompanied by the drawing of sketches and diagrams on pieces of paper
or at whiteboards, etc. Such artefacts tend to be very rough and informal and should
be understood as temporally situated resources produced and used in the production
of mutual understandings of the problem-situation and of the general character of
potential solutions, rather than as firm specifications for design. In that respect,
such artefacts are subject to revision or amendment at a later date, or they may even
be thrown away having served their purpose (positive or negative) in the temporal
flow of design work. What the developers are left with (what is more enduring) are
the ‘war stories’ produced over the course of design work, as these articulate in the
re-telling, and in both a readily digestible and economical way, the rationale for
what is being done and in the ways that it is (Orr 1996).
97
Work Studies and Design
occupational studies of all kinds. In the context of systems design, stories are
unnoticed technical objects in the accomplishment of the day’s work. Studies of
their collaborative production and use promise to reveal mu ch of design as a
cooperative endeavour. That is not all there is to the bricoleur’s craft however, for
although design solutions may come to take a preliminary shape through story-
telling, that solution has yet to be fleshed out in detail.
98
Work Studies and Design
involved with ethnographic work is not tenable, but that does not mean that there is
no room for ethnography in design.
Doing initial analysis, developing work situation descriptions and use
scenarios, preparing mockups for specific envisionment, and conducting
workshops requires specific skills that are difficult and time-consuming to
develop. Often designers, and obviously end-users, lack such skills. Thus
cooperative design definitely needs facilitators, people skilled in working with
different kinds of design representations and involving both users and
designers in cooperative activities; people who can convince designers, end-
users, and managers of the benefits of working cooperatively; in particular,
people who can organize the workshops where mockups and prototypes of
new design are tried out by end-users in worklike settings.
Kyng respecifies the perceived role of the ethnographer in the creative process of
design from proxy to facilitator (by contrast, it might be argued that this has in
various ways been the ethnographer’s role all along but it is of little consequence
here). Just what this means is rather vague, however, and one might say that just
what it means concretely will be the outcome of doing the work, of engaging in
design. In that respect it may be argued that the ethnographer’s role as facilitator –
as bricoleur – is not one of doing work studies and writing use scenarios in light of
those studies. Rather it is one of doing work studies and collaborating with
designers in the joint formulation of use scenarios. Many ethnographers are not in a
position to write use scenarios on their own or in collaboration with other work
analysts. The ethnographer simply does not posses the technical competence needed
to envision the future in light of the present. There is a necessity, then, to
collaborate with designers in the production of use scenarios.
Given the necessity for collaboration, it makes sense to speak of a division of
labour in the production of use scenarios. On one side of the division stands the
designer, who brings knowledge of technology and technological possibilities to the
design exercise. On the other side of the division stands the ethnographer, who
brings knowledge of the social organization of work to the exercise (and, of course,
users and other stakeholders need not be excluded from this work). Knowledge of
these respective areas is originally articulated and combined through story-telling
and the stories produced provide a basis for the formulation of use scenarios, filling
out in detail the practical character of design solutions (i.e., what the design solution
will do and how). As a result of discussing proposed design-solutions in relation to
the sociality of work in the library, for example, the ethnographer and designer
produced a story that served as a basis for developing a specific use scenario. That
story specifies systems support for searching’s work such that on issuing a keyword
search, items are returned, labelled, grouped, and linked together in navigable
clusters of clouds according to the search criteria specified when the search is
issued. This arrangement provides an ‘intermediary layer’ mediating between users
and the catalogue, and furnishes material resources which may be employed by the
parties to searching’s work to accomplish categorisation work.
Just how any of this is to be achieved technically is not the ethnographer’s
problem, not in the production of use scenarios at least. The ethnographer’s
problem is not, as such, one of specifying how one should get from A to B as it
99
Work Studies and Design
were, but of specifying what A and B (and C and D, etc.) are in the first place. It is
the designer’s responsibility to make the technology answerable to these
specifications. Thus, and for example, in considering technical support for
searching’s work the designer is required to articulate potential design solutions that
will support categorisation work. The extract below furnishes a concrete example of
the use scenario formulated by the ethnographer and designer with regards to
supporting searching’s work in the library.
Extract from library use scenario
On executing a keyword search, the OPAC system will return a potentially large
number of matches or ‘hits’. The prototype is configured to group hits in the
information view according to their classmark (which the system should be able to
expand into more meaningful identifiers). Common groups of data (those with the
same classmark) are represented as solid ‘clouds’ whenever the number of matches
reaches a certain threshold (which is possibly user configurable and may also
depend on system performance). In this example the threshold is passed and the
system starts creating various clouds for ‘Dada’, such as ‘history’, ‘art’ and
‘philosophy’ for example.
The categorisation used to form the clouds is user configurable (not necessarily by
classmark). Thus a user may select some general attributes of the resulting hits (like
classmark or author etc.) or some other available metrics may be employed, like
popularity (how many times have certain books been accessed before). In Figure 18
the clouds are defined using converted classmark-topic categories forming several
areas, including art, philosophy and history – all of which contain books on Dada.
The user chooses one of the clouds, history say, which contains a number of books
within the cloud threshold value, and flies into it. The system presents the books (or
objects) in the space (shown in Figure 19), and arranges them in three dimensions
based upon some appropropriate Q-pit like criteria. For example, the popularity of
use insofar as the object has been marked as (potentially) suitable by users.
100
Work Studies and Design
___________
22
The co-construction of use-scenarios is an iterative exercise in which documents
are worked up, elaborated and refined by the ethnographer and designers over a
series of turns in an ongoing course of dialogue.
23
Formal design work at whiteboards in design meetings is one area of cooperative
work in design not considered in detail here. It is an important area of research in its
101
Work Studies and Design
The work involved in using formal methods is not considered here. Attention
has instead been paid to the ‘seen but unnoticed’ or taken for granted and ignored
work involved in design, particularly the appeal to typificatory structures (i.e.,
patterns of action), the nature and role of story-telling, and its relation to the co-
construction of use scenarios, all of which presuppose the deployment of formal
methods. Use scenario(s) in hand, a suitable architecture may be sketched out and
formal methods deployed in the design of a technology that may be used to support,
in this case, searching’s work. In this case, the proposed design-solution consisted
of developing a 3D visualization that reflected the core elements of the use
scenario, and which interfaced to the library’s catalogue system. This configuration
allowed users to access real world data through the 3D environment and to use the
visualization of data structures to accomplish search activities. The core elements of
the working prototype are presented below prior to considering the role of end-user
evaluation in the design of collaborative systems .
own right and, indeed, has received attention elsewhere in the design literature (e.g.
Pedersen et al. 1993). Its description and analysis requires a vulgar competence in
formal design methods (which the author does not possess, hence the absence of a
detailed account). Nonetheless, it is at this site that the “formal” and “informal”
often meet. The ethnographer need not be unduly concerned by this work however,
as the implications of the work studies have already been articulated ni an
intelligible and digestible fashion to designers in the use scenarios. As noted above,
the work here is, amongst other things, concerned with meeting the constraints of
the use scenarios and the ethnographer’s role is an auxiliary one of clarifying the
use situation as and when particular problems emerge in the design dialogue.
102
Work Studies and Design
103
Work Studies and Design
shoulder interaction is central to how OPAC users conduct their work together and
the prototype was configured to be shared in this shoulder-to-shoulder manner
rather than remotely and through the use of avatars.
In contrast to OPAC, which provides a number of fixed entry categories to
input a search term, users issue searches via the developed prototype through a
single keyword entry window. This reflects the topic-based character of searching
and provides the basis for the generation of the virtual environment. In order to
issue a search the user simply fills in the keyword slot. Items are returned according
to default search criteria or ‘weighting’. The user may change this weighting so that
items are grouped by similarity according to author, title, publication type, or date,
publisher, ISBN, or any combination of these criteria and by any other criteria that
may be added to bibliographic items in the future (e.g. via HTML Metatags). The
user may also adjust the degree of exactness by which similarity weightings are
applied (from a range of high to low) and the default threshold which determines
the numeric level at which grouping takes place such that if only ten items are
returned, say, then they are simply presented to the user as atomic objects, whereas
if seventy items are returned, then they are grouped according to the similarity
criteria specified.
Keyword
window
Weightings Exactness
104
Work Studies and Design
Once a keyword has been provided the search may be executed within the
OPAC catalogue. The results are then used to populate the environment. The final
stage of the query and retrieval process consists of the construction of the
intermediary layer suggested in the design meeting through formation of links and
clouds in the space. The clouds display at-a-glance groupings of similar items
(similar in respect of the weightings applied to the search) and the links indicate
interconnections between clouds and items therein. Each object within the space has
a partial title attached to it. As clouds of similar objects form, users can view object
titles and see at-a-glance just what each cloud contains as a topical space. In issuing
a keyword search on ‘java’, for example, the user can see by viewing the titles of
the objects being pulled into the clouds that one of the clouds contains items on java
software engineering. This may contrast with the objects in an interconnected cloud
whose titles indicate that objects on java software testing are contained within it. As
the search engine pulls all items with a similar keyword into the space, objects
about java the island may be pulled into the space as well and would be pulled
together in a separate, unlinked cloud, although that cloud may be linked to other
java-the-island topics. The grouping of related items contrasts with the OPAC
interface, which groups everything together in a randomly organized list.
Selected object
Bibliographic
details
Shopping list
Once the space has been generated, users are free to interact with and navigate
the display. A key aspect of the environment is that users have an object centric
view of the space. In other words, navigating or searching the space is constrained
in terms of specific objects and the relationships that hold between them. In contrast
to other virtual environments where full 3D navigation is provided and often found
problematic, the real world nature of the application suggested the need to support a
constrained form of navigation in order to avoid the overhead of managing
movement in a virtual environment, which is notoriously difficult to support; users
are constantly getting lost in unconstrained environments, for example.
Consequently, an object-based approach to searching the space was exploited with
explorations centring on a selected object. In this respect, the navigation vehicle
developed supports two modes of interaction: 1) browse, and 2) point and click. In
the browse mode, mouse movements allow the user to orbit the clouds in the space
and see the various constellations of topics and their interconnections. Users may
examine particular objects by centring the object in the cross-hairs to see
bibliographic details. Over the course of interacting with the space, the user can
also assemble a shopping list of items that are of potential relevance or interest. The
list may be printed off and used in the course of locating objects in the physical
library. The shopping list persists across different searches and is, as such, session-
oriented, providing support for categorisation work at the help desk in times of
trouble, which trades on the user’s search history. Each search space may be
reordered or re-generated by simply altering the weightings to display different
relations of similarity between the displayed search items. From this point,
regeneration continues much as for the original generation of the space (Crabtree et
al. 2002b).
Developing a scenario-based prototype is by no means all that there is to the
formulation of design solutions. In many respects, this might be said to be just the
beginning of the enterprise, as the developed environment articulated above is but
the first incarnation or version of the design solution supporting searching’s work.
The point of describing the work involved in the production of this early and
incomplete prototype has been to illustrate how ethnography might support analysis
of the design space and shape the formulation of design solutions. The production
of patterns, working up of stories, and the co-construction of use scenarios
illustrates practical ways in which ethnography may be deployed to inform design
reasoning and the production of design solutions.
In a design context, the disciplinary concerns of social science are left behind,
which is likely to be a great disappointment to social scientists who see design as a
promising new site in which to pursue their agendas. In that respect, the work
articulated here should serve as a caveat to designers and social scientists alike.
Designers have unique problems of their own and there is no need to suppose that
they are identical to those that beset the agendas at work in the social sciences. On
the contrary, design is not interested in social science but in developing methods for
analysing the sociality of work in the wild, in its natural habitat, in contrast to in
social science theory. This chapter has articulated several ways in which the
development effort may be constructively informed through ethnographic studies of
work. This is not to say that the approach advocated here is the only way in which
the social sciences in general, and ethnography in particular, may enter design
106
Work Studies and Design
reasoning - it is but one way and one that complements existing design practices
which presuppose the deployment of formal methods and rely on ordinary
competences (and so require no long-term specialized training). The purpose of the
next chapter is to consider what more there is to the ethnographer’s role as a
bricoleur in design practice by addressing what more there is to the formulation of
design solutions supporting cooperative work.
107
An alternative approach to traditional require-
ments specification relies on ethnographic
studies and-or user participation throughout the
design process to minimise the mismatch
between the computer system and conditions of
use. How and in what ways ethnography and
techniques of user participation can be
effectively developed is a major research area
within CSCW.
Liam Bannon & John Hughes
4. Evaluating Systems Support for
Cooperative Work
The previous chapter addressed the design of an early and incomplete prototype
supporting searching’s work in the library. The incomplete character of the working
prototype was intentional. It represents an initial first guess as to what might
constitute a realistic design solution. That is, an informed guess that might be
evaluated, elaborated, amended and-or refined by consulting end-users, and built
upon in light of users hands on experiences in an evolutionary process of
development. Evolutionary prototyping is central to the notion of evaluation
advocated here. Having a long pedigree in design, evolutionary prototyping
emerged as a viable alternative to the Waterfall Model in providing a ground-up,
process driven approach to the development of collaborative systems (Bally et al.
1977; Naumann and Jenkins 1982).
Thus, for example, there have been incremental models, such as that
developed by the Boeing Corporation which abandons the idea of a complete
system of requirements, and starts with general objectives into requirements
and proceeds by translating some of those objectives into requirements and
then implementing them. The cycle then repeats. Starting the development
process with general objectives rather than a complete set of requirements is
important because it allows requirements to adjust to changing conditions.
(COMIC D2.1) 24
The motivation for evolutionary prototyping emerged from designers’ working
experiences in which they found that in practice, as opposed to text -book theory,
they only knew how to build the right system after the fact. Building versions was
thus construed of as a very good way of addressing the requirements problem and
formulating appropriate design-solutions (Floyd 1984).
Prototyping is a vehicle for learning what the target system should be like and
thereby furnishes a concrete answer to the question of just what should be built? In
this respect prototyping takes on a very different character in collaborative systems
design than it does in manufacturing. In the case of the latter, and as the notion
___________
24
Evolutionary prototyping provides a counter-balance to the excesses of top-down
approaches which front-load requirements specification. Such practices, while
supporting planning, may hinder the design of collaborative systems if applied too
stringently. As Button and Sharrock (1994) remind us,
Capturing a requirement is like capturing a butterfly, once it’s pinned down
it’s no longer what you chased, it’s dead. User requirements are contextually
organized matters, and their intelligibility resides in understanding their
relationship to a whole range of other work and Organizational matters. They
gain life and animation within this context. Requirements analysis rips them
from out of this life-giving context and in the process they lose their very
substance as known to users.
108
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
might be commonly understood, the term is often taken to refer to the first of a type.
Thus, prototyping refers to a well-defined phase in the production process in which
a model exhibiting all the essential features of the product is constructed in advance
and used to guide the design of the final product. In a design context, however, and
as Floyd (1984) puts it,
Software development differs from ... manufacturing in several ways: it takes
place in the context of an overall system development process; this
development process normally leads to one single product and the desired
characteristics of this product are not well-defined in advance. Thus, no
relevant notion of ‘type’ is available for software, and it is not clear what is
meant by ‘first’, i.e. how the prototype should relate to the final product.
The problem, as stated above, is one of figuring out what to build, what the final
product will be? Rather than predetermine an answer, the point is taken seriously,
and constitutes a modus operandi, that any answer will be the outcome of doing
prototyping work. Prototyping in a systems design context is not so much one of
modelling the final product, then, but of finding out what an appropriate solution
might look like concretely. Thus, prototyping is a software development
methodology that introduces a foundational element of communication with and
feedback from the use practice into the design process (pace Floyd 1987). That
methodology is expressly concerned with analysing the design space from the
various points of view of users and with determining the adequacy of proposed
solutions in their capacity as tools that support human users in their work.
Prototyping Methodology
Prototyping methodology consists of four discrete steps. 1) Functional selection,
which refers to the range of work activities and software functionality the prototype
should support and exhibit (see the previous chapter for work implicated in that
accomplishment). 2) Construction, which refers to the production of the prototype
and its availability for demonstration. Naturally, as a version, the prototype need
not be complete. Nor need it be particularly stable, reliable, or secure, unless these
are features of the future system that are being prototyped. 3) Evaluation, which
provides feedback from the use practice. Evaluation is the decisive step in
prototyping as feedback shapes subsequent development work. The prototype
should, therefore, be constructed with an eye towards enabling users to reason about
the work activities the prototype is intended to support. The prototype should, in
other words, be intelligible to users and the ways in which it proposes to support
their work should be made transparent in the course of articulating its potential use,
thus promoting mutual analysis and learning. 4) Iteration, which refers to the
development of the prototype in light of the evaluation exercise.
Iterative development of the prototype may take one of three interrelated
forms. 1) Exploration: Emphasis here is placed on eliciting appropriate ideas for
design. Exploration occurs early in the design process and is concerned to involve
end-users in a mutual and open-ended process of analysis whereby designers may
come to develop an understanding of the application domain and users may come to
develop a tangible sense of potential design solutions. Exploratory prototypes may
109
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
Participatory Design
Participatory Design (PD) is an approach to systems design that emerged from
Scandinavia in the early 1970s. Its primary strategy consists of a commitment to
110
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
workplace democracy, which translates into the direct and active participation of
workers in the design process in the effort to enhance rather than destroy their
skills, autonomy, and quality of life. As a result of this vision for the future, one
largely fuelled by Braverman’s (1974) analysis of capital organization and
deskilling, an action-based research programme was initiated in 1971 by designers
in cooperation with the Norwegian Iron and Metal Workers’ Union (Nygaard
1979). The objective of the project was to develop a plan for action that would
enable the widespread application of workers’ knowledge to the design and
introduction of new technology into the workplace (thus countering, it was hoped,
the tendency towards deskilling). The project was a modest success, fostering
further action-based research in cooperation with various trade unions (Carlsson et
al. 1978; DUE Project Group 1979). Together, these projects resulted in the
implementation of legal statutes across Scandinavia, which today regulate the
design and implementation of new technologies in the workplace by requiring
consultation with workers. They also resulted in the recognition that the formulation
of legal agreements was not sufficient to increase workers influence on technology
design; recognition that spawned a second generation of Participatory Design
research projects directed towards devising new means of involving workers (end-
users) in the creation of novel technological support for work.
Initiated in the early 1980s, the UTOPIA Project saw the emergence of the
notion of ‘design by doing’ (Bødker 1987). Greenbaum and Kyng (1991) articulate
the notion as follows.
‘Doing’ was a central concept for us, embodying the idea that there needs to
be active involvement of users and designers working together at activities
that actually ‘do’ something … learners shouldn’t be ‘spectators’ or passive
participants in the learning process. Designing and using a system is certainly
a learning process for all groups involved, requiring that we all do something
about it. But at the same time … As we began to discus it, the original clarity
quickly evaporated. “In what sense isn’t traditional system development
‘doing’?” and “How do intellectuals ‘do’?” were some of the questions raised
... Perhaps in our eagerness to get ‘doing’ back into the picture, we were not
just balancing the scales, but introducing a new, false dichotomy between
doing and reflecting?
So midway through our writing process we shifted our focus slightly to
acknowledge that what we were actually doing was showing ways to reflect
on work practice and how to give that practice a central position in the design
process.
The UTOPIA project was concerned to develop technology for skilled workers in
the newspaper industry. The initial approach to design saw the use of formal
methods to describe system requirements. Not unsurprisingly, such descriptions did
not engage the print workers. Thus, the designers attempted to engage them through
the co-production of mock-ups (Ehn and Kyng 1991). As with prototypes, mock-
ups have a long history in manufacturing where they are used to engender a
concrete sense of what a future product will look like. Again, as with the use of
prototypes in a design context, mock-ups are intended to facilitate the learning
process in design. As Ehn and Kyng (ibid.) put it,
111
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
112
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
may be usefully supported through quick and dirty ethnographic studies running
prior to or concurrently with mock up exercises. Quick and dirty studies may be
used to explicate the grammatical web of interlocking concepts that constitute the
language game in question through the assembly of instances of work and
production of patterns, thereby mapping and conveying the grammar of the
language game in details of work’s real world, real time social organization
(Crabtree 2000a). At the same time, mock-up exercises may usefully inform
ethnographic work, directing that work in order to address particular problems that
emerge in consideration of users experiences that emerge in mock-up or
prototyping workshops.
Cooperative Design
Design by doing soon led to the development of other techniques for involving
users in the design process in order that their work practices might assume a central,
shaping role in design. As noted above, mock-ups may be easily migrated to
prototypes and the emergence of a third (and current) generation of Participatory
Design techniques is marked by the development of distinct prototyping methods.
In the mid 1980’s prototypes were largely used to supplement traditional methods
of formulating design solutions. Prototypes were particularly employed to
demonstrate system features to potential users, rather than to enable users to get
hands on the future and thereby elaborate design solutions (Grønbæk 1989).
To experience is not to read a description of the computer application, nor is it
to watch a demonstration. (Bødker and Grønbæk 1991)
For members of the Participatory Design community, the point and purpose of
prototyping was not and is not to demonstrate potential systems to users but to
actively involve them in the design process in order that systems may be developed
that are tailored to user needs and thus improve the quality of working life. The
tailoring of systems in this context was not and is not something that occurs after
the design of a system (syntactic sugar as it were) but an essential starting point for
the design of socio-technical systems of work (CSCW systems). Just what work a
future system is to be tailored to support, and just how, are guiding questions to be
asked in doing prototyping then? Employing workplace studies and various
scenarios (use scenarios, technical scenarios, etc.), exploratory prototypes may be
constructed in the effort to produce and elaborate answers to these questions.
The aim [here] is to make ‘quick and dirty’ sketches of the computer
application in order to clarify requirements for a new computer system … The
prototypes .. serve mainly as substitute specifications for the application and
to propagate ideas into detailed design activities. (ibid.)
The production of quick and dirty prototypes and their iterative development and
evolution into more stable applications through active user involvement soon earnt
a dis tinct label: Cooperative Prototyping or Cooperative Design. The approach has
its roots in both the process-oriented and evolutionary traditions. It is specifically
concerned to
114
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
establish a design process where both users and designers are participating
actively and creatively, drawing on their different qualifications [or
competences]. To facilitate such a process, the designers must somehow let
the users experience a fluent work-like situation with a future computer
application; that is, user’s current skills must be brought into contact with new
technological possibilities. This can be done in a simulated future work
situation … or, even better, in a real use situation. When breakdowns occur in
the .. use situation, users and designers can analyse the situation and discuss
whether the breakdown occurred because of the need for training, a bad or
incomplete design solution, or for some other reason. Breakdowns caused by
bad or incomplete design solutions [may] be rapidly turned into improved
designs, re-establishing the fluent work-like situation. (ibid.)
As Bødker and Grønbæk make clear, the rationale for Cooperative Design is to
develop computer systems from the ground-up in close contact with the practical
circumstances of their actual use. Cooperative Prototyping is therefore oriented
towards explicating just what the practical circumstances of systems usage consist
of concretely and to use that knowledge as a basis for design. Thus, users are
confronted with envisionments of the future (prototypes). The adequacy of those
visions is determined by users in their efforts to undertake their work tasks, and
visions are amended accordingly through further iteration and further work study if
necessary.
This orientation to prototyping – an orientation that seeks to explore the
practical accomplishment of work - is unique and contrasts with much prototyping
work in which designers are preoccupied with the novelty of technical solutions
rather than the practical adequacy of solutions-in-use. Indeed, designers often argue
against active early user involvement insofar as users are perceived to only know
about what is possible now. Designers, on the other hand, are in the business of
creating innovative futures. A fortiori, the user has little, if anything, of constructive
use to say until that the future has been constructed by the designer (Grint and
Woolgar 1997). Of course, it might be argued that the novelty of computers will not
last, that at some point designers must face up to the practicalities of everyday life if
computers are to be effectively incorporated into the milieu of ordinary activities
that constitute our workaday worlds, but then that is taken for granted by many
CSCW practitioners and employed as a modus operandi in Cooperative Design. As
Bødker and Grønbæk (1991) put it,
Users are not there to annoy the designers or to spoil their ‘wonderful’
designs, but to guide them, because they know the relevant work tasks.
‘Users’ – i.e., practitioners: skilful, competent doers of activities – are the real
experts in work’s accomplishment, even in the face of change, and no-one, not
ethnographers, HCI specialists, business strategists, nor designers no matter how
visionary, know the practicalities of work’s accomplishment better than they. Users
are not a homogenous group but rather, diverse groups of people who have
competence in their work practices. Users are, then, the appropriate parties to
consult in undertaking design, and to assess, evaluate, and recommend changes to
design, particularly where support specifications (just what) and usability (just how)
115
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
___________
25
There is, of course, nothing new in that recognition – after all, scientific
management is predicated on it, albeit with very different intent (i.e., rationalization
and control).
116
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
117
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
Taken together, points one to three provide criteria for evaluating prototypes of
cooperative systems within an evolutionary development framework (Mogensen
1994).
118
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
example). Today, the rationale for the involvement of workers in design is not one
of making a political gesture but of responding in an effective manner to the needs
of the actual users of future systems of work. Users include not only ‘shopfloor’
workers but a host of others whose daily activities make up the working division of
labour. Under the auspices of Cooperative Design, PD has become a pragmatic
exercise in design then. One that seeks to involve users in the design process in
order that the efficacy and quality of work may be improved through the design of
collaborative systems that support the real world, real time needs of all its users,
and not only the needs of a select few. This orientation to design is predicated on
recognition of the fact that work is a collaborative achievement, the product of the
concerted daily efforts of a wide range of users. Cooperative Design seeks to
support that concerted accomplishment – i.e., cooperative work - through the active
participation of relevant parties to the design process: workers, managers, business
strategists, and the rest.
The pragmatic turn in PD has not passed without remark from practitioners in
the field. Bjerknes and Bratteteig (1994) argue, for example, that under the auspices
of Cooperative Design, a concern with workplace democracy has been replaced by
a concern with the quality of work:
Greenbaum and Kyng argue for participation emphasising usefulness and
quality of the product, i.e., influence on the work situation, not workplace
democracy … Cooperative Design certainly supports user participation. But
the focus on process, action, and situatedness tends to disconnect the design
process from the larger organizational context in which power is enacted.
Such arguments of course reflect a commitment to a certain political ideology,
which might accurately be described as Marxist in character. As noted in Chapter 2,
the adequacy of such a position presupposes the adequacy of Marxist formulations
of the labour process, formulations that are general and theoretical and in such
detail wholly inadequate when it comes to understanding any particular practice
(and all practices are particular). What is often overlooked by ideological
champions is that Marx’s work was as much a moral critique of capital society as a
scientific thesis and needs no other justification than that. Understood as a moral
argument against the excesses of a capital social order, Cooperative Design might
well be understood to be promoting workplace democracy by including relevant
parties (stakeholders) – parties who were not previously consulted – in the design of
socio-technical systems that promote the quality of working life in being tailored
from the outset for the practical circumstances of their actual use: an achievement
which is good for users and for the accomplishment of Organizational business.
That Cooperative Design practices are not as radical as some would wish can hardly
be taken as a serious critique of their efficacy in the design of acceptable
collaborative systems.
More seriously, perhaps, Cooperative Design (or the Collective Resources
Approach as it is sometimes referred to along with other PD practices) has been
subject to severe criticism with respect to its ability to include users in the design
process. Cooperative Design has been charged with inflating the successes of
action-based research and design by doing.
119
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
The Collective Resources Approach (CRA) has not been accepted by workers
and unions nor affected in a major way the day-to-day practice in
Scandinavian work places … [it] seems even less likely to serve as a useful
model for the United States. (Kraft and Bansler 1994)
Kraft and Bansler argue that the prized achievement of formal consultation in
Scandinavia, for example, is effectively a sham. ‘Consultation’ only means that
employers are obliged to notify employees and unions of pending changes and to
hear their responses. Within the bounds of the law, employers may introduce any
technology they choose and manage its implementation and use as they see fit.
Furthermore, Kraft and Bansler argue that the trade unions have developed close
working relations with employers and are reluctant to challenge management
decisions in radical ways lest their positions be damaged. Consequently, Kraft and
Bansler suggest that
there is no team work except on management’s terms … [and] it seems
unlikely that CRA will find much success unless it also succeeds in changing
this century-old system of industrial relations.
Kyng (1994) argues that Kraft and Bansler grossly misrepresent the Collective
Resources Approach, treating it as “some overoptimistic boyscout-like approach”
so naive and simple-minded it cannot but fail. Of particular concern to Kyng are
Kraft and Bansler’s criterion of success.
First, I would have worried had CRA been widely accepted by employers.
Secondly, I can’t think of any sane person who would consider the question of
whether or not CRA “On the whole … has been widely accepted by … the
national unions” as important for its success.
Kyng suggests that what is really at issue here is the old political agenda, which
sought, pace Marx, to bring about the radical reorganization of the workplace and
society at large. In other words, Kraft and Bansler’s critique is based on a
‘puritanical’ political ideology which argues that as Cooperative Design has not
resulted in the radical reorganization of the workplace it has, therefore, failed! As
Kyng reminds us,
A basic concern of CRA is to increase worker influence on technology. The
major instruments are: 1) action oriented and trade union based strategies and
2) cooperative design. Kraft and Bansler .. focus on the first, whereas ‘Design
at Work’ [Greenbaum and Kyng 1991] develops the latter – without much
explicit reference to trade unions. One of the things we hoped to achieve in
this way was exactly to make the work more accessible to ‘non-
Scandinavians’.
Trade union involvement constituted, in part, the context of original work in
Participatory Design but that was and is a local context, not a universal one, one
that is endemic to Scandinavian culture and not others, and not essential in any way
to Cooperative Design. Kraft and Bansler overlook the locality of context and with
it, miss the significance of the inclusion of workers in design practice; namely, that
their inclusion promotes a better understanding of real world work practice in
120
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
Evaluation of Prototypes
Having an abiding practical concern with the real world, real time character of work
practice, Cooperative Design has a strong relationship to ethnography (Wynn 1991;
Simonsen and Kensing 1994; Crabtree 1998). Ethnography is a valuable resource in
Cooperative Design, grounding prototyping activities in corrigible accounts of the
social organization of workaday activities, but what more may ethnography
contribute to the design process? Evolutionary prototyping draws our attention to
the evaluation of prototypes, a notion that has been transformed in its use in a
Cooperative Design context. Here, evaluation is not a discrete activity which occurs
late in the design process and is concerned with testing and proving potential
design-solutions, but an ongoing activity engaged early in design and concerned
with involving users in the design of an instrument to support their workaday
activities. It is with respect to this latter achievement that ethnography has more to
offer the design process. First, however, conventional HCI notions of evaluation
will be briefly considered in order that the reader might better appreciate the
purchase of an ethnographic contribution to the evaluation of collaborative systems.
121
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
With this aim in mind HCI employs a number of methods ranging from the
observation and monitoring of systems usage to more formal survey and
experimental methods. The term experimental is used in the context of HCI in its
scientific sense and consists of an effort to confirm hypotheses in laboratory
settings. As Twidale et al. (1994) note,
It would appear that controlled experiments are generally perceived to be more
objective and to offer the potential of reproducibility. (Strangely, however,
unlike in the natural sciences, it seems that evaluation experiments are rarely
reproduced).
Scientific methods rarely deliver on their promise in design, as the history (in
contrast to the hype) of HCI stands testimony to (Pycock 1999). Such methods are
inadequate as they severely limit the possibility to evaluate the usability of a system
with reference to the real world context of its use. The situation is further
compounded as evaluation in a scientific vein constructs users as objects of study
rather than as active participants in the design process. This is not to make a
political point but a pragmatic one. As Mogensen (1994) puts it,
In analysis in systems development, and cultural anthropology as well, the
‘object’ of analysis is to a large extent human beings and their entanglement in
their everyday lives. In contrast to an analysis of, say, the being of a hammer
or the validity of a proposition, analysis in systems development has an
‘object’ of analysis who has the ability to comment, deny, or agree on the
analyst’s .. understandings.
Scientific methods remove users voices from the design process and put in their
place the analyst’s account. This assumes that the analyst speaks for the user in an
adequate fashion, that the HCI specialist is a user champion (Shneiderman 1987).
Such posturing, which is common in the literature, says more about HCI’s need to
assert its legitimacy in design than it does about its ability to actually promote user
interests and to articulate their needs. Its ability, that is, to speak on behalf of users
and their work and say just what is right or wrong about a system and what could or
should be done to improve it.
Efforts to get in touch with users and the real world of work have seen the use
of rather more informal methods of observation and monitoring in HCI.
Specifically, video-based observation of users doing both specially devised tasks
and their normal work.
Video logging provides an alternate to direct observation … Sometimes the
video recording may be synchronized with some form of automatic keystroke
or interaction logging, which is built into the system software. Collecting
several kinds of data obviously has the potential for providing a very complete
picture of the HCI being evaluated … In many studies several aspects of user
activity are monitored by different video cameras. For example, one camera
may be focused on the keyboard and screen while another is directed at the
user. The second camera can record where the user is looking at the computer
screen and her use of secondary material such as manuals. Users’ body
122
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
language can provide useful clues about the way they are feeling about using
the system. (Preece et al. 1999)
This quote makes it clear that the focus of observational methods in HCI evaluation
is human-computer interaction. It might be argued, however, that the focus on the
interaction that takes place between the user and the computer overlooks the
relationship of the computer to the day-to-day work practices of users (Bannon
1991); many of which extend beyond interaction with the machine (such as in the
articulation of information requirement categories in the library) but may,
nevertheless, be supported through appropriate design and evaluation. This is not to
say that analytic attention to computer use is not warranted, only that such attention
should be extended to address use in relation to work practice (to the socio-
technical context of use) and not human-computer interaction alone, which is too
narrow a focus (Twidale et al. 1994). It is also a focus that, in analysis, comes to
gloss work practice insofar as it is underpinned by methods such as task analysis,
which guarantee the loss of real world work practice in decomposing activities into
prefigured categorical hierarchies of tasks and sub-tasks, etc. Performance analysis
compounds the problem even further in concentrating on other measurements such
as the frequency of task completion, frequency of errors, task timing, and so on. Of
course, social science modes of analysis may be deployed here, such as
Conversation or Interaction Analysis, but the problem of constructive analysis
remains a significant problem to be reckoned with.
No doubt the notion of science will be invoked by HCI practitioners to justify
their treatment of users and their work, and the necessity of grounding evaluation in
scientific methodologies. There is no compelling reason why such accounts should
be accepted in design, however.
Amongst the numerous evaluation techniques, it is clear that the scientific
paradigm influenced many of them. The influence of the paradigm is apparent
in the tendency to regard formal techniques [such as task analysis] as
somehow more ‘proper’ because the ‘proving’ of the system renders it
‘complete’ … within the engineering paradigm [however], and unlike in
science, proof by construction is permissible. Thus, the historical relationship
between engineering approaches and ‘scientific’ evaluation is not a necessary
one. (Twidale et al. 1994)
Science demands certain methods of proof but design is not, nor has it ever been, a
science. Rather, design is a practical activity occasionally informed by science,
engineering, marketing, management, art, and host of other practical crafts. There
is, therefore, no necessary relationship – and thus, no compelling reason – for the
use of scientific evaluation methodologies in design. On the contrary, as a branch of
engineering, evaluation in design might proceed with good reason through proof by
construction (good reason being the irremediably ‘wicked’ character of design).
And that, of course, is just what Cooperative Design proposes in the construction of
evolutionary prototypes in collaboration with users, ethnographers, and others.
123
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
Alternates to HCI
It is with respect to assessing a system’s practical relationship to users cooperative
work that ethnography may add value to the evaluation of collaborative systems,
particularly where early and incomplete prototypes supporting and changing the
social organization of work are concerned. As Twidale et al. (1994) put it,
This shift in emphasis away from the system as a technical artefact towards
the system at work has a number of important implications for the evaluation
process, implications which place ethnographic insights … at its centre, at
least if system ‘validity’ or ‘acceptance’ is the problem being addressed.
And again,
the idea that evaluation should occur late in the development process, should
be concerned with machine or software functionality, and should concern
itself with ‘objective’ results sits strangely with the concern for the social
organization of work that characterises CSCW. We [are] led to question
whether systems for use in cooperative work environments can indeed be
evaluated for validity in isolation from the work.
The use of ethnographic insights in addressing the potential validity and
acceptability of prototypes is characterised as Situated Evaluation. It consists 1) of
the re-use of work studies to assess the prototype’s work-ability, which may be
assessed by ethnographers working through existing functionality in cooperation
with designers with an eye towards establishing whether or not the prototype
supports known patterns of cooperative work. 2) Work studies may also be
conducted to evaluate the results of Cooperative Prototyping sessions. There is, of
course, nothing new in taking a pragmatic approach to evaluation – prototyping
sessions have long been treated as sites of work that may be studied to inform
design. In such cases, however, analytic attention is usually accorded exclusively to
the user (Grint and Woolgar 1997). In conducting Situated Evaluation of
Cooperative Design sessions, analytic attention is accorded to the work that makes
the technology work in situ, and that includes the work that takes place between
users and designers. This work is often ignored in Cooperative Design sessions,
discounted as dealing with ‘bugs’ and the like. However, it is through repairing
glitches, breakdowns, troubles, and the rest, that users and designers put the
technology to work and there is, then, much to be learnt from the interactions and
collaborations of users and designers in their concerted efforts to make the
technology work.
The library prototype, for example, was made available to end-users in a
variety of settings ranging from public exhibitions to small workshops involving
academics, students, and administrative staff who needed as part of their day’s work
to search the library in order to find particular resources. When evaluating the
prototype we were not particularly concerned with various categories of user (as in
HCI) but to establish whether or not the prototype supported current work practice
regardless of category (as all categories must engage in categorisation work).
Assessing a prototype’s work-ability proceeds by treating prototyping sessions as
sites of work that are amenable to work study. Attention is paid to all the work -
124
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
including the work done by developers in setting the scene and handling
contingencies - that goes on during prototyping sessions, and not just to users
interactions with the machine as in HCI. Prototyping sessions, usability trials,
workshops and the rest are cooperative accomplishments in which developers play
an instrumental role in putting the technology to work, yet this fact is routinely
ignored and with it, a host of issues relevant to the design of collaborative systems
are passed by. Situated evaluation redresses this imbalance in paying analytic
attention to the cooperative work that the site’s staff – users and developers –
together engage in, in the effort to make the tool respond to the pragmatic demands
of particular work activities (Crabtree et al. 2002b). Twidale et al. (1994) elaborate
the rationale at work here in pointing out that
If the subjects are asked to perform tasks which relate to their particular
concerns, the tool will be directly challenged as to whether it can support
those tasks.
When the tool is challenged, designers are challenged, especially in terms of
unexpected consequences of user actions. The prototype may crash, for example, it
may not support the doing of particular tasks as users would want it to, it may have
missed important areas of functionality, and in so many contingent ways it may
elaborate needs that the designers must work round and manage in situ; needs that it
is important to take into account in future iterations of the prototype. Thus, the
prototype is treated as a triggering artefact, challenging practice, provoking insights
into the technical nature of change and the limits of the current prototype, and so
acts as a catalyst for further investigation and iteration in design.
As prototyping sessions are usually conducted with only a small number of
users then so too Situated Evaluation is evaluation of the work of a small number of
users, and developers. Although iteration may proceed quite effectively through the
involvement of many small groups of users, globally distributed ones even, those
committed to traditional HCI practices are likely to find Situated Evaluation far
from satisfactory. As Twidale et al. (1994) put it, for example,
a possible objection .. would be that the small number of end-users is
unrepresentative. However, in one sense, no end-user is unrepresentative in
that all end-users’ viewpoints and requirements reflect a context in which the
system may have to function and, in the first instance, we [are] concerned to
identify some and not all ways in which the system might under-perform or
cause problems.
What is being suggested here is that small user groups are representative, not in
terms of broad categories of different users but in terms of the work members of
small groups are required to perform. As Sacks (1984) pointed out, “Tap into
whomsoever, wheresoever, and we get much the same things”. We get much the
same things because activities of work are not tied to broad categories of users. On
the contrary, broad categories of users are tied to workaday activities, which are
tied to particular settings. Thus, consulting but a small number of competent
practitioners – i.e., skilful doers of workaday activities - can elaborate much about
the general character of support for workaday activities even in large Organizations
of Work (Christensen et al. 1998).
125
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
prototype would support mediation between library users and the catalogue in its
use. This is not to suggest that the prototype seeks to automate help desk work,
work studies indicate it is far to simplistic a device for that. Nor does it seek to
replace OPAC, which works well in many search situations. Rather, the prototype
should be seen as augmenting OPAC and intermediation in novel ways, providing a
new interface at a point where troubles routinely occur in the course of searching’s
work. Predicated on studies of cooperative work involved in resolving search
troubles, the prototype furnishes users with novel categorisation resources to
negotiate the library catalogue and provides help desk staff with historical resources
to perform categorisation work with users in times of trouble.
Pre-engagement Walkthrough
Jonathan: Okay, what we’ve tried to do is, when you normally do an OPAC search
you’ll normally get back say up to five hundred results on a particular keyword you
type, and they’re not organized in any particular way - just a great long list which is
obviously a bit of a pain if you have to browse through that.
Claire: uh uh
Jonathan: And what we’ve tried to do in this 3D visualization is to take those results
that come back from an OPAC search and group them according to how similar
they are to each other. So, if you get lots of things in the same classmark, it might
be interesting to see all the books that are in one classmark ‘cause they’re obviously
related to each other in some way in the library.
Claire: uh uh
Tina: uh uh
127
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
Jonathan: Or you might want to see all the books of that keyword of a certain
author, or authors put together. So the idea is that when we put these things into the
3D landscape they form clouds or blobs of similar books and things that come back
from the search. You can change how important certain factors are for how they
cloud together and then once it’s visualized in front of you, you can browse those
results to get out information as you would do in a normal OPAC.
Tina: Brilliant.
Jonathan: Okay?
Tina: uh uh
Jonathan: So, if I start talking gobbledegook somebody tell me and that will help
okay?
Jonathan: So what I’ve done initially here, we have a search that’s visualized on
this display here on ‘Mariani’ as a keyword. Obviously you’d sort of expect that to
come back with authors Mariani, and anything else that happens to be categorised
with the keyword Mariani. The circles in the landscape represent the books that
have come back okay, and the links between these circles indicate that there is some
connection between them (Jonathan points to circles and links respectively).
Claire: uh uh
Jonathan: And when the connection is very high, they get grouped into these
coloured regions (points to clouds).
Claire: umm
Jonathan: So obviously these books here, here, here, (pointing at objects in the
landscape) and there’s one just behind there, are all very similar according to some
categorisation which we’ve applied.
Jonathan: So if we look at this - just by clicking on the button here (clicks on
bibliographic display) - it tells us more information in one of the windows and you
can also see some more information on the display, which can be a bit hard to read.
Jonathan: So if we just click on a few of these. They’ve all got a very similar
classmark which is VKI, VBI, and VCN, so these are probably very close to each
other within the library.
Claire: umm
Jonathan: These outriding things here have PR which is classmark, XMLA which
has no other connections, and so on. These are weighted strongly according to
classmark. If we chose to change the weighting so we’re not very interested in
classmarks anymore but we’re interested in the type of publication - that’s CD-
ROM or book or something like that - so we’d like to see all the CD-ROMs
together, then we can turn up the importance of CD-ROM - of the type of
publication (Jonathan points to and changes the weighting). Then what it does is it
reorganizes the space – er, not very well in this case - so that the green ones here
are over-size pamphlets it looks like - you can see here and here - and the red ones
are over-size books. So it’s trying to draw together the similar things in the search
that was issued.
Jonathan: So that’s a very small search. If I do a bigger search, on ‘java’, when you
do a search it starts pulling them back from the OPAC system then it populates the
space by sort of spitting them out at you (Jonathan issues search on ‘java’). Okay,
so it’s put them all into the space and now it’s arranging them according to
classmark which is the default arrangement. You can see that there’s a lot of yellow
blobs in the middle here which have got a very similar classmark apparently.
Claire: um
Jonathan: They’re all congealing together. You’ve got some green ones going off
up here, and eventually they’ll sort of stabilise to an arrangement you can browse.
Okay it’s drawing all the links. So all of these yellow ones here (points to cloud on
screen) have a classmark which is AZKF, which is the programming section in the
library. We’ve got seventy-five results but it’s clustered together all of these. If you
were interested in java programming then obviously these books are going to be
very interesting to you. These outlying ones (i.e. clouds) will be things like – er,
what’s that one on - designing web applications, yeah, aesthetic tradition and
artistic transition in java that is, which is obviously about the place java rather than
the language java (all the users ‘uh uh’ in concert).
Jonathan: In OPAC they come back together and they’re grouped together. Here it
separates them out based upon classmark in this example.
Claire: uh uh
Jonathan: So, one way of moving round the space and browsing these things is to
use the forwards and backwards buttons (Jonathan points to keys), the keypad
which turns you and moves you backwards and forwards.
Claire: um
Jonathan: You can click on objects to centre them (Jonathan clicks on an object
using the mouse).
Claire: um
Jonathan: And you can zoom in to get more information (Jonathan uses keys to
zoom in). That will come up here (points to text on 3D display). You can also move
around the space just by pointing things into the view. So here I’m navigating just
129
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
by putting anything into the cross hairs (using mouse; clicks on mouse – object
information comes up in text box).
130
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
Praxiological Points
The pre-engagement walkthrough was explicitly intended to introduce users to the
machine and familiarise them with its core features, basic operations, and controls
in order to engender amongst users a concrete sense of just what the machine is all
about and how to go about using it. Seeing the sense of the machine is crucial to
Cooperative Prototyping and may, as above, be engendered by employing use
scenarios to articulate sequential orders of work and machine interaction. Thus, the
sense of the machine is made practically available to users, as expressed in
formulations of mutual understanding produced as the walkthrough unfolds, which
are confirmed quite explicitly as the walkthrough is brought to a close and
problematic issues are clarified.
Jonathan: Right, so does everybody sort of understand what it’s all about
now?
Claire: um
Tina: um
Jonathan: Is that an um yes or an um not quite?
Claire: I think so, yeah.
Tina: Yeah.
Simon: I was thinking, how do you zoom in and out? Just click on what you
want?
Engendering a shared sense of the machine is not the only practical purpose of the
pre-engagement walkthrough. Attention to the formulations in and through which
the work is constructed and conducted inform us that the walkthrough is also
intended to provide an unfolding course of instruction and training sufficient for
users to initiate hands on interaction and to experience the machine for themselves.
This course of training is not meant to be exhaustive but only intended to furnish
enough information about the machine so as to provide for the undertaking of
engagement. It is a sequentially ordered course of contextualisation consisting of
the following praxiological features.
q Patterns of cooperative work elaborated by ethnographic studies of work are
employed in order to embed the machine in a use context, articulating the
purpose of the machine (e.g. to support searching in the library) and the work
it is intended to support (e.g. categorisation work).
q Use scenarios are employed in order to articulate what the machine is (e.g. a
3D visualization and interrogation device) and how it supports the work of the
site (e.g. it groups search objects into distinct yet connected regions on the
basis of user definable similarity criteria). Use scenarios are further employed
to elaborate sequential orders of work and interaction (e.g. that searches are
issued by entering a search term in the keyword box, that the search criteria
whereby objects are grouped may be changed in the weightings box, that the
machine groups objects together in clouds and links related objects and clouds
together; that users may interrogate clouds by pointing and clicking the
mouse, that bibliographic details are displayed on selecting an object, and so
on).
q Underpinning the employment of use scenarios is an ordinary pedagogical
method of demonstration by ‘showing and doing’ which serves to ostensively
131
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
Drive One
Jonathan: So, does anybody want to have a first drive?
Tina: Aye, I’ll have a do. So this is what I would be greeted with in the library then,
yeah, that type of thing?
Jonathan: Yeah. So what you’d normally do is
Tina: How I usually do it is to type in either an author that I’m interested in or, as it
stands at the moment, certain keywords that I’d be interested in.
Jonathan: Okay.
Tina: Alright? (Tina types ‘retail’ into the keyword box and issues the search).
Jonathan: This isn’t going to work actually – ‘cause retail is a bit too big (the
prototype crashes).
Jonathan: We need a bit more of a specific search.
1. Crash and Repair
Jonathan: Okay. I’ll have to clear a few things off now I’m afraid, since it didn’t
enjoy that very much.
Tina: Well it’s not good enough - that’s what I want to know (everyone laughs and
Tina sighs in mock resignation).
Claire: You’ve messed it up.
Jonathan: We’ll just cheat to find out how many hits we’ll get and then I can
guarantee if it will work or not (Jonathan runs an ordinary webOPAC search to
establish a search of manageable size – a search that will not crash the prototype:
less than 100 hits).
Jonathan: Okay (prototype running again). I’m doing title (search criteria on
webOPAC).
___________
27
The significance of this course of training for design is that it is a course of
training that may eventually be supported through the machine itself thus promoting
its usability in real world settings (settings in which users are left to their own
devices). Naturally, that course of training will alter as the prototype evolves but as
prototypes stabilize so too do the courses of training involved in their use. There is,
then, much of relevance to design to be learnt from attending to the praxiological
features of the work developers and users together engage in to make the
technology work in user trials, however they are conceived.
132
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
Tina: Right?
Jonathan: Sure.
Tina: So if this is just going to come up like that, depending on whether you’re tired
or not or whatever, you might think, oh well, fuck it!
Jonathan: Right, yeah.
Tina: So that’s a bit of a worry isn’t it?
Jonathan: Right, okay.
5. More Information
Vince: Do you use the keyword at all. I mean, it’s not on the window there. You
know, like on the bottom of OPAC it’ll have keywords often or subject. Things like
shops, and it’ll have like shopping, consumerism, stuff like that down at the bottom.
Jonathan: No, we don’t use that.
Vince: Oh, okay.
Jonathan: But that would be interesting I suppose. If you entered one keyword to
lead you to the other
Vince: Yeah, yeah.
Jonathan: Related keywords.
Claire: um
Ending the Drive
Tina: Should I let someone else have a go now? That’s how I would do it, okay?
Claire: um
Tina: That’s how - when I go and look for a book - if I don’t actually go to the
shelves themselves.
Jonathan: Yeah.
Tina: Which means that you’ve got some sort of fore knowledge of what you’re
looking for anyway.
Jonathan: um
Tina: I’ll go on, you know, title or something. I mean that’s the sort of basis of your
research isn’t it? Like the keyword or something. And of course we then start
getting frustrated when either too many come up or
Jonathan: Well it’s too many that’s generally the problem isn’t it? ‘Cause when it’s
only ten or something, you can sort them in your head (Simon, Claire and Vince
‘um’ agreement)
Tina: That’s how I would use it.
Jonathan: I mean, OPAC only gives you back a maximum of five hundred and
obviously we’d like to show you big searches of five hundred but with the current
restriction, as we’ve seen, it obviously doesn’t cope very well with much more than
a hundred.
Tina: Well who’d do it anyway, I’ve only to see a list and I start crying and wanting
to go home!
Praxiological Points
Each of the users performed a drive, and each encountered possibilities and
constraints that impacted upon their use of the machine. As in the library, users
worked together in an arrangement of shoulder-to-shoulder cooperation, assisting
each other in becoming users of the machine, formulating keywords together,
134
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
Vince: How about ‘juvenile delinquency’? I’ve to find a video for the prison
tomorrow any way. (Vince issues a search query on ‘juvenile delinquency’).
Tina: (Looking at screen) That’s nice (talking about visual layout).
Vince: Yeah. Right - well let’s start. (Starts navigating clouds). Alright, so blue is -
book. Okay. Alright.
Claire: What’s green there?
Simon: Green and grey.
Vince: Pamphlet. OK, we’re doing fine.
Simon: Oh - you got reds up there.
Vince: Yeah. Okay. So that’s book. Okay. What have we got down here - pamphlet
Jonathan: Blues are pamphlets.
Vince: I think that’s all the colours, right?
Jonathan: White ones are the oddments that don’t go into anything else. They could
be like an individual CD-ROM. That’s a Lancaster dissertation.
Vince: Yeah. Okay. Er
Simon: Videos!
Vince: uh uh. There we go, ‘signs of the troubled aspects of delinquency’. I might
actually write that down (Vince writes classmark and title down on a notepad).
135
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
As the formulations make it plainly visible, users not only recognised the
relevance of the prototype to searching’s work - even Tina’s castigation of the
machine for its lack of title information trades on the recognition of the prototype’s
relevance to searching – they also appropriated the prototype for their workaday
purposes. Although the prototype was incomplete, users could see the sense and
relevance of the machine to the job of searching and could, quite demonstrably,
appropriate the machine for purposes of accomplishing searching’s work. Thus, the
prima facie work-ability of the prototype was established by users in their concerted
efforts with each other and the designer to get the technology to do a real job of
work. At the same, and as an observable feature of cooperative work in the
prototyping session, users interactions with the prototype triggered further analysis
of the design space and informed the ongoing formulation of the design solution.
Analysis of the design space was particularly pronounced when practical
troubles were encountered in the course of interacting with the prototype. Troubles
were encountered when the prototype ‘crashed’, for example. This was not simply a
technical failure but an interruption in the production of the workaday activity of
searching, which had to be repaired if the activity was to proceed. How crashes are
managed and repaired becomes a matter of some importance then. In the above
case, the crash was repaired through the use of the webOPAC to produce searches
of manageable proportion. Clearly, the formulation of large searches was something
that the prototype needed to support and the event raised the non-trivial issue of
designing an effective algorithm to handle the task. Having executed a manageable
search, users often found themselves confronted by a blank space. This perplexed
and disoriented users and brought to light the need for a default view onto the
space, which would automatically focus users onto the search results. A number of
practical troubles also emerged when users tried to interact with objects in the 3D
space. Some difficulty was experienced in discerning which side of the cloud an
object was on when objects were grouped into densely packed clouds, and users
consequently found it difficult to pick out particular objects as objects overlapped
and obscured one another making searching difficult. Although the problems here
were navigational ones, they were not ones concerning the navigation vehicle but
the spatial distribution of objects, again a non-trivial matter this time of designing
an effective placement algorithm.
Users encountered a number of practical difficulties when trying to select
objects for viewing. Firstly, there was the simple difficulty of clicking on an object.
Secondly, difficulties were experienced in clicking on objects on the far side of
clouds. And thirdly, users found that they could not click on objects within clouds -
although they could use the cross hairs to view objects within a cloud. The analytic
point to note here is that users preferred, and indeed displayed something of a
natural propensity in their interactions with the prototype, to use the mouse and
cursor as the primary means of navigation and difficulties were experienced when
the prototype failed to support this natural expectation. Further difficulties emerged
in the course of trying to relocate particular objects that had previously been
identified as potentially useful. The problem was resolved through the cooperative
efforts of the users in retracing the history of the search trail, work which might be
easily supported through the addition of a history function. The primary resource
that users employ in establishing an object’s potential relevance to their information
136
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
requirements is its title and sub-title, which suggest what the object is all about. The
prototype did not provide this information in full. Although a simple point, it is an
extremely important one from the point of view of users, and one that the work-
ability of the prototype ultimately trades upon. These and a host of other practical
troubles elaborated by users in their conversational formulations when interacting
with each other and the prototype, extended the analysis of the design space and
served to inform the ongoing elaboration of the design solution.
Encountering practical troubles was not (and is not) the only way in which
users may inform analysis and design, however. Their conversational formulations
also serve to illuminate new possibilities for design emerging from analysis of
current work practice and the affordances of the technology to hand. In the course
of interacting with the prototype it was suggested, for example, that it would be
desirable for the prototype to display keywords that are related to the search
keyword employed by the user. This would support the performance of searching in
furnishing related topics of and for inquiry. Users also wished to be able to browse
all the objects located within the same classmark when a particular object had been
identified as potentially suitable. The rationale here was that other objects located in
the same classmark might be of relevance to the search as they belong to the same
topical grouping of objects. Existing technologies in the library did not support this
and classmarks had to be searched by going to the physical place in the library.
From a user point of view, the new technology also afforded the possibility of
searching by a process of elimination, which is to say that the new technology
allowed users to narrow down the search not only by interrogating objects that
might satisfy their information requirements but also by interrogating objects that
obviously do not satisfy those requirements. Functionality could be added, then,
that allowed users to delete entire groups of objects from any current search and so
refine the search area.
The constraints and possibilities elaborated by users formulations in the course
of interacting with the prototype shaped the next iteration of the prototype.
Technical modifications were made that meant the prototype could handle a
thousand objects easily and meet the other requirements elaborated by users in the
previous prototyping session. With that work the prototype had been reliably scaled
up to handle large searches. Full titles supporting searching’s online work were
provided. Users could browse co-located items, search by elimination, retrace their
steps, and so on. The prototype was also adapted to support the standard protocol
used by most library OPAC systems, allowing users to search across a wide range
of library catalogues on the World Wide Web. Although the prototype was but an
academic research tool, in contrast to a commercial product, and is now defunct, its
construction was of broader value. On the one the hand its construction has
supported the exploration of the broad properties of abstract virtual environments or
3D environments that are not facsimiles of the real world and contributed to the
reshaping of research agendas in the design of virtual environments (Crabtree et al.
2002b). On the other hand, and of more relevance here, its construction has served
to elaborate methodological ways in which ethnography may be utilised in the
evaluation process and be married to existing design practices to further analyse the
design space and inform the ongoing formulation of design solutions that are
informed by and responsive to the social circumstances of their use. Situated
137
Evaluating Systems Support for Cooperative Work
138
“Methods” (whether avowedly scientific or not)
do not provide a priori guarantees, and the initial
requirement for an ethnomethodological invest-
igator is to find ways to elucidate methods from
within the relevant competence systems to
which they are bound.
Mike Lynch
Summary
The purpose of this book has hopefully been to sensitise the reader to a discrete
ensemble of practical strategies and methods for the study of work and the use of
ethnomethodologically-informed ethnography in the creative process of design. The
book took its departure from the requirements problem and the inadequacies of HCI
formats and methods for describing, analysing and representing the design space.
The suggestion here is that a professional preoccupation with generic analytic
formats and scientific methods ignores, to the detriment of design, the real world,
real time character of work. Rather than elaborate the organization of work in the
wild, as made available in the observable interactions and collaborations of parties
to work’s day-to-day accomplishment, HCI formats and methods offer the designer
second order abstractions that obscure the work practices whereby members’
actually order their work; work practices which systems will be embedded in,
change, and which new systems will inevitably be made answerable to by
practitioners. Having said that, it should not be thought that the rejection of HCI is a
rejection of science. On the contrary, rigour is certainly required in the study of
work. It is, however, to eschew the misappropriation of the methods of the natural
sciences, whose objects of study are of a very different order to those of the work
analyst. Unlocking the mysteries of the atom, the molecule, the gene, and the
workings of the universe more generally, stands in sharp contrast to the study of
grossly observable and reportable organizations of human work practice. If people
do work then the analyst can, in principle at least, go out and see work being done
and so report on how it was done. Unlike the mysteries of natural science, nothing
is hidden where the organization of work is concerned then, although much may be
missed through the use of inappropriate methods of description, analysis and
representation.
Alternate formats and methods guiding the description, analysis and
representation of work have been provided by CSCW. The format articulated herein
is practical rather than theoretical in character and is intended to orient the analyst
to important features of the workplace or factors to be taken into account when
observing and describing work and undertaking analysis of the design space. The
primary orientation here is to cooperative work. That is, to the ways in which
parties to work construct and coordinate their activities. Those ‘ways’ are often
accounted for in a normative fashion, through invoking rules, procedures, and other
formal analytic devices. Without dispensing with these notions, or undermining
their importance, emphasis is here placed on observing and analysing the real
world, real time work practices that an organizations staff devise so that formal
rules, procedures, objectives, requirements, etc., may be met time after time and day
after day as the most routine matter of fact. The key analytic focus here is
predicated on the observation that no matter how routine or repetitive work is, it
must always be constructed and coordinated anew. There is no time out from that
practical requirement, no possibility of evasion: if the job is to get done yet again
than it must be done yet again and so the analyst may observe directly the ‘ways’ in
which work is constructed and coordinated in reportable details of embodied work
practice.
139
Summary
Work practice may be observed through ethnographic study, where the analyst
develops first-hand knowledge of the work in question through immersion in the
work. The analyst’s task here is to explore the work and inspect it closely through
the gathering of materials from within the flow of the work and the assembly of
those materials into instances of workaday activities being done. Instances may be
constructed from the conversations that occur over the course of the work, from the
documents worked on, the artefacts used, from videos, etc. Instances constitute the
unit of analysis and, like the discrete activities they elaborate, they latch together to
articulate the working division of labour and the discrete assemblages of work
practices whereby that articulation gets done. That is to say that instances elaborate
the work activities that occur in a setting and how those activities are constructed
and coordinated in real time. Rather than employ some generic analytic format to
describe and analyse and so identify the work practices organizing the work
activities in question, constructive analytic methods are rejected and replaced with a
concern to produce thick descriptions. Analytic attention is thus directed to the
description of the conversational formulations that occur over the unfolding course
of work’s accomplishment as documented by the instance. This description
illuminates a sequential order of collaborative work, which may in turn be
described with an eye towards identifying the component events the sequence is
made up of. Each component may then be analysed to identify the discrete courses
of practical action or work practices whereby the component is assembled or
constructed by parties to the work.
The identification of sequential orders of cooperative work provides the
opportunity to relate the findings of ethnographic studies to the members of the
design team in a readily digestible way. That is in a way that requires no special
training or expertise. Sequential orders of cooperative work may be thought of as
patterns of practical action, which are routinely appealed to by designers when
analysing the design space for its generic features. Cooperative analysis of the
design space (that is analysis by the design team – designers, ethnographers, and
others) is conducted prior to the use of formal methods through the commonsense
method of typification. This ordinary method of analysis is concerned to identify
stable features of the design space. It is concerned with what typically goes on in
the design space, what information is typical used, how users typically work on
information, etc. In such a way, the method allows the design team to create a
shared sense of the design space and its needs and so formulate initial design
solutions. The method may be supported, and ethnographic studies thereby made
available to design reasoning, through the structuring of sequential orders of work
in terms of an adapted patterns framework. The framework highlights important
aspects of the work studied and outlines the unique work practices whereby
particular work activities are organized in real time by users. It is a presentation
framework that provides a common focus for analysis of the design space, drawing
the design team’s attention to the work activities that typically occur in a setting,
how those activities are socially organized, and the technologies used in the course
of the work. Discussion of these patterns of action serves to generate initial design
solutions, which may then be elaborated through well-established design practices
of scenario construction and the development of working prototypes.
140
Summary
That is not all there is to the analysis of the design space or to ethnography’s
utility in the design process. Working prototypes might be construed of as initial
guesses as to what an appropriate design solution might look like concretely. The
guess stands in need of validation and elaboration. Where the efficacy of the
prototype’s functionality or its work-ability is in question, validity may best be
established by end-users who are the real experts in work’s construction and
coordination and so are best equipped to assess the usability of the prototype in
relation to their work. End-user evaluation might proceed through Cooperative
Prototyping sessions, where users are encouraged to get hands-on the prototype in
order to try to accomplish their work, and through Situated Evaluation of the
cooperative work of these sessions. The validity of the prototype may be
established by attending to three assessment criteria. 1) Can the end-users see the
sense of the prototype from a practical point of view? 2) Can the end-users see the
relevance of the prototype to their work? And 3) do end-users wish to appropriate
the prototype to conduct their work with? Naturally, as with any initial guess
regarding complex matters of work, one would not expect the answer to be yes to
all these questions. They are targets to work towards and their elaboration serves to
propel analysis of the design space in conjunction with the real experts in work’s
accomplishment. Situated evaluation of the work of prototyping sessions supports
this ongoing process of analysis by identifying practical possibilities and constraints
encountered and elaborated in the unfolding flow of the session’s collaborative
work. Paying close and careful attention to the collaborative work that is involved
in putting the technology to work in prototyping sessions demonstrably serves to
elaborate proposed design solutions.
While tried and tested in a number of successful academic and commercial
development projects, both large and small, the practical strategies and methods for
the deployment and use of ethnography in collaborative systems design that have
been articulated here are not offered as a solution to the requirements problem. That
the projects have been successful testifies to the efficacy of multidisciplinary design
work, of which the strategies and methods described here were but a part.
Ethnography, however it is construed and deployed, is not a panacea to the
requirements problem. That problem is a practical problem through and through,
one encountered on each and every occasion of design and for which no silver
bullet exists. It is not an insurmountable problem, however, but one that may be
addressed, often successfully, through multidisciplinary design work. Insofar as
ethnography is a feature of that work, then the approach may be usefully employed
in the ways described here, whether in an evolutionary process of design or a rather
more classical order of work where working prototypes replace the requirements
specification document. Ultimately, the methods advocated here are not intended to
compete with or provide an alternative to formal design methods but to support
those methods in providing an informal method of description for describing,
analysing and representing the social characteristics of the design space. Their use
requires no special training, only a little practice and a commitment to go get your
hands and the seats of your pants dirty.
141
References
Agresti, W.W. (1986) “The conventional software life cycle model”, New Paradigms in
Software Development, pp. 2-5, Washington D.C.: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I. and Angel, S.
(1977) A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction, New York: Oxford
University Press.
Alexander, C. (1979) A Timeless Way of Building, New York: Oxford University Press.
Armour, D.J. (1997) A Study of Colour: Wittgensteinian and Ethnomethodological
Investigations, Ph.D. Thesis, Lancaster University: Sociology Department.
Baccus, M.D. (1986) “Sociological indication and the visibility criterion of real world social
theorising”, Ethnomethodological Studies of Work (ed. Garfinkel, H.), pp. 1-19,
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Bally, L., Brittan, J. and Wagner, K.H. (1977) “A prototype approach to information system
design and development”, Information and Management, vol. 1, pp. 21-26.
Bannon, L. (1991) “From human factors to human actors”, Design at Work: Cooperative
Design of Computer Systems (eds. Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M.), pp. 25-44,
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bannon, L. and Hughes, J.A. (1993) “The context of CSCW”, Developing CSCW Systems:
Design Concepts, Report of COST 14 “CoTech” WG-4, pp. 9-36, Denmark: Risø
National Laboratory.
Barber, P. (1988) Applied Cognitive Psychology, London: Methuen.
Bardram, J.E. (1996) “The role of workplace studies in the design of CSCW systems”,
Proceedings of IRIS 19, pp. 613-629, Gothenburg Studies of Informatics, Report 8,
June 1996.
Bayle, E., Bellamy, R., Casaday, G. and Erickson, T. (1998) “Putting it all together: towards
a pattern language for interaction design”, SIGCHI Bulletin, vol. 30 (1), pp. 17-23.
Bentley, R.M., Hughes, J.A., Randall, D., Rodden, T., Sawyer, P., Shapiro, D. and
Sommerville, I. (1992) “Ethnographically informed systems design for air traffic
control”, Proceedings of the 1992 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work, pp. 123-129, Toronto: ACM Press.
Bjerknes, G. and Bratteteig, T. (1994) “User participation: a strategy for work life
democracy”, Proceedings of 1994 Participatory Design Conference, pp. 3-11,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
Blau, P.M. (1964) The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A Study of Interpersonal Relations in Two
Government Agencies, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Blomberg, J., Suchman, L. and Trigg, R. (1994) “Reflections on a work-oriented design
project”, Proceedings of the 1994 Participatory Design Conference, pp. 99-109,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
Blumer, H. (1969) “The methodological position of symbolic interactionism”, Symbolic
Interactionism: Perspective and Method, pp. 1-60, Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Bødker, S. (1987) “A UTOPIAN experience: on the design of powerful computer-based tools
for skilled graphical workers”, Computers and Democracy: A Scandinavian
Challenge (Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P. and Kyng, M.), pp. 251-278, Aldershot: Avebury.
Bødker, S. and Grønbæk, K. (1991) “Design in action: from prototyping by demonstration to
cooperative prototyping”, Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer
142
References
Systems (eds. Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M.), pp. 197-218, Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bødker, S., Christiansen, E. and Thüring, M. (1995) “A conceptual toolbox for designing
CSCW applications”, Proceedings of COOP 95, pp. 266-284, Juan-les-Pins,
France: ACM Press.
Boehm, B.W. (1988) “A spiral model of software development and enhancement”,
Computer, vol. 21, pp. 61-72.
Bowers, J. and Rodden, T. (1993) “Exploding the interface”, Proceedings of the 1993
INTERCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 255-262,
Amsterdam: ACM Press.
Bowers, J., O’Brien, J. and Pycock, J. (1996) “Practically accomplishing immersion:
cooperation in and for virtual environments”, Proceedings of the 1996 ACM
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 380-389, Boston:
ACM Press.
Braverman, H. (1974) Labour and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the
Twentieth Century, London: Monthly Review Press.
Brooks, F. P. (1987) “No silver bullet: essence and accidents of software engineering”, IEEE
Computer, vol. 4, pp. 10-19.
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1988) “An ethnographic perspective on engineering”, Design Studies, vol.
9 (3), pp. 159-168.
Budde, R., Kautz, K., Kuhlenkamp, K. and Züllighoven, H. (1992) Prototyping: An
Approach to Evolutionary System Development, Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Büscher, M., Christensen, M., Grønbæk, K., Krogh, P., Mogensen, P., Shapiro, D. and
Ørbæk, P. (2000) “Collaborative augmented reality environments”, Proceedings of
CVE 2000, pp. 47-56, San Francisco: ACM Press.
Button, G. (1991) “Introduction: ethnomethodology and the foundational respecification of
the human sciences”, Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences (ed. Button, G.),
pp. 1-9, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Button, G. and Sharrock, W.W. (1994) “Occasioned practices in the work of software
engineers”, Requirements Engineering: Social and Technical Issues (eds. Jirotka,
M. and Goguen, J.), pp. 217-240, London: Academic Press.
Button, G., Coulter, J., Lee, J.R.E. and Sharrock, W.W. (1995) Computers, Minds and
Conduct, Oxford: Polity Press.
Button, G. and Harper, R. (1996) “The relevance of ‘work-practice’ for design”, Computer
Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing, vol. 4 (4),
pp. 263-280.
Buxton, J.N. (1978) Software Engineering Programming Methodology, Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.
Card, S.K., Moran, T.P. and Newell, A. (1983) The Psychology of Human-Computer
Interaction, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Carlsson, J., Ehn, P., Erlander, B., Perby, M.L., and Sandberg, A. (1978) “Planning and
control from the perspective of labour: a short presentation of the DEMOS
project”, Accounting, Organizations, and Society, vol. 3, pp. 249-260.
Carlsson, C. and Hagsand, O. (1993) “DIVE – a platform for multi-user virtual
environments”, Computers and Graphics, vol. 17 (6), pp. 663-669.
Carroll, J. (ed.) (1995) Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Technology in Use, New York:
John Wiley.
Christensen, M., Crabtree, A., Damm, H.D., Hansen, K.M., Madsen, O.L., Marqvardsen, P.,
Mogensen, P., Sandvad, E., Sloth, L. and Thomsen, M. (1998) “The M.A.D.
143
References
experience: Multiperspective Application Development in evolutionary
prototyping”, Proceedings of the Twelfth European Conference on Object-Oriented
Programming, pp. 14-41, Brussels, Belgium: Springer.
Churchland, P.S. and Sejnowski, T.J. (1994) “Neural representation and neural
computation”, Mind and Cognition (ed. Lycan, W.G.), pp. 224-252, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
COMIC Deliverable 2.1 (1994) “Panaceas and rhetorics in system design”, Informing CSCW
Requirements, pp. 21-76, Esprit Basic Research Project 6225, Lancaster
University: Computing Department.
Coser, L. (1975) “Two methods in search of a substance”, American Sociological Review,
vol. 40, pp. 691-700.
Coulter, J. (1990) Ethnomethodological Sociology, Aldershot: Edward Elgar.
Coulter, J. (1991) “Cognition: cognition in an ethnomethodological mode”,
Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences (ed. Button, G.), pp. 176-195,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coulter, J. (1999) “Discourse and Mind”, in Human Studies, vol. 22, pp. 163-181.
Crabtree, A., Twidale, M.B., O’Brien, J. and Nichols, D.M. (1997) “Talking in the library:
implications for the design of digital libraries”, Proceedings of the 2nd ACM
International Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 221-228, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania: ACM Press.
Crabtree, A. (1998) “Ethnography in participatory design”, Proceedings of the 1998
Participatory Design Conference, pp. 93-105, Seattle: Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility.
Crabtree, A. (1999) “Situated evaluation of the demonstrator”, eSCAPE Deliverable 4.1 The
Library Abstract eSCAPE Demonstrator (eds. Mariani, J. and Rodden, T.), pp.
109-146, Esprit Long Term Research Project 25377, ISBN 1 86220 079 3.
Crabtree, A. (2000a) “Talking work: language-games, organizations and computer supported
cooperative work”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of
Collaborative Computing, vol. 9 (2), pp. 215-237.
Crabtree, A. (2000b) “The practical availability of work-practice to ethnomethodology and
conversation analysis”, paper presented at The 2nd Workplace Studies Conference,
27th October, Manchester, United Kingdom: British Sociological Association.
Crabtree, A., O’Brien, J., Nichols, D., Rouncefield, M. and Twidale, M. (2000a)
“Ethnomethodologically informed ethnography and information systems design”,
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 51
(7), pp. 666-682.
Crabtree, A., Pettifer, S. and Rouncefield, M. (2000b) “Designing virtual environments for
social interaction, Proceedings of Virtual Reality International Conferences 2000,
pp. 118-129, May 18th-21st, Laval, France: VR News.
Crabtree, A. (2001a) “On the practical availability of work-practice”, Ethnographic Studies
(eds. Francis, D., Hester, S., Hughes, J., and Sharrock, W.), Issue 7, Summer 2001.
Crabtree, A. (2001b) “Doing workplace studies: praxiological accounts – lebenswelt pairs”,
TeamEthno Online Journal, vol. 1 (1). www.teamethno-online.org/
Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., and Tolmie, P. (2001a) “‘There’s something else missing
here’ - BPR and the requirements process”, Knowledge and Process Management:
The Journal of Corporate Transformation, vol. 8 (3), pp. 164-174.
Crabtree, A., Hemmings, T. and Rodden, T. (2001b) “Domestic legacy and design”,
Proceedings of the 1st Equator Workshop on Ubiquitous Computing for Domestic
Environments, The University of Nottingham: ISBN 0-85358-100-2.
144
References
Crabtree, A. and Rodden, T. (2002) “Technology and the home”, Proceedings of the 2002
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI Workshop on
Technologies for Families, 20th-25th April, Minneapolis: ACM Press.
Crabtree, A., Hemmings, T. and Rodden, T. (2002a) “Patterns-based support for interactive
design in domestic settings”, Proceedings of the 2002 Symposium on Designing
Interactive Systems 2002, 25th-28th June, London: ACM Press.
Crabtree, A., Rodden, T. and Mariani, J. (2002b) “Designing virtual environments to support
cooperation in the real world”, Virtual Reality, vol. 6 (2), pp. 63-74.
Crabtree, A., Rodden, T. and Hemmings, T. (2002c) “Coordinate displays in the home”,
Proceedings of the 2002 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work, CSCW Workshop on Public, Community and Situated Displays, 16th-20th
November, New Orleans: ACM Press.
Decker, K. (1996) “TAEMS: a framework for environment centred analysis and design of
coordination mechanisms”, Foundations of Distributed Artificial Intelligence (eds.
O’Hare, G. and Jennings, N.), pp. 429-448, New York: Wiley Inter-Science.
DeGrace, P. and Stahl. L.H. (1990) Wicked Problems and Righteous Solutions: A Catalogue
of Modern Software Engineering Paradigms, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:
Yourdon Press.
DeMarco, T. (1979) Structured Analysis and System Specification, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Yourdon Press.
DUE Project Group (1979) “Project DUE: democracy, development, and EDP”, Computers
Dividing Man and Work (ed. Sandberg, A.), Swedish Centre for Working Life:
Malmö.
Ehn, P. (1988) “Language-games: a Wittgensteinian alternative”, Work-Oriented Design of
Computer Artefacts, pp. 103-122, Stockholm, Sweden: Arbetslivscentrum.
Ehn, P. and Kyng, M. (1991) “Cardboard computers: mocking-it-up or hands-on the future”,
Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems (eds. Greenbaum, J.
and Kyng, M.), pp. 169-195, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Erickson, T. (1996) Web version of “Design as storytelling”, published in Interactions, vol.
4. www.pliant.org/personal/Tom_Erickson/index.html
Erickson, T. (2000a) “Lingua francas for design: sacred places and pattern languages,
Proceedings of the 2000 Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems, pp 357-
368, Brooklyn, New York: ACM Press.
Erickson, T. (2000b) “Supporting interdisciplinary design: towards pattern languages for
workplaces”, Workplace Studies: Recovering Work Practice and Informing System
Design (eds. Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J. and Heath, C.), pp. 252-261, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Floyd, C. (1984) “A systematic look at prototyping”, Approaches to Prototyping, pp. 1-18,
Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Floyd, C. (1987) “Outline of a paradigm change in software engineering”, Computers and
Democracy: A Scandinavian Challenge (eds. Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., and Kyng, M.),
pp. 191-208, Aldershot: Avebury.
Fowler, M. and Scott, K. (1997) UML Distilled: Applying the Standard Object Modelling
Language, New York: Addison-Wesley.
Gamma, E., Helm, R., Johnson, R. and Vlissides, J. (1995) Design Patterns: Elements of
Reusable Object-Oriented Software, New York: Addison-Wesley.
Garfinkel, H (unpub. manu. 1) About the missed orderliness of ordinary activities, UCLA:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology.
145
References
Garfinkel, H. (unpub. manu. 2) A leading policy that was used in our studies of lectures,
UCLA: Department of Sociology and Anthropology.
Garfinkel (unpub. manu. 3) Lebenswelt mathematics, its discovery, its specification, and
some consequences, UCLA: Department of Sociology and Anthropology.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-
Hall.
Garfinkel, H. and Sacks, H. (1970) “On formal structures of practical action”, Theoretical
Sociology: Perspectives and Developments (eds. Mc Kinney, J.C. and Tiryakian,
E.), pp. 160-193, New York: Apple-Century-Crofts.
Garfinkel, H., Lynch, M. and Livingston, E. (1981) “The work of a discovering science
construed with materials from the optically discovered pulsar”, Philosophy of the
Social Sciences, vol. 11, pp. 131-158.
Garfinkel, H. (1991) “Respecification: evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable
phenomena of order”, Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences (ed. Button, G.),
pp. 10-19, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Garfinkel, H. and Wieder, D.L. (1992) “Two incommensurable, asymmetrically alternate
technologies of social analysis”, Text in Context: Contributions to
Ethnomethodology (eds. Watson, G. and Seiler, S.M.), pp.175-206, New York:
Sage.
Garfinkel, H. (1996) “Ethnomethodology’s programme”, Social Psychology Quarterly, vol.
59 (1), pp. 5-21.
Geertz, C. (1973) “Thick description: toward an interpretive theory of culture”, The
Interpretation of Cultures, pp. 3-30, New York: Basic Books.
Gerson, E. and Star, S.L. (1986) “Analysing due process in the workplace”, ACM
Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 4 (3), pp. 257-270.
Giddens, A. (1978) The New Rules of Sociological Method: A Positive Critique of
Interpretive Sociologies, London: Hutchinson.
Goguen, J. (1993) “Social issues in requirements engineering”, Proceedings of 1993 IEEE
International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 194-195, San Diego:
IEEE Press.
Greif, I. (1988) Computer Supported Cooperative Work: A Book of Readings, San Mateo:
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M. (1991) “Design by doing”, Design at Work: Cooperative
Design of Computer Systems (eds. Greenbaum, J. and Kyng, M.), pp. 269-279,
Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grint, K. and Woolgar, S. (1997) The Machine at Work, Oxford: Polity Press.
Grønbæk, K. (1989) “Rapid prototyping with fourth generation systems”, Office: Technology
and People, vol. 5 (2), pp. 105-125.
Grønbæk, K., Kyng, M. and Mogensen, P. (1997) “Toward a cooperative experimental
system development approach”, Computers and Design in Context (eds. Kyng, M.
and Mathiassen, L.), pp. 201-238, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Grudin, J. (1990a) “Interface”, Proceedings of the 1990 ACM Conference on Computer
Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 269-278, Los Angeles, California: ACM Press.
Grudin, J. (1990b) “The computer reaches out: the historical continuity of interface design”,
Proceedings of the 1990 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp.
261-268, Seattle, Washington: ACM Press.
Heath, C. and Luff, P. (1992) “Collaboration and control”, Computer Supported Cooperative
Work: An International Journal, vol. 1 (1), pp. 69-94.
146
References
Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology, Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hildreth, C.R. (1982) Online Public Access Catalogues, Dublin: OCLC.
Hirschheim, R. and Klein, H.Z. (1989) “Four paradigms of information systems
development”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 32 (10), pp. 1199-1216.
Hughes, J.A., Shapiro, D., Sharrock, W.W. and Anderson, R.J. (1988) The Automation of Air
Traffic Control, SERC/ESRC Grant No. GR/D/86157, Lancaster University:
Sociology Department.
Hughes, J.A., Randall, D. and Shapiro, D. (1992) “Faltering from ethnography to design”,
Proceedings of the 1992 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work, pp. 115-122, Toronto: ACM Press.
Hughes, J.A. (1993) The Philosophy of Social Research, London: Longman.
Hughes, J.A., Randall, D. and Shapiro, D. (1993) “From ethnographic record to system
design: some experiences from the field”, Computer Supported Cooperative Work:
An International Journal, vol. 1 (3), pp. 123-141.
Hughes, J.A., King, V., Rodden, T. and Andersen, H. (1994) “Moving out of the control
room: ethnography in systems design”, Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference
on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 429-438, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina: ACM Press.
Hughes, J.A., Kristoffersen, S., O’Brien, J. and Rouncefield, M. (1996) “‘When Mavis met
IRIS’ - ending the love affair with organizational memory”, Proceedings of IRIS
19, pp. 767-787, Gothenburg Studies of Informatics, Report 8, June 1996.
Hughes, J.A., O’Brien, J., Rodden, T. and Rouncefield, M. (2000) “Ethnography,
communication and support for design”, Workplace Studies: Recovering Work
Practice and Informing System Design (eds. Luff, P., Hindmarsh, J. and Heath, C.),
pp. 187-214, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Husserl, E. (1970) The Crisis of European Sciences, Evanston: Northwestern University
Press.
Hutchins, E. (1994) Cognition in the Wild, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Jacobson, I., Christerson, M., Jonsson, P. and Övergaard, G. (1992) Object-Oriented
Software Engineering: A Use-Case Driven Approach, New York: Addison-
Wesley.
Jacobson, I. (1995) “The use-case construct in object-oriented software engineering”,
Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Technology in Use (ed. Carroll, J.), pp. 309-
336, New York: John Wiley.
Jefferson, G. (1978) “Explanation of transcript notation”, Studies in the Organization of
Conversational Interaction (ed. Schenkein, J.), pp. xi-xvi, New York: Academic
Press.
Jirotka, M., Gilbert, N. and Luff, P. (1992) “On the social organization of organizations”,
Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing,
vol. 1 (1), pp. 69-94.
Jordan, B. and Henderson, A. (1995) “Interaction analysis: foundations and practice”,
Journal of the Learning Sciences, vol. 4 (1), pp. 39-102.
Kensing, F. and Simonsen, J. (1997) “Using ethnography in contextual design”,
Communications of the ACM, vol. 40 (7), pp. 82-88.
Knudsen, T., Bansler, J., Bjørn-Andersen, N., Greenbaum, J., Nurminen, M. and Thoresen,
K. (1993) “Panel remarks - The Scandinavian approaches: theories in use, of use
and organization of interdisciplinarity”, Proceedings of IRIS 16, pp. 29-38,
University of Copenhagen: Department of Computer Science.
147
References
Kontonya, G. and Sommerville, I. (1992) “Viewpoints for requirements definition”, Software
Engineering Journal, vol. 7 (6), pp. 375-387.
Kraft, P. and Bansler, J.P. (1994) “The collective resource approach: the Scandinavian
experience”, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 6 (1), pp. 71-84.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Illinois: University of Chicago
Press.
Kuutti, K. (1996) “Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction
research”, Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human Computer
Interaction (ed. Nardi, B.), pp. 17-44, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Kyng, M. (1994) “Collective resources meets puritanism”, Scandinavian Journal of
Information Systems, vol. 6 (1), pp. 85-96.
Kyng, M. (1995) “Creating contexts for design”, Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning
Technology in Use (ed. Carroll, J.), pp. 85-107, New York: John Wiley.
Landes, D. (1972) The Unbound Prometheus, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Lesser, V., Horling, B., Regis, V., Raja, A. and Zhang, S. (unpub. manu.) The TAEMS White
Paper, Multi-Agents Systems Lab. www.mas.cs.umass.edu/research/taems/
Livingston, E. (unpub. manu.) The Ordinary Society, University of New England, Armidale,
New South Wales, Australia: Sociology Department.
Livingston, E. (1987) Making Sense of Ethnomethodology, London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Lynch, M. (1993) Scientific Practice and Ordinary Action: Ethnomethodological and Social
Studies of Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, M. and Bogen, D. (1994) “Harvey Sacks’ primitive natural science”, Theory, Culture
and Society, vol. 11, pp. 65-104.
Madsen, O.L., Møller-Pedersen and Nygaard, K. (1993) Object-Oriented Programming in
the BETA Programming Language, New York: Addison-Wesley.
Malcolm, N. (1995) “Thinking”, Wittgensteinian Themes: Essays 1978-1989 (ed. Von
Wright, G.H.), pp. 1-15, Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Malinowski, B. (1922) Argonauts of the Western Pacific, London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Mariani, J., Rodden, T., Colebourne, A., Palfreyman, K. and Smith, G. (1995) “Q-pit – a
populated information terrain”, IS&T/SPIE Symposium on Electronic Imaging:
Science & Technology, pp. 12-22, ISBN 0-8194-2030-1.
Martin, D., Rodden, T., Rouncefield, M., Sommerville, I. and Viller, S. (2001) “Finding
patterns in the fieldwork”, Proceedings of the Seventh European Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 39-58, Bonn, Germany: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Moerman, M. (1992) “Life after C.A.”, Text in Context: Contributions to Ethnomethodology
(eds. Watson, G. and Seiler, R.M.), pp. 20-34, New York: Sage.
Mogensen, P. (1992) “Towards a provotyping approach in systems development”,
Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, vol. 3 (4), pp. 31-53.
Mogensen, P. and Trigg, R. (1992) “Artefacts as triggers for participatory design”,
Proceedings of the 1992 Participatory Design Conference, pp. 55-62, Boston:
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
Mogensen, P. (1994) Challenging Practice: An Approach to Cooperative Analysis, Ph.D.
Thesis, DAIMI PB – 465, Århus University, Denmark: Department of Computer
Science.
148
References
Naumann, J.D. and Jenkins, A.M. (1982) “Prototyping: the new paradigm for systems
development”, MIS Quarterly, vol. 6, pp. 29-44.
Norman, D.A. (1986) “Cognitive engineering”, User Centred System Design (eds. Norman,
D. and Draper, S.), pp. 31-61, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Norman, D.A. (1988) The Psychology of Everyday Things, New York: Basic Books.
Norman, D.A. (1992) Turn Signals are the Facial Expressions of Automobiles, New York:
Addison-Wesley.
Nygaard, K. (1979) “The Iron and Metal Project”, Computers Dividing Man and Work (ed.
Sandberg, A.), Swedish Centre for Working Life: Malmö.
O’Brien, J. (2000) Informing CSCW Systems Design: Theory, Practice and the Paradigm of
“The Workaday World”, Ph.D. Thesis, Lancaster University: Sociology
Department.
Orr, J. (1996) Talking About Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job, pp. 104-124,
Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Page, D., Williams, P. and Boyd, D. (1993), Report of the Inquiry into the London
Ambulance Service, South West Thames Regional Health Authority, London:
Communications Directorate.
Pedersen, E.R., Mc Call, K., Moran, T.P. and Hulas, F.G. (1993) “Tivoli: an electronic
whiteboard for informal workgroup meetings”, Proceedings of the 1993
INTERCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 391-398,
Amsterdam: ACM Press.
Pettifer, S. Cook, Marsh, J. and A. West. (2000) “Deva3: architecture for a large-scale virtual
reality system”, Proceedings of ACM Symposium in Virtual Reality Software and
Technology 2000, pp. 33-39, Seoul, Korea: ACM Press.
Place, U.T. (1994) “Is consciousness a brain process?”, Mind and Cognition (ed. Lycan,
W.G.), pp. 29-36, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Plowman, L., Rogers, Y. and Ramage, M. (1995) “What are workplace studies for?”,
Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, pp. 309-324, Stockholm, Sweden: Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S. and Carey, T. (1999) Human-
Computer Interaction, pp. 3-27, New York: Addison-Wesley.
Prus, R. (1996) Symbolic Interaction and Ethnographic Research: Intersubjectivity and the
Study of Human Lived Experience, New York: State University of New York
Press.
Pycock, J. (1999) Designing Systems: Studies of Design Practice, Ph.D. Thesis, The
University of Manchester: Faculty of Science and Engineering.
Rogers, Y. and Belloti, V. (1997) “Grounding blue-sky research: how can ethnography
help?”, Interactions, vol. 4 (3), pp. 58-63.
Rogers, Y. (1997) An Introduction to Distributed Cognition, Discussion Paper, School of
Cognitive and Computing Sciences, University of Sussex.
www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/yvonner/dcog.html
Rouncefield, M., Hughes, J.A., Rodden, T. and Viller, S. (1994) “Working with ‘constant
interruption’”, Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, pp. 275-286, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: ACM Press.
Rouncefield, M., Hughes, J. and O’Brien, J. (1997) Ethnography: Some Practicalities of
Ethnographic Analysis, CSEG Technical Report (CSEG/27/97), Lancaster
University: Computing Department.
149
References
Ruhleder, K. and Jordan, B. (1999) “Meaning-making across remote sites: how delays in
transmission affect interaction”, Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 411-430, Copenhagen: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Rumelhart, D. and Mc Clelland, J.L. (1986) Parallel Distributed Processing: Explorations in
the Microstructure of Cognition (Volume 1. Foundations), Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Ryle, G. (1971) The Thinking of Thoughts, University Lectures No. 18, Canada: University
of Saskatchewan.
Sacks, H. (1963) “Sociological description”, Berkeley Journal of Sociology, vol. 8, pp. 1-16.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. and Jefferson, G. (1974) “A simplest systematics for the
organization of turn-taking in conversation”, Language, vol. 50, pp. 696-735.
Sacks, H. (1984) “Notes on methodology”, Structures of Social Action: Studies in
Conversation Analysis (eds. Maxwell, J.M. and Heritage, J.), pp. 21-27,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, H. (1992a) “The baby cried. The mommy picked it up”, Lectures on Conversation
(ed. Jefferson, G.), Volume I, Part 3, Spring 1966, Lecture 1, pp. 236-242, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers.
Sacks, H. (1992b) “Preserving and transmitting knowledge via stories”, Lectures on
Conversation (ed. Jefferson, G.), Volume 2, Part VII, Fall 1971, Lecture 8, pp.
466-469, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Schön, D.A. (1988) “Designing: rules, types and worlds”, Design Studies, vol. 9 (3), pp. 181-
190.
Schmidt, K and Bannon, L. (1992) “Taking CSCW seriously: supporting articulation work”,
Computer Supported Cooperative Work: An International Journal, vol. 1 (1), pp.
7-40.
Schuler, D. and Namioka, A. (eds.) (1993) Participatory Design, Hillsdale, New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schutz, A. and Luckmann, T. (1974) The Structures of the Lifeworld, London: Heinemann.
Shapiro, D. (1993) “Interdisciplinary design: some future possibilities”, Proceedings of IRIS
16, pp. 15-27, University of Copenhagen: Department of Computer Science.
Shapiro, D. (1994) “The limits of ethnography: combining social sciences for CSCW”,
Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative
Work, pp. 417- 428, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: ACM Press.
Sharrock, W.W. (1980) “The possibility of social change”, The Ignorance of Social
Intervention (ed. Anderson, D.C.), pp. 117-133, London: Croom Helm.
Sharrock, W.W. and Anderson, R.J. (1994) “The user as a scenic feature of the design
space”, Design Studies, vol. 15 (1), p. 5-18.
Sharrock, W.W. (2000) Ethnography in the Workplace, paper presented at Tokyo University,
September 2000.
Shneiderman, B. (1987) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-
Computer Interaction, New York: Addison-Wesley.
Simon, H.A. (1969) The Sciences of the Artificial, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Simon, H.A. (1984) “The structure of ill-structured problems”, Developments in Design
Methodology (ed. Cross, N.), pp. 145-164, Chichester: Wiley.
Simonsen, J. and Kensing, F. (1994) “Take users seriously but take a deeper look”,
Proceedings of the 1994 Participatory Design Conference, pp. 47-58, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina: Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility.
150
References
Sol. H.G. (1984) “Prototyping: a methodological assessment”, Approaches to Prototyping,
Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Sommerville, I. and Sawyer, P. (1997) Requirements Engineering: A Good Practice Guide,
New York: John Wiley.
Suchman, L. (1983) “Office procedures as practical action: models of work and system
design”, ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems, vol. 1 (4), pp. 320-328.
Suchman, L. (1987) Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine
Communication, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Suchman, L. (1989) Notes on Computer Support for Cooperative Work, Working Paper WP-
12, University of Jyväskylä, Finland: Department of Computer Science.
Suchman, L. (1995) “Making work visible”, Communications of the ACM, vol. 38 (9), pp.
56-64.
Sutcliffe, A. (1992) “HCI: where’s the practice?”, Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of
the British Computer Society - Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group, pp.
477-479, University of York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, R.S. (1968) “Question-negotiation and information seeking in libraries”, College and
Research Libraries, vol. 29 (3), pp. 178-94.
Thomas, J. and Kellogg, W. (1989) “Minimising ecological gaps in interface design”, IEEE
Software, pp. 78-86, Los Alimitos, California: IEEE Computer Society Press.
Twidale, M., Rodden, T. and Sommerville, I. (1993) “The designers’ notepad: supporting
and understanding cooperative design”, Proceedings of the Third European
Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 93-108, Milan: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Twidale, M., Randall, D. and Bentley, R. (1994) “Situated evaluation for cooperative
systems”, Proceedings of the 1994 ACM Conference on Computer Supported
Cooperative Work, pp. 441-452, Chapel Hill, North Carolina: ACM Press.
Twidale, M., Chaplin, D., Crabtree, A., O’Brien J., Nichols, D.M. and Rouncefield, M.
(1997) Collaboration in Physical and Digital Libraries, British Library Research
and Innovation Centre: Report No. 64.
Viller, S. and Sommerville, I. (1999) “Social analysis in the requirements engineering
process: from ethnography to method”, paper presented at the Fourth IEEE
International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, 7th-11th June, Limerick,
Ireland.
Vlissides, J. (1997) “Patterns: the top ten misconceptions”, Object Magazine, March 1997.
www.research.ibm.com/designpatterns/pubs/top10misc.html
Walsh, J.P. and Ungson, G.R. (1991) “Organizational memory”, Academy of Management
Review, vol. 16 (1), pp. 57-91.
Winch, P. (1988) The Idea of a Social Science, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Wittgenstein, L. (1992) Philosophical Investigations, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Wolcott, H.F. (1999) Ethnography: A Way of Seeing, London: Altamira Press.
Wynn, E. (1991) “Taking practice seriously”, Design at Work: Cooperative Design of
Computer Systems (eds. Greenbaum, J, and Kyng, M.), pp. 45-64, Hillsdale, New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Zimmerman, D.H. (1973) “The practicalities of rule use”, Understanding Everyday Life:
Toward the Reconstruction of Sociological Knowledge (ed. Douglas, J.D.), p. 221-
238, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
151
References
Zimmerman, D. and Wieder, D.L. (1973) “Ethnomethodology and the problem of order”,
Understanding Everyday Life: Towards the Reconstruction of Sociological
Knowledge (ed. Douglas, J.D.), pp. 285-298, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
152
Subject Index
A E
Air Traffic Control, 82–86 Et cetera problem, 48
Analysing the design space, 28–36, Ethnography, 39–71
39–47, 56–71, 73–77, 86–101, ethnographic record, 47
110–18, 124–38 exploring work, 41–42
first-hand observation, 39–43
C gathering materials, 43–45
inspecting work, 42–43
Chicago School of Sociology, 39
instances, 45, 61–63, 66–67
Coherence method, 80–86 Ethnography and design
Communication and cooperative
co-construction of use scenarios,
analysis, 86
98–102
Constructive analysis, 45–51 communication of findings, 86–98
classification schemes, 46
concurrent ethnography, 75
coded results, 48–49
ethnographer as bricoleur, 79
codification, 46–47 evaluation of prototypes, 124–26
indexical relation of sign and
evaluative ethnography, 75
referent, 45–50
giving form to design, 79
problem of, 47–51 linking ethnography to design, 79–
use of analytic categories, 46–47
81
Conversation analysis
quick and dirty ethnography, 74
adjacency pairs, 53 re-examination of studies, 76
coordinating mechanism, 55
role of ethnography in design, 73–
repairs, 54
79
rule-set, 54 Ethnomethodology, 56–71
transcript format, 55
component events, 63
transcript symbols, 55–56
corrigibility of account, 66
turn-constructional components, gap in social science literature, 51
53
lebenswelt pairs, 66–67
turn-taking machinery, 52–55
member, 52
Conversational formulations, 61 missing interactional what, 51
Cooperative Design , 142
praxiological accounts, 65–67
Cooperative work, 28–36
probative description, 67
contingencies, 32–36 remedial exercise, 71
organizational procedures, 32–36
representing cooperative work,
routines, 33
65–67
working practices, 34–36 sequential orders of work, 63
studies of work, 51
unique adequacy requirement, 67–
69
validation of account, 67
152
Subject Index
152
Subject Index
R T
Radical studies of work, 51 TAEMS task structure, 46
Referent system, 4–7 Thick description, 61–64
Requirements problem, 1–4 Thinking, 19–20
requirements specification Typification, 22–23, 88
document, 3
waterfall model, 2–4 U
Use scenarios, 22–23
S
Use-case, 80
Scientific methods, value of, 15, 37– User in HCI, 9–11
39, 123 reconceptualising the user, 21–24
Searching in the library
categorisation work, 58–61 W
online public access catalogue
Work and organization, 28–36
(OPAC), 57–61
Self-organizing structures of work, rationalist mentality, 37–38
views of work, 79–80
33
work-in-context, 39–41
Socio-technical systems of work, 4–7
Story-telling, 95–98 Working up design solutions, 86–
107, 126–38
Supporting groups, 25
Syntactic sugar, 6
153